content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}\label{sect: intro}
The discovery that a black hole behaves as a thermal object has led to a clue in linking general relativity, thermodynamics, and quantum field theory~\cite{Hawking:1974sw,Bekenstein:1973ur,Bardeen:1973gs}. Rooted from the idea that the Hawking radiation process has a quantum origin, black hole thermodynamics has guided us to research questions relating to quantum information theory and some quantum aspects of gravity~\cite{Jacobson:1993vj,Youm:1997hw,Ashtekar:1997yu,Carlip:1999db,Solodukhin:2011gn,Bianchi:2012br}. Interestingly, the unitarity of black hole evaporation and the quantum origin of black hole entropy have are still active research topics nowadays. Moreover, the studies of black holes in anti--de Sitter space (AdS) allow us to observe fascinating thermodynamical behaviors of black holes. One of these is the Hawking-Page phase transition which has a natural interpretation in AdS/CFT~\cite{Maldacena:1997re} as a deconfinement transition in the boundary CFT~\cite{Witten:1998zw}.
The phase structure of the AdS black holes has been vastly explored in extended phase space. In this framework, the cosmological constant, in particular, $\left|\Lambda\right|=-\Lambda$, can be treated as a thermodynamical variable acting as pressure~\cite{Kastor:2009wy}. A variety of phenomena from these studies indicate that its workings are similar way to thermodynamical phenomena appearing in everyday life such as the liquid-gas phase transition. Unexpectedly, some of these correspond with some phenomena of exotic quantum matter. These give a nontrivial perspective on the phenomenological thermodynamical behaviors of the dual field theory via the gauge-gravity correspondence~\cite{Karch:2015rpa,Sinamuli:2017rhp,Wen:2007vy}. It is important to emphasize here that extended phase space can be applied not only in asymptotically AdS black holes, but also in asymptotically de Sitter (dS) black holes.
The dS space should attract a high level of research interest, since its corresponding cosmological model is potentially consistent with the observational results supporting the late-time accelerating expansion of the Universe~\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}. In spite of this, the thermodynamical phenomena in asymptotically dS black holes remains slightly explored, while those in asymptotically AdS black holes have been substantially discovered. Theoretically, thermodynamical studies of Schwarzschild--de Sitter (Sch-dS) black holes have historically encountered a number of difficulties in considerations. Among plenty of issues obstructing progress, the obscurities in dealing with the notion of mass and with thermodynamical consideration of a multihorizon system are two main problems. The former is due to the absence of the globally timelike Killing vector field, which prevents one to have a well-defined asymptotic mass~\cite{Bousso:2002fq,Clarkson:2005qx,Clarkson:2003kt,Ashtekar:2014zfa}. The latter results from the fact that the black hole and cosmic horizons are generically at different temperatures, such that the Sch-dS black hole as a multihorizon system is out of equilibrium.
There are several solutions proposed in dealing with the issue of different temperatures in multihorizon systems. One straightforward approach is to consider each horizon as a separated thermodynamical system, characterized by its own thermodynamical behavior. This approach can give some perspectives on the thermodynamical behaviors. For example, the sign of a phase transition of the whole Sch-dS black hole may be obtained from the considerations of phase transitions occurring in separated thermodynamical subsystems~\cite{Kubiznak:2015bya}.
Since the separated system approach cannot give a complete understanding of the phase structure of the entire system, the effective temperature approach is proposed, where a single temperature is assigned to the entire spacetime. Considering the thermodynamical description from which an observer is located in between the black hole horizon and cosmic horizon, the observer experiences an effective temperature $T_\text{eff}$, which can be derived through a postulated thermodynamical first law~\cite{Urano:2009xn,Ma:2013aqa,Zhao:2014raa,Zhang:2014jfa,Ma:2014hna,Guo:2015waa,Guo:2016eie}. It is worthwhile to remark that the effective temperature can also be obtained through a Euclidean path integral approach with fixing the temperature at the boundary of the cavity between the event and cosmic horizons~\cite{Simovic:2020dke}.
In the literature, the mass parameter can be interpreted as either the internal energy $E$ or the enthalpy $H$ in the effective approach, each of which gives rise to a different effective thermodynamical description and different $T_\text{eff}$ (see \cite{Kubiznak:2016qmn} for a review). Note that, for simplicity, we will discuss only spherically symmetric dS black holes in this work. Treating the mass $M$ as the internal energy $E$ with the first law of the form $\delta E = T_\text{eff} \delta S - P_\text{eff} \delta V$, the total entropy $S$ of this effective system is given by the sum of the black hole event horizon and cosmic horizon entropies, while the thermodynamical volume of the effective system equals the volume of the observable Universe. These take the form~\cite{Kastor:1992nn,Bhattacharya:2015mja}
\begin{eqnarray}
S=S_b+S_c, \qquad V=V_c-V_b, \qquad E=M.
\end{eqnarray}
Unfortunately, this version of the effective temperature approach encounters some problems causing an unclear physical picture for more complicated black hole spacetimes~\cite{Kubiznak:2016qmn}. Additionally, neither the effective temperature nor the effective pressure are apparently positive. As another version of the effective approach, the mass $M$ is on the other hand treated as a gravitational enthalpy with the redefinition of the pressure taking the form $\mathcal{P}=-P\propto\Lambda$. The effective first law is, thus, $\delta H = T_\text{eff} \delta S + V_\text{eff} \delta \mathcal{P}$. Note that the thermodynamical state variables, other than pressure, relate to the geometrical variables through~\cite{Li:2016zca}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eff_enthal}
S=S_b+S_c, \qquad V_\text{eff}= \left( \frac{\partial H}{\partial \mathcal{P}}\right)_S, \qquad H=-M.
\end{eqnarray}
Remark that the effective volume $V_\text{eff}$ is no longer $V_c-V_b$. Rather, it is the conjugate of the pressure which can be derived from the first law as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eff_enthal}. Accordingly, we have the form of the effective temperature as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Teff}
T_\text{eff} = \left( \frac{1}{T_c}-\frac{1}{T_b}\right)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
However, the effective temperature of this form can render unphysical properties. For example, considering Eq.~\eqref{Teff}, the value of $T_\text{eff}$ blows up to infinity at the Nariai or lukewarm limit, i.e., $T_b=T_c$. Moreover, for the charged black hole case, it encounters an infinite jump when $T_b=T_c$ and becomes negative for a range of black hole horizons.
Interestingly, one of the solutions of this problem can be obtained by identifying the effective entropy as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{S_minus}
S=S_c-S_b,
\end{eqnarray}
as an \textit{ad hoc} condition, such that one obtains~\cite{Kubiznak:2016qmn,Kanti2017}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{TeffVeff}
T_\text{eff}=\left( \frac{1}{T_c}+\frac{1}{T_b}\right)^{-1}, \qquad V_\text{eff}=T_\text{eff} \left(\frac{V_c}{T_c}+\frac{V_b}{T_b}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_\text{eff}$ and $V_\text{eff}$ are apparently positive here. As will be seen in the present paper, we use the expression of total entropy
\begin{eqnarray} \label{S_plus}
S=S_b+S_c,
\end{eqnarray}
rather than Eq.~\eqref{S_minus}. Despite this, the change of total entropy in Eq.~\eqref{S_plus} obtained from the consideration of heat flow into the spacetime region between these two horizons where the observer sits, can give the terms associated with $S_b$ and $S_c$ of opposite sign when we identify the direction of heat flow at the cosmic horizon to be opposite to the one at the black hole horizon. In other words, we live between these two horizons such that the directions of heat flows with respect to the changes of the horizon radii would be opposite. As a consequence of this identification, the change of total entropy turns out to take the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{heat_S_minus}
\text{d}S &= &\text{d} S_b-\text{d} S_c,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact that the heat flowing from outside the cosmic horizon to inside corresponds to the decrease of entropy satisfying the first law of the cosmic horizon system [see Appendix~\ref{app: eff quan deriv} for a further discussion on the signs of Eq.~\eqref{heat_S_minus}]. Fortunately, the resulting effective temperature $T_\text{eff}$ and volume $V_\text{eff}$ from our setting, using Eq.~\eqref{S_plus}, are identical to the above expressions as shown in Eq.~\eqref{TeffVeff} obtained from using Eq.~\eqref{S_minus}. Moreover, in the case of $M$ being the internal energy, the effective temperature will still be well behaved by using this criteria.
As seen in both versions of the effective temperature approach, the entropy of the effective system is simply the sum of $S_b$ and $S_c$. Nevertheless, as often said, the whole is not a sum of its parts. It has been argued by He, Ma and Zhao \cite{He:2018zrx} that, considering the dS black holes, the entropy of the effective system may not be simple like that. In other words, even though there is still no consensus on how one can describe mathematically the microstates of a black hole event horizon and cosmic horizon, the total number of microscopic states of this hypothetical correlated system is probably not the product of those of two horizons. Thus, the total entropy is proposed to be in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
S=S_b+S_c+S_{ex},
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_{ex}$ is the extra entropy term responsible to the correlations between these two horizons.
Whereas the work of Ref.~\cite{He:2018zrx} uses the bottom-up model in which $S_\text{ex}$ is an arbitrary function to be determined through the consistency tests in a variety of phenomenological aspects, a question may arise how one can formulate naturally the thermodynamical description associated with the long-range correlations between these two subsystems of the multihorizon system. In the present paper, we make an attempt to investigate the entire Sch-dS black hole thermodynamical system as a correlated system through a top-down model based on nonextensive thermodynamics, instead of the conventional Gibbs-Boltzmann (GB) thermodynamics.
As evident from the area law, the black hole system has been argued to be a nonextensive system in its own right~\cite{Tsallis:2012js}. Having considered black hole systems using the Tsallis and R\'enyi statistics can provide a number of new perspectives on its thermodynamical behaviors~\cite{Tsallis:2012js,Czinner:2015eyk,Czinner:2017tjq,Promsiri:2020jga,Tannukij:2020,Samart:2020klx,Promsiri2021}. Taking into account the effect of nonextensivity can not give only the thermodynamical stability in some regions of parameter, it also allows a phase transition occurring in the case of black holes in asymptotically flat spacetime~\cite{Czinner:2015eyk,Czinner:2017tjq,Promsiri:2020jga,Promsiri2021}. Interestingly, Tannukij {\it et al.} \cite{Tannukij:2020} have demonstrated that the separated black hole system of the dS black hole spacetime can be in thermodynamical stability when the deviation from the conventional GB thermodynamics is large enough. These features resulted from the fact that the nonextensive thermodynamics is the area that has included the effect of the correlations, or perhaps long-range interactions, between the environment spacetime and the black hole event horizon. This causes the modified thermodynamical description depending on the nonextensivity parameter. To achieve the nonextensivity approach, we need to relax the additive composition rule, one of the Shannon-Khinchin axiomatic definitions of the entropy function, to a weaker nonadditive composition rule~\cite{Abe2001}. Considering two systems with the correlations between them, the nonextensive Tsallis entropy, for instance, follows the composition rule~\cite{Tsallis:1987eu}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Tsallis com}
S_\text{T}^{12}=S_\text{T}^1+ S_\text{T}^2 +\lambda S_\text{T}^1 S_\text{T}^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_\text{T}^{12}$ is the Tsallis entropy of the entire system, $S_\text{T}^1$ and $S_\text{T}^2$ are the Tsallis entropies of the two separated systems, and $\lambda$ is the nonextensive parameter; its value vanishes when the system begins following the GB statistics. Remark that Eq.~\eqref{Tsallis com} satisfies the Abe nonadditive entropy composition rule~\cite{Abe2001}. Requiring zeroth law compatibility, the issue of the unclear definition of the empirical temperature can be solved by transforming the Tsallis entropy into the R\'enyi entropy~\cite{Renyi:1959,Renyi:1961, Biro2011}:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Renyi Log}
S_\text{R}^{12}=\frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left[ 1+ \lambda S_\text{T}^{12}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
Manifestly, it is the logarithmic form of the R\'enyi entropy that makes the composition rule of the Tsallis entropy turn out to be additive, despite the presence of its nonextensive nature. This can be shown easily by substituting Eq.~\eqref{Tsallis com} into Eq.~\eqref{Renyi Log}, then we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Renyi com}
S_\text{R}^{12}
&=&\frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left[ 1+\lambda S_\text{T}^1 +\lambda S_\text{T}^2 + \lambda^2 S_\text{T}^1 S_\text{T}^2\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left[ \left(1+\lambda S_\text{T}^1 \right) \left( 1+ \lambda S_\text{T}^2 \right)\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left[ 1+\lambda S_\text{T}^1 \right]+\frac{1}{\lambda} \left[ 1+ \lambda S_\text{T}^2\right]\nonumber\\
&=&S_\text{R}^1 +S_\text{R}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
With the nonextensive thermodynamics as discussed above, the dS black hole spacetime can be described thermodynamically with the total entropy of the form as shown in Eq.~\eqref{Renyi com}, where $S_\text{R}^1$, $S_\text{R}^2$, and $S_\text{R}^{12}$ will be replaced later by the R\'enyi entropies of the black hole event horizon $S_{\text{R}(b)}$, the cosmic horizon $S_{\text{R}(c)}$, and the entire dS black hole spacetime $S$, respectively. In this paper, we investigate the thermodynamical stability and phase transition of the Sch-dS black hole in both separate and effective thermodynamical system approaches, based on the assumption that all subsystems and the entire system of the Sch-dS black hole are generally nonextensive. The dependence of thermodynamical behaviors of these systems in question on the nonextensive parameter $\lambda$ will be explored. It is also worthwhile to compare the results between the combination of all separated systems and the entire system as a whole. This can address in some levels about how the difference between these two approaches, namely, the separated and effective systems, relates to the nonextensivity effect associated with the correlations between these two horizons. Moreover, we discuss the comparison of the results between two aforementioned versions of the effective system approaches, namely, based on the interpretation of $M$ as the internal energy and as the enthalpy.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sect: Separated thermo}, we investigate thermodynamical properties of two separated systems, the black hole horizon and the cosmological horizon, using the R\'enyi entropy with different values of $\lambda$. In Sec.~\ref{sect: eff sys}, the entire thermodynamical system consisting of two horizons with different temperatures is considered in such a way that it is a single effective system. The investigation on thermodynamical stability in this section will be done through discussing the dependence of the effective R\'enyi temperature, thermodynamical volume, and the heat capacity on the ratio of $r_b$ to $r_c$. The phase structure is also explored through considering the dependence of the Gibbs free energy on the effective temperature. Importantly, these will be done with interpreting the mass as both internal energy and enthalpy. Finally, we conclude with remarks of the effect of nonextensivity and the validity of our approach in giving a clear physical implication in Sec.~\ref{sect: conclusion}. In addition, the thermodynamical quantities for the system at the cosmic horizon and those for the effective system are discussed in Appendixes \ref{app: free energy at rc} and \ref{app: eff quan deriv}, respectively.
\section{Separated thermodynamical systems}\label{sect: Separated thermo}
Thermodynamics of Sch-dS spacetime have been intensively investigated. One of the key important issues in Sch-dS spacetime is that the black hole solution generally provides two distinct horizons, namely, black hole horizon and cosmic horizon. Therefore, thermodynamics of this kind of black hole can be treated as two thermodynamical systems. As a result, the investigation can be classified into two approaches; the thermodynamical systems are considered separately, and the thermodynamics is considered as an effective system. In this section, we will consider the first approach by assuming that the black hole and cosmic horizons are far enough to treat them as independent thermodynamical systems \cite{Tannukij:2020}.
For the Sch-dS spacetime, the metric can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{d}s^2=-f(r)\text{d}t^2 + f(r)^{-1}\text{d}r^2 + r^2\text{d}\Omega^2,\hspace{1cm
f(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r^2. \label{metric}
\end{eqnarray}
The parameters $M$ and $\Lambda$ are the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner mass of black hole and the cosmological constant, respectively. For the positive value of $\Lambda$, it corresponds to the Sch-dS solution, while the negative value corresponds to the Sch-AdS solution. Generally, there are two event horizons: the black hole horizon denoted by $r_b$ and the cosmic horizon denoted by $r_c$ ($r_b$ is always not less than $r_c$). In other words, the possible values of $r_b$ are in the range $0\leq r_b\leq r_c$, while those of $r_c$ are in the range $r_b\leq r_c<\infty$. Using the horizon equations $f(r_b)=0$ and $f(r_c)=0$, the mass and cosmological constant at the horizons can be, respectively, expressed in terms of two horizons as
\begin{eqnarray}
M&=&\frac{r_b r_c (r_b+r_c)}{2 \left(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2\right)
,\label{M}\\
\Lambda&=&\frac{3}{r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2
.\label{Lamb}
\end{eqnarray}
It is seen that both the mass and cosmological constant are always positive for any values of $r_b$ and $r_c$.
As we mentioned in the previous section, the thermodynamics of the black holes may respect the nonextensive system and then one has to consider a more proper statistics to evaluate the thermodynamics properties of the black holes. In the present work, we use the R\'{e}nyi statistics to examine the thermodynamics properties of the Sch-dS black hole. According to the R\'{e}nyi statistics, the nonextensive nature can be explained through the R\'{e}nyi entropy which is additive by construction. Therefore, the nonextensive system is compatible with the zeroth law of thermodynamics. In other words, the empirical temperature of the system can be well defined. The R\'{e}nyi entropy $S_\text{R}$ can be expressed in terms of the Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) entropy $S_\text{BH}$ as \cite{Biro2011}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_\text{R}=\frac{1}{\lambda}\ln\,(1+\lambda S_\text{BH}), \label{Renyi-entropy}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ is the nonextensive parameter which is valid in the range $-\infty<\lambda<1$ \cite{Renyi:1959}. Note that the BH entropy at $r_b$ and $r_c$ are $\pi r_b^2$ and $\pi r_c^2$, respectively. Moreover, the R\'{e}nyi entropy can be reduced to the BH one by taking a limit $\lambda\to0$ called the Gibbs-Boltzmann (GB) limit. It is noted that the parameter $\lambda$ is valid for its whole range (from $-\infty$ to $1$), but the entropy $S_\text{R}$ is well defined when $1+\lambda S_\text{BH}>0$. Under this requirement, one obtains a condition for $\lambda$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda>-\frac{1}{\pi r_{b,c}^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is obvious that the entropy $S_\text{R}$ is always well defined for positive values of $\lambda$ ($0<\lambda<1$). However, for negative values of $\lambda$, its magnitude has to be very small when the horizon is very large (e.g., $r_c=10, |\lambda|\lesssim0.003$ for the system at the cosmic horizon). Therefore, we will consider only the positive values of $\lambda$ in the present paper. Note that, $\lambda>0$ is the necessary condition to obtain the locally stable-unstable phase transitions of the system on the black hole horizon \cite{Tannukij:2020}.
Let us consider the thermal system defined for each horizon of the black hole. In order to investigate the thermodynamics with respect to the R\'{e}nyi statistics, one recalls the first law of black hole thermodynamics as investigated in Refs.~\cite{Urano:2009xn,Kastor:2009wy}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{d}M=\frac{\kappa_{(b,c)}}{2\pi}\,\text{d}(\pi r_{b,c}^2 )- \frac{1}{6} r_{b,c}^3 \,\text{d}\Lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
By identifying the temperature as $T_{(b,c)}=|\kappa_{(b,c)}|/2\pi $, entropy as $S= \pi r_{b,c}^2$, pressure as $P = -\Lambda/8\pi$, and volumes as $V_{b,c}= 4\pi r_{b,c}^3/3$, one obtains the similar form of the first law of thermodynamics $\text{d}M=T\,\text{d}S+ V \,\text{d}P$. It is obvious that the parameter $M=M(S,P)$ now plays the role of the enthalpy, and the internal energy is then written as $U=M-PV$. In this work, we adopt the same form of the first law of thermodynamics, $\text{d}M=T\,\text{d}S+V\,\text{d}P$ but now the entropy is described by the R\'{e}nyi entropy defined in Eq. (\ref{Renyi-entropy}). As a result, the R\'{e}nyi temperatures of both systems can be defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\text{R}(b)}=\left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial S_{\text{R}(b)}}\right)_\Lambda, \quad T_{\text{R}(c)}=-\left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial S_{\text{R}(c)}}\right)_\Lambda. \label{tem-R}
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to note that the expression of $T_{\text{R}(c)}$ with the minus sign is equivalent to the formulation derived from the surface gravity. This leads to the first law of thermodynamics as $\text{d}M=-T_{\text{R}(c)}\,\text{d}S_{\text{R}(c)}+ V_c \,\text{d}P$. The mass parameter $M$ is also treated as a function of the horizons, $M= M(r_b, r_c)$. Hence, the temperature defined in Eq. (\ref{tem-R}) can be found by fixing $\Lambda$ or, in other words, fixing the ratio of $r_b $ and $r_c$ in such a way that $\Lambda$ is kept constant. As a result, the temperatures are computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\text{R}(b)}
&=&\frac{(r_c-r_b)(2r_b+r_c)(1+\lambda\pi r_b^2)}{4\pi r_b(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2)},\label{TRb}\\
T_{\text{R}(c)}
&=&\frac{(r_c-r_b)(r_b+2r_c)(1+\lambda\pi r_c^2)}{4\pi r_c(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2)}.\label{TRc}
\end{eqnarray}
It is seen that $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ and $T_{\text{R}(c)}$ is always positive because of the reality condition for the entropy which satisfies $1+\lambda\pi r_{r,c}^2>0$. The results in Eqs.~\eqref{TRb} and \eqref{TRc} are also obtained from the formula $T_{\text{R}(b,c)}=|\kappa_{(b,c)}|/2\pi=\frac{1}{4\pi}|\partial_rf|_{r=r_{b,c}}$. Furthermore, the temperature at the black hole horizon agrees with that in the literature [e.g., it can be checked by substituting $M$ and $\Lambda$ in Eqs.\eqref{M} and \eqref{Lamb} to the expression in Ref.~\cite{Tannukij:2020}].
For the black hole with multiple horizons, the systems can be described by only two horizon radii, which are $r_b$ and $r_c$. In the literature, the thermodynamical quantities are analyzed in terms of the ratio $r_b/r_c$ with fixing $r_c$. Unfortunately, this variable is not suitable for our case, because the feature of the temperature at a given $r_b/r_c$ does not imply the sign of the heat capacity at that point. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{Tannukij:2020}, the existence of the local minimum of the temperature profile infers the existence of the locally stable-unstable phase transition. This behavior can be obtained from analyzing the slope of the temperature, which is proportional to the heat capacity. The positivity of the heat capacity can be inferred from the positive slope of the temperature, and the heat capacity changes sign at the local extrema of the temperature. However, in our case, the temperature profile does not directly relate to the behavior of the heat capacity and then does not directly infer the phase transition. It is because the temperature depends on both $r_b$ and $r_c$, which are not fixed when evaluating the heat capacity. Hence, the change of the temperature in our case should be analyzed with fixing $P$ (or $\Lambda$). In order to analyze the behavior of the heat capacity from the temperature profile, one can write the temperature in terms of $\Lambda$. As a result, the temperatures for the system at the black hole and cosmic horizons can be, respectively, written as
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\text{R}(b)}
&=&\frac{(1+\pi r_b^2\lambda)(1-\Lambda r_b^2)}{4\pi r_b}
=\sqrt{\Lambda}\frac{(x^2+\epsilon)(1-x^2)}{4\pi x\epsilon},\label{TRbL}\\
T_{\text{R}(c)}
&=&\frac{(1+\pi r_c^2 \lambda)(\Lambda r_c^2-1)}{4\pi r_c}
=\sqrt{\Lambda}\frac{(y^2+\epsilon)(y^2-1)}{4\pi y\epsilon},\label{TRcL}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined new set of dimensionless variables as $x\equiv r_b\sqrt{\Lambda}$, $y\equiv r_c\sqrt{\Lambda}$ and $\epsilon\equiv\Lambda/(\pi\lambda)$. From this form of the temperature profiles, it is obvious that both temperatures are positive where $1<r_c^2\Lambda<3$ and $0<r_b<r_c$ or $0<x<1$ and $1<y<\sqrt{3}$. The equation to solve for the extrema of the temperature $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ where $\Lambda$ is held fixed can be written in terms of dimensionless variables as
\begin{eqnarray}
3x^4-(1-\epsilon)x^2+\epsilon=0.\label{dTRL}
\end{eqnarray}
For $\epsilon<1$, this equation is taken in the form of convex parabola with an argument of $x^2$, and its minimum point is at $x^2=(1-\epsilon)/6$. Requiring that the extrema must be two positive values leading to the minimum convex parabola must be negative, one can find the condition on $\epsilon$ as \cite{Tannukij:2020}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon<\epsilon_{0C}=7-4\sqrt{3}\sim0.0718,\label{conT}
\end{eqnarray}
which corresponds to $\lambda>\lambda_{0C}=(7+4\sqrt{3})\Lambda/\pi$. As a result, the extrema can be found by
\begin{eqnarray}
x^2_{\pm}=\frac{1}{6} \left(1-\epsilon \pm \sqrt{\epsilon ^2-14 \epsilon +1}\right).\label{sol-dTRL}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the equation to solve the extrema in Eq. (\ref{dTRL}) can be applied to the case of the cosmic horizon with replacing $x$ with $y$. Therefore, the minimum point is at $y^2=(1-\epsilon)/6$, which is out of the range $1<y<\sqrt{3} $. As a result, there is not an extremum point of the temperature for the system at the cosmic horizon. These behaviors can be seen explicitly from Fig. \ref{fig:TRbTRc-L}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.522]{Tb-x.pdf}\hspace{1.cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Tc-y.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The R\'{e}nyi temperatures $\bar{T}_{\text{R}(b,c)}=T_{\text{R}(b,c)}\big/\sqrt{\Lambda}$ for the systems at\\ the black hole horizon (left) and cosmic horizon (right) for various values of $\epsilon$\\ including the ones for the GB limit represented as black lines.}\label{fig:TRbTRc-L}
\end{figure}
Now let us move further to analyze the local stability of the black hole. The system with local stability is required to have a positive heat capacity. The thermal system with negative heat capacity will radiate thermal energy, and then the system gets hotter. In other words, the hotter the black hole is, the more it radiates, and then the system will vanish eventually. Therefore, the system with negative heat capacity is unstable in the sense that it can be formed but cannot live for long. With $M$ playing the role of the enthalpy, the heat capacity can be evaluated by fixing the pressure or $\Lambda$:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{P(b)}
&=&\bigg(\frac{\partial M}{\partial T_{\text{R}(b)}}\bigg)_P = \frac{2\pi r_b^2 (\Lambda r_b^2 -1)}{3\pi \Lambda \lambda r_{b}^4 - (\pi \lambda - \Lambda)r_{b}^2 +1}
=\frac{2\pi x^2\left(x^2-1\right)\epsilon}{\Lambda\big[3x^4-(1-\epsilon)x^2+\epsilon\big]},\label{CPb} \\
C_{P(c)}
&=&-\bigg(\frac{\partial M}{\partial T_{\text{R}(c)}}\bigg)_P = \frac{2\pi r_c^2 (\Lambda r_c^2 -1)}{3\pi \Lambda \lambda r_{c}^4 - (\pi \lambda - \Lambda)r_{c}^2 +1}
=\frac{2\pi y^2(y^2-1)\epsilon}{\Lambda\big[3y^4-(1-\epsilon)y^2+\epsilon\big]}.\label{CPc}
\end{eqnarray}
As we mentioned, the equation to have extrema in Eq. (\ref{dTRL}) is exactly the denominator in the expression for heat capacities in Eqs. (\ref{CPb}) and (\ref{CPc}). Therefore, the heat capacities diverge and change the signs at the extrema of the temperatures. For the $C_{P(c)}$, the numerator and denominator are always positive for the whole range of $1<y<\sqrt{3}$. For the $C_{P(b)}$, the numerator is always negative, and the denominator is a convex parabola with its minimum value being negative. Therefore, there are three ranges of $x$ which are positive for the middle one and negative for the others. The slope of the temperature is positive for $x$ which lies in between the two extrema (see the left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:TRbTRc-L}). The explicit behavior of the heat capacity can be illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:CPbCPc-L}. Note that it is not possible to obtain a positive value of the heat capacity at the black hole horizon for the GB limit or $\lambda = 0$. This is also shown as the black line in the left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:CPbCPc-L}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Cb-x.pdf}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.515]{Cc-y.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The R\'{e}nyi heat capacity $\bar{C}_{P(b,c)}=\Lambda C_{P(b,c)}$ for the systems at the black hole horizon (left) and cosmic horizon (right) for various values of $\epsilon$ including the ones for the GB limit represented as black lines.}\label{fig:CPbCPc-L}
\end{figure}
We have already analyzed the local stability of the black hole by considering the behavior of the heat capacity. Now we will clarify the global stability by considering the Gibbs free energy. The thermodynamically stable system tends to prefer the system with lower free energy. In this sense, the black hole can be formed if the free energy of the system with the black hole is lower than that of the system without the black hole. In particular, since the free energy of the spacetime itself without the black hole is zero, the black hole can be formed if its Gibbs free energy is negative. The Gibbs free energy can be defined via the enthalpy $M$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{(b,c)}
&=& M - T_{\text{R}(b,c)} S_{\text{R}(b,c)}\label{Gbc},\\
\bar{G}_{(b)}=\sqrt{\Lambda} G_{(b)}
&=&\frac{1}{12 x}\left[ 2 x^2 \left(3-x^2\right)-3 \left(1-x^2\right) \left(x^2+\epsilon \right) \ln \left(\frac{ x^2+\epsilon} {\epsilon }\right)\right],\label{Gb}\\
\bar{G}_{(c)}=\sqrt{\Lambda} G_{(c)}
&=&\frac{1}{12 y}\left[ 2 y^2 \left(3-y^2\right)-3 \left(y^2-1\right) \left(y^2+\epsilon \right) \ln \left(\frac{ y^2+\epsilon} {\epsilon }\right)\right].\label{Gc}
\end{eqnarray}
As discussed in Ref.~\cite{Tannukij:2020}, the behavior of the free energy may be analyzed by the relation between $G$ and $T$ as $\big(\frac{\partial G}{\partial T}\big)_P=-S$. In our case, the slope $\Big(\frac{\partial G_{(b,c)}}{\partial T_{\text{R}(b,c)}}\Big)_P$ is always negative, since the entropy is always positive. Moreover, the function $G_{(b)}(T_{\text{R}(b)})$ at the black hole horizon is not smooth at the extrema of $T_{\text{R}(b)}$. These points are also marked as the locally stable-unstable phase transition, since they are the points where the heat capacity changes its sign. Actually, they correspond to the second-order phase transition, since the second derivative of the free energy which is proportional to the heat capacity, $\Big(\frac{\partial^2 G_{(b)}}{\partial T_{\text{R}(b)}^2}\Big)_P\propto C_{P(b)}$, diverges at these points. These features can be illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:GbGc-L}. From the left panel in the figure, one can see that there are two cusps denoted by $x_\pm$ in Eq. (\ref{sol-dTRL}) for $\epsilon<\epsilon_{0C}$. The larger value of the solution ($x_{+}$) corresponds to the lower cusp. Therefore, one can evaluate a further upper limit of $\epsilon$ (or the lower limit of $\lambda$) by requiring that $G_{(b)}|_{x_+}<0$. It is not easy to find an analytical solution for this bound, since it contains a logarithmic function. One uses the numerical calculation to find this bound. As a result, the bound can be evaluated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon<\epsilon_{0G}\sim0.0328,\label{conG}
\end{eqnarray}
which corresponds to $\lambda>\lambda_{0G}\sim\Lambda/(0.0328\pi)$. It can be seen explicitly from the left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:GbGc-L} that $G_{(b)}$ is always positive when $\epsilon>\epsilon_{0G}$. It is also inferred that the $G_{(b)}$ in the GB limit is always positive, since it is in the range $\epsilon>\epsilon_{0G}$. It is important to note that this bound is stronger than the one in Eq. (\ref{conT}), $\epsilon_{0G}<\epsilon_{0C}$ (or $\lambda_{0G}>\lambda_{0C}$). Hence, the system at the black hole horizon needs the condition of the nonextensive parameter $\lambda>\lambda_{0G}$ in order to be both locally and globally stable. Within this range of $\lambda$, it is possible to have the phase transition. Without the black hole, the free energy of the system is zero; this is supposed to be the free energy of the thermal radiation (or simply called hot gas) system. Now let us consider, for example, the left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:GbGc-L} for $\epsilon = 0.01$; there exists a point denoted by ``A" such that the free energies of the hot gas and the black hole are the same. At this point, it is possible that the hot gas phase will change to a moderate-sized black hole phase. Since the slope of the free energy at the transition point is discontinuous, this is the first-order phase transition, the so-called Hawking-Page phase transition.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{GTb.png}\hspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{GTc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The Gibbs free energy for the systems at the black hole horizon (left) and cosmic horizon (right) versus their own temperatures for various values of $\epsilon$ including the ones for the GB limit represented as black lines.}\label{fig:GbGc-L}
\end{figure}
Since the Sch-dS black hole always has two horizons, it is required that both thermodynamical systems must be stable. Therefore, we have to check whether the free energy at the cosmic horizon is negative or not for the viable range from one evaluated at the black hole horizon. Since there is no extremum point for $T_{\text{R}(c)}$, there is no nonsmooth point in $G_{(c)}(T_{\text{R}(c)})$ as shown in the right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:GbGc-L}. For a given value of $r_b$, it is possible to find $r_c$ in terms of $r_b$ and $\Lambda$ by using Eq. (\ref{Lamb}). As a result, one can find the value of $y = r_c\sqrt{\Lambda}$ corresponding to $x_{+}$ denoted by $y_{+}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
y_+= \frac{1}{12} \left(3 \sqrt{2} \sqrt{23+\epsilon -\sqrt{(\epsilon -14) \epsilon +1}}-\sqrt{6} \sqrt{1-\epsilon +\sqrt{(\epsilon -14) \epsilon +1}}\,\right).\label{rcp}
\end{eqnarray}
One substitutes this value of $y$ to $\bar{G}_{(c)}$ in Eq. (\ref{Gc}) and then obtains $\bar{G}_{(c)} = \bar{G}_{(c)}(\epsilon)$. The expression is lengthy, so we do not put in here. Instead, it is more convenient to use a numerical plot of $\bar{G}_{(c)}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Gc-rp}. One can see that the locally and globally stable system at the black hole horizon has no problem, because $\bar{G}_{(c)}(\epsilon)$ is negative for the whole viable range of $\epsilon$, $ 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_{0G}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Gc-epsilon.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The Gibbs free energy at cosmic horizon, $G_{(c)}(\epsilon)$ for $0<\epsilon<\epsilon_{0G}$.
}\label{fig:Gc-rp}
\end{figure}
So far, we have investigated thermodynamical properties of each of the two event horizons, namely, the black hole horizon $r_b$ and the cosmic horizon $r_c$. The systems defined at $r_b$ and $r_c$ are characterized by different values of the R\'{e}nyi temperatures, $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ and $T_{\text{R}(c)}$, respectively. One may find that these black hole systems are inconclusive in terms of their thermal behaviors because of the different temperature profiles previously mentioned. One way to realize these systems as a single thermodynamical system is to consider them as one effective system, which will be carefully investigated in the next section.
\section{Effective system}\label{sect: eff sys}
In this section, the whole system is regarded as a single system called an effective system. The entropy of the effective system can be written as a total entropy as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
S=S_{\text{R}(b)}+S_{\text{R}(c)}
=\frac{1}{\lambda}\Big[\ln\left(1+\lambda\pi r_b^2\right)+\ln\left(1+\lambda\pi r_c^2\right)\Big].\label{Seff Renyi}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the negative values of $\lambda$ may give complex values of $S$. Since the entropy in Eq.~\eqref{Seff Renyi} is also expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
S=\frac{1}{\lambda}\ln\Big[\left(1+\lambda\pi r_b^2\right)\left(1+\lambda\pi r_c^2\right)\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
the condition for obtaining the well-defined entropy is
\begin{eqnarray}
(1+\lambda\pi r_b^2)(1+\lambda\pi r_c^2)>0.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\lambda$ is negative, the above condition is satisfied when
(i) $|\lambda|>\frac{1}{\pi r_b^2}$: $|\lambda|$ must be very large when $r_b$ is very small ($\lambda\to\infty$ as $r_b\to0$); and
(ii) $|\lambda|<\frac{1}{\pi r_c^2}$: this is the same condition as the case of the separated system defined at the cosmic horizon. In order for the whole range of horizon radius to be allowed in the system, we will focus on the positive $\lambda$ in the present work. This also guarantees that the entropy is always positive. Moreover, as we have discussed in the previous section, it provides the possibility to have the phase transition for separated system consideration.
One of the crucial points for the effective system is that we can treat the parameter $M$ playing the role of either enthalpy or internal energy, while it is obscure to treat $M$ as the internal energy in the separated horizon approach. Therefore, we will divide our consideration into two parts depending on the thermodynamical role of the parameter $M$.
\subsection{$M$ as enthalpy}\label{MEn}
In this subsection, we consider the parameter $M = M(S,P)$ as the enthalpy of the system. This choice is quite natural, since it can be reduced to the separated horizon approach in the proper limit. Therefore, the results can be qualitatively compared to the separated horizon approach. In this sense, one may see how the system deviates from the separated horizon approach where the assumptions are relaxed, for example, in the case that the temperatures of two systems are not much different so that the heat transfer is supposed to be negligible.
We begin our consideration by expressing the differentiation of $M$ as the first law of thermodynamics as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{d}M=T_\text{eff,(En)}\,\text{d}S+V_\text{eff}\,\text{d}P,\label{dM en}
\end{eqnarray}
where the pressure of this effective system is defined via $P=-\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi}$, which is analogous to that for separated systems in the previous section. From the fact that all state parameters $M$, $S$, and $P$ can be written in terms of only $r_b$ and $r_c$, the above relation leads to the expressions for the effective temperature of the system (the derivation is in Appendix~\ref{app: eff quan deriv}):
\begin{eqnarray}
T_\text{eff,(En)}
&=&\Big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\Big)_P
=\frac{\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}-\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}{\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{(r_c-r_b) (2 r_b+r_c) (r_b+2 r_c) \left(\pi \lambda r_b^2+1\right)\left(\pi \lambda r_c^2+1\right)}{4 \pi \left(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2\right) \big[2 \pi \lambda r_b r_c \left(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2\right)+r_b^2+4 r_b r_c+r_c^2\big]}.\label{Teff en}
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to note that the definition of effective temperature in the present paper is different from ones in the literature. The crucial point is that we adopt the argument such that the change of entropy with respect to the cosmic horizon is in the opposite way to the change with respect to the black hole horizon. Therefore, the change of entropy in our case can be expressed as $\text{d}S=\Big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\Big)_{r_c}\text{d}r_b-\Big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\Big)_{r_b}\text{d}r_c$ as seen in Eq. (\ref{dS}). Note that the definition of the effective quantities defined in this way allows us to avoid the singularity in effective temperature, while the effective temperature defined in the usual way is inevitable to diverge at some point of a nonextensive parameter.
As we have analyzed in the previous section, the expression of the temperature in Eq. (\ref{Teff en}) is not suitable to analyze the behavior of the phase transition. This effective temperature can be rewritten in terms of $\Lambda$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
T_\text{eff,(En)}
&=&\frac{\left(1-\Lambda r_b^2\right)\left(\Lambda r_c^2-1\right)\left(\pi \lambda r_b^2+1\right)\left(\pi \lambda r_c^2+1\right) }{4 \pi \big[r_c \left(\pi \lambda r_b^2+1\right) \left(1-\Lambda r_b^2\right)+r_b \left(\pi \lambda r_c^2+1\right) \left(\Lambda r_c^2-1\right)\big]}.\label{Teff-en-L}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, in principle, we can express $T_\text{eff,(En)}$ in such a way that $T_\text{eff,(En)}=T_\text{eff,(En)}(r_b,\Lambda)$ or $T_\text{eff,(En)}= T_\text{eff,(En)}(r_c,\Lambda)$ by using Eq. (\ref{Lamb}). We also found that the effective temperature is related to the temperatures at the black hole and cosmic horizons as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{T_\text{eff,(En)}}
=\Big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial M}\Big)_P
=\Big(\frac{\partial S_{\text{R}(b)}}{\partial M}\Big)_P-\Big(\frac{\partial S_{\text{R}(c)}}{\partial M}\Big)_P
=\frac{1}{T_{\text{R}(b)} }+\frac{1}{T_{\text{R}(c)} }. \label{re-T}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the effective temperature defined in this sense is not the temperature at the equilibrium state between two systems. Instead, this temperature is the representative quantity characterizing a single system called the effective system. Moreover, it is found that the effective temperature reduces to the black hole temperature for $r_c \rightarrow \infty$ and reduces to one at the cosmic horizon for $r_b \rightarrow 0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{r_c\to\infty}T_\text{eff,(En)}
&=&T_{\text{R}(b)}=\frac{(1+\pi r_b^2\lambda)(1-\Lambda r_b^2)}{4\pi r_b},\label{TEn rc infty}\\
\lim_{r_b\to 0}T_\text{eff,(En)}
&=&T_{\text{R}(c)}=\frac{(1+\pi r_c^2 \lambda)(\Lambda r_c^2-1)}{4\pi r_c}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is a useful property since the effective quantity from two systems can be reduced to one of them in its proper limit. As a result, the behavior of the effective temperature profile is inherited from the black hole temperature such that there exist the local extrema as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Teff-bc(En)}. From this figure, one can see that the profiles of $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}$ and $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ are tracked in similar locus for small $x$, since the contribution from $T_{\text{R}(c)}$ in Eq. (\ref{re-T}) is very small. Moreover, it is found that for fixing the radius of the black holes the effective temperature is always less than the temperature of the black holes determined from the separated horizon approach, $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}<T_{\text{R}(b)}$. As shown in the right panel in Fig. \ref{fig:Teff-bc(En)}, at temperature $\bar{T}_2$, the locally stable system in the effective description is always larger than that in the separated description. This implies that the thermodynamically stable black hole in the effective approach is always larger than the one in the separated horizon approach. Moreover, there exists, for example, the temperature $\bar{T}_1 (\bar{T}_3)$ in the right panel in Fig. \ref{fig:Teff-bc(En)} at which only a black hole in the effective (separated) system approach is stable. As a result, these particular temperatures can be used to distinguish between two approaches of black hole thermodynamics. For example, if we observe a black hole with temperature $\bar{T}_1 (\bar{T}_3)$, it can be argued that the effective (separated) system approach is the more reliable one.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Tall.pdf}\hspace{1.cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.353]{TbTEn.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The effective temperature $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}$ compared to \\the black hole temperature $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ and the temperature at cosmic horizon $T_{\text{R}(c)}$. \\The left panel includes those three temperatures with $\epsilon = 0.03$. \\The right panel includes $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}$ (blue) and $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ (red) with various values of $\epsilon$. }\label{fig:Teff-bc(En)}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{TEn-x.pdf}\hspace{.5cm}
\end{center}
\caption{The effective temperature $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}$ with various values of $\epsilon$ \\including the one for the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:Teff-ep(En)}
\end{figure}
By using the same way as we find the bound on the parameter $\epsilon$ in the separated horizon approach, one can find the upper limit of $\epsilon$ by finding solutions of $\text{d}T_{\text{eff,(En)}} =0$ in such a way that $\Lambda$ is held fixed. As a result, the equation can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
0&=&\left(3 x^4+x^2 (\epsilon -1)+\epsilon \right)+Y,\label{dTReff}\\
Y&=&\frac{(1-x^2)^3 (x^2+\epsilon )^2 \left(3 y^4+y^2 (\epsilon -1)+\epsilon \right)}{\left(y^2-1\right)^3 \left(y^2+\epsilon \right)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
From this equation, one can see that it is the equation for the separated horizon approach in Eq. (\ref{dTRL}) plus a positive small function $Y$. Therefore, the above equation is still a convex function. One can find the local minimum which depends only on $\epsilon$ and then find the value of the function at the minimum in terms of $\epsilon$. Ultimately, one can find the condition of $\epsilon$ by requiring that the value of the function in Eq.~\eqref{dTReff} at the minimum must be less than zero. By following the mentioned step, we found the upper bound of $\epsilon$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon=\epsilon_\text{0(En)}=0.0507.
\end{eqnarray}
This value of the bound is lower than the one in the separated approach, since the contribution from $Y$ is positive. Note that we have to write $y$ in Eq. (\ref{dTReff}) in terms of $x$ through Eq. (\ref{Lamb}) and then solve the equation for $x$. This behavior can be seen explicitly in Fig. \ref{fig:Teff-ep(En)}. From this figure, one can see that there are no local extrema of $T_{\text{eff,(En)}}$ for $\epsilon>\epsilon_\text{0(En)}$.
The effective volume satisfying Eq.~\eqref{dM en} can be computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_\text{eff}
&=&\Big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial P}\Big)_S
=\frac{\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}{\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial P}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{4 \pi \big[r_b^4 \left(r_b+2 r_c\right) \left(1+\pi \lambda r_c^2\right)+r_c^4 \left(r_c+2 r_b\right) \left(1+\pi \lambda r_b^2\right)\big]}{3 \big[ r_b \left(r_b+2 r_c\right) \left(1+\pi \lambda r_c^2\right)+r_c \left(r_c+2 r_b\right) \left(1+\pi \lambda r_b^2\right)\big]}\nonumber\\
&=&T_\text{eff,(En)}\left(\frac{V_b}{T_{\text{R}(b)}}+\frac{V_c}{T_{\text{R}(c)}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
From this equation, one can see that the effective volume can be interpreted as an average quantity weighted by $T_\text{eff,(En)}/T_{\text{R}(b,c)}$. Therefore, it provides a proper limit such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{r_c\to 0}V_\text{eff}&=&V_b=\frac{4\pi r_b^3 }{3},\\
\lim_{r_b\to 0}V_\text{eff}&=&V_c=\frac{4\pi r_c^3 }{3}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is a nice property in the sense of thermodynamics quantities. According to the above results, the effective volume is a representation of the separated ones which are independent to each other. In other words, if one of the separated volumes vanishes, the effective volume will become another volume.
Moreover, the effective volume for $r_b = r_c$ is automatically reduced to the thermodynamical volume of the extremal black hole. The behavior of the effective volume can be seen explicitly from Fig. \ref{fig:Veff-bc}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Vall.pdf}\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.525]{Veff-x.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The effective volume $V_{\text{eff}}$ compared to the black hole volume $V_{b}$ and the volume at cosmic horizon $V_{c}$ ($\bar{V}=\Lambda^{3/2}V$). The left panel includes those three volumes with $\epsilon = 0.03$. The right panel shows $V_{\text{eff}}$ with various values of $\epsilon$ including the one in the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:Veff-bc}
\end{figure}
The heat capacity at constant pressure is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
C_P
&=&\left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial T_\text{eff,(En)}}\right)_P,\nonumber\\
\bar{C}_P= \Lambda C_P &=&-\frac{2 \pi \epsilon \left(1-x^2\right) (x-y)^2 (x y (\epsilon +2)+\epsilon )^2}{\left(y^2-1\right)^2 \left(y^2+\epsilon \right)^2 \big[\big\{3 x^4+x^2 (\epsilon -1)+\epsilon \big\}+Y\big]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the above expression is written in terms of the dimensionless variables. From this equation, one can see that the heat capacity diverges at the extrema of the temperature, since there exists a convex function in the denominator which is the same as one in Eq. (\ref{dTReff}). As a result, according to the slope of the temperature, there are three parts of the heat capacity; the middle one is positive, and the others are negative as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CP}. As a result, the moderate-sized black hole is thermodynamically locally stable within a range of parameter $\epsilon<\epsilon_\text{0(En)}\sim 0.0507$ [or $\lambda>\lambda_\text{0(En)}\sim\Lambda/(0.0507\pi)$].
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{CbCEn.pdf}\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.517]{CEn-x.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The heat capacity at constant pressure in the effective system $C_P$ compared to the black hole heat capacity $C_{(b)}$. The left panel includes both heat capacities for the effective description (blue lines) and at the black hole horizon for the separated approach (red lines) with $\epsilon=0.01$ and $\epsilon=0.03$. The right panel includes $C_P$ for various values of $\epsilon$ including the one in the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:CP}
\end{figure}
Now let us move our attention to consider the global stability. As we have mentioned in the previous section, the global stability can be determined by considering the value of the Gibbs free energy. According to our effective description, the effective Gibbs free energy can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{G}_{\text{En}}&=& \sqrt{\Lambda}G_{\text{En}}
=\sqrt{\Lambda}\left(M- T_\text{eff,(En)} S\right),\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{x}{2} \left(1-\frac{x^2}{3}\right) +\frac{\left(1-x^2\right) \left(y^2-1\right) \left(x^2+\epsilon \right) \left(y^2+\epsilon \right) \left[\ln \left(\frac{x^2+\epsilon }{\epsilon }\right)+\ln \left(\frac{y^2+\epsilon }{\epsilon }\right)\right]}{4 (x-y) \big[x y (\epsilon +2)+\epsilon \big]}.\,\,\,\label{GEneff}
\end{eqnarray}
The first part in this equation $\frac{x}{2} \left(1-\frac{x^2}{3}\right)$ is contributed from $M$ which is always positive, implying that the negative part is contributed from another part. Note that it reduces to $\bar{G}_{(b)}$ for $y \rightarrow 0$ and reduces to $\bar{G}_{(c)}$ for $x \rightarrow 0$ similar to the feature of the effective volume. Therefore, three of them reduce to a single value at $x =1$, which is the extremal case. For the behavior of the effective free energy in the left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:GEn}, the free energy is not smooth at the cusps inferred from the diverged points in $C_P$. Since the moderate-sized black hole is locally stable and then provides negative Gibbs free energy, it is globally stable. Note that there is no other bound for $\epsilon$ like for the separated horizon approach, since the free energy for the moderate-sized black hole is always negative. The right panel in Fig. \ref{fig:GEn} also shows that the local extrema of the free energy, $G_\text{En}$, with respect to the variable $x$ are at the divergent points of the heat capacity $C_P$. Moreover, the larger moderate-sized black hole is preferable to form in nature because of the more negative value in the free energy.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{GEn-T.pdf}\hspace{1.cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{CGEn.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The behavior of the Gibbs free energy $G_{\text{En}}$. The left panel shows $G_{\text{En}}$ with various values of $\epsilon$ including the one in the GB limit represented as the black line. \\The right panel shows the comparison between $G_{\text{En}}$ and $C_P$ with $\epsilon=0.01$ (blue lines) and $\epsilon=0.001$ (red lines).}\label{fig:GEn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Gall.pdf}\hspace{1.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Gall-PT.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: the Gibbs free energy $G_{\text{En}}$ compared to the one at the black hole horizon $G_{(b)}$ and the one at the cosmic horizon $G_{(c)}$ versus their own temperatures with $\epsilon = 0.03$. Right: the free energies $G_{\text{En}}$ and $G_{(b)}$ versus their own temperatures with $\epsilon = 0.015$.
}\label{fig:Gall}
\end{figure}
The behaviors of all the free energies can be illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:Gall}. Also, the effective free energy $G_{\text{En}}$ at a certain temperature is more negative compared to the one for the system at the black hole horizon, $G_{b}$, and the one for the system at the cosmic horizon, $G_{c}$. By comparing the lower bounds in the nonextensive parameter $\lambda$, it is seen that the bound for the separated system is larger than the bound for the effective one, $\lambda_{0G}>\lambda_\text{0(En)}$. The black hole in the effective description can be locally and globally stable in the wider range of $\lambda$.
It is important to note that the hot gas phase has to undergo a zeroth-order phase transition in order to evolve into the moderate-sized stable black hole in the effective system approach. This can be seen from the right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:Gall} as an example. At the transition temperature denoted by $\bar{T}_0$, there is a transition from the hot gas phase to the black hole phase through which the free energy is discontinuous. While the phase transition at $\bar{T}_0$ is of the first order for the separated system approach, it turns out to be the zeroth-order phase transition at such temperature for the effective system approach. This is the crucial difference between the phase transitions for the effective and separated system approaches.
\subsection{$M$ as internal energy}
The effective system, in which the mass parameter plays the role of the internal energy, is studied in this subsection. The first law for this system should be taken in the form of
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{d}M=T_\text{eff,(In)}\text{d}S-P_\text{eff}\,\text{d}V,\label{1st law in}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ is the total entropy defined in Eq.~\eqref{Seff Renyi} and the volume of this system is assumed as a linear combination between volumes of systems at $r_b$ and $r_c$:
\begin{eqnarray}
V=V_c+\alpha V_b=\frac{4}{3}\pi\big(r_c^3+\alpha\,r_b^3\big),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha=\pm1$. Similar to the case of $M$ playing the role of enthalpy, the effective quantities, i.e., the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ and pressure $P_\text{eff}$, can be computed. The effective temperature can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
T_\text{eff,(In)}
&=&\Big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\Big)_V
=\frac{\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}-\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}{\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}},\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\left(\pi\lambda r_b^2+1\right)\left(\pi\lambda r_c^2+1\right)\big[-\alpha r_b^5\left(r_b+2r_b r_c\right)+r_c^5\left(r_c+2r_cr_b\right)\big]}{4\pi r_br_c\left(r_b^2+r_br_c+r_c^2\right)^2 \big[\alpha r_b\left(\pi\lambda r_b^2+1\right)+r_c\left(\pi\lambda r_c^2+1\right)\big]}.\label{Teff in}
\end{eqnarray}
It is seen that this effective temperature is always positively finite for both $\alpha=\pm1$ when $r_b<r_c$, because the terms in square brackets of the numerator and denominator are positive. This result is significantly different from the other effective temperatures in the literature which are not well defined at some value of $r_b/r_c$. In other words, those temperatures can be both positive and negative (their signs are flipped at the divergent points).
To choose the sign of $\alpha$, let us consider the effective temperature at the extremal limit ($r_b=r_c$). The temperature in Eq.~\eqref{Teff in} is infinite for $\alpha=-1$ but vanishes for $\alpha=1$. It is appropriate to choose the constant $\alpha$ as the positive value, since it agrees with $T_\text{R(b,c)}$ or $T_\text{eff,(En)}$ in this limit [see Eqs.~\eqref{TRb}, \eqref{TRc} and \eqref{Teff en}].
A difference between effective temperatures is that the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ cannot be written in terms of $T_{\text{R}(b)}$ and $T_{\text{R}(c)}$, unlike $T_\text{eff,(En)}$ in Eq.~\eqref{re-T}. It is because the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ is defined under the fixed volume $V$, not the fixed pressure $P$ as the one previously investigated in Sec. \ref{MEn}. To analyze $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ clearly, it is suitable to express the quantities in term of (constant) volume $V$. The dimensionless variables can be defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
u=r_b/V^{1/3},\hspace{1cm}
v=r_c/V^{1/3},\hspace{1cm}
\eta=1/(\pi\lambda V^{2/3}).
\end{eqnarray}
The variables $u$ and $v$ are related via the dimensionless version of volume, $1=\frac{4}{3}\pi\big(u^3+v^3\big)$. As known that $0<r_b<r_c$, one can find the maximum value of the variable $u$, denoted as $u_\text{max}$, using the fact that the maximum value of $r_b$ is $r_c$ (extremal limit). As a result, one has $u_\text{max}=(\frac{3}{8\pi})^{1/3}\sim0.492$. The effective temperature in Eq.~\eqref{Teff in} is then expressed in terms of the dimensionless variables as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{T}_\text{eff,(In)}
=V^{1/3}T_\text{eff,(In)}
=-\frac{(u^5+u^4v-u^3v^2+u^2v^3-uv^4-v^5)(\eta+u^2)(\eta+v^2)}{4\pi\eta\,uv\big(u^2+uv+v^2\big)^2(\eta+u^2-uv+v^2)},
\end{eqnarray}
which can be written in terms of $u$ (or $v$) and $\eta$. By similar analysis, there exists the multiextremum behavior. The situation in which there exists only one local extremum occurs at $u\sim0.181$ when $\eta=\eta_\text{0(In)}\sim0.0136$. Its profile is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Teff-u}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{TIn-u.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The (dimensionless) effective temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ versus $u$ for various values of $\eta$ including the one for the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:Teff-u}
\end{figure}
One can say that the proper upper bound of the parameter $\eta$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}\hspace{.5cm}
[\text{or }\lambda>\lambda_\text{0(In)}\sim(0.00136\pi V^{2/3})^{-1}],
\end{eqnarray}
because the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ has positive slope (corresponding to the local stability) when $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$. It is also obvious that there is no local minimum in the GB limit ($\eta\to\infty$).
The effective pressure satisfying Eq.~\eqref{1st law in} is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
P_\text{eff}
&=&\Big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial V}\Big)_S
=-\frac{\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}{\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}+\big(\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_b}\big)_{r_c}\big(\frac{\partial S}{\partial r_c}\big)_{r_b}}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{r_b^4+r_b^3 r_c-r_b^2 r_c^2+r_b r_c^3+r_c^4+\pi\lambda r_b^2r_c^2(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2)}{8\pi r_br_c\big(r_b^2+r_b r_c+r_c^2\big)^2\Big[\pi\lambda(r_b^2-r_b r_c+r_c^2)+1\Big]}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{u^2v^2(u^2+uv+v^2)+\eta(u^4+u^3v-u^2v^2+uv^3+v^4)}{8 \pi u v V^{2/3} \left(u^2+u v+v^2\right)^2 \left(\eta +u^2-u v+v^2\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is obvious that the effective pressure is always negative for the whole range of $r_b\leq r_c$ (or $u\leq v$). In other words, the effective pressure $P_\text{eff}$ still behaves as a tension in this case. Let us consider the properties of this pressure. Similarly to the effective temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$, the effective pressure $P_\text{eff}$ can be written in terms of $u$ and $\eta$ when the volume $V$ is fixed. It is found that, in the extremal limit ($u=v=u_\text{max}$), the effective pressure approaches a specific value, $P_\text{eff}(u,\eta)\big|_{u_\text{max}}=-V^{2/3}/(24\pi u_\text{max}^2)\sim-0.055 V^{2/3}$, and its slope $\text{d}P_\text{eff}(u,\eta)/\text{d}u\big|_{u_\text{max}}$ is exactly zero. Notice that these mentioned values at $u=u_\text{max}$ are independent of $\eta$. On the other hand, the effective pressure goes to negative infinity in the limit $u\to0$, because it is approximated as $-V^{2/3}\eta\Big/\big[6^{1/3}u(4\pi^{2/3}\eta+6^{2/3})\big]$ for very small $u$. Even though the behaviors of $P_\text{eff}(u, \eta)$ at $u=0$ and at $u=u_\text{max}$ do not depend on the parameter $\eta$, the profile of $P_\text{eff}(u, \eta)$ is affected by the existence of $\eta$ in the range of $0<u<u_\text{max}$ as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:Peff-u}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Peff-u.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The effective pressure ($\bar{P}_\text{eff}=V^{2/3}P_\text{eff}$) versus $u$ for various values of $\eta$ including the one for the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:Peff-u}
\end{figure}
To analyze the local stability of the system, the heat capacity with constant volume is defined via
\begin{eqnarray}
C_V&=&\left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial T_\text{eff,(In)}}\right)_V=T_\text{eff,(In)}\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial T_\text{eff,(In)}}\right)_V.
\end{eqnarray}
The expression of $C_V$ is very long and difficult to consider; it is not worth showing here. However, some of its behavior is consequently known from the sign of the slope of the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$. The divergent points of the heat capacity are directly obtained from the points at which slopes of $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ vanish. Hence, there is no divergence in $C_V$ for $\eta>\eta_\text{0(In)}$, while two divergent points appear when $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$. It is easy to check that $M$ is a monotonically increasing function in $u$ for fixed $V$. The sign of $C_V$ is thus the same as that of the slope $\Big(\frac{\partial T_\text{eff,(In)}}{\partial u}\Big)_V$. One can conclude that there is no locally stable range of $u$ for $\eta\geq\eta_\text{0(In)}$, but there exists the locally stable range of $u$ for $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CV-u}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{CIn-u.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The (dimensionless) heat capacity $\bar{C}_V=V^{-2/3}C_V$ (solid lines) and temperature $\bar{T}_\text{eff,(In)}$ (dashed lines) versus $u$ for various values of $\eta$ including the one for the GB limit represented as the black line.}\label{fig:CV-u}
\end{figure}
It is obvious that the moderate-sized black hole is locally stable, similar to the case of $M$ being the enthalpy. By increasing or decreasing $u$ with fixed $V$, there exist transitions between the locally stable and unstable phases for the system with $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$. It is also obvious that the system with GB statistics ($\eta\to\infty$) is always locally unstable.
In order to study the global stability of the effective system for the case $M$ being the internal energy, it is more suitable to consider the Helmholtz free energy $F_\text{In}=M-T_\text{eff,(In)}S$ instead of the Gibbs free energy. Since the differentiation of the Helmholtz free energy is $\text{d}F\sim-S\text{d}T_\text{eff,(In)}-P_\text{eff}\text{d}V$, the derivatives of $F_\text{In}$ with respect to $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ for fixed $V$ are proportional to the aforementioned thermodynamical quantities, e.g., $\Big(\frac{\partial F_\text{In}}{\partial T_\text{eff,(In)}}\Big)_V\sim-S$ and $\Big(\frac{\partial^2 F_\text{In}}{\partial T_\text{eff,(In)}^2}\Big)_V \sim C_V$. Hence, the analysis of this free energy is done in the similar way as done previously. The Helmholtz free energy is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{F}_\text{In}
&=&V^{-1/3}F_\text{In},\nonumber\\
&=&\bigg[2 u^2 v^2 \left(u^3+2 u^2 v+2 u v^2+v^3\right) \left(\eta +u^2-u v+v^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{.4cm}+\left(\eta +u^2\right) \left(u^5+u^4 v-u^3 v^2+u^2 v^3-u v^4-v^5\right) \left(\eta +v^2\right) \ln \left(\frac{\eta +u^2}{\eta }\right)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{.4cm}+\left(\eta +u^2\right) \left(u^5+u^4 v-u^3 v^2+u^2 v^3-u v^4-v^5\right) \left(\eta +v^2\right) \ln \left(\frac{\eta +v^2}{\eta }\right)\bigg]\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[4 u v \left(u^2+u v+v^2\right)^2 \left(\eta +u^2-u v+v^2\right)\right]^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Its profiles versus the temperatures $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ are illustrated in the left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:GIn-T}. It is seen that the swallow tail behavior emerges when $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$. This implies that there exists a phase transition for increasing or reducing $u$ with fixed $V$. It actually corresponds to the transition between the locally stable (moderate-sized) phase and unstable (small- and large-sized) phases. In Fig.~\ref{fig:GIn-T}, the cusp points in the left panel or the extrema in the right panel for the free energy correspond to the divergent points of the heat capacity $C_V$. Moreover, it is not possible to find a further bound of $\eta$ similarly to the case of $M$ being enthalpy, since the free energy $F_\text{In}$ is always negative for the whole range of the moderate-sized black hole. The existence of the nonextensive parameter also identifies that the larger moderate-sized black hole is preferable to form as a locally and global stable system when $\eta<\eta_\text{0(In)}$ (see the right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:GIn-T}). Similarly, the hot gas phase has to undergo a zeroth-order phase transition in order to evolve into the moderate-sized stable black hole phase in this effective system approach.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FIn-T.pdf}\hspace{1.5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.465]{CFIn.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The behavior of the Helmholtz free energy $F_{\text{In}}$. The left panel shows $F_{\text{In}}$ with various values of $\eta$ including the one in the GB limit represented as the black line. The right panel shows the comparison between $F_{\text{In}}$ and $C_V$ with $\eta=0.001$ (blue lines) and $\eta=0.004$ (red lines).}\label{fig:GIn-T}
\end{figure}
As we have discussed through this section, two aspects of the effective systems are constructed. It can be summarized that each approach has a different lower bound in the nonextensive parameter as follows:
(i) $\lambda_\text{(En)}\sim\Lambda/(0.0507\pi)$ for $M$ being the enthalpy and
(ii) $\lambda_\text{(In)}\sim(0.0136\pi V^{2/3})^{-1}$ for $M$ being the internal energy.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to argue which approach is better. One just chooses an effective approach which is more appropriate for a given system. One can apply the effective system when $M$ being the enthalpy (internal energy) for the multihorizon black hole with known $\Lambda$ ($V=V_b+V_c$).
Let us emphasize that the effective approach is not the same as studied in the literature. It is modified by introducing the minus sign in front of the change $(\partial S/\partial r_c)_{r_b}$ in the formula for the effective quantities as seen in Appendix~\ref{app: eff quan deriv}. Although we propose the new effective method in order to eliminate the divergence in $T_\text{eff,(En)}$, it fortunately works well in the case $M$ being internal energy. In other words, the temperature $T_\text{eff,(In)}$ has a range with positive slope but has no divergent point. Moreover, for $M$ playing roles of both enthalpy and internal energy, there exists the zeroth-order phase transition from a hot gas phase (with zero free energy) to a moderate-sized stable black hole phase (with negative free energy).
\section{Conclusions}\label{sect: conclusion}
In this work, we have investigated the thermodynamical properties of the Sch-dS black hole using the nonextensive R\'{e}nyi entropy. One of the key signatures of the Sch-dS black hole is the existence of two event horizons called the black hole and cosmic horizons. As a result, there exist two thermodynamical systems with different temperatures. We investigate the thermodynamical properties of the black hole by using both separated system and effective system approaches. For the separated system approach, either thermodynamical system is assumed to be in quasithermal equilibrium. The horizons are very far away from one another, and their temperatures are not much different. For the effective system approach, the Sch-dS black hole as a multihorizon system can be viewed as an effective system with a single temperature. For both approaches, it has been found to be thermodynamically unstable. In this work, we examine the thermodynamics of the Sch-dS black hole with the presence of nonextensive effect. To achieve this, we consider the system using R\'{e}nyi statistics. We have found that the nonextensivity can provide the thermodynamically stable black hole.
In the separated system approach, we follow the first law of thermodynamics in which the mass parameter of the black hole and the cosmological constant are thought of as the enthalpy and thermodynamical pressure, respectively. The thermodynamical stability can be investigated by considering the heat capacity and the free energy. The system is locally stable if the heat capacity is positive and is globally stable if the free energy is negative. From the first law, the sign of the heat capacity changes at the extrema of the temperature so that it is possible to analyze the local stability by considering the slope of the temperature. Using these criteria, one can find the lower bound on the nonextensive parameter from the conditions for the existence of the extrema of the temperature. It is found that there exist local extrema in the temperature for the system at the black hole horizon when the nonextensive parameter is greater than a specific value, $\lambda>\lambda_{0C}=(7+4\sqrt{3})\Lambda/\pi$. In this range of the nonextensive parameter, the slope of the temperature splits into three regions. The middle region (moderate-sized black hole) has positive slope corresponding to the locally stable black hole, and the leftover ones (small and large black holes) have negative slopes corresponding to the locally unstable black hole. Hence, $\lambda_{0C}$ is the lower bound in nonextensive parameter for obtaining the locally stable black hole. Note that the second-order locally stable-unstable phase transition also occurs when $\lambda>\lambda_{0C}$.
For global stability, a stronger bound $\lambda_{0G}\sim\Lambda/(0.0328\pi)>\lambda_{0C}$ is obtained by requiring that the Gibbs free energy must be negative for the whole range of moderate-sized black hole. It is also found that the larger moderate-sized black hole prefers to form in nature, since the free energy is more negative. In the range $\lambda>\lambda_{0G}$, there always exists the first-order Hawking-Page phase transition which is the transition between the thermal radiation or hot gas phase and the locally stable black hole phase. Moreover, to obtain the stability of the whole system, we also investigate the stability of the system corresponding to the cosmic horizon. As a result, we found that, in the viable range of the black hole system $\lambda>\lambda_{0G}$, the system at the cosmic horizon is both locally and globally stable. Therefore, we can argue that the Sch-dS black hole is thermodynamically stable by considering the R\'enyi entropy instead of using the Gibbs-Boltzmann entropy with the condition on the nonextensive parameter as $\lambda>\lambda_{0G}$.
It is interesting to express the lower bounds of $\lambda$ for local and global stabilities in terms of relevant physical length scales. As suggested in Refs.~\cite{Promsiri:2020jga,Promsiri2021}, we can define the so-called nonextensivity length $L_\lambda \equiv 1/\sqrt{\pi \lambda}$, which may be a characteristic length existing in the Sch-dS spacetime. By comparing with the de Sitter length $L_\Lambda \equiv 1/\sqrt{\Lambda}$, the local stability condition as mentioned above, $\lambda > \lambda_{0C}$, turns out to be in the form of
\begin{equation}
\frac{L_\lambda}{L_\Lambda} < \Theta_C\qquad \text{(locally stable)}, \label{l_Stable}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta_C=1/\sqrt{7+4\sqrt{3}}\approx 0.268$. In the same way, we can write the global stability condition $\lambda > \lambda_{0G}$ as
\begin{equation}
\frac{L_\lambda}{L_\Lambda} < \Theta_G \qquad \text{(globally stable)},\label{g_Stable}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta_G=\sqrt{0.0328}\approx 0.181$. Note that $\Theta_G < \Theta_C$ means that the global stability condition is stronger than the local stability one, which is consistent with our aforementioned argument. In the limit $L_\lambda \to \infty$, corresponding to $\lambda \to 0$ (the GB limit), the conditions \eqref{l_Stable} and \eqref{g_Stable} cannot be satisfied. Namely, this is consistent with that we have no stable Sch-dS spacetime via the GB statistics. On the contrary, the nonextensive effect becomes important when $L_\Lambda$ is significantly greater than $L_\lambda$, i.e., $L_\lambda$ is very small. Remarkably, we may think of $1/L_\lambda$ as a fine-graining parameter as suggested in Ref.~\cite{Promsiri2021}.
For the effective approach, it is possible to treat the mass parameter $M$ as both enthalpy and internal energy of the system. In this work, we investigate both issues. The entropy in the effective description is considered as a sum of entropies for the systems at black hole and cosmic horizons which is compatible with the additive composition rule of the R\'enyi entropy. As a result, the effective quantities are derived from the first law for the effective system. Among various kinds of the definition of the effective quantities found in the literature, we propose other suitable forms of the effective quantities in this work. The key idea of this form is to redefine the direction of the heat flow at the cosmic horizon to be opposite to the one at the black hole horizon. The derivation of effective quantities in a general form is provided in Appendix \ref{app: eff quan deriv}. It is worthwhile to note that the definition of the effective quantities defined in this way allows us to avoid the singularity in effective temperature, while the effective temperature defined in the usual way is inevitable to diverge when $T_b=T_c$.
For the effective system in which the mass parameter plays the role of enthalpy, the effective temperature $T_\text{eff,(En)}$ has a region of positive slope or positive heat capacity corresponding to the local stable phase of the system if the nonextensive parameter is large enough similar to the system at the black hole horizon. The lower bound for $\lambda$ in the effective approach is $\lambda_\text{0(En)}\sim\Lambda/(0.0507\pi)$, which is weaker than one for the separated approach, $\lambda_\text{0(En)}<\lambda_{0G}$. Note that the lower bound $\lambda_{0\text{(En)}}$ corresponds to the upper bound of $L_\lambda/L_\Lambda$ with the value $\Theta_\text{En}=\sqrt{0.0507}=0.225$, which is more than $\Theta_G$. This implies that the thermodynamical stability of the black hole in the effective approach requires nonextensive nature of the system less than the one in the separated approach. We also found that there exist particular temperatures in which the black hole in both approaches will be locally stable. In this case, the black hole in the effective approach is always larger than the one in the separated approach. Moreover, there exist particular temperatures for which only black hole in the effective or separated approach is stable. As a result, these particular temperatures can be used to distinguish between the two approaches. For example, if we observe a black hole with such a temperature, it will be argued that the effective or separated approach is the reliable approach.
By considering the Gibbs free energy, we found that there is no further bound on the nonextensive parameter from the Gibbs free energy. This is the one of significant differences between two approaches. In the global stability aspect, the larger moderate-sized black hole is preferred to form, since its free energy is more negative. We found that there is a first-order phase transition between the hot gas and the large unstable black hole. If one wants to realize a transition between the hot gas and the moderate-sized stable black hole, the system must undergo a zeroth-order phase transition between the two prior mentioned phases. This situation is not similar to what happens for the separated system, in which there exists the first-order Hawking-Page phase transition from the the gas to the moderate-sized stable black hole. Moreover, for the hot gas of a specific temperature to evolve into the stable black hole, there is the first-order Hawking-Page phase transition for the separated system, while it must undergo the zeroth-order phase transition for the effective system.
Another possible effective system can be constructed by interpreting $M$ as the internal energy. In this case, the entropy and volume have to be specified. We choose both quantities as the sum of the systems corresponding to black hole and cosmic horizons, $S=S_{\text{R}(b)}+S_{\text{R}(c)}$ and $V=V_b+V_c$. As a result, there exists the lower bound on the nonextensive parameter from the requirement on the existence of the locally stable region, $\lambda_\text{0(In)}\sim1/(0.00136\pi V^{2/3})$. Note that it is not worthy to compare the bounds $\lambda_\text{0(In)}$ and $\lambda_\text{0(En)}$, since these effective systems are defined with different assumptions. The effective system for $M$ being the enthalpy (internal energy) is suitable for describing the multihorizon black hole with a known cosmological constant (total volume). Although there is no bound from the non-negative Helmholtz free energy, the larger moderate-sized black hole is preferred to form similar to the result in the case of $M$ being enthalpy. Moreover, there exists the zeroth-order phase transition in a similar way as the one in the effective system when $M$ is the enthalpy.
Since the definition of effective quantities presented in this work provides us a way to avoid the singularity in effective temperature for $M$ being both enthalpy and internal energy, it is worthwhile to apply this definition to investigate thermodynamical properties of other black holes with multiple horizons. We leave this investigation for further work. The critical phenomena in black hole thermodynamics is one of the interesting topics which have been intensively investigated recently. Since our work includes the first law of thermodynamics with a specific pressure, it is possible to have a nontrivial equation of state $P=P(T)$. Therefore, such a thermodynamical system may be possible to provide the critical phenomena. This topic is also interesting to investigate in further work.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Tanapat Deesuwan for helpful discussion. This research project is supported by National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) : NRCT5-RGJ63009-110. P.W. was supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through Grant No. MRG6180003 and supported by SERB-DST, India for the ASEAN Project No. IMRC/AISTDF/CRD/2018/000042.
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{his} demo file is intended to serve as a ``starter file''
for IEEE journal papers produced under \LaTeX\ using
IEEEtran.cls version 1.8b and later.
I wish you the best of success.
\hfill mds
\hfill August 26, 2015
\subsection{Subsection Heading Here}
Subsection text here.
\subsubsection{Subsubsection Heading Here}
Subsubsection text here.
\section{Conclusion}
The conclusion goes here.
\appendices
\section{Proof of the First Zonklar Equation}
Appendix one text goes here.
\section{}
Appendix two text goes here.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank...
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{R}{eal-time} control in power systems is of vital importance for resilience and security of the bulk power system with the increasing integration of renewable energy sources and dynamic loads. Although most of the power utilities are equipped with fast, robust and reliable protective relaying scheme, severe disturbances in power systems such as system faults, loss of generation, or circuit contingencies can cause \emph {large-disturbance voltage instability} resulting in a significant decline in bus voltages even after several seconds of fault clearance \cite{1318675}.
This necessitates incorporation of Special Protection Systems (SPS) or Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)
to exercise adaptive control actions under an event of potential instability. Standard practices generally include empirical rule-based approach using predetermined control setting \cite{1270926} to maintain voltage trajectories within specified limits, but these approaches fail to adapt changing operating conditions and are not suitable in modern power systems with uncertain load and generation profiles. To this end, MPC (Model-Predictive Control) is a promising alternative for traditional SPS-based control in power system. The existing rich {\em theoretical} study on MPC in power system application \cite{larsson2003coordinated,wen2004optimal, zima2005model,hiskens_mpc,cutsem_review,jin2009model} points to the possibility for this kind of control scheme, but its real-time implementation remains to be demonstrated.
The computational complexity of online optimization is the major hindrance of MPC for real-time application in power system control, which requires each control action computation time to be significantly less than the control interval. Recent advances in data-driven methods have proposed deep reinforcement learning (DRL) based control schemes, that attempt to address the issues of computational burden. DRL-based schemes, generally, optimize an abstract reward signal to train the control agent offline without accessing accurate model information \cite{li,huang}. There are certain issues associated with these DRL schemes: (i) it is often hard to train an agent in model-free manner for power system dynamics considering its complexity, (ii) also the design of reward function is non-trivial, and its design is instrumental for successful training of a DRL-agent. Moreover, the system operators have always been concerned about safety and reliability of the control schemes, and only those control techniques that are fully understood, matured, and are guaranteed to work are utilized \cite{cutsem_review}. In contrast to DRL, MPC fully depends on the model information and iteratively computes a sequence of control variable adjustments at each control instant optimizing a predicted future behavior cost of the underlying system. It implements the first action of the computed sequence at the current control instant, and repeats the process with new measurement at each next control instant \cite{garcia1989model,jin2009model}.
To be able to utilize the advantages of well-accepted MPC in power systems, it is imperative to significantly reduce the online computational time (to a small fraction of the time between any to control decision instants).
To understand the time requirement for each MPC iteration, one can note that it includes: measurement of current state, prediction of future trajectory, and solving of optimization to compute the required control adjustment. Due to the presence of non-linearity and complexity of power systems, the most time consuming step is the prediction of change in future trajectory as a function of change in controls. One of the well established approach is trajectory sensitivity \cite{hiskens2000trajectory} which involves linearizing the system around a nominal trajectory rather than, as is more customary, around an equilibrium point, making the former more accurate. The traditional computation of trajectory sensitivity needs the full-blown time domain simulation of system dynamics, which in itself is time consuming for power systems, increasing exponentially with the size of the power network, and making the realization of MPC impractical in real-world setting. This paper addresses the issues of real-time implementation of MPC with the following specific contributions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An approach to real-time MPC that reduces the online computation time to a small fraction of the control interval. Firstly, an optimal control sequence is generated solving a standard MPC formulation utilizing the nominal model of the underlying power system, and stored. It is understood that this generated sequence is optimal only for the nominal model, and so in our approach it is corrected successively online against the real-time system, based on its measurements (as in neighboring optimal control or perturbation control \cite{lewis2012optimal}).
Furthermore, the real-time update is achieved by solving a proposed predictive optimization, where the predicted trajectory and corresponding sensitivities are determined using trained DNNs. The incorporation of DNN and online control correction greatly speeds up the overall online computation, showing a gain by a factor of 20 in online computation time, and bringing the computation to a fraction of the control decision time, making the MPC-based scheme practical for real-world application.
\item We develop and present an MPC-based voltage control scheme with realistic coordination among SVC, LS and LTC, where the slow acting LTCs are formulated to have delayed control effect (delayed by two control periods) to make those better replicate their real-world behavior. Also, an LTC decision action is not issued unless it is determined that the corresponding condition remains to be satisfied for the two future control decision instants.
\item A comprehensive and accurate framework for the computation of trajectory sensitivities with respect to control inputs of SVC, LTC, and LS is developed and implemented in PSAT/MATLAB platform.
\item We demonstrate the performance of our approach with IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus power system models. The performance and robustness of the framework is validated under load variations of $\pm 20 \%$ to the nominal model. An improvement in computation speed by a factor of 20 is demonstrated for both of the systems, bringing down the MPC computation time to one-tenth of the control interval, and making the MPC-based control real-time as well as practical for real-world power system application for a first time.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Related Works} \label{1A}
The idea of predictive control has been studied for decades in power systems. In \cite{larsson2003coordinated}, a coordinated voltage stabilization scheme using load shedding, capacitor switching and tap changers based on predictive control and tree search is presented. \cite{wen2004optimal} presents optimal voltage control using MPC, where voltage trajectories for selected control actions are predicted using a single-stage Euler state predictor (SESP). This work utilizes pseudo gradient evolutionary programming (PGEP) technique for solving optimization. In both cases, the optimization is combinatorial, hence is not scalable in large control-space for real-time application.
In \cite{zima2005model}, a receding horizon technique is employed with the control actions load shedding and regulator voltage reference. An MPC based voltage control strategy is proposed in \cite{hiskens_mpc}, where the objective is to find optimized non-disruptive load control to prevent voltage collapse. \cite{cutsem_review} provides a reflection on early MPC-based approaches in power system, and also proposed quasi steady state (QSS) model and sensitivity based MPC-scheme combining a static and dynamic optimization.
Among the prior works from our group, \cite{jin2009model} implemented a trajectory sensitivity based MPC-scheme utilizing only shunt capacitors. In this work, trajectory deviation and the cost of controls are simultaneously minimized. \cite{jin2009coordinated} provided an extension of the previous work with an MPC-based coordinated voltage control considering shunt capacitors, load-shedding and LTC operating, all at same time-scales. \cite{p1} proposed an offline planning approach of finding the amount and location of optimal reactive compensations considering a set of contingencies. An improvement in computation time of trajectory sensitivity is found in \cite{guanji,guanji2,Guanji3}; these works adopted a so called ``very dishonest newton (VDHN)" method to update Jacobians required for sensitivity computation. The use of VDHN introduced approximation and also their implementation remains unscalable beyond a short prediction horizon, and hence not suitable for generic real-world application with longer prediction horizon. Among recent works, \cite{zhang2018power}, proposed an adaptive horizon based MPC scheme in voltage control utilizing the idea of trajectory sensitivity. The main focus of this work is to find the optimal setting of horizon parameter using an predefined evaluation index and measurements. \cite{haomin1,haomin2}, proposed adaptive coordinated control using an offline-online approach. The online learning adopted a genetic algorithm (GA)-based exploration, which is time intensive for emergency control in real-world implementation. The application of MPC-based schemes are also becoming popular in active distribution network in presence of distributed generation and storage systems \cite{valverde2013model,aristidou2015contribution,guo2018mpc}. These works have also incorporated the sensitivity based implementation to formulate the optimization problem. Besides, there are also growing interest in distributed-MPC based approaches in power systems \cite{venkat2008distributed,moradzadeh2012voltage,rrh,9240947}.
The extensive research for decades demonstrates that MPC-based methods can provide potentially good solutions from theoretical perspective. They become practically meaningful only if their computational bottleneck is addressed efficiently. Expicit-MPC (eMPC), a computationally viable alternative to traditional MPC, pre-computes the solution offline using multi-parametric programming (mpP) \cite{kvasnica2009real}.
But, eMPC suffers from the problem of 'curse of dimensionality' and can only be practical for small scale simple dynamical systems \cite{alessio2009survey}. Our proposed data-driven and online successive correction of offline computed nominal control policy offers a practical solution for real-time MPC-based centralized control for wide area power network for a first time.
\section{{Generic MPC Formulation for Power System}}\label{genericmpc}
The dynamics of power system is modeled using Differential Algebraic Equations (DAEs) of the form:
\begin{equation}\label{sysdae}
\dot{x}=f(x,y,u);\;\; 0=g(x,y,u),\;\;(x(t_0),y(t_0),u(t_0)) \mbox{ as given},
\end{equation}
\noindent where we have, $x:=$ state variables, $y:=$ algebraic variables, and $u:=$ control inputs. In general the effect of any small disturbances in power system can be studied by linearizing (\ref{sysdae}) with respect to the current equilibrium point. But, following any large disturbances (line fault, generator outage etc.), which can cause a shift in the existing equilibrium, it is necessary to consider the complete DAE model for studying post disturbance system behavior (and not just its linearization around the pre-fault equilibrium). Accordingly, designing optimal control to improve system performance following large disturbances, requires the inclusion of (\ref{sysdae}) as a constraint in the optimization process. Thus one can define a general non-linear optimal control problem for power systems as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc1}
\min_{{u({\cdot})}}\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+T}} {l({x}(\tau), {y}(\tau), {u}(\tau))d\tau}
\end{equation}
subject to:
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc2}
\dot{{x}}=f({x},{y},{u}),\;\;\;
0=g({x},{y},{u}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc3}
x(t_k) = x_k\;,\;y(t_k) = y_k,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc4}
x \in X,\;\; y \in Y,\;\; u \in U.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The solution of the optimal control problem defined in (\ref{genmpc1})-(\ref{genmpc4}) can be obtained using Dynamic Programming (DP) which deals with the exact information about the future of the optimal trajectories. This in general makes DP a very hard problem to solve. In power systems, where dimensions of $f$ and $g$ are large, the problem becomes impractical.
To this end, MPC offers a practical way of solving (\ref{genmpc1})-(\ref{genmpc4}) by approximating the system model (\ref{genmpc2}). However, owing to complex dynamics of power systems, it is difficult to approximate (\ref{genmpc2}) by its step-response or impulse response model, as is extensively used in Dynamic Matrix Control (DMC) and Model Algorithmic Control (MAC), two basic formulation of MPC \cite{garcia1989model}. This leads to trajectory sensitivity based approximations that are commonly used in power systems, providing a reasonable approximation of complex system model given by (\ref{sysdae}). The idea behind trajectory sensitivity is time-dependent linear approximation to quantify the impact of the control variations on the nominal trajectories of system variables $x(t)$ and $y(t)$. Accordingly, the sensitivities of the trajectories to the control changes are expressed as:
\[S^x(t):=x_u(t)=\frac{\partial x(t)}{\partial u(t)} \mbox{ and } S^y(t):=y_u(t)=\frac{\partial y(t)}{\partial u(t)},\]
and the dynamics of $x_u(t)$ and $y_u(t)$ is obtained by differentiating (\ref{sysdae}) with respect to control input $u(t)$, providing:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}\label{systs1}
\dot{x_u}(t)=f_x(t){x_u(t)}+f_y(t){y_u(t)}+f_u(t),
\\
0=g_x(t){x_u(t)}+g_y(t){y_u(t)}+g_u(t).\label{systs2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The knowledge of the trajectory sensitivities $[x_u(t),y_u(t)]$ is then used to estimate the predicated trajectories $[\hat x(t),\hat y(t)]$ when a small control correction $u(t)$ is introduced to the nominal system, that has the nominal trajectory $[\bar x(t),\bar y(t)]$:
\begin{equation}\label{tspred}
\hat x(t)\approx\bar x(t)+S^x(t) u(t),\quad \hat y(t)\approx\bar y(t)+S^y(t) u(t).
\end{equation}
\noindent It is important to note that in the process of time domain simulation of (\ref{sysdae}), that provides $[\bar x(t),\bar y(t)]$, trajectory sensitivities $[x_u(t),y_u(t)]$ can also be obtained by solving (\ref{systs1})-(\ref{systs2}). Later, in Section \ref{sectscomp}, this computation procedure will be discussed in detail.
To further formulate the problem in a practical setting, where computations occur at discrete points in time, separated by sampling duration, denoted $T_{s}$, one replaces the integration/differentiation by numerical version. Also, the manipulated input $u(t)$ is held constant over control interval, denoted here as $T_c$, with $T_c =M T_{s}$ where $M\geq 1$ is the number of sample instances between any two control instants (for example if sample period is 0.1~s and control decision is taken every 3~s, then $M=30$). We provide below a discretized MPC formulation where at any discrete control instant $k\geq 0$, MPC can evaluate $N_k\geq 0$ control decisions ($N_k$ decrease by 1 each time $k$ increases by 1, i.e., the case of receding control horizon), while optimizing the system behavior for a prediction horizon of $N$, where $N>N_k,\forall k$. At a control instant $k\geq 0$, the controller computation solves the following optimization with respect to the sequence of length $N_k$ of control variables, $u_{k,\rm seq}:=u_{k}, u_{k+1}, \cdots u_{k+N_k-1}$.
Since sampling occurs at a faster time scale than the control decision occurs ($M=\frac{T_c}{T_s}$ times faster), for any variable $r$ and control time index $j\geq 0$, we introduce a ``range" notation $r_{j:j+1}$ to represent the set of sample values the variable $r$ takes between the control decision instants $j$ and $j+1$, namely,
\[r_{j:j+1}:=\left[
\begin{array}{l} r_j\equiv r(jT_c)\\ r(jT_c+T_s)\\ \vdots \\ r(jT_c+(M-1)T_s)=r((j+1)T_c-T_s)
\end{array}\right] .\]
Using this notation, we have the following discrete-time version of the optimization at each control instant $k\geq 0$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc11}
\min_{{u_{k}, \cdots, u_{k+N_k-1}}}
\;\;\;\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} {l(\hat x_{k+i:k+i+1}, \hat y_{k+i:k+i+1})}
\end{equation}
subject to:
\begin{align}\label{genmpc12}
\hat x_{k+i:k+i+1}=\bar x_{k+i:k+i+1} + S^x_{{k+i:k+i+1}}\!\!\sum_{j=0}^{\min(i,N_{k-1})}\!\!{ u_{k+j}},\\
\quad \hat y_{k+i:k+i+1}=\bar y_{k+i:k+i+1} + S^y_{{k+i-1:k+i}}\!\!\sum_{j=0}^{\min(i,N_{k-1})}\!\!{ u_{k+j}},
\end{align}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc14}
\hat x_{k+i:k+i+1} \in X,\;\; \hat y_{k+i:k+i+1} \in Y,\;\;\;\forall i\in[0,N-1],
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpc13}
u_{k+j} \in {U},\;\;\;\forall j\in[0,N_k-1],
\end{equation}
\comment{\begin{equation}\label{genmpc14}
\hat x(k+i|k) \in X,\;\; \hat y(k+i|k) \in Y,\;\;\;\forall i\in[1,N]
\end{equation}}
\end{subequations}
\comment{As the control inputs are held constant in between two consecutive control instant, for notational simplicity, we can use following.
\begin{align*}
\hat x(k+i|k):=\hat x(k+i-1:k+i|k)\\
\hat y(k+i|k):=\hat y(k+i-1:k+i|k)
\end{align*}}
where recall that the variables $\bar x,\bar y$ represent the nominal state and algebraic variables under the nominal control, whereas the variables $\hat x,\hat y$ represent the state and algebraic variables under the indicated controls added sequentially, so at instant $k+i,i\in[0,N_k-1]$, the cumulative added control is $\sum_{j=0}^{\min(i,N_{k-1})} u_{k+j}$.
Also as it is customary with MPC, at each control instant $k\geq 0$, the very first move $u_k$ of the computed control sequence is implemented, and the controller continues to repeat the same above type of optimization with the updated measurements of system variables at each next control instant. This iterative procedure constitutes an implicit feedback (where the most recent measurements are used to adapt the control decisions) and is of utmost importance in reducing the effect of modeling and measurement imperfections.
\section{Theoretical Framework for MPC-Based Coordinated Voltage Control}\label{COORMPC}
In this section, we provide the theoretical formulation of MPC-based coordinated voltage stabilization problem of transmission network following a large disturbance, e.g., a line fault. It is often observed that even after clearance of fault, voltage trajectories may diverge from stable values due to the effect of load transients and other inherent dynamics of the power system. Hence, to stabilize the voltage trajectories, coordinated management of various controllable devices (Static VAR Compensators (SVC), Under Voltage Load Shedding (UVLS), Load tap changers (LTC)) are required. However, as noted in introduction, the problem of an appropriate coordination among the controllers of {\em different time-scales} in the MPC setting hasn't been provided: For example, LTC, which are commonly used with the transformers at the boundary of transmission and distribution network, are slow-time scale devices compared to the fast-acting SVC or UVLS relays. The effect of the disturbance in a transmission network can propagate to the distribution side, that may prompt a tap setting change in LTC, commanded by its local automatic voltage control (AVC) system. The mechanical time delay $T_{\text{mech}}$ (typically $\sim 5$ s) is required for the LTC to move the taps by one position. Since $\lceil T_{\text{mech}}/T_c\rceil= 2$, the effect of the LTC comes after a delay of 2 control instants (as also illustrated in Figure~\ref{f1}) and this delay must be accounted. We present a practical MPC framework for coordinated voltage control involving shunt compensation and load-shedding while also considering the impact of the delayed actions of LTC.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Pert-control-paper-Page-1}
\caption{Illustrating principle of control coordination.}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}
Without loss of generality, let us consider the distribution systems are modeled as a lump loads connected with the transmission side through transformers equipped with LTCs. In the proposed setting, the controls of SVC and LS on the transmission side are achieved by the voltage trajectory sensitivity based MPC, whereas the LTC control is achieved through local AVCs depending on the secondary side or low-voltage (LV) side bus voltages of respective transformers. We employ the decision logic of LTC control \cite{van1998voltage}, with an improvement to account for the $T_{\text{mech}}$ delay in LTC action: LTC performs a tap-change by a unit step at a control decision instant $k\geq 0$ if the predicted voltage of the low-voltage side controlled bus, $\hat{V}^{\text{lv}}$, ends up violating a predefined dead-band threshold, $V^{\text{db}}$, wrt a reference voltage $V^{\text{r}}$ over the period starting form the current control instant $kT_c$ and extending $T_{\text{mech}}$ units later. Given that in practical settiings, $\lceil T_{\text{mech}}/T_c\rceil= 2$, AVC needs to check the dead-band constraint for the predicted voltage over the control instants from $k$ to $k+2$ (i.e., for the variable $\hat{V}^{\text{lv}}_{k:k+2}$ in our ``range" notation) to adjust the tap setting:
\begin{equation}\label{eqnltc}
\Delta{\mathbf{N}_k} =
\begin{cases}
+1, & \text{if}\;\;\hat{V}^{\text{lv}}_{k:k+2}\leq V^{\text{r}}-\frac{V^{\text{db}}}{2}\\
-1, & \text{if}\;\;\hat{V}^{\text{lv}}_{k:k+2}\geq V^{\text{r}}+\frac{V^{\text{db}}}{2}\\
\;\;\;0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent The following observations are made about the LTC control:
\begin{itemize}
\item As discussed above and illustrated in Figure \ref{f1}, if a LTC change decision is taken at control instant $k$ according to (\ref{eqnltc}), it gets implemented two control instants later, at instant $k+2$.
\item Accordingly, the impact of the LTC decision at instant $k$ is captured in MPC optimization at instant $k+2$ onwards.
\item The above also implies that if a LTC change decision is taken at instant $k$, then the earliest next instant an LTC change decision can be taken is at instant $k+2$ (i.e., no LTC decision at instant $k+1$). We incorporate this feature in our formulation (see (\ref{genmpcV2})).
\end{itemize}
Next, we formalize the MPC optimization problem at a control instant $k\geq 0$ for a power system voltage control comprising $\mathbf{N}_b$ no. of buses. The formulation is derived from the general one given in (\ref{genmpc11})-(\ref{genmpc14}) considering only the trajectory of vector of voltage variable, $V := [V^1,\cdots,V^{\mathbf{N}_b}]^T$, where in (\ref{sysdae}) $V \in y$ is among the algebraic variables. For notational simplicity, we define the control-sequences, $u^ {\text{SVC}}_{{k,\text{seq}}}:=u^{\text{SVC}}_{k},\cdots,u^{ \text{SVC}}_{k+N_k-1}$ and $u^ {\text{LS}}_{{k,\text{seq}}}:=u^{\text{LS}}_{k},\cdots,u^{\text{LS}}_{k+N_k-1}$.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{multline}\label{genmpcV1}
\min_{{u^{\text{SVC}}_{{k,\text{seq}}}\;\;,\;\;u^ {\text{LS}}_{{k,\text{seq}}}}}\;\;\;\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} (\hat V_{k+i:k+i+1} - V_{\text{ref}})^T \mathbf{R} (\hat V_{k+i:k+i+1} - V_{\text{ref}}) \\ \;+\; W^T_{\text{SVC}} {u}^{\text{SVC}}_{k,\text{seq}} \;+\; W^T_{\text{LS}} {u}^{\text{LS}}_{k,\text{seq}}
\end{multline}
subject to,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\forall i\!\in\![0,N-1]\!:\hat V_{k+i:k+i+1}\!=\!\bar V_{k+i:k+i+1}\!+\! S^{\text{SVC}}_{{k+i:k+i+1}}\times\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{j=0}^{\min(i,N_k-1)}\!\!\!\!\!\!{u^ {\text{SVC}}_{k+j}} \\ +\;\; S^{\text{LS}}_{{k+i:k+i+1}}\times\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{j=1}^{\min(i,N_k-1)}\!\!\!\!\!\!{u^{ \text{LS}}_{k+j}}\;\; +\;\; \mathbf{I} \times S^{\text{LTC}}_{{k+i:k+i+1}}\times{u^{\text{LTC}}_k},
\text{ where\;\;}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpcV2}
\mathbf{I} =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if\;\;$k$ is not a LTC decision point}\\
0, & \text{if\;\;$k$ is a LTC decision point and } i<2\\
1, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\comment{\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{I} =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if} $k$\;\;i\leq 2\\
1, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases} \text{OR,\;\;\;\;} \mathbf{I} =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if}\;\;i\leq 1\\
1, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpcV3}
u^{\text{SVC}}_{\text{min}} \leq u^{{\text{SVC}}_{k+j}} \leq u^{\text{SVC}}_{\text{max}},\;\;\;\forall j\in[0,N_k-1]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpcV4}
u^{\text{LS}}_{\text{min}} \leq u^{{\text{LS}}_{k+j}} \leq u^{\text{LS}}_{\text{max}},\;\;\;\forall j\in[0,N_k-1]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genmpcV5}
V_{\text{min}} \leq \hat V_{k+N} \leq V_{\text{max}}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Here:
\begin{itemize}
\item $V_{\text {ref}}:=$ reference voltage, $\mathbf{R}:=$ weight matrix for bus voltage deviation, $W_{\text{SVC}}$ and $W_{\text{LTC}}$ := weight vectors for SVC and LS control inputs, respectively.
\item $S^{\text{SVC}},S^{\text{LS}}$, and $S^{\text{LTC}}:=$ Voltage trajectory sensitivity matrices wrt. SVC, LS and LTC control input, respectively,
\item $u^{{\text{LTC}}}_k \;\;:=\;\;\Delta{\mathbf{N}}_k\times \Delta V_{\text{tap}}$, where $\Delta{\mathbf{N}}_k:=$ LTC control decision made at $k$, and $\Delta V_{\text{tap}}:=$ p.u. voltage change per tap operation.
\item $[u^{\text{SVC}}_{\text{min}},u^{\text{SVC}}_{\text{max}}]\;,\; [u^{\text{LS}}_{\text{min}},u^{\text{LS}}_{\text{max}}]\;,\; [V_{\text{min}},V_{\text{max}}]:=$ Lower and upper bounds for changes in SVC, LS control inputs, and the voltage values at the end of prediction horizon, respectively.
\end{itemize}
\comment{$V_{\text {ref}}:=$ reference voltage, $S^{\text{SVC}},S^{\text{LS}}$, and $S^{\text{LTC}}$ := voltage trajectory sensitivity matrices wrt. SVC, LS and LTC control input, respectively. $\Delta{\text{LTC}}:=$ LTC control decision made at $k$ }
The optimization problem defined in (\ref{genmpcV1})-(\ref{genmpcV5}) has a quadratic objective/cost function with linear inequality constraints, making it a quadratic programming (QP), which can be efficiently solved for the nominal system. A positive-definite matrix choice of $\mathbf{R} > 0$ makes the optimization problem convex, ensuring a global optimal solution. It is important to note that LTC action is taken based on the dead-band requirement of (\ref{eqnltc}), and the impact of this action on the voltage trajectory computation is incorporated within the MPC optimization. This approach (of LTC action) is supported by the work in \cite{guo2018mpc}, which analyzes MPC-based voltage regulation in distribution network with Distributed Generation (DG) and Energy Storage Systems (ESS). This LTC action approach also lends computational benefits since optimization over discrete control variable of LTC is not required, rather implemented per (\ref{eqnltc}).
\section{{Online Adaptive Control: Control corrections to Nominal Offline control}}\label{secpertcontrol}
In Section~\ref{genericmpc} and \ref{COORMPC}, we provided a theoretical framework for MPC-based voltage control in power systems. To translate the theory into real-time implementation, the following tasks need to be accomplished in runtime at each control instant $k\geq 0$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Real-time measurement of system variables
\item Model-based prediction of future trajectory and its sensitivity computation using the measured values
\item Solving optimization problem (\ref{genmpcV1})-(\ref{genmpcV5})
\end{enumerate}
For any practical power system, the step 2), namely, model based trajectory prediction and trajectory sensitivity computation is computationally expensive for a practical prediction horizon (20-50 s), and hence it is often infeasible to perform MPC optimization in the desired time-frame of control computation (needs to be much smaller than $T_c\sim\!3$ s). To this end, one possible direction is to explore artificial intelligence particularly the advances in deep learning to train for the trajectory prediction and sensitivity computation for the sake of reducing their online computational time-complexity.
Here the main challenges lies in the size of training set required for offline training of the required DNNs for trajectory prediction and sensitivity computation. A simple analysis shows that in a MPC of $N_c$ control steps with $m$-dimensional controls, each having $q$ levels of quantization, the number of possible
control combinations is $q^{m\times N_c}$,
and if there are $p$ number of load/contingency scenarios, then total combinations to explore for training is $p\times q^{m\times N_c}$, which is prohibitive.
To overcome this prohibitive size of training space, we introduce a novel approach involving successive control correction at each control instant, limiting the training space to the neighborhood of a nominal-case optimal trajectory for training the DNNs, which brings down the training space size to order $p$ (since the control choice is already fixed at the nominal values found in the offline MPC optimization). This reduction in training space helps make it practically feasible.
In the proposed approach, one views the real system trajectory to be a corrected version of the nominal system trajectory,
that is obtained by an offline MPC-based optimization of the given nominal system model.
For example, the real-time operation load levels vary within $\pm 20\%$ of the nominal values of load.
Figure \ref{f2} presents an illustration. The \textbf{yellow} curve and the \textbf{blue} curve are post fault trajectory of the nominal system versus the real system without any control. The offline computed optimal control sequence $u^*_{\text{nom,seq}} := u^*_{1,\text{nom}},\cdots,u^*_{N_c,\text{nom}}$ (with $N_c$ control steps) can stabilize voltages of the nominal system within the desired range (see \textbf{red} curve), but the same is not true for the real system (see \textbf{green} curve). Hence a correction in the nominal control is required.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\hspace*{-.1in}\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{Pert-control-paper-Page-6}
\caption{Illustrating online control correction computation.}
\label{f2}
\vspace*{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
Suppose $u^*_{\text{nom,seq}} := u^*_{1,\text{nom}},\cdots,u^*_{N_c,\text{nom}}$ is the offline computed MPC-based optimal control sequence for the nominal system following a particular contingency.
Then the optimal control sequence for the same contingency for the actual real system $u^*_{\text{real,seq}}$, which differs from the nominal system model, can be written as a correction $\Delta u^*_{\rm seq}$ to $u^*_{\text{nom,seq}}$:
\begin{equation}\label{pertcont}
u^*_{\text{real,seq}}\; = \;u^*_{\text{nom,seq}} \;+ \;\Delta u^*_{\rm seq}\;.
\end{equation}
In our approach, the sequence of control corrections $\Delta u^*_{\rm seq} := \Delta u^*_1,\cdots,\Delta u^*_{N_c}$ in (\ref{pertcont}) is estimated online utilizing the measurements of the real system, while meeting the computational time constraints imposed by the real-time operation of a power system. Next we outline our approach for the computation of the corrections in control in a iterative manner at the control instants, where to compute the desired control correction term at control instant $k\geq 0$, we propose the following steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] First, predict the voltage trajectory of the real system under the influence of $u^*_{k,\text{nom}}$ over the time range $kT_c$ to $(k+1)T_c-T_s$ (see description below).
\item[(b)] Next, compute the sensitivities of the voltage trajectory obtained in (a) with respect to controls (see described below).
\item[(c)] Using the information obtained in (a) and (b), solve a 1-step MPC optimization to compute $\Delta u_k^*$.
\item[(d)] Repeat the above steps at the next control instant, until the final control instant is reached.
\end{itemize}
To facilitate the trajectory prediction and sensitivity computation in steps (a) and (b) in real-time fashion, we introduce two trained DNNs (see Figure~\ref{f3}). This eliminates the necessity of time-consuming model based online time-domain simulation for trajectory prediction and its sensitivity estimation, making the online computation of control corrections viable for real-time MPC application.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf The Prediction-DNN, $f_{\text{DNN-1}}(\cdot,\cdot)$:} At each control instant $k\geq 0$, it receives as inputs (i) the measured voltage trajectory of the real system $V_{k-1:k}$ between the last two control instants (from $(k-1)T_c$ to $kT_c-T_s$), and (ii) the nominal optimal control at $kT_c$, $u^*_{k,\text{nom}}$, while it outputs the predicted trajectory $\bar V^{\rm nom}_{k:k+1}$ over $kT_c$ to $(k+1)T_c-T_s$. The idea here is that the measured voltage trajectory $V_{k-1:k}$ over the period $(k-1)T_c$ to $kT_c-T_s$ serves as the proxy to the state at $kT_c$, which when combined with the current control information $u^*_{k,\text{nom}}$ at $kT_c$, allows the prediction of the future state proxy, namely, the voltage trajectory $\bar V^{\rm nom}_{k:k+1}$ over the period $kT_c$ to $(k+1)T_s-T_s$ under the nominal control.
\item {\bf The Sensitivity-DNN, $f_{\text{DNN-2}}(\cdot)$:} It receives the predicted trajectory, i.e., the output $\bar V^{\rm nom}_{k:k+1}$ of $f_{\text{DNN-1}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ as input, and produces the sensitivity matrix $\bar S^{\rm nom}_{k:k+1}$ as its output.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Pert-control-2-Page-3.png}
\caption{Iterative online computation of control correction}
\label{f3}
\end{figure}
Next, we introduce the single step MPC optimization that we propose to solve at each control instant $k\geq 0$ towards the step (c) above. \begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV1}
\min_{\Delta u_k}\;\;\;{(\hat V_{k:k+1} - V_{\text{ref}})^T \mathbf{R}_{\Delta} (\hat V_{k:k+1} - V_{\text{ref}})} + w_{\Delta}^T \Delta u_k
\end{equation}
subject to,
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV2}
\hat V_{k:k+1} = \bar V^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1} + \bar S^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1}\;\Delta u_k
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV3}
\bar V^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1} = f_{\text{DNN-1}}(V_{k-1:k}, u^*_{k,\text{nom}})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV4}
\bar S^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1} = f_{\text{DNN-2}}(\bar V^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV5}
u_{\text{min}} \leq u^*_{k,\text{nom}} + \Delta u_k \leq u_{\text{max}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pertmpcV6}
V_{k,\text{min}} \leq \hat V_{k+1} \leq V_{k,\text{max}}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\noindent where
$\mathbf{R}_{\Delta}$ and $w_{\Delta}:=$ appropriately truncated portions of $\mathbf{R}$ and $[W_{\rm SVC}^T\; W_{\rm LS}^T]$ respectively to account for the single step costs, $\bar V^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1} :=$ predicted voltage trajectory over $kT_c$ to $(k+1)T_c-T_s$ under nominal optimal control using DNN-1, and $\bar S^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1}:=$ predicted sensitivity over $kT_c$ to $(k+1)T_c-T_s$ under nominal optimal control using DNN-2. The output of the optimization problem (\ref{pertmpcV1})-(\ref{pertmpcV6}) gives $\Delta u^*_k$, which is then added to $u^*_{k,\text{nom}}$ to get $u^*_{k,\text{real}}$ as in (\ref{pertcont}), which is then implemented at $k$.
As per our previous discussion, the control input $u$ of our setting has 3 different component corresponding to SVC, LS and LTC. We remind the LTC decision and its implementation: At a control decision point $k\geq 0$, the local AVC controllers predict the LV side voltage trajectories of designated buses over the control instants $k$ to $k+2$ (from $kT_c$ to $(k+2)T_c-T_s$) and issue control decisions according to (\ref{eqnltc}). These decisions are implemented at $k+2$ to account for the delayed action of LTC. For a real-time prediction of future LV voltage, we introduce another DNN, an {\bf AVC-DNN, $f_{\text{DNN-3}}(\cdot)$}, which receives the LV side bus voltage information over $(k-1)T_c$ to $kT_c-T_s$ and outputs the predicted LV side voltage from $kT_c$ to $(k+2)T_c-T_s$ without assuming the influence of any future control action at $k+1$.
With regards to the LTC control action at $k$, it is the same as the one decided at $k-2$, which is added to the stored LTC control for nominal model at $k$, yielding $\Delta u^{\text{LTC}}_k$. According to the above discussion, (\ref{pertmpcV2}) is expanded to show the contribution of the individual controls in (\ref{pertmpcV2mod}) below, where $\Delta u^{\text{LTC}}_k$ is known from beforehand (at $k-2$), whereas $\Delta u^{\text{SVC}}_k,\;\Delta u^{\text{LS}}_k$ are computed by a single step MPC optimization:
\begin{multline}\label{pertmpcV2mod}
\hat V_{k:k+1} = \bar V^{\text{nom}}_{k:k+1} + \bar S^{\text{nom,\rm SVC}}_{k:k+1}\Delta u^{\text{SVC}}_k + \bar S^{\text{nom,\rm LS}}_{k:k+1}+\Delta u^{\text{LS}}_k \\ \;+\; \bar S^{\text{nom,LTC}}_{k:k+1}\Delta u^{\text{LTC}}_k
\end{multline}
The block diagram of this entire scheme of perturbation control computation is shown in Figure \ref{f3}.
\section{{Sensitivity Computations for Offline MPC}}\label{sectscomp}
This section presents the trajectory sensitivity computation part required to (i) solve the MPC problem offline for nominal system, and (ii) generate the training data set for sensitivity-DNN $f_{\text{DNN-2}}(\cdot)$. We used power system simulator PSAT \cite{milano2005open} for our studies, and found that the trajectory sensitivity computation with respect to control is not supported in it. There exist some earlier works \cite{jin2009model,guanji,guanji2} that mention the use of PSAT for trajectory sensitivity based MPC, but the details for the trajectory sensitivity computation are not provided. So one needs to essentially introduce certain extension to the source code of PSAT to achieve the trajectory sensitivity computation. Such PSAT extension required was first reported in our conference paper \cite{rrh2}, providing its detailed explanation; the summary presentation below is included for completeness.
As discussed earlier, sensitivity can be obtained solving (\ref{systs1})-(\ref{systs2}) for which we need the Jacobians $f_x$, $f_y$, $g_x$, $g_y$, $f_u$, $g_u$ at each time steps of the simulation. The issue is that PSAT does not support the computation of $f_u$ and $g_u$, and also does not store the values of the other Jacobians. For the latter, we introduced additional coding in PSAT's time domain integration subroutine to store the Jacobians for each step of time domain simulation. On the other hand, to overcome the lack of support for the computation of Jacobians $f_u$ and $g_u$, we utilized the fact that PSAT supports the computation of Jacobians with respect to state variables. Hence, we treated the control $u$ as a state variable, but having zero-dynamics $(\dot u =0)$ (recall that for computing sensitivity with respect to control, the control is held constant at its nominal value, i.e., is rate of change is indeed zero). With this augmentation of states to include zero-dynamics input, we computed the Jacobians $f_u$ and $g_u$ as follows. Denoting the control-augmented state variables as, \(\overline {x}= \begin{bmatrix} x\\
u \end{bmatrix}, \) algebraic variables as $y$, and combining, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{sysdaeaug}
\dot{\overline{x}} = \begin{bmatrix}
\dot{x} \\
\dot{u}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
f(x,y,u) \\
0
\end{bmatrix} =: \overline {f}(\overline{x},y);\quad
0=g(\bar x, y)
\end{equation}
\noindent Upon differentiation of equations (\ref{sysdaeaug}) with respect to control input $u$, we get:
\begin{equation}\label{systsaug}
\dot{\overline{x}_u}(t)=\overline{f}_{\overline{x}}{\overline{x}_u}(t)+\overline{f}_y{y_u(t)};\quad
0=g_{\overline{x}}{\overline{x}_u}(t)+g_y{y_u(t)}.
\end{equation}
Note $\overline{f}_{\overline{x}}$ = $\begin{bmatrix}
f_x & f_u \\
0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$, $\overline{f}_y$ = $ \begin{bmatrix}
f_y\\
0 \end{bmatrix}$, and $g_{\overline{x}}$ = $ \begin{bmatrix}
g_x & g_u
\end{bmatrix}$. Now with the above control-augmented states, PSAT can compute as well as store the Jacobians $\bar{f}_{\bar{x}}$, ${\bar{f}_y}$, $g_{\bar{x}}$, and $g_y$ in course of the time domain simulation, from which we extract the desired $f_u$ and $g_u$. Having all the Jacobians $f_{x}, f_y, g_{x}, g_y, f_u, g_u$ available, equations (\ref{systsaug}) are solved numerically to obtain the required trajectory sensitivities $x_u$ and $y_u$. Further details can be found in \cite{rrh2}.
The default PSAT dynamic models of SVC and LTC are given by (\ref{svc}) and (\ref{ltc}), respectively:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dot{b}_{SVC}=\frac{K_r(V_{ref} - V) -b_{SVC}}{T_r}, \label{svc} \\
\dot{m}=-K_dm + K_i(V - V_{ref}), \label{ltc}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the susceptance $b_{SVC}$ and tap-ratio $m$ are the control inputs, respectively. To make these models suitable for sensitivity computation, we chose the certain parameters of existing SVC and LTC blocks appropriately: In SVC, to zero the ${b}_{SVC}$ dynamics, we set he time-constant $T_r$ to be very high, whereas set the gain $K_r$ very low. Similarly, by assigning very low values to parameters $K_d$ and $K_i$, we also set the dynamics of $m$ in LTC block to close to zero. Certain other adjustments in the PSAT code were performed to account for the fact that these blocks also have anti-windup limiters.
The computation of load-shedding sensitivity is little more involved. In this study, we used exponential recovery load for which the active power dynamics is given by:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{gather}
\dot{x}_{P}= -x_P/T_P + P_0(V/V_0)^{\alpha_s} - P_0(V/V_0)^{\alpha_t}, \label{ls} \\
P = x_P/T_P + P_0(V/V_0)^{\alpha_t}.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
\noindent Here $P_0$ is the base load value that needs to be altered to exercise load-shedding. So we introduced an additional equation $\dot{P_0}=0$ to augment $P_0$ as another zero dynamics state-variable. Similar state-variable augmentation was done for base reactive power $Q_0$. To introduce the new state variables, we made certain modifications in the corresponding sub-routine of PSAT for the exponential recovery load.
\section{Implementation, Test Cases, and Results}
As a proof-of-validation, our proposed methodology is implemented in PSAT and applied for voltage stabilization in IEEE-9 and IEEE-39 bus systems. We modified both these test systems to accommodate different control inputs and distribution-side loads through LTC.
\subsection{Test System 1: IEEE 9-Bus System}
We utilized the standard IEEE 9-bus system with slight modification (see IEEE 9-bus example in Figure \ref{fsys}) to address the voltage stability problem following a 3-phase fault at bus-5 with a fault lasting 0.10 sec, that got cleared by tripping the line between bus 4 and 5. In order to include the distribution-side loads, we added 2 additional buses 10 and 11, connected through LTC to bus 6 and 8, respectively, or the original 9-bus system. These 2 LTCs are controlled by their local AVCs. The other control inputs include 3 SVCs connected at buses 5, 7 and 8, each varying from 0 to 0.2 p.u. per step, and load-shedding of up to 0.1 p.u. (approx. 10\% of the bus load) at buses 10 and 11. A sustained under-voltage conditions are observed following the fault without any control actions, and eventually this leads to system collapse after 70 sec. of the fault occurrence.
\subsection{Test System 2: IEEE 39-Bus System}
For the IEEE-39 bus system (see IEEE 39-bus example in Figure \ref{fsys}), we consider the 3-phase fault at bus-15, which is cleared by tripping the transmission line in between bus 15 and 16 within 0.10 sec of the fault occurrence. Here, the added 4 buses, 40, 41, 42 and 43, are used to represent the loads of the distribution side, that are connected through 4 LTCs to the buses 4, 7, 8 and 18, respectively of the original network. In this power system, the SVCs are located at the buses 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 25 with value ranging from 0 to 0.20 p.u. per step, whereas the load-shedding can be exercised at the buses 15, 40, 41, 42 and 43 by up to 0.3 p.u. per step (approx. 10\% of the bus load). Like the IEEE 9-bus example, following the fault, voltage drops below the desirable level almost immediately, and hence, it needs to be stabilized to avoid any potential collapse.
\comment{\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ieee-9.png}
\caption{IEEE-9 Bus Example}
\label{fig:9bus}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ieee-39.png}
\caption{IEEE-39 Bus Example}
\label{fig:39bus}
\end{subfigure}
\end{figure}}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{9_and_39.png}
\caption{IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus systems.}
\label{fsys}
\vspace*{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Offline MPC Computed Controls for Nominal Models}
We utilized nominal models of the above 2 systems to compute their MPC control sequence $u^*_{\text{nom,seq}}$ offline and stored those values. In this computation, sampling interval $T_s=0.1$ s, whereas the control intervals $T_c$ are 3~s. The computed optimal control sequences for the respective nominal models are listed in Tables \ref{tab:result9} and \ref{tab:result39}, which are corrected online during runtime operation. The voltage trajectories with MPC control ({\bf red}) and without MPC control ({\bf blue}) MPC for bus-5 of 9-bus system and bus-15 of 39-bus system are shown in Figure \ref{voloff}, which clearly show the need of voltage stabilizing control in order to maintain voltages within the safe limits, usually [0.95,1.05] p.u.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{IEEE 9-Bus: Optimal sequence for nominal model}\label{tab:result9}
\vspace{-0.5mm}
\centering
\tabcolsep=0.05 cm
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Time instant & 4.5 sec & 7.5 sec. & 10.5 sec. & 13.5 sec. & 16.5 sec.\\ [0.5ex]
\hline
SVC-5 (in p.u.) & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.1378 & 0.0534 \\
\hline
SVC-7 (in p.u.) & 0.2 & 0.1791 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
SVC-8 (in p.u.) & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
L/S 10 (in p.u.)& 0.0619 & 0.0024 & 0.0167 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
L/S 11 (in p.u.)& 0.0353 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
LTC b/w 10-6 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
LTC b/w 11-8 & 0 & 0 & $+1$ & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-.15in}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{IEEE 39-Bus: Optimal sequence for nominal model}\label{tab:result39}
\vspace{-0.5mm}
\tabcolsep=0.05 cm
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Time instant & 4.5 sec & 7.5 sec. & 10.5 sec. & 13.5 sec. & 16.5 sec.\\ [0.5ex]
\hline
SVC-4 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.0 \\
\hline
SVC-5 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.0 \\
\hline
SVC-7 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.134 \\
\hline
SVC-8 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
\hline
SVC-15 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
\hline
SVC-17 (in p.u.)& 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
SVC-18 (in p.u.)& 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
SVC-25 (in p.u.)& 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\hline
L/S 15 (in p.u.)& 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0 \\
\hline
L/S 40 (in p.u.)& 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0 \\
\hline
L/S 41 (in p.u.)& 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0 \\
\hline
L/S 42 (in p.u.)& 0.3 & 0.3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
L/S 43 (in p.u.)& 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
LTC b/w 40-4 & 0 & 0 & $+1$ & 0 & $+1$ \\
\hline
LTC b/w 41-7 & 0 & 0 & $+1$ & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
LTC b/w 42-8 & 0 & 0 & $+1$ & 0 & $+1$\\
\hline
LTC b/w 43-18 & 0 & 0 & $+1$ & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-.15in}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{voltage_offline_1.png}
\caption{Voltage profile with ({\bf red}) and without ({\bf blue}) MPC for nominal model of IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus systems.}
\label{voloff}
\vspace*{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\subsection{DNNs for Online MPC-based Adaptive Control Correction}
The real-time application of our methodology relies on 3 categories of DNNs as mentioned in Section \ref{secpertcontrol}, namely Prediction-DNN, Sensitivity-DNN, and AVC-DNN. The training of these DNNs is an important factor for the success of the proposed methodology. For both IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus cases, we created a large pool of training data by simulating the respective systems under the influence of the offline computed optimal control sequence for the nominal models, while changing the initial loads to within $\pm 20\%$ of nominal initial load. This data ensures the exploration of the search space is around the nominally controlled model trajectory. For both systems, we randomly created 2500 different load levels, and collected approx. 12000 and 15000 unique data samples for training of Prediction-DNN and Sensitivity-DNN, respectively.
Similarly to train the AVC-DNN,
we considered 1500 different initial load conditions and gathered 6000 training data.
We divided all these three categories of data into $70:30$ ratio to create the training versus the test data sets for the three DNNs.
We used a feed forward structure with 2 hidden layers to build the three DNNs. The number of neurons of the hidden layers were chosen to be between 64 and 256, and $\tanh(\cdot)$ was used as the activation function.
The optimizer chosen for the training is ADAM, with gradient momentum $\beta_1=0.9/0.95$ and RMS momentum $\beta_2=0.999/0.95$. The loss function, batch size and learning rate are: mean squared error (MSE) loss, 32, and $10^{-3}$, respectively. Standard techniques to avoid over-fitting and facilitate fast learning were practiced: (i) adding drop-out layers, and (ii) normalizing the inputs and outputs of the DNNs.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{pred_avc_plot.png}
\caption{Performance of Prediction-DNNs and AVC-DNNs.}
\label{f4}
\end{figure}
In Figures~\ref{f4}~and~\ref{f5}, the training performance is shown in terms of MSE, and the test performance is determined by measuring the coefficient of determination or $R^2\in[0,1]$ score of the DNN predicted value and the respective actual values over the test data sets. (A $R^2$ value of 1 indicates an exact fit.)
Figures~\ref{f4}~and~\ref{f5} confirm prediction accuracy of more than 95\% of the trained models, establishing that they offer good fit for the online adaptive control scheme proposed in this article.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{sens_model_plot.png}
\caption{Performance of Sensitivity-DNNs.}
\label{f5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Online MPC-based Adaptive Control and its Robustness}
The real-time performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated for both IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus systems under different load conditions. In each case, the real-time control corrections are computed based on current measurements and the offline computed respective optimal control sequences for the nominal load models. Due to space constraints, we describe 4 different load levels, 80\%, 90\%, 110\%, 120\% of the nominal load for showing the performance and robustness of the methodology. The voltage profiles for each of the above cases are shown in Figure \ref{fvolfinal}, indicating clearly that the proposed scheme is successful in restoring the desired voltage levels under different operating conditions (and so effectiveness and robustness of the proposed approach).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.50]{rt_vol_plot_1.png}
\caption{Voltage profile with online MPC-based adaptive control for IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus systems.}
\label{fvolfinal}
\vspace*{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
To check the control inputs, we computed the total SVC and LS actions at each control instants, and plotted the cumulative sum of the respective actions in Figure \ref{f9buscon} and Figure \ref{f39buscon}. The trend suggests that with increase of load, the amount of controls introduced increased, which is as expected.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{rt_con9_1.png}
\caption{Computed SVC and LS controls for IEEE 9-bus system for 5 loading conditions.}
\label{f9buscon}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{rt_con39_1.png}
\caption{Computed SVC and LS controls for IEEE 39-bus system for 5 loading conditions.}
\label{f39buscon}
\end{figure}
Finally, and importantly, the average online computation times of the original MPC and the proposed online scheme are compared in Table \ref{tab:time}, which demonstrates the proposed scheme is $\sim$20-fold faster than the original offline computed MPC implementation, and takes under 0.3~s to compute a control at each online decision instant, which is under one-tenth the control interval, making MPC real-time and practical for power systems. It is important to contrast that even the traditional controllers, e.g., UVLS relaying scheme generally needs $\sim$0.5~s to decide a control action \cite{7822924}. For our implementation and computation, we used intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz processor with 16 GB RAM.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Comparison of computation time}\label{tab:time}
\vspace*{-.5mm}
\centering
\tabcolsep=0.5 cm
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{ c| }{\textbf{Average CPU Time}} \\
\cline{2-3}
& IEEE 9-bus & IEEE 39-bus \\
\hline
Original MPC & 4.50 sec/step & 7.00 sec/step \\ \hline
Proposed Online Version & 0.27 sec/step & 0.29 sec/step\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{-.15in}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
The paper proposed a framework for {\em real-time} implementation of MPC in power systems for a first time. A combination of offline MPC-based control optimization for {\em nominal system}, and an iterative online control correction based on measurements of {\em real system} is proposed, where the online step is further sped through the introduction of trained DNNs for voltage trajectory prediction and its sensitivity estimation. By exploring the space in neighborhood of the nominal trajectory of offline computed control, the search space for DNN training was drastically reduced to make it practical. The test results applied to IEEE 9-bus and 39-bus systems show the remarkable performance of newly proposed scheme in terms of efficacy, robustness with respect to load variations, and online computation time, that has been reduced to less one-tenth the control interval (and comparable to traditional control computations), making the real-time implementation of the MPC practical. Future research directions can include quantification of resilience indices \cite{soumyo} of the MPC-controlled system that may also involve reachability study \cite{jin2010reachability}.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Organization of the medical data is always a challenging task for betterment of modern healthcare system. It is evident that mostly the medical data is exclusive only for the healthcare organizations which is only practised by elite hospitals. Following this, the idea of the proposed platform is to offer global reachability of the medical data that is not restricted just to one hospital and its subsidiaries, but to local hospitals and clinics (if the doctor is registered), while also securing the patient's identity. This platform can be used as an excellent source for the collection of data of the common symptoms and the underlying disease. The data can be used for various research activities and to generate new real-life data sets. Insurance companies can also make use of authentic data to bring down the fraudulent claims which on an average ranges between $\sim$10 to $\sim$15 \cite{insurancefraud}. The system is equipped with a prediction algorithm that works in the back-end to predict the disease from the given symptoms.
With immense applications of deep learning and machine learning across various domains and applications such as classification, detection, recognition, localization, etc. \cite{punn2019crowd, punn2020chs, sonbhadra2020target, zhang2019empirical}. These techniques have been used for several application domains such as the future box office movie collections, price of a house with given parameters or bankruptcy prediction, human face recognition systems and voice recognition, etc. \cite{BarbozaaAltman,MuHassoun}. The ensemble approach \cite{PaulIba,BashirKhan} has been proved to be very effective and more accurate \cite{BashirKhan2} in many medical applications such as heart disease prediction \cite{HazraMukherjee,PowarGhorpade,ChaitraliApte}, cancer prediction \cite{PaulIba}, hepatitis disease prediction \cite{DuttaBandyopadhyay}, diabetes prediction \cite{PathirageSilva} and Parkinson’s disease prediction \cite{RaoVital}. With this motivation, to predict plausible disease an ensemble approach is proposed in the present research by combining the features of three state-of-the-art classification algorithms: naive bayesian, $K$-NN and random forest. The selection of these algorithms follows from various research papers \cite{MuHassoun,DuttaBandyopadhyay,PatilSagar} which are focused on determining how the different classification algorithms behave with respect to the different data chunks and different applications. Following this, the ensemble approach is combined with the voting mechanism \cite{PaulIba,DuttaBandyopadhyay,RamasamyNirmala} (discussed in the sub-sections \ref{4.2}) to provide the best prediction of the disease.
The main contribution of this paper is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Disease prediction}: This paper provides an algorithm to predict the disease based on the given symptoms using state-of-the-art machine learning classification algorithms.
\item \textit{Analyze ensemble results}: Combine the results of the individual algorithms with voting mechanism discussed in sub-section \ref{4.2}.
\item \textit{Web-based interactive platform}: The research also presents an interactive platform (Raahat\footnote{\url{https://bdalabiiita.pythonanywhere.com/}\label{Raahat}}) integrated with the disease prediction system along with other important features for a more robust healthcare management system.
\end{itemize}
The paper is divided into six major sections. Section 2 describes the motivation behind the project. Section 3 explains the background knowledge required to understand the various algorithms used. Section 4 is a brief introduction to the components of the platform including prediction and voting mechanism. Section 5 contains the results and output of the algorithm. Finally, the concluding remarks are presented in Section 6.
\section{Motivation}
A more robust and transparent healthcare infrastructure is the primary global need of most of the countries. The non-existence of such a system causes delayed diagnosis, transfer of misinformation and lack of information among the doctors and people. Healthcare management systems have proved to be beneficial in some developed countries such as the UK and USA, where a patient’s complete medical record is accessible to every registered doctor for better and quicker diagnosis. The system can also help if the patient is unconscious and has no alibis. Hence, a centralized system helps to minimise the chances of wrong medication and other such mishaps to ensure better recovery chances.
The observations and efforts to cover the gaps in the system have also paved the way to write a disease prediction algorithm and integrate it with the application. The motivation comes from the fact that people try to diagnose themselves by their previous knowledge which is not a right way, thereby risking the severity of the disease. For example, a running nose is instantly attributed to cold, stomach ache to overeating/acidity etc. While they might be correct in a small fraction of the cases, the people are unaware of the consequences of the disease they are suffering from. The diagnosis at the later stage might result in increased expenditure and higher complexities which are difficult to treat. A disease prediction module in the system that can help to diagnose sitting at home and take actions quickly in case the disease is serious. The disease prediction can also be used for confirmation of the prediction from the doctor and optimizing it frequently for better results.
\section{Literature review}
Deep learning and machine learning technologies are playing active role in various sectors to develop intelligent applications~\cite{punn2020multi, agarwal2020unleashing}. A disease prediction system is an important aspect of a developing nation as part of strong healthcare infrastructure. With this notion, the present research proposes a machine learning equipped web-based disease prediction system along with a recommender system to ensure a more strategic and robust healthcare environment. With deep insight into the existing e-healthcare system, it is evident that there are few disease specific solutions are available; but a diverse disease prediction system considering all common diseases is still missing (to the best of our knowledge).
Kumar et al. \cite{PaulIba} has focused on the prediction of the cancer while Bashir et al. \cite{BashirKhan} proposed a solution to predict the heart disease for a patient. In similar approach, Dutta et al. \cite{DuttaBandyopadhyay} proposed an approach for hepatitis disease prediction, Rao et al. developed a parkinson's prediction approach \cite{RaoVital} and Pathirage et al. \cite{PathirageSilva} offered a diabetic prediction system. All these methods are algorithmic approaches and do not offer user interfaces for end users. The absence of a GUI creates a gap between the system and the user. Following this, the present research focuses on the common disease symptom (including rare) to cater to the needs of a large group of people and offers a user friendly web application. For disease prediction the present research uses the classification models: $K$-NN, naive bayes and random forest, and fuses the results using an ensemble approach with a novel voting scheme to ensure accurate prediction (covered in following subsection).
\subsection{Classification strategies}
The following section explains the background knowledge required to understand the proposed methodology. This section describes the classification algorithms used in the voting mechanism.
\subsubsection{$K$-NN}
The $K$-NN \cite{MudaliarGarg} algorithm classifies the new data point (the one that needs to be classified) based on the most similar classes that are known as neighbors ($N$). In this research, the data set is run multiple times for different values of $N\in[1,15]$ and the most promising value of $N$ is selected for further experiments, where the distance is determined by the Euclidean distance as shown in Eq. \ref{eq1}:
\begin{equation}
Dist(X^n , X^m) = \sqrt{\sum_{i = 1} ^ {D} (X_{i}^n - X_{i}^m)^2}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Random forest}
The random forest \cite{BarbozaaAltman} algorithm takes decision trees as the basic block in the construction of the model. The idea behind the implementation of random forest is that taking output from one decision tree may not be entirely reliable. Since there is a lot of variance involved in generating the final output, it may not necessarily be closest to the actual answer. Hence, random forest creates multiple decision trees and analyze them together. Random forest also has an edge over decision trees as decision trees are prone to overfitting. Random forest selects random smaller samples and builds tree from them overcoming the disadvantage of overfitting in decision trees. Therefore, multiple decision trees approach used in random forest generates a better output than a single decision tree.
\subsubsection{Naive bayes}
The naive bayes classification \cite{MudaliarGarg} technique works on the Bayes' theorem popularly used in probability analysis in mathematics and computer science. Naive bayes algorithm considers each property as an independent property contributing to the final classification. Due to this reason, Naive Bayes has been acclaimed of its accuracy and reliability across various researches.
The Bayes' theorem used in the Naive Bayes algorithm can be represented using Eq. \ref{eq2} and Eq. \ref{eq7}:
\begin{equation}
P(c|x) = \frac{P(x|c)P(c)}{P(x)}
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P(c|X) = P(x_{1}|c) * P(x_{2} |c) * .... * P(X_{n} | c) * P(c)
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Ensemble}
The voting algorithm has also been used in various researches to improve the overall efficiency of the model. A voting algorithm uses multiple machine learning algorithms and a method to leverage the output from these individual algorithms. Voting algorithms are a better way of devising prediction based approaches since more than one model is used for providing reliable and efficient results. Wide variety of voting approaches have been proposed, for instance, Dutta et al. \cite{DuttaBandyopadhyay} have used the majority voting technique in their research. In the majority voting technique, the votes are counted for each prediction given by the algorithms. Therefore, if a prediction \textquote{X} is predicted by the majority of the algorithms, then \textquote{X} disease is the predicted disease. Xiaoyan et. al \cite{MuHassoun} has presented two voting strategies; majority and plurality, where in majority voting the final classification is declared based on half of the votes, while plurality voting selects the classifier having the highest number of votes.
The present research takes the confidence score of the three classification algorithms namely $K$-NN, random forest and naive bayes. The voting algorithm then creates another model taking the input as the individual models. In this paper, weighted voting algorithm is used \cite{MuHassoun,BashirKhan2} where a weight parameter is defined to prioritize a classifier. The \textquote{weight} used for individual algorithms is the mean accuracy of the model. A model with higher mean accuracy shows a better performance compared to other models.
\section {Proposed methodology}
The proposed solution covers two major phases: 1) Web application development and 2) disease prediction via machine learning. The web application is for the user to interact with the system while the disease prediction system is used to predict the disease based on the given symptoms.
The prediction system is based on the ensemble classifier technique using naive bayes, $K$-NN and random forest. The back-end has been developed in the python programming language with the support of Django framework. The front-end and back-end are connected with the Jinja2 engine and the database used is SQLite. The module completely comprises of a GUI for the user to interact and a back-end server with integrated machine learning system for disease prediction. The following section presents the detailed description of the overall system.
\subsection{Web application}
The web application is developed for the module so that the user can interact with the platform. The web application consists of two major parts:
\begin{itemize}
\item Front-End (majorly developed in JavaScript and HTML)
\item Back-End (majorly developed in Python)
\end{itemize}
The front-end offers a GUI with minimal complexities, whereas the back-end of the website is developed that enables the communication between the front-end and the back-end using Jinja2 engine. The disease prediction system uses asynchronous calls from front-end to back-end to generate the output by taking the symptoms from the user without generating a new request.
The web application offers the following functionalities:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Login and registration system} - offers sign-up and sign-in facilities into the system.
\item \textbf{History lookup} - helps in fetching the history of a patient by the doctors or patients.
\item \textbf{Creating medical log} - This is only available for doctor user. With the help of this module, the doctors can create the medical entry for a patient that will be stored into the database.
\item \textbf{Predicting the disease based on symptoms} - helps people predict their diseases by selecting the symptoms from the list given on the platform.
\item \textbf{An informative section for basic health related schemes} - provides a scheme structure to manage scheme beneficiaries.
\item \textbf{Quick diagnosis for the over-the-counter medicines} - helps the people in getting OTC medicines along with the predicted disease.
\end{itemize}
Figure \ref{fig:schema} shows the modules and functionalities described above with a high level schematic representation. The platform is divided into two major segments: one is the user's view and another is the disease prediction system. Since there are different rights of a doctor and a patient, the user's view is further divided into two more views. The prediction system comprises the python back-end which asynchronously communicates with symptoms and the voting logic to generate the output.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width= \textwidth]{images/platform_overview.png}
\caption{High level schematic representation of proposed framework.}
\label{fig:schema}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Disease prediction system}
The prediction system is based on the ensemble classifier techniques using naive bayes, $K$-NN and random forest. To optimize the prediction techniques, a voting mechanism is used for assigning values to various classifiers which would act as weights for the system. The higher the weight, the more priority will be given to the classifier’s output. The voting is done based on the mean accuracy score of the classifier which is described in the next section. The final result can then be conveyed to the user through the model and controller of the Django framework.
\subsubsection{Voting mechanism}
\label{4.2}
This section focuses on the voting mechanism of the disease prediction system used in the application as a module. The voting classifier takes into account the machine learning models used to fit the data set and the weights assigned to each classifier.
The voting mechanism used in the module takes into account the mean accuracy score of the classifiers. First, each classifier is run and a mean accuracy score is generated providing the confidence of the classifier on the result. The same mean accuracy score is then used as weight for the voting mechanism and the result along with the accuracy is generated. The prediction results are provided to the user along with the accuracy so that the transparency is maintained in the system. Such a voting system is more effective instead of using any one of the classifiers as standalone for disease prediction.
\section{Results}
The experiments described in this paper are done on the data set taken from National Centre for Disease Control. The data set contains the data surveyed exhaustively with the most occurring symptoms in the patients. These symptoms are taken as final entries to construct the data set. There are a total of 4921 such unique entries in the data set. A single entry may contain a similar identified disease such as fungal infection but the symptoms in two entries for the same disease are different. This data set is then organised into another data set by processing the raw entries.
The new modelled data set contain symptoms as column names and the rows denote the identified disease. For every symptom occurring for a disease, the column entry is marked as 1 for that symptom while other entries are marked as 0. The data set is then split into the test data and train data with a ratio of 20:80. Each individual algorithm is run to fit them on the training data set and the experimental results are discussed in this section. The benchmark performance evaluation matrices used are presented in Eq. \ref{eq3}, Eq. \ref{eq4} and Eq. \ref{eq5}
\begin{equation}
Accuracy = \frac{TP + TN}{TP +TN +FP +FN}
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Precision = \frac{TP}{TP + FP}
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Recall = \frac{TP}{TP + FN}
\label{eq5}
\end{equation}
The accuracy defined in Eq. \ref{eq3} is the measure of correct predictions done by the models. The precision defined in Eq. \ref{eq4} signifies the positive instances are classified as positive in the data set. The recall is the measure of correctly identifying true positives (Eq. \ref{eq5}).
The disease prediction algorithm is run on $K$-NN, random forest and naive bayes individually before combining them in the ensemble approach as described in the output section.
For the $K$-NN classifier, 1 to 15 neighbours have been experimented and a result is generated to bring the maximum confidence score. To find the optimal value of the neighbours, each value of $N$ has been experimented for $\alpha$ times, where $\alpha=50$. Figure \ref{fig:knngraph} demonstrates the performance of $K$-NN with different neighbors.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{images/knn.png}
\centering
\caption{The figure demonstrates the performance of different neighbours (1 to 15) over the data-set matched along the confidence score and number of neighbors axes.}
\label{fig:knngraph}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimental analysis}
The disease prediction algorithms take a set of symptoms from the user as input. On the platform, the symptoms can be selected from the drop-down menu and the algorithms analyze them in the back-end. The symptoms selected by the user are then analyzed by each of the algorithms providing the output as the mean accuracy. The output is then used as the weights for those algorithms in the ensemble classifier. In the present section, the experimental symptoms considered are swelled lymph nodes, phlegm, redness of eyes, typhos, unsteadiness, enlarged thyroid. The confidence score values generated by the algorithms is shown in the Fig. \ref{fig:scores} and Table \ref{table:tab1}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/metrics.png}
\caption{(a)Accuracy Score (b)Precision Score (c)Recall Score}
\label{fig:scores}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Confidence score values of classifiers}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c| }
\hline
\textbf{Classifiers} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall}\\
\hline
Random Forest & 93.65 & 99.7818 & 99.7818\\
\hline
Naive Bayes & 84.02 & 99.7818 & 99.7818\\
\hline
$K$-NN & 93.53 & 99.7823 & 99.7823\\
\hline
Ensemble & 93.65 & 99.7818 & 99.7818\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:tab1}
\end{table}
For the experimental symptoms taken in this study, the naive bayes algorithm generated the least score. The score generated by naive bayes is 84.02, while random forest generated 93.65 and $K$-NN generated a score of 93.53. These numbers will be taken as weights in the ensemble model and the prediction will be run again with defined votes. In this experiment, the ensemble model generated a score of 93.65 which is the highest score and adapted to the best model among the three algorithms. The true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives calculated by the model is shown as a confusion matrix in the Fig. \ref{fig:confusion_matrix}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.5]{images/confusion_matrix_combined.png}
\caption{Confusion matrix testing data}
\label{fig:confusion_matrix}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{images/ss.png}
\caption{Raahat portal: (a)Adding symptoms on the portal (b) Output as predicted disease}
\label{fig:symptoms_added}
\end{figure}
The platform boasts a front-end which takes on the input and present the output after processing it through the algorithm described in the paper. Once the symptoms are added, the user can press the \enquote{predict} button to pass the symptoms through AJAX call to the back-end. The predicted disease is then shown in the output. The screenshot after adding the symptoms in the application along with the predicted disease is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:symptoms_added}.
\section{Conclusion}
A disease prediction system is a helpful tool in uplifting the healthcare system of the country. A disease prediction system not only helps in \textquote{predicting a disease} but also in curating medical data, enhance research activities and control fraudulent activities. The present research offers a machine learning equipped web-based prediction system along with a recommendation system for a wide range of users. The ensemble approach is used as machine learning model that uses a weighted voting mechanism to prioritize better-performing algorithms on a given set of symptoms. The ensemble used in this paper involves three individual algorithms namely $K$-NN, naive bayes and random forest. Ensemble approaches prove to be more effective since the model uses more than one algorithms for an efficient and reliable result. The experiment is performed using a data set acquired from NCDC which presents the symptoms for a corresponding disease. A web-based application is also developed to help people interact and make use of the disease prediction system with a GUI. The experimental results show that the ensemble approach is adaptive to the best model and with the symptoms considered for experiments the ensemble approach adapted to the random forest.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This research is supported by “ASEAN- India Science \& Technology Development Fund (AISTDF)”, SERB, Sanction letter no. – IMRC/AISTDF/R\&D/P-6/2017. Authors are also thankful to the authorities of “Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad at Prayagraj”, for providing us with the infrastructure and necessary support.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Both sugar maple (\emph{Acer saccharum}) and red maple (\emph{Acer
rubrum}) have a remarkable ability to generate positive xylem (or
sapwood) pressure
in response to freeze--thaw cycles, during a season when the tree is
leafless and mostly dormant. The resulting exudation pressure can
persist on and off for weeks or even months, which allows maple sap to
be harvested in sufficient quantities that it is an economically viable
agricultural product in northeastern North America. A few other tree
species such as black walnut (\emph{Juglans nigra}), butternut
(\emph{Juglans cinerea}) and white birch (\emph{Betula papyrifera}) are
likewise capable of generating significant exudation pressures, but none
to such a high degree as maple. It is well-known that the presence of
dissolved sugar (1\%\ or more by mass) in the sap of these species plays
an important role in the accumulation of stem pressure during the
freeze--thaw process \citep{marvin-1968}, but the precise causes of sap
exudation have proven difficult to pinpoint. Indeed, exudation has been
studied extensively for over 150 years, during which time researchers
have attributed it to a wide variety of physical and biological
mechanisms, including osmosis \citep{wiegand-1906}; thermal expansion of
gas, water and wood \citep{sachs-1860, merwin-lyon-1909, marvin-1949};
cryostatic suction \citep{stevens-eggert-1945}; and active processes in
living cells \citep{johnson-1945, marvin-1958}.
A major advance in the understanding of exudation was achieved by
\citet{milburn-omalley-1984}, whose experimental observations inspired
them to propose a purely physical hypothesis for maple sap exudation
based on a freeze--thaw mechanism that incorporates distinctive features
of the cellular structure of maple wood. More specifically, their model
focused on two classes of cells in the maple xylem: libriform fibers
that are filled with gas and are considered to play mainly a structural
role; and vessels and tracheids that are mostly liquid-filled and
constitute the primary pathways for sap transport.
\citeauthor{milburn-omalley-1984}'s breakthrough came from recognizing
that during a freezing cycle, liquid is drawn into the normally
gas-filled fibers by cryostatic suction thereby freezing on the interior
surface of fiber walls and compressing the gas trapped within. During a
subsequent thaw, the stored pressure is released into the vessel sap.
This model certainly explains how sap pressure can be stored and
released during a sequence of freeze--thaw events, however it remains
incomplete owing to its failure to explain the essential role of
dissolved sugars which are known to play a major role in exudation.
This gap in understanding was addressed by \citet{tyree-1995} who
recognized that one consequence of the sugar content in sap is to
suppress the natural tendency in gas--liquid suspensions for gas bubbles
to dissolve at high pressure. He proposed a modification of the
Milburn-O'Malley model that incorporates two additional physical
effects: expansion, contraction and dissolution of gas bubbles in
response to pressure variations in the suspending fluid; and existence
of an osmotic potential due to differences in solute concentration
engendered by the selectively permeable nature of certain cell walls in
maple xylem. In particular, \citeauthor{tyree-1995} argued that the
lignified walls separating fiber and vessel permit water and small
solutes to pass but impede larger molecules like sucrose that make up
the bulk of solutes in maple sap. This gives rise to a significant
osmotic potential between vessels (containing high-sucrose sap) and
surrounding fibers (containing pure water). \citeauthor{tyree-1995}
then demonstrated that this osmotic potential is sufficient to stabilize
gas bubbles over long enough time periods to sustain a realistic
exudation pressure, and the role of the selectively permeable
fiber/vessel walls in osmosis was later confirmed experimentally by
\citet{cirelli-etal-2008}. An extensive review of the current literature
on positive stem pressure and its causes can be found in the paper by
\citet{schenk-jansen-holtta-2021}.
Despite these advances in understanding of physical mechanisms behind
pressure generation in sugar maple and related species, significant
controversy remains in the literature over the causes of exudation. For
example, \citet{ameglio-etal-2001} argued that ``no existing single
model explains all of the winter xylem pressure data'' supported by
experiments suggesting that biological processes in living wood cells
are necessary for exudation. These differences in opinion have been
exacerbated by the lack of a mathematical description for the exudation
process. Indeed, around the time that \citeauthor{milburn-omalley-1984}
developed their model, \citet{tyree-1983} commented that ``there is
insufficient quantitative information to set up a system of physical
equations to describe the model''. Some efforts have since been made to
formulate equations governing certain aspects of the relevant physics,
such as the diffusion model for embolism recovery developed by
\citet{yang-tyree-1992} that captures the gas transport and dissolution
processes similar to that which occurs in exudation.
However, it was only in a series of papers
\citep{ceseri-stockie-2013, ceseri-stockie-2014, graf-stockie-2014,
graf-ceseri-stockie-2015} that a concerted attempt was made to devise
a complete mathematical model of the essential physical mechanism behind
the freeze--thaw process of \citet{milburn-omalley-1984}, modified to
include the influence of suspended gas bubbles and osmotic pressure
\citep{tyree-1995, cirelli-etal-2008}. The model is based on a system of
nonlinear diffusion equations for the cellualr scale freeze--thaw
process that incorporate sap phase change, compression and dissolution
of gas bubbles, and osmosis \citep{ceseri-stockie-2013,
ceseri-stockie-2014}, and captures the pressure exchange between
fibers and vessels during a single freeze--thaw cycle. This
cellular-level model was then coupled with a macroscale heat transport
equation obtained by a multi-scale averaging process known as periodic
homogenization \citep{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}.
Numerical simulations yielded realistic pressure oscillations as well as
a build-up in exudation pressure over multiple freeze--thaw
cycles. These homogenized model simulations were then compared with
laboratory experiments on black walnut trees subjected to an imposed
periodic variation in temperature \citep{ameglio-etal-2001} and
exhibited excellent qualitative agreement. A recent paper by
\citet{reid-driller-watson-2020} compared experimental measurements of
maple stem temperatures with solutions to a simpler but closely-related
model of heat transfer only, and demonstrated the effectiveness of this
class of models in predicting realistic stem temperatures.
In this paper we extend the homogenized exudation model of
\citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015} by incorporating a root reflection
coefficient that embodies the differential in root conductivity between
inflow and outflow, which is essential for capturing realistic positive
stem pressures. Our main aim is to validate the model using
experimental measurements consisting of
temperature and pressure time-series sampled over a period of roughly 40 days
from red and sugar maple trees located at the University of Vermont
Proctor Maple Research Center in Underhill, Vermont, USA. Having such a
highly-resolved dataset provides an ideal opportunity to validate the
time-dependent model for maple sap exudation under actual field
conditions.
After describing the experimental procedures used to collect field
measurements on maple trees in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} we present
the multiscale sap exudation model in Section~\ref{sec:model}, which
states the primary simplifying assumptions and supplies sufficient
details to elucidate the essential physical processes underlying the
model.
The comparison of experimental and numerical results in
Sections~\ref{sec:results}--\ref{sec:discussion} begins with a parameter
sensitivity analysis for a model tree subjected to a synthetic
(smoothly-varying) ambient temperature, which aims to determine best
estimates for parameters used in our simulations of real maple trees. We
then perform a sequence of simulations using actual temperature data
that feature rapid variations and significant levels of
noise. A detailed comparison is then drawn between stem
pressures from simulations and experiments in order to validate our
hypothesis that a multiscale model based solely on physical transport
processes is capable of reproducing realistic exudation pressures in
maple trees subjected to repeated cycles of freeze and thaw.
\section{Materials and Methods: Field Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
Measurements were taken during the spring sap flow season over the years
2005--2010 in several mature sugar maple and red maple trees ranging in
size from 14 to 61~cm DBH (diameter at breast height). The trees were
located 180~m within the experimental sugarbush to the southeast of the
laboratory of the University of Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center in
Underhill, Vermont, at approximately 425~m elevation. Type-T (24-gauge)
thermocouples were used to measure the following: air temperature at
heights of 1.2~m and 16.5~m; branch temperature measured in the center
of a hole drilled in a canopy branch at 16.5~m height, and within the
tapping zone at 1.2~m height and 5~cm depth; and soil temperature at
depths of 0~cm (surface) and 30~cm. Pressure measurements were made by
drilling a standard 1.1~cm diameter, 5~cm deep taphole and inserting a
black nylon maple spout in an inverted position. A tube leading from
the spout was filled with water and connected to an Omega PX-26-030GV
pressure sensor (with $\pm$1\% accuracy). Both thermocouples and
pressure sensors were wired to a Campbell Scientific 21X datalogger and
measurements were stored at 15 minute intervals. A photograph showing
the taphole and wired connections is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:sensor-photo}. Stem temperature and pressure were
measured on both north and south sides of the tree and were often very
divergent. Sap flow was measured from a taphole in a similarly-sized
tree nearby using a standard maple spout connected via tubing to a
collection chamber. A pressure sensor in the bottom was used to convert
pressure to depth, so that exuded sap volume and flow rate could be
determined for each interval. Data were downloaded from the datalogger
as comma-separated values and stored in Excel files for analysis.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering\small
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{TPsensorPhoto}
\caption{Photograph of a taphole containing a black nylon spout that
is connected by plastic tubing to an Omega PX-26-030GV pressure
sensor. Additional wires leading to thermocouples are also shown.}
\label{fig:sensor-photo}
\end{figure}
\leavethisout{
\begin{itemize}
\item Six red maples: diameter at breast height (DBH) $=$
42.7, 28.4, 23.9, 18.5, 14.0, 25.7 cm
\item Two sugar maples: both DBH $\approx$ 61 cm
\end{itemize}
}
\section{Materials and Methods: Mathematical Model}
\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Background on xylem structure in maple}
\label{sec:xylem}
Before presenting the mathematical model for the freeze--thaw process
governing sap exudation, we begin by briefly summarizing the
physical and structural characteristics of maple xylem that play an
essential role in sap transport and exudation (more detail is provided
in \citet{tyree-zimmermann-2002}). The xylem in hardwood trees such
as maple is made primarily of rigid and nearly cylindrical structures
that consist of the hollowed-out walls of dead wood cells. Sapwood has a
regular and quasi-periodic microstructure shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}a that consists of regularly spaced
vessels interspersed with much more abundant tracheids and (libriform)
fibers having a smaller diameter. Vessels are the primary
water-conducting conduits in sapwood, and each is is divided lengthwise
into vessel elements that are connected end-to-end via perforation
plates, thereby forming long capillary tubes. Vessel walls are
interspersed with cavities called pits that connect cells
hydraulically through pit membranes as long as the pits in adjacent cells
align or ``pair up''. Tracheids are intermediate in size between vessels
and fibers and are also connected through paired pits with neighbouring
vessels and other tracheids. Since both vessels and tracheids are mostly
sap-filled, they serve as the primary conduits for xylem sap transport.
Fibers on the other hand are known to contain mostly
gas~\citep{milburn-omalley-1984} and their walls demonstrate a relative
lack of pitting. As a result, they are usually regarded to have
negligible impact on sap transport and instead serve a structural
function. The lignified fiber walls have nonetheless been found to
contain micropores (much smaller than those in pit membranes) which are
selectively permeable, allowing water and small solutes to pass but
inhibiting the passage of larger molecules like sucrose
\citep{cirelli-etal-2008}.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{lclcl}
\myfiglett{(a)} Sapwood microstructure. &~&
\myfiglett{(b)} Fiber--vessel pair. &~&
\myfiglett{(c)} Model domain, during a thawing phase.\\[0.1cm]
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\put(0,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.25\linewidth]{XylemFinal}}
\node at (4.1,6.45) {\mbox{}};
\draw[ultra thin] (0,0) rectangle (0,0);
\draw[-, ultra thick] (2.8,0) -- (4.1,0);
\draw[-, ultra thick] (2.8,-0.1) -- (2.8,0.1);
\draw[-, ultra thick] (4.1,-0.1) -- (4.1,0.1);
\node at (3.45,0.15) {\scriptsize\sffamily 100\,$\mu$m};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.25\linewidth]{tikzfigure2a}}
&&
\raisebox{0.5cm}{\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{fvvertical}}
&&
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\sffamily\bfseries
\filldraw[color=brown, fill=cyan!40!white, very thick] (1,2) circle (1);
\filldraw[color=brown, fill=cyan!40!white, very thick] (3.5,2) circle (2);
\filldraw[color=cyan!40!white, fill=cyan!40!white] (1.5,1.3) rectangle ++(1,1.45);
\filldraw[color=cyan!40!white, fill=white] (0.9,2) circle (0.7);
\filldraw[color=yellow, fill=yellow!80!white] (0.9,2) circle (0.5);
\draw[color=gray,very thin,densely dashed] (0.9,2) circle (0.5);
\filldraw[color=yellow, fill=yellow!80!white] (3.5,2) circle (0.7);
\draw[color=gray,very thin,densely dashed] (3.5,2) circle (0.7);
\node at (4.0,3.4) {{\footnotesize sap}};
\node at (3.5,1.5) {{\footnotesize gas}};
\node at (0.6,1.95) {{\footnotesize gas}};
\node at (0.75,1.45) {{\footnotesize ice}};
\node at (0.95,1.15) {{\footnotesize water}};
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, densely dashed, thick] (0.9,2) -- (1.2,2.4);
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, densely dashed, thick] (0.9,2) -- (0.8,2.7);
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, densely dashed, thick] (0.9,2) -- (0.4,2.8);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (1.25, 2.50) {\footnotesize $s_g$};
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (0.83, 2.80) {\footnotesize $s_{iw}$};
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (0.35, 2.49) {\footnotesize $R^f$};
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, densely dashed, thick] (3.5,2) -- (3.9,2.6);
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, densely dashed, thick] (3.5,2) -- (5.3,2.9);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (3.9,2.7) {\footnotesize $r$};
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (5.0,2.9) {\footnotesize $R^v$};
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (1.22,1.62) -- (1.41,1.38);
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (0.46,1.76) -- (0.20,1.60);
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (1.02,2.48) -- (1.11,2.77);
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (4.11,1.65) -- (3.84,1.80);
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (2.84,1.76) -- (3.12,1.86);
\draw[color=gray, ->, very thick] (3.44,2.70) -- (3.47,2.40);
\coordinate (S) at (1.4,2.7);
\coordinate (E) at (2.1,2.9);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.1cm, opacity=0.8] (S) to [out=-70,in=-110,distance=0.4cm] (E);
\coordinate (SS) at (1.4,1.2);
\coordinate (EE) at (2.1,1.0);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.1cm, opacity=0.8] (SS) to [out=70,in=110,distance=0.4cm] (EE);
\node[color=blue] at (2.2,3.0) {\footnotesize $U$};
\draw[color=gray, dotted, very thick, rounded corners] (0.9,1.9) rectangle ++(4.6,0.2);
\draw[->, color=darkgray, thick] (4.5,2) -- (5.7,2);
\node at (5.8,2) {$\pmb{y}$};
\draw[-, color=blue, very thick] (0.9,2) circle (0.03);
\draw[-, color=blue, very thick] (3.5,2) circle (0.03);
\draw[-, dashed, line width=0.8mm, color=brown] (1.65,1.26) -- (1.65,2.73);
\node at (0.1,1.11) {Fiber};
\node at (4.9,0.13) {Vessel};
\draw[->, color=red!80!darkgray, snake=coil, segment aspect=0, very thick] (0.5,4.0) -- (1.0,3.2);
\draw[->, color=red!80!darkgray, snake=coil, segment aspect=0, very thick] (1.5,4.5) -- (2.0,3.7);
\node at (1.1,4.1) {\color{red!80!darkgray}Heat};
\node at (1.3,3.8) {\color{red!80!darkgray}influx};
\draw[-, color=white] (0.5,-0.5) -- (0.5,-0.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\raisebox{0.25cm}{\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{tikzfigure2c}}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Sapwood microstructure and the idealized 2D model geometry.
(a)~A microscopic cut-away view of the sapwood within a typical
hardwood tree, depicting the vessels and (libriform) fibers that are
central to the model. Tracheids are connected hydraulically to
neighbouring vessels via paired pits, which is why they are ``lumped
together'' in our model with vessels. Note that fiber walls also
contain pits, but they are unpaired and hence unconnected to
adjacent vessels or tracheids. (b)~A single fiber--vessel pair
showing the main geometric parameters. The horizontal cutting plane
highlights the planar cross-section corresponding to the 2D model
geometry in Figure~{\protect\ref{fig:cell-geometry}}c. The dashed
circles represent the $N$ copies of the fiber that are incorporated
into the equations through a simple multiplier $N$. (c)~The 2D model
geometry depicting a thawing scenario. A thawing fiber of radius
$R^f$ (containing nested layers of gas, ice and liquid water) is
located adjacent to a thawed vessel of radius $R^v$ (containing gas
and liquid sap). As the fiber ice layer thaws, the fiber gas bubble
expands and forces melt-water through the porous wall into the
vessel at a rate $U$, thereby compressing the vessel gas and
increasing the vessel sap pressure.}
\label{fig:cell-geometry}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Microscale model for the thawing process}
\label{sec:model-thawing}
We next describe our model for the essential processes governing sap
exudation on the microscopic (cellular) scale which include: heat
transport; phase change due to freezing and thawing; expansion,
contraction and dissolution of gas; and porous flow through pit
membranes and selectively-permeable micropores in the fiber--vessel
wall. Our ultimate goal is to model repeated freeze--thaw cycles in
response to ambient temperature variations as depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:thawing-freezing}, where a thawing (or freezing) front
propagates into the tree stem and separates regions of the sapwood that
are frozen from those that are thawed. The front actually comprises a thin
annular section of sapwood that exists in a mixed state containing
water/sap in both liquid and ice forms. We focus our attention on
equations for the thawing process only and refer the interested reader
to \citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015} for the modifications required to
capture all other possible freeze--thaw states.
\tikzfading[name=arrowfading, top color=transparent!0, bottom color=transparent!95]
\tikzset{arrowfill/.style={#1}}
\tikzset{arrowstyle/.style n args={3}{draw=#2,arrowfill={#3},
single arrow, minimum height=#1, single arrow,
single arrow head extend=0.15cm}}
\NewDocumentCommand{\tikzfancyarrow}{O{2cm} O{darkgray}
O{top color=darkgray!20, bottom color=darkgray} m}{
\tikz[baseline=-0.5ex]\node [arrowstyle={#1}{#2}{#3}] {#4};}
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering\sffamily\bfseries
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6]
\node[color=black] at (0.1,1.9) {(i)}
\filldraw[color=red, fill=red!20, very thick](1,1) circle (1);
\node[align=center,color=red!80!darkgray] at (1.1,1.05) {thawed};
%
\draw [thick,->] (0.2,-0.5)--(1.8,-0.5) node [right, below]{$t$};
\draw [thick,->] (0.23,-0.8)--(0.23,-0.1) node [left]{$T$};
\node at (0.25,-0.5) [left] {$0^\circ$};
\draw [->, thick, variable=\t, domain=0.5:1.5, samples=101, smooth, color=green!60!darkgray]
plot (\t, {-0.22-0.08*cos(8*\t r))});
\node at (2.5,1.05) {\tikzfancyarrow[1cm]{}};
\node[rotate=90] at (1.0,-1.2) {\tikzfancyarrow[1cm]{}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{tikzfigure3i}}
%
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6]
\node[color=black] at (0.1,1.9) {(ii)}
\filldraw[color=blue!40!darkgray, fill=blue!5, very thick] (1,1) circle (1);
\filldraw[color=blue!40!darkgray, fill=gray!40!white, very thick, dashed] (1,1) circle (0.65);
\filldraw[color=gray, fill=red!20, very thick, dashed] (1,1) circle (0.50);
\draw[color=blue!40!darkgray, ->, very thick] (1.57,1.57) -- (1.28,1.28);
\draw[color=blue!40!darkgray, ->, very thick] (0.43,1.57) -- (0.72,1.28);
\draw[color=blue!40!darkgray, ->, very thick] (0.43,0.43) -- (0.72,0.72);
\draw[color=blue!40!darkgray, ->, very thick] (1.57,0.43) -- (1.28,0.72);
\node[align=center,color=red!80!darkgray] at (1.1,1.05) {thawed};
\node[align=center,color=blue!40!darkgray] at (0.9,1.8) {frozen};
\node[align=center,color=darkgray] at (1,1.56) {mixed};
%
\draw [thick,->] (0.2,-0.5)--(1.8,-0.5) node [right, below]{$t$};
\draw [thick,->] (0.23,-0.8)--(0.23,-0.1) node [left]{$T$};
\node at (0.25,-0.5) [left] {$0^\circ$};
\draw [->, thick, variable=\t, domain=0.5:1.5, samples=101, smooth, color=green!60!darkgray]
plot (\t, {-0.1-0.4*\t+0.05*sin(5*\t r)});
\node[rotate=270] at (1.0,-1.2) {\tikzfancyarrow[1cm]{}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.23\linewidth]{tikzfigure3ii}}
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6]
\node[color=black] at (0.1,1.9) {(iv)}
\filldraw[color=red, fill=red!20, very thick](1,1) circle (1);
\filldraw[color=red, fill=gray!40!white, very thick, dashed] (1,1) circle (0.65);
\filldraw[color=gray, fill=blue!5, very thick, dashed] (1,1) circle (0.50);
\draw[color=red!80!darkgray, ->, very thick] (1.57,1.57) -- (1.28,1.28);
\draw[color=red!80!darkgray, ->, very thick] (0.43,1.57) -- (0.72,1.28);
\draw[color=red!80!darkgray, ->, very thick] (0.43,0.43) -- (0.72,0.72);
\draw[color=red!80!darkgray, ->, very thick] (1.57,0.43) -- (1.28,0.72);
\node[align=center,color=blue!40!darkgray] at (1.1,1.05) {frozen};
\node[align=center,color=red!80!darkgray] at (0.9,1.8) {thawed};
\node[align=center,color=darkgray] at (1,1.56) {mixed};
\draw[color=gray, rounded corners, fill=gray!40!white]
(0.31,0.95) rectangle ++(0.25,0.20);
\draw[dotted, color=black, very thick, rounded corners, fill=gray,
pattern color=darkgray, pattern=north west lines]
(0.31,0.95) rectangle ++(0.25,0.20);
%
\draw [thick,->] (0.2,-0.5)--(1.8,-0.5) node [right, below]{$t$};
\draw [thick,->] (0.23,-0.8)--(0.23,-0.1) node [left]{$T$};
\node at (0.25,-0.5) [left] {$0^\circ$};
\draw [->, thick, variable=\t, domain=0.5:1.5, samples=101, smooth, color=green!60!darkgray]
plot (\t, {-0.9+0.4*\t-0.05*cos(5*\t r))});
%
\node[rotate=180] at (2.5,1.05) {\tikzfancyarrow[1cm]{}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{tikzfigure3iv}}
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6]
\node[color=black] at (0.1,1.9) {(iii)}
\filldraw[color=blue!40!darkgray, fill=blue!5, very thick] (1,1) circle (1);
\node[align=center,color=blue!40!darkgray] at (1.1,1.05) {frozen};
%
\draw [thick,->] (0.2,-0.5)--(1.8,-0.5) node [right, below]{$t$};
\draw [thick,->] (0.23,-0.8)--(0.23,-0.1) node [left]{$T$};
\node at (0.25,-0.5) [left] {$0^\circ$};
\draw [->, thick, variable=\t, domain=0.5:1.5, samples=101, smooth, color=green!60!darkgray]
plot (\t, {-0.7+0.08*sin(5*\t r))});
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.23\linewidth]{tikzfigure3iii}}
\caption{The freeze--thaw process within a circular tree stem cycles
between four main phases
(i\,$\rightarrow$\,ii\,$\rightarrow$\,iii\,$\rightarrow$\,iv\,$\rightarrow$\,i\,$\rightarrow$\,\dots)
as ambient temperature $T$ cycles below and above the freezing
point: (i) completely thawed (with $T>0$); (ii) partially frozen
($T\searrow 0$), with a freezing front advancing radially inward to
the center of the stem; (iii) completely frozen ($T<0$); (iv)
partially thawed ($T\nearrow 0$), with a thawing front advancing
radially inward. The freezing/thawing fronts in (ii,iv) are thin
annular regions (shaded in grey, and in reality much thinner than
depicted here) wherein the liquid is in a ``mixed'' state; that is,
the water in the fibers is freezing/frozen and the sap in the
vessels thawing/thawed. The thawing front circled on the left of
(iv) is magnified in Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}c to the cellular
scale, which depicts an individual vessel and an adjacent fiber in a
partially thawed state.}
\label{fig:thawing-freezing}
\end{figure}
In order to derive a model that is tractable, we make a number of
simplifying assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=A\arabic*.,ref=A\arabic*]
\item Vertical \label{assume:2d} variations due to gravity and
height-dependence are neglected, so that we can focus on a 2D
horizontal cross-section through a circular tree stem.
\item At \label{assume:cells} the cellular level, we consider only the
contribution of vessels and fibers to exudation. Tracheids
are not treated separately but rather lumped together with
vessels. Other sapwood components (such as ray cells) are ignored.
\item Sapwood \label{assume:periodicity} has a uniform, periodic
microstructure consisting of cylindrical vessels and fibers, both
having constant lengths ($L^v$, $L^f$) and radii ($R^v$, $R^f$). Then
we can reasonably restrict our attention to a horizontal slice through
a single vessel element and adjacent fiber as pictured in
Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}b.
\item Each \label{assume:Nfibers} vessel is in contact with $N$ fibers
on average (see Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}b) so that the influence
of multiple fibers can be incorporated by simply multiplying by a
factor of $N$ the contribution from the single fiber being modelled.
\item Based \label{assume:radial-symmetry} on the circular symmetry of
the fiber and vessel, we take all microscopic variables to
depend on a radial coordinate $y$ passing through the
fiber and vessel centers.
\item Gas \label{assume:vessel-gas} is also present in the vessels,
which is consistent with observations showing that exuding maple sap
contains suspended gas bubbles \citep{wiegand-1906,
marvin-greene-1959, perkins-vandenberg-2009}. Because water and sap
are incompressible fluids, we must include some gas in the vessel to
facilitate pressure exchange between fiber and vessel.
\item Gas, \label{assume:layers} liquid and ice within the fiber and
vessel exist as distinct layers arranged in concentric
annuli as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}c. This is
consistent with \citet{milburn-omalley-1984} who conjectured that
ice accumulates on the inner fiber wall due to cryostatic
suction from previous freezing cycles to encase a central gas bubble,
and that during a thawing cycle any liquid melt-water collects in a
layer between the ice and the wall.
\item The \label{assume:constant-T} temperature in the gas and ice layers is
assumed to be constant and equal to that of the adjacent
liquid. Furthermore, during any freeze or thaw cycle the temperatures
of the gas/ice layers in the fiber remain constant at the critical
temperature $T_c$. This is justified because the fiber radius is
roughly 6 times smaller than in the vessel, and the thermal
diffusivities for gas and ice are so much larger than that for liquid
\citep{tyree-zimmermann-2002}.
\item Any \label{assume:permeability} liquid entering the fiber from the
vessel must be pure water owing to the selective permeability of the
fiber--vessel wall \citep{cirelli-etal-2008}.
\item Liquid \label{assume:soil-liquid} water is present within the soil
even under freezing conditions and tree roots actively transport water
throughout the entire freeze--thaw cycle, both of which are supported by
observations \citep{marvin-1958, robitaille-boutin-lachance-1995,
sorkin-2014}.
\end{enumerate}
Based on the above assumptions, we now present the governing
equations for the thawing phase of the exudation cycle in
which vessel are thawed and fibers are still partially frozen (depicted
in Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}c and corresponding to phase (iv) in
Figure~\ref{fig:thawing-freezing}). Full details of the derivation can
be found in \citet{ceseri-stockie-2013, graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}. The
physical state of the various phases within a given vessel and fiber can
be described by the following six time-dependent functions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] $s_g(t)$: fiber gas bubble radius, measured from the center of
the fiber,
\item[] $s_{iw}(t)$: radius of the fiber ice-water interface,
\item[] $r(t)$: vessel gas bubble radius,
\item[] $U(t)$: total volume of melt-water that flows through the
porous fiber--vessel wall, measured positive from fiber to vessel,
\item[] $U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}(t)$: total volume of soil water influx through the
roots,
\item[] $\Tmicro(y,t)$: temperature in the vessel sap, which also depends on
the radial coordinate $y$ with origin at the vessel center so that
$r(t)\leqslant y \leqslant R^v$ (recall that temperature is taken to
be constant elsewhere in the fiber and vessel).
\end{itemize}
We will now state equations for the first five unknowns, leaving the
microscale heat equation for $\Tmicro$ to the next section. First of
all, an algebraic equation for conservation of volume can be derived
that relates the thickness of various layers within the fiber and
balances with any melt-water exiting into the vessel ($U$). After
exploiting the circular symmetry in the fiber, this volume constraint is
differentiated in time to obtain
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t s_g = - \frac{(\rho_w -\rho_i) s_{iw} \partial_t
s_{iw}}{\rho_i s_g} + \frac{\rho_w \partial_t U}{2 \pi
L^f \rho_i s_g},
\label{eq:sgas}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $\rho_w$ and $\rho_i$ are the water and ice densities
respectively. Note that this equation is an ordinary differential equation (ODE)
for the variable $s_g(t)$. A similar volume conservation equation
governs the vessel gas bubble radius $r(t)$
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t r = - \frac{N \partial_t U + \partial_t U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}}{2\pi L^v
r},
\label{eq:rgas}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
which involves an additional term arising from root water $U$ drawn into
the xylem vessel network. Note that the $\partial_t U$ term is
multiplied here by $N$, which is the average number of fibers connected
to each vessel. The dynamics of the ice-water interface $s_{iw}$ is
governed by a phase change process that obeys the Stefan condition
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t s_{iw} = -\frac{k_w/\rho_w}{E_w-E_i} \, \nderiv{\Tmicro} +
\frac{\partial_t U}{2 \pi L^f s_{iw}},
\label{eq:siw-stefan}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $k_w$ is the thermal conductivity of water, $(E_w-E_i)$ is the
latent heat, and $\nderiv{\Tmicro} \equiv \nabla_y \Tmicro\cdot\vec{n}$
denotes the normal heat flux.
The two remaining equations are obtained by applying
Darcy's law for flow in porous media. The liquid flux through the
porous fiber--vessel wall obeys
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t U = - \frac{\mathscr{L} \mathcal{A}_{\!f\!v}}{N} \left( p_w^v - p_w^f
- C_s \mathscr{R} \Tmicro(R^v,t) + p_{\text{\emph{ice}}} \right)
\label{eq:U-darcy}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $\mathcal{A}_{\!f\!v} = 2 \pi R^v L^v$ is the surface area of the
fiber--vessel wall and $\mathscr{L}$ is its hydraulic conductivity. The
term in parentheses represents a balance at the fiber--vessel wall
between four pressures: vessel and fiber liquid pressures, $p_w^v(t)$
and $p_w^f(t)$; osmotic pressure
deriving from the sap sugar concentration $C_s$; and cryostatic suction
$p_{\text{\emph{ice}}}$ which is an ice-water surface tension that is zero under thawing
conditions, but nonzero when the fiber is completely frozen and the
adjacent vessel contains liquid sap. A second application of Darcy's gives the
volume flux of root water as
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}} =
- \mathcal{C}_r}%_{\text{\emph{refl}}} \mathscr{L}_r \mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}} ( p_w^v- p_{\text{\emph{soil}}} ),
\label{eq:Uroot-darcy}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $\mathscr{L}_r$ is the root hydraulic conductivity, $\mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$ is the
root area (per vessel), and $p_{\text{\emph{soil}}}$ is the soil water
pressure. According to \citet{henzler-etal-1999}, the roots function as
a partial check valve in the sense that aquaporin membranes
controlling root water transport are more permeable to inflow than
to outflow. This effect is incorporated through a reflection coefficient
$\mathcal{C}_r}%_{\text{\emph{refl}}} \in [0,1]$ that takes the value $\mathcal{C}_r}%_{\text{\emph{refl}}}=\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,in}}}=1$ for inflow
(when $p_w^v \leqslant p_{\text{\emph{soil}}}$) and $\mathcal{C}_r}%_{\text{\emph{refl}}}=\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}\in[0,1)$ for outflow
(when $p_w^v > p_{\text{\emph{soil}}}$).
The lower limit $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=0$ corresponds to the case of no root outflow
(which was assumed by \citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}) whereas the
upper limit $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=1$ represents the symmetric case where root inflow and
outflow experience equal resistance. We propose using an intermediate
value of $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=0.2$, which is consistent with experiments of
\citet{henzler-etal-1999} on legumes, and of
\citet{steudle-peterson-1998} on woody plants (although a
values as large as $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=0.7$ have been suggested by
\citet{tyree-etal-1994}).
The only quantities in the above equations that remain to be specified are
the vessel and fiber liquid pressures $p_w^v$ and $p_w^f$. In the
vessel, the sap pressure satisfies
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
p_g^v(t) = \frac{\rho_g^v(t) \mathscr{R} T_c}{M_g}
- \frac{2\sigma_{gw}}{r(t)},
\label{eq:pressure1}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
which represents a balance between gas pressure (from the ideal gas law) and
surface tension at the gas bubble interface
(from the Young-Laplace equation). Here, $\rho_g^v(t)$ is the vessel
gas density and $\sigma_{gw}$ is the gas-liquid surface tension. The
gas density is related to the volumes $V_w^v(t)$ and $V_g^v(t)$ of the
vessel sap and gas regions by
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\rho_g^v(t) = \left(\frac{V_g^v(0) + \mathcal{H} V_w^v(0)}{V_g^v(t) +
\mathcal{H} V_w^v(t)}\right) \rho_g^v(0),
\label{eq:henry1}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
which accounts for gas dissolving in the sap via terms involving Henry's
constant $\mathcal{H}$. Finally, the cell volume quantities are determined
by simple geometric constraints
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
V_g^v(t) = \pi L^v r(t)^2 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
V_w^v(t) = \pi L^v \left((R^v)^2 - r(t)^2\right).
\label{eq:volume1}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
An analogous set of equations govern the fiber water pressure $p_w^f(t)$
but are not included here.
Recall that the ODEs~\eqref{eq:sgas}--\eqref{eq:Uroot-darcy} along with
the algebraic constraints~\eqref{eq:pressure1}--\eqref{eq:volume1}
describe the dynamics within the fiber and vessel during a thawing phase
only, when a fiber in the midst of thawing lies adjacent
to a vessel that is completely thawed. There are five
additional cases corresponding to the various freeze--thaw
states within the fiber and vessel, and each case leads to a
modification of the governing equations detailed in
\citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}.
\subsection{Homogenized two-scale model for heat transport}
\label{sec:model-heat}
To complete the model description we must derive two additional
equations describing heat transport: the first capturing microscale
effects that arise from phase change within the fibers and vessels; and
the second governing macroscale effects throughout the xylem that are
driven by ambient temperature variations. However, the temperatures on
the two scales are tightly coupled and so that extra care must be taken
to properly account for the transfer of heat energy between the micro-
and macro-scales. For this purpose, we apply the method of periodic
homogenization or two-scale convergence \citep{allaire-1992} which
posits that in a material such as sapwood having a clear separation of
scales, the detailed microscale dynamics can be represented by a simpler
problem defined on a reference cell $\mathcal{Y}$. For reasons of
simplicity, $\mathcal{Y}$ is typically assumed to have radial symmetry,
which is not the case for the microscale geometry in
Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}c; nevertheless, we can still define a
modified reference cell that has the requisite symmetry. Because the
essential freeze--thaw processes that govern pressure generation occur
within fibers, we choose a fiber-centric coordinate system with
radial variable $y$, in which the fiber is placed in the middle of a
square reference cell having side length $\varepsilon$ (see
Figure~\ref{fig:macro2}a). Since the vessel is so much larger than the
fiber, it appears simply as a sap reservoir from the fiber perspective.
Consequently, we consider the vessel as the region of the
reference cell lying outside the fiber, as depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:macro2}a (which in some sense ``turns the vessel
inside-out''). In order that this modified reference cell remains
consistent with the original fiber--vessel geometry in
Figure~\ref{fig:cell-geometry}c, we impose a simple volume constraint
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\pi \big({R^v}\big)^2 + \pi \big({R^f}\big)^2 N = \varepsilon^2,
\label{eq:eps-geometry}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
which ensures that each reference cell captures the net influence of one
vessel and $N$ adjacent fibers. Although Figure~\ref{fig:macro2}a
depicts the vessel gas as a circular region in the lower-left corner,
the gas is not strictly assigned to any physical location otherwise the
radial symmetry would be broken. Instead, it is represented in terms of
the radius $r$ of the equivalent gas bubble along with the fraction of
gas in dissolved form. As a result, the equations from the previous
section remain identical despite this apparent change in reference cell
geometry.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering\bfseries\sffamily\small
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[ultra thin, fill=cyan!40!white] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);
\node at (2.6,5.3) {(a) {\rmfamily\normalfont Reference cell, $\mathcal{Y}=\Yfast\cup\Gamma\cup\Yslow$.}};
\draw[color=darkgray, loosely dotted, very thick, fill=cyan!60!gray!80!white] (2.5,2.5) circle(2.15);
\node[color=darkgray] at (4.2,4.2) {{\small $\pmb{\Gamma}$}};
\draw[color=brown!80!black, densely dashed, line width=0.8mm] (2.5,2.5) circle(1.3);
\draw[color=white, fill=white] (2.5,2.5) circle(1.0);
\node[rotate=-25] at (2.15,1.75) {{\footnotesize ice}};
\draw[color=gray!30!white, fill=yellow!80!white] (2.5,2.5) circle(0.7);
\draw[color=gray,very thin,densely dashed] (2.5,2.5) circle (0.7);
\node[rotate=-25] at (2.3,2.05) {{\footnotesize gas}};
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, thick, densely dashed] (2.5,2.5) -- (3.42,3.42);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (3.05,3.30) {\footnotesize $R^f$};
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, thick, densely dashed] (2.5,2.5) -- (3.5,2.8);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (3.37,2.59) {\footnotesize $s_{iw}$};
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, thick, densely dashed] (2.5,2.5) -- (3.15,2.25);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (3.10,2.05) {\footnotesize $s_g$};
\draw[color=gray!30!white, fill=yellow!80!white] (0.6,0.6) circle(0.45);
\draw[color=gray,very thin,densely dashed] (0.6,0.6) circle (0.45);
\draw[-, color=blue!60!black, very thick] (0.6,0.6) circle (0.03);
\draw[color=blue!50!darkgray, ->, thick, densely dashed] (0.6,0.6) -- (0.93,0.93);
\node[color=blue!60!black] at (0.72,0.90) {\footnotesize $r$};
\node at (0.60,0.3) {{\footnotesize gas}};
\node at (0.75,3.4) {Vessel};
\node at (1.9,3.0) {Fiber};
\draw[->, color=darkgray, very thick] (2.5,2.5) -- (2.5,4.5) node[color=black,pos=0.9,right] {$\pmb{y}$};
\draw[-, color=blue!60!black, very thick] (2.5,2.5) circle (0.03);
\coordinate (SS) at (2.7,1.4);
\coordinate (EE) at (3.4,1.1);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.08cm, opacity=0.8] (SS) to [out=290,in=180,distance=0.5cm] (EE);
\node[color=blue] at (3.6,1.1) {\footnotesize $\pmb{U}$};
\draw[color=black, fill=cyan!30!white] (5.3,2.2) rectangle ++(0.5,0.5);
\draw[color=black, densely dashed, fill=white] (5.55,2.45) circle (0.18);
\node[color=black] at (6.1,2.45) {$\Yfast$};
\draw[color=black, densely dashed] (5.3,1.5) rectangle ++(0.5,0.5);
\draw[color=black, fill=cyan!60!gray] (5.55,1.75) circle (0.20);
\draw[color=white, fill=white] (5.55,1.75) circle (0.08);
\draw[color=yellow, fill=yellow] (5.55,1.75) circle (0.05);
\node[color=black] at (6.1,1.75) {$\Yslow$};
\node[color=black] at (5.2,0.20) {$\mathcal{Y}$};
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.05cm, opacity=0.8] (4.50,0.73) -- (4.50, 1.00);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.05cm, opacity=0.8] (4.42,0.65) -- (4.15, 0.65);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.05cm, opacity=0.8] (4.58,0.65) -- (4.85, 0.65);
\draw[color=blue, ->, line width=0.05cm, opacity=0.8] (4.50,0.57) -- (4.50, 0.30);
\draw[color=blue, -, line width=0.05cm] (4.5,0.65) circle(0.07);
\node[color=blue] at (4.25,0.25) {\footnotesize $\pmb{U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.40\linewidth]{tikzfigure4a}}%
%
\ifthenelse{\boolean{@IsTikzPlotsOnly}}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[color=white] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);
\node at (2.6,5.3) {(b) {\rmfamily\normalfont Stem cross-section $\Xmacro$ tiled with reference cells.}};
\foreach \x in {0,1,...,9}
\foreach \y in {0,1,...,9}{
\draw[color=white,dotted,fill=cyan!40!white] (0.5*\x,0.5*\y) rectangle ++(0.5,0.5);
\draw[color=cyan!40!white,fill=cyan!60!gray!80!white] (0.5*\x+0.25,0.5*\y+0.25) circle(0.215);
\draw[color=brown!80!black, densely dotted] (0.5*\x+0.25,0.5*\y+0.25) circle(0.13);
\draw[color=cyan!60!gray,fill=white] (0.5*\x+0.25,0.5*\y+0.25) circle(0.1);
\draw[color=white,fill=yellow!80!white] (0.5*\x+0.25,0.5*\y+0.25) circle(0.07);
\draw[color=gray!30!white,fill=yellow!80!white] (0.5*\x+0.07,0.5*\y+0.07) circle(0.06);
}
\begin{scope}[even odd rule]
\clip (2.5,2.5) circle(2.5) (0,0) rectangle (5,5);
\fill[white] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);
\end{scope}
\draw[color=white] (0,0) rectangle (5,5);
\draw[color=brown, ultra thick] (2.5,2.5) circle(2.5);
\draw[color=brown, ultra thick, fill=white] (2.5,2.5) circle (1.0);
\draw[->, thick, densely dashed, color=blue!60!black] (2.5,2.5) -- (4.27,4.27) node[pos=0.9,left] {$R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$};
\draw[->, thick, densely dashed, color=blue!60!black] (2.5,2.5) -- (3.45,2.8) node[pos=0.6,below] {$R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}$};
\draw[->, color=darkgray, very thick] (2.5,2.5) -- (2.5,4.9) node[pos=0.95,right,color=black] {$\pmb{x}$};
\draw[-, color=blue!60!black, very thick] (2.5,2.5) circle (0.03);
\node[color=black] at (4.5,0.6) {$\Xmacro$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}{\includegraphics[width=0.51\linewidth]{tikzfigure4b}}
\caption{(a) The reference cell $\mathcal{Y}$ containing a fiber located
at the center (the brown dashed line is the fiber wall) outside of
which lies the vessel. For the purposes of the periodic
homogenization process, an artificial boundary $\Gamma$ (outer
dotted circle) is introduced that separates $\mathcal{Y}$ into two
sub-regions: $\Yslow$, a fiber--vessel overlap region where heat
diffusion is slow (shaded in medium blue); and $\Yfast$, the outer
portion of the vessel region where diffusion is relatively fast
(light blue). A gas bubble of radius $r$ is depicted in the
lower-left corner, and the root water source $U_r$ in the
lower-right. (b) An annular sapwood cross-section is tiled
periodically with copies of the reference cell from (a). Mature
trees contains a non-conducting heartwood region extending out to
radius $x=R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}$, whereas younger saplings may have no heartwood
($R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}=0$).}
\label{fig:macro2}
\end{figure}
Next we exploit the regular, quasi-periodic microstructure of sapwood and
view the stem as being constructed of a periodic array of reference
cells as pictured in Figure~\ref{fig:macro2}b. The macroscopic domain
$\Xmacro$ is the 2D cross-section of an annular cylinder having outer
radius $x=R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ and inner radius $x=R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}$ bounding the non-conductive
heartwood.
Our aim is now to derive two equations for heat transport: one on the
reference cell that incorporates local variations in temperature due to
freeze--thaw processes occuring in a given reference cell at location
$x\in\Xmacro$; and a second equation capturing macroscopic heat
transport throughout $\Xmacro$ in response to ambient temperature
fluctuations, combined with the local effects. The main objective of
the periodic homogenization process is to derive appropriate heat
transport coefficients for the macroscale heat equation that incorporate
the effects of the microscale by averaging the solution of the reference
cell problem $\mathcal{Y}$ appropriately. We also note that the
reference cell size $\varepsilon$ plays a dual role in homogenization:
it can be considered as a physical dimension but must also be viewed
asymptotically in the limit as $\varepsilon\to 0$ to obtain the averaged
effect of the microscale freeze--thaw process on the macroscale.
We now summarize the essential aspects of the periodic homogenization
procedure, for which complete mathematical details are provided in
\citet{konrad-peter-stockie-2017}. For technical reasons, the reference
cell $\mathcal{Y}$ is separated into two sub-regions ($\Yslow$ and $\Yfast$)
pictured in Figure~\ref{fig:macro2}a, where $\Yslow$ refers to the fiber
plus the inner portion of the vessel where heat diffuses slowly, whereas
$\Yfast$ is the remaining outer portion of the vessel where diffusion is
fast compared to $\Yslow$. The curve $\Gamma$ is an artificial boundary
separating $\Yfast$ from $\Yslow$ so that
$\mathcal{Y}(x,t)=\Yfast\,\cup\,\Gamma\,\cup\,\Yslow(x,t)$. Note that an
implicit time and space dependence appears in $\Yslow$ (and hence also
$\mathcal{Y}$) owing to the motion of phase boundaries that
alters the geometry of $\mathcal{Y}$ depending on the specific location $x$
(although our notation will often omit this dependence). Our aim is
then to derive two heat diffusion equations, one for $\Tmicro(x,y,t)$ on
the microscale domain $\Yslow \times \Xmacro$ and the other for
$\Tmacro(y,t)$ on the macroscale domain $\Xmacro$.
The governing equations are stated in a mixed temperature--enthalpy
formulation in order to properly capture phase transitions. To this end
we define $\Tmacro(x,t)$ and $\Emacro(x,t)$ as the macroscale
temperature and enthalpy variables, which are both constant inside
$\Yfast$ and thus depend only on the macroscale spatial coordinate $x$.
The corresponding microscale variables on $\Yslow(x,t)$ are
$\Tmicro(x,y,t)$ and $\Emicro(x,y,t)$, which vary at each point in the
macroscopic domain as well as the microscale $y$. We impose the usual
temperature--enthalpy relationship on both $\Tmacro=\omega(\Emacro)$ and
$\Tmicro=\omega(\Emicro)$ where
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\omega(\Emacro) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\Emacro}{c_i}, & \quad \text{if $\Emacro < E_i-\delta_i$},\\
T_c-\frac{2\Emacro-E_i-E_w}{2c_\infty},
& \quad \text{if $E_i-\delta_i \leqslant \Emacro \leqslant E_w+\delta_w$},\\
T_c+\frac{\Emacro-E_w}{c_w},
& \quad \text{if $E_w+\delta_w< \Emacro$},
\end{cases}
\label{eq:TE-omega}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
captures the change in phase that occurs at the critical (melting)
temperature $T_c$. This is a piecewise function consisting of two
linear segments with slopes $c_i^{-1}$ in ice and $c_w^{-1}$ in liquid,
connected by a steep layer with slope $c_\infty^{-1}$ (where $c_\infty
\approx 10^7$). Here $c_{w,i}$ refers to the specific heat capacities of
water and ice, while
$\delta_i=\frac{c_i(E_w-E_i)}{2(c_\infty-c_i)}$ and
$\delta_w=\frac{c_w(E_w-E_i)}{2(c_\infty-c_w)}$ are chosen to ensure
$\omega(E)$ is continuous.
Heat transport within the liquid-filled subregion $\Yslow$ is governed by
the usual heat equation
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
c_w \partial_t \Tmicro - \yderiv{ \Big(D(\Emicro) \yderiv{\Tmicro} \Big)} = 0
\qquad \text{in $\Yslow(x,t) \times \Xmacro$},
\label{eq:temp-micro}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $D$ is a thermal diffusion coefficient that is also
a piecewise linear function of enthalpy \citep{visintin-1996}:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
D(\Emicro) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{k_i}{\rho_i}, & \quad \text{if $\Emicro < E_i$},\\
\frac{k_i}{\rho_i}+\frac{\Emicro-E_i}{E_w-E_i} \Big(\frac{k_w}{\rho_w}
- \frac{k_i}{\rho_i}\Big),
& \quad \text{if $E_i \leqslant \Emicro \leqslant E_w$},\\
\frac{k_w}{\rho_w}, & \quad \text{if $E_w < \Emicro$}.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:diffusivity}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
The partial differential equation \eqref{eq:temp-micro} requires
boundary conditions on the inner ($\partial\Yslow$) and
outer ($\Gamma$) boundaries of $\Yslow$, which are
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\Tmicro &= T_c \qquad \text{on $\partial \Yslow(x,t) \times
\Xmacro$ \quad (phase-change boundary)},
\label{eq:microBC-inner}\\
\Tmicro &= \Tmacro \qquad \text{on $\Gamma \times \Xmacro$
\quad (coupling to macro-temperature)}.
\label{eq:microBC-outer}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
The homogenization procedure that we apply next to obtain a macroscale
heat equation is more complicated and requires first taking
$y=x/\varepsilon$ in the microscale problem and then expanding the
solution asymptotically as $\varepsilon\to 0$, which is referred to as
the \emph{two-scale limiting process}. The governing equation is written
in an integral (weak) formulation, but after approximating the resulting
integral terms in the $\varepsilon\to 0$ limit one obtains the following
strong formulation of the limit problem:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\partial_t \Emacro -
\partial_x \Big(\Pi D(\Emacro)\partial_x \Tmacro\Big)
= \frac{1}{|\Yfast|} \int_{\Gamma} D(\Emicro) \nderiv{\Tmicro} \, dS
\qquad \text{in $\Xmacro$} .
\label{eq:temp-macro}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
Note that this is an alternate form of the heat diffusion equation,
written in a mixed temperature--enthalpy form that implicitly captures
parameter discontinuities across phase interfaces. There are two new
terms appearing in Eq.~\eqref{eq:temp-macro} via the homogenization
process that are critically important in properly capturing the
influence of the microscale problems on the macroscale:
\begin{itemize}
\item The homogenized diffusion operator contains an extra constant
factor $\Pi$, which is a purely geometric quantity consisting of a
$2\times 2$ matrix with entries
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\Pi_{ij} = \frac{1}{|\Yfast|}
\int_{\Yfast} (\delta_{ij} + \yderiv{\mu_i}) \, dy.
\label{eq:Pi-matrix}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
Here, $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta symbol and $\mu_i(y)$ are
solutions to simple elliptic PDE problems on the reference cell
$\Yfast$ \citep{allaire-1992}.
\item The source term on the right hand side is a surface integral over
the artificial boundary $\Gamma$ of the microscopic heat
flux.
\end{itemize}
It is important to recognize here that the temperature--enthalpy
relationship $T=\omega(E)$ in \eqref{eq:TE-omega} involves the
critical temperature, $T_c$. Within the fiber (which contains pure
water) we take $T_c=0\mbox{${}^\circ$C}$, but in the macroscale problem $T_c$
must be replaced with
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
T_{\text{\emph{c,sap}}} = T_c - \frac{K_b C_s}{\rho_w},
\label{eq:FPD}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
where $K_b=1.853$ is the cryoscopic (or Blagden's) constant. This
accounts for the freezing point depression or FPD that arises due to
dissolved solutes (primarily sugar) in the vessel sap. Finally, the PDE
\eqref{eq:temp-macro} is supplemented with the boundary condition
\begin{linenomath}\begin{gather}
\Tmacro = T_a(t) \qquad \text{on $\partial \Xmacro$},
\label{eq:macroBC}
\end{gather}\end{linenomath}
which sets the outer stem surface temperature equal to a given ambient
air temperature and is what ultimately drives the freeze--thaw
process. Complete details of the homogenization procedure can be found
in \citet{konrad-peter-stockie-2017}, and we also refer the interested
reader to the work of \citet{chavarriakrauser-ptashnyk-2013} who applied
periodic homogenization to a related problem involving osmotic transport
in non-woody plants.
The parameter values appearing in these equations are taken mostly from
previous work \citep{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015,
konrad-peter-stockie-2017} that focused on comparisons to experimental
data from black walnut. These parameters are summarized in
Table~\ref{tab:params}, with a few small adjustments for
red/sugar maple as indicated. The ``base case'' that is indicated there
corresponds to a sugar maple sapling with diameter of 14~cm that has sap
sugar content of 3\% by mass.
\begin{table}[btp]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Model parameters used in the base case simulations are taken from
\citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}, unless otherwise indicated.
Modifications to parameters $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$, $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}$, $\gamma_s$ for
comparison with the red/sugar maple experiments are detailed in the
text.}
\label{tab:params}
\newcommand{\mytwocol}[2]{\parbox{\widthof{0.070,0.093}}{\raggedleft
#1}~~{\color{gray!50}$\mid$}~~\parbox{\widthof{0.070,0.093}}{\raggedright #2}}
\setstretch{1.04}
\begin{tabular}{clcc}\hline
{\bf Symbol} & {\bf Description} & {\bf Values} & {\bf Units} \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\emph{Variables (functions of time $t$ and space
$x$ or $y$):}}\\
$s_{iw}$, $s_g$ & fiber interface locations & & m \\
$r$ & vessel bubble radius & & m \\
$U$ & water transferred from fiber to vessel & & m${}^3$ \\
$U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$ & root water uptake & & m${}^3$ \\
$\Tmicro$, $\Tmacro$ & temperature & & \mbox{${}^\circ$C} \\
$p$ & pressure & & Pa \\
$\rho$ & density & & kg m${}^{-3}$ \\
$V$ & volume & & m${}^3$ \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\hspace*{0.5cm}\emph{(Subscripts: $i$,$w$,$g$ for ice,
water/sap, gas; Superscripts: $f$,$v$ for fiber, vessel)}}\\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\emph{Tree physiological parameters:}}\\
$\mathcal{A}_{\!f\!v}$ & surface area of fiber--vessel wall & \myee{6.28}{-8} & m${}^2$ \\
$\mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$ & root area per vessel $=\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}(R^v/R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}})^2$ & \myee{1.14}{-6} & m${}^2$ \\
$\mathcal{C}_r}%_{\text{\emph{refl}}}$ & root reflection coefficient, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Uroot-darcy}
& 0.2(out), 1.0(in) & -- \\
$\varepsilon$ & side length of reference cell, Eq.~\eqref{eq:eps-geometry} &
\myee{4.33}{-5} & m \\
$L^f$ & length of fiber & \myee{1.0}{-3} & m \\
$L^v$ & length of vessel element & \myee{5.0}{-4} & m \\
$\mathscr{L}$& conductivity of fiber--vessel wall & \myee{5.54}{-13} & m\,s${}^{-1}$\,Pa${}^{-1}$ \\
$\mathscr{L}_r$ & root conductivity &
\myee{2.7}{-16} & m\,s${}^{-1}$\,Pa${}^{-1}$ \\
$N$ & number of fibers per vessel & $16$ & -- \\
$R^f$ & inside radius of fiber & \myee{3.5}{-6} & m \\
$R^v$ & inside radius of vessel & \myee{2.0}{-5} & m \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{4}{l}{\emph{Physical constants:}}\\
$\mathcal{H}$ & Henry's constant for air dissolved in water & $0.0274$ & -- \\
$K_b$ & cryoscopic (Blagden) constant & $1.853$ & kg\,\mbox{${}^\circ$C}\,mol${}^{-1}$ \\
$M_g$ & molar mass of gas (air) & $0.029$ & kg\,mol${}^{-1}$ \\
$M_s$ & molar mass of sugar (sucrose) & $0.3423$ & kg\,mol${}^{-1}$ \\
$\mathscr{R}$ & universal gas constant & $8.314$ & J\,\mbox{${}^\circ$C}${}^{-1}$\,mol${}^{-1}$ \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{2}{l}{\emph{Water phase properties:}} &
\mytwocol{\emph{Ice}}{\emph{Water}} & \\
$c_i$, $c_w$ & specific heat capacity & \mytwocol{$2100$}{$4180$}
& J\,\mbox{${}^\circ$C}${}^{-1}$\,kg${}^{-1}$ \\
$E_i$, $E_w$ & enthalpy at $T_c$ & \mytwocol{$574$}{$907$} & kJ\,kg${}^{-1}$ \\
$k_i$, $k_w$ & thermal conductivity & \mytwocol{$2.22$}{$0.556$}
& W\,m${}^{-1}$\,\mbox{${}^\circ$C}${}^{-1}$ \\
%
%
$\rho_i$, $\rho_w$ & density & \mytwocol{$917$}{$1000$} & kg\,m${}^{-3}$ \\
$\sigma_{iw}$, $\sigma_{gw}$ & surface
tension \citep{fowler-krantz-1994} & \mytwocol{$0.033$}{$0.076$} & N\,m${}^{-1}$ \\
$c_\infty$ & enthalpy regularization parameter, Eq.~\eqref{eq:TE-omega} &
\myee{1.0}{7} & J\,\mbox{${}^\circ$C}${}^{-1}$\,kg${}^{-1}$ \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\multicolumn{2}{l}{\emph{Base case parameters:}} & & \\
$R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ & tree stem radius & $0.07$ & m \\
$R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}$ & sapwood/heartwood boundary & $0$ & m \\
$\theta$& heartwood fraction $=R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}/R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ & 0 & --\\
$\gamma_s$ & sap sugar content (mass fraction) & $0.03$ & -- \\
$C_s$ & sap sugar concentration $= \gamma_s\rho_w/M_s$ & $87.6$ & mol\,m${}^{-3}$ \\
$T_{\text{\emph{c,sap}}}$ & freezing point depression (FPD) $= - K_b C_s/\rho_w$ & $-0.162$ & \mbox{${}^\circ$C} \\
$p_{\text{\emph{soil}}}$ & soil pressure at roots $= p_w^v(0)$ & \myee{2.03}{5} & Pa \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Numerical solution algorithm}
\label{sec:numerics}
The exudation model equations consist of five ODEs
\eqref{eq:sgas}--\eqref{eq:Uroot-darcy} for the microscale variables
along with two PDEs \eqref{eq:temp-micro} and \eqref{eq:temp-macro} for
temperature. We apply the method-of-lines to discretize the temperature equations
by first approximating all spatial derivatives using a finite volume
approach, which yields a large coupled system of time-dependent
ODEs. The macroscale variable $x$ is discretized at $n_x$ equally-spaced
points, with $n_x$ chosen between 25--50 (depending on tree size) so
that the grid spacing $\Delta x=(R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}-R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}})/n_x$ is less than 0.3~cm,
which we find is sufficient in practice to resolve the freezing and thawing
fronts. For the microscale problem, we obtain satisfactory accuracy with
a relatively coarse grid having $n_y=6$ points.
Assembling the semi-discrete equations for temperature together with the
remaining ODEs and algebraic constraints within each reference cell at
location $x$ yields a coupled differential--algebraic system that is
integrated in time using the stiff solver {\tt ode15s}
in~\citet{matlab-2020a}. We note that a stiff solver is required for
this problem because of the widely disparate time scales arising from
the disparate dynamics on the cellular level and within the
tree stem. The strong coupling between micro- and macroscale
temperatures is handled by applying a split-step time discretization:
first, the microscale equations for $s_g$, $s_{iw}$, $r$, $U$, $U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$,
$\Tmicro$ in the reference cell at each discrete point are advanced
in time while holding the macroscale temperature $\Tmacro$ constant;
following that, $\Tmacro$ is advanced in time by holding other
variables constant. More details related to implementation of the
multiscale algorithm can be found in \citet{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Experimental data and temperature smoothing}
\label{sec:measurements}
Based on the experiments described in Section~\ref{sec:experiments}, we
have chosen to focus our attention on two red maple trees (which we
label R1 and R2 for convenience) and one sugar maple (labelled S1). A
more detailed description of these experiments that emphasizes the
temperature measurements can be found in \citet{wilmot-2006}. Air
temperature data for all three trees are displayed in
Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}(left) over periods of 33 days (R1,R2) and 45
days (S1). These samples were singled out for comparison with numerical
simulations because the air temperature in each case features several
pronounced freeze--thaw cycles during the measurement period. Note that
the temperature plot for sugar maple in Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}b-i
includes a second curve (red, dashed) showing the soil temperature at
30~cm depth which for most of the 45-day period remains positive, even
during times when the air temperature is below zero. This provides
strong evidence in support of the earlier
assumption~\ref{assume:soil-liquid} that liquid water is available for
root uptake even under freezing conditions.
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
&& \hspace*{0.8cm}\raisebox{0.05cm}{\myfiglett{(a-ii)} R1 -- 14~cm DBH} \\
\multirow{3}{*}[2.8cm]{%
{\setlength{\unitlength}{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{picture}(1,1.5)
\put(0,1.48){\hspace*{0.8cm}\myfiglett{(a-i)} Red maples: R1, R2}
\put(0,1.05){\includegraphics[width=0.41\linewidth]{redtempsmzoom}}
\put(0.08,0.52){\includegraphics[width=0.17\linewidth]{redtempsmzoom2}}
\put(0.60,0.52){\includegraphics[width=0.18\linewidth]{sugartempsmzoom2}}
\put(0,0.42){\hspace*{0.8cm}\myfiglett{(b-i)} Sugar maple: S1}
\put(0,-0.03){\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{sugartempsmzoom}}
\put(0.14,0.97){\myfiglett{(a-i,zoom)}}
\put(0.68,0.97){\myfiglett{(b-i,zoom)}}
{\linethickness{2mm}\thicklines\color{red}
\put(0.415,1.25){\vector(-1,-4){0.063}}
\put(0.74,0.32){\vector(1,4){0.046}}}
\end{picture}
}}
&& \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{redpresR1}\\
&& \hspace*{0.8cm}\myfiglett{(a-iii)} R2 -- 18.5~cm DBH\\
&& \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{redpresR2}\\[0.55cm]
&& \hspace*{0.8cm}\myfiglett{(b-ii)} S1 -- 61~cm DBH\\[-0.1cm]
&& \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{sugarpresS1}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{(Left, a-i and b-i) Measured air temperatures are plotted for
two red maple trees (R1, R2) and one sugar maple (S1) from the UVM
experiments. The temperature plot for sugar maple in (b-i) also
includes values of soil temperature (at 30~cm depth) which remain
mostly above 0\mbox{${}^\circ$C}, hence supporting the assumption that liquid
water is present even when air temperatures are below freezing. The
raw temperature data (blue points) are regularized by applying a
simple weighted-average smoothing -- the resulting smoothed data are
shown alongside the original temperatures in the zoomed views
(a-i,zoom, b-i,zoom). (Right, a-ii, a-iii and b-ii) Corresponding
pressure data for the three trees. An extra set of pressure
measurements is included in the sugar maple plot (b-ii) to
illustrate the impact of taking measurements on the north/south
sides of the stem.}
\label{fig:tree-data}
\end{figure}
Although these air temperature measurements have an inherent large-scale
oscillation that varies roughly on a daily period, the two zoomed-in
views in Figures~\ref{fig:tree-data}a,b-i show that there are also
significant fluctuations from one 15-minute time interval to the next.
These rapid changes are likely due to a combination of local temperature
variability and measurement errors and are a major distinguishing
feature that sets these field measurements apart from others obtained
under carefully-controlled laboratory conditions. Indeed, just such an
experiment on black walnut trees \citep{ameglio-etal-2001} was used to
validate a previous incarnation of our multiscale model
\citep{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015} where the input temperatures was
specified as a given smoothly-varying function of time. Consequently,
our measurements for red/sugar maple provide an excellent opportunity to
validate the model under more realistic conditions.
Because our exudation model is based on differential equations that
expect the ambient temperature $T_a(t)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:macroBC} to
vary continuously in time, we need to impose some regularization to
smooth the raw temperature data. To this end, we apply a simple
weighted-average smoothing procedure in which each temperature value is
averaged with its two neighbouring points using weights
$\big[\frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{4}\big]$, with this procedure
being repeated 10 times. The smoothed temperature is displayed as a
solid curve along with the raw data in the two zoomed plots in
Figures~\ref{fig:tree-data}a,b-i, from which it is clear that this
procedure eliminates many irregularities without sacrificing much
detail. There is of course a risk that genuine fine-scale variations in
temperature are suppressed, but we have observed that reducing the
number of smoothing steps has no appreciable effect on the model
simulations. This is consistent with the results in
Section~\ref{sec:results-sims} which show that exudation behavior is
dominated by the location of temperature zero-crossings and influenced
much less by variations in $T_a(t)$ away from zero.
\subsection{Parameter sensitivity study}
\label{sec:results-sensitivity}
To study the relative importance of various geometric and physical
properties on the sap exudation process, we identify a base case using
the parameters listed in Table~\ref{tab:params} and then vary certain
parameters relative to these base values. Our chosen base case
represents a young sapling with $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}=0.07$~m and $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}=0$ that
hasn't yet developed any heartwood, and we use our best estimates for
the remaining parameters. To mimic a repeated sequence of diurnal
freeze--thaw events, we impose a simple sinusoidally-varying ambient
temperature, $T_a(t)=5-15\sin\left({2\pi t}/{86400}\right)$,
that oscillates between $-10$ and $+20$\mbox{${}^\circ$C}\ over a time interval of 5
days. This is admittedly a fairly extreme range of temperatures, but it
does ensure that the entire stem is able to freeze and thaw completely
during each cycle. Results of the parameter sensitivity study are
presented in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} as plots of root water uptake
$U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$ and averaged pressure $\overline{p} = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{A}|}
\int_{\mathcal{A}} p_w^v\, d{A}$, where $|\mathcal{A}|$ is the area of
the annular-shaped sapwood region. This averaged pressure is a better
approximation than any specific point value for what is measured by a
pressure gauge inserted into a taphole.
\newcommand{\mytabrow}[3]{%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.15\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\mbox{}\break
{\bfseries\sffamily (#1)} \break
#2
\end{center}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.38\textwidth}
\vspace*{0pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{#3_pres_compare}
\end{minipage} & &
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.38\textwidth}
\vspace*{0pt}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{#3_uroot_compare}
\end{minipage}}
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\centering\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\mytabrow{a}{Tree radius (m)\break $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$}{rtree_ENV} \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\mytabrow{b}{Heartwood fraction \break $\theta$}{heartfrac} \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\mytabrow{c}{Total root area (m${}^2$) \break
$ \mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}} (R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}/R^v)^2$}{aroot} \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\mytabrow{d}{Root reflection coefficient \break $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$}{reflect} \\
& & & \\[-0.2cm]
\mytabrow{e}{Sugar content \break $\gamma_s=C_s M_s/\rho_w$}{sugar}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameter sensitivity study showing the effects on
stem-averaged pressure ($\overline{p}$) and root water uptake
($U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$) due to variations in five parameters: (a) tree radius,
(b) heartwood fraction, (c) total root area, (d) root reflection
coefficient, and (e) sap sugar content. In each plot, the parameter
value from the base case is highlighted in the legend with a
``$\ast$'' and the corresponding curve is drawn with a blue solid
line. The dotted vertical lines indicate freeze and thaw events,
when the ambient temperature crosses zero. The ``envelope curves''
tracing max-min points for the $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ base-case pressure are shown
as two dashed blue lines (a, left).}
\label{fig:sensitivity}
\end{figure}
The results plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} focus on
variations in five key model parameters and how they affect the
behaviour of pressure and root uptake:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Tree radius ($R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$), which is the primary geometric parameter
that distinguishes between the mature trees in this study and younger
saplings. Values of $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ are selected between 5--30~cm which
covers the range of tree sizes in the experiment discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:experiments} and the corresponding $\overline{p}$ and
$U_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$ solution curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}a.
Note that the curve corresponding to the base case ($R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}=0.07$) is
always drawn as a solid blue line and is highlighted in the legend
with a ``$\ast$''.
\item Heartwood fraction ($\theta=R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}/R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$), which is zero for
young saplings but can be significantly larger in mature trees. The
red/sugar maples considered in this study are from a well-established
area of the forest in which trees typically have 25--50\%\ of their
basal area taken up by heartwood (with lower fractions in smaller
trees and higher fractions in larger trees). Most of these trees have
been tapped annually for maple collection over a period of 50--60
years, which generates a column of non-conductive wood that extend
above and below each year's taphole (typically by a distance of
$\pm$0.25\,m). Therefore while there is undoubtedly some heartwood in
these trees, there is also considerable non-conductive wood within the
tapping band as a result of tapping history. We therefore chose
values of heartwood fraction within the range $\theta\in[0,0.7]$,
which is consistent with the measurements of
\citet{duchesne-etal-2016} who found a maximum value of
$\theta\approx 0.45$, while also allowing for even higher values
such as those reported by \citet{baral-etal-2017}.
\item Total root area ($\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}=\mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}(R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}/R^v)^2$), which is related
to the root area per vessel ($\mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}$) by scaling proportionally to
cross-sectional area. Because values of $\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}$ for red maple have
been reported to lie in the range 10.4 to 18.6~m${}^2$
\citep{day-harris-2007}, we choose a value of $\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}=14$ for the base
case that lies near the middle of this range; scaling by the area
ratio yields a corresponding root area per vessel of $\mathcal{A}_r}%{\text{\emph{root}}}=
\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}(R^v/R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}})^2 \approx 1.14\times 10^{-6}$~m${}^2$. For the
sensitivity results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}c, we have
actually selected a wider range of $\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}\in[1, 100]$.
\item Root reflection coefficient for outflow ($\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$), which is the
major extension we have made to the original exudation model
that assumed $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}\equiv 0$ \citep{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015}. There
is an extensive literature suggesting that root conductivity in a wide
range of trees and plants is not constant but rather exhibits both
seasonal and diurnal variations controlled by aquaporin
membranes within the roots~\citep{javot-maurel-2002, steudle-1994}.
Furthermore many root systems exhibit an asymmetry in conductivity
between inflow and outflow, which can be modelled by means of a
reflection coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$~\citep{knipfer-fricke-2010,
steudle-1994} that is less than 1 and can drop to $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=0.2$ or
less~\citep{henzler-etal-1999}. Among the few studies we are aware of
that mention maple trees, \citet{oleary-1965} observed no appreciable
root outflux ($\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}\approx 0$) whereas \citet{dawson-1993} observed
more moderate asymmetry (with $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$ significantly greater than 0).
In the absence of any reliable estimates specific to maple, we assume
a base value of $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}=0.2$ that is constant in time, and compare with
other values from the range $[0.05, 0.75]$ in
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}d.
\item Sap sugar content by mass ($\gamma_s$), which is related to sugar
concentration by $\gamma_s=C_sM_s/\rho_w$, where $M_s$ the molar mass
of sugar. High sugar content is an important feature distinguishing
maples from other species that exude sap. Sugar maple sap contains
roughly 3\%\ sugar on average during the sap harvest season
\citep{larochelle-etal-1998} but can be as high as 5\%\ in some trees
\citep{jones-alli-1987}. On the other hand, red maples tend to have a
lower sugar content that is closer to 2\%\ on average. Sugar content
also
varies significantly between seasons, between trees, and also
throughout a given season (starting a bit low, rising for the first
1/4 to 1/3 of the season, then steadily dropping towards the end). We
have therefore chosen a representative value of 3\%\ ($\gamma_s=0.03$)
for the base case along with several other values selected from the
range 1.5 to 4.0\%\ as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}e.
\end{enumerate}
This parameter sensitivity study is partly based on results from
\citet{zarrinderakht-mscthesis-2017}, which includes additional results
not reported here.
\subsection{Numerical simulations of red and sugar maple}
\label{sec:results-sims}
We next apply the MATLAB code to simulate the three trees
singled out in Section~\ref{sec:measurements}, taking the smoothed
temperature curves depicted in Figures~\ref{fig:tree-data}a,b-i as input
for the ambient temperature $T_a(t)$. Two simulations are performed
for red maple trees (R1,R2) with stem radii $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}=7$ and $9.25$~cm,
both consisting entirely of sapwood ($R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{sap}}}=0$) since they are relatively
young trees. The sugar content for these trees is set to 1.8\%
which is a representative value for mid-to-late season, but otherwise
all model parameters are the same as the base case in
Table~\ref{tab:params}. The equations were integrated over a period of
27~days, which covers the majority of the freeze--thaw events occurring in
the air temperature measurements. The resulting plots of simulated average
pressure $\overline{p}$ are displayed in Figures~\ref{fig:sims}a,b
alongside the corresponding experimental measurements. The smoothed
temperature data are shown at the top of each plot, with dotted vertical
lines drawn at each time when $T_a(t)$ crosses 0\mbox{${}^\circ$C}\ for easy
identification of freeze and thaw events.
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\myfiglett{(a)} R1 -- 14~cm DBH & \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{R1_prestempR1_mod}\\
\myfiglett{(b)} R2 -- 18.5~cm DBH & \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{R2_prestempR2_mod}\\
\myfiglett{(c)} S1 -- 61~cm DBH & \\
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{S1_prestempS1}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of stem pressure from experiments (solid blue
lines) and simulations (dashed cyan lines) for red maple (a,b) and
sugar maple trees (c). The smoothed temperature data are also
displayed on the top set of axes, and each freeze--thaw event is
highlighted with a vertical dotted line (at each time where
temperature crosses 0\mbox{${}^\circ$C}) so that these events are easily
connected with corresponding pressure spikes. A ``weak thaw'' event
is highlighted with a pink box in the R1,R2 simulations (a,b).}
\label{fig:sims}
\end{figure}
One sugar maple simulation (S1) is performed with ambient temperature
$T_a(t)$ taken equal to the smoothed temperature from
Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}b-i and stem radius set to
$R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}=30.5$~cm. Because this is a more mature tree than the red
maples, we assume that the heartwood extends half-way through the stem and take
$\theta=\frac{1}{2}$. The resulting pressure curves are displayed
in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}c, with the experimental pressure taken from the
north-side sensor measurements (refer to
Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}b-ii).
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Thaw events trigger pressure spikes}
\label{sec:discuss-data}
Based on the experimental measurements of pressure in the right-hand
plots of Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}(right), an characteristic feature of
all three trees is the spikes or rapid increases in pressure that occur
at certain discrete times. By viewing these plots alongside the
corresponding temperature curves from Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}(left)
we observe that the spikes coincide with the times that thaw events
occur, which is when the temperature increases past the melting point
(this correspondence is much more clearly seen in the plots appearing
later in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}). After thawing and for as long as the
temperature remains above zero, each such spike is followed by a time
period of gradually falling pressure, where the rate of decrease appears
fairly consistent between thawing events. This behavior
is consistent with other experimental pressure measurements in maple and
related species \citep{tyree-1983, cortes-sinclair-1985,
ameglio-etal-2001, ewers-etal-2001}. The timing, amplitude and decay
of these pressure spikes will form the main points of comparison when we
study the numerical simulations in Section~\ref{sec:discuss-sims}.
It is also worth noting that for the sugar maple only, two pressure
curves are provided (see Figure~\ref{fig:tree-data}b-ii) that correspond
to measurements taken from two sensors placed opposite each other on the
north and south sides of the stem. The measured pressure variations are
qualitatively very similar, especially when one focuses on the timing
and height of the pressure spikes and their subsequent decay. A notable
exception is the two spikes recorded by the south sensor around day 20
that do not have matching spikes in the north side data. Because these
two spikes correspond to especially short thaw events (in which
temperature exceeds zero for only a brief time interval) it is likely
that they are not experienced as thawing events throughout the entire
tree. For this reason, we have chosen to use the north-side pressure
data for comparison with the S1 simulation.
\subsection{Exudation is most sensitive to $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ and $\gamma_s$}
\label{sec:discuss-sensitivity}
The parameter sensitivity study in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity} will
allow us to identify suitable values to use for parameters in the
experimental comparisons in the next section, as well as pinpointing
those parameters that have the greatest impact on the model solution and
hence are most important to estimate accurately. We begin by comparing
the qualitative features of the solutions in
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}a for different tree radius, $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$. In
all cases we observe that average stem pressure $\overline{p}$ behaves
similar to the experiments in that it exhibits a steep increase whenever
temperature increases past the freezing point. This is followed by a
gradual decline while the temperature remains positive but as soon as
temperature falls below zero there is a similarly steep drop in
pressure, after which the cycle repeats. The amplitude of the pressure
oscillations decreases for larger radius trees, which is consistent with
there being a larger sapwood area to freeze and hence a correspondingly
larger water uptake. What is perhaps more important for exudation is
the ``envelope curves'' that trace out max/min points of the pressure
(see blue dashed curves in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}a, left) which
exhibit an upward trend that reflects a build-up in exudation pressure
over time. The pressure envelope is affected significantly by changes
in $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ in that the amplitude of the pressure oscillations decreases
with increased $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$; however the time-averaged pressure (which sits
midway between the envelope curves) is relatively insensitive to changes
in radius. This contrasts with the relatively huge increase in root
water uptake for higher values of $R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$, but again these larger trees
have a proportionally greater volume to freeze and over which to
distribute the stored pressure.
The simulations in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}b correspond to values of
heartwood fraction $\theta$ between 0 and 0.7. Clearly, both the
shape of the pressure oscillations and the exudation pressure build-up
are relatively insensitive to heartwood ratio. The root water uptake
curves shift downward as $\theta$ increases, but this is simply a
geometric effect due to the corresponding decrease in sapwood
area. Among the two geometic parameters ($R_{\text{\rmfamily\emph{tree}}}$ and $\theta$) the
solution is clearly most sensitive to stem radius, which is
fortunate since it is extremely easy to measure (non-destructively).
The two parameters controlling root flux -- root area $\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}$ and
reflection coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$ -- can be estimated from data in the
literature, but these still remain the most uncertain parameters in our
model. By increasing $\mathcal{A}_{\text{\emph{tree}}}$ over two orders of magnitude,
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}c shows that the exudation pressure exhibits
a modest increase; however, over the range $[10.4,18.6]$ suggested by
\citet{day-harris-2007} there is only a small impact on exudation
pressure build-up. The root reflection coefficient has a more
conspicuous impact on exudation and Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}d shows
that the oscillations in pressure trend upwards as $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$ is
reduced. This an obvious consequence of restricting root outflow which
retains more water in the xylem that can freeze and subsequently store
pressure in the fibers. It is clearly important that we have
incorporated the root reflection coefficient in our modified model
equations and despite the relative insensitivity to this parameter,
there is still an opportunity here for new experiments that aim to
obtain better estimates of $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}$ in maple trees.
The final parameter we consider is sap sugar concentration for which
Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity}e shows that increasing $\gamma_s$ within
the range $[0.015, 0.04]$ has the greatest impact on increasing stem
pressure compared to the other four parameters. This supports our
earlier remarks regarding the essential role played by sugar in terms of
generating a local differential between freeze/thaw in fibers and
vessels (due to FPD) which permits ice to accumulate in fibers at the
same time as the sap in neighboring vessels remains in the liquid
state. Increasing $\gamma_s$ therefore permits additional ice
accumulation in fibers through cryostatic suction which is also reflected
in a corresponding increase in root water uptake with $\gamma_s$. It is
worth recalling that sap sugar also induces an osmotic contribution to
pressure through Eq.~\eqref{eq:U-darcy}, but we have clearly
demonstrated in previous work~\citep{graf-ceseri-stockie-2015} that
osmosis is eclipsed in importance by the effect of FPD. Finally,
because sap sugar content is so easy to measure, it is especially
important that any similar experimental study of sap pressure and
temperature also includes measurements of $\gamma_s$ in order that the
model can be properly calibrated.
\subsection{Multiscale model reproduces realistic exudation behavior}
\label{sec:discuss-sims}
We begin by discussing the results in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}a,b that
compare experimental and numerical results for the two red maples R1 and
R2. The measurements are dominated by pressure spikes appearing at
times $t\approx 13$, 15, 16, 18, 22 days that coincide with similar
spikes in simulations. Each spike is clearly matched with a thaw event
in which air temperature increases past the melting point. The
simulated peak pressure for some spikes does not reach the same peak
value as in experiments but the correspondence is nonetheless excellent,
not to mention that the pressure minima following subsequent freeze
events are captured very closely. The simulations also show that each
spike is followed by a relaxation period during which the pressure
gradually decays at a rate that is similar to that seen in the measured
data.
During the initial 13~days on the other hand, the match between red
maple simulations and experiments is not nearly as close. The measured
R1 data in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}a shows that the pressure remains
essentially constant at zero whereas the simulation exhibits significant
pressure fluctuations in response to freeze--thaw events, most notably
on days 2 and 9. Deviations are also present with R2, although the match
is slighly better because the pressure sensor captures some small
fluctuations between days 1--2 and 8--11. One possible explanation for
these discrepancies is that the thaw events for times $t<13$~days are
weaker in that temperature increases only slightly above
0\mbox{${}^\circ$C}\ before either falling below freezing again or hovering near
zero, which may be causing the stem to remain more deeply
frozen. These ``weak thaw'' events seem to be captured more readily by
the model computations, although the computed pressure does exhibit a more
gradual increase instead of the sharp spike seen at the onset of other
thaw events; this behavior is especially apparent for the thaw event
highlighted in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}a,b during days 9--11.
The observations of low pressure/flow earlier in the season may also be
attributed to the fact that trees tend to be very well-buffered to
temperature on the north side due to reduced sun exposure
\citep{reid-driller-watson-2020} (recalling that our comparison is based
on north-side sensor data). Furthermore, higher accumulations of snow
near the base of the stem may also limit the root water uptake.
In either case, it is well known that several repeated cycles of freeze
and thaw are typically required before pressure and flow rates can ramp up
to higher values.
Next we shift to the comparison depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:sims}c for
the sugar maple S1, which shows that the timing of pressure spikes and
the subsequent relaxation rate from simulations both exhibit a
reasonable match with experiments, although the simulated pressure peak
values are significantly lower. We have as yet no definitive explanation
for this discrepancy but it may be at least partly due to our
pressure average $\overline{p}$, which is integrated all the way to the
heartwood boundary and so includes portions of the xylem that may be
more deeply frozen and lower the average. Finally, we single out the
thaw event on day 7 during which the simulated pressure builds up much
more gradually than in the experimental data, which is again analogous
to what we observed for the weak thaw events in trees R1 and R2.
\subsection{Essential mechanisms governing sap exudation}
\label{sec:conclusion}
These comparisons between experiments and simulations demonstrate that a
purely physical model is capable of capturing both qualitatively and
quantitatively the essential features of sap transport and pressure
generation observed in actual maple trees undergoing exudation.
Furthermore, we have clearly identified four mechanisms that are
essential for generating stem pressure build-up:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \emph{distinctive cellular structure of maple sapwood}
which is made up of libriform fibers containing mostly gas that are
connected hydraulically through selectively permeable walls to sap-filled
vessels. This structure has two very important consequences: first, it
provides a mechanism for fiber--vessel pressure exchange via
compression of gas in the fibers; and second, the
selectively-permeable nature of the fiber--vessel wall ensures that
any liquid drawn into the fiber (through cryostatic suction) contains
no sucrose.
\item The \emph{sugar content of sap} in the vessels induces a
significant osmotic potential between fiber and vessel, which extends
the range of pressures over which gas bubbles persist in sap.
However, a much more critical contributor to exudation is the
\emph{freezing point depression} (FPD) of roughly 0.16\mbox{${}^\circ$C}\ in the
vessel sap relative to pure water (assuming a 3\%\ sugar
content). This is what allows the fibers to accumulate a frozen
pure-ice layer while the sugary sap in neighbouring vessels remains
thawed because of the FPD.
\item \emph{A clear separation of spatial scales} that exists between
freeze--thaw processes on the microscopic (cellular) scale and heat
transport on the macroscopic (tree) scale. Specifically, the FPD may
appear to be insignificant on the macroscale on which freezing/thawing
fronts propagate through the tree stem, but it dominates on the
cellular scale by permitting thawed vessels to co-exist adjacent to
partially-frozen fibers.
\item An available supply of \emph{soil water in the liquid phase} (even
under freezing conditions), combined with the \emph{asymmetry of
inflow/outflow in root uptake} (corresponding to reflection
coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{\text{\emph{r,out}}}<1$), which are the key to generating a build-up in
exudation pressure over multiple freeze--thaw cycles via accumulation
of ice within the fibers. Although this feature is not specific to
trees that exude, the availability of significant soil water under
sub-zero conditions has recently been confirmed in experiments on
maple saplings.
\end{enumerate}
Each of these distinguishing features has been recognized in other
studies of maple or related species; however, this is the first time
that they have all been linked together to construct a complete
explanation for the exudation process that also provides a reasonable
match with experimental measurements. This is a minimally complete model
in the sense that leaving out any of these four effects from the
governing equations results in a failure of the model tree stem to
accumulate exudation pressures that are consistent with actual trees.
It is important to recognize that these fundamental insights we
have gained into the physical mechanisms driving the sap exudation
process were only possible by developing a detailed mathematical model
and performing careful parametric studies of the resulting numerical
simulations.
\subsection{Opportunities for future research}
\label{sec:future}
This work opens up several opportunities for future research in the
study of exudation and sap flow in maple. First of all, we have singled
out two parameters for which experimental studies are needed in
order to properly calibrate the model and hence obtain more accurate
simulation results, namely the root surface area and root reflection
coefficent, neither of which has been accurately measured for maple trees.
Our 2D model may be extended in a straightforward fashion to a more
realistic 3D axisymmetric stem geometry by stacking a series of 2D
cross-sections in the vertical direction and then coupling sap flux and
temperature between adjacent sections. We could then incorporate the
effects of varying gravitational potential with height, while at the
same time obtaining a more realistic representation of how soil water
from the roots is drawn by cryostatic suction to higher elevations in
the tree.
Another important feature that could be easily incorporated into the
model equations is the dependence of sap sugar content on height that
has been observed by \citet{milburn-zimmermann-1986}. It would then be
natural to incorporate the dynamics of the starch conversion process
wherein living xylem cells release sugar into the vessels in response to
temperature variations \citep{ameglio-etal-2001, wong-baggett-rye-2003}.
Some authors have also hypothesized that hysteresis and super-cooling
effects play a role in the sap exudation process
\citep{charrier-etal-2015, tyree-1983, wu-zhou-jiang-2017}, which would
be relatively straightforward to investigate with this model. Finally,
there are fascinating connections to explore between sap exudation and
freeze-induced embolism, motivated by studies that have demonstrated a
close relationship between between embolism recovery and positive
pressures in xylem~\citep{holtta-etal-2018, schenk-jansen-holtta-2021,
sperry-etal-1988}.
\section*{Funding}
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(RGPIN-2016-04088 to JMS);
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Fyodor Lynen Fellowship to IK);
North American Maple Syrup Council Research Fund (to JMS);
University of Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station (to TRW,
TDP, AvdB).
\section*{Authors' Contributions}
Study conception and design (JMS); algorithm design and implementation
(IK, JMS); numerical simulations (MZ, JMS); experimental design and data
collection (TRW, TDP, AvdB); data analysis, synthesis and interpretation
(MZ, TDP, AvdB, JMS); manuscript writing and revision (all authors).
\newpage
\providecommand{\noopsort}[1]{}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Traffic-related issues are constantly increasing, and tomorrow's cities cannot be considered intelligent if they do not enable smart mobility. Smart mobility applications, such as smart parking and road traffic management, are nowadays widely employed worldwide, making our cities more livable and bringing benefits to the cities and, consequently, to our lives.
Images are perhaps the best sensing modality to perceive and assess the flow of vehicles in large areas. Like no other sensing mechanism, city camera networks can monitor large areas while simultaneously providing visual data to AI systems to extract relevant information from this deluge of data. However, this application is often hampered by the massive flow of data that must be sent to central servers or the cloud for processing.
On the other hand, edge computing is a recent paradigm that promotes the decentralization of data processing to the border, i.e., where the data are generated, thus reducing the traffic on the network and the pressure on central servers. No wonder that the combination of recent Computer Vision techniques like the deep learning-based ones and the edge computing paradigm is an emerging trend, although they must face the limited computational resources on the disposable edge devices.
In this work, we propose a novel solution to automatically estimate the number of vehicles present in a parking lot using images captured by smart cameras. This counting task is challenging as the process of understanding the captured images faces many problems, such as shadows, light variation, weather conditions, and inter-object occlusions. Most of the existing works concerning the vehicles counting task focus on the analysis of \textit{single} images. However, in many real-world scenarios, one can benefit from using multiple cameras to monitor the same parking lot from different perspectives and viewpoints. Furthermore, multiple neighboring cameras can also be helpful to cover a wider area. At the same time, such an approach introduces issues related to merging the knowledge extracted from the single cameras with partially overlapping fields of views (FOVs), as shown in Figure \ref{fig:multi_camera_example}.
In this paper, we introduce a multi-camera system that combines a CNN-based technique, which can locate and count vehicles present in images belonging to individual cameras, along with a decentralized geometry-based approach that is responsible for aggregating the data gathered from all the devices and estimating the number of cars present in the \textit{entire} parking lot. Our solution performs the task directly on the edge devices (i.e., the smart cameras) without using a central server or cloud, consequently reducing the communication overhead. The total count is built exploiting the partial results computed in parallel by the single cameras and propagated through messages. Hence, our system scales better when the number of monitored parking spaces increases.
Moreover, our solution does not require any extra information about the monitored parking area, such as the location of the parking spaces, nor any geometric information about the camera positions in the parking lot. In short, it is a flexible and ready-to-use solution that allows a simple ``plug-and-play'' insertion of new cameras into the system.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.60\textwidth]{images/2_cameras_example.png}}
\caption{An example of two cameras monitoring the same parking area with partially overlapping fields of views.
This redundancy provides robustness and fault-tolerance but also raises the problem of aggregating knowledge extracted from the individual cameras.
}
\label{fig:multi_camera_example}
\end{figure}
To train the CNN and validate our solution, we employ the \textit{CNRPark-EXT} dataset \cite{amato2017deep}, a collection of images taken from the parking lot on the campus of the National Research Council (CNR) in Pisa, Italy. The pictures are acquired by multiple cameras having partially overlapping fields of views and describing challenging scenarios, with different perspectives, illuminations, weather conditions, and many occlusions. Since the annotations of this dataset concern single images, we extended it by relabeling a part of it to be consistent with our algorithm that instead considers the entire parking area. We conduct extensive experiments testing the generalization capabilities of the CNN-based technique responsible for detecting vehicles in single images and the effectiveness of our multi-camera algorithm, demonstrating that our system is robust and benefits from the redundant information deriving from the different cameras improving the overall performance.
To summarizing, the main contributions of this work are the followings:
\begin{itemize}
\item We introduce a novel multi-camera system able to automatically estimate the number of cars present in the \textit{entire} monitored parking area. It runs directly on the edge devices and combines a deep learning-based detector together with a decentralized technique that exploits the geometry of the captured images.
\item We specifically extend the \textit{CNRPark-EXT} dataset \cite{amato2017deep}, a collection of images acquired by multiple cameras having partially overlapping fields of views and describing various parking lots. We manually re-label a subset of it, making it suitable with our considered scenario in which we consider the whole parking area.
\item We conduct experiments showing that our system is robust, flexible, and can benefit from redundant information coming from different cameras while improving overall performance.
\end{itemize}
We organize the rest of the paper as follows. Section \ref{sec:related_work} reports other works present in the literature related to our topic. Section \ref{sec:proposed_solution} describes our multi-camera counting algorithm. Section \ref{sec:exp_setup} states the experimental setup, describing the dataset, the metrics, and the implementation details. Section \ref{sec:experiments} presents and discusses the experiments and the obtained results. Finally, Section \ref{sec:conclusions} concludes the paper with some insights on future directions.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
In this section, we overview some works related to our, organizing them into two categories. The first one concerning the counting task, while the second one regarding multi-camera parking lot monitoring systems.
\subsection{The counting task}
The counting task estimates the number of object instances in still images or video frames \cite{lempitsky2010learning}. This topic has recently attracted much attention due to its inter-disciplinary and widespread applicability and its paramount importance for many real-world applications. Examples include counting bacterial cells from microscopic images \cite{xie2018microscopy}, estimate the number of people present at an event \cite{boominathan2016crowdnet}, counting animals in ecological surveys to monitor the population of a specific region \cite{arteta2016counting} and evaluate the number of vehicles on a highway or in a car park \cite{amato2019counting}.
In the last years, several machine learning-based solutions (especially supervised) have been suggested. Following the taxonomy adopted in \cite{sindagi2018survey}, we can broadly classify existing counting approaches into two categories: counting by regression and counting by detection. Counting by \textit{regression} is a supervised method that tries to establish a direct mapping (linear or not) from the image features to the number of objects present in the scene or a corresponding density map (i.e., a continuous-valued function), skipping the challenging task of detecting instances of the objects \cite{zhang2016single, zhang2017understanding, onoro2016towards, DBLP:conf/ecai/CiampiSCGA20, DBLP:conf/visapp/CiampiSCGA21}. Counting by \textit{detection} is, instead, a supervised approach where we localize instances of the objects, and then we count them \cite{amato2018wireless, ciampi2018counting}. While regression-based techniques work very well in a scenario where the objects are extremely overlapped, and the single instances are not well defined due to inter-class and intra-class occlusions, they perform poorly in images with a large perspective and oversized objects.
In this work, we estimate the number of vehicles present in a park area from images collected by smart cameras having large perspectives. The cars close to the cameras are much larger than the ones far away from them. Therefore, we employ a detection-based method. Most of the existing counting solutions do not directly deal with edge computing devices and the consequent constraints due to the limited available computing resources. They use deep learning-based approaches that typically require the use of a GPU and that are computationally expensive. Moreover, they consider the images as single entities. They do not account for the possible benefits of monitoring the same lots from different perspectives or covering a wider parking area with multiple cameras. Instead, our solution runs directly on the edge devices connected to each other and can estimate the number of vehicles present in the entire parking lot.
\subsection{Multi-camera parking lot monitoring}
Parking lot monitor using visual data is not new, and other works already tackled it in the literature. In \cite{amato2016car,amato2017deep}, the same authors of the \textit{CNRPark-EXT} dataset presented a deep learning-based system for parking lot occupancy detection that can run in a Raspberry Pi directly on-board a smart camera. In \cite{nieto2018automatic}, authors directly dealt with the issues deriving from the adoption of a multi-camera system. In particular, they applied a homography to project the detected vehicles from the plane of each camera to a common plane, where they performed a perspective correction to correct matching between the vehicle detections and the parking spots. Also, the authors in \cite{vitek2018distributed} proposed a multi-camera system to classify parking spaces as vacant or occupied. In this solution, the acquired images are processed on-board of Raspberry Pi devices. The extracted information about the status of parking spaces is then transmitted to a central server, which evaluates the parking spaces in the overlapping areas. Their algorithm is based on the histogram of oriented gradients (HOG)\cite{dalal2005histograms} feature descriptor and support vector machine (SVM) classifier. Since the HOG feature descriptor cannot adequately describe rotated vehicles, the authors have provided a descriptor with additional information about rotation to increase the system accuracy.
However, these solutions rely on prior knowledge of the monitored scene, like the position of the parking spaces or some geometric information of the scene. In essence, a preliminary annotation of the new areas and a new training phase of the algorithm are often mandatory operations. As a consequence, these techniques are not very flexible. On the other hand, we propose a simple yet effective solution that does not need any extra information about the monitored scene. The smart cameras can automatically localize and count the vehicles present in their field of view, propagating the single results to the other edge devices through messages. A decentralized technique, again running directly on the edge devices, is instead in charge of analyzing and merging these results, exploiting the captured images' geometry, and automatically outputs the number of cars present in the entire parking area.
\section{Proposed approach}
\label{sec:proposed_solution}
\subsection{Overview}
In this section, we describe our multi-camera counting algorithm. We based our system on the parallel processing of each of the smart cameras followed by the fusion of their results to estimate the number of vehicles present in the \textit{entire} parking area.
Figure \ref{fig:system_overview} shows an example of our multicamera-camera counting system, together with its graphical representation. We model our system as a graph $G$, comprised of $n$ nodes $\nu_i$ and one Sink node $S$, $V = \{\nu_1, \nu_2, …, \nu_n, S\}$. Each node $\nu_i$ represents an independent edge device, i.e., a smart camera in our case. Two nodes $\nu_i$ and $\nu_j$ are considered neighbors if their FOVs overlap, and in this case, a directed edge of the graph connects them. Each edge device $\nu_i$ can capture images, localize and count the vehicles present in its FOV exploiting a deep learning-based detector, and communicate with its neighboring nodes through messages $m_i$ containing the cars detections. Furthermore, each node $\nu_i$ can also run a local counting algorithm in charge of computing partial counting results concerning the estimation of the number of vehicles present in overlapped areas between its FOV and the ones belonging to its neighbors.
The fusion of the partial results is performed by the Sink node $S$, which is also in charge of providing the final result and synchronizing all the algorithm steps through synchronization signals headed towards the other nodes $\nu_i$. On the other hand, the nodes $\nu_i$ can also communicate through messages with the Sink node. They can be of two types: i) messages $\eta_i$ containing the number of cars captured by the node $\nu_i$ in its FOV, and ii) messages $\mu_{j, i}$ representing the partial counting estimation related to the overlapping area between two neighboring nodes $\nu_i$ and $\nu_j$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.44\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/system_overview.pdf}
\label{system_overview_example}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/graph_model.pdf}
\label{system_model_example}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An example of our multi-camera counting system, with $n=5$ smart cameras. We model it as a graph $G$, comprised of $n$ nodes $\nu_i$ (one for each camera) and one Sink node $S$, $V = \{\nu_1, \nu_2, …, \nu_n, S\}$. Each node $\nu_i$ can capture images, localize and count the vehicles present in its FOV, and communicate with its neighboring nodes through messages $m_i$ containing these detections. Moreover, each node $\nu_i$ can run a local counting algorithm in charge of computing partial counting results concerning the overlapped areas between its FOV and the ones belonging to its neighbors, exploiting images' geometry. These partial results are sent through messages to the Sink node $S$, which is responsible for their fusion and provides the final result. Messages to $S$ can be of two types: i) $\eta_i$ containing the number of cars captured by the node $\nu_i$ in its FOV, and ii) $\mu_{j, i}$ representing the partial counting estimation related to the overlapping area between two neighboring nodes $\nu_i$ and $\nu_j$.}
\label{fig:system_overview}
\end{figure}
In the following sections, we describe in detail all the steps of our algorithm. First, in Section \ref{sec:system_init}, we outline the automatic system initialization, performed by the smart-cameras themselves, in which they compute a homography between the scene they are monitoring and the scene observed by the neighboring cameras. Then, in Section \ref{sec:local_counting}, we describe the local counting algorithm that runs on each of the smart cameras. It combines a CNN-based counting technique that can localize and estimate the number of vehicles present in their monitored scenes, together with a geometric-based approach responsible for estimating the number of vehicles present in the overlapping areas between the nodes and their neighbors. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:global_counting}, we depict the global counting algorithm responsible for the fusion of these individual and partial results, and that finally outputs the number of cars present in the \textit{entire} parking area.
\subsection{Initialization}
\label{sec:system_init}
This step is aimed at \textit{automatically} initializing the system, estimating the geometric relationship between each node (i.e., each scene monitored by a smart camera) and its neighbors. The only hypotheses we impose are i) each smart camera is aware of the IP addresses of its neighbors, i.e., the cameras having the field of view overlapped with its own; ii) the Sink node $S$ is aware of the IP addresses of all the smart cameras belonging to the system.
The Sink node $S$ starts the initialization phase, sending a synchronization signal to all the other nodes. Once received, each smart camera captures an image of the scene it monitors and sends it to all its neighbors. Once a smart camera $i$ receives an image from a neighboring camera $j$, it computes a homographic transformation $H_{j, i}$ between the image $j$ and the image $i$ describing its monitored scene. This allows us to establish a correspondence between the points belonging to the pair of images taken by the two cameras, which will be used subsequently in the algorithm. We formalized the system initialization for a generic node $\nu_i$ in the Algorithm \ref{alg:system_init}.
However, finding this homography can be challenging because neighboring cameras can have different angles of view, leading to a perspective distortion between the images captured by them. Given a pair of neighboring nodes $\nu_i, \nu_j$, we employ a procedure that starts in finding the SIFT \cite{lowe1999object} key-points and feature descriptors of the images $i, j$ captured by the two nodes. Then, we match the two sets of feature descriptors performing the David Lowe’s ratio test \cite{lowe2004distinctive}, and we further filter the matched feature descriptors by keeping only the pairs whose euclidean distance is below a given threshold. Finally, we apply a random sample consensus (RANSAC \cite{fischler1981random}) to these filtered feature descriptors. Figure \ref{fig:stiching_example} shows the concatenation of two neighboring images $i$ and $j$ in which we apply the found homographic matrix to the image $i$, to have the same perspective as the image $j$.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{\textbf{: Initialization} \\ At each Initialization Signal by $S$, each node $\nu_i$ performs the following steps:}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\Call{ReceiveInitSignal()}{}} \Comment{waits the initialization signal from $S$}
\State {image$_i \gets$ \Call{CameraCapture()}{}}
\ForEach {$j \in J $} \Comment{$J$ is the set of neighboring nodes of node $\nu_i$}
\State {\Call{SendImage}{image$_i$,$\nu_j$}} \Comment{sends image$_i$ to node $\nu_j$}
\State {image$_j \gets$ \Call{ReceiveImage()}{}} \Comment{receives image$_j$ from node $\nu_j$}
\State {$H_{j,i} =$ \Call{ComputeHomography}{image$_j$, image$_i$}}
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:system_init}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.80\textwidth]{images/stiching_example.jpg}}
\caption{Example of concatenation of two images using a homographic transformation, where it is also visible the overlapping area between them.}
\label{fig:stiching_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Local Counting Algorithm}
\label{sec:local_counting}
This section describes the local counting algorithm that runs directly onboard the edge devices. It combines a CNN-based counting technique in charge of the localization and the estimation of the number of vehicles present in the acquired single images, i.e., the contents of the messages $m_{i}$ and the quantities $\eta_i$ shown in Figure \ref{fig:system_overview}, together with a geometric-based approach responsible of estimating the number of vehicles present in the overlapping areas between the nodes and their neighbors, i.e., the quantities $\mu_{j, i}$ in Figure \ref{fig:system_overview}.
\paragraph{A vehicle counting CNN on the Edge}
We base our vehicle counting technique on \textit{Mask R-CNN} \cite{he2017mask}, a popular deep CNN for instance segmentation that operates within the `recognition using regions' paradigm \cite{gu2009recognition}. In particular, it extends the \textit{Faster R-CNN} detector \cite{Ren2015} by adding a branch that outputs a binary mask saying whether or not a given pixel is part of an object. Briefly, in the first stage, a CNN acts as a backbone, extracting the input image features. Starting from this feature space, another CNN named Region Proposal Network (RPN) generates region proposals that might contain objects. RPN slices pre-defined region boxes (called anchors) over this space and ranks them, suggesting those most likely containing objects. Once RPN produces the Regions Of Interests (ROIs), they might be of different sizes. Since it is hard to work on features having different sizes, RPN reduces them into the same dimension using the Region of Interest Pooling algorithm. Finally, these fixed-size proposals are processed by two parallel CNN-based branches: one is responsible for classifying and localizing the objects inside them with bounding boxes; the second outputs a binary mask that says whether or not a given pixel is part of an object. In the end, given an input image, the network produces per-pixel masks localizing the detected objects together with the associated labels classifying them.
To make our counting solution able to run efficiently directly on the edge devices, we employ, as a backbone, the \textit{ResNet50} architecture, a lighter version of the popular \textit{ResNet101} \cite{he2016deep}. This simplification is also justified because the more powerful version of Mask R-CNN based on the ResNet101 model was designed for more complicated visual detection tasks than ours. Originally, Mask R-CNN was trained on the \textit{COCO} dataset \cite{lin2014microsoft} to detect and recognize 80 different classes of everyday objects. In our case, we have to localize and identify objects belonging to just one category (i.e., the \textit{vehicle} category). To this end, we further simplify the model by reducing the number of the final fully convolutional layers responsible for the classification of the detected objects, making the model lighter. Once we have localized the instances of the objects, we count them estimating the number of vehicles present in the scene.
\paragraph{Local counting} The Sink node $S$ starts this phase, sending a synchronization signal to all the smart cameras belonging to the system. Once received the synchronization signal, each node $\nu_i$ captures an image belonging to its underlying FOV, feeding the previously described CNN-based counting technique with it and obtaining as output a set of masks masks$_i$ localizing the vehicles present in the scene. The cardinality of this set of masks corresponds to the number of cars present in the image, i.e., the quantity $\eta_i$, that is sent through a message to the Sink node $S$. Then, the node $\nu_i$ packs this set of masks masks$_i$ in a message $m_i$, sending it to all its neighboring nodes $\nu_j$, and receiving from them their corresponding set of masks masks$_j$ packed in a message $m_j$. Once received a message $m_j$, the node $\nu_i$ is responsible for analyzing the potential vehicles present in the overlapped area between its FOV and the one of the node $\nu_j$. To this end, it employs the homographic transformation $H_{j, i}$ computed during the system initialization, as described in Section \ref{sec:system_init}, projecting the masks belonging to the set masks$_j$ into its image plane, filtering them and discarding the ones that overlap with the masks belonging to the set masks$_i$ having a value of Intersection over Union (IoU) greater than a threshold that we empirically found to be optimal at 0.2. These masks indeed localize vehicles already detected, and that should not be considered a second time. On the other hand, the cars left after this filtering are vehicles that were not detected in the FOV underlying the node $\nu_i$, but instead found by the node $\nu_j$, probably because of having a better view of this object. Referring to our graph modeling the system and reported in Figure \ref{fig:system_overview}, the number of the discarded cars after this filtering operation corresponds to the message $\mu_{j, i}$, that is sent to the Sink node $S$. We detail all the described steps in the Algorithm \ref{alg:local_counting} and in the Procedure \ref{alg:compute_num_overlaps}.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{\textbf{: Local Counting} \\ At each Computational Signal by $S$, each node $\nu_i$ performs the following steps:}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\Call{ReceiveComputSignal()}{}} \Comment{waits the computational signal from $S$}
\State {image$_i \gets$ \Call{CameraCapture()}{}}
\State {masks$_i \gets$ \Call{MaskRCNN}{image$_i$}}
\State {$\eta_i \gets \left| \text{masks}_i\right |$}
\State {\Call{SendMessage}{$\eta_i, S$}} \Comment{sends $\eta_i$ to Sink node $S$}
\State {$m_i \gets$ \Call{PackMessage}{masks$_i$}} \Comment{builds message $m_i$ containing masks$_i$}
\ForEach {$j \in J $} \Comment{$J$ is the set of neighboring nodes of node $\nu_i$}
\State {\Call{SendMessage}{$m_i, \nu_j$}} \Comment{sends $m_i$ to node $\nu_j$}
\State {$m_j \gets$ \Call{ReceiveMessage()}{}} \Comment{receives message $m_j$ from node $\nu_j$}
\State {masks$_j \gets$ \Call{UnpackMessage}{$m_j$}} \Comment{unpacks $m_j$ containing masks$_j$}
\State {$\mu_{j, i} \gets$ \Call{compute\_$\mu$}{masks$_i$, masks$_j$, $H_{j, i}$}}
\State {\Call{SendMessage}{$\mu_{j, i}, S$}} \Comment{sends $\mu_{j, i}$ to Sink node $S$}
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:local_counting}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{: \textbf{Computation of $\mu$} \\ $\mu$ represents the num of cars detected by $\nu_j$ and already detected by $\nu_i$ \\ Each node $\nu_i$ performs the following procedure:}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{compute\_$\mu$}{masks$_i$, masks$_j$, $H_{j,i}$}
\State {n\_cars\_already\_detected $\gets 0$}
\ForEach {mask $\in$ masks$_j$}
\State {mask$_h \gets $} \Call{Project}{$H_{j,i}$, mask} \Comment{projects mask points on plane $i$}
\If {mask$_h$ falls within image$_i$}
\State{mask$_\text{max} \gets \argmax_{m \in \text{masks}_i} \text{IoU}(\text{mask}_h, m)$}
\If {IoU$(\text{mask}_h, \text{mask}_\text{max}) > \tau$ }
\State {n\_cars\_already\_detected ++}
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State {\textbf{return} n\_cars\_already\_detected}
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:compute_num_overlaps}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Global Counting Algorithm}
\label{sec:global_counting}
In this section, we describe the global counting algorithm that runs on the Sink node $S$, responsible for the fusion of the partial results coming from all the other nodes and that finally outputs the number of cars present in the \textit{entire} monitored parking area.
This phase starts when $S$ receives all the $\eta_i$ and the $\mu_{j, i}$, i.e., the number of vehicles estimated in the single FOVs and the estimation of the number of cars already considered in the overlapping areas between neighboring cameras, from all the nodes belonging to the system. In particular, for each overlapped area shared between a pair of nodes $\nu_i, \nu_j$, the node $S$ receives two messages $\mu_{j, i}$ and $\mu_{i, j}$, the contents of which are computed by the two nodes employing two homographic transformations $H_{j, i}$ and $H_{i, j}$, respectively. These two quantities can be potentially different. We choose the best value aggregating them, choosing between three different functions - max, min and mean, finding that the latter is the best one. Finally, the node $S$ builds the final result, i.e., the estimation of the number of vehicles present in the \textit{entire} parking lot, by summing up all the $\eta_i$, and subtracting the aggregated values. We detail all these steps in the Algorithm \ref{algo:global_counting}.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{\textbf{: Global Counting} \newline The Sink node $S$ performs the following steps:}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\ForEach {$(\mu_{i, j}, \mu_{j, i})$}
\State{$\overline{\mu_k} \gets$ \Call{Aggregate}{$\mu_{i, j}, \mu_{j, i}$}}
\EndFor
\State{global\_cars\_count $\gets \sum_{n=1}^{N} \eta_n - \sum_{k=1}^{K} \overline{\mu_k}$ \newline \Comment{$N$ is the set of nodes, $K$ is the set of aggregations}}
\end{algorithmic}
\label{algo:global_counting}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experimental Setup}
\label{sec:exp_setup}
\subsection{The CNRPark-EXT Dataset}
\label{sec:datasets}
In this work, we exploit the \textit{CNRPark-EXT} public dataset introduced in \cite{amato2017deep}, a collection of annotated images of vacant and occupied parking spaces in the campus of the National Research Council (CNR) in Pisa, Italy. This dataset is challenging and describes most of the problematic situations that can be found in a real scenario: nine different cameras capture the images under various weather conditions, angles of view, light conditions, and many occlusions. Furthermore, the cameras have their fields of view partially overlapped. Since this dataset is specifically designed for parking lot occupancy detection, it is not directly usable for the counting task. Indeed, each image, called \textit{patch}, contains one parking space labeled according to its occupancy status - 0 for vacant and 1 for occupied. Since this work aims at counting the cars present in the parking area, we extended it by considering the full images and adapting the ground truth to our purposes.
To train and evaluate the vehicles counting CNN based on Mask R-CNN, we created a suitable label set. In this case, these labels correspond to \textit{binary masks}, i.e., binary images identifying the polygons surrounding the vehicles we want to detect. Since mask creation is a very time-consuming operation, differently from our previous work \cite{ciampi2018counting}, we considered the \textit{raw} masks obtained directly from the bounding boxes localizing the occupied parking spaces. The idea is that we do not need precise polygons that identify the vehicles we want to detect. Still, we can use the region within the delimiters that identify the occupied parking spaces and the underlying part of the car.
On the other hand, to validate our multi-camera algorithm, we considered some sequences of images belonging to different cameras captured simultaneously. In other words, we took into account some snapshots of the whole parking area picked up by the different views of the multiple cameras. We manually annotated these sequences, counting the vehicles present in the scenes, considering them just once, and discarding them from the global count if they were located in the overlapping areas. In particular, we accounted for six different sequences, two for each weather condition, considering the images belonging from camera$_2$ to camera$_9$. We did not consider camera$_1$ since it has a very different view of the parking area compared to the other ones, covering a big portion of the whole parking lot already monitored by the remaining cameras, and employing a very large perspective resulting in capturing images with very small cars that sometimes are not well distinguishable.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
\label{sec:metrics}
Following other counting benchmarks, we exploit Mean Absolute Error (\textit{MAE}), Mean Square Error (\textit{MSE}), and Mean Relative Error (\textit{MRE}) as the metrics for the performance evaluation, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
MAE = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} |c_n^{gt} - c_n^{pred}|
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
MSE = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} (c_n^{gt} - c_n^{pred})^{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
MRE = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{|c_n^{gt} - c_n^{pred}|}{ \textrm{num\_spaces}_n}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of the images, $c_{gt}$, $c_{pred}$ and $num\_spaces_n$ are the actual count, the predicted count, and the total number of parking spaces of the n-th image, respectively. Note that as a result of the squaring of each difference, MSE effectively penalizes large errors more heavily than small ones. Then MSE should be more useful when large errors are particularly undesirable. On the other hand, MRE also considers the relation between the error and the total number of objects present in the image.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
We report in this section some implementation details concerning the Mask R-CNN-based algorithm responsible for the prediction of the number of vehicles in the single images. In particular, we trained the modified Mask R-CNN initializing the weights of the ResNet50 backbone with the ones of a pre-trained model on \textit{ImageNet} \cite{deng2009imagenet}, a popular dataset for classification tasks, and the remaining ones at random. We freeze the backbone for the firsts 10 epochs, and then we trained the whole network for 20 additional epochs. To prevent overfitting, we applied some standard augmentation techniques to the training data: images are horizontally flipped with a 0.5 probability, then their pixels are multiplied by a random value between 0.8 and 1.5, and finally, they are blurred using a Gaussian kernel with a standard deviation of a random value between 0 and 5. Then, to support training multiple images per batch, we resized all pictures to the same size. If an image is not square, we pad it with zeros to preserve the aspect ratio. In the end, we obtained images of size $1024\times1024$. At inference time, images are resized and padded with zeros to get a square picture of size $1024\times1024$, and no other augmentations take place.
\section{Experiments and Results}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we report the experiments and the obtained results. Firstly, we evaluate the performance against other state-of-the-art solutions of the CNN-based technique responsible for estimating the vehicles in the single images directly onboard the smart cameras, also stressing its generalization capabilities. Then, we validate the effectiveness of our multi-camera algorithm, demonstrating that our system can benefit from the redundant information deriving from the different cameras.
\subsection{Experiments on the CNN-based counting solution on the edge}
\subsubsection{State-of-the-art comparison}
We compare our solution with the results obtained in our previous work \cite{ciampi2018counting}, where we presented a centralized counting approach based on the original version of Mask R-CNN having the ResNet101 model as features extractor, which has been fine-tuned on a very small manually annotated subset of the CNRPark-EXT dataset, starting from the model pre-trained on the \textit{COCO} \cite{lin2014microsoft} dataset. We filter the detections considering only the predictions related to the car class, and we count them. Although this solution is very computationally expensive and unsuitable for edge devices, it represents a direct comparison in terms of counting on the same dataset. We also compare our technique against the method proposed in \cite{amato2017deep}, an approach for car parking occupancy detection based on \textit{mAlexNet}, a deep CNN designed explicitly for smart cameras. This work represents an indirect method for counting cars in a car park, as the counting problem is cast as a classification problem: if a parking space is occupied, we increment the total number of cars, otherwise not. We illustrate the results in Table \ref{tab:results_edge_counting}, where we also report the performance obtained using the Mask R-CNN network without a preliminary fine-tuning on the CNRPark-EXT dataset. Our solution performs better than the other state-of-the-art considered methods, considering all three counting metrics. In particular, our approach outperforms the solution introduced in \cite{ciampi2018counting}, despite the latter employs a more deep and powerful CNN, and it is designed to be used as a centralized-server solution. This is explained by the fact that in \cite{ciampi2018counting} the authors fine-tuned the CNN using a tiny dataset. Consequently, the algorithm overfits on the training data, and it cannot generalize over the test subset. It is also worthy of notice that our CNN also outperforms the mAlexNet network, even though the latter knows the exact location of the parking spaces. Figure \ref{fig:example_counting_output} shows some examples of images belonging to different cameras and different weather conditions together with the masks localizing them computed by our counting solution.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Results obtained using our counting solution on the edge, compared with other state-of-the-art approaches. We get the best results on all the three considered counting metrics.}
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{Xrrr}
\toprule
Method & MAE & MSE & MRE\\
\midrule
mAlexNet \cite{amato2017deep} & 1.34 & 8.00 & 0.04\\
Fine-Tuned ResNet101 Mask R-CNN \cite{ciampi2018counting} & 1.05 & 4.41 & 0.03\\
ResNet50 Mask R-CNN & 11.20 & 247.40 & 0.30\\
Our solution & \textbf{0.49} & \textbf{1.04} & \textbf{0.01}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:results_edge_counting}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/example_pred_1.pdf}
\caption{Image from Camera$_2$}
\label{example_counting_output_a}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/example_pred_2.pdf}
\caption{Image from Camera$_8$}
\label{example_counting_output_b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Two examples of the output of our counting method. Images are taken from the CNRPark-EXT dataset. We report the predictions and the estimate of the number of vehicles present in the scene.}
\label{fig:example_counting_output}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Generalization capabilities}
Errors in vehicle detection and counting are due to many reasons, but critical points are different light conditions and diverse perspectives. Weather conditions might produce significant illumination changes since puddles and wet floors create a textural pattern that may lead to an error, and sunbeams can create reflections on the car windscreen, covering the majority of the images with saturated patterns. When a CNN does not generalize well, it works well only in the conditions where it was trained.
To measure the robustness of our approach to these scenarios, we performed two types of experiments: \textit{inter-weather} and \textit{inter-camera} experiments. In the former, we trained our CNN with images taken in one particular weather condition, and we computed the performance metrics obtained on images having different weather conditions. In particular, we performed three experiments, training respectively on the \textit{Sunny}, \textit{Overcast} and \textit{Rainy} subsets of the CNRPark-EXT dataset. In the latter, we trained our algorithm employing images from one camera, and then we computed the performance metrics on pictures captured by another camera. In particular, we performed two experiments, training with images coming respectively from camera$_1$ and camera$_8$. We chose these two cameras because they are particularly representative since one has a side view of the parking lot while the other has a pure front view.
We report the results of the two experiments in Figure \ref{inter_weather_results} and Figure \ref{inter_camera_results}, respectively. The histograms compare the counting performance metrics of the CNN trained on a specific scenario when tested over all the other possible scenarios. We achieve a good generalization in both the considered scenarios. We experienced a larger amount of error when the CNN is trained and tested on two opposite weather conditions, for instance, \textit{Sunny} and \textit{Rainy}, while the more accurate model was the one trained on \textit{Overcast} weather conditions. However, the performance difference is quite small. On the other hand, in \textit{inter-camera} experiments, the model trained on camera$_8$ is the best, and it has a slight drop in performance only when tested on the camera$_1$ subset. The model trained on the camera$_1$ dataset performs in general worse. This is probably due to a bias in the CNRPark-EXT dataset, where the majority of the images are captured from a frontal viewpoint.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perWeather_mae.pdf}
\caption{Mean Absolute Error}
\label{inter_weather_results_a}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perWeather_mse.pdf}
\caption{Mean Squared Error}
\label{inter_weather_results_b}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perWeather_are.pdf}
\caption{Mean Relative Error}
\label{inter_weather_results_c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Results in terms of counting of the inter-weather experiments. The red bar represents the training on sunny images, the blue bar the training on rainy images, and the green one the training on overcast images.}
\label{inter_weather_results}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perCamera_mae.pdf}
\caption{Mean Absolute Error}
\label{inter_camera_results_a}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perCamera_mse.pdf}
\caption{Mean Squared Error}
\label{inter_camera_results_b}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/perCamera_are.pdf}
\caption{Mean Relative Error}
\label{inter_camera_results_c}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Results in terms of counting of the inter-camera experiments. The yellow bar represents the training on the Camera$_1$ images while the black bar the training on the Camera$_8$ images.}
\label{inter_camera_results}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experiments on the Multi-Camera Algorithm}
Due to the absence of other works that consider the CNRPark-EXT dataset as a whole parking area, it is not possible to make a quantitative comparison of our proposed multi-camera algorithm with respect to other state-of-the-art approaches. However, we compare our solution against a baseline and a simplified version of our algorithm, highlighting the improvements obtained by the use of the redundant information deriving from the multiple angles of view.
In particular, we compare our solution against a system that is not aware of the other cameras' overlapped areas, and so it just sums all the vehicles detected by all the cameras belonging to a sequence (Baseline \textbf{B}). Then, we consider a more conservative approach, where the nodes employ the homographic transformations only with the purpose of black-masking the overlapped areas (Simplified algorithm \textbf{S}). This latter baseline then loses the ability to take advantage of monitoring the same lots from different views. However, it is still aware of the locations of the overlapping areas, and it considers the vehicles inside them only once.
Results are shown in Table \ref{tab:results_multi_camera_counting}. Our solution obtains the best results compared to the considered baselines in all the three counting metrics and all the employed scenarios. We report the errors concerning the considered six sequences of the CNRPark-EXT dataset, together with the MAE, MSE, and MRE, which summarize the mean results regarding all the scenarios. As an example, in Figure \ref{fig:example_multi_camera_counting_output} we also report the output of our multi-camera algorithm for a pair of images belonging to two different cameras having a shared area in their field of view, where we highlight in red and blue the masks projected from one camera to the other, using the previously computed homographic transformations.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Results using our multi-camera counting algorithm, considering the \textit{entire} parking lot. We compare our solution against a baseline and a simplified version of our algorithm. We report the errors obtained on the six considered sequences (two for each weather condition) of the CNRPark-EXT dataset that we extend on purpose.}
\centering
\footnotesize
\setlength\tabcolsep{.25em}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{X*{3}{c}@{\hspace{10pt}}*{3}{c}@{\hspace{10pt}}*{3}{c}@{\hspace{10pt}}*{3}{c}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Error} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Absolute Err.} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Squared Err.} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Relative Err. (\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} \cmidrule(r){8-10} \cmidrule{11-13}
& B & S & O & B & S & O & B & S & O & B & S & O \\
\midrule
Overcast-1 & 124 & -33 & \textbf{2} & 124 & 33 & \textbf{2} & 15,376 & 1,089 & \textbf{4} & 71.6 & 19.0 & \textbf{1.2} \\
Overcast-2 & 131 & -26 & \textbf{1} & 131 & 26 & \textbf{1} & 17,161 & 676 & \textbf{1} & 76.1 & 15.1 & \textbf{0.6} \\
Rainy-1 & 80 & -39 & \textbf{-5} & 80 & 39 & \textbf{5} & 6,400 & 1,521 & \textbf{25} & 47.6 & 23.2 & \textbf{2.9} \\
Rainy-2 & 105 & -44 & \textbf{-5} & 105 & 44 & \textbf{5} & 11,025 & 1,936 & \textbf{25} & 54.4 & 22.8 & \textbf{2.6} \\
Sunny-1 & 117 & -38 & \textbf{2} & 117 & 38 & \textbf{2} & 13,689 & 1,444 & \textbf{4} & 68.0 & 22.1 & \textbf{1.2} \\
Sunny-2 & 113 & -37 & \textbf{2} & 113 & 38 & \textbf{2} & 12,769 & 1,444 & \textbf{4} & 66.1 & 22.2 & \textbf{1.2} \\
\midrule
Mean & 111.6 & -36.1 & \textbf{-0.5} & 111.6 & 36.3 & \textbf{2.8} & 12,736.6 & 1,351.6 & \textbf{10.5} & 63.9 & 20.7 & \textbf{1.6} \\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{13}{l}{B = Baseline \textbf{A}; S = Simplified algorithm \textbf{B}; O = Ours (mean aggr., IoU Threshold $\tau = 0.2$)}
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:results_multi_camera_counting}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/example_dets_plus_proj_cam9.png}
\caption{Image from Camera$_9$}
\label{example_multi_camera_counting_output_a}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/example_dets_plus_proj_cam8.jpg}
\caption{Image from Camera$_8$}
\label{example_multi_camera_counting_output_b}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Example of the output of our multi-camera algorithm for a pair of images belonging to two different cameras $i, j$ having a shared area in their FOV. We report in green the masks localizing the vehicles detected by a camera in its own FOV, while in red and blue, the masks projected from camera j to camera i and vice-versa, employing the homographic transformations pre-computed during the system initialization.}
\label{fig:example_multi_camera_counting_output}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
This paper presented a distributed artificial intelligence-based system that automatically counts the vehicles present in a parking lot using images taken by multiple smart cameras. Unlike most of the works in literature, we introduced a multi-camera approach that can estimate the number of cars present in the \textit{entire} parking area and not only in the single captured images. The main peculiarities of this approach are that all the computation is performed in a distributed manner at the edge of the network and that there is no need for any extra information of the monitored parking area, such as the location of the parking spaces, nor any geometric information about the position of the cameras in the parking lot. We modeled our system as a graph, where the nodes, i.e., the smart cameras, are responsible for estimating the number of cars present in their view and merging data from nearby devices that have an overlapping field of view. Our solution is simple but effective, combining a deep-learning technique with a distributed geometry-based approach. We evaluated our algorithm on the CNRPark-EXT dataset, which we specifically extended to show how we benefit from redundant information from different cameras while improving overall performance.
There are multiple lines of future development that can help improve the proposed system. Although our multi-camera algorithm is flexible, one limitation relies on computing the homographic matrix between images captured by cameras placed in completely different locations, such as facing each other. In this case, the two perspectives are totally different, and manual intervention is required to avoid the generation of an inaccurate geometric transformation.
Another interesting study that could be conducted is using the same approach in different scenarios, such as counting people in crowds using techniques based on density maps.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work was partially supported by H2020 project AI4EU under GA 825619 and by H2020 project AI4media under GA 951911.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding phases of matter and realizing transitions between them have been a central theme in quantum many-body physics~\cite{Yang54, Cooper56, Higgs1964}. Quantum phases of matter are a macroscopic property, which reflects the underlying microscopic structure of the system~\cite{landau1981}. In closed quantum systems, for example, this microscopic structure is described in terms of the Hamiltonian, whose properties and symmetries determine the quantum phases that the system could exhibit~\cite{Cooper56}.
As the phases of matter are intimately related to symmetries of the system, they can be quite rich, ranging from ferromagnetism to superconductivity~\cite{landau1981}.
A discrete-time crystal (DTC) is a quantum phase of matter related to the symmetries of a periodically-driven system; it appears when the discrete time-translational symmetry (DTTS) of the Hamiltonian is broken~\cite{Else2016, Else2017, Sacha2015, Sacha2018, Khemani2016, Berdanier2018, Giergiel2018, Guo2020, Guo2013, Guo2016, Russomanno2017, Pizzi2019, Pizzi2020, Pizzi2021, Fan2020, Surace2019, Iemini2018, Gambetta2019, Andreu20, Estarellas19, Bastidas2020, Sakurai2021, Yu2019, Kozin2019, Choi2017, Zhang2017, Ho2017}. In non-equilibrium systems, the symmetry breaking can be caused by parameter changes in the Hamiltonian or by preparing particular initial states that break the symmetries of the system~\cite{Else2016, Else2017}.
The latter can be interpreted as a quantum quench~\cite{Polkovnikov2011}, because to generate the DTC phase the system has to be prepared in an appropriate symmetry-broken state and not in one of its eigenstates.
As quantum phases and the system symmetries are closely related, it is known that when a system is coupled to an external environment, some of its symmetries can be broken and the phases of matter associated to them do not survive. One example of this is a Mott insulator at unit filling coupled to a zero temperature bath~\cite{Boite2014}. In this situation, the coupling to the bath breaks the conservation of particles and the Mott insulator phase is destroyed.
When a system is coupled to a Markovian environment, quantum phases of matter can be well defined in terms of symmetries of the Liouvillian~\cite{Albert2014,Tangpanitanon2019}.
In the case of DTC's, the coupling to an external environment can destroy the discrete time-crystalline order~\cite{Lazarides17, Fan2020}. To prevent this situation, the Liouvillian has to satisfy the relevant symmetries associated to the DTC phase in the closed system~\cite{Andreu20, Iazarides2020}. Further, the steady state should break the aforementioned symmetries giving rise to the DTC. Recently, a DTC phase in a dissipative atom-cavity system has been theoretically predicted~\cite{kessler2020continuous} and has been experimentally realized using a Bose Einstein condensate within a cavity~\cite{Hans20}.
In this paper, we explore the competition between the local symmetries of the initial state and the global symmetries of the Liouvillian operator, and we investigate the dynamics of the system before it reaches the steady state. Global symmetries of the Liouvillian allow us to define conserved quantities, which in turn determine properties of the steady state~\cite{Albert2014}. However, not all the symmetries of the closed system are available when we coupled the system to an environment~\cite{Tangpanitanon2019}. If we prepare an initial state breaking a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, as well as the symmetry of the Liouvillian, the quantum phase could survive at the steady state under certain circumstances~\cite{Minganti2018}. Here we explore a situation where two different phases of matter with different symmetries are initially prepared in well-defined regions of space. One region of the system is in a state that locally breaks a symmetry of the Liouvillian, while the other region preserves it. In this situation, it is not clear what happens to these phases during the time evolution before the system reaches its steady state.
To investigate this more closely, we independently prepare an initial state to give a DTC phase or a non-DTC phase for each well-defined region of space, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} (a) with the DTC region (blue) and non-DTC region (green). These two phases are accommodated in a spin network shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1} (b). Then, we evaluate the transformation of these quantum phases in time through a dissipative process. In the next section, we start with defining our system.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{ (a) Schematic illustration showing the concept of the transformation of two quantum phases in time. The left panel shows the initial state with two distinctive quantum phases in a spin network. In the region A (blue), the initial state breaks breaks the discrete time translational symmetry and the initial state in the region B (green) does not break the symmetry. (b) Diagram of our system for a spin network of $N=6$ sites. Here, the red lines represent the the long range interaction $J_{lm}^{xy}$ between sites, and the dashed line means diagonal disorder $W_l$ at the site. The geometrical arrangement of spins is one-dimensional, but they have long range interactions determining the connectivity of the spin network. We label spins to form the region A with the sites $l=0,1,2$, the region B with the sites $l=3,4,5$.
}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Model}
In our work we will focus on a DTC, a phase of matter that breaks the discrete time translational invariance of the Hamiltonian. To define this phase, we consider a periodically driven $N$-site spin network governed by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}(t) =
\begin{cases}
\hat{H}_1 =\hbar g(1-\epsilon) \sum\limits_{l} \sigma_{l}^{x} & 0 \leq t < T_1 \\
\hat{H}_2 =\hbar \sum\limits_{lm} J_{lm}^{xy} \left( \sigma_{l}^{x} \sigma_{m}^{x} + \sigma_{l}^{y} \sigma_{m}^{y} \right) + \hbar \sum\limits_{l}W_l^z \sigma_l^z & T_1 \leq t < T \ ,
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
where $T=T_1+T_2$ is the period and $\sigma^{\mu}$ ($\mu \in x,y,z$) are the Pauli operators acting on the $l$-th site. Further we set $T_1 =T_2 = T/2$ with $2gT_1= \pi$. Next, $\epsilon$ is a rotational error parameter, which indicates the deviation of the Hamiltonian from the perfect DTC case. $W_l$ denotes the on-site energy at the $l$-th site and is given by a uniform random distribution $W_l^z \in [0,W]$ with disorder strength $W$. Unless explicitly stated, $\epsilon$ and $W$ are set to zero in this paper. This $N$-site spin system can be considered as a network, the sites being its nodes and the coupling $J_{lm}^{xy}$ between the sites $l$ and $m$ being the edges of the network. Crucially, in the absence of error ($\epsilon=0$), the evolution operator $\hat{U}(t)$ associated to Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hamiltonian} preserves the total number of excitations $\hat{\mathcal{N}}=\sum_l \left(\sigma_l^z+1\right)/2$ at even periods that is $[\hat{U}(2nT),\hat{\mathcal{N}}]=0$. The consequence of this symmetry is that the dynamics will preserve the number of excitations of the initial state at stroboscopic times. The physical origin of this stroboscopic conserved quantity is clearer if we examine the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T}$ after two periods of the drive in the absence of disorder $WT/2\pi=0$ and for $\epsilon=0$. The effective Hamiltonian is defined in terms of the unitary operator after two periods $\hat{U}(2T)=\exp{\left(-2i\hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T}T\right)}$, giving
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T,W=0}=
\frac{\hbar}{2} \sum\limits_{lm} J_{lm}^{xy} \left( \sigma_{l}^{x} \sigma_{m}^{x} + \sigma_{l}^{y} \sigma_{m}^{y} \right)
\ .
\label{eq:2TeffHamiltonian}
\end{equation}
Here the factor $1/2$ in the second term comes from a factor $T_2/T$. Here, the above Hamiltonian is invariant under the global $U(1)$ symmetry, which leads to the preservation of the total number of excitations. In particular, this Hamiltonian has a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-Ising symmetry (the invariant under the transformation $\sigma^y_l\mapsto -\sigma^y_l$ and $\sigma^z_l\mapsto -\sigma^z_l$), and thus the order parameter of the our DTC is the local magnetization $\langle \sigma_l^z (nT) \rangle $ at periodic times ($t=nT$)~\cite{Else2017}. When the initial state breaks the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-Ising symmetry, the magnetization oscillates with a $2T$-periodicity, while preserving the total number of excitations.
\subsection{Lindblad equation}
In this paper, we assume that our spin network is weakly coupled to a Markovian environment~\cite{Gardiner2004}.
In many of solid-state quantum systems, dephasing is the dominant dissipative factor and we consider the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hamiltonian}) with dephasing. The dynamics of the system is given by the Lindblad equation~\cite{Gorini1976, Lindblad1976, Scopa2018, Manzano2020}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \hat{\rho}(t) = \hat{\mathcal{L}}_t[\hat{\rho}(t)]
\ ,
\label{eq:Lindblad}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\rho}$ is the density matrix of the spin network and $\hat{\cal{L}}_t$ the Liouvillian operator. The action of $\hat{\mathcal{L}}_t$ on the reduced density matrix of the system $\hat{\rho}(t)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{L}}_t[\hat{\rho}(t)] = - \frac{i}{\hbar} \left[ \hat{H}(t),\hat{\rho}(t) \right] + {\gamma} \sum_l \left[\sigma_l^z \hat{\rho}(t)\sigma_l^z - \hat{\rho}(t)\right],
\label{eq:Linovillian}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the dephasing rate. As the Hamiltonian is periodic in time $\hat{H}(t)=\hat{H}(t+T)$, the Liouvillian operator exhibits the same periodicity such that $\hat{\mathcal{L}}_t=\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{t+T}$~\cite{Dai2016, Scopa2018}. In our model, we assume that during the spin rotation given by $\hat{H}_1 $, the dephasing effect can be neglected~\cite{Else2017, Andreu20}, because in many experiments the pulse can be applied in short time which is much smaller than the time scale of the dephasing~\cite{Choi2017, Zhang2017, Hans20, Lanyon57, Cirac1995, Blatt2012}.
The Liouvillian in Eq. \eqref{eq:Lindblad} is the generator of a completely positive map that preserves the trace of the density matrix, and it is also a map between the vector space of the linear operators. To analyze the properties of this map, we apply the super-operator formalism~\cite{Manzano2020, Pablo2004}. The density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ is then written as a vector $ |\hat{\rho} \rangle\rangle = \rho_{lm} |l \rangle \otimes |m \rangle$ in an extended Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H}$, where $|l\rangle$ and $|m\rangle$ are the basis states of the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $\rho_{lm} = \langle l |\hat{\rho}| m \rangle$. In this extended Hilbert space, the inner product of two operators $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$ is defined as $\langle\langle \hat{A}|\hat{B} \rangle\rangle = \mathrm{Tr}{(\hat{A}^\dagger \hat{B})}$.
Now, the Lindblad equation \eqref{eq:Lindblad} can be written as a linear system of coupled ordinary differential equations~\cite{Manzano2020}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} |\hat{\rho}(t) \rangle\rangle = \hat{\hat{L}}_t |\hat{\rho}(t) \rangle\rangle \ .
\label{eq:SuperLindblad}
\end{equation}
In this formalism, the Liouvillian super-operator $\hat{\hat{L}}_t$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\hat{L}}_t = - \frac{i}{\hbar} \left(\hat{H}\otimes \mathbb{I}_N - \mathbb{I}_N \otimes \hat{H}\right) + \gamma \sum_l \left( \sigma_l^z\otimes\sigma_l^z - \mathbb{I}_N\otimes\mathbb{I}_N \right),
\end{equation}
with $\mathbb{I}_N$ being the $2^N \times 2^N$-dimensional identity operator.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.96\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{ Stroboscopic dynamics of the local magnetization $\langle \sigma_l^z(nT) \rangle$ and the negativity $N_B (nT)$ for DTC growth in the different dephasing rates $\gamma T =0, 0.012, 0.02$ are shown in (a) and (b), respectively. Here, we have chosen, $J_0 T/2\pi =0.2$ with $\alpha=1.5$ and $ WT/2\pi=0.0$. We have used a state $|\psi(0)\rangle = |111\rangle_A \otimes |+++\rangle_B$ as our initial state.
}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Floquet theory}
As a DTC is a phase of matter that can be defined in periodically-driven systems, the Floquet theory is a convenient and versatile tool to represent and analyze its dynamics. Floquet theory is related to the study of linear systems of coupled differential equations with time-periodic coefficients and it can be naturally used to investigate the dynamics governed by Eq.~\eqref{eq:SuperLindblad} because $\hat{\hat{L}}_t=\hat{\hat{L}}_{t+T}$. The evolution at stroboscopic times $t_n=nT$ is given by $|\hat{\rho} (nT) \rangle \rangle = \hat{\hat{\Phi}}_{T}^n |\hat{\rho}(0)\rangle\rangle$ with the dynamical map $\hat{\hat{\Phi}}_{T}$~\cite{Dai2016, Scopa2018}
\begin{equation}
\hat{\hat{\Phi}}_{T} =\hat{\mathcal{T}}_{\leftarrow}\,e^{\int_0^T \hat{\hat{L}}_{\tau} d\tau} = e^{\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T}T },
\label{eq:effLiouvillian}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal{T}}_{\leftarrow}$ is the time-ordering operator (right to left). The dynamics at stroboscopic times $t_n=nT$ are governed by the effective Liouvillian super-operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T} = \log{\hat{\hat{\Phi}}_T}/T$. In the absence of error $(\epsilon=0)$, the dynamical map preserves some symmetries of the closed system. For example, it preserves the total number of excitations every two periods in such a way that $[\hat{\hat{\Phi}}^{2n}_{T},\hat{\hat{\mathcal{N}}}]=0$, where $\hat{\hat{\mathcal{N}}}$ is the super operator associated to $\hat{\mathcal{N}}$. This symmetry allows us to decompose even powers of the dynamical map in blocks with a different number of excitations. The choice of the initial state determines the total number of excitations of the system and how many symmetry multiplets are relevant for the dynamics. This in turn determines the properties of the steady state. It is instructive to investigate the origin of the aforementioned conserved quantity. With this aim, let us consider the system in the absence of disorder and error. In this case, we can explicitly obtain the effective Liouvillian operator associated to $\hat{\hat{\Phi}}^{2}_{T}$, as follows
\begin{equation}
\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{2T} = - \frac{i}{\hbar} \left( \hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T}\otimes \mathbb{I}_N - \mathbb{I}_N \otimes \hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T} \right) + \frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_l \left( \sigma_l^z\otimes\sigma_l^z - \mathbb{I}_N\otimes\mathbb{I}_N \right).
\label{eq:a-2TeffLiouvillian}
\end{equation}
Here the factor $1/2$ in the second term comes from a factor $T_2/T$. Due to the nature of the dephasing and the conservation rules of the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{H}^{\text{eff}}_{2T}$, it is clear that the dissipative process also preserves the total number of excitations $\hat{\mathcal{N}}$.
\section{Results}
We use the model defined in the previous section to numerically analyze dynamics of the phases initially prepared in two domains of the system and to investigate its dynamics. Firstly, we fix the spin network properties by setting the coupling strength. We set each coupling strength between two spins as $J_{lm}^{xy} = J_0/|l-m|^\alpha$ where the index $l$ and $m$ denotes the sites. $J_0$ and $\alpha$ denote the strength and range of the spin-spin interaction, respectively.
In the limiting cases $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=\infty$, the connectivity of the network is all-to-all and the nearest neighbor only respectively. In this paper, we choose $\alpha = 1.51$, which is an experimentally used value in trapped ions \cite{Zhang2017}, and for such scenario the spin system holds long-range interactions across the entire network.
At the initial time, we specify two regions in the network as shown in Fig.\ref{Fig1}. As we have six spins in the system ($N=6$), we can assign three spins to each region as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1} (b).
The two regions are referred to as regions A (sites $0-2$) and region B (sites $3-5$), and we assume these regions can be prepared in different initial states independently.
If both regions A and B are initially prepared in the same state, the total system would globally exhibit a quantum phase. For example, if the initial state globally breaks the discrete time-translational symmetry, the total system would be in the DTC phase. Contrary to this, we prepare the region A in the DTC phase that breaks the discrete translational symmetry in time, while region B is prepared in another phase of matter.
\subsection{DTC growth and Effect of the dephasing}
We prepare the initial state $ |111\rangle$ for region A to break the DTTS, where $|1\rangle_l$ is the eigenstate of the $\sigma_l^z$ at the $l$-th site. Next, a natural choice of the initial state for the region B is a state preserving the DTTS. In this way, the system clearly exhibit two different phases in well-defined regions of the network.The aforementioned state for the region B is chosen to be $|{+++}\rangle$, hence the total initial state would be $|\psi(0)\rangle = |111\rangle_A \otimes |{+++}\rangle_B$, where $|+ \rangle_l = \left(|0\rangle_l + |1\rangle_l\right)/\sqrt{2}$. As the dynamics preserves the total number of excitations, the evolution of this initial state is restricted to subspaces with $3,4,5$ and $6$ excitations. To investigate the dynamics of the DTC, we calculate the local magnetizations $\langle \sigma_l^z(nT) \rangle$ at the stroboscopic times $t=nT$ for different dephasing rates $\gamma T =0, 0.012, 0.02$.
In Fig. \ref{Fig2} (a), we show the stroboscopic dynamics of the local magnetization $\langle \sigma_l^z (nT) \rangle $. The spin-spin interaction strength $J^{xy}_{lm}$ in the second Hamiltonian Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hamiltonian} allows the population transfer between regions A and B. As a consequence, in a short time-scale, the $2T$-periodic magnetization or the DTC region initially located within the region A spreads to the region B. This can be seen for all the dephasing rates. We refer to this spread of the DTC phase as DTC growth and the initial state for the region A as the DTC seed. In the absence of the dephasing, the state remains pure at all times, and at the boundary of the spin network the population transfer reflects and causes interference. In this situation, the magnetization dynamics does not reach a steady state. and we can observe the oscillation as shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{Fig2} (a). On the contrary, when the dephasing is present, the state gradually loses the purity over time. Thus, there is an interplay between the dissipation process and the coherent dynamics so as to suppress interference. As a result, the system is stabilized to the 2T-periodic dynamics spread over the entire system after a certain time. Looking at the magnetization at each site, the DTC gradually grows over the entire network, starting from the DTC seed. Generally, as the dephasing rate increases, the state losses its purity at a faster rate and reaches the steady state at shorter time scales. Thus, the number of periods (n) needed for the dynamics to stabilize decreases with the dephasing rate, as we can see by comparing the two left panels in Fig.~\ref{Fig2} (a).
Next, to understand the time evolution of the phase growth from the quantum state perspective, we calculate the negativity~\cite{Vidal2002} $N_B = \left(|| \hat{\rho}^{\Gamma_B}||_1-1\right)/2$ for each dephasing rate: $\gamma T =0, 0.012, 0.02$. Here $\hat{\rho}^{\Gamma_B}$ is the partially transposed density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ with respect to subspace $B$ with $||\hat{X}||_1=\text{Tr}\sqrt{\hat{X}^{\dagger}\hat{X}}$ being the trace norm. Now, the negativity can be used as a measure of entanglement between the two regions A and B of the total system. The negativity for each dephasing rate is numerically calculated, and the results are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig2} (b). Initially, the negativity grows over time for all cases. The entanglement between two regions increases via the interaction across the two regions. When $\gamma T=0$, the negativity saturates after a certain period with slight fluctuations, though the magnetization dynamics would not be stabilized. Contrary, if $\gamma T \neq 0$, the negativity peaks at a certain time and then begins to decrease to converge to zero due to the dephasing effect.
By comparing both results in Fig.~\ref{Fig2} (a) and (b), we see that the DTC region grows via the interaction. and the DTC phase becomes stable as the system approaches to the steady state by dephasing.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{ In (a) and (b), we show the results of the local magnetization $\langle \sigma_l^z(nT) \rangle$ and the negativity $N_B (nT)$ at periodic times $t=nT$ for a new initial state $|\phi \rangle = |111\rangle\otimes \hat{\rho}_B$, where $\hat{\rho}_B = I_{M_B}/{M_B}$ with the region B's Hilbert space size $M_B=2^3$ is a completely mixed state in region $B$. Here, we have chosen two dephasing rates $\gamma T =0, 0.02$, and have set up $J_0 T/2\pi=0.2$ with $\alpha=1.5$ and $WT/2\pi=0.0$.
}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
In the above analysis, we have seen that the quantum transfer of excitations between the regions is essential for the quantum phase to be spread to the entire network as well as to be stabilized by the dephasing. It is however not clear how these two competing factors contribute to generate a stable DTC.
As the spread of the DTC seems to be related to the initial preparation of the system which we initially choose in the pure state $|\psi(0)\rangle = |111\rangle_A \otimes |+++\rangle_B$, what would happen region B starts with a mixed state. In that case the DTC region may not grow. To investigate this, we consider the case where region B starts from the initially fully mixed state ${\rho}_B (0) = I_{M_B}/{M_B}$ at the initial time, where $M_B = 2^{3}$ is the Hilbert space size of region B.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig3}, we show the results of the dynamics of the local magnetization and the negativity for the new initial state with two different dephasing rates $\gamma T=0$, and $0.02$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig3} (a), despite the initial state in region B is the completely mixed state, we see that the DTC area grows over time in the first few periods. The entanglement between the two regions A and B increases in Fig~\ref{Fig3} (b). In the presence of dephasing, the DTC region spreads over the entire site and becomes stable, similar to the results in Fig~\ref{Fig2}.
Additionally, to investigate the dependence of the initial state on DTC growth, we calculated the dynamics for different sizes of the DTC seed at the initial time, e.g. $|\psi(0)\rangle = |1\rangle \otimes |+++++\rangle$. It showed that the growth occurs in the magnetization dynamics as long as the seed exists in the initial state.
These results indicate that as long as we prepare a DTC seed in the initial state, the DTC region can grow via the interaction. Further, the dephasing in the dynamics plays an essential role on the DTC growth. We previously assumed that the rotational error is zero ($\epsilon= 0$), but we confirm the even with nonzero $\epsilon$, the numerical trend does no change, the dynamics shows DTC growth.
\subsection{The Liouvillian gap and DTC growth time scale}
As we have seen in the previous section, the DTC growth is induced by the interactions and the dephasing, and hence both the nature of the steady-state as well as the spectral properties of the Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T} $ are intimately related to the DTC growth.
To understand the DTC growth in more details, we investigate the structure of the Liouvillian operator. Since the effective Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T} $ is time independent, using its eigenstates, the density matrix at stroboscopic times $t = nT$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
|\hat{\rho}(nT) \rangle\rangle = \left(\hat{\hat{\Phi}}_{T}\right)^{n} |\hat{\rho}(0) \rangle\rangle = \sum_l e^{\Lambda_l nT} c_l(0) | \Lambda_l^{R}\rangle\rangle.
\label{eq:GenLiuDec}
\end{equation}
Here, $c_l(0) = \langle\langle \Lambda_l^{L} |\hat{\rho}(0)\rangle\rangle$, and $| \Lambda_l^{L/R} \rangle\rangle$ are left/right eigenvectors of the effective Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T} $ with the eigenvalue $\Lambda_l$~\cite{Minganti2018}. Here, we introduce an order among the eigenvalues as $\text{Re}(\Lambda_0) > \text{Re}(\Lambda_1)\ > \cdots > \text{Re}(\Lambda_{2^{2N}})$. The steady state $|\hat{\rho}\rangle\rangle_{0}=|\hat{\rho}\rangle\rangle_{ss}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{T}|\hat{\rho}\rangle\rangle_{ss} = 0.
\end{equation}
with the eigenvalue $\Lambda_0 = 0$. Thus, the relaxation time-scale $\tau \sim 1/\Delta$ (unit of $T$) can be estimated by calculating the Liouviullian gap~\cite{Kessler2012}
\begin{equation}
\Delta = - \text{Re}(\Lambda_1),
\end{equation}
which is the negative real part of the second largest eigenvalue $\Lambda_1$ of the Liouvillian operator.
Now, let us consider the DTC growth time scale ($\tau_{\text{DTC}}$) of our model. The time scale of the DTC growth $\tau_{\text{DTC}}$ should tell us the time for the DTC interference to be settled and stabilized, hence there are two steps in time crystal growth: the propagation of the DTC region and the DTC stabilization. The time scale of the first step can be determined by the propagation speed, which is related to the hopping strength as similar to the excitation transfer. The time scale of stabilization is related to the dissipation time of the system.
The stabilization takes longer than the dynamical hopping rates. Thus, we can estimate the time for the DTC growth from the stabilisation time scale, i.e. the Liouvillian gap is an appropriate measure to estimate $\tau_{\text{DTC}}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig4.pdf}
\caption{
2T-effective Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{2T}_{\text{eff}}$ structure for the spin network with $N=6$ : Red dots are complex eigenvalues $\Lambda$ of $\hat{\hat{L}}^{2T}_{\text{eff}}$. The system's parameters are the same as the rightmost case in Fig.~\ref{Fig2}. Because of the conservation of the total magnetization, there are multiple steady states.
}
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
Given the 2T-periodicity of the DTC, we use the effective Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}^{2T}_{\text{eff}}$ . In general, this operator is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\hat{L}}^{\text{eff}}_{2T} = \frac{1}{2T}\log{\left( \mathcal{T} e^{\int_0^{2T} \hat{\hat{L}}_
{\tau} d\tau} \right)} = \frac{1}{2T}\log{\left( \hat{\hat{\Phi}}_{T}^2\right)},
\label{eq:2TeffLiouvillian}
\end{equation}
where we use the periodicity of the Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}_t = \hat{\hat{L}}_{t+T}$ to perform the integration. When $\epsilon=0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:2TeffLiouvillian} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:a-2TeffLiouvillian} give the same dynamical map. Then, the Liouvillian gap of the DTC growth is the second large eigenvalue of the Liouvillian operator $\hat{\hat{L}}_{2T}^{\text{eff}}$.
Now, let us look at the eigenvalues of the effective Liouvillian operator for the rightmost case in Fig.~\ref{Fig3} as an example. We show the numerical results in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}. Because our system preserves the total magnetization at even periods $t_n=2nT$, we find multiple steady-states~\cite{Vznidarivc2015}. Since these steady states are not necessarily a thermal state, the DTC phase could exist when the system reaches the steady state. From this figure, we see that the Liouvillian gap is $\Delta = 0.02$ (unit of $1/T$), and the corresponding relaxation time is $\tau/T \sim 1/\Delta T = 50$. While we can estimate the DTC growth time scale to be around $\tau_{\text{CG}}/T = 40\sim 60$ period from Fig.~\ref{Fig3} (a) and (b), the estimated time-scale obtained by analizing the Liouvillian gap explains the time that the the DTC growth process take.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{ Liouvillian gap $\Delta$ of the spin chain with $N=6$ under the disorder. (a) Liouvillian gap for the several disorder strength $WT_2 = 0$ to the maximum value $\pi$. The red dots and dashed line are average value of the Liouvillian gap with 200 disorder realizations. The blue band is the width between maximum and minimum values of the Liouvillian gap. (b) Liouvillian structure of one disorder realization around the steady states for different strength of the disorder $W/J_0 = 10, 25$ and $30$. In both (a) and (b), we set $\gamma T = 0.02$, and $J_0 T/2\pi =0.2$ with $\alpha=1.51$.
}
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{DTC growth vs Diagonal disorder}
We have previously seen that the DTC growth time scale in the absence of the diagonal disorder is well estimated by the Liouvillian gap. In the above case, the Liouvillian gap is equal to the dephasing rate $\gamma$, similarly to the case of a non-interacting spin chain under the dephasing effect~\cite{Shibata19}. When there is strong diagonal disorder, the crystal growth might be suppressed due to Floquet Anderson localization (FAL)~\cite{Malishava2020}. Here we investigate the time scale of the DTC growth in the presence of diagonal disorder by using Liouvillian gap. In Fig.~\ref{Fig5} (a), we plot the average value of the Liouvillian gap over 200 disorder realizations for each value of the disorder strength. In this figure, the blue lines represents the minimum and maximum values.
In the derivation of the Lindblad master equation\eqref{eq:Linovillian}, one assumes that the system is weakly coupled to a Markovian environment. In this derivation, we implicitly work in a regime where the dephasing rate is smaller than the characteristic energy scales of the system
~\cite{Gorini1976, Lindblad1976, Scopa2018, Manzano2020}. In our model, we work in a regime such that the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hamiltonian} satisfies the aforementioned condition. However, in the presence of the strong disorder, the coupling effectively becomes smaller, and then the condition might be broken at stroboscopic times $t=2nT$(see Appendix \ref{appendixA}). Thus, there is a critical disorder strength $W^c_z$. For disorder strengths such that $W_z >W^c_z$ the effective coupling strength becomes smaller than the dephasing rate $\gamma$. Before and after the critical point, the Liouvillian spectrum and the Liouvillian gap undergo a drastic change~\cite{Shibata19}. The numerical results in Fig.~\ref{Fig5} (a) show that the DTC growth time-scale is not affected by the disorder up to a certain strength $W/J
_0 \sim 15$. Only in the strong disorder region, the effective coupling of the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{2T,W\neq 0}^{\text{eff}}$ becomes smaller than the dephasing rate, and the Liouvillian gap may also take a smaller value. When this happens, the DTC growth takes a longer time.
Finally, let us take a closer look at the transition of the Liouvillian gap around the critical point. We investigate the structure of the eigenvalues of the Liouvillian operator for the several disorder strengths. We shows the results of the Liouvillian operator around the steady states for the different disorder strengths $W/J_0 = 10, 25$ and $30$ in Fig.\ref{Fig5} (b). We see that the structure around the gap does not change up to $W/J_0 \sim 15$. However, when the disorder is stronger than this, the structure of the Liouvilian operator is gradually broken, and the gap gets smaller. As the dynamics tend to preserve the local magnetization in such a case, as a result, the growth of DTCs becomes slower.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have explored how a crystalline structure along the temporal axis grows on spin networks under the effect of dephasing. We illustrated the DTC growth for two different initial states: the pure state and the fully mixed state. By comparing the results from these two initial states, we showed that the purity of the initial state is not crucial, however a DTC seed is necessary for the DTC growth, and the dephasing is crucial for the system to form the DTC phase.
We also analyzed the structure of the $2T$-effective Liouvillian operator and showed that the Lioucillian gap provides an indication of the DTC growth time scale. When diagonal disorder is present, the Liouvillian gap shows a critical point where its structure changes.
Below this critical point, the gap is constant, despite the presence of the Anderson localization effect.
With the recent rapid progress in quantum control technology, our DTC growth experiment could be realized in several real quantum devices, including superconducting qubits and trapped ions.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank T. Osada and J. Tangpanitanon for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part from the Japanese MEXT Quantum Leap Flagship Program (MEXT Q-LEAP) Grant No.JPMXS0118069605, the MEXT KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas Science of hybrid quantum systems Grant No.15H05870 and the JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP19H00662.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Gyrokinetics is the theoretical framework to study {micro}turbulence in magnetized plasmas. It takes advantage of scale separation between {turbulent fluctuations} and background quantities (such as magnetic geometry and plasma profiles), and provides a reduction of phase-space dimensionality, which allows an important saving of computational resources. In tokamaks, the theoretical analysis and the numerical simulation of microinstabilities and turbulence are largely facilitated by its axisymmetry, which makes all the field lines on a flux surface equivalent, so that simulations can be carried out in a reduced spatial domain called flux tube (FT): a volume extending several Larmor radii around a magnetic field line. Thanks to axisymmetry, the result of a calculation in a flux tube is independent of the chosen magnetic field line. Periodic boundary conditions in the parallel direction and the standard twist-and-shift formulation \cite{Beer95} are commonly used.
The lack of axisymmetry in stellarators introduces complexity at several levels. First, the twist-and-shift boundary condition in flux tube simulations is questionable \cite{Martin18} due to the three-dimensional dependence of the equilibrium quantities affecting micro-instabilities, such as magnetic field line curvature and magnetic shear. As a consequence of this dependence, different flux tubes over a given flux surface are in general not equivalent to each other \cite{Faber15}. A common practice when using flux tube codes in stellarators is to simulate the most unstable flux tube, which allows to quantify the upper bound of the instability. However, the turbulence saturation level can be largely affected by the interaction between small-scale fluctuations and zonal flows (ZF), and the long time behaviour of the latter (which, in stellarators, shows distinct features as compared to tokamaks \cite{Mishchenko08,Helander11,Monreal17}) depends on the magnetic geometry of the whole flux surface. Different saturation mechanisms can dominate in different devices depending on the magnetic geometry \cite{Plunk17}. In addition, {the radial electric field, whose effect cannot be accounted for in a flux tube domain, might play a role in the linear stability \cite{Villard02, Riemann16} and the turbulence saturation.
In this work, we address the question of which is the minimum computational domain appropriate for the simulation of \revisar{instabilities and zonal flows} in stellarators and we study to what extent simplified setups, such as the flux tube approximation, can be used. For this purpose, we compare gyrokinetic simulations in different stellarator configurations using different computational domains and codes. The codes used are EUTERPE \cite{Jost01}, GENE \cite{Jenko00}, GENE-3D \cite{Maurer19} (the radially global version of GENE for stellarators), and \texttt{stella} \cite{Barnes19}, which cover different computational domains and implement different numerical methods. \texttt{stella} is a flux tube continuum code. Both a flux tube and a full-flux-surface version of GENE are available for stellarators. EUTERPE and GENE-3D are both radially global, although with different numerical schemes; EUTERPE is a particle-in-cell (PIC) code while GENE-3D is a {continuum} code.
Two problems are studied with these codes: the linear relaxation of zonal flows and the linear stability of Ion Temperature Gradient (ITG) modes.
The first one has been studied both analytically and numerically in helical \cite{Sugama05,Sugama06,Sugama07} and general stellarator geometries \cite{Mynick2007,Mishchenko08,Helander11,Monreal16,Monreal17},
showing distinct features as compared to tokamaks. The (semi)analytical calculations were validated against numerical simulations with EUTERPE, in the radially global (RG) domain, and GENE, in the full-flux-surface (FFS) domain, in W7-X and LHD configurations, finding a {remarkable} agreement \cite{Monreal16,Monreal17}. The linear relaxation of zonal flows in FT, FFS, and RG domains has been compared in HSX and NCSX configurations \cite{Smoniewski19}.
In this work, we provide additional comparisons for LHD and W7-X in order to complete the picture of how the computational domain choice impacts the linear ZF relaxation. \revisar{We study this problem in the flux tube domain, and compare the results with those obtained in the FFS and RG domains, which was not previously done in these configurations.}
With respect to the {ITG} linear stability, no systematic comparison {between different computational domains has been reported so far} for stellarators. {In this contribution,} we compare results from ITG simulations carried out in FT, FFS and RG domains in the same configurations. Good convergence between different FT results is found in LHD, while in W7-X significant differences are found between calculations in different flux tubes.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{secCodesAndDomains}, the computational domains and the codes used in this work are introduced. {For LHD and W7-X and the computational domains considered, the collisionless linear ZF relaxation is studied in {section \ref{SecZFRelax}}, while the linear stability of the Ion Temperature Gradient (ITG) mode is presented in section \ref{SecLinearITGS}}. Finally, in section \ref{secSumandConcls} the results are discussed and some conclusions are {drawn}.
\section{Computational domains and codes}\label{secCodesAndDomains
\nuevo{We devote this section to describing the different computational domains and codes used in this work, and start describing the simplest computational domain, the flux tube. A flux tube domain is defined by a volume around a magnetic field line, which extends a finite length along the direction parallel to the magnetic field. We will refer generically to spatial coordinates $\{x,y,z\}$ that will be defined for each code later on, with $x$ a coordinate in the radial direction, $z$ a coordinate along the magnetic field line and $y$ a coordinate in the binormal direction, i.e. perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the flux surface normal vector. \revisar{Twist and shift
boundary conditions are defined in the direction parallel to the magnetic field \cite{Beer95}. The length of the flux tube is usually measured in terms of poloidal turns, $n_{pol}$.
In a tokamak, the axisymmetry makes that a flux tube that extends one poloidal turn samples completely the geometry of a flux surface. In stellarators, this is not the case due to the three dimensional dependence of the magnetic geometry.
Flux tube simulations are local, i.e the width of the flux tube along the radial and binormal direction is sufficiently thin so that the turbulence can be assumed to depend only on the local values of the relevant quantities of the problem (density, temperature, geometric coefficients, etc.) at the radial and binormal location of the selected line. Periodic conditions in the radial direction are assumed.
Only one radial mode $k_x$ and a perpendicular mode $k_y$ are scanned at a time in linear simulations.
We consider two different flux tubes in this work: {one centered with respect to the position $(\theta,\zeta)=(0,0)$ and the other one centered with respect to the point} $(\theta,\zeta)=(0,\pi/N)$, with N the periodicity of the device (N=5 for W7-X and N=10 for LHD) and $\theta$ and $\zeta$ the angular PEST coordinates \cite{Grim83}. {Each of these flux tubes will eventually cover different lengths, which will be expressed in terms of the number of poloidal turns}. Figures \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1} and \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod} show, for the mid plasma radius, the magnetic field strength in a period of LHD (top) and W7-X (bottom) as well as the flux tubes considered for different number of poloidal turns.
In Figure \ref{FigMagFielQntts}, several quantities related with the magnetic geometry that affect the linear zonal flow relaxation \cite{Monreal17,Sanchez15} and ITG instability are represented along these two FTs and for the same magnetic configurations. Both FTs are stellarator symmetric, which means that the magnetic field is the same at both ends of the FT.
A number of parallel wavenumbers $k_z$ depending on the spatial discretization along the field line is considered in the simulation.
In nonlinear simulations, a box in the radial and binormal directions is defined around the central field line defining the FT, and a set of radial and binormal wavenumbers $k_x$ and $k_y$ are considered.
The fulfilment of the periodicity condition in the parallel direction for all the modes considered in the simulation is more restrictive in this case, with a strong influence of the magnetic shear \cite{Beer95, Martin18,Xanthopoulos09}. }
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=50 40 50 5, clip, width=8cm]{LHD_MagFieldwFilelines_npol1_LW2.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=50 40 50 35, clip, width=8cm]{W7X_MagFieldwFilelines_npol1_LW2.png}
\caption{Magnetic field strength versus toroidal ($\phi$) and poloidal ($\theta$) PEST angular coordinates for a flux surface at middle radius, $r/a=0.5$, in a period of LHD (top) and W7X KJM (bottom) configurations. The field lines defining the two stellarator-symmetric flux tubes used in this work (for the case $n_{pol}=1$) are shown. Thick line is used for the FT with $\alpha=0$ and dashed line for the one with $\alpha=\iota\pi/N$. The sections of the field lines laying in different device periods are all mapped to one period. }
\label{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=50 40 50 5, clip, width=8cm]{LHD_MagFieldwFilelines_npol2_LW2.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=50 40 50 35, clip, width=8cm]{W7X_MagFieldwFilelines_npol3_LW2.png}
\caption{Magnetic field strength versus toroidal ($\phi$) and poloidal ($\theta$) PEST angular coordinates for a flux surface at middle radius, $r/a=0.5$, in a period of LHD (top) and W7X KJM (bottom) configurations. The field lines defining the two stellarator-symmetric flux tubes used in this work are shown. Thick line is used for the FT with $\alpha=0$ and dashed line for the one with $\alpha=\iota\pi/N$. The sections of the field lines laying in different device periods are all mapped to one period. FTs of $n_{pol}=2$ and $n_{pol}=3$ are shown for LHD and W7-X, respectively. Black, red and green colors are used to show the first second and third poloidal turns, respectively. }
\label{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=76 50 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{LHD_B_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=76 50 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{LHD_kappaN_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=76 0 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{LHD_kappag_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=76 50 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{W7X_B_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=76 50 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{W7X_kappaN_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=76 0 10 5, clip,width=17cm]{W7X_kappag_FT_ALLFTs_npol3.png}\\
\caption{Magnetic field strength (rows 1 and 4), normal curvature $\kappa_N$ (rows 2 and 5) and geodesic curvature $\kappa_G$ (rows 3 and 6) along the field line in the $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=2\pi/N$ flux tubes for a flux surface at middle radius ($r/a=0.5$) in the LHD (rows 1 to 3) and W7-X (rows 4 to 6) magnetic configurations. Different colors are used to highlight the extent covered by 1, 2 and 3 poloidal-turn FTs (only for the $\alpha=0$ FT). The horizontal axis shows the toroidal angle $\phi$ measured from the center of each flux tube.}
\label{FigMagFielQntts}
\end{figure*}
\nuevo{ The full-flux-surface computational domain is defined by a region around a specific magnetic flux surface, at a fixed value of the radial coordinate. In this computational domain the locality along the binormal direction, which the FT approach assumes, is relaxed, while the domain is still local in the radial direction. This means that only the local values of magnetic field and profiles at the radial location at which the domain is centered are used in all the extent of the domain, and periodicity conditions are used in the radial direction. Multiple $k_z$ and $ k_y$ modes are considered in either a linear or nonlinear simulation. Just a period of the device is simulated, usually, which means that $k_z$ modes that are not multiple of the device periodicity (N) are not considered in these simulations. In linear simulations either only one $k_x$ radial scale or a set of $k_x$ can be studied at a time. In nonlinear simulations a box in the radial direction is defined around the flux surface and a range of radial wavenumbers $k_x$ is considered. Similar to the FT case, some constraints are derived from setting periodicity conditions for all the $k_x$ considered. }
\nuevo{The most complete computational domain is the radially global one. \revisar{This domain consist of a volume covering the full flux surface and with a finite radial extent without assuming periodicity in the radial coordinate}. The number of modes considered in a simulation using this domain depends on the spatial grids used in the angular directions along the flux surfaces and the radial direction. As in the FFS domain, usually just a period of the device is simulated and the same limitations in respect to the toroidal Fourier modes apply to this case. The domain can cover either the full radius or an annular region with inner and outer boundaries different from the magnetic axis and the last closed flux surface. In this work we will refer to both kinds of simulations as radially global. What distinguishes this domain from the FFS one is that in this case the values of magnetic field, the density and temperature profiles and their gradients are used at each specific position in the full 3D domain covered by the simulation.
The effects of global radial profiles, or large scale radial structures are captured in this domain, while they are not in the FFS one. Multiple modes in the radial direction are considered in this kind of simulation either linear or nonlinear, which are determined by the radial discretization. The boundary conditions used at the inner and outer boundaries of the domain are usually not fully realistic and can affect the simulation in a special way. It is common practice defining, either explicitly or implicitly, a buffer region close to each boundary in which the potential is assumed to be affected not only by physical aspects but also by the boundary conditions. The central radial region located far from the boundaries is considered not to be significantly affected by the boundary treatment.
}
\nuevo{A radial electric field does not influence the result of flux tube simulations beyond a Doppler shift on the frequencies of the modes, while in FFS and RG domains, physical effects can be observed. The shearing effects of an electric field having a radial gradient cannot be easily accounted for in a FFS simulation domain while they are naturally included in a RG domain.}
The codes used for the simulations in this work are all based on the gyrokinetic formalism and solve the Vlasov-Poisson equations using the $\delta f$ approach, but they differ in several aspects of the numerical implementation.
EUTERPE is a particle-in-cell gyrokinetic code that can simulate {the entire confined plasma or a volume covering a radial annulus
\cite{Jost01,Kornilov04}. For the {field solver}, natural boundary conditions are set at the inner boundary for the full {volume} simulations, while Dirichlet conditions are used {if the simulation is considering an annulus}. Dirichlet conditions are always used at the outer boundary. Density and temperature profiles\nuevo{, depending only on the radial coordinate,} are used as input for both kinds of simulations. PEST ($s,\theta,\zeta$) magnetic coordinates \cite{Grim83} are used for the description of the fields, with $s={\Psi/\Psi_0}$, $\Psi$ the toroidal flux, $\Psi_0$ the toroidal flux at the {last close flux surface}, $\zeta$ the toroidal angle, and $\theta$ the poloidal angle. The electrostatic potential is Fourier transformed on each flux surface {considering a Fourier filter over a range of poloidal and toroidal mode numbers}. EUTERPE features the possibility of extracting a phase factor in linear simulations, thus allowing for a significant reduction in the computational resources \cite{Jost01}. This feature takes advantage of the translation property of the Fourier transform to center the Fourier filter on the region of interest in the wavenumber space and is used for the exploration of the wavenumber spectrum of unstable ITG modes in a wide range (see section 4). Even using these tools, the computational resources required for these simulations are significantly larger than for FT simulations.
For details about the code EUTERPE, the reader is referred to \cite{Jost01,Kornilov04,Slaby18}.
The current version of the \texttt{stella} code \cite{Barnes19} solves, in the flux tube approximation, the gyrokinetic Vlasov and Poisson equations for an arbitrary number of species. The magnetic geometry can be specified either by the set of Miller’s parameters for a local tokamak equilibrium or by a three-dimensional equilibrium generated with VMEC \cite{Hirshman83}. The spatial coordinates that the code uses for stellarator simulations are{: the flux surface label $x=a\sqrt{s}$, with $a$ the minor radius; the magnetic field line label $y=a\sqrt{s_0}\alpha$, with $\alpha$ the Clebsch angle $\alpha=\theta-\iota\zeta$, $\iota$ the rotational transform and $s_0$ the radial location of the {magnetic field lines surrounded by the simulated flux tube}; and $z=\zeta$ the parallel coordinate}. The velocity coordinates are the magnetic moment $\mu$ and the parallel velocity $v_{\parallel}$.
\nuevo{A mixed implicit-explicit integration scheme, which can be varied from fully explicit to partial or fully implicit, is used in this code.
The implicit scheme has the advantage of allowing a larger time step than fully explicit approaches when considering kinetic electrons \cite{Barnes19}. }
GENE is an Eulerian gyrokinetic code \cite{Jenko00}. It uses a fixed grid in five-dimensional phase space (plus time), consisting of two velocity coordinates $v_{\parallel}$ (velocity parallel to the magnetic field) and $\mu$ (magnetic moment), and the three magnetic field-aligned coordinates $(x,y,z)$, with $x$ the radial coordinate, defined as $x=a\sqrt{s}$, $y$ the coordinate along the {binormal direction $\alpha$} and $z=\theta$ the coordinate along the field line. For stellarator simulations, GENE can simulate either a flux tube or a full flux surface. In the former option, it is spectral in the coordinates perpendicular to the magnetic field $(x,y)$,
while in the later it uses a representation in real space for the binormal coordinate $y$ and a Fourier representation for the radial coordinate.
In both cases, periodic boundary conditions are used in the perpendicular directions.
GENE-3D is a global gyrokinetic code for stellarators \cite{Maurer19}. It solves the gyrokinetic equation in the same dimensional space as GENE. However, it uses a real representation of the spatial coordinates. GENE-3D can be used in either FT, FFS or RG
domains. Periodic radial conditions are used when FT or FFS are simulated. In the RG case, Dirichlet boundary conditions are used at both the inner and outer radial boundaries.
\revisar{In \texttt{stella}, GENE and GENE-3D it is common practice using hyperdiffusion terms, which allow the stabilization of sub-grid modes. While these terms are required for nonlinear simulations they can have a damping effect over the zonal components of the potential. In simulations devoted to study the linear relaxation of ZFs, like those presented in section \ref{SecZFRelax}, the hyperdiffusion has to be reduced significantly to avoid this damping, or alternatively, the resolution in velocity space has to be increased \cite{Pueschel14}.}
\nuevo{For all the codes, the} equilibrium magnetic field is obtained from a magneto-hydrodynamic equilibrium calculation with the code VMEC, and selected magnetic quantities are mapped for its use in the gyrokinetic codes with the intermediate programs VM2MAG, GIST and GVEC for EUTERPE, GENE and GENE-3D, respectively.
\nuevo{Note that in \texttt{stella}, GENE and GENE-3D the resolution used in the equilibrium magnetic field is coupled to the resolution in the electrostatic potential, while in EUTERPE, both resolutions are independent. }
In the simulations presented in this work, the same density and temperature profiles are used in the global codes, using the local values of $n$, $T_e$, $T_i$, and their scale lengths $L_{n}$, $L_{T_e}$, and $L_{T_i}$ (with $L_X=|\frac{1}{X}\frac{dX}{dr}|$)
at the reference position, $r/a=0.5$, in the radially local codes, with $r/a=\sqrt{s}$.
\nuevo{The simulations presented here are all electrostatic and use adiabatic electrons.}
\section{Linear relaxation of zonal flows}\label{SecZFRelax}
\begin{table*}[h]
\noindent
\footnotesize
\caption{ \label{tabZfs}Numerical settings used in the simulations of ZF relaxation in this paper. Radially local simulations are run at $r/a=0.5$. RG simulations cover the full radius and the zonal electric field is extracted at $r/a=0.5$. $^\dagger$The resolutions in the MHD equilibrium magnetic field and the perturbed electrostatic field are independent in EUTERPE, while in \texttt{stella}, GENE and GENE-3D they are coupled. $^*$In EUTERPE, $n_x, n_y,n_z$ are the resolutions in the $s$, $\theta$, and $\phi$ PEST coordinates, respectively.}
\noindent
\begin{tabular}[h]{cp{1.2cm}ccccccccccc}
\cr
\multirow{4}{*}{{LHD}} & code & \multicolumn{1}{c}{domain } & & markers&$\Delta m,n$ & $n_x^*$ & $n_y^*$ & $n_z^*$ & $n_{v_{\par}}$ & $n_{\mu}$ & hyp'z & hyp'v \cr
\hline
\hline
& \multirow{2}{*}{GENE} & {FT} & & & & 1 & 1 & $256 \times n_{pol}$ & 144 & 28 & 0.1 & 0.1 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & {{FFS}} & & & & {1} & {1} & {$256$} & {144} & {28} & {0.1} & {0.1} \cr
\cline{3-12}%
& \multirow{2}{*}{EUTERPE}&\multirow{2}{*}{RG$^\dagger$} &${\varphi}$ & 50-240 M & 6 & 24-240 & 32 & 32 & - & - & - & -\cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & MHD & & & & 141 & 256 & 256 & \cr
\hline
\hline
\cr
\hline
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{{W7-X}} & {GENE} & { FT} & && & 1 & 1 & $128 \times n_{pol}$ & 256 & 32 & 0.01 & 0.01\cr
\cline{3-12}
& \texttt{stella} & { FT} && & & 1 & 1 & $ 128 \times n_{pol}$ & 256 & 32 & - & -\cr
\cline{3-12}
& \multirow{2}{*}{EUTERPE} &\multirow{2}{*}{RG$^\dagger$} & ${\varphi}$ & 50-500 M & 6 & 24-600 & 32 & 32 & -& -& -& -\cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & MHD & & & & 99 & 256 & 256 \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
We start the comparison of computational domains {with} simulations of linear collisionless relaxation of ZFs. The long-term linear response of ZFs in stellararators is a paradigmatic problem for our purpose, i.e. the comparison of results in different computational domains, because it depends on quantities averaged over the full flux surface and exhibits distinct features in stellarators as compared to tokamaks \cite{Mynick2007,Mishchenko08,Helander11,Monreal17}. \nuevo{This problem has been studied numerically in different stellarator configurations in \cite{Sugama05,Sugama06,Sugama07,Kleiber10,Helander11,Monreal17,Sanchez13,Smoniewski19} and the low frequency oscillation of ZFs, specific of stellarators, was identified experimentally in TJ-II \cite{Alonso17,Sanchez18}.}
The relaxation of ZFs \nuevo{has already been studied {for the} quasisymmetric devices HSX and NCSX in the FT, FFS and RG domains in \cite{Smoniewski19} and in W7-X configurations in FFS and RG computational domains in \cite{Monreal16,Monreal17}}. Here we use the standard configuration of LHD, with $R_{ax} = 3.74 ~\rm{m}$ and $B_0 = 2.53 ~\rm{T}$ and a high mirror (KJM) configuration of W7-X, with beta 3\%.
For the comparison of computational domains we use simulations in FT geometry carried out with GENE \nuevo{and \texttt{stella}, in FFS with GENE,} and RG
carried out with EUTERPE.
For the simulations with EUTERPE, covering the full radial domain, flat density and temperature profiles are used with $T_i=T_e=5 ~\rm{keV}$ and $n=10^{19} ~\rm{m}^{-3}$ in both configurations. The simulations are initiated by setting an initial perturbation to the ion distribution function that is homogeneous on the flux surface and having a Maxwellian distribution in velocities. The radial dependence of the initial perturbation is such that a perturbation to the potential with the form $\varphi\propto \cos(k_s \pi s)$ is obtained after the first computation step. Semi-integer values are chosen for $k_s$, so that the initial perturbation is consistent with boundary conditions. With this definition, the perpendicular wavevector is $k_{\perp}=k_s\pi|\nabla s|$.
The simulations are evolved in time, the zonal electric field is {diagnosed at $r/a=0.5$} and its time trace
is fit to a model\footnote{While for zonal perturbations with the general form $\varphi_k(s,t)e^{k_st}$ the residual level is the same for the potential and for its radial derivative (see \cite{Monreal16}), for EUTERPE simulations the second one is preferred because of practical reasons.}.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varphi'(t)}{\varphi'(0)} = A \cos(\Omega t) e^{-\gamma_{ZF} t} + \frac{c}{1+dt^e} + R,
\label{EqModelFit}
\end{equation}
from which the ZF residual level, $R$, and the oscillation frequency, $\Omega$, are extracted (see \cite{Monreal16,Mishchenko08,Helander11,Monreal17} for details about the calculation of the residual level and frequency in general stellarator geometry). The simulations are electrostatic and a long wavelength approximation in the quasineutrality equation is used, which is valid for modes with normalized radial wavelength {$k_{\perp}\rho_i < 1$}, with $\rho_i=\sqrt{2mT}/eB$, with $m$ the ion mass, $e$ the elementary charge, $T$ the local temperature and $B$ the magnetic field strength. This approximation limits the extraction of ZF relaxation properties for large radial wavenumbers.
The numerical parameters for these simulations are as follows. The resolution in angular coordinates is $n_{\theta}= n_{\zeta}=32 $, with $n_{\theta}$ and $n_{\zeta}$ the number of points in the $\theta$ and $\zeta$ grids, respectively. \nuevo{
These resolutions correspond to those used for the perturbed electrostic potential.} Only 6 toroidal and poloidal modes are kept in the simulation; larger modes are suppressed by using a \nuevo{squared} Fourier filter. \nuevo{A diagonal filter suppressing modes with $|m-n\lower3pt\hbox{$\mathchar'26$}\mkern-7mu\iota| > 15$ is also used}. The radial resolution is set to a value that properly resolves the {potential} perturbation, and it is increased linearly with the radial wavenumber. As the radial resolution is increased, the number of markers is increased accordingly {in order to} keep the ratio of makers per mode constant. \nuevo{In this kind of simulations a large number of markers, as compared to linear ITG simulations, is required, particularly for large radial wavenumbers (see Table \ref{tabZfs}). A large number of markers in EUTERPE translates into a better resolution in velocity space. The resolutions used in all the simulations presented in this section are compiled in table \ref{tabZfs}.}.
Simulations in FT computational domain are carried out \nuevo{with both GENE and \texttt{stella}.} \nuevo{The simulations are initialized} by setting up an initial perturbation with radial scale determined by $k_x$ and symmetric along the
binormal direction ($k_y=0$).
The simulation is linearly evolved in time and the real component of the electrostatic potential is registered and fit using the same model (Eq. \ref{EqModelFit}) to extract the frequency and the residual level. For the comparison with global simulations we use the radial scale of the perturbation $k_x$ normalized with the reference Larmor radius, {$\rho_{r}$, with $\rho_r=\sqrt{2mT}/eB_r$}, $T$ the local temperature at the radial position of the simulation, and {$B_r$ the reference magnetic field.} The wavenumbers $k_x$, used in FT simulations, and $k_s$ used in RG simulations are related by $k_x=2 k_s\pi r/a^2$. \nuevo{It should be noted that in order to make a reliable fit of the potential time traces and obtain accurate values for $R$ and $\Omega$ using Eq. \ref{EqModelFit}, a long time trace is required, which is difficult, particularly for large radial wavenumbers.
Both, spatial and velocity-space resolutions and hyper-diffusivities have to be set to specific values in order to minimize the ZF damping.
}
\nuevo{The ZF relaxation was also studied in FFS simulations carried out with GENE. Similar to the FT ones, the simulation is initiated by setting a perturbation in a specific radial scale $k_x$ and evolved linearly and without collisions. The time evolution of the zonal potential is fit using the same model. FFS simulations were carried out in the LHD configuration only. The very small magnetic shear of the W7-X configuration selected made very difficult getting reliable results in FFS simulations for finite $k_x$ values. The numerical settings for these simulations are listed in Table \ref{tabZfs}.}
The results for the residual level $R$ obtained by fitting the {time trace of the} zonal potential/electric field to the model (Eq. \ref{EqModelFit})
for FT{, FFS}
and RG domains for LHD and W7-X configurations are compared in Figure \ref{FigZF1}. {The residual level increases} with the radial {wavenumber} of the perturbation in both LHD and W7-X configurations, in agreement with previous calculations \cite{Sugama06,Monreal16,Smoniewski19}. {However,} the residual level for a given radial scale {is} significantly larger in the case of W7-X {as compared with LHD}. The maximum {value of} the residual is also found for a larger wavenumber, close to $k_x\rho_r \sim 1$ in the W7-X.
In LHD, the agreement between calculations in different flux tubes, {considering} 1, 2 and 3 poloidal turns, is {excellent}. {For the $\alpha=0$ flux tube the shortest extension of $n_{pol}=1$ exhibits just slightly smaller residual levels than the other lengthier choices}. The agreement between the FT and FFS
{results is also remarkable}. This is due to the fact that the geometry explored by flux tubes, even with just one poloidal turn, \nuevo{ is densely distributed over the flux surface (see Figure \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1}). When the FT length is doubled the location of the magnetic field lines along the second poloidal turn almost overlaps the first one, which explains the result that FTs with $n_{pol}=2$ provide results very similar to those of $n_{pol}>3$ (not shown in the figure), and also close to those with $n_{pol}=1$ (see Figures \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod} and \ref{FigMagFielQntts})}. The global simulation matches the FT and FFS
results better for small radial wavenumbers, while for {$k_x\rho_r>0.25$} the residual level is larger than those of the FT and FFS
domains by {approximately} 7\% for LHD.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=20 67 70 10, clip, width=8.2cm]{LHD_-EUTERPE-GENE-FT_residualVsk-3.png}
\includegraphics[trim=20 57 70 10, clip, width=8.2cm]{W7X_-GENE-FTAle0319_t5e3_residualVsk_fit0-5000alg1.png}
\includegraphics[trim=20 10 70 10,
width=8.25cm]{W7X_-GENE-FTAle_EUT_residualVskGENE-EUT-stellaNpol3.png}
\caption{Long-term ZF residual level vs radial scale $k_x$ in the FT and FFS (GENE) and RG (EUTERPE) computational domains in LHD (top panel) and in FT and RG domains in W7-X (middle and bottom panels) at r/a=0.5. Different flux tube lengths $n_{pol}=1-4$ are considered. The bottom panel shows the residual level vs $k_x$ in W7-X for RG simulations with EUTERPE and FT simulations with \texttt{stella} and GENE with $n_{pol}=3$. The FT length is labeled $n=1,2...$ to shorten the legends. }
\label{FigZF1}
\end{figure}
In the W7-X configuration, the situation differs significantly. Different flux tubes provide different \nuevo{results, as demonstrated in Figures \ref{FigZF1} and \ref{FigZDepWithLength}. The middle pannel in Figure \ref{FigZF1} shows the residual level vs radial scale of the perturbation in the bean and triangular flux tubes (labeled ``b-FT" and ``t-FT" in the figures) in W7-X for different flux tube lengths. Figure \ref{FigZDepWithLength} shows the dependence of the residual level with the FT length for several radial wavenumbers $k_x=0.15, 0.3, 0.7,1$. From these figures it is clear, first, that different FTs provide different results for the ZF residual, in general, and second, that for a given FT different results are obtained depending on the FT length.}
\nuevo{ The explanation for this is related to the fact that regions of the flux surface with different properties are explored by the flux tubes in each poloidal turn.
As shown in Figure \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1}, for W7-X the flux surface is not as densely covered using $n_{pol}=1$ as in the case of LHD. }
\nuevo{When the length of the FT is increased to $n_{pol}=2$ and $n_{pol}=3$ the flux surface is more densely covered and for $n_{pol}=3$ the triangular FT crosses locations explored by the bean FT for $n_{pol}=1$, as shown in Figure \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod}. The residual level obtained {for the} shortest FTs is very small and increases {with the flux tube length}, thus getting close to the RG result for $n_{pol}=3$, in agreement with expectations from Figure \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod}. For $n_{pol}=3$ the results from FT calculations both for the bean and triangular FTs with \texttt{stella} and GENE are in good agreement. Interestingly, the triangular flux tube seems to converge to the bean flux tube (and to the RG result) for $n_{pol}=3$ (see bottom panel of Figure \ref{FigZF1}). However, increasing the length further to $n_{pol}=4$ makes the results of bean and triangular FTs separate again. Convergence between flux tubes and also to the RG results is reached again for $n_{pol}=6$ (see Figure \ref{FigZDepWithLength}).
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=5 35 60 10, clip, width=8.25cm]{GENE-FT_rsidual-vs-npol_K07-1.png}
\includegraphics[trim=5 10 60 10, clip, width=8.25cm]{GENE-FT_rsidual-vs-npol_K015-03.png}
\caption{Dependency of the ZF residual level, R, with the FT length for the two FTs and several radial scales of the perturbation $k_x$, obtained from simulations with GENE in the W7-X KJM magnetic configuration.}
\label{FigZDepWithLength}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=20 10 70 10, clip,width=8.25cm]{W7X_-GENE-FTAle0319_t5e3_ZFFreqVsk_fit0-5000alg1.png}
\includegraphics[trim=30 10 65 10, clip, width=8.25cm]{W7X_-GENE-FTAle_EUT_ZFFreqVskCorrwStellanpol3.png}
\caption{ZF oscillation frequency versus $k_x$ in the W7-X configuration at r/a=0.5 from simulations with GENE in FTs with lengths $n_{pol}=1-6$ (top). Comparison of ZF frequency in FT simulations with GENE and \texttt{stella} with $n_{pol}=3$ and RG simulations with EUTERPE in W7-X (bottom).}
\label{FigZFFreqnPotl3}
\end{figure}
One distinct feature that the ZF relaxation exhibits in stellarators is the low-frequency oscillation \cite{Mishchenko08}, which is related to the average radial drift of trapped particles \cite{Monreal17}. The characteristic ZF oscillation frequency is much smaller than that of the geodesic acoustic mode (GAM) \cite{Winsor68} and increases with the averaged radial drift of trapped particles \cite{Monreal17}.
\nuevo{Figure
\ref{FigZFFreqnPotl3} shows} the comparison of the oscillation frequency obtained from calculations in the FT and RG computational domains in W7-X. Note that in LHD the ZF relaxation is dominated by the GAM oscillations, which are weakly damped due to its small rotational transform, and the low frequency oscillation is hardly appreciated.
In the case of W7-X the situation is {the} opposite, the GAM is strongly damped and the relaxation is dominated by the low-frequency oscillation. The low-frequency oscillation is {also} strongly damped as the radial wavenumber increases \cite{Helander11} and then it is only safely captured for small wavenumbers.
\nuevo{The top panel in Figure \ref{FigZFFreqnPotl3} shows the ZF frequency vs $k_x$ for several FTs with increasing length from {$n_{pol}=1$ to $n_{pol}=6$}.} As for the residual level, the oscillation frequency obtained in FT simulations with $n_{pol}=1$ is significantly \nuevo{larger} than that obtained in a RG domain and the results approach the RG result as the length is increased up to {$n_{pol}=3,6$. Again, for $n_{pol}=4,5$ the oscillation frequency obtained in FT simulations separates from the RG result more than for $n_{pol}=3,6$, although these deviations are much smaller than in the case of the ZF residual}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=30 66 40 0, clip, width=8.5cm]{W7X_f00_ShortTimes_GENE_FTAle0322_t0-150av_th_m.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=30 0 40 20, clip, width=8.5cm]{W7X_E00_ShortTimes_EUTERPE_FTEUTERPE_t0-150av_th_m.png}
\caption{Comparison of the short-time evolution of potential in FZ relaxation simulations with GENE for the FT (top) and RG (bottom) computational domains in W7-X. All the FT simulations correspond to $n_{pol}=3$.}
\label{FigZFShortTime}
\end{figure}
\nuevo{The residual zonal flow level is a long-time-scale property and it is questionable that this value can affect the nonlinear saturation of turbulence, which occurs in much shorter times. However, the short-time relaxation of the potential could more likely affect the saturation process. Here we look at the short-time scale behavior of the zonal potential decay in different computational domains.
Figure \ref{FigZFShortTime} shows the short-time evolution of the zonal potential for several radial scales in simulations of ZF relaxation in the W7-X configuration for the two FTs with $n_{pol}=3$ and that of the radial electric field\footnote{The electrostatic potential shows a similar, although noisier, time evolution than the electric field, which is the reason to use the later for fitting the model in Eq. \ref{EqModelFit} for extracting $R$ and $\Omega$.} for several RG simulations with EUTERPE for different radial scales of the initial perturbation. At very short times, below $\sim 50 ~a/v_{th}$ the decay is almost independent of the radial scale of the perturbation in both computational domains, but for longer times, $t>50 ~a/v_{th}$, it is clear that the short-time evolution changes with the radial scale as the residual level does. The similarity in the decay between both domains is remarkable.
}
\nuevo{No significant differences are found in the short time decay of potential between FTs with different lengths in \texttt{stella}, while in GENE FT simulations a difference between FTs (not shown) is found for small values of the radial scale $k_x$.}
\nuevo{In conclusion, it} is clear that short flux tubes are not {sufficient} to capture the long-term properties of the ZF relaxation, in general.
Different flux tubes provide different results and they converge to {the same} result when the length of the FT is increased. The number of poloidal turns in the flux tubes that is required for convergence depends on the magnetic geometry and a general rule {applicable to} other magnetic configurations cannot be extracted from present practical cases. \nuevo{In the short-time evolution of the zonal potential less clear difference between flux tubes is found than in the long-term properties.}
\section{Linear stability of ITG modes}\label{SecLinearITGS}
Now we turn {our view to the} ITG instability in different computational domains: FT, FFS and RG. We run simulations with adiabatic electrons and follow a similar approach to that {employed} in the previous section. Simulations for two stellarator-symmetric FTs {with different lengths} are compared with each other and also with FFS and RG simulations. \nuevo{We use the same codes, which provide} different levels of information about the mode structure. Global codes run simulations with multiple modes whose radial structure can
be extracted by Fourier transforming the radial mode structure in {the} post-processing.
Full{-flux-}surface radially local simulations are multi-mode in the perpendicular direction along the flux surface, thus considering multiple $k_y$ scales. In the radial direction, GENE-3D contain also a number of different radial scales $k_x$, determined by the box size. The radial structure of the modes could also, in principle, be extracted. In GENE, one single $k_x$ mode can be simulated.
On the other hand, local linear FT simulations can scan the stability for each $k_y$ mode separately. With respect to the radial scale of the modes, in FT simulations, $k_x$ is set as a parameter and a set of simulations with different values of $k_x$ \nuevo{and $k_y$} has to be run in order to study {how the linear instability depends on the radial scale}.
The basic quantities to compare here will be the growth rate $\gamma$ and the frequency $\omega$ of the ITG modes, which can be extracted from all the codes. The local FT codes can provide the growth rate and frequency for each $(k_x, k_y)$ pair separately, while from the RG and FFS simulations\nuevo{, eventhough they consider multiple modes,} only the frequency and the linear growth rate of the most unstable mode considered in the simulation, which determines the growth of both mode and numerical noise amplitudes, can be extracted. Using the phase factor in EUTERPE, an estimate of the growth rates and frequencies of different modes can be scanned in a set of simulations in which the center of the Fourier filter is varied.
For the comparison of wavenumbers the relation $k_y=\frac{m}{r}$, with $m$ the poloidal mode number in PEST coordinates and $r$ the {effective minor} radius, is used. The $k_y$ values are normalized with the {inverse} Larmor radius, as usual. The growth rates and real frequencies are normalized to $v_{th}/a$, with $v_{th}=\sqrt{2T/m}$ the ion thermal velocity.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=5 75 0 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{Tn_profile_Ln1_LT4_2Perfs.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=5 5 0 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{profile_Ln1_LT4-2Perfs.png}
\caption{Density and temperature profiles used in simulations of ITGs (top) both in LHD and W7-X configurations and scale lengths of density and temperatures (bottom).}
\label{FigProfiles}
\end{figure}
\nuevo{
The settings of the simulations are as follows. The electron temperature profile is flat, with $T_e=4.25 ~\rm{keV}$, and density and ion temperature profiles, similar to those in \cite{Sanchez20} are used, which are given by the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
X = X_* \rm{exp} \left[\frac{-\kappa_x}{1-\rm{sech}^2_{x} } \left( \tanh(\frac{r - r_0}{a\Delta_x}) - \rm{sech}^2_{X} \right)\right],
\label{analProfilesnT}
\end{eqnarray}
where $X=\{n,T_i\}$ represents a radial profile of density ($n_e=n_i=n$) or ion temperature, $n_*=10^{20}~m^{-3}$, $T_*=4.25~\rm{keV}$, $r_0=0.5a$, $\kappa_{Ti}=4$, $\kappa_n=1$, $\Delta_n=0.3$ and $\rm{sech}^2_{X}=\cosh^{-2}(\frac{r_0}{a\Delta_X})$ and $a$ the minor radius. The profiles used in these simulations are shown in Figure ~\ref{FigProfiles}.
Two profiles of $T_i$ are shown; first, the one used in all the ITG simulations presented in Figures \ref{FigGRFR1} and \ref{FigGRFR2}, with $\Delta_{Ti}= 0.1$, shown with continuous thick line and labeled as ``ref" in the figure;
and also a profile, labeled as ``narrow", with $\Delta_{Ti}=0.08$, which has a smaller width of the $\eta_i$ profile.
The local values at $r/a=0.5$, $T_i(r/a=0.5)=T_e=T_*$, $L_n(r/a=0.5)=1$ and $L_{Ti}(r/a=0.5)=4$, are used as input for the radially local simulations (FT and FS), all carried out at this radial position.
}
With these settings, linear simulations with adiabatic electrons are carried out in the standard configuration of LHD in the FT, FS and RG domains and the growth rate $\gamma$ and the real frequency $\omega$ obtained in different domains with the different codes are compared. \nuevo{The numerical settings used in all the simulations in this section are given in Table \ref{tabITGs}.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=20 65 60 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{LHD_ITG_compFTsGENE-StellaEUTERPE_GRs3w1FFS.png}
\includegraphics[trim=20 5 60 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{LHD_ITG_compFTsGENE-StellaEUTERPE_Freq3w1FFS.png}
\caption{Comparison of growth rate $\gamma$ (top) and frequency $\omega$ (bottom) vs the normalized wavenumber $k_y\rho_r$ for FT, FFS and RG simulations in the standard configuration of LHD at $r/a=0.5$.}
\label{FigGRFR1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{FigGRFR1} shows the growth rate and frequency obtained in different computational domains in the LHD configuration at $r/a = 0.5$. \nuevo{FT simulations were carried out with both GENE and \texttt{stella} and the agreement between both codes is excellent. Only simulations in FTs with $n_{pol}=1$ are shown in the Figure for clearness, but FTs with lengths $n_{pol}=2,3$ provide almost exactly the same results for both $\gamma$ and $\omega$}. FFS simulation results obtained with \nuevo{GENE\footnote{The FFS simulation with GENE has been carried out with $T_*=1.5 ~\rm{keV}$ because of technical reasons.} and} GENE-3D, and results from RG simulations with EUTERPE are also shown in this figure. In FFS and RG simulations only one point corresponding to the most unstable mode is represented. \nuevo{In the FFS simulation with GENE only one $k_x$ is resolved, while in GENE-3D a set of $k_x$ are resolved}. The \nuevo{wider resolution simulation with EUTERPE (labeled as ``WR" in the table)} {is full volume and} covers the wavenumbers $1<m<127$,
which allows resolving modes up to $k_y\rho_r< 1.58$. In addition to the full {volume} simulation, a scan in wavenumber has been carried out with EUTERPE. In this scan, the radial domain is limited to $0.31<r/a<0.7$ and the Fourier filter keeps modes with $m_0 -31 < m < m_0 + 31$, with $m_0$ {varied} to scan different regions of the wavenumber spectrum. A FFS simulation was carried out with GENE-3D
at r/a=0.5, with radially periodic boundary conditions, using the following resolution: $(n_x, n_y, n_z, n_{v\parallel}, n_{\mu})=(90, 64, 128, 32, 8)$ and resolving modes $k_y\rho_r<9$. Here, $(n_x, n_y, n_z, n_{v\parallel}, n_{\mu})$ are the number of points in the grids along the $x$, $y$, $z$, $v_{\parallel}$ and $\mu$ coordinates. For the RG simulation with GENE-3D, the radial domain $0.2<r/a<0.8$ was covered, the resolution was $(n_x, n_y, n_z, n_{v\parallel}, n_{\mu})= (144,64,128,48,20)$ and covered the range $k_y\rho_r<9$.
A very good agreement between all FTs and FFS domains is obtained, which can be explained by the smoothness and approximate periodicity along the magnetic field lines of the magnetic quantities in LHD. \nuevo{Figure \ref{FigMagFielQntts} shows the magnetic field strength along a field line followed by the $\alpha=0$ FT in the LHD configuration}. The
RG simulations provide a $\gamma$ for the most unstable mode that is smaller than that obtained in FT or FFS simulations by 15-20\%. The agreement in the mode frequency between all the codes/domains is very good.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tabITGs}Numerical settings used in the ITG simulations in this paper. $^\dagger$$T_*=1.5 ~\rm{keV}$ was used for this simulation due to technical reasons. $^*$The resolutions in the MHD equilibrium magnetic field and the perturbed electrostatic field are independent in EUTERPE, while in \texttt{stella}, GENE and GENE-3D they are coupled. $^{**}$In EUTERPE, $n_x, n_y,n_z$ are the resolutions in the $s$, $\theta$, and $\phi$ PEST coordinates, respectively.}
\noindent
\centering
\begin{tabular}[h]{cccccccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{.2cm} code \hspace{.2cm} domain} & sim. & $\Delta m$ & $r/a$ & $n_x^{**}$ & $n_y^{**}$ & $n_z^{**}$ & $n_{v_{\par}}$ & $n_{\mu}$ \cr
\hline
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{{LHD}} & \texttt{stella} & {FT} & & & 0.5 & 1 & 1 & 128 & {48} & {24} \cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{2}{*}{GENE} & {FT} & & & 0.5 & 1 & 1 & $256\times n_{pol}$ & 48& 12\cr
\cline{4-12}
& & {FFS{$^\dagger$}} & & & 0.5 &12 & 128 & 256 & 32& 12\cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{2}{*}{GENE-3D} & FFS & & & 0.5 & 90 & 64 & 256 & 16 & 8 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & RG & & & 0.2-0.8 & 144 & 64 & 128 & 48 & 20 \cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{EUTERPE} & \multirow{3}{*}{RG$^*$} & ${\varphi}$ LR & 127 & 0-1& 64 & 256 & 64 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & ${\varphi}$ scan & 63 & 0.31-0.7 & 96 & 64 & 32 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & MHD & & 0-1& 141 & 256 & 256 & \cr
\hline
\hline\cr
\hline
\hline
\multirow{12}{*}{{W7-X}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\texttt{stella}} & {FT} & & & 0.5 & 1 & 1 & $128\times n_{pol}$ & 48 & 24\cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{GENE} & {FT} & & & 0.5 & 1 & 1 & $128\times n_{pol}$ & 48 & 12 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & { FFS} & & & \multirow{3}{*}{0.5} & 12 & 256 & 128 & 32 & 12\cr
\cline{7-12}
& & { FFS} & & & & 12 & 96 & 128 & 32 & 12\cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{GENE-3D} & \multirow{3}{*}{ FFS} & & & \multirow{3}{*}{\nuevo{0.5}} & 90 & 384 & 128 & 32 & 8& \cr
\cline{7-12}
& & & & & & 90 & 192 & 128 & 32 & 8& \cr
\cline{7-12}
& & & & & & 90 & 96 & 128 & 32 & 8& \cr
\cline{2-12}
& \multirow{3}{*}{EUTERPE} & \multirow{4}{*}{RG$^*$} & ${\varphi}$ WR & 1023 & 0.31-0.7& 256 & 1024 & 256 \cr
& & & ${\varphi}$ MR & 255 & 0-1 & 128 & 256 & 64 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & ${\varphi}$ scan & 34 & 0.31-0.7 & 128 & 64 & 64 \cr
\cline{4-12}
& & & MHD & & 0-1& 99 & 256 & 256 & \cr
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=30 80 60 10, clip, width=8.25cm]{W7X_ITG_compFTs-GENE-Stella_GRs0-10kx0.png}
\includegraphics[trim=30 10 60 5, clip, width=8.25cm]{W7X_ITG_compFTs-GENE-Stella_Freq0-10kx0.png}
\caption{Comparison of growth rate $\gamma$ (top) and frequency $\omega$ (bottom) vs the normalized wavenumber $k_y\rho_r$ for FT simulations with GENE and \texttt{stella} in the KJM configuration of W7-X with beta=3\% at $r/a=0.5$. The simulations for the bean and triangular flux tubes are labeled as ``-b" and ``-t", respectively. The inset in the bottom panel shows the frequencies for the range $0<k_y\rho_r<2$.}
\label{FigGRFW7X-FTs}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{FigGRFW7X-FTs} and \ref{FigGRFR2} show the comparison of $\gamma$ and $\omega$ vs. the normalized wave number for FT, FFS and RG simulations in the KJM configuration of W7-X. Simulations for the two stellarator-symmetric FTs, $\alpha=0$ (bean) and $\alpha=\iota\pi/5$ (triangular) \nuevo{with lengths $n_{pol}=1-5$, carried out with GENE and \texttt{stella} are shown in Figure \ref{FigGRFW7X-FTs}}.
It is clear from the figure that in W7-X the situation is quite different from that for LHD, shown in Figure \ref{FigGRFR1}. The different FTs, with the shortest lengths ($n_{pol}=1,2$), provide different results for both $\gamma$ and $\omega$. \nuevo{The disagreement between short FTs is found both for the growth rate and the frequency. In the range $0<k_y\rho_r<2$ the growth rates in different FTs are very similar but there is a clear disagreement in the frequencies, as highlighted in the inset of the bottom panel of Figure \ref{FigGRFW7X-FTs}. In this region, a clear difference is also found in the radial scale of the most unstable modes for the bean and triangular FTs (see section \ref{subSecDepRadScale}). The difference in the results for short FTs} can be traced back to the fact that the short bean and triangular FTs explore regions of the flux surface with very different properties \nuevo{(see Figures \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1} and \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod})}. As the length is increased, the FTs explore a larger region of the flux surface and the results from both FTs get closer, although bean and triangular FTs results do not match exactly even for large values of $n_{pol}$. Cases with $n_{pol}=5$ and $10$ (not shown) demonstrate that good convergence with the length for each flux tube is found for $n_{pol}=3$ with both \texttt{stella} and GENE, however, both FTs do not match with each other.
\nuevo{Figure \ref{FigGRFR2} shows the comparison of $\gamma$ and $\omega$ in the W7-X configuration for the FT ($n_{pol}=3$), FFS and RG domains.}
A wavenumber scan with EUTERPE using \nuevo{the density and temperature reference profiles shown in Figure \ref{FigProfiles}} and a small Fourier filter ($m_0 -31 < m < m_0 + 31$) is also shown in this figure, which qualitatively reproduces the wavenumber dependency from FT results, although with growth rates significantly smaller than those {obtained for the bean FT in the region} $1<k_y\rho_r < 3$. In this scan, the radial domain is limited to $0.31<r/a<0.7$. \nuevo{The scan in wavenumbers has been repeated, using the same numerical settings and the
narrow profile from Figure \ref{FigProfiles} to check the influence of the width of the $\eta_i$-profile, if any.
For the narrow profile, only a slight reduction in $\gamma$ is found while the general trend is kept}. Finally, RG and FFS simulation results are shown with just a point per simulation, corresponding to the most unstable mode. \nuevo{Two more RG simulations with EUTERPE using {the reference profiles and} a wider resolution are shown. The simulation with the largest resolution (labeled as ``WR" in the table) uses a Fourier filter keeping modes with $1<m<1023$,
corresponding to $0<k_y\rho_r<15$, and cover the full radius. The medium resolution one (``MR" in the table) uses a filter keeping modes $1<m<255$ and $0<k_y\rho_r<3.75$.}
Three FFS simulations with different resolutions are shown for GENE-3D. The largest-resolution case, with resolutions $(n_x, n_y, n_z, n_{v\parallel}, n_{\mu})=(90, 384, 128, 32, 8)$, covers the wavenumbers $0<k_y\rho_r<17$, and for the others, the resolution $n_y$ is reduced by factors 2 and 4 and the largest wavenumbers resolved are $8.5$ and $4.25$, respectively. Similar to what happens with EUTERPE simulations, the most unstable mode is found at wavenumbers increasing with resolution. \nuevo{Two FFS simulations carried out with GENE using different resolutions and resolving the maximum wavenumbers $k_y\rho_r<3.9$ and 10.5, respectively, are also shown in the same figure. The relevant numerical settings used in all these simulations are given in Table \ref{tabITGs}. The results of GENE FFS simulations reasonably agree with FT simulations with GENE and \texttt{stella} showing a slightly larger growth rate. In GENE FFS simulations only the radial wavenumber $k_x=0$ is considered, while in GENE-3D a radial grid is used, which allows resolving a set of finite scales $k_x$.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=30 80 60 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{W7X_ITG_compFTs-GENE-Stella_EUT_GENE3D_GRs0-10kx0_4wFFSn4.png}
\includegraphics[trim=30 10 60 20, clip, width=8.25cm]{W7X_ITG_compFTs-GENE-Stella_EUT_GENE3D_Freq0-10kx0_4wFFSn4.png}
\caption{Comparison of growth rate $\gamma$ (top) and frequency $\omega$ (bottom) vs normalized wavenumber $k_y\rho_r$ for FT, FFS and RG simulations in the KJM configuration of W7-X with beta=3\% at $r/a=0.5$.}
\label{FigGRFR2}
\end{figure}
For $k_y\rho_r>3$, the results for FFS with GENE-3D and RG with EUTERPE reasonably coincide in the wavenumber of the most unstable mode, with $\gamma$ close to that of \nuevo{ the triangular FT} and slightly smaller for FFS than for RG. In the range $k_y\rho_r<3$, both FFS and RG simulations give values of $\gamma$ in between the most (triangular) and less unstable (bean) flux tubes. \nuevo{ Interestingly, the peak in the growth rate found around $k_y\rho_r \sim 2$ by FT simulations is neither captured by the FFS nor the RG simulations.}
For the frequencies, the {agreement} between all codes is very good for wavenumbers $k_y\rho_r>2$ and for FTs with $n_{pol}>3$ in both \texttt{stella} and GENE. In the range $k_y\rho_r<2$, the agreement between domains \nuevo{and between different FTs} is not so good (see also Figure \ref{FigGRFW7X-FTs} for the detailed comparison of FTs).
The lack of periodicity of magnetic quantities along the field line in \nuevo{the W7-X configuration (see Figure \ref{FigMagFielQntts})} makes that different FTs give different results, in general. When the FT length is increased, the triangular flux tube results get close to those of the bean one. This is explained by the fact that \nuevo{for $n_{pol}=3$ the triangular FT gets closer to the regions explored by the bean FT with $n_{pol}=1$, which finds the most unstable region around $(\theta,\zeta)=(0,0)$ (see Figure \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriodNpol1}, \ref{FigMagFielQnttsOnePeriod} and \ref{FigMagFielQntts})}.
A scan of FT simulations in the radial wavenumber \nuevo{(see section \ref{subSecDepRadScale}) shows that for the triangular FT, the most unstable mode is not always that of $k_x=0$ {and that the scale $k_x$ of the modes at which the maximum growth rates are obtained changes with the FT length.} }
\subsection{Dependence with the radial scale}\label{subSecDepRadScale}
\nuevo{In this section we study the radial scale of unstable ITG modes in FT simulations carried out with \texttt{stella} and compare them with RG simulations with EUTERPE. As described in section \ref{secCodesAndDomains}, in linear FT simulations $k_x$ is a parameter while in RG in RG, since the radial is not not a spectral coordinate, a continuum of radial scales is simulated.many radial scales are simulated at the same time. Then, in order to extract the dependence with $k_x$ for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ in a FT, a scan in $k_y$ and $k_x$ has to be done. From a linear RG simulation, the radial scale for the most unstable mode is extracted by using a Fourier transform. We have computed the radial scale $k_x$ for the wavenumber scan shown in Figure \ref{FigGRFR1} for LHD and a value $k_x\rho_r \sim 0.22$ is obtained for a wide range of wavenumbers $0<k_y\rho_r<2.5$. \nuevo{FT simulations with \texttt{stella} do not show a strong dependence of $k_x$ with $k_y$ either}. In the W7-X configuration the situation is different, and a radial scale dependence on $k_y$ is found.}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=25 70 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_bean_1_turn_cont.png}
\includegraphics[trim=25 70 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_triangular_1_turn_cont.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=25 70 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_bean_2_turns_cont.png}
\includegraphics[trim=25 70 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_triangular_2_turns_cont.png}\\
\includegraphics[trim=25 30 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_bean_3_turns_cont.png}
\includegraphics[trim=25 30 0 90, clip, width=7.75cm]{gamma_triangular_3_turns_cont.png}\\
\caption{Growth rate vs. scales $k_x$ and $k_y$ in a scan carried out with \texttt{stella} for the KJM configuration of W7-X with beta=3\% at $r/a=0.5$. The left panels show the results for the bean FT and the right panels for the triangular one. Results for different lengths $n_{pol}=1$ (top), $n_{pol}=2$ (middle) and $n_{pol}=3$ (bottom) are shown. }
\label{FigKxvsKyMapsStella}
\end{figure*}
\nuevo{Figure \ref{FigKxvsKyMapsStella} shows the growth rate in a scan in $k_x$ and $k_y$ carried out with \texttt{stella} in bean and triangular FTs with several lengths, for the KJM configuration of W7-X. For short flux tubes, different results are obtained for the bean and triangular one.
The most unstable modes are located at $k_x \rho_r\sim 0$ in the bean flux tube, which is not the case for the triangular, where, unless the flux tube is extended so that it nearly overlaps with the bean flux tube, the most unstable mode is located at $k_x \rho_r\sim 1.5$ and $k_y\rho_r \sim 2$.
When the length is increased to $n_{pol}=3$ these modes with $k_x \rho_r\sim 1.5$ and $k_y\rho_r \sim 2$ appear also in the bean FT with a large growth rate, even more clearly than in the triangular FT at any length.
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=25 15 80 30, clip, width=7.5cm]{W7X-KJM30_KxvsKy_RefyNarrowWidth.png}
\caption{Radial scale $k_x$ of the most unstable mode in RG simulations with EUTERPE scanning for different $k_y$.
\label{FigKxvsKy}
\end{figure}
\nuevo{
In Figure \ref{FigKxvsKy}, the radial scale $k_x$ of the most unstable modes is shown versus the normalized $k_y$ wavenumber for the scan performed with EUTERPE in the W7-X configuration shown in Figure \ref{FigGRFR2}. The radial scale is obtained by Fourier transforming the potential profile for the most unstable mode at each single simulation in the scan. In order to check to what extent the radial scale $k_x$ is affected by the $\eta_i$ profile,
another simulation scan using a narrower $\eta_i$ profile (see Figure \ref{FigProfiles}) was analyzed and the results (shown in Figure \ref{FigKxvsKy}) are qualitatively the same in both cases. In
this scan the values obtained for $\gamma$ and $\omega$ were very close to those shown in Figure \ref{FigGRFR2} for the reference scan. }
\nuevo{In spite of the differences, \nuevo{a remarkable consistency between results from the global and FT simulations is found, and} some important features are equally captured by both codes and computational domains. Firstly, for small wavenumbers $k_y\rho_r<2$ the radial scale of the most unstable mode in the RG domain is small $k_x\rho_r<0.5$, in qualitative agreement with the results for the bean FT at short lengths, which shows the largest instability in this region of the maps. The radial wavenumbers of the unstable modes increase with $k_y$ up to $k_x \sim 1.5$ around $k_y \sim 2$. Interestingly, these radial scales $k_x\rho_r \sim 1.5$ and $k_y\rho_r \sim 2$ are the most unstable in the triangular FT at $n_{pol}=1,2$ in the region $k_y\rho_r<2$, while for $n_{pol}<3$ they do not appear among the most unstable scales in the bean FT. For $2<k_y\rho_r<5$, the $k_x\rho_r$ of the most unstable mode decreases to very small values around $k_y\rho_r\sim4$, which coincides qualitatively with the region in which the maximum growth rate is observed for small values of $k_x\rho_r$ in both FTs in the maps from \texttt{stella}. In this region $k_y\rho_r\sim 4$ a local minimum in the growth rate was shown in Figures \ref{FigGRFW7X-FTs} and \ref{FigGRFR2} which also appears in these maps.} \nuevo{Finally, for the region $k_y\rho_r>4$ an increase of $k_x\rho_r$ for the most unstable mode with $k_y\rho_r$ is obtained in the RG domain that seems to reflect the large spot in the maps from \texttt{stella}, particularly for the triangular FT, in which the maximum growth rate moves to regions of large values of $k_x\rho_r$ for large $k_y\rho_r$.
Given the differences between the FT and RG representations of the geometry, the consistency in results seems satisfactory. }
\nuevo{The FT and RG domains provide different perspectives of the same 3D reality. The flux tubes sample a reduced region of the flux surface and are local in radius, while the RG simulation takes all the 3D structure into account. Consequently, one can expect that modes that are very unstable in a FT geometry can become screened when they are allowed to explore the full magnetic structure. The opposite situation can also be expected: modes that are not very unstable in a FT reduced domain can enhance its unstable properties when they explore larger regions of the flux surface/radius in the RG simulation.
This effect appears when the triangular flux tube is extended from 1 to 3 poloidal turns, and the growth rate obtained increases up to similar values to those of the bean FT. Then, the picture obtained from a global simulation represents something ``in between" the many FT that can be constructed in a flux surface. }
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{secSumandConcls}
Two linear problems have been studied in gyrokinetic simulations carried out with different codes (GENE, GENE-3D, \texttt{stella} and EUTERPE) in different computational domains: flux tube, radially local full-flux-surface, and radially global domains.
For the linear zonal flow relaxation problem, it has been shown that different flux tubes with the shortest length considered (one poloidal turn) give different results, in general. The results of different FTs get closer as their length is increased. Both the length required for convergence of FT results and the degree of convergence are configuration-dependent, in line with previous results \cite{Smoniewski19}. In the particular case of LHD, different FTs give very similar results, which are also in reasonable agreement with RG \nuevo{and FFS} simulations, particularly for small radial wavenumbers. \nuevo{However, in the W7-X configuration analyzed here the situation is very different and different FTs with one or two poloidal turns long provide different results \nuevo{for the long-term properties (ZF residual and oscillation frequency). For the ZF evolution at short times, no significant difference is found between FTs}. }
\nuevo{Not only the long-term properties but also the short-time evolution of the zonal structures show a dependency with the radial scale of the perturbation, which is in very good agreement between simulations in long-enough FTs and a RG domain.
Related to the ITG linear stability, the situation is somehow similar, but the growth rate of unstable modes captured by the FT local simulations is found to be dominated by the most unstable modes, with amplitude peaking at specific locations over the flux surfaces, which is in line with the strong localization of ITG (and also TEM) modes in stellarators found in previous works \cite{Nadeem01,Kornilov04,Xanthopoulos14b,Sanchez19}.
In LHD, results of different flux tubes of any length match very well and are in good agreement with full surface or global simulation results. Radially global simulations are in very good agreement with FT and FFS in the frequency of the most unstable mode, but give a smaller (15-20\%) growth rate.
In W7-X, however, different flux tubes provide significantly different results {for $k_x=0$} that get closer {with each other} as the FT length is increased, but they do not exactly match at any length $n_{pol}\leq10$.
\nuevo{The radial scale of unstable ITG modes shows a dependency with the binormal wavenumber in W7-X configuration, while in LHD only a weak dependency with $k_y$ was found. The dependency of the radial scale of the most unstable modes with $k_y$ in W7-X differs between FTs for short FT lengths. For long-enough flux tubes a qualitative consistency with radially global results is found in this respect, in spite of the differences between both computational domains.}
The good agreement between different FTs, of any length, found in LHD for both the linear ITG instability, and for the linear ZF evolution, cannot be considered a situation valid for other devices, in general. The results for the W7-X configuration, as well as previous results in quasisymmetric devices \cite{Smoniewski19}, show that the convergence between results from different flux tubes is configuration-dependent. Furthermore,
the sampling of the flux surface by flux tubes of increasing lengths is largely conditioned by the rotational transform. Besides, the situation for other different instabilities, such as trapped electron modes, which can be located preferentially at different locations than those where the ITG modes, can be very different.
\nuevo{FFS and RG results are in reasonable agreement, which indicates that the FFS simulation domain can be considered the minimum appropriate computational domain for stellarators. However, slight differences between simulations in these domains appear.
Work is in progress to study how the linear stability and zonal flow evolution studied here translate in simulations of nonlinearly saturated ITG turbulence in stellarators.
\section{\textbf{Acknowledgements}}
Simulations were carried out in Mare Nostrum IV and Marconi supercomputers. We acknowledge the computer resources and the technical support provided by the Barcelona Supercomputing Center and the EUROfusion infraestructure at CINECA. The work has been partially funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades of Spain under project PGC2018-095307-B-I00. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 and 2019-2020 under grant agreement N$^o$ 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.
\section{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithms are designed to identify the best arm among multiple arms without prior knowledge of type of arm distribution and their statistics \cite{Book12_RegretAnalysis_Bubeck,mab2,mab3,mab1,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}. They achieve this by optimizing an exploration-exploitation trade-off over a finite horizon (i.e. time slots) \cite{mab1,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}. Here, exploration refers to selection of all arms sufficient number of times to accurately learn their statistics and exploitation refers to selection of the best arm as often as possible. Their applications include online advertisement selection to increase the number of clicks \cite{mab4,mab5}, clinical trails to identify best drugs \cite{mab4,mab5}, news personalization \cite{mab4,mab5}, decision making in financial markets \cite{mab4,mab5}, and resource selection in wireless networks \cite{JSAC11_DistributedLearning_Anadakumar,Infocom2019_DistributedLearning_TibrewalPatchalaHanawal,JSAC2019_DistributedLearning_BistrizLeshem}, internet of things (IoT) \cite{JSAC2019_MultiPlayerBanditsStableMatching_DarakHanawal,GoT, TSP14_DistributedStochastic_GaiKrishnamachari, NeurIPS2019_SICMMAB_BoursierPerchet} and robotics \cite{robotics1,robotics2}.
The performance metric for the MAB algorithm is the regret which is proportional to the number of selection of the sub-optimal arms and it should be as low as possible \cite{Book12_RegretAnalysis_Bubeck,mab2,mab3,mab1,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}. An optimal MAB algorithm guarantees a logarithmic regret which is the best one can achieve. The upper confidence bound (UCB) algorithm \cite{mab1}, Kullback Leibler UCB (KL-UCB) \cite{mab2}, and Thompson Sampling (TS) \cite{mab3} are the popular optimal MAB algorithms. The KL-UCB algorithm is computationally complex due to underlining optimization routine and hence, TS and UCB algorithms are preferred in \cite{mabarch1}.
In wireless radio, IoT, and robotics applications, MAB algorithms are used for decision-making tasks in the media-access control (MAC) layer. With tight integration of MAC and physical (PHY) layer, there is an option to accelerate the MAB and other MAC algorithms on hardware such as ASIC or FPGA instead of sequential processors based software implementation. The hardware implementation exploits the parallel architecture thereby offering lower execution time i.e. latency. Such applications also demand deployment on edge devices and hence, mapping of the MAB algorithms on system-on-chip (SoC) is desired. Recently, we discussed the implementation of UCB and KL-UCB algorithms on the heterogeneous Zynq SoC from Xilinx consisting of the dual-core ARM processor and 7-series FPGA \cite{mabarch1}. In this work, we focus on the TS algorithm which has not been realized on SoC yet.
Considering two types of distributions, Bernoulli and Gaussian, frequentist approach based UCB algorithm remains the same while there are two variants of KL-UCB and Bayesian approach based TS algorithm, one each for Bernoulli and Gaussian distribution \cite{mab1,mab2,mab3,mab4,mab5,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}. When arm distribution is known, we can select the appropriate algorithm and both guarantee lower regret than the UCB algorithm \cite{mab3}.
When arm distribution is unknown, the challenge is to decide the correct variant of the KLUCB/TS algorithm, and error in algorithm selection leads to significant degradation in performance. Specifically, the use of the Bernoulli variant of the KLUCB/TS algorithm for Gaussian distribution or vice-versa leads to high regret compared to the UCB algorithm \cite{aggr1,aggr2}. This demands intelligence to select the appropriate algorithm in an unknown environment.
In this paper, we design and implement a reconfigurable and intelligent architecture for MAB algorithms (RI-MAB) that can learn and select an appropriate algorithm in an unknown environment so as to minimizes regret. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We propose a synthesizable TS algorithm for Bernoulli distribution (BTS) by approximating the \textit{Beta} function via pseudo-random number generator-based approach and map it on Zynq SoC via hardware-software co-design. The architecture is optimized to reduce the computational complexity without compromising on the regret performance.
\item For an environment with unknown arm distribution, we propose RI-MAB architecture. Here, intelligence enables the identification of appropriate algorithm (UCB or BTS) for a given environment, and reconfigurability allows anytime on-the-fly switching between UCB and BTS algorithms via dynamic partial reconfiguration (DPR). The DPR on FPGA eliminates the need for parallel implementation of algorithms resulting in huge savings in resources and power consumption.
\item The functional correctness, resource requirement, power consumption, and execution time of the proposed BTS and RI-MAB architectures are analyzed for various arm distributions, word-length, and hardware-software co-design approaches.
\item We also demonstrate the superiority of the proposed RI-MAB architecture over BTS and UCB only architectures
\end{enumerate}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
The MAB problem setup and a review of the relevant works are done in Section~\ref{Sec:RW} followed by the synthesizable TS algorithm in Section~\ref{Sec:TS}. The improved version of the TS algorithm and its architecture on SoC is presented in Section~\ref{Sec:ITS}. In Section~\ref{Sec:PITS}, in-depth performance analysis and comparison with the UCB algorithm is done. The RI-MAB algorithm and its architecture are discussed in Section~\ref{Sec:RIMAB} followed by its performance analysis in Section~\ref{Sec:PRIMAB}. Section~\ref{Sec:Conclusion} concludes the paper. Please refer to \cite{codes} for source codes and tutorial to reproduce results presented in this paper.
\section{MAB Algorithms and State-of-the-art Review}
\label{Sec:RW}
In this section, we discuss the MAB setup, review state-of-the-art MAB algorithms, and feasibility on the SoC.
In MAB setup, each experiment consists of a horizon of $N$, $n \in \{1,2,...,N\}$ sequential slots and and the aim is to select the optimal arm from $K$, $k \in \{1,2,...,\}$ arms as often as possible. Let's denote the arm selected in slot $n$ as $I_n$, and the reward received from the selected arm $I_n$ in slot $n$ as $R_n$. The reward of an arm $k$ is generated from a distribution with mean, $\mu_k$. The mean rewards are unknown and the performance metric, regret, is given as \cite{mab1,mab2,mab3,mab4,mab5,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}
\begin{equation}
\label{regret}
Regret = N*\mu^* - \sum_{n=1}^{N} R_n = N*\mu^* - \sum_{k=1}^{K} T_k *\mu_k
\end{equation}
where $\mu^*$ is the mean reward of an optimal arm and $T_k$ is the number of times the arm $k$ selected in an experiment of horizon size $N$.
Note that the distribution of arm rewards is unknown but fixed over a horizon. In this paper, we focus on Bernoulli (reward $R_n$ is either 0 or 1) and Gaussian distribution (reward $R_n$ is between 0 and 1) though the discussion can be extended to Exponential and Poisson distributions.
As discussed in Section I, UCB, KL-UCB, and TS algorithms are the popular regret-minimization MAB algorithms with logarithmic regret guarantees. In the case of the UCB and KL-UCB algorithms, the first phase is initialization where each arm is selected once in the first $K$ time slots. Thereafter, in each slot, quality factor (QF) $Q(k,n)$ is calculated for each arm. For UCB, the QF, $Q_u(k,n)$, is given by, \cite{mab1}
\begin{equation}
\label{qf_ucb}
Q_u(k,n) = \frac{X(k,n)}{T(k,n)} + \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \log(n)}{T(k,n)}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{X}
X(k,n) = X(k,n-1) + R_{n-1} \cdot \textbf{1}_{\{I_{n-1}==k\}} \quad \forall k
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{T}
T(k,n) = T(k,n-1) + \textbf{1}_{\{I_{n-1}==k\}} \quad \forall k
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{1}_{cond}$ is an indicator function and it is equal to 1 (or 0) if the condition, $cond$ is TRUE (or FALSE). The parameter $X(k,n)$ is the total reward received using the arm $k$ which has been selected for $T(k,n)$ time slots in total $n$ time slots. The parameter, $\alpha$, is the exploration factor that quantifies the aggression by which the UCB algorithm explores all arms and theoretically, it lies between 0.5 and 2. Then, the arm with the highest QF is selected and it is denoted by, $I_n$.
\begin{equation}
\label{I}
I_n = \argmax_k Q_u(:,n)
\end{equation}
After the arm $I_n$ is played, its parameters, $T$ and $X$, are updated using the received reward, $R_n$ as shown in Eq.~\ref{X} and Eq.~\ref{T}. The KL-UCB algorithm is similar to UCB except for the calculation of QF which is denoted as $Q_{kl}(k,n)$ \cite{mab2}. As shown in Eq.~\ref{qkl}, QF is computationally complex due to underlining optimization function \cite{mab2,mabarch1}.
\begin{equation}
\label{qkl}
Q_{kl}(k,n) = \max \bigg\{q \in \left [ 0,1 \right ],d\bigg(\frac{X(k,n)}{T(k,n)},q\bigg) \leq Y(k,n)\bigg\}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Y(k,n)=\frac{\log n+c\log(\log n)}{T(k,n)}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\label{kl}
d(p,q) = p\log\bigg(\frac{p}{q}\bigg) + (1-p) \log\bigg(\frac{1-p}{1-q}\bigg)
\end{equation}
The term, $d(p,q)$, in Eq.~\ref{kl} denotes the KL divergence between $p$ and $q$. The TS algorithm does not need an initialization phase and it uses \textit{Beta} function for QF calculation. It is discussed later in Section II.
All these algorithms have been extended for various other settings. The multi-play setting is the same as above except that the aim is to identify the best $L$ arms instead of one arm \cite{multiplaymab1,multiplaymab2}. In a time-limited pure exploration setting, the aim is to identify the best arm within a given number of time-slots such that the regret incurred during these slots is not considered i.e. pure exploration phase \cite{pexp1,pexp2,pexp3}. In a confidence-driven pure exploration setting, the aim is to identify the best arm with given confidence and in as few time slots as possible \cite{pexp1,pexp2,pexp3}. In a delayed and complex case, the reward of the selected arm in time slot $n$ is delayed by few time slots and such delay is not deterministic \cite{DCMAB1,DCMAB2,DCMAB3}. Also, the received reward might be a function of arms selected in multiple time slots instead of a separate reward for each slot \cite{DCMAB1,DCMAB2,DCMAB3}. Existing works mainly focus on the design and performance analysis of these algorithms while the focus of this work is on efficient mapping of MAB algorithms on the SoC. Since all these extensions are based on UCB/KLUCB/TS algorithms, an efficient implementation of these three algorithms is the first and important step towards the realization of all other algorithms on the SoC.
In \cite{mabarch2}, we discussed the mapping of the UCB algorithm and its extensions on Zynq SoC via a hardware-software co-design approach. In \cite{mabarch1} we proposed the modified KL-UCB algorithm by replacing optimization function in Eq.~\ref{qkl} with finite-iteration based synthesizable function. Though KL-UCB offers lower regret, the resource, latency, and power consumption of the KL-UCB is high compared to the UCB. To reduce the latency and power consumption without compromising on the regret performance, we proposed reconfigurable KL-UCB architecture that enables on-the-fly switch from KL-UCB to light-weight UCB after initial exploration \cite{mabarch1}. In the proposed architecture, UCB QF calculation is accomplished using the KL-UCB QF blocks and hence, parallel implementation of two architectures is not needed. Since the TS is the most popular MAB algorithm, efficient mapping of the TS on SoC and performance analysis for different word-length is an important research problem. Furthermore, an intelligence to identify the appropriate algorithm in an unknown environment is critical to get optimal regret performance. The work presented in this paper offers innovative solutions to these challenges.
\section{Synthesizable Thompson Sampling Algorithm for Bernoulli Distribution (SBTS)}
\label{Sec:TS}
The frequentist modeling-based UCB and KLUCB algorithms assume the mean reward of an arm is proportional to the average reward in repeated plays of a given experiment \cite{mab1,mab2,mab3,mab4,mab5,TAC1987_AsyptoticallyEfficient_AnantharamWalrand}. On the other hand, the Bayesian modeling-based TS algorithm assumes the mean reward of an arm is proportional to a degree of belief that the arm is optimal \cite{mab3}. These beliefs are updated based on the observations from the environment via Baye’s rule that takes a prior belief as an argument and returns a posterior belief for a given likelihood. Since the arm statistics are unknown, the uncertainty about arm optimality is modeled as probabilities and the arm with the highest probability of being optimal under the posterior distribution is selected \cite{mab3}.
In the MAB setup, posterior belief becomes a prior in subsequent time slots, and the distributions which exhibit such behavior are known as conjugate prior. For example, Beta distribution is a conjugate prior for Bernoulli likelihood function \cite{mab3}. Similarly, Gamma and Pareto distributions are a conjugate prior for Poisson and Gamma distributions, respectively \cite{mab3}. Thus, the Bayesian approach needs to explicitly specify prior beliefs upfront in the form of the distribution and hence, each likelihood distributions have a specific variant of the TS algorithm. None of these TS variants are realized on the SoC yet and the proposed work on the implementation of the BTS algorithm on SoC is the first contribution in this direction.
The mapping of the BTS algorithm on the SoC consists of three steps: 1) Parameter update (Eq.~\ref{X} and Eq.~\ref{T}), 2) QF Calculation, 3) Arm selection (Eq.~\ref{I}). Since steps 1 and 3 are identical to UCB and KL-UCB algorithms, we request readers to refer to \cite{mabarch1,mabarch2} for in-depth understanding and implementation. Due to limited page constraints, the discussion is focused only on Step 3: QF calculation though our implementation and tutorials include all three steps. In the BTS algorithm, the QF for each arm, denoted by $Q_{ts}(k,n)$, is calculated by drawing the random sample from the Beta distribution with parameters, $\alpha = X(k,n)$ and $\beta = T(k,n)-X(k,n)$. For the Bernoulli distribution, $\alpha$ refers to a number of successes and $\beta$ refers to a number of failures. The probability distribution function (PDF), $y_{beta}$, of Beta distribution is given by \cite{mab3},
\begin{equation}
\label{beta_pdf}
y_{beta} = f(x|\alpha,\beta) = \frac{1}{B(\alpha,\beta)}x^{\alpha-1}(1-x)^{\beta-1}I_{[0,1]}(x)
\end{equation}
where $B(\cdot)$ is the Beta function. The indicator function $I_{[0,1]}(x)$ ensures that only values of x $\in (0,1)$ have nonzero probability. The QF calculation of the BTS algorithm involves two steps:\\
1) Integration of the PDF, $y_{beta}$ given in Eq.~\ref{beta_pdf}, over $x$ to generate the cumulative distribution function (CDF), $F(x|\alpha,\beta)$ and computation of its inverse $F^{-1}(x|\alpha,\beta)$.
\\
2) Generation of a uniformly distributed random number $x$ and its substitution into inverse CDF. The value obtained is the random number sampled from the Beta distribution and it is considered as the QF of the arm.
The implementation of the above steps is computationally intensive and not well suited for hardware implementation due to the need for $gamma$ random generators followed by the division of random numbers. Please refer to the in-built Matlab function, $betarnd$ for more details. In the proposed approach, we approximate the $betarnd$ function using an alternative synthesizable function. In each time slot $n$, we generate $T(k,n)$ uniform random numbers for each arm $k$. These random numbers are sorted in ascending order and $X(k,n)^{th}$ random number in the sorted array is taken as the QF of the arm $k$. This approach needs the generation of random numbers in hardware and we implement a popular Mersenne Twister pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) due to its high throughput \cite{PRNG1,PRNG2,PRNG3}. We referred to it as a synthesizable BTS (SBTS) algorithm.
In Fig.~\ref{regretTS}, the functionality of the proposed SBTS algorithm is verified by comparing its regret performance with the BTS algorithm realized using the $betarnd$ function. We consider $K=6$, $N=10000$ and 150 experiments. In each experiment, arm statistics are chosen randomly and the plots in Fig.~\ref{regretTS} include the cumulative regret averaged over 150 experiments, and standard deviation (shown with a shaded region). We observed that the proposed approach selected the best arm on an average 9436 number of times ($\approx94\%$) compared to 9445 times ($\approx94\%$) in the $betarnd$ based BTS algorithm. The regret of both algorithms is nearly identical validating the correctness of the proposed QF calculation approach.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{regret_compare.pdf}
\caption{ Cumulative regret averaged over 150 independent experiments for the BTS algorithm with QF using $berarnd$ and proposed SBTS algorithm.}
\label{regretTS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{arch2.pdf}
\caption{Illustrative example demonstrating the functionality of the SBTS-ES algorithm.}
\label{sbtses}
\end{figure*}
\section{Improved SBTS Algorithm For Efficient Mapping on SoC}
\label{Sec:ITS}
The proposed SBTS QF calculation approach is synthesizable on the SoC but it suffers from two drawbacks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In each time slot, a large number of random numbers need to be generated. For $K$ arms, we need to generate $\sum_{k=1}^{k=K}T(k,n)=n$ random numbers in each time slot $n$. This is followed by $K$ sorting operations, one for each arm. In the worst case (when n=N i.e. end of the horizon), we need to generate and sort $N$ random numbers in a slot. Thus, the time required to generate random numbers is not fixed and increases with $n$. This is not desirable for most applications.
\item Even if each random number is represented using fewer bits, say 8 bits, we need total storage of $N$ bytes (For example, 10 Kbytes when $N$=10000) which is not feasible due to cost and area constraints of the majority of the embedded applications.
\end{enumerate}
Ideally, MAB execution time should be fixed and as small as possible. The time taken by the MAB algorithm to select the arm affects the time available for subsequent tasks. For instance, in wireless radio, communication is time-slotted which means arm (channel) selection is followed by transmission in each time slot. The higher the time taken for channel selection, the lower is the time available for actual data communication resulting in lower throughput. In the BTS algorithm, the time required to calculate QF for all arms increases with time due to an increase in the number of random numbers and subsequent sorting tasks. Please refer to Section for the detailed resource requirement and execution time comparison. To overcome the above drawbacks of the SBTS algorithm, we present a further improvements to simplify the sorting operation and minimize the number of random number generation in each slot.
\subsection{SBTS-ES: SBTS Algorithm with Efficient Sorting}
In the MAB setup with $K$ arms, the SBTS algorithm involves sorting of $K$ arrays consisting of random numbers between 0 and 1. For arm $k$, array size is $T(k,n)$ with its maximum value as $N$. After sorting, random value at the $X(k,n)^{th}$ index of the sorted array is considered as QF of the arm. For accurate QF calculation, floating-point representation of random numbers is preferred which results in computationally complex sorting operation.
In the proposed SBTS-ES algorithm, the sorting operation is simplified by grouping the random numbers in pre-defined ranges and keeping the track of number of random numbers generated in each range. For illustration, consider an array, $\beta_{k}$, of size $10$ such that $\beta_{k}(1)$ represents the number of random numbers out of $T(k,n)$ lies between 0 and 0.1, $\beta_{k}(2)$ represents the number of random numbers out of $T(k,n)$ lies between 0.1 and 0.2. In the same fashion, $\beta_{k}(10)$ represents the number of random numbers out of $T(k,n)$ lies between 0.9 and 1. For $k^{th}$ arm with $T(k,n)=4$ and $X(k,n)=2$, four random numbers are generated in time slot $n$. Lets assume these random numbers as \{0.342, 0.012, 0.753, 0.553\}. Then, $\beta_{k} = \{1,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0\}$. The $X(k,n)^{th}$ non-zero value lies in the $\beta_{k}(3)$ and hence, QF of the arm is equal to the mean of $\beta_{k}(3)$ range i.e. $\frac{0.3+0.4}{2} = 0.35$. For random numbers as \{0.342, 0.012, 0.083, 0.553\}, we have $\beta_{k} = \{2,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0\}$ and hence, the QF of the arm is equal to mean of $\beta_{k}(1)$ range i.e. $\frac{0+0.1}{2}= 0.05$.
In Fig.~\ref{sbtses}, we consider $K=3$ arms. In the first $K$ time slots, each arm is selected once. In time slot 4, $T(k,n)$ random numbers are generated for $k^{th}$ arm. In Fig.~\ref{sbtses}, one random number is generated separately for each arm. After updating respective $\beta_k$, QF is calculated for each arm and the third arm is selected due to the highest QF. As shown in Fig.~\ref{sbtses}, received reward is 0 in time slot 4 and hence, only $T(3,5)$ is updated i.e. $T(3,5)=T(3,4)+1$. The rest of the parameters do not change. Note that $\beta_k$ of all arms is initialized to zero at the beginning of each time slot. In time slot 5, one random number is generated for the first two arms and two random numbers are generated for the third arm. The same process of QF calculation, arm selection, and parameter update are repeated in each time slot till the end of the horizon. The advantages of the proposed SBTS-ES are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Instead of $\sum_{k=1}^{k=K}T(k,n)$ i.e. at most $N$ floating-point random numbers, the storage of only $|\beta|K$ integer numbers with word length of $\lceil \log_2{N} \rceil$ is needed.
Here, $|\beta| = |\beta_1| =|\beta_2|= .. = |\beta_k|$. SBTS needs $32KN$ bits while SBTS-ES needs $|\beta|K\lceil \log_2{(N+1)} \rceil$. For $N \geq 100$ and $2\leq|\beta|\leq100$, SBTS memory requirement is at least 3 kilo Bytes (KB) higher than SBTS-ES. For $N > 1000$ and $N > 2000$, respectively, the difference is at least 50 KB and 80 KB, respectively.
\item In SBTS, sorting operations need multiple read and write memory operations for each random number which limits the execution time due to the limited number of memory ports. SBTS-ES needs only a single read and write operation per random number from a given index of $\beta$.
\item In SBTS, each random number is compared with at most ($T(k,n)-1$) random numbers and hence, at most $(N-1)\sum_{k=1}^{k=K}T(k,n) \approx N^2$ floating point comparisons are done in each time slot. In SBTS-ES, only $2KN|\beta|$ comparisons are needed per slot. It is obvious to note that $N >> 2K|\beta|$ for sufficiently large horizon. For instance, for $K\leq 20$ and $|\beta| \leq 100$, SBTS-ES is superior for $N>4000$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{SBTS-ESSR: SBTS-ES Algorithm with Single Random Number Sample}
In the SBTS-ES algorithm, total $\sum_{k=1}^{k=K}T(k,n)$ floating-point random numbers need to be generated in each time slot. This means total $N$ random numbers will be generated in the last time slot of the horizon. Generating such a huge number of random numbers is a time-consuming, memory-intensive, and inefficient approach. Since only one arm is selected in each time slot, the parameter $T(k,n)$ of all arms except the selected arm will remain unchanged. Though $T(k,n)$ random numbers are needed to calculate QF of an arm $k$, SBTS, and SBTS-ES algorithms discard previous generated random numbers.
This is inefficient since instead of generating all random numbers in each slot, we can use the random numbers from previous slots as well. Furthermore, separate random number generators for each arm can be avoided.
In the proposed SBTS-ESSR approach, $\beta$ is not initialized at the beginning of each slot. In each time slot, a single random number is generated followed by updation of parameter $\beta$ for all arms. To incorporate a new random number, we discard any one of the entries in $\beta$ and update it with a newly generated random number. For illustrations, consider two arms with $\beta_1=\{0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1\}$ and $\beta_2=\{0,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,0\}$ in time slot 9. Then, $T(1,9)=5$ and $T(2,9)=4$. Assume $X(1,9)=2$ and $X(2,9)=3$. In the SBTS algorithm, 5 random numbers are generated for arm 1 followed by sorting and selection of $X(1,9)^{th}$ random number as the QF of the arm. The same process is repeated for arm 2 with 4 random numbers. In the SBTS-ES algorithm, existing $\beta$ is discarded and 9 random numbers are generated. Parameters, $\beta_1$, and $\beta_2$ are updated using these random numbers followed by QF calculation as discussed in Section. In the SBTS-ESSR algorithm, the first step is to randomly remove one sample from $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ instead of discarding them completely. Then, a single random number is generated which is used to update $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. After that, QF is selected using the same approach as in the SBTS-ES algorithm. It is important to note that SBTS-ESSR is a functional equivalent to SBTS-ES since the former generates $T(k,n)$ random numbers in a one-time slot while the latter uses ($T(k,n)-1$) random numbers generated in the previous time slots and only one random number is generated in the current time slot. Compared to SBTS-ES, SBTS-ESSR reduces the number of random number generations in each time slot as well as the number of comparisons by a factor $N$ i.e. from $2KN|\beta|$ to $2K|\beta|$. Furthermore, the execution time of the SBTS-ESSR algorithm is same in each time slot compared to SBTS and SBTS-ES algorithms where execution time in each slot increases with the increase in the index of the time slot.
The SBTS-ESSR algorithm is given in Algorithm 1. In the beginning, all elements of $X$ and $T$ are initialized to 1 assuming an initial uniform prior i.e. all arms have equal probability of being optimal. For clarity of notations, the subscript $n$ is removed in $X$ and $T$. In each time slot of the horizon, the QF of each arm is calculated (Line 2) and the arm with the highest QF is selected (Line 3). The selected arm is played and the algorithm receives the reward from the environment (Line 4). Based on the reward, parameters $X$ and $T$ are updated (Line 5).
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{0pt}
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption{SBTS-ESSR Algorithm}
\label{SBTSESSR}
\textbf{Input:}$K, N$\\
\textbf{Initialize:}~$X = [1]_{1\times K}, T = [1]_{1\times K}$\\
\textbf{Output:}$Regret$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For {$n=1,2,\cdots,N$}
\State Calculate $Q_{ts}(:,n)$=\textbf{QF\_SBTS\_ESSR}($X$,$T$,$K$,$n$, $I_{n-1}$)
\State Select and play arm, $I_n = \argmax_k Q_{ts}(:,n)$.
\State Receive Reward, $R_n$ = \textbf{Reward}($I_n$).
\State Update $X$ and $T$: $X(I_n)$ = $X(I_n)+R_n$, $T(I_n)$ = $T(I_n)+1$
\EndFor
\State Calculate regret using Eq.~\ref{regret}.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The QF generation is explained using Subroutine 1. For a given $L=|\beta|$ and $K$, $\beta$ is a matrix where each column belongs to one arm. In the first time slot, $\beta$ is initialized in the same way as $T$ (Lines 1-3). Otherwise, $\beta$ is updated for the arm selected in the previous time slot (Lines 4-6) by generating a single random number. Then, one sample is removed from each column of $\beta$, and the corresponding row index is selected randomly (Lines 9 - 10). Next, a new random number is generated and $\beta$ of all arms is updated (Lines 11-13). Using updated $\beta$ and parameter $X$, the QF is calculated for each arm (Lines 14-15).
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption*{\textbf{Subroutine 1:} QF for SBTS-ESSR (QF\_SBTS\_ESSR)}
\label{qfcalc}
\textbf{Input:}$X$,$T$,$K$,$n$,$I_{n-1}$\\
\textbf{Initialize:}~$L=$No. of divisions in the $[0,1]$ space i.e. $|\beta|$\\
\textbf{Output:}~$Q_{1\times K}$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\If {$n == 1$}
\State $\beta = [1]_{L\times K}$
\Else
\State Generate a random number, $p$ between 0 and 1.
\State $\beta_{index} = l$ if $(l-1)/L \leq p < l/L$ where $l={1,2,..,L}$.
\
\State Update $\beta(\beta_{index},I_{n-1})$= $\beta(\beta_{index},I_{n-1})+1$.
\EndIf
\For {$k=1,2,\cdots,K$}
\State Generate an integer random numbers, $s$, between 0 and $L$.
\State Update $\beta(s,:)$= $\beta(s,:)-1$.
\State Generate a random number, $p$ between 0 and 1.
\State $\beta_{index} = l$ if $(l-1)/L \leq p < l/L$ where $l={1,2,..,L}$.
\
\State Update $\beta(\beta_{index},:)$= $\beta(\beta_{index},:)+1$.
\State Compute $Q_{index} :\argmin_l \sum_{l=1}^{L} \beta(:,k) \geq X(k)$
\State $Q(k)=(2Q_{index}-1)/(2L)$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The environment generates the reward in each slot based on the selected arm and the corresponding process is given in Subroutine 2. Rewards are either 1 or 0 i.e. Bernoulli distribution.
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption*{\textbf{Subroutine 2:} Reward (Environment)}
\label{rewardsr}
\textbf{Input:}~$I_n$\\
\textbf{Initialize:}~$\mu$ (Known to environment only)\\
\textbf{Output:}~$R_n$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Generate random number, $p$ between 0 and 1.
\If {$p\leq \mu(I_n$)}
\State $R_n$=1
\Else
\State $R_n$=0
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In Fig.~\ref{regretTS1}, we repeat the experiments similar to Fig.~\ref{regretTS} and compare the regret of the three proposed algorithms. As expected, the regret of the SBTS-ESSR is highest followed by SBTS-ES and SBTS. However, the difference in the regret is less than 12 for a horizon size of $N=10000$. On average, the best arm was selected 9421 (94\%), 9346 (93.5\%), 9271 (92\%) number of times. These results validate the functional correctness of the proposed algorithms in the MAB setup i.e. ability to identify and select the best arm as many times as possible.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{regret_compare_2.pdf}
\caption{Cumulative regret averaged over 150 independent experiments.}
\label{regretTS1}
\end{figure}
The proposed algorithms are mapped on the ZSoC platform and the corresponding architecture is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ts_arch}. The architecture is designed and implemented using Vivado 2019.1, Vivado High-Level Synthesis (HLS), Vivado Software Development Kit (SDK), and DPR toolbox. The parameter update, QF calculation, and arm selection are realized in FPGA (PL) while reward generation is part of the ARM processor (PS). We have explored various other configurations via hardware-software co-design. Also, the WL of various blocks realized in FPGA is carefully chosen so as to optimize the resource utilization and power consumption without compromising on the regret performance. Corresponding results are presented in Section V. The section of the proposed architecture realized on FPGA is made reconfigurable via DPR. Specifically, the number of active arms, $K$, and $|\beta|$
can be dynamically configured via processor configuration access port (PCAP) using the partial bit-streams pre-loaded in the SD card \cite{DPR1,DPR2}. The required bitstreams are sent to the FPGA, through the bare-metal application deployed on the ARM processor, for reconfiguration using the device configuration (DevC) direct memory access (DMA). Please refer to \cite{codes} for source codes and tutorial explaining the building blocks of the proposed architectures.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{arch_ts.pdf}%
\caption{ Proposed DPR-enabled architecture for SBTS and its extensions with reconfigurable $|\beta|$ and no. of arms.}
\label{fig:ts_arch}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{Performance Analysis: SBTS Algorithms}
\label{Sec:PITS}
In this section, we verify the functional correctness of the proposed SBTS algorithms on Zynq SoC and compare its regret performance with state-of-the-art UCB algorithms for different WLs. The rewards are assumed to have Bernoulli distribution. All results are obtained after averaging over 100 different experiments to consider the non-deterministic nature of the online machine learning algorithms.
Later, the resource utilization, power consumption, and execution time of these algorithms are analyzed. MAB algorithms such as KL-UCB, UCB\_v, and UCB\_t are not considered since UCB offers regret which is close to these algorithms with significant savings in resources, power consumption and execution time \cite{mabarch1,mabarch2}.
\subsection{Regret Comparison}
Similar to Fig.~\ref{regretTS} and Fig.~\ref{regretTS1}, we repeat the experiments for $K=4$ and $K=8$ for algorithms realized on ZSoC with single-precision floating-point (SP-FL) WL. In Fig.~\ref{fig:reward_rnd_mu}, we consider four algorithms: 1) UCB, 2) SBTS, 3) SBTS-ES ($|\beta|=\{10,20\}$), and 4) SBTS-ESSR ($|\beta|=\{10,20\}$). It can be observed that the proposed SBTS algorithms offer significantly lower regret than UCB. This is expected since the TS algorithm has shown to outperform the UCB algorithm in analytical and simulation results. It can be observed that the regret of SBTS-ES and SBTS-ESSR algorithms decreases with an increase in $|\beta|$. This is because higher $|\beta|$ allows accurate calculation of QF leading to a reduction in the selection of sub-optimal arms.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Regret/MAB/plot_6.pdf}%
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{ Average cumulative regret comparison for randomly generated arm distributions, (a) $K=4$, and (b) $K=8$.}
\label{fig:reward_rnd_mu}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[!b]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of Resource Utilization and Power Consumption}
\label{table:TS_complexity}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{No.}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Algorithm}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$|\beta|$}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR/Velcro\\ Precision\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of LUTs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of FFs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of DSPs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of BRAMs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dynamic Power (W)}}} \\
& & & & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} \\ \cline{5-19}
& & & & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{1}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}SBTS,\\ tunable $K \leq K_{max}$\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{NA} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}14952\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}19488\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 24024 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}11804\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}15350\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 18896 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}18\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-25\%}\end{tabular} & 32 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}72\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}96\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 120 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.258\\ \textbf{-39\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.339\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 0.42 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{24024} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{18896} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{120} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.42} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{2}} & \multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}SBTS-ES,\\ tunable $K \leq K_{max}$\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}14634\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}19064\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 23494 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}11441\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}14866\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 18291 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}18\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-25\%}\end{tabular} & 32 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}32\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 40 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.178\\ \textbf{-39\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.234\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 0.29 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{23494} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{18291} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{40} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.29} \\ \cline{3-19}
& & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{20}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}20196\\ \textbf{-39\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}26480\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 32764 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}13488\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}17542\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 21636 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}18\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-25\%}\end{tabular} & 32 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}32\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 40 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.198\\ \textbf{-39\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.261\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 0.324 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32764} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{21636} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{40} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.324} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{3}} & \multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} SBTS-ESSR,\\ tunable $K \leq K_{max}$\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{10}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7386\\ \textbf{-36\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}9400\\ \textbf{-18\%}\end{tabular} & 11414 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4631\\ \textbf{-34\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5786\\ \textbf{-17\%}\end{tabular} & 6941 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}18\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-25\%}\end{tabular} & 32 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}27\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}36\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 45 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.046\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.061\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 0.076 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{11414} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{6941} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{45} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.076} \\ \cline{3-19}
& & \multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{20}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7041\\ \textbf{-36\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}8940\\ \textbf{-18\%}\end{tabular} & 10839 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4811\\ \textbf{-34\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}6026\\ \textbf{-17\%}\end{tabular} & 7241 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}18\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}24\\ \textbf{-25\%}\end{tabular} & 32 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}27\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}36\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 45 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.096\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.127\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 0.158 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=27\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}1857\\ \textbf{-83\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2169\\ \textbf{-80\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2481\\ \textbf{-78\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}1792\\ \textbf{-76\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2110\\ \textbf{-71\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2428\\ \textbf{-67\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3\\ \textbf{-94\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4\\ \textbf{-92\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5\\ \textbf{-89\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.010\\ \textbf{-94\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.012\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.014\\ \textbf{-92\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=11\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}1864\\ \textbf{-83\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2167\\ \textbf{-80\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2470\\ \textbf{-78\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}1792\\ \textbf{-76\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2110\\ \textbf{-71\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2428\\ \textbf{-67\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3\\ \textbf{-94\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4\\ \textbf{-92\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5\\ \textbf{-89\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.011\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.013\\ \textbf{-92\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.015\\ \textbf{-91\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{10839} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{7241} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{32} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{45} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.158} \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{4}} & \multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}UCB,\\ tunable $K \leq K_{max}$\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{4}{*}{NA} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7664\\ \textbf{-37\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}9866\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 12068 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7060\\ \textbf{-37\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}9093\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 11126 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}51\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}68\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 85 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4.5\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}6\\ \textbf{-20\%}\end{tabular} & 7.5 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.127\\ \textbf{-38\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.165\\ \textbf{-19\%}\end{tabular} & 0.203 \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=27\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5761\\ \textbf{-53\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7375\\ \textbf{-39\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}8989\\ \textbf{-26\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4390\\ \textbf{-61\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5574\\ \textbf{-50\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}6758\\ \textbf{-40\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.019\\ \textbf{-91\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.023\\ \textbf{-89\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.027\\ \textbf{-87\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=11\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2425\\ \textbf{-80\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2927\\ \textbf{-76\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3429\\ \textbf{-72\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2443\\ \textbf{-79\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2978\\ \textbf{-74\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3513\\ \textbf{-69\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.013\\ \textbf{-94\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.015\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.017\\ \textbf{-92\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{4-19}
& & & \textbf{Velcro} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{12068} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{11126} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{85} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{7.5} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.203} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
Next, we analyze the regret performance for four cases of carefully selected arm distributions.\\
1) $K=4$, $\mu_1$ = \{0.1, 0.3, 0.5, \textbf{0.7}\}\\
2) $K=4$, $\mu_2$ = \{\textbf{0.54},0.53, 0.52, 0.51\} \\
3) $K=8$, $\mu_3$ = \{0.1, 0.5, \textbf{0.8}, 0.7, 0.4, 0.2,0.6,0.3\} \\
4) $K=8$, $\mu_4$ = \{0.21, 0.22, 0.26,\textbf{0.28}, 0.24, 0.25, 0.27, 0.23\} \\
The optimal arm in each case is highlighted in bold font. Compared to $\mu_1$ and $\mu_3$, the difference between the arm statistics is small in $\mu_2$ and $\mu_4$. This makes the learning and identification of the optimal arm challenging. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reward_fix_mu}, the regret of the SBTS, SBTS-ES, and SBTS-ESSR algorithms is lower than that of the UCB algorithm for all arm distributions. In each case, it is verified that the optimal arm is chosen the highest number of times by all algorithms. The appropriate selection of $|\beta|$ is important as it affects the precision of QF selection. This results in multiple arms with identical QF values and hence, frequent selection of sub-optimal arms. For instance, $|\beta|=10$ is not sufficient for $\mu_2$ as it offers high regret as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reward_fix_mu} (d).Based on extensive performance analysis, $15\leq|\beta|\leq 20$ leads to a higher number of selection of optimal arm i.e. lower regret and the gain in performance is not significant for $|\beta|>20$. The proposed architecture in Fig.~\ref{fig:ts_arch} allows on-the-fly selection of $|\beta|$ via DPR.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{plot_6.pdf}%
\label{rew1}
\caption{ Average cumulative regret of different algorithms for (a) $\mu_1$, (b) $\mu_2$, (c) $\mu_3$, and (d) $\mu_4$.}
\label{fig:reward_fix_mu}
\end{figure}
Next, we compare the effect of WL on the regret performance of the SBTS-ESSR ($|\beta|=20$) and UCB algorithms. In Fig~\ref{fig:reward_diff_wl},
we compare the regret of these algorithms at the end of the horizon of size, $N=10000$ for $\mu_1$ and $\mu_3$. We compare the regret for SP-FP and fixed-point implementations with a total WL of 27, 11, and 6 bits. In each case, the number of bits to represent integer and fractional parts are chosen carefully so as to minimize regret. It can be observed that the regret degrades with the decrease in WL. However, degradation is not significant till WL=11. For WL=6, regret is high and this happens due to insufficient bits to represent QF which in turn leads to the selection of sub-optimal arms. Thus, the selection of appropriate WL is important since lower WL leads to significant savings in resources but it should not come at the cost of regret performance.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{wl_regret.pdf}
\caption{Average regret of SBTS-ESSR and UCB algorithms with different WLs for (a) $\mu_1$, and (b) $\mu_3$.}
\label{fig:reward_diff_wl}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Complexity Comparison}
In Table~\ref{table:TS_complexity}, we compare the resource utilization (LUT, FFs, DSP and BRAM), and power consumption of four different architectures realized on ZSoC. These architectures correspond to SBTS, SBTS-ES, SBTS-ESSR, and UCB algorithms. Each architecture is made reconfigurable via DPR at the arm level i.e. the number of arms can be dynamically configured (i.e., the number of arms can be tuned to any values less than or equal to $K_{max}$. Each architecture is realized with three different WLs: SP-FP, fixed point WL of 27, and 11 bits. The reconfigurable architecture is compared with non-reconfigurable Velcro approach-based architecture with fixed $K_{max}$ arms and SP-FP WL.
As shown in Table~\ref{table:TS_complexity}, resource utilization and power consumption of DPR based architecture depend on the number of active arms, $K$ compared to the Velcro approach, which corresponds to architecture with $K_{max}$ arms, i.e., all blocks are active all the time compared to dynamic activation and deactivation of arms in the DPR based architecture.
It can be observed that the SP-FP version of the DPR-based architecture offers around savings of 18-39\% in LUTs, 17-38\% in FFs, 25-44\% in DSP48Es, and 20-40\% in BRAM over the Velcro approach for $K < K_{max}$. Further, they offer a 19-40\% reduction in the dynamic power consumption over the Velcro approach for $K < K_{max}$. Using the fixed-point implementation with WL=27, one can achieve up to 83\%, 79\%, 100\%, 100\% savings in the consumption of LUTs, FFs, DSP48Es, and BRAM\_18Ks respectively for $K < K_{max}$. This can be achieved with almost identical performance as that of the SP-FP architecture. With WL=11, further improvement in savings of up can be achieved with a slight degradation in the regret. In terms of the dynamic power consumed, the architectures with fixed-point WLs offer up to 94\% savings. Among SBTS algorithms, the SBTS-ESSR algorithm offers significant savings in resource utilization as well as power consumption. Compared to the UCB algorithm, SBTS-ESSR is computationally efficient, offers lower regret and power consumption. This makes the proposed SBTS-ESSR a superior alternative to the state-of-the-art UCB algorithm for the environment with Bernoulli rewards.
Execution time of the algorithm is an importance-performance metric that depends on efficient implementation and underlining architecture. In Table~\ref{table:latency}, we consider three different configurations obtained by realizing the algorithm using: 1) PS and PL with optimal partitioning, 2) Only PS (ARM + NEON), 3) Only ARM. It can be observed that the first approach offers the lowest execution time due to the parallel execution of the QF function in PL compared to sequential PS execution. Furthermore, the gain improves as $K$ increases. Among various TS algorithms, SBTS-ESSR offers the lowest execution time as expected. In applications like wireless networks, MAB algorithms are realized in upper layers (MAC/Network) i.e. in ARM or other processors while the PHY is present in the SoC. The proposed architecture enables shifting of the MAB algorithms from MAC to PHY layers thereby resulting in an accelerator factor ranging from 465.6-776 for UCB and 2.5-33.6 for TS. For larger $K > 20$, the acceleration factor will be significantly higher. Between UCB and TS algorithms, UCB is faster on ZSoC due to hardware-friendly arithmetic operations compared to PRNG in SBTS but UCB incurs high regret. On the PS-only architectures (i.e. ARM and ARM+NEON), SBTS-ESSR offers the lowest execution time.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Comparison of Execution Time in Milliseconds}
\label{table:latency}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No.}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Algorithm}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Nb}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Precision}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ZSoC\\ (in ms)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PS (ARM)\\ (in ms)\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}PS (ARM+NEON)\\ (in ms)\end{tabular}}} \\ \cline{5-11}
& & & & \textbf{K=\{3,4,5\}} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} \\ \hline \hline
\textbf{1} & \textbf{SBTS} & \textbf{NA} & \textbf{SP-FP} & 12504 & 26758 & 35697 & 44580 & 13060 & 17389 & 21746 \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{SBTS-ES}} & \textbf{20} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{SP-FP}} & 18008 & 35454 & 47267 & 59079 & 6791 & 8981 & 11212 \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-11}
& & \textbf{10} & & 10010 & 25134 & 33509 & 41882 & 6549 & 8730 & 10913 \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{3}} & \multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{SBTS-ESSR}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{20}} & \textbf{SP-FP} & 3.9 & \multirow{3}{*}{38} & \multirow{3}{*}{46} & \multirow{3}{*}{54} & \multirow{3}{*}{15} & \multirow{3}{*}{16} & \multirow{3}{*}{18} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{WL=27} & 1.5 & & & & & & \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{WL=11} & 1.5 & & & & & & \\ \cline{3-11}
& & \textbf{10} & \textbf{SP-FP} & 2.7 & 33 & 40 & 46 & 11 & 13 & 14 \\ \hline \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{4}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{UCB}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{NA}} & \textbf{SP-FP} & 0.1 & \multirow{3}{*}{29} & \multirow{3}{*}{37} & \multirow{3}{*}{47} & \multirow{3}{*}{20} & \multirow{3}{*}{26} & \multirow{3}{*}{33} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{WL=27} & 0.1 & & & & & & \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{WL=11} & 0.1 & & & & & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\section{Reconfigurable and Intelligent MAB (RI-MAB)}
\label{Sec:RIMAB}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Aggregator_Working_2.png}
\caption{Working of the proposed RI-MAB algorithm in an example setting with $K=4$, $N=10000$, $N_{learn}=500$, $A=2$ and randomly generated arm distribution}
\label{fig:agg_working}
\end{figure*}
The SBTS-ESSR algorithm is well-suited only for arm rewards with Bernoulli distribution and hence, it may not outperform the UCB algorithm when arm distribution is unknown and random \cite{mab3}. For example, in wireless Radio, arm i.e. wireless channel distribution is usually Bernoulli at high signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) and Gaussian at medium and low SNRs. In IoT and robotics applications, the type of arm distribution is unknown. Such applications demand architecture which can learn, identify and deploy appropriate MAB algorithm.
Very few works have addressed this problem and \cite{aggr1} is one of the recent works in which the aggregator algorithm selects the arm chosen by one of the candidate MAB algorithms in each time slot. The aim is to identify an optimal algorithm for a given unknown environment and this is achieved by learning from the past performance of various algorithms i.e algorithm exploration-exploitation trade-off in addition to arm exploitation-exploration trade-off. The major problem with \cite{aggr1} is the need for hardware implementation of all candidate MAB algorithms in parallel (referred here as Velcro MAB). Such architecture is area and power inefficient. The proposed RI-MAB algorithm augmented with DPR-based reconfigurable architecture overcomes this problem.
\begin{algorithm}[!b]
\caption{RI-MAB Algorithm}
\label{agg_algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input:} $K$, $N$, $N_{learn}$, $A$
\State \textbf{Initialize:} $\pi_0 = U(\{1,2,..,A\}), e=1, alg=1, X = [1]_{1\times K}, T = [1]_{1\times K}, I_0=K, r=0$
\State \textbf{Output:} \textit{Regret}
\For{$n=1:1:N$}
\If{$n\leq N_{learn}$}
\State $I_n$ = \textbf{ARM\_SEL}($alg,n,I_{n-1},X,T,K$)
\State Receive Reward, $R_n$ = \textbf{Reward}($I_n$) \Comment{Subroutine 2}
\State Update the learning rate, $\eta_n=\sqrt{\log A/(n\times K)}$
\State Compute the unbiased reward using the belief of the selected algorithm,
$\hat{R}_{n}= \frac{R_n}{\pi_{n-1}(alg)}
\State Update the belief of the selected algorithm: $\pi_{n}(alg)=exp(\eta_{n}\hat{R}_{n})\times\pi_{n-1}(alg)$
\State Normalize the belief of all algorithms: $\pi_{n}(i)=\pi_{n}(i)/\sum_{a=1}^2\pi_{n} (alg)$, $i\in\{1,2\}$
\State {$r=r+1$}
\If{{$r==2^e$} }
\State {$r = 0$}
\State $alg = (alg+1)$ \Comment{Switch Algorithm}
\If {$alg>A$}
\State $e=e+1$\Comment{Increase epoch size}
\State $alg=1$ \Comment{Reset to first algorithm}
\EndIf
\EndIf
\Else \Comment{Select algorithm with higher belief}
\State $alg = \argmax \pi_{N_{learn}}-1$
\State $I_n$ = \textbf{ARM\_SEL}($alg,n,I_{n-1},R_{n-1}$)
\State Receive Reward, $R_n$ = \textbf{Reward}($I_n$) \Comment{Subroutine 2}
\EndIf
\State Update $X$ and $T$: $X(I_{n})$ = $X(I_{n})+R_{n}$, $T(I_{n})$ = $T(I_{n})+1$
\EndFor
\State Calculate regret using Eq.~\ref{regret}.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[!b]
\caption*{\textbf{Subroutine 3:} ARM\_SEL (Arm Selection Using Chosen Algorithm)}
\label{amrsel}
\textbf{Input:}~$alg,n,I_{n-1},X,T,K$\\
\textbf{Output:}~$I_n$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\If{$alg==0$} \Comment{UCB Algorithm}
\State $Q(k,n)= \frac{X(k)}{T(k)} + \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \log(n+K)}{T(k)}}$, $\forall k\in \{1,2,..,K\}$
\Else \Comment{SBTS-ESSR Algorithm (Subroutine 1)}
\State Calculate $Q(:,n)$=\textbf{QF\_SBTS\_ESSR}($X$,$T$,$K$,$n$, $I_{n-1}$)
\EndIf
\State Select arm, $I_n = \argmax_k Q(:,n)$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed RI-MAB algorithm is given in Algorithm~\ref{agg_algorithm}.
The number of candidate algorithms, number of arms, and horizon size is $A$, $K$, and $N$, respectively. The RI-MAB algorithm maintains the probability distribution on all candidate algorithms to indicate their optimality. Since all algorithms are equally likely to be optimal at the beginning of each experiment, the prior belief, $\pi_0$, is initialized as uniform distribution (Line 2). To update the belief and identify the optimal algorithm, the RI-MAB algorithm performs epoch-based exploration in the initial $N_{learn}$ time slots (Lines 5-19). In this phase, each algorithm is selected for $2^e$ time slots before incrementing the parameter $e$ by 1 (Line 12-17). This allows a sufficient number of learning samples of each algorithm before finalizing the algorithm for the rest of the horizon i.e. after $N_{learn}$ (Line 20). Such approach allows only one MAB algorithm to be active in hardware in each time slot and increasing length epoch reduces the number of algorithm switching. Even though only one algorithm is active, the parameters, $X$, and $T$, are common across all candidate algorithms which means there is no compromise on arm learning aspects of MAB setup.
During algorithm exploration (Lines 6-18), RI-MAB updates the parameter, $\pi_n$ in each time slot based on the selected algorithm and received reward. Similar to \cite{aggr1}, we obtain the unbiased estimate of received reward using the probability of the arm selection i.e. belief of the selected algorithm (Line 9). Then, the belief of the selected algorithm is updated using the exponential multiplicative factor (Line 10) and learning rate (Line 8) \cite{aggr1}. In the end, the beliefs of all algorithms are normalized.
The functionality of the RI-MAB algorithm is explained using Fig~\ref{fig:agg_working}. In the beginning, the prior belief, $\pi_0=\{0.5,0.5\}$. The algorithm starts by selecting UCB for the first $2^1=2$ slots. It should be noted that we simulate the algorithm with Bernoulli arm rewards for ease of understanding. In slot 1, UCB selects the arm, $I_1=4$ and receives a reward, $R_1=1$. This results in an increase in the belief value of UCB by a factor of $exp(\eta_{1}*1)$. The same happens in slot 2 when the belief of UCB further increases by receiving $R_2=1$ for the selected arm, $I_2=2$. In slots 3 and 4, the algorithm selects SBTS-ESSR, which receives rewards, $R_3=0$ and $R_4=0$ on arms 4 and 2 respectively. Hence, the belief of TS is not updated in both slots (as $exp(\eta_{n}*0)=1$). This is when the parameter $e$ is incremented by 1. Skipping over to slots 19 and 24, the algorithm selects UCB, which receives a reward, $R_{19}=1$ and $R_{24}=1$ respectively, improving the belief of UCB. In slots 128 and $N_{learn}=500$, the selected candidate algorithm, SBTS-ESSR, receives a reward of 1, which improves its belief. In summary, the belief of the selected candidate algorithm increases when it receives a reward, $R_n=1$, and is not updated when $R_n=0$. After slot $N_{learn}=500$, the algorithm finalizes SBTS-ESSR for the rest of the horizon, pertaining to its higher belief in slot $N_{learn}$.
The proposed RI-MAB algorithm is mapped on SoC and the corresponding architecture is shown in Fig.~\ref{main_arch}. Compared to Fig.~\ref{fig:ts_arch}, an additional algorithm selection unit is included in the ARM processor and the QF calculation block is reconfigured via DPR depending on the selected candidate algorithm.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{main_arch.pdf}%
\caption{Proposed DPR-enabled architecture for RI-MAB with six candidate algorithms along with reconfigurable $|\beta|$ and $K$.}
\label{main_arch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{aggr_mu3.pdf}%
\caption{ Average cumulative regret for $\mu_3$ at the end of (a) 20 experiments, and (b) 200 experiments. Final regret at the end of horizon for (c) 20 experiments, and (d) 200 experiments.}
\label{fig:aggr_mu3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{aggr_rand.pdf}
\caption{ Average cumulative regret at the end of 100 independent experiments with randomly chosen arm statistics in (a) Case 1, and (b) Case 2. Final regret at the end of horizon for (c) Case 1, and (d) Case 2.}
\label{fig:aggr_rand}
\end{figure*}
\section{Performance and Complexity Analysis: RI-MAB}
\label{Sec:PRIMAB}
We first begin with the regret comparison of the proposed RI-MAB architecture with the UCB, SBTS-ESSR, and Velcro MAB architectures. To begin with, we consider $N=10000$, $K=8$ and choose $\mu_3$ as the probability distributions. Note that rewards are modeled as Gaussian instead of Bernoulli distribution.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_mu3} (a), we compare the regret of the four algorithms at different instances of the horizon. The regret is averaged over 20 independent experiments. The final regret (i.e. regret at the end of the horizon) for each experiment is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_mu3} (c). In all 20 experiments, SBTS-ESSR offers the lowest regret while UCB incurs the highest regret though both are able to identify the optimal arm. Velcro MAB offers performance closer to SBTS-ESSR in most of the experiments except 16 and 20 where it takes more time to learn TS is better than UCB. On the other hand, RI-MAB selects SBTS-ESSR in all experiments. Despite that, the regret of RI-MAB is higher than Velcro MAB in all experiments except 16 and 30. This happens due to the initial $N_{learn}$ period of exploration to choose between UCB and SBTS-ESSR algorithm. Still, averaged regret of RI-MAB and Velcro-MAB is nearly identical as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_mu3} (a) since regret incurred by Velcro-MAB is very high in experiments 16 and 20. Such high regret events are avoided in the RI-MAB algorithm.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_mu3} (b) and (d), we repeat the above simulations by increasing the number of independent experiments to 200. It can be observed that Velcro MAB and RI-MAB offer lower regret than individual UCB and SBTS-ESSR algorithms. This is because, for experiments 31, 35, 125, 167, 174, 183, SBTS-ESSR fails to identify the optimal arm and hence, incurs huge regret. Also, as expected, UCB incurs slightly higher regret in all experiments. Though Velcro MAB avoids selection of SBTS-ESSR in experiments 31, 35, 125, 167, 174, 183, it wrongly selects UCB in few other experiments (i.e. experiments where the final regret of UCB is same as Velcro MAB). Though RI-MAB incurs higher average regret in experiments where SBTS-ESSR is optimal, it avoids the wrong selection of algorithm as well as optimal arm in the rest of the experiments. It can be observed that Velcro-MAB and RI-MAB offer lower regret than UCB and SBTS-ESSR in some experiments. This happens because learning due to switching between the two algorithms helps to avoid the wrong selection of optimal arm in SBTS-ESSR. These experiments demonstrate the need for careful algorithm switching and selection for a given environment since a single algorithm does not offer optimal performance in all experiments.
\begin{table*}[!b]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of Resource Utilization and Power Consumption}
\label{table:complexity}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Algorithm}} & \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Reconfigurability}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of LUTs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of FFs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of DSPs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{No. of BRAMs}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dynamic Power (W)}}} \\
& & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{} \\ \cline{3-17}
& & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} & \textbf{K=3} & \textbf{K=4} & \textbf{K=5} \\ \hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}RI-MAB,\\ UCB/SBTS-ESSR\\ tunable K $\leq$ $K_{max}$\\ $|\beta|=20$\end{tabular}}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ SP-FP\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7664\\ \textbf{-65\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}9866\\ \textbf{-55\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}12068\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7060\\ \textbf{-59\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}9093\\ \textbf{-48\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}11126\\ \textbf{-36\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}51\\ \textbf{-56\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}68\\ \textbf{-41\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}85\\ \textbf{-27\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}27\\ \textbf{-49\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}36\\ \textbf{-32\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}45\\ \textbf{-15\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.127\\ \textbf{-65\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.165\\ \textbf{-54\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.203\\ \textbf{-44\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-17}
& \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=27\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5761\\ \textbf{-74\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}7375\\ \textbf{-66\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}8989\\ \textbf{-59\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4390\\ \textbf{-75\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5574\\ \textbf{-68\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}6758\\ \textbf{-61\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3\\ \textbf{-95\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5\\ \textbf{-91\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.019\\ \textbf{-95\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.023\\ \textbf{-94\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.027\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-17}
& \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}DPR\\ WL=11\end{tabular}} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2425\\ \textbf{-89\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2927\\ \textbf{-87\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3429\\ \textbf{-84\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2443\\ \textbf{-86\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}2978\\ \textbf{-83\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3513\\ \textbf{-80\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0\\ \textbf{-100\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}3\\ \textbf{-95\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}4\\ \textbf{-93\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}5\\ \textbf{-91\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.013\\ \textbf{-97\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.015\\ \textbf{-96\%}\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}0.017\\ \textbf{-95\%}\end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-17}
& \textbf{Velcro (SP-FP)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{21563} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{17201} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{115} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{52.5} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{0.358} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
Next, we select the arm statistics randomly in each of the experiments instead of fixed $\mu_3$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_mu3}. We consider $N=10000$, $K=8$ and two types of arm statistics such that the minimum difference between two arm statistics is 1) 0.07 (Case 1), and 2) 0.025 (Case 2). Corresponding results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_rand} (a)-(d). It can be observed that SBTS-ESSR offers significantly higher regret in almost 25\% of the experiments. Though UCB offers an overall higher average regret, it successfully identifies optimal arm in all experiments leading to better performance than SBTS-ESSR. Proposed RI-MAB offers similar performance as UCB but with lower average regret. On the other hand, Velcro UCB fails to identify the appropriate algorithm and hence, the optimal arm in some experiments while in other experiments it offers lower regret than RI-MAB. On average, both offer nearly identical average regret but RI-MAB eliminates high regret events.
To gain further insights into the regret performance, we study various statistical properties of the final regret over 100 experiments in Fig.~\ref{fig:aggr_stats}. Using the Boxplot feature in Matlab, we consider median (central red line), and percentile (bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively). The outliers are plotted individually using the '+' symbol. It can be observed that the SBTS-ESSR and Velco-MAB have large size boxes indicating large variation in regret performance and the number of outliers are more indicating wrong selection of algorithm or arm. On the other hand, UCB and RI-MAB guarantee the selection of optimal arm in all experiments and RI-MAB offers lower regret between them.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{aggr_rand_box.pdf}%
\caption{ Statistical properties of the final regret of the different algorithms at the end of 100 independent experiments with randomly chosen arm statistics in (a) Case 1, and (b) Case 2.}
\label{fig:aggr_stats}
\end{figure}
Next, we compare the resource utilization and power consumption of RI-MAB and Velcro-MAB architectures in Table~\ref{table:complexity}. Both architectures are on-the-fly reconfigurable in terms of the number of arms and type of the algorithm. Proposed RI-MAB with SP-FP WL architecture offers around 44-65\%, 36-59\%, 27-56\% and 15-49\% savings in LUTs, FFs, DSPs, and BRAMs over Velcro-MAB architecture. Similarly, it offers 44-65\% lower dynamic power consumption. The savings improve further when the WL is optimized via fixed-point representation. With the increase in the number of arms (i.e. for $K_{max} > 20$, the proposed architecture and DPR approach further improvements in resource utilization. In addition, savings will increase further with the increase in the number of candidate algorithms.
\section{Conclusions and Future Works}
\label{Sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we present synthesizable and reconfigurable architecture of the Thompson Sampling (TS) multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithm for arms with Bernoulli distribution. The functional correctness, execution time, resource, and power consumption comparisons demonstrate its superiority over the upper confidence bound (UCB) algorithm. For an environment with unknown arm distribution, a reconfigurable and intelligent MAB (RI-MAB) algorithm is proposed along with its architecture. The RI-MAB offers significant savings in resources and power consumption without compromising on the regret performance. In the future, we plan to integrate the proposed RI-MAB with wireless radio and analyze the gain in throughput using real radio signals. Other possibilities include the extension of the RI-MAB architecture for an environment where the number of arms, as well as arm statistics, are not fixed i.e. the non-stationary environment in which an optimal arm changes over time.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
We present a two-step approach to leverage the structural information from the auxiliary information and then integrate this structural information into the self-supervised learning process. The first step (Section~\ref{subsec:cluster_construct}) clusters data according to auxiliary information. And we consider discrete attributes and data hierarchy as the auxiliary information.
The second step (Section~\ref{subsec:cl-infonce}) presents the clustering InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE) objective, a contrastive-learning-based approach, to leverage the constructed clusters.
Last, in Section~\ref{subsec:impli_inves}, we discuss the implications and provide the investigations for our approach.
For notations, we use the upper case (e.g., $X$) letter to denote the random variable and the lower case (e.g., $x$) to denote the outcome from the random variable.
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Cluster Construction for Discrete Attributes and Data Hierarchy Information}
\label{subsec:cluster_construct}
This sub-Section discusses how we construct data clusters according to auxiliary information. And in this paper, we consider the data attributes and data hierarchy information as the auxiliary information. Note that the cluster constructions may differ with different types of auxiliary information. Below, we present our specific ways to determine data clusters according to our selected types of auxiliary information. We focus on providing overviews of our method, and more details can be found in our released code\footnote{Anonymous Link.}. We provide the illustration in Figure~\ref{fig:cluster_construction}.
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Clustering according to Discrete Attributes.} We consider the discrete attributes as the first type of auxiliary information. An example of such auxiliary information is binary indicators of attributes, such as ``short/long hair'', ``with/without sunglasses'' or ``short/long sleeves'', for human photos. We construct the clusters such that data within each cluster will have the same values for a set of attributes. In our running example, if picking the set of attributes being hair and sunglasses, the human photos having both the ``long hair'' and ``with sunglasses'' will form a cluster. Then, how we determine the set of attributes? First, we rank each attribute according to its entropy in the dataset. Note that if an attribute has high entropy, it means this attribute is distributed diversely. Then, we select the attributes with top-$k$ highest entropy, where $k$ is a hyper-parameter.
\paragraph{Clustering according to Hierarchy Information.} As the second type of auxiliary information, we consider hierarchy information - more specifically, the WordNet hierarchy~\citep{miller1995wordnet}. The WordNet hierarchy describes the hierarchy information for data labels. For instance, assuming ``human'' and ``mouse'' as the labels, WordNet hierarchy suggests 1) ``mammal'' is the parent of ``human'' and ``mouse''; and 2) ``vertebrate'' is the parent of ``mammal''. In this running example, ``mammal'' and ``vertebrate'' can be seen as the coarse labels of data, and we construct the clusters such that data within each cluster will have the same coarse label. Then, how we choose the coarse labels? We first represent the WordNet hierarchy into a tree structure (each children node has only one parent node).
Then, we choose the coarse labels to be the nodes in the level $l$ in the WordNet tree hierarchy (the root node is level $1$). $l$ is a hyper-parameter.
\input{fig_tex/cluster_construction}
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Clustering InfoNCE Objective}
\label{subsec:cl-infonce}
So far, we see how we determine the data clusters from discrete data attributes or data hierarchy information (as the auxiliary information). Now, we shall show how we integrate this clustering information into the self-supervised learning process. We note that most of the self-supervised learning approaches present to learn representations invariant to data augmentations~\citep{chen2020simple,caron2020unsupervised}. And on this basis, we present to learn representations that will also be similar for data with the same cluster assignment. To this end, we introduce the clustering InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE) objective, which is inspired by the InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation} (which is widely used in conventional self-supervised representation learning). For a better presentation flow, we leave the discussion of InfoNCE later (in Section~\ref{subsec:impli_inves}) but do not present it as a technical background first. We use the alphabets $X$ and $Y$ to denote the representations from augmented data:
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{$X={\rm Feature\_Encoder\Big(Augmentation\_1\big(Data\_1\big)\Big)}\,\,{\rm and}\,\,Y={\rm Feature\_Encoder\Big(Augmentation\_2\big(Data\_2\big)\Big)}$},
\end{equation*}
and the alphabet $Z$ to denote the constructed clusters.
Then, we formulate Cl-InfoNCE as
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{proposition}[Clustering-based InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE)]
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big],
\label{eq:cl_infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\vspace{-1mm}
where $f(x,y)$ is any function that returns a scalar from the input $(x,y)$. As suggested by prior work~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}, we choose $f(x,y) = {\rm cosine}\big(g(x),g(y)\big) / \tau$ to be the cosine similarity between non-linear projected $g(x)$ and $g(y)$. $g(\cdot)$ is a neural network (also known as the projection head~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}) and $\tau$ is the temperature hyper-parameter. $\{(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ are $n$ independent copies of $(x,y)\sim \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]$, where it first samples a cluster $z \sim P_Z$ and then samples $(x,y)$ pair with $x \sim P_{X|z}$ and $y \sim P_{Y|z}$. Furthermore, we call $(x_i,y_i)$ as the positively-paired data ($x_i$ and $y_i$ have the same cluster assignment) and $(x_i,y_j)$ ($i\neq j$) as the negatively-paired data ($x_i$ and $y_j$ have independent cluster assignment). Note that, in practice, the expectation in eq.~\eqref{eq:cl_infonce} is replaced by the empirical mean of a batch of samples.
Our objective is learning the representations $X$ and $Y$ (by updating the parameters in the feature encoder) to maximize Cl-InfoNCE. At a colloquial level, the maximization pulls towards the representations of the augmented data within the same cluster and push away the representations of the augmented data from different clusters. Theoretically, we present the following:
\begin{theorem}[informal, Cl-InfoNCE maximization learns to include the clustering information]
\vspace{-1.5mm}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& {\rm Cl-InfoNCE} \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z) \\
{\rm and}\,\,& {\rm the\,\,equality\,\,holds\,\,only\,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0,
\end{split}
\label{eq:max_resulting_repre}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{theo:max_resulting_repre}
\end{theorem}
where $H(Z)$ is the entropy of $Z$ and $H(Z|X)$ (or $H(Z|Y)$) are the conditional entropy of $Z$ given $X$ (or $Y$). Please find detailed derivations and proofs in Appendix.
The theorem suggests that Cl-InfoNCE has an upper bound $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$, which measures the distribution divergence between the product of clustering-conditional marginal distributions (i.e., $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$) and the product of marginal distributions (i.e., $P_{X}P_{Y}$). We give an intuition for $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$: if $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$ is high, then we can easily tell whether $(x,y)$ have the same cluster assignment or not. The theorem also suggests that maximizing Cl-InfoNCE results in the representations $X$ and $Y$ including the clustering information $Z$ ($\because H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0$).
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Implications and Investigations}
\label{subsec:impli_inves}
\paragraph{Goodness of the Learned Representations.}
In Theorem~\ref{theo:max_resulting_repre}, we show that maximizing Cl-InfoNCE learns the representations ($X$ and $Y$) to include the clustering ($Z$) information. Therefore, to characterize how good is the learned representations by maximizing Cl-InfoNCE, we can instead study the relations between $Z$ and the downstream labels (denoting by $T$). In particular, we can use information-theoretical metrics such as the mutual information $I(Z;T)$ and the conditional entropy $H(Z|T)$ to characterize the goodness of the learned representations. $I(Z;T)$ measures how relevant the clusters and the labels, and $H(Z|T)$ measures how much redundant information in the clusters that are irrelevant to the labels.
For instance, we can expect good downstream performance for our auxiliary-information-infused representations when having high mutual information and low conditional entropy between the auxiliary-information-determined clusters and the labels.
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Generalization of Recent Self-supervised and Supervised Contrastive Approaches.} Cl-InfoNCE (eq.~\eqref{eq:cl_infonce}) serves as an objective that generalizes to different levels of supervision according to how we construct the clusters ($Z$). When $Z=$ instance id (i.e., each cluster only contains an instance), $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$ specializes to $P_{XY}$ and Cl-InfoNCE specializes to the InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation}, which aims to learn similar representations for augmented variants of the same data and dissimilar representations for different data. InfoNCE is the most popular used self-supervised contrastive learning objective~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum,tsai2021multiview}. When $Z=$ downstream labels, Cl-InfoNCE specializes to the objective described in {\em Supervised Contrastive Learning}~\citep{khosla2020supervised}, which aims to learn similar representations for data that are from the same downstream labels and vice versa. In our paper, the clusters $Z$ are determined by the auxiliary information, and we aim to learn similar representations for data sharing the same auxiliary information and vice versa. This process can be understood as weakly supervised contrastive learning. To conclude, Cl-InfoNCE is a clustering-based contrastive learning objective. By differing its cluster construction, Cl-InfoNCE interpolates among unsupervised, weakly supervised, and supervised representation learning.
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Advantages over Learning to Predict the Clusters Assignments.} An alternative way to leverage the data clustering information is learning to predict the cluster assignment ($Z$) from the representations ($X$ and $Y$). An example is learning to predict the hashtags for Instagram images~\citep{mahajan2018exploring}, where the author shows that this prediction process serves as a good pre-training step. Nonetheless, comparing to our presented Cl-InfoNCE objective, learning to predict the cluster assignment requires building an additional classifier between the representations and the cluster. It will be non-ideal and inefficient to optimize this classifier when having a large number of clusters. The reason is that the number of the classifier's parameters is proportional to the number of clusters. An example is that, when $Z=$ instance id, the number of the clusters will be the total number of data, which can be billions. Learning to predict the clustering assignment may work poorly under this case, while InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE when $Z=$ instance id) can reach a good performance~\citep{chen2020simple}. Last, the most used objective for learning to predict the clusters is the cross-entropy loss. And evidences~\citep{khosla2020supervised} show that, compared to the cross-entropy loss, the contrastive objective (e.g., our presented Cl-InfoNCE) is more robust to natural corruptions of data and stable to hyper-parameters and optimizers settings.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Self-supervised learning (SSL) considers the learning objectives that use data's self-information but not labels, where the labels are often expensive to collect. As a result, SSL empowers us to leverage a large amount of unlabeled data to learn good representations, and its applications span computer vision~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}, natural language processing~\citep{peters2018deep,devlin2018bert} and speech processing~\citep{schneider2019wav2vec,baevski2020wav2vec}. In addition to labels, we may sometimes access additional sources as auxiliary information for data, such as additional attributes information or data hierarchy information. The auxiliary information often naturally comes with the data, and hence it is cheaper to collect than labels. For example, Instagram images contain a mass amount of hashtags as additional attributes information. Nonetheless, the auxiliary information is often noisy. Hence, it raises a research challenge of effectively leveraging useful information from the auxiliary information in the SSL process.
We argue that a form of the valuable information provided by the auxiliary information is its implied clustering information of data. For example, we can expect an Instagram image to be semantically more similar to the image with the same hashtags than the image with different hashtags. Hence, our first step for leveraging the auxiliary information in SSL is to construct auxiliary-information-determined clusters. Specifically, we build data clusters such that the data from the same cluster have similar auxiliary information, such as having the same data attributes or belonging to the same data hierarchy. Then, our second step is to minimize the intra-cluster difference for the self-supervised learned representations. Particularly, we present the clustering InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE) objective to learn similar representations for augmented variants of data within the same cluster and dissimilar representations for data from different clusters. To conclude, the presented two-step approach leverages the structural information from the auxiliary information, then integrating the structural information into the SSL process. See Figure~\ref{fig:illus} for an overview of the paper.
\input{fig_tex/illus}
We highlight several properties of our approach.
First, we characterize the goodness of the Cl-InfoNCE-learned representations via the statistical relationships between the constructed clusters and the downstream labels. A resulting implication is that we can expect better downstream performance for our auxiliary-information-infused self-supervised representations when having i) higher mutual information between the labels and the auxiliary-information-determined clusters and ii) lower conditional entropy of the clusters given the labels. Second, Cl-InfoNCE generalizes recent contrastive learning objectives by changing the way to construct the clusters. In particular, when each cluster contains only one data, Cl-InfoNCE specializes in conventional self-supervised contrastive objective (e.g., the InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation}). When the clusters are labels, Cl-InfoNCE specializes in supervised contrastive objective (e.g., the objective considered by~\citet{khosla2020supervised}). The generalization implies that our approach (auxiliary-information-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE) works between conventional self-supervised and supervised representation learning.
Third, Cl-InfoNCE is a computationally efficient method as it can scale up even with many clusters. The reason is that Cl-InfoNCE is a contrastive-based approach, which is non-parametric. Particularly, the number of the parameters in Cl-InfoNCE is independent of the number of clusters.
We conduct experiments on learning visual representations using UT-zappos50K~\citep{yu2014fine}, CUB-200-2011~\citep{wah2011caltech}, Wider Attribute~\citep{li2016human} and ImageNet-100~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet} datasets. For the first set of experiments, we focus on the analysis of Cl-InfoNCE to study how well it works with unsupervised constructed clusters (K-means clusters). We find it achieves better performance comparing to the clustering-based self-supervised learning approaches, such as the Prototypical Contrastive Learning (PCL)~\citep{li2020prototypical} method. The result suggests that the K-means method + Cl-InfoNCE can be a strong baseline for the conventional self-supervised learning setting. For the second set of experiments, we like to see how much improvement can the auxiliary information bring to us. We consider the discrete attributes and the WordNet hierarchy information~\citep{miller1995wordnet} as the auxiliary information. We show that the auxiliary-information-infused self-supervised representations, compared to conventional self-supervised representation, have a much better performance on downstream tasks. We also find that Cl-InfoNCE has a better performance than the baseline - predicting the clustering assignments with cross-entropy loss.
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
In this section, we provide theoretical analysis on the presented Cl-InfoNCE objective. We recall the proposition of Cl-InfoNCE and our presented theorem:
\begin{proposition}[Clustering-based InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE), restating Proposition 3.1 in the main text]
\begin{equation*}
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big],
\end{equation*}
\label{prop:cl-infonce-2}
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}[informal, Cl-InfoNCE maximization learns to include the clustering information, restating Theorem 3.2 in the main text]
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& {\rm Cl-InfoNCE} \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z) \\
{\rm and}\,\,& {\rm the\,\,equality\,\,holds\,\,only\,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\label{theo:max_resulting_repre_2}
\end{theorem}
Our goal is to prove Theorem~\ref{theo:max_resulting_repre_2}. For a better presentation flow, we split the proof into three parts:
\begin{itemize}
\item Proving ${\rm Cl-InfoNCE} \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$ in Section~\ref{subsec:proof_a}
\item Proving $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z)$ in Section~\ref{subsec:proof_b}
\item Proving ${\rm Cl-InfoNCE} {\rm \,\,maximizes\,\,at\,\,} H(Z) {\rm \,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0$ in Section~\ref{subsec:proof_c}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Part I - Proving ${\rm Cl-InfoNCE} \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$}
\label{subsec:proof_a}
The proof requires the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Theorem 1 by~\citet{song2020multi}] Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be the sample spaces for $X$ and $Y$, $f$ be any function: $(\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be the probability measures on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$. Then,
$$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
$$
\label{lemm:infonce_like}
\end{lemma}
\iffalse
\begin{lemma}[\citet{nguyen2010estimating}] Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be the sample spaces for $X$ and $Y$, $f$ be any function: $(\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be the probability measures on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$. Then,
$$
D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim\mathcal{P}} [f(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f(x,y)}] + 1.
$$
\begin{proof}
The second-order functional derivative of the objective is $-e^{f(x,y)}\cdot d\mathcal{Q}$, which is always negative. The negative second-order functional derivative implies the objective has a supreme value.
Then, take the first-order functional derivative and set it to zero:
\begin{equation*}
d \mathcal{P} - e^{f(x,y)}\cdot d \mathcal{Q} = 0.
\end{equation*}
We then get optimal $f^*(x,y) = {\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}$. Plug in $f^*(x,y)$ into the objective, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [f^*(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f^*(x,y)}] + 1 = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [{\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}] = D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:kl}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
$
\begin{proof}
From Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl}, $\forall f$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{split}
D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) & = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) \Bigg]
\\
& \geq \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[ \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}} \Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{Q}} \Big[ \frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] + 1 \Bigg] \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[ \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}} \Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] - 1 + 1 \Bigg] \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The first line comes from the fact that $D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big)$ is a constant. The second line comes from Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl}. The third line comes from the fact that $(x, y_1)$ and $(x, y_{2:n})$ are interchangeable when they are all sampled from $\mathcal{Q}$.
To conclude, since the inequality works for all $f$, and hence the supreme is also less than $D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big)$.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:infonce_like}
\end{lemma}
Note that Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like} does not require $n \rightarrow \infty$, which is a much more practical setting compared to the analysis made only when $n\rightarrow \infty$. And a remark is that the equality holds in Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like} when $n\rightarrow \infty$.
\fi
Now, we are ready to prove the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}[Proof Part I]
$
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big).
$
\begin{proof}
By defining $\mathcal{P} = \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$ and $\mathcal{Q} = P_XP_Y$, we have
$$
\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] = \mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big].
$$
Plug in this result into Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like} and we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:part_a}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Part II - Proving $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z)$}
\label{subsec:proof_b}
The proof requires the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
$
D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq {\rm min}\,\Big\{{\rm MI}(Z;X), {\rm MI}(Z;Y)\Big\}.
$
\begin{proof}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& {\rm MI}(Z;X) - D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{p(x|z)}{p(x)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}z - \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z')p(x|z')p(y|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x)p(y)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{p(x|z)}{p(x)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}z - \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z'|y)p(x|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{p(x|z)}{\int_{z'}p(z'|y)p(x|z'){\rm d}z'}{\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & - \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z'|y)p(x|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x|z)}{\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
\geq & - \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,\Bigg(\frac{\int_{z'}p(z'|y)p(x|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x|z)} - 1\Bigg){\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \,\,\Big(\because {\rm log}\,t \leq t-1 \Big) \\
= &\,\, 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Hence, ${\rm MI}(Z;X) \geq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$. Likewise, ${\rm MI}(Z;Y) \geq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$. We complete the proof by combining the two results.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:less_than_mi}
\end{lemma}
Now, we are ready to prove the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}[Proof Part II]
$D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z).$
\begin{proof}
Combining Lemma~\ref{lemm:less_than_mi} and the fact that ${\rm min}\,\Big\{{\rm MI}(Z;X), {\rm MI}(Z;Y)\Big\} \leq H(Z)$, we complete the proof. Note that we consider $Z$ as the clustering assignment, which is discrete but not continuous. And the inequality holds for the discrete $Z$, but may not hold for the continuous $Z$.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:part_b}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Part III - Proving ${\rm Cl-InfoNCE} {\rm \,\,maximizes\,\,at\,\,} H(Z) {\rm \,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0$}
\label{subsec:proof_c}
We directly provide the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}[Proof Part III]
${\rm Cl-InfoNCE} {\rm \,\,max.\,\,at\,\,} H(Z) {\rm \,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0.$
\begin{proof}
When $H(Z|Y) = 0$, $p(Z|Y=y)$ is Dirac. The objective
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z')p(x|z')p(y|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x)p(y)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z'|y)p(x|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{\int_{z'}p(z')p(x|z')p(y|z'){\rm d}z'}{p(x)p(y)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z \\
= & \int_z p(z) \int_x p(x|z) \int_y p(y|z) \,\,{\rm log}\,\,\frac{p(x|z)}{p(x)} {\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z = {\rm MI}\Big( Z;X\Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The second-last equality comes with the fact that: when $p(Z|Y=y)$ is Dirac, $p(z'|y) = 1 \,\,\forall z' = z$ and $p(z'|y) = 0 \,\,\forall z' \neq z$. Combining with the fact that ${\rm MI}\Big( Z;X\Big) = H(Z)$ when $H(Z|X)=0$, we know
$D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) = H(Z) $ when $H(Z|X)=H(Z|Y)=0$.
Furthermore, by Lemma~\ref{lemm:part_a} and Lemma~\ref{lemm:part_b}, we complete the proof.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:part_c}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Bringing Everything Together}
We bring Lemmas~\ref{lemm:part_a},~\ref{lemm:part_b}, and~\ref{lemm:part_c} together and complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:max_resulting_repre_2}.
\section{Algorithms}
In this section, we provide algorithms for our experiments. We consider two sets of the experiments. The first one is K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE (see Section 4.3 in the main text), where the clusters involved in Cl-InfoNCE are iteratively obtained via K-means clustering on top of data representations. The second one is auxiliary-information-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE (see Section 4.4 and 4.5 in the main text), where the clusters involved in Cl-InfoNCE are pre-determined accordingly to data attributes (see Section 4.4) or data hierarchy information (see Section 4.5).
\paragraph{K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
We present here the algorithm for K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE. At each iteration in our algorithm, we perform K-means Clustering algorithm on top of data representations for obtaining cluster assignments. The cluster assignment will then be used in our Cl-InfoNCE objective.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Pretrained Encoder $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$}
$f_{\theta}(\cdot)\leftarrow \text{Base Encoder Network}$\;
Aug $(\cdot)\leftarrow$ Obtaining Two Variants of Augmented Data via Augmentation Functions\;
Embedding $\leftarrow$ Gathering data representations by passing data through $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$\;
Clusters $\leftarrow$\textbf{K-means-clustering}(Embedding)\;
\For {epoch in 1,2,...,N}{
\For{batch in 1,2,...,M}{
data1, data2 $\leftarrow$ Aug(data\_batch)\;
feature1, feature2 $\leftarrow$ $f_{\theta}$(data1), $f_{\theta}$(data2)\;
$L_{\text{Cl-infoNCE}}\leftarrow$ Cl-InfoNCE(feature1, feature2, Clusters)\;
$f_{\theta} \leftarrow f_{\theta} - lr * \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}L_{\text{Cl-infoNCE}}$\;
}
Embedding $\leftarrow$ gather embeddings for all data through $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$\;
Clusters $\leftarrow$\textbf{K-means-clustering}(Embedding)\;
}
\caption{K-means Clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Auxiliary information determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
We present the algorithm to combine auxiliary-information-determined clusters with Cl-InfoNCE. We select data attributes or data hierarchy information as the auxiliary information, and we present their clustering determining steps in Section 3.1 in the main text.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Pretrained Encoder $f_{\theta}(\cdot)$}
$f_{\theta}(\cdot)\leftarrow \text{Base Encoder Network}$\;
Aug $(\cdot)\leftarrow$ Obtaining Two Variants of Augmented Data via Augmentation Functions\;
Clusters $\leftarrow$Pre-determining Data Clusters from \textbf{Auxiliary Information}\;
\For {epoch in 1,2,...,N}{
\For{batch in 1,2,...,M}{
data1, data2 $\leftarrow$ Aug(data\_batch)\;
feature1, feature2 $\leftarrow$ $f_{\theta}$(data1), $f_{\theta}$(data2)\;
$L_{\text{Cl-infoNCE}}\leftarrow$ Cl-InfoNCE(feature1, feature2, Clusters)\;
$f_{\theta} \leftarrow f_{\theta} - lr * \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}L_{\text{Cl-infoNCE}}$\;
}
}
\caption{Pre-Determined Clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experimental details}
The following content describes our experiments settings in details. For reference, our code is avaiable at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/README.md}.
\subsection{UT-Zappos50K}
The following section describes the experiments we performed on UT-Zappos50K dataset in Section 4 in the main text.
\paragraph{Accessiblity}
The dataset is attributed to \citep{yu2014fine} and available at the link: \url{http://vision.cs.utexas.edu/projects/finegrained/utzap50k}. The dataset is for non-commercial use only.
\paragraph{Data Processing}
The dataset contains images of shoe from Zappos.com. We rescale the images to $32\times 32$. The official dataset has 4 large categories following 21 sub-categories. We utilize the 21 subcategories for all our classification tasks. The dataset comes with 7 attributes as auxiliary information. We binarize the 7 discrete attributes into 126 binary attributes. We rank the binarized attributes based on their entropy and use the top-$k$ binary attributes to form clusters. Note that different $k$ result in different data clusters (see Figure 5 (a) in the main text).
\textit{Training and Test Split}: We randomly split train-validation images by $7:3$ ratio, resulting in $35,017$ train data and $15,008$ validation dataset.
\paragraph{Network Design}
We use ResNet-50 architecture to serve as a backbone for encoder. To compensate the 32x32 image size, we change the first 7x7 2D convolution to 3x3 2D convolution and remove the first max pooling layer in the normal ResNet-50 (See code for detail). This allows finer grain of information processing. After using the modified ResNet-50 as encoder, we include a 2048-2048-128 Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) as the projection head \Big(i.e., $g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot, \cdot)$ equation (1) in the main text\Big) for Cl-InfoNCE. During evaluation, we discard the projection head and train a linear layer on top of the encoder's output. For both K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE and auxiliary-information-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE, we adopt the same network architecture, including the same encoder, the same MLP projection head and the same linear evaluation protocol. In the K-means + Cl-InfoNCE settings, the number of the K-means clusters is $1,000$. Kmeans clustering is performed every epoch during training. We find performing Kmeans for every epoch benefits the performance. For fair comparsion, we use the same network architecture and cluster number for PCL.
\paragraph{Optimization}
We choose SGD with momentum of $0.95$ for optimizer with a weight decay of $0.0001$ to prevent network over-fitting. To allow stable training, we employ a linear warm-up and cosine decay scheduler for learning rate. For experiments shown in Figure 5 (a) in the main text, the learning rate is set to be $0.17$ and the temperature is chosen to be $0.07$ in Cl-InfoNCE. And for experiments shown in Figure 4 in the main text, learning rate is set to be $0.1$ and the temperature is chosen to be $0.1$ in Cl-InfoNCE.
\paragraph{Computational Resource}
We conduct experiments on machines with 4 NVIDIA Tesla P100. It takes about 16 hours to run 1000 epochs of training with batch size 128 for both auxiliary information aided and unsupervised Cl-InfoNCE.
\subsection{Wider Attributes}
The following section describes the experiments we performed on Wider Attributes dataset in Section 4 in the main text.
\paragraph{Accessiblity}
The dataset is credited to \citep{li2016human} and can be downloaded from the link: \url{http://mmlab.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/projects/WIDERAttribute.html}. The dataset is for public and non-commercial usage.
\paragraph{Data Processing}
The dataset contains $13,789$ images with multiple semantic bounding boxes attached to each image. Each bounding is annotated with $14$ binary attributes, and different bounding boxes in an image may have different attributes. Here, we perform the OR operation among the attributes in the bounding boxes in an image. Hence, each image is linked to $14$ binary attributes. We rank the 14 attributes by their entropy and use the top-$k$ of them when performing experiments in Figure 5 (b) in the main text. We consider a classification task consisting of $30$ scene categories.
\textit{Training and Test Split}: The dataset comes with its training, validation, and test split. Due to a small number of data, we combine the original training and validation set as our training set and use the original test set as our validation set. The resulting training set contains $6,871$ images and the validation set contains $6,918$ images.
\paragraph{Computational Resource}
To speed up computation, on Wider Attribute dataset we use a batch size of $40$, resulting in 16-hour computation in a single NVIDIA Tesla P100 GPU for $1,000$ epochs training.
\paragraph{Network Design and Optimization}
We use ResNet-50 architecture as an encoder for Wider Attributed dataset. We choose 2048-2048-128 MLP as the projection head \Big(i.e., $g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot, \cdot)$ equation (1) in the main text\Big) for Cl-InfoNCE. The MLP projection head is discarded during the linear evaluation protocol. Particularly, during the linear evaluation protocol, the encoder is frozen and a linear layer on top of the encoder is fine-tuned with downstream labels. For Kmeans + Cl-InfoNCE and Auxiliary information + Cl-InfoNCE, we consider the same architectures for the encoder, the MLP head and the linear evaluation classifier. For K-means + Cl-InfoNCE, we consider $1,000$ K-means clusters. For fair comparsion, the same network architecture and cluster number is used for experiments with PCL.
For Optimization, we use SGD with momentum of $0.95$. Additionally, $0.0001$ weight decay is adopted in the network to prevent over-fitting. We use a learning rate of $0.1$ and temperature of $0.1$ in Cl-InfoNCE for all experiments. A linear warm-up following a cosine decay is used for the learning rate scheduling, providing a more stable learning process.
\subsection{CUB-200-2011}
The following section describes the experiments we performed on CUB-200-2011 dataset in Section 4 in the main text.
\paragraph{Accessiblity}
CUB-200-2011 is created by \citet{wah2011caltech} and is a fine-grained dataset for bird species. It can be downloaded from the link: \url{http://www.vision.caltech.edu/visipedia/CUB-200-2011.html}. The usage is restricted to non-commercial research and educational purposes.
\paragraph{Data Processing}
The original dataset contains $200$ birds categories over $11,788$ images with $312$ binary attributes attached to each image. We utilize those attributes and rank them based on their entropy. In Figure 5 (c), we use the top-$k$ of those attributes to constrcut clusters with which we perform in Cl-InfoNCE. The image is rescaled to $224\times 224$.
\textit{Train Test Split}:
We follow the original train-validation split, resulting in $5,994$ train images and $5,794$ validation images.
\paragraph{Computational Resource}
It takes about 8 hours to train for 1000 epochs with 128 batch size on 4 NVIDIA Tesla P100 GPUs.
\paragraph{Network Design and Optimization}
We choose ResNet-50 for CUB-200-2011 as the encoder. After extracting features from the encoder, a 2048-2048-128 MLP projection head \Big(i.e., $g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot, \cdot)$ equation (1) in the main text\Big) is used for Cl-InfoNCE. During the linear evaluation protocal, the MLP projection head is removed and the features extracted from the pre-trained encoder is fed into a linear classifier layer. The linear classifier layer is fine-tuned with the downstream labels. The network architectures remain the same for both K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE and auxiliary-information-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE settings. In the K-means clusters + Cl-InfoNCE settings, we consider $1,000$ K-means clusters. For fair comparsion, the same network architecture and cluster number is used for experiments with PCL.
SGD with momentum of $0.95$ is used during the optimization. We select a linear warm-up following a cosine decay learning rate scheduler. The peak learning rate is chosen to be $0.1$ and the temperature is set to be $0.1$ for both K-means + Cl-InfoNCE and Auxiliary information + Cl-InfoNCE settings.
\subsection{ImageNet-100}
The following section describes the experiments we performed on ImageNet-100 dataset in Section 4 in the main text.
\paragraph{Accessibility}
This dataset is a subset of ImageNet-1K dataset, which comes from the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) 2012-2017 \citep{russakovsky2015imagenet}. ILSVRC is for non-commercial research and educational purposes and we refer to the ImageNet official site for more information: \url{https://www.image-net.org/download.php}.
\paragraph{Data Processing}
In the Section 4.5 in the main text, we select $100$ classes from ImageNet-1K to conduct experiments (the selected categories can be found in \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/data_processing/imagenet100/selected_100_classes.txt}). We also conduct a slight pre-processing (via pruning a small number of edges in the WordNet graph) on the WordNet hierarchy structure to ensure it admits a tree structure. Specifically, each of the selected categories and their ancestors only have one path to the root. We refer the pruning procedure in \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/data_processing/imagenet100/hierarchy_processing/imagenet_hierarchy.py} (line 222 to 251).
We cluster data according to their common ancestor in the pruned tree structure and determine the level $l$ of each cluster by the step needed to traverse from root to that node in the pruned tree. Therefore, the larger the $l$, the closer the common ancestor is to the real class labels, hence more accurate clusters will be formed. Particularly, the real class labels is at level $14$.
\textit{Training and Test Split}:
Please refer to the following file for the training and validation split.
\begin{itemize}
\item training: \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/data_processing/imagenet100/hier/meta_data_train.csv}
\item validation: \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/data_processing/imagenet100/hier/meta_data_val.csv}
\end{itemize}
The training split contains $128,783$ images and the test split contains $5,000$ images. The images are rescaled to size $224\times 224$.
\paragraph{Computational Resource}
It takes $48$-hour training for $200$ epochs with batch size $128$ using $4$ NVIDIA Tesla P100 machines. All the experiments on ImageNet-100 is trained with the same batch size and number of epochs.
\paragraph{Network Design and Optimization Hyper-parameters}
We use conventional ResNet-50 as the backbone for the encoder. 2048-2048-128 MLP layer and $l2$ normalization layer is used after the encoder during training and discarded in the linear evaluation protocal. We maintain the same architecture for Kmeans + Cl-InfoNCE and auxiliary information aided Cl-InfoNCE. For Kmeans + Cl-InfoNCE, we choose 2500 as the cluster number. For fair comparsion, the same network architecture and cluster number is used for experiments with PCL. The Optimizer is SGD with $0.95$ momentum. For K-means + Cl-InfoNCE used in Figure 4 in the main text, we use the learning rate of $0.03$ and the temperature of $0.2$. We use the learning rate of $0.1$ and temperature of $0.1$ for auxiliary information + Cl-InfoNCE in Figure 6 in the main text. A linear warm-up and cosine decay is used for the learning rate scheduling. To stablize the training and reduce overfitting, we adopt $0.0001$ weight decay for the encoder network.
\section{Comparisons with Swapping Clustering Assignments between Views}
In this section, we provide additional comparisons between Kmeans + Cl-InfoNCE and Swapping Clustering Assignments between Views (SwAV)~\citep{caron2020unsupervised}. The experiment is performed on ImageNet-100 dataset. SwAV is a recent art for clustering-based self-supervised approach. In particular, SwAV adopts Sinkhorn algorithm~\citep{cuturi2013sinkhorn} to determine the data clustering assignments for a batch of data samples, and SwAV also ensures augmented views of samples will have the same clustering assignments. We present the results in Table~\ref{tab:swav}, where we see SwAV has similar performance with the Prototypical Contrastive Learning method~\citep{li2020prototypical} and has worse performance than our method (i.e., K-means +Cl-InfoNCE).
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
Method & Top-1 Accuracy (\%) \\ \midrule \midrule \multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Non-clustering-based Self-supervised Approaches} \\ \midrule \midrule
SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple} & 58.2$\pm$1.7 \\ [1mm]
MoCo~\citep{he2020momentum} & 59.4$\pm$1.6 \\ \midrule \midrule \multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Clustering-based Self-supervised Approaches (\# of clusters = $2.5$K)} \\ \midrule \midrule
SwAV~\citep{caron2020unsupervised} & 68.5$\pm$1.0 \\ [1mm]
PCL~\citep{li2020prototypical} & 68.9$\pm$0.7 \\ [1mm]
K-means + Cl-InfoNCE (ours) & \textbf{77.9$\pm$0.7} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Additional Comparsion with SwAV~\citep{caron2020unsupervised} showing its similar performance as PCL on ImageNet-100 dataset.}
\label{tab:swav}
\end{table}
\section{Preliminary results on ImageNet-1K with Cl-InfoNCE}
We have performed experiments on ImageNet-100 dataset, which is a subset of the ImageNet-1K dataset \citep{russakovsky2015imagenet}. We use the batch size of $1,024$ for all the methods and consider $100$ training epochs. We present the comparisons among Supervised Contrastive Learning~\citep{khosla2020supervised}, our method (i.e., WordNet-hierarchy-information-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE), and SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple}. We select the level-$12$ nodes in the WordNet tree hierarchy structures as our hierarchy-determined clusters for Cl-InfoNCE. We report the results in Table~\ref{tab:imagenet-1K}. We find that our method (i.e., hierarchy-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE) performs in between the supervised representations and conventional self-supervised representations.
\input{tbl_tex/imgnet1k}
\section{Synthetically Constructed Clusters in Section 4.2 in the Main Text}
In Section 4.2 in the main text, on the UT-Zappos50K dataset, we synthesize clusters $Z$ for various $I(Z;T)$ and $H(Z|T)$ with $T$ being the downstream labels. There are $86$ configurations of $Z$ in total. Note that the configuration process has no access to data's auxiliary information and among the $86$ configurations we consider the special cases for the supervised \big($Z=T$\big) and the unsupervised setting \big($Z=$ instance ID\big). In specific, when $Z=T$, $I(Z;T)$ reaches its maximum at $H(T)$ and $H(Z|T)$ reaches its minimum at $0$; when $Z=$ instance ID, both $I(Z;T)$ \big(to be $H(T)$\big) and $H(Z|T)$ \big(to be $H(\text{instance ID})$\big) reaches their maximum. The code for generating these $86$ configurations can be found in lines 177-299 in \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cl-InfoNCE-02AB/data_processing/UT-zappos50K/synthetic/generate.py}.
\iffalse
by the procedures described below to varying $Z$ artificially with different $I(Z;T)$ and $H(Z|T)$, resulting in 86 different configurations of $Z$ and then evaluate their resulted representation quality following the common linear evaluation protocol. The linear evaluation results is shown in Figure 3.
\paragraph{Synthetizing Protocal}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/ICLR_fig.pdf}
\caption{Synthesising protocol demo. $x_i$ denotes each data instance, $t_i$ denotes downstream class labels and $z_i^{(level)}$ denotes clusters in the first setting where we control $I(Z;T)$ to its maximumn $H(T)$. And $S_i^{(level)}$ are superclasses of the downstream task labels $t_i$ and represents the $Z$ in the second setting. }
\label{fig:synthetic-protocol}
\end{figure}
To intepolate between fully supervised and unsupervised setting, we form synthesised $Z$ to illustrate the relationship between $Z$ and $T$. Figure~\ref{fig:synthetic-protocol} shows a toy example of how we construct the $Z$. Suppose $\{x_1, x_2, ..., x_n\}$ denotes every instance and $\{t_1, t_2, ..., t_k\}$ denotes different downstream class labels, then the key of constructing covariates are performing certain level of grouping. We consider three settings:
\paragraph{(1)} Control $I(Z;T)$ to its maximum. $I(Z;T)$ reach its maximum $H(T)$ when $P(T|Z)=1$, which means that instances assigned to a specific $Z$ have the same downstream task labels. Following this intuition, we form $z_i^{(level)}$ as subclasses of the downstream classes. We vary $level$ to transit from SimCLR to SupCon.
\paragraph{(2)} Control $H(Z|T)$ to its minimum 0. $H(Z|T)$ reach its minimum 0 if $P(Z|T)=1$, which suggests we can create $Z$ as superclasses of $T$. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:synthetic-protocol}, we create $S_i^{(level)}$ as different $Z$ and vary $level$ to get different $Z$ with various $I(Z;T)$ value.
\paragraph{(3)} For each $level$ in setting \textbf{(1)}, we keep the subclasses of certain set of downstream classs $T_f=\{t_i, t_j, t_m, ...\}$ and permutate other $z_j^{(level)}$ assignment. Take $level=2$ for example, if we fix the subclasses of $T_f=\{t_1\}$, instance assigned to $\{z_1^{(2)}, z_2^{(2)}, z_3^{(2)}, z_4^{(2)}\}$ is untouched (i.e. the cluster assignment of $\{x_1, x_2, ..., x_8\}$ remain the same) and we randomly permutate instance assigned to $\{z_5^{(2)}, z_6^{(2)}, ..., z_{16}^{(2)}\}$ (for example $x_9$ may be reassigned to $z_6^{(2)}$ or $z_{13}^{(2)}$ instead of $z_5^{(2)}$). As we increase $|T_f|$, we get $Z$ with various $I(Z;T)$ and $H(Z|T)$ that spans the most of the information plane. This construction of $Z$ leads us to efficiently illustrate how the relationship between $Z$ and $T$ reflects the learnt representation's quality (As shown in Figure 3).
\fi
\section{Conclusion and Discussions}
\label{sec:conclu}
\vspace{-1mm}
In this paper, we present to integrate auxiliary information of data into the self-supervised learning process. We first construct data clusters according to auxiliary information. Then, we introduce the clustering InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE) objective to leverage the built clusters. Our method brings the performance closer to the supervised learned representations compared to the conventional self-supervised learning approaches. Moreover, even without auxiliary information, Cl-InfoNCE can work with unsupervised K-means clusters as a strong method under the conventional self-supervised learning setting. We believe this work sheds light on the advantage of exploiting 1) noisy but cheap-to-collect sources of information in the wild and 2) data structure information for learning better representations.
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Limitations.} Our approach requires determining data clusters from auxiliary information. In our paper, we present different data cluster construction methods for discrete attributes and data hierarchy information. Nonetheless, some types of auxiliary information may be highly unstructured. And determining the clusters according to such auxiliary information may require additional effort. For instance, if having continuous attributes as auxiliary information, binning or quantization cannot be avoided when constructing the clusters.
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Negative Social Impacts.} Certain auxiliary information may contain private information. For example, in medical applications, physical conditions as auxiliary information may reveal a person's identity. Therefore, we should be careful in choosing auxiliary information for privacy concerns.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:rela}
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Self-supervised Learning.} Self-supervised learning (SSL) defines a pretext task as a pre-training step and uses the pre-trained features for a wide range of downstream tasks, such as object detection and segmentation in Computer Vision~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}, question answering, and language understanding in Natual Language Processing~\citep{peters2018deep,devlin2018bert} and automatic speech recognition in Speech Processing~\citep{schneider2019wav2vec,baevski2020wav2vec}. In this paper, we focus on discussing two types of pretext tasks: clustering approaches~\citep{caron2018deep,caron2020unsupervised} and contrastive approaches~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}.
On the one hand, the clustering approaches jointly learn the networks' parameters and the cluster assignments of the resulting features. The cluster assignments are obtained through unsupervised clustering methods such as k-means~\citep{caron2018deep}, the optimal transportation algorithms such as Sinkhorn algorithm~\citep{caron2020unsupervised}, etc. It is worth noting that the clustering approaches enforce consistency between cluster assignments for different augmentations of the same data. On the other hand, the contrastive approaches learn similar representations for augmented variants of a data and dissimilar representations for different data. The objectives considered for contrastive approaches are the InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation,chen2020simple,he2020momentum}, Wasserstein Predictive Coding~\citep{ozair2019wasserstein}, Relative Predictive Coding~\citep{tsai2021self}, etc. Both the clustering and the contrastive approaches aim to learn representations that are invariant to data augmentations.
There is another line of work combining clustering and contrastive approaches, such as HUBERT~\citep{hsu2020hubert}, Prototypical Contrastive Learning~\citep{li2020prototypical} and Wav2Vec~\citep{schneider2019wav2vec,baevski2020wav2vec}. They first construct (unsupervised) clusters from the data. Then, they perform a contrastive approach to learn similar representations for the data within the same cluster. Our approach relates to these work with two differences: 1) we construct the clusters from the auxiliary information; and 2) we present Cl-InfoNCE as a new contrastive approach and characterize the goodness for the resulting representations.
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Learning to Predict Auxiliary Information.} Our study also relates to work on learning to predict weak labels~\citep{sun2017revisiting,mahajan2018exploring,wen2018disjoint,radford2021learning}. The weak labels can be hashtags for Instagram images~\citep{mahajan2018exploring}, metadata such as identity and nationality for a person~\citep{wen2018disjoint} or corresponding textual descriptions for an image~\citep{radford2021learning}. Compared to labels, the weak labels are noisy but require much less manual annotation work. This line of work shows that the network learned by weakly supervised pre-training tasks can generalize well to various downstream tasks, including object detection and segmentation, cross-modality matching, and video action recognition. The main difference between this line of work and ours is that our approach does not consider a prediction objective but a contrastive learning objective (i.e., the Cl-InfoNCE objective).
\subsection{Technical Background}
Contrastive learning~\citep{bachman2019learning,chen2020simple,he2020momentum} has shown its effectiveness in unsupervised representation learning, where its goal is to learn similar representations for the positively-paired (correlated) instances and dissimilar representations for the negatively-paired (uncorrelated) instances. For example, \citet{bachman2019learning,chen2020simple,he2020momentum} treat the positively-paired instances as distorted variations of the same image (e.g., the same image with different augmentations) and the negatively-paired instances as two distinct images. For another example, \citet{radford2021learning,tsai2021multiview} treat the positively-paired instances as the cross-modality pair of an instance (e.g., image and its captions) and the negatively-paired instances as pairs consisting of a random image paired with the captions of another random image. Probabilistically, we refer the positively-paired representations from the data as the representations sampled from their joint distributions (i.e., $(x,y)\sim P_{X,Y}$) and the negatively-paired representations as the representations sampled from the product of marginal distributions (i.e., $(x,y)\sim P_{X}P_{Y}$). Hence, the contrastive learning can also be interpreted as maximizing the distribution divergence between $P_{X,Y}$ and $P_{X}P_{Y}$~\citep{oord2018representation,chen2020simple,bachman2019learning,ozair2019wasserstein,tsai2021self}, and among different objectives the most popular one is maximizing the following InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation}:
\begin{proposition}[InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation}]
\begin{equation}
{\rm InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\leq D_{\rm KL}\,\big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,P_{X}P_Y \big) = {\rm MI}\,(X,Y),
\label{eq:infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
where $\{(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ are $n$ independent copies of $(x,y)\sim P_{X,Y}$, $f(x,y)$ is any function that returns a scalar from the input $(x,y)$, and ${\rm MI}\,(X,Y)$ is the mutual information (MI) between $X$ and $Y$. Practically, prior work~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum} suggest $f(x,y) = {\rm cosine}(x,y) / \tau$, where ${\rm cosine}(x,y)$ is the cosine similarity and $\tau$ is the temperature hyper-parameter. Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce} suggests InfoNCE is a lower bound of ${\rm MI}\,(X,Y)$ and theoretical work~\citep{arora2019theoretical,tsai2021multiview,tosh2021contrastive} show that ${\rm MI}\,(X,Y)$ maximization could lead to representations that perform well on downstream tasks. To conclude, as the most popular contrastive approach, InfoNCE can learn good representations without the need to access the downstream supervision.
\subsection{Clustering-based Contrastive Learning}
In addition to learning without access to the downstream supervision, the contrastive learning also manifests it effectiveness under the supervised fashion~\citep{khosla2020supervised}. In particular, \citet{khosla2020supervised} present {\em Supervised Contrastive Learning} that re-defines the positively-paired samples as the samples from the same category and the negatively-paired samples as the samples belonging to different categories. Observing the fact that the contrastive learning work for both unsupervised and supervised setting, a research question pops out naturally:
\begin{center}
{\em Can we design a unified contrastive learning objective that generalizes its applications from unsupervised to weakly-supervised and supervised representation learning?}
\end{center}
Our paper aims to answer this question by presenting clustering-based InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE), which 1) first constructs the clusters under either unsupervised, weakly-supervised or supervised setup and 2) then defines the positively-paired samples as the samples from the same cluster and the negatively-paired samples as the samples from different clusters. At a colloquial level, Cl-InfoNCE pulls towards the representations of the data within the same (unsupervised, weakly-supervised, or supervised-formed) cluster and push away the representations of the data from different clusters. With $Z/z$ being the constructed clusters, the proposed Cl-InfoNCE is formulated as:
\begin{proposition}[Clustering-based InfoNCE (Cl-InfoNCE)]
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {\color{blue} \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big],
\label{eq:cl_infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
where the positively-paired representations $(x_i, y_i)$ are sampled from ${\color{blue} \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]}$\footnote{$(x, y) \sim \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]$ includes two steps: first, $z \sim P_Z$; then, $x \sim P_{X|z}$ and $y \sim P_{Y|z}$.} and the negatively-paired representations $(x_i, y_j)$ are sampled from $P_XP_Y$ ($i\neq j$)\footnote{$\int_X \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] dx = P_Y$ and $\int_Y \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] dy = P_X$.}. We note that equation~\eqref{eq:cl_infonce} generalizes to different levels of supervision: 1) when $Z=$ instance id (i.e., each cluster only contains an instance), $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$ specializes to $P_{XY}$ and Cl-InfoNCE specializes to InfoNCE for unsupervised representation learning; 2) when $Z=$ downstream labels, Cl-InfoNCE specializes to the objective described in {\em Supervised Contrastive Learning}~\citep{khosla2020supervised} for supervised representation learning; and 3) when $Z$ is constructed from the weak supervision signals, such as data's attributes or the hierarchical information of data, Cl-InfoNCE can be used for weakly-supervised representation learning. Now, we provide the following theoretical statements to better understand Cl-InfoNCE:
\begin{theorem}[Asymptotic analysis of Cl-InfoNCE]
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE} \leq {\rm Cl-InfoNCE}_{\,n \rightarrow \infty} = D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big) \leq H(Z),
\label{eq:asymp_cl_infonce}
\end{equation}
\label{theo:asymp_cl_infonce}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Cl-InfoNCE maximization learns to include the clusering information]
\begin{equation}
{\rm Cl-InfoNCE}_{\,n \rightarrow \infty} {\rm \,\,maximizes\,\,at\,\,} H(Z) {\rm \,\,when \,\,} H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0,
\label{eq:max_resulting_repre}
\end{equation}
\label{theo:max_resulting_repre}
\end{theorem}
where $H(Z)$ is the entropy of $Z$ and $H(Z|X)$/ $H(Z|Y)$ are the conditional entropy of $Z$ given $X$/$Y$. We leave detailed derivations and proofs in Appendix. Theorem~\ref{theo:asymp_cl_infonce} suggests that Cl-InfoNCE has an upper bound $D_{\rm KL}\,\Big( \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \,\|\, P_{X}P_{Y} \Big)$, which measures the distribution divergence between the product of clustering-conditional marginal distributions (i.e., $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$) and the product of marginal distributions (i.e., $P_{X}P_{Y}$). Theorem~\ref{theo:max_resulting_repre} suggests that maximizing Cl-InfoNCE results in the representations $X$ and $Y$ including the clustering information $Z$ ($\because H(Z|X) = H(Z|Y) = 0$). This result is not surprising: since Cl-InfoNCE pulls together the representations from the data belonging to the same cluster and push away the representations from the data belonging to different clusters, the representations learned by maximizing Cl-InfoNCE should be able to distinguish among distinct clusters.
To conclude, Cl-InfoNCE is a clustering-based contrastive learning objective. By differing its cluster construction, Cl-InfoNCE generalizes from unsupervised, weakly-supervised to supervised representation learning. In this paper, we focus on the application of Cl-InfoNCE in weakly-supervised setup, where we examine different weak supervision sources to form clusters.
\section{Experiments}
In the beginning, we discuss the datasets used in the paper in Section~\ref{subsec:datasets}. We consider either discrete attributes or data hierarchy information as auxiliary information for data. Then, in Section~\ref{subsec:method}, we explain the methodology that will be used in the experiments. In Section~\ref{subsec:exp_without_auxi}, we present the first set of the experiments, which focuses on studying the presented Cl-InfoNCE objective (see Section~\ref{subsec:cl-infonce}) under conventional self-supervised setting. To this end, we consider unsupervised constructed clusters (e.g., k-means) along with Cl-InfoNCE.
And we compare Cl-InfoNCE with other clustering-based self-supervised approaches.
In Section~\ref{subsec:exp_with_auxi_attr} and~\ref{subsec:exp_with_auxi_hier}, we further present experiments under the scenario when auxiliary information is available. We compare our method with the baseline approach - learning to predict the clustering assignment with cross-entropy loss. We also compare with conventional self-supervised representations and supervised representations.
\subsection{Datasets}
\label{subsec:datasets}
We consider the following datasets. {\bf UT-zappos50K}~\citep{yu2014fine}: It contains $50,025$ shoes images along with $7$ discrete attributes as auxiliary information. Each attribute follows a binomial distribution, and we convert each attribute into a set of Bernoulli attributes, resulting in a total of $126$ binary attributes. There are $21$ shoe categories.
{\bf Wider Attribute}~\citep{li2016human}: It contains $13,789$ images, and there are several bounding boxes in an image. The attributes are annotated per bounding box. We perform OR operation on attributes from different bounding boxes in an image, resulting in $14$ binary attributes per image as the auxiliary information. There are $30$ scene categories.
{\bf CUB-200-2011}~\citep{wah2011caltech}: It contains $11,788$ bird images with $312$ binary attributes as the auxiliary information. There are $200$ bird species. {\bf ImageNet-100}~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet}: It is a subset of the ImageNet-1k object recognition dataset~\citep{russakovsky2015imagenet}, where we select $100$ categories out of $1,000$, resulting in around $0.12$ million images. We consider WordNet hierarchy information as the auxiliary information.
\subsection{Methodology}
\label{subsec:method}
Following~\citet{chen2020simple}, we conduct experiments on pre-training visual representations and then evaluating the learned representations using the linear evaluation protocol. In precise, after the pre-training stage, we fix the pre-trained feature encoder and then categorize test images by linear classification results. We select ResNet-50~\citep{he2016deep} as our feature encoder across all settings. Note that our goal is learning representations (i.e, $X$ and $Y$) for maximizing the Cl-InfoNCE objective (equation~\eqref{eq:cl_infonce}). Within Cl-InfoNCE, the positively-paired representations $(x, y^+) \sim \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\big[P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}\big]$ are the learned representations from augmented images from the same cluster $z\sim P_Z$ and the negatively-paired representations $(x, y^-) \sim P_XP_Y$ are the representations from arbitrary two images. We leave the network designs, the optimizer choices, and more details for the datasets in Appendix.
\input{fig_tex/synthetic_wrap}
Before delving into the experiments, we like to recall that, in Section~\ref{subsec:impli_inves}, we discussed using the mutual information $I(Z;T)$ and the conditional entropy $H(Z|T)$ between the clusters ($Z$) and the labels ($T$) to characterize the goodness of Cl-InfoNCE's learned representations. To prove this concept, on UT-Zappos50K, we synthetically construct clusters for various $I(Z;T)$ and $H(Z|T)$ followed by applying Cl-InfoNCE. We present the results in the right figure.
Our empirical results are in accordance with the statements that the clusters with higher $I(Z;T)$ and lower $H(Z|T)$ will lead to higher downstream performance. In later experiments, we will also discuss these two information-theoretical metrics.
\subsection{Experiment I: K-means Clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
\label{subsec:exp_without_auxi}
We study how Cl-InfoNCE can learn good self-supervised representations even without auxiliary information. To this end, we construct unsupervised clusters (e.g., k-means clusters on top of the learned representations) for Cl-InfoNCE. Similar to the EM algorithm, we iteratively perform the k-means clustering to determine the clusters for the representations, and then we adopt Cl-InfoNCE to leverage the k-means clusters to update the representations. We select the Prototypical Contrastive Learning (PCL)~\citep{li2020prototypical} as the baseline of the clustering-based self-supervised approach. In particular, PCL performs data log-likelihood maximization by assuming data are generated from isotropic Gaussians. It considers the MLE objective, where the author makes a connection with contrastive approaches~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}. The clusters in PCL are determined via MAP estimation. For the sake of the completeness of the experiments, we also include the non-clustering-based self-supervised approaches, including SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple} and MoCo~\citep{he2020momentum}. Note that this set of experiments considers the conventional self-supervised setting, in which we can leverage the information neither from labels nor from auxiliary information.
\input{fig_tex/unsupervised}
\paragraph{Results.} We first look at the left table in Figure~\ref{fig:unsupervised}. We observe that, except for ImageNet-100, there is no obvious performance difference between the non-clustering-based (i.e., SimCLR and MoCo) and the clustering-based baseline (i.e., PCL). Since ImageNet-100 is a more complex dataset comparing to the other three datasets, we argue that, when performing self-supervised learning, discovering latent structures in data (via unsupervised clustering) may best benefit larger-sized datasets. Additionally, among all the approaches, our method reaches the best performance. The result suggests our method can be as competitive as other conventional self-supervised approaches.
Next, we look at the right plot in Figure~\ref{fig:unsupervised}. We study the mutual information $I(Z;T)$ and the conditional entropy $H(Z|T)$ between the unsupervised constructed clusters $Z$ and the downstream labels $T$. We select our method and PCL, providing the plot of the two information-theoretical metrics versus the training epoch. We find that, as the number of training epochs increases, both methods can construct unsupervised clusters that are more relevant (higher $I(Z;T)$) and contain less redundant information (lower $H(Z|T)$) about the downstream label. This result suggests that the clustering-based self-supervised approaches are discovering the latent structures that are more useful for the downstream tasks. It is worth noting that our method consistently has higher $I(Z;T)$ and lower $H(Z|T)$ comparing to PCL.
\subsection{Experiment II: Data-Attributes-Determined Clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
\label{subsec:exp_with_auxi_attr}
We like to understand how well Cl-InfoNCE can be combined with the auxiliary information. For this purpose, we select the data discrete attributes as the auxiliary information, construct the clusters ($Z$) using the discrete attributes (see Section~\ref{subsec:cluster_construct} and Figure~\ref{fig:cluster_construction}), and then adopt attributes-determined clusters for Cl-InfoNCE. Recall our construction of data-attributes-determined clusters: we select the attributes with top-$k$ highest entropy and then construct the clusters such that the data within a cluster will have the same values over the selected attributes. $k$ is the hyper-parameter. Note that our method considers a weakly supervised setting since the data attributes can be seen as the data's weak supervision. For the completeness of the experiments, we include the comparisons with the supervised ($Z=$ downstream labels $T$) and the conventional self-supervised ($Z=$ instance ID) setting for our method. We show in Section~\ref{subsec:impli_inves}, the supervised setting is equivalent to the Supervised Contrastive Learning objective~\citep{khosla2020supervised} and the conventional self-supervised setting is equivalent to SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple}. We also include another baseline that leverages the data clustering information - learning to predict the clusters assignments using cross-entropy loss.
\input{tbl_tex/attributes}
\input{fig_tex/attributes}
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Results.} Table~\ref{tbl:attributes} presents our results. First, we compare different cluster constructions along with Cl-InfoNCE and use the top-1 accuracy on Wider Attribute for discussions. We find the performance grows from low to high when having the clusters as instance ID ($40.2$),
attributes-determined clusters ($45.5$) to labels ($49.9$). This result suggests that CL-InfoNCE can better bridge the gap with the supervised learned representations by using auxiliary information. Second, we find that using auxiliary information does not always guarantee better performance than not using it. For instance, predicting the attributes-determined clusters using the cross-entropy loss ($39.4$) performs worse than the SimCLR method ($40.2$), which does not utilize the auxiliary information. Hence, how to effectively leverage the auxiliary information is crucial.
Third, we observe the predictive method always performs worse than the contrastive method under the weakly supervised setting. For example, on UT-Zappos50K, although predicting the labels using the cross-entropy loss ($89.2$) performs at par with SupCon ($89.0$), predicting attributes-determined clusters using the cross-entropy loss ($82.7$) performs worse than attributes-determined clusters + Cl-InfoNCE ($84.6$). This result implies that the contrastive method (e.g., Cl-InfoNCE) can generally be applied across various supervision levels.
To better understand the effect of the hyper-parameter $k$ for constructing the attributes-determined clusters, we study the information-theoretical metrics between $Z$ and $T$ and report in Figure~\ref{fig:attributes}. First, as $k$ increases, the mutual information $I(Z;T)$ increases but the conditional entropy $H(Z|T)$ also increases. Hence, although considering more attributes leads to the clusters that are more correlated to the downstream labels, the clusters may also contain more downstream-irrelevant information. This is in accord with our second observation that, as $k$ increases, the downstream performance first increases then decreases. Therefore, we only need a partial set of the most informative attributes (those with high entropy) to determine the clusters. Our last observation is that the best performing clusters happen at the intersection between $I(Z;T)$ and negative $H(Z|T)$. This observation helps us study the trade-off between $I(Z;T)$ and $H(Z|T)$ and suggests that the clusters, when used for Cl-InfoNCE, having the highest $I(Z;T)-H(Z|T)$ could achieve the best performance.
\vspace{-1mm}
\subsection{Experiment III: Data-Hierarchy-Determined Clusters + Cl-InfoNCE}
\label{subsec:exp_with_auxi_hier}
\vspace{-1mm}
The experimental setup and the comparing baselines are similar to Section~\ref{subsec:exp_with_auxi_attr}, but now we consider the WordNet~\citep{miller1995wordnet} hierarchy as the auxiliary information. As discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:cluster_construct} and Figure~\ref{fig:cluster_construction}, we construct the clusters $Z$ such that the data within a cluster have the same parent node in the level $l$ in the data's WordNet tree hierarchy. $l$ is the hyper-parameter.
\vspace{-1mm}
\paragraph{Results.} Figure~\ref{fig:hierarchy} presents our results. First, we look at the leftmost plot, and we have several similar observations when having the data attributes as the auxiliary information. One of them is that the contrastive method consistently outperforms the predictive method. Another of them is that the weakly supervised representations better close the gap with the supervised representations. Second, as discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:cluster_construct}, the WordNet data hierarchy clusters can be regarded as the coarse labels of the data. Hence, when increasing the hierarchy level $l$, we can observe the performance improvement (see the leftmost plot) and the increasing mutual information $I(Z;T)$ (see the middle plot) between the clusters $Z$ and the labels $T$. Note that $H(Z|T)$ remains zero (see the rightmost plot) since the coarse labels (the intermediate nodes) can be determined by the downstream labels (the leaf nodes) under the tree hierarchy structure. Third, we discuss the conventional self-supervised setting with the special case when $Z=$ instanced ID. $Z$ as the instance ID has the highest $I(Z;T)$ (see the middle plot) but also the highest $H(Z|T)$ (see the rightmost plot). And we observe that the conventional self-supervised representations perform the worse (see the leftmost plot). We conclude that, when using cluster-based representation learning approaches, we shall not rely purely on the mutual information between the data clusters and the downstream labels to determine the goodness of the learned representations. We shall also take the redundant information in the clusters into account.
\input{fig_tex/hierarchy}
|
\section{Introduction}
Minimal free resolutions of ideals in the coordinate ring of a toric variety are well-studied in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry as a method of obtaining information about the corresponding subvariety. It has been observed, however, that minimal free resolutions can be longer than necessary in order to obtain useful information. The theory of virtual resolutions was introduced by Berkesch, Erman, and Smith \cite{Virtual} as a useful analogue to the theory of minimal free resolutions which often provide \emph{shorter} resolutions. In this sense, virtual resolutions are a useful new tool to study varieties in toric varieties, including multi-projective spaces.
The theory of virtual resolutions is quite new, so there are abundant open questions, and a lack of (families of) concrete examples.
On the other hand, since their introduction in \cite{Virtual}, they have been actively studied. In their original work \cite{Virtual}, Berkesch, Erman, and Smith gave multiple strategies for constructing virtual resolutions. Loper \cite{Loper2} identified two algebraic conditions that characterize when a chain complex is virtual. Kennedy \cite{Jarvis} gave an
equivalent algebraic definition for a complex to be
a virtual resolution.
The concept of being virtually Cohen-Macaulay,
introduced in \cite{Virtual}, is
studied in the context of simplicial
complexes by Kenshur, Lin, McNally, Xu, and Yu \cite{KLMXY}, and more generally
in the recent paper of Berkesch, Klein, Loper, and Yang \cite{Berkesch}. Yang \cite{Yang} also studied virtual
resolutions of monomial ideals on toric varieties. More recently,
Booms-Peot and Cobb \cite{Booms} have examined when a
generalized Eagon-Northcott complex is a virtual resolution.
In this paper we focus on virtual resolutions of finite sets of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. By focusing on this family, we can take advantage of many
known algebraic and geometric properties about them, e.g., as
developed in \cite{FGM,GMR2,GMR1,G,Adam}. At the same time,
we complement Gao, Li, Loper, and Matto's paper \cite{Loper2} which studies points
in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ that
are virtual complete intersections.
The contribution of this manuscript
is two-fold, as we now describe.
Our first main result gives explicit constructions of a family of virtual resolutions of length two for
a set $X$ of points in sufficiently
general position (as defined in Section~\ref{backgroundsection}) in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$. Note that we have suppressed the virtual resolution in the statement below, but the complete details can be found in Section 3.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim}]
Let $X$ be a finite set of points in
$\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ in sufficiently general
position. Assume $\lvert X \rvert > 1$ and suppose that
there exists an $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$ with $i < j$ such that
$|X| = (i+1)(j+1)$. Then there is a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two which can be explicitly described in terms of $i$ and $j$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
We note that, in general, the minimal free resolutions of such $X$ are known to have length three, so our result shows that we can shorten the resolution if we allow for virtual resolutions. The main tool in our construction is a ``trimming'' result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Virtual} (stated below as Theorem~\ref{theorem:trim}), which roughly states that well-chosen (graded) subcomplexes of a (graded) minimal free resolution $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ of $S/I_X$ is in fact a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$. We also employ results of
Giuffrida, Maggioni, and Ragusa \cite{GMR2,GMR1} which gives concrete information about the second-difference function $\Delta^2 H_X$ (defined in Section~\ref{backgroundsection}) of the Hilbert function and its relation to the minimal free resolution $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ of $S/I_X$. This information
is used to prove that for certain choices of these graded subcomplexes, the resulting virtual resolution is of length two.
Our second main result improves on another result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith (in the special case of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$), in the following sense. In addition to the ``trimming'' result mentioned above, Berkesch, Erman, and Smith give another method for constructing virtual resolutions in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Virtual}. Let $S = \Bbbk[x_0, x_1, y_0, y_1]$ be the bihomogeneous coordinate ring of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$. In the case of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, their theorem states that for some positive integer $a$, the minimal free resolution of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a)$ is a virtual resolution of length two
of the original ring $S/I_X$. Their result is an existence result in the sense that they do not give a concrete value for the positive integer $a$. Our contribution is to give an explicit lower bound for the value of $a$
for any set of points $X$ in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$. More precisely, let $\pi_1(X)$ denote the set of distinct first coordinates which appear in the points in $X$. Then we show:
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{maintheorem2}]
Let $X$ be a finite set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. Then for all $a \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$, the
minimal free resolution of
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ is a virtual
resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two.
\end{theorem}
Our results suggest several other directions for future work. For instance, it would be of interest to explore whether the methods of the current manuscript can be extended to cover more general multiprojective spaces $\mathbb{P}^{n_1} \times \mathbb{P}^{n_2} \times \cdots \times \mathbb{P}^{n_s}$, possibly starting with the smallest such generalizations such as $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^2$ or $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$. It would also be of interest to explore virtual resolutions of subvarieties of multiprojective spaces of dimension $>0$.
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.}
The authors thank Ayah Almousa, Daniel Erman, and Michael Loper
for useful discussions, and the two referees for their
comments and improvements.
The authors used Macaulay2 \cite{M2},
and in particular, the package {\tt VirtualResolutions} \cite{Ayah}
in their computer experiments. An early version of the results
in this paper appeared in the second author's MSc thesis \cite{N}.
Harada's research is supported by NSERC Discovery Grant 2019-06567 and a Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) Award.
Van Tuyl’s research is supported by NSERC Discovery Grant 2019-05412.
\section{Background}
\label{backgroundsection}
In this section we recall some relevant background
on virtual resolutions and finite sets of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. Although it is not the most general setting for the theory of virtual resolutions, for the purposes of this manuscript we restrict attention to the case of the ring $S = \Bbbk[x_0, x_1, y_0, y_1]$, the $\mathbb{Z}^2$-graded coordinate ring of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, where $\Bbbk$ is a field of characteristic $0$. The $\mathbb{Z}^2$-grading is defined by setting $\mathrm{deg}(x_i) = (1,0)$ and $\mathrm{deg}(y_i) = (0,1)$ for $i=0,1$. An ideal $I$ of $S$ is a
{\it bihomogeneous
ideal} if the generators of $I$ are bihomogeneous with
respect to this bigrading on $S$. We use $\preceq$ to denote
the partial ordering on $\mathbb{N}^2$ defined by
$(i_1,j_1) \preceq (i_2,j_2)$ if and only if
$i_1 \leq i_2$ and $j_1 \leq j_2$.
The original definition of virtual resolutions given in \cite{Virtual} uses the geometric language of sheaves. We do not give the sheaf-theoretic definition, but we will instead use an equivalent algebraic definition. To state it, we need some notation.
Let $B$ denote the irrelevant ideal $\langle x_0, x_1\rangle \cap \langle y_0, y_1 \rangle =
\langle x_0y_0,x_0y_1,x_1y_0,x_1y_1\rangle$ of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ in $S$. For any $S$-module $M$, let
$$
\Gamma_B(M) := \{m \in M \, \mid \, B^t m = 0 \, \textup{ for some } t \in \mathbb{N} \},
$$
i.e., $\Gamma_B(M)$ consists of elements annihilated by some
power of the irrelevant ideal.
With this notation, we can state the definition for a complex to be a virtual resolution. Note that the homology groups $H_i(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})$ of a complex $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ of $S$-modules are naturally $S$-modules.
\begin{definition}\label{virtualdefn}
Let $M$ be a finitely generated $S$-module. Let
$$\mathcal{F}_{\bullet} := \dots \rightarrow F_2 \rightarrow F_1 \rightarrow F_0$$
be a complex of finitely generated free $S$-modules satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)]for each $i>0$ there is some power $t$ such that $B^tH_i(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})=0$, and
\item[(2)]$H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})/\Gamma_B(H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}))\cong M/\Gamma_B(M)$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ is a {\it virtual resolution} of $M$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
A proof of the equivalence of Definition \ref{virtualdefn}
and the original geometric definition for a virtual
resolution given in \cite{Virtual} can be found in Kennedy's thesis
\cite[Theorem 4.9]{Jarvis}.
\end{remark}
Given a bihomogeneous ideal $J$ of $S$, the
{\it $B$-saturation} of $J$ is the
ideal defined as
$$J:B^\infty := \bigcup_{t \in \mathbb{N}}
(J:B^t).$$
An ideal $J$ is {\it $B$-saturated} if
$J:B^\infty = J$.
The following theorem gives
one way to construct a virtual resolution of $S/I$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{virtualresideals}
Let $I$ be a $B$-saturated bihomogeneous ideal of $S$.
If $J$ is a bihomogeneous ideal of $S$ with
$J:B^\infty = I$, then the minimal free resolution of
$S/J$ is a virtual resolution of $S/I$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}:= \cdots \rightarrow F_2 \rightarrow
F_1 \rightarrow F_0=S$ is a minimal free resolution of
$S/J$, then $H_i(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}) = 0$ for all $i > 0$.
Since $\Gamma_B(S/J) = (J:B^\infty)/J = I/J$,
$$H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})/\Gamma_B(H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}))
= (S/J)/(I/J) \cong S/I.$$
Because $I$ is $B$-saturated,
$\Gamma_B(S/I) = (I:B^\infty)/I = (0)$,
and thus $H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet})/\Gamma_B(H_0(\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}))
\cong (S/I)/(\Gamma_B(S/I)).$ So $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ is a
virtual resolution of $S/I$ by Definition \ref{virtualdefn}.
\end{proof}
For Section~\ref{trimmingsection}, we use a
result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith \cite{Virtual}
which constructs virtual resolutions out of a minimal free resolution $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$ by deleting certain summands from the $F_i$.
The rough idea of this construction is that we can ``throw away'' some summands in $\mathcal{F}_{\bullet}$, and what remains will be a virtual resolution. We will (informally) refer to this process as {\it trimming} a minimal free resolution (to obtain a virtual one).
The notion of $\underline{d}$-regularity,
as introduced by Maclagan and Smith \cite{Reg},
is used in the statement of the next theorem. We will not give the definition here because, for the purposes of this paper, it will suffice to use a characterization of the multigraded regularity for
points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ as given in
Theorem \ref{theorem: regular pts} below.
We now state a special case of the result in \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Virtual}, which suffices for our results.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:trim}
Let $M$ be a finitely generated $\mathbb{Z}^2$-graded $B$-saturated $S$-module and let $\underline{d} \in \mathbb{Z}^2$. Suppose $M$ is $\underline{d}$-regular. If $G$ is the free subcomplex of a minimal free resolution of $M$ consisting of all summands generated in
degree at most $\underline{d}+(1,1)$ with respect to $\preceq$, then $G$ is a virtual resolution of $M$.
\end{theorem}
In the next section we will apply Theorem~\ref{theorem:trim} to the bihomogeneous coordinate rings $S/I_X$ where $X$ is a finite set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$. Note that going forward, we will assume that all sets
of points are finite.
As observed above, Theorem~\ref{theorem:trim} requires information about
the {\it multigraded regularity} of $S/I_X$, denoted $\mathrm{reg}_B(S/I_X)$, defined to be the set of all $\underline{d}$ for which $S/I_X$ is $\underline{d}$-regular.
Before giving the relevant statement, which is Theorem~\ref{theorem: regular pts}, we need some preliminaries and background concerning Hilbert functions and points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
See
\cite{Adam} for details.
A point $P = [a_0: a_1] \times [b_0:b_1] \in \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ has bihomogeneous defining
ideal $I_P$ given by
$$I_P = \langle a_1x_0 - a_0x_1,b_1y_0-b_0y_1 \rangle \subseteq S,$$
which is a prime ideal. For a set of $s$ distinct points $X = \{P_1,\ldots,P_s\}
\subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, the associated
bihomogenous ideal of $X$ is $I_X = I_{P_1} \cap \cdots \cap I_{P_s}$.
The coordinate ring of $X$ is $S/I_X$ (see \cite[Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2]{Adam} for more details). Let K-$\dim (S/I_X)$ denote the Krull dimension of $(S/I_X)$.
The following facts hold:
\begin{lemma}\label{P1xP1facts}
Let $X$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
with coordinate ring $S/I_X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $L \in S$ with $\deg(L) = (0,1)$
such that $\overline{L}$ is a non-zero-divisor in
$S/I_X$.
\item $1 \leq {\rm depth}(S/I_X) \leq \text{\emph{K-dim}}(S/I_X) = 2.$
\item The ideal $I_X$ is $B$-saturated.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For statement (1), \cite[Lemma 3.5]{Adam} proves the
case $\deg(L)=(1,0)$ and the proof can be easily
adapted to our case.
Statement (2) is \cite[Lemma 4.2]{Adam}.
For statement (3), each ideal $I_{P_i}$ is $B$-saturated, so $I_X$ is $B$-saturated since the intersection
of $B$-saturated ideals is also saturated.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{convention}
By an appropriate change of coordinates, we can
assume without loss of generality that the non-zero-divisor
of Lemma \ref{P1xP1facts} (1) is $y_0$, i.e.,
we can assume that if $P = A \times B \in X$,
then $B \neq [0:1]$.
\end{remark}
We now recall the definition of Hilbert functions, their first and second differences, and some useful facts which we use below.
First, for any bihomogeneous ideal $I \subseteq S$,
the {\it Hilbert function} $H_{S/I}$ of $S/I$ is the function $H_{S/I}:\mathbb{N}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ defined by
$$H_{S/I}(i,j):=\dim_{\Bbbk}(S/I)_{i,j}=\dim_{\Bbbk}S_{i,j}-\dim_{\Bbbk}[I]_{i,j}.$$
If $I_X$ is the defining ideal of a subvariety $X$ of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$, we denote
$H_{S/I_X}$ by $H_X$.
If we let $m_{i,j} := H_X(i,j)$ for $(i, j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$, we can
view $H_X$ as an infinite matrix $(H_X(i,j)) = (m_{i,j})_{(i, j) \in \mathbb{N}^2}$. The {\it first difference function} of $H_X$ is
the function $\Delta H_X: {\mathbb{N}}^2 \to \mathbb{N}$
given by
$$
\Delta H_X(i,j) = m_{i,j} - m_{i-1,j} - m_{i, j-1} + m_{i-1,j-1},
$$
where we use convention that $H(i,j) = m_{i,j} = 0$ if $i<0$ or $j<0$. If $c_{i,j} := \Delta H_X(i,j)$, then $\Delta H_X$ can also be
represented by the infinite matrix $(c_{i,j})_{(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2}$.
The {\it second difference function} $\Delta^2 H_X$ is defined to be $\Delta(\Delta H_X)$, and so
$$
\Delta^2 H_X(i,j) = c_{i,j} - c_{i-1,j} - c_{i, j-1} + c_{i-1, j-1}.
$$
We use the notation $\Delta^2 H_X = (d_{i,j})_{(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2}$ in a manner similar to $H_X$ and $\Delta H_X$.
The functions $H_X$ and $\Delta^2 H_X$ capture
geometric and algebraic information about a set of points $X$
in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
To explain this connection, we introduce
some further notation.
Let $\pi_1:\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow
\mathbb{P}^1$ denote the projection
map to the first coordinate. Given a set
of points $X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, the set $\pi_1(X) = \{A_1,\ldots,A_\ell\}$ is the set of distinct
first coordinates appearing in $X$.
For each $A_i \in \pi_1(X)$, let
$\alpha_i = |\pi_1^{-1}(A_i) \cap X|$, i.e.,
the number of points of $X$ whose first coordinate
is $A_i$. After relabelling, we can assume
that $\alpha_1 \geq \alpha_2 \geq \cdots \geq \alpha_\ell$.
We set $\alpha_X = (\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_\ell)$.
Note that the vector $\alpha_X$ is a partition
of the integer $|X|$, i.e., $|X| = \alpha_1+\cdots +\alpha_\ell$. The {\it conjugate} of $\alpha_X$,
is the partition $\alpha^\star_X =
(\alpha_1^\star,\ldots,\alpha^\star_{\alpha_1})$
where
$\alpha_i^\star = |\{j \in \{1,\ldots,\ell\} ~|~
\alpha_j \geq i\}|$.
We note that $|\pi_1(X)| =\alpha_1^\star \geq \alpha_2^\star \geq
\cdots \geq \alpha^{\star}_{\alpha_1}$.
The conjugate $\alpha_X^\star$ of $\alpha_X$, which is related
to geometric information about $X$, is then
encoded into the Hilbert function.
The next
theorem (see \cite[Theorem 3.29]{Adam})
describes one such relationship:
\begin{theorem}\label{specialvaluesofHX1}
Let $X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
be a set of points with
associated tuple $\alpha_X^\star
= (\alpha_1^\star,\ldots,\alpha^\star_{\alpha_1})$.
For all $i \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$,
$$H_{S/I_X}(i,j) = \alpha_1^\star + \cdots +
\alpha_{j+1}^\star$$
where $\alpha_r^\star = 0$ if $r > \alpha_1$.
\end{theorem}
We will require the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{specialvaluesofHX2}
Let $X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
be a set of points with
associated tuple $\alpha_X^\star
= (\alpha_1^\star,\ldots,\alpha^\star_{\alpha_1})$, and let $L \in S$ correspond to the non-zero-divisor
of Lemma \ref{P1xP1facts}.
For all $i \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$,
$$H_{S/(I_X + \langle L \rangle)}(i,j) = \alpha_{j+1}^\star$$
where $\alpha_r^\star = 0$ if $r > \alpha_1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We have
a short exact sequence
\[0 \rightarrow S/(I_X: \langle L \rangle)(0,-1)
\stackrel{\times \overline{L}}{\longrightarrow}
S/I_X \rightarrow S/(I_X+\langle L \rangle)
\rightarrow 0.\]
But $I_X:\langle L \rangle = I_X$ since $L$ is
a non-zero-divisor. The maps in the
short exact sequence have degree $(0,0)$.
Thus, since Hilbert functions are additive on short
exact sequences,
$$H_{S/(I_X+\langle L \rangle)}(i,j) =
H_{S/I_X}(i,j) - H_{S/I_X}(i,j-1).$$
The conclusion follows from the formula for $H_{S/I_X}$ given
in Theorem \ref{specialvaluesofHX1}.
\end{proof}
When $\alpha_X = (\alpha_1)$, i.e., the points of $X$ all have the same
first coordinate,
\cite[Lemma 3.26]{Adam}
gives more information about $I_X$
and its Hilbert function:
\begin{lemma}\label{pointsonruling}
Suppose $X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ is a set of points
of the form $$X = \{A \times B_1, A\times B_2,\ldots, A\times B_\alpha\}.$$
with $A = [a_0:a_1]$ and $B_i = [b_{i,0}:b_{i,1}]$ for $i=1,\ldots,\alpha$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H_X(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
j+1 & \mbox{if $j < \alpha$} \\
\alpha & \mbox{if $j \geq \alpha$.}
\end{cases}$
\item $I_X = \langle L_A, L_{B_1}L_{B_2}\cdots L_{B_{\alpha}} \rangle$
where $L_A = a_1x_0-a_0x_1$ and
$L_{B_i} = b_{i,1}y_0-b_{i,0}y_1$ for $i=1,\ldots,\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\label{swapruling}
By swapping the roles of the $A$'s and $B$'s and the roles of the
$i$'s and $j$'s, a similar result holds for points of the form
$X = \{A_1 \times B, A_2\times B,\ldots, A_\alpha \times B\}.$
\end{remark}
We say that a set of points
$X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
has the {\it generic Hilbert function}
if
$$H_X(i,j) = \min\{|X|, (i+1)(j+1)\}
~\mbox{for all $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$}.$$
As we saw above,
to use Theorem \ref{theorem:trim}, we need
the multigraded
regularity of $S/I_X$. If $X$ has the generic Hilbert function,
the multigraded regularity is easy to compute. The next result is simply a specialization
of \cite[Proposition 6.7]{Reg} to the case of
points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem: regular pts}
If $X \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
is a set of points with the generic Hilbert function, then
$${\rm reg}_B(S/I_X) = \{ (i,j) ~|~ (i+1)(j+1) \geq |X| \}.$$
\end{theorem}
We now introduce some notation and results concerning the minimal free resolutions of $S/I_X$.
By Lemma \ref{P1xP1facts}, since $1 \leq {\rm depth}(S/I_X) \leq 2$,
the Auslander-Buchsbaum Theorem (see \cite[Theorem 19.9]{Eisenbud}) implies that the $\mathbb{Z}^2$-graded minimal free resolution of
$S/I_X$ has either length $2$ or $3$. Following
the notation of Giuffrida, Maggioni, and Ragusa \cite{GMR2} we
can write this resolution as
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}\label{eq: min free res}
0 \rightarrow \bigoplus_{\ell=1}^p S(-a_{3,\ell},-a'_{3,\ell})\hookrightarrow \bigoplus_{\ell=1}^n S(-a_{2, \ell},-a'_{2, \ell}) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{\ell=1}^m S(-a_{1, \ell},-a'_{1, \ell}) \rightarrow S \rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
\normalsize
With the above notation, we define
$$
\alpha_{r,s}:=\# \lbrace (a_{1,i},a'_{1,i})=(r,s) \rbrace \, \textup{ and } \,
\beta_{r,s}:=\# \lbrace (a_{2,i},a'_{2,i})=(r,s)\rbrace
$$
$$\textup{ and } \,
\gamma_{r,s}:=\# \lbrace (a_{3,i},a'_{3,i})=(r,s)\rbrace.
$$
Thus $\alpha_{r,s}$ is the number of
generators of $I_X$ of degree $(r,s)$, and
$\beta_{r,s}$ and $\gamma_{r,s}$ represent the number of
first and second syzygies of degree $(r,s)$, respectively.
Giuffrida, Maggioni, and Ragusa \cite[Proposition 3.3]{GMR2} showed a number
of relations between $H_X,\Delta H_X$ and $\Delta^2 H_X$ and
the invariants in ~\eqref{eq: min free res}; we record
one such relation in the next theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:6}
Let $X$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
with second difference Hilbert function $\Delta^2 H_X = (d_{i,j})$.
If $(r,s)\succ (0,0)$, then $d_{r,s}= -\alpha_{r,s}+ \beta_{r,s}- \gamma_{r,s}.$
\end{theorem}
We will use another result of Giuffrida, Maggioni, and Ragusa, which (under a certain hypothesis on the set $X$ of points) relates the degrees of the minimal generators of $I_X$, in particular,
the values $\alpha_{i,j}$ defined above, to the integers $d_{i,j}$ in the second difference matrix $\Delta^2 H = (d_{i,j})$. The version stated here is a special case of \cite[Theorem 4.3]{GMR1}:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:main theorem}
Let $s \geq 1$ be an integer. There exists a dense open subset $U$ of $(\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1)^s$ such that for every $(P_1,\dots,P_s) \in U$, the set of points $X = \lbrace P_1,\dots,P_s\rbrace$ satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ has generic Hilbert function, and
\item for any $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$ such that
$d_{i,j} <0$ and $d_{i,s} >0$ for some $s > j$, or,
$d_{i,j} < 0$ and $d_{r,j} > 0$ for some $r > i$,
then we have $\alpha_{i,j}=-d_{i,j}$, i.e., the number of minimal generators of $I_X$ of degree $(i,j)$ is $-d_{i,j}$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, every non-zero $\alpha_{i,j}$ arises in the manner described in (2).
\end{theorem}
Motivated by the above result,
a set of $s$ points $X= \lbrace P_1,\dots,P_s \rbrace$ in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ is said to be in {\it sufficiently general position} if $(P_1,\dots,P_s)$ belongs to the open set of
Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem}.
\begin{example}\label{runningexample}
We illustrate some of the ideas of this section with the following
running example.
Let $X$ be a set of six points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$
that are in sufficiently general position. The Hilbert
function of $S/I_X$ is thus the generic Hilbert function.
Thus we know $H_X$, and consequently $\Delta^2 H_X$; these functions
are written as infinite matrices below (where rows and columns are index by $\{0,1,\ldots\}$):
\[
H_X = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
2 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
3 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
4 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \dots \\
5 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & \ \\
\ & \ & \ & \vdots & \ & \ & \ \\
\end{bmatrix}
~~\mbox{and}~~
\Delta^2 H_X = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & \ \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & \ \\
0 & 0 & -3 & 4 & 0 & 0 & -1 & \ \\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ \\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ \\
\ & \ & \ & \vdots & \ & \ & \ \\
\end{bmatrix}
.\]
Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem} says we can determine
the number of the minimal generators of
$I_X$ of any particular bidegree by looking for
negative entries in the matrix $\Delta^2 H_X = (d_{i,j})$ which also
have a positive entry either to the right of, or below, the negative entry.
For our example of six points, these entries are:
$$\begin{array}{llll}
\bullet & d_{0,6}=-1 <0 ~~\mbox{and}~~ d_{1,6}=2>0 & \bullet & d_{3,1}=-2 <0
~~\mbox{and}~~ d_{6,1} =2>0 \\
\bullet & d_{1,3}=-2 <0 ~~\mbox{and}~~ d_{1,6}=2>0 & \bullet &
d_{6,0} =-1 <0 ~~\mbox{and}~~ d_{6,1}=2>0. \\
\bullet & d_{2,2}=-3 <0 ~~\mbox{and}~~ d_{2,4}=4>0 &
\end{array}$$
So, the ideal $I_X$ has one minimal generator of degree $(0,6)$,
two minimal generators of degree $(1,3)$, three minimal
generators of degree $(2,2)$, two minimal generators of degree $(3,1)$,
and one minimal generator of degree $(6,0)$.
This agrees with the bigraded minimal free resolution
of $S/I_X$ obtained by using Macaulay2:
\begin{equation}\label{res6pts}
0 \rightarrow
\begin{matrix}
S(-3,-3)^2\\
\oplus\\
S(-6,-2)\\
\oplus\\
S(-2,-6)
\end{matrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{matrix}
S(-3,-2)^4\\
\oplus\\
S(-2,-3)^4\\
\oplus\\
S(-1,-6)^2\\
\oplus\\
S(-6,-1)^2
\end{matrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{matrix}
S(-3,-1)^2
\oplus
S(-2,-2)^3\\
\oplus \\
S(-1,-3)^2\\
\oplus\\
S(0,-6)
\oplus
S(-6,0)
\end{matrix}
\rightarrow S \rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
Very roughly speaking,
a set of $s$ points $X$ in
$\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ is in sufficiently general position if the points are ``random'' enough. In other words, there should be no subset $Y$ of $X$ that is contained on some curve of smaller than
expected degree. One way to interpret Theorem
\ref{theorem:main theorem} is that for
a collection of points $X$ that is random enough,
the number of generators of $I_X$ and their
degrees can be read off the Hilbert function. As
the next example shows, simply having the correct
Hilbert function does not allow us to count
the generators and their degrees from $H_X$.
\begin{example}
Consider the five points
$$X = \{[1:1]\times [1:1],[1:2]\times [1:2],[1:3]\ \times [1:3],[1:4] \times [1:4],[1:6] \times [1:8]\}.$$
These five points are not in sufficiently general position. Indeed, note that for this set of points, the
bihomogeneous element $x_0y_1-x_1y_0$ of degree $(1,1)$ pass through the first four points;
for a sufficiently general set of points, we would expect
no four points of a set of five points to lie on a curve
of degree $(1,1)$.
This set of points also gives us an example
of a set of points that satisfies the first condition
of Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem}, but not
the second. The Hilbert function of $S/I_X$
is the generic Hilbert function, where
the corresponding second difference function is given
by
\[
H_X = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 5 & \ \\
2 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & \ \\
3 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & \ \\
4 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & \dots \\
5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & \ \\
5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & \ \\
\ & \ & \ & \vdots & \ & \ & \ \\
\end{bmatrix}
~~\mbox{and}~~
\Delta^2 H_X = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & \ \\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 2 & \ \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & \ \\
0 & -1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ \\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ \\
\ & \ & \ & \vdots & \ & \\ \\
\end{bmatrix}.\]
The ideal of $I_X$ contains a generator of degree $(2,2)$,
namely,
$$288x_0^2y_0^2-600x_0^2y_0y_1+41x_1^2y_0y_1+420x_0^2y_1^2-161x_0x_1y_1^2+12x_1^2y_1^2.$$
However, if $X$ was in sufficiently general position,
then the ideal $I_X$ would have no generator of degree $(2,2)$ by Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem}
because the $(2,2)$ entry
of $\Delta^2 H_X$ is not negative.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Gao, Li, Loper, and Mattoo \cite{Loper1}
defined a set of points to
be a {\it virtual complete intersection} if
$S/I_X$ has a virtual resolution of the
form $K(f,g)$, where $K(f,g)$ denotes the
Koszul complex of two bihomogeneous
forms $f$ and $g$. Any finite
set of points $X$ in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ that is in
sufficiently general position is also
a virtual complete intersection. To see
this fact, first note
that for such a set of points,
the first coordinates, respectively
second coordinates, of $X$ are distinct,
so each horizontal and vertical ruling
of $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ that
intersects $X$ meets at only one point. Because
$X$ has the same number of points
on each vertical and horizontal ruling,
$X$ is now a virtual complete intersection by
\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Loper1}. In the next
section, we will give alternative virtual
resolutions for these sets of points.
\end{remark}
\section{Virtual resolutions via ``trimming''}
\label{trimmingsection}
In this section, we give a family of explicitly described virtual resolutions for points in sufficiently general position
in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, using the trimming result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith. Our main result is the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{maintheoremtrim}
Let $X$ be a set of points in
$\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ in sufficiently general
position. Assume $\lvert X \rvert > 1$ and suppose that
there exists an $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$ with $i < j$ such that
$|X| = (i+1)(j+1)$. Then there is a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two.
In fact, the virtual resolution can be described explicitly
as follows.
Let $|X| = (i+2)q+r$ with $q, r \in {\mathbb N}$ and $0 \leq r < (i+2)$.
Then the virtual resolution has the form
$$0 \rightarrow
S(-i-1,-j-1)^{2i+2} \rightarrow
\begin{array}{c}
S(-i,-j-1)^{i+1} \\
\oplus \\
S(-i-1,-q)^{i+2-r} \\
\oplus \\
S(-i-1,-q-1)^r
\end{array}
\rightarrow S \rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0,
$$
where if $r=0$, the module $S(-i-1,-q-1)^0$ does not appear.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
If $|X|=1$, then $I_X$ is a complete intersection and the minimal free resolution of $S/I_X$
$$0\rightarrow S(-1,-1)\rightarrow S(-1,0)\oplus S(0,-1)\rightarrow S\rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0 $$
is already of length two. For this reason, we omit this case in the theorem above.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For a set $X$ of points with $\lvert X \rvert >1$ in sufficiently general position in
$\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, there
always exists at least one tuple $(i,j)$ that satisfies the hypotheses, namely
$(i,j) = (0,|X|-1)$.
\end{remark}
As a first step toward the proof of Theorem~\ref{maintheoremtrim}, we show that its hypotheses
completely determine a submatrix of the second difference Hilbert function $\Delta^2 H_X$. In fact, we can compute this submatrix quite explicitly, as recorded in the lemma below.
\begin{lemma}\label{submatrix}
Assume the hypotheses and notation of Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim}.
If $i> 0$ and $q<j$, then
the $(i+2) \times (j+2)$ submatrix of $\Delta^2 H_X$ consisting of
the first $(i+2)$ rows and the first $(j+2)$ columns of $\Delta^2 H_X$ is of the form:
$$
\bordermatrix{
& 0 & 1 & \cdots & q & q+1 & \cdots & j & j+1 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 & 0 \cr
1& 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 & 0 \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots \cr
i-1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 & 0 \cr
i & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 & -i-1 \cr
i+1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & -i-2+r & -r& \cdots & 0 & 2i+2 \cr
}.$$
{Note that we take the convention that if $j=q+1$, then we ignore the column labelled $j$ and take the column labelled $q+1$, and if $i=1$, then we ignore the row labelled $i-1$ and take the row labelled $0$. }
If $i>0$ and $q=j=i+1$, then the $(i+2) \times (i+3)$ submatrix of $\Delta^2 H_X$ consisting of the first $(i+2)$ rows and the first $(i+3)=(j+2)$ columns of $\Delta^2 H_X$ is of the form:
$$
\bordermatrix{
& 0 & 1 & \cdots & j-2 & j-1 & j & j+1 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
1& 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots \cr
i-1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr
i & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & 0 & -i-1 \cr
i+1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & -i-2 & 2i+2 \cr
}.$$
{We make the convention that if $i=1$, then we ignore the row labelled $i-1$ and take the row labelled $0$.}
Finally, if $i=0$, then the first two rows and $j+2$ columns of $\Delta^2 H_X$ are of the form:
$$\bordermatrix{
& 0 & 1 & \cdots & q-1 & q & \cdots & j & j+1 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0& \cdots & 0 & -1 \cr
1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & -2+r & -r& \cdots & 0 & 2 \cr
}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first consider the case $i > 0$ and $q<j$. Note that $i(j+2) < |X| = (i+1)(j+1)$.
Indeed, $i(j+2) \geq (i+1)(j+1)$ implies that
$i \geq j+1$, contradicting our assumption that $i < j$. So, because $X$ has the
generic Hilbert function, $H_X(i-1,j+1) = i(j+2)$.
More generally, under the assumptions $i>0$ and $q<j$ we can compute the
first $(i+2)$ rows and first $(j+2)$ columns of $H_X$ to be the following:
\footnotesize
$$\bordermatrix{
& 0 & 1 & \cdots & q-1 & q & \cdots &j-1 & j & j+1 \cr
0 & 1 & 2 & \cdots & q & q+1& \cdots & j & j+1 & j+2 \cr
1& 2 & 4 & \cdots & 2q & 2(q+1)& \cdots &2j & 2(j+1) & 2(j+2)\cr
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \cr
i-1 & i & (i)2 &\cdots & iq & i(q+1)& \cdots &ij &i(j+1) & i(j+2) \cr
i & i+1 & (i+1)2& \cdots & (i+1)q & (i+1)(q+1)& \cdots & (i+1)j & |X| & |X| \cr
i+1 & i+2 & (i+2)2 & \cdots & (i+2)q & |X| & \cdots & |X| & |X| & |X| \cr
}.$$
\normalsize
Note we are using the fact that our hypotheses imply that
$$H_X(i+1,q-1) = \min\{(i+2)q,|X|\} =
\min\{(i+2)q,(i+2)q+r\} = (i+2)q$$
and that $H_X(i+1,q)=\lvert X \rvert.$
The conclusion of the lemma for this special case now follows from the definition of $\Delta^2 H_X$ and the above description of $H_X$.
The proofs for the case that $i>0$ and $q=j$
and the case that $i=0$ are similar and left to the reader. For the case $i>0$ and $q=j$, note that since $i < j$,
$|X| = (i+2)q+r = (i+1)(j+1)$ only occurs if $r=0$ and $q = j = i+1$.
\end{proof}
Using the notation introduced in Section \ref{backgroundsection}, we require
the following calculations that compute the number of generators, syzygies, and
second syzygies of $I_X$ for specific degrees.
\begin{lemma}\label{gendegreelemma}
Assume the hypotheses and notation of Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim},
and let $\Delta^2 H_X = (d_{r,s})$. If
$(a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1)$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha_{a,b}= - d_{a,b}$ if and only if $d_{a,b}<0$, and $\alpha_{a,b}=0$ otherwise
\item
$
\beta_{a,b} =
\begin{cases}
2i+2 & \mbox{if $(a,b) = (i+1,j+1)$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
$
\item $\gamma_{a,b} = 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the formula for $\alpha_{a,b}$, the number of minimal generators of $I_X$
of degree $(a,b)$. Because $X$ is in sufficiently
general position, by Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem}, $\alpha_{a,b}$ can be read
off of $\Delta^2 H_X$. Since we are only interested in all $(a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1)$, we can
use Lemma \ref{submatrix} to compute all $\alpha_{a,b}$ in this range. In particular, we note that
for each $d_{a,b}$ with $d_{a,b}<0$ in this range,
there exists an entry in $\Delta^2 H_X$ that is either to the right or below it which is positive.
Applying Theorem \ref{theorem:main theorem} then gives the desired result.
To prove the formulas for $\beta_{a,b}$ and $\gamma_{a,b}$, we remind the reader that
$$d_{r,s} = -\alpha_{r,s}+\beta_{r,s}- \gamma_{r,s} ~~\mbox{for all $(0,0) \neq (r,s)\in \mathbb{N}^2$}$$
by Theorem~\ref{prop:6}.
We also recall the general fact that if $\beta_{r,s} >0$ (respectively $\gamma_{r,s} >0)$, then
there is some $\alpha_{a,b} >0$ (respectively, $\beta_{a,b} >0$) with $(a,b) \prec (r,s)$.
This is because $\beta_{r,s}$ records a syzygy among generators of degree strictly less than
$(r,s)$, and similarly, $\gamma_{r,s}$ records a second syzygy among the syzygies of
degrees strictly less than $(r,s)$.
For the discussion below, we always restrict to $(a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1)$.
As we have already observed, $\alpha_{a,b}>0$ exactly at the locations $(a,b)$ such that $d_{a,b}<0$ and $\alpha_{a,b}=0$ elsewhere. Let $(a,b)$ be such that $\alpha_{a,b}>0$ and assume that $b$ is the smallest index with $\alpha_{a,b}>0$. An examination of the different cases of $\Delta^2 H_X$ in Lemma~\ref{submatrix} yields the conclusion that $\alpha_{u,v}=0$ for any $(u,v) \prec (a,b)$, i.e., $I_X$ has no generators of these degrees. This then implies that $\beta_{u,v}=0$ and hence also $\gamma_{u,v}=0$ for such $(u,v)$.
We now examine the locations at which $\alpha_{a,b}>0$ more closely.
For $(a,b)=(i,j+1)$, we have
$$-\alpha_{i,j+1} = d_{i,j+1} = -\alpha_{i,j+1}+\beta_{i,j+1}-\gamma_{i,j+1}.$$
So, $\beta_{i,j+1}= \gamma_{i,j+1}$. But now $\beta_{i,j+1}=0$
since, as we saw above, there is no $\alpha_{a,b} > 0$ with $(a,b) \prec (i,j+1)$. Consequently,
$\gamma_{i,j+1}=0$.
This argument also works to show that $\beta_{i+1,v}=\gamma_{i+1,v}=0$ as well, for $v$ the minimal index with $\alpha_{i+1,v} >0$.
Suppose we are in a case when $\alpha_{i+1,v+1} >0$ where $v$ is the minimal index as above.
For $(a,b)=(i+1,v+1)$, we again have
$$-\alpha_{i+1,v+1} = d_{i+1,v+1} = -\alpha_{i+1,v+1}+\beta_{i+1,v+1}-\gamma_{i+1,v+1},$$
i.e., $\beta_{i+1,v+1} = \gamma_{i+1,v+1}$. But since we have now seen that there is no $\beta_{a,b} >0$ for any
$(a,b) \prec (i+1,v+1)$, we must have $\gamma_{i+1,d+1}=0$.
But this implies $\beta_{i+1,v+1}=0$ also.
Looking again at the possibilities for $\Delta^2 H_X$ as given in Lemma~\ref{submatrix}, we see that it remains to show that $\beta_{i+1,k}=\gamma_{i+1,k}=0$ for some values of $k \leq j+1$. We may proceed inductively. Let $k$ be the minimal index for which we wish to prove the claim and assume $k<j+1$ so that $d_{i+1,k}=0$. We already know $\alpha_{i+1,k}=0$ and hence, by a similar argument as that above, $\beta_{i+1,k}=\gamma_{i+1,k}$. But we have already shown that all $\beta_{a,b}=0$ for $(a,b)\prec (i+1,k)$ and hence $\gamma_{i+1,k}=0$, which implies $\beta_{i+1,k}=0$. Now by induction the same holds for $\beta_{i+1,k+1}$ and $\gamma_{i+1,k+1}$ and so on, provided that $k<j$.
Finally, we must analyze the case $(a,b)=(i+1,j+1)$, where we have $d_{i+1,j+1}=2i+2$. Since $\alpha_{i+1,j+1}=0$, we have
$$2i+2 = d_{i+1,j+1} = \beta_{i+1,j+1}-\gamma_{i+1,j+1}.$$
But as before, we have already seen that there is no $\beta_{a,b} >0$ for any $(a,b) \prec (i+1,j+1)$. Hence
$\gamma_{i+1,j+1}=0$ and $\beta_{i+1,j+1}=2i+2$, as desired. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now come to the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim}]
Our hypotheses imply that $H_X(i,j) = \min\{(i+1)(j+1),|X|\} = (i+1)(j+1)$. Thus, by
Theorem \ref{theorem: regular pts}, we have that $(i,j) \in {\rm reg}_B(S/I_X)$. Hence,
when we trim the bigraded minimal free resolution of $S/I_X$ in degrees at most
$(i+1,j+1)$ using the partial
order $\preceq$, we obtain a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ by Theorem
\ref{theorem:trim}.
The bigraded minimal free resolution of $S/I_X$ can be written as
$$0 \rightarrow \bigoplus_{(r,s) \in \mathbb{N}^2} S(-r,-s)^{\gamma_{r,s}} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{(r,s) \in \mathbb{N}^2} S(-r,-s)^{\beta_{r,s}} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{(r,s) \in \mathbb{N}^2} S(-r,-s)^{\alpha_{r,s}} \rightarrow S
\rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0.$$
If we now trim this resolution with respect to $(i+1,j+1)$, i.e., we keep those
summands generated in degrees $\preceq (i+1,j+1)$, then the conclusion follows from Lemma \ref{gendegreelemma}
which explicitly calculates
$\alpha_{a,b}, \beta_{a,b}$ and $\gamma_{a,b}$ for all $(a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Suppose $X$ is a set of $6$ points in
sufficiently general position in ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$. Then the associated Hilbert function and second difference function can be found in Example \ref{runningexample}.
We first note that $|X| = (1+1)(2+1)$, so we will take $(i,j) = (1,2)$. We also
have $|X| =2\cdot 3 + 0$, so $r=0$ and $q=2$ in this case. So,
by Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim},
$$0 \rightarrow S(-2,-3)^4 \rightarrow S(-2,-2)^3\oplus S(-1,-3)^2
\rightarrow S \rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0$$
is a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$.
To see why this is true in this
special case, note that $H_X(1,2) = 6$ so $(1,2) \in {\rm reg}_B(S/I_X)$.
We are thus trimming the resolution of $S/I_X$ in Example \ref{runningexample}
using $(1,2)+(1,1) =(2,3)$.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Because of the symmetry of $H_X$, we can make a statement
similar to Theorem \ref{maintheoremtrim} that assumes
$j < i$. In this case, the bidegrees need to be swapped and the roles
of $i$ and $j$ are also swapped.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Computer experiments with Macaulay2 suggest that one might be able
to get additional virtual resolutions from $\Delta^2 H_X$. In particular,
we have observed that if $X$ is in sufficiently general position
with $\Delta^2 H_X = (d_{i,j})$, and
if $$(i,j) \in \min\{(a,b) ~|~ H_X(a,b) = |X| \},$$ then there exists a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two of the following form:
\footnotesize
\begin{multline*}
0 \rightarrow
\bigoplus_{
\begin{array}{c}
(0,0) \prec (a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1) \\
d_{a,b} > 0
\end{array}}
S(-a,-b)^{d_{a,b}} \rightarrow
\\
\bigoplus_{
\begin{array}{c}
(a,b) \preceq (i+1,j+1) \\
d_{a,b} < 0
\end{array}}
S(-a,-b)^{|d_{a,b}|}
\rightarrow S \rightarrow S/I_X \rightarrow 0.
\end{multline*}
\normalsize
Note that if $(i+1)(j+1) = |X|$, then $(i,j) \in \min\{(a,b) ~|~ H_X(a,b) = |X| \}$. The above formula agrees with
Theorem
\ref{maintheoremtrim}.
\end{remark}
\section{Bounding a result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith}
\label{boundsection}
In Section \ref{trimmingsection} we used
Berkesch, Erman, and Smith's
trimming construction
to find a short virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ for a
set of points $X$ in
sufficiently general position in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
For zero-dimensional schemes
in $\mathbb{P}^{n_1} \times \cdots
\times \mathbb{P}^{n_r}$,
Berkesch, Erman, and Smith
also proved the existence of
short virtual resolutions using the
minimal free resolution of a specific module.
We state below a special case of their
result (see \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Virtual}) for the case of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem: shorten}
Let $X$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. Then for all $a \gg 0$, the
minimal free resolution of
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ is a virtual
resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two.
\end{theorem}
The purpose of this section is to improve the above
result of Berkesch, Erman, and Smith by giving an explicit bound on the $a$ that satisfies the claim in Theorem~\ref{theorem: shorten}.
Specifically, we prove the following result. (Recall that
$\pi_1(X)$ denotes the set of distinct first coordinates appearing in $X$.)
\begin{theorem}\label{maintheorem2}
Let $X$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. For all $a \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$, the
minimal free resolution of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$
is a virtual resolution of $S/I_X$ of length two.
\end{theorem}
The key lemma, whose proof we postpone until the
end of this section, is the following ideal
decomposition.
\begin{lemma}\label{keylemma}
Let $X$ be any set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$ with $\pi_1(X) =
\{A_1,\ldots,A_\ell\}$ and $\alpha_k
:= |\pi_1^{-1}(A_k) \cap X|$. Suppose that
$y_0$ is a non-zero-divisor on $S/I_X$.
Then for any integer $a \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$,
the equality
\begin{equation}\label{eq: keylemma}
\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle = \bigcap_{A_k \in \pi_1(X)}
\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},L_{A_k} \rangle \cap \langle \langle x_0,x_1\rangle ^a,y_0\rangle
\end{equation}
is a primary decomposition of $\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle$,
where $L_{A_k} = a_{k,1}x_0-a_{k,0}x_1$ if $A_k = [a_{k,0}:a_{k,1}]$.
\end{lemma}
Assuming the above lemma, we prove our main result of this section, Theorem~\ref{maintheorem2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem2}]
We first claim that for all integers $a$, the
minimal free resolution of
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1\rangle^a)$ is a
virtual resolution of $S/I_X$.
To see this, note that
by Lemma \ref{P1xP1facts}, the ideal $I_X$ is
$B$-saturated. Moreover, we have
the identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq: B-sat of IX}
(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a):B^\infty = I_X
~~\mbox{for all integers $a \geq 0$}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, because $(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1\rangle^a) \subseteq I_X$, we get
$(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a):B^\infty
\subseteq I_X:B^\infty = I_X,$
where we are using the fact that
$I_X$ is $B$-saturated by Lemma \ref{P1xP1facts} (3). For the reverse inclusion, it is enough to note that
$I_XB^a \subseteq I_X \cap B^a
\subseteq (I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$. Our claim
now follows from Theorem \ref{virtualresideals}.
It now suffices to show that for any $a \geq \lvert \pi_1(X) \rvert -1$, the minimal free resolution of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a)$ has length $2$.
We first note that
the Krull dimension of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ is $2$. This can be seen geometrically, as follows. If we
ignore the bigrading, the zero-locus $Z = Z(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ defines an algebraic set in $\mathbb{A}^4$. By
the Nulstellenstaz,
$$Z = Z(\sqrt{I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a}) = Z(\sqrt{I_X} \cap
\sqrt{\langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a}) = Z(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle)$$
since $I_X = \sqrt{I_X} = \bigcap_{i=1}^s I_{P_i}$ is the intersection of prime ideals.
The ideals $I_{P_i}$ for
$i=1,\ldots,s$ and the ideal
$\langle x_0,x_1 \rangle$ define planes in $\mathbb{A}^4$. So,
$Z$ is union of planes in $\mathbb{A}^4$. Hence
$\text{K-dim} (S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)) = \dim Z = 2$.
Because ${\rm depth}(M) \leq \mbox{K-dim}(M)$ for any $S$-module $M$
(e.g., see \cite[Lemma 2.3.6]{V}), we conclude that ${\rm depth}(S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a) \leq 2$.
To complete the
proof, it suffices to show that for all
$a \geq |\pi_1(X)| -1$, the depth is exactly two.
Indeed, if we can show this fact, then the
Auslander-Buchsbaum Theorem implies that the
projective dimension of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ is two, implying (by definition) that its minimal free resolution is of length $2$, as desired.
We now show that for
all
$a \geq |\pi_1(X)| -1$, the depth is exactly two.
By Remark \ref{convention}, we can assume
that $y_0$ is a non-zero-divisor of $S/I_X$.
In fact, $y_0$ is also a non-zero-divisor of
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1\rangle^a)$ because
if $y_0H \in (I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$,
we have $y_0H \in I_X$ and $y_0H \in \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a$, and this can only happen if
$H \in I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a$.
Next, we claim that the depth of
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a, y_0)$ is not zero.
This would show that there is a regular sequence of at least $2$ in $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a)$ (the first element of which is $y_0$), which would prove that the depth is $\geq 2$ as claimed.
Because $a \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$, Lemma \ref{keylemma} gives a primary decomposition of $\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a,y_0\rangle$.
The zerodivisors of
$S/\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a,y_0\rangle$ are
the elements in the union of the associated primes (e.g.,
see \cite[Lemma 2.1.19]{V}), that is, the elements of the set
\begin{equation}\label{nzd}
\left(\bigcup_{A_k \in \pi_1(X)} \langle y_0,y_1,L_{A_k} \rangle
\right) \cup \langle x_0,x_1,y_0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
Let $L$ be any element with $\deg L = (1,0)$ such that $L$ does
not vanish at any point in $\pi_1(X)$. Then $L+y_1$ is not
in the union ~\eqref{nzd}, so $L+y_1$ is a non-zero-divisor
of $S/\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a,y_0\rangle$.
As we saw above, this implies that ${\rm depth}(S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0, x_1 \rangle^a)) \geq 2$. Putting this together with the fact that
${\rm depth}(S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)) \leq \mbox{K-dim} (S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)) =2$ we obtain that the depth is $2$, as desired. This now completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
It remains to prove Lemma \ref{keylemma}, which we now do.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{keylemma}]
We start with some observations about our set of points $X$ and associated defining ideal
$I_X$. By definition of the $\alpha_k$'s, for
each $A_k \in \pi_1(X)$, there
exist $\alpha_k$ many points $\{B_{k,1}, \ldots, B_{k,\alpha_k}\}$ in $\mathbb{P}^1$ such that
$$X_k:= \{A_k \times B_{k,1},A_k \times B_{k,2}, \ldots, A_k \times B_{k, \alpha_k}\} \subseteq
X$$
and all other points in $X$ have first coordinate differing from $A_k$. Thus $X_k$ is exactly the subset of $X$ consisting of points with first coordinate equal to $A_k$.
Consequently, $I_X = \bigcap_{k=1}^\ell I_{X_k}$. By
Lemma \ref{pointsonruling}, for each $k$, $I_{X_k} = \langle F_k, G_k \rangle$ where
$\deg F_k = (1,0)$ and $\deg G_k = (0,\alpha_k)$. Furthermore, by Remark \ref{convention},
we can assume that no second coordinate has the form $[0:1]$, and consequently,
by Lemma \ref{pointsonruling} we have
$y_0\nmid G_k$ for all $k$.
In general, for any three ideals $I,J,K$, we always have $(I \cap J)+K \subseteq (I+K) \cap (J+K)$.
It follows that for all integers $a \geq 0$
\begin{equation}\label{eq: distribute}
\begin{split}
\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a, y_0 \rangle & =
\langle I_{X_1} \cap \cdots \cap I_{X_\ell} \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a, y_0 \rangle \\
& \subseteq \langle I_{X_1},y_0 \rangle \cap \cdots \cap \langle I_{X_\ell},y_0 \rangle \cap
\langle \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a, y_0 \rangle.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From Lemma~\ref{pointsonruling} we know that for any $k$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq: IXk y0}
\langle I_{X_k},y_0 \rangle = \langle L_{A_k},L_{B_{k,1}}\cdots L_{B_{k, \alpha_k}},y_0 \rangle
= \langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k}, L_{A_k} \rangle
\end{equation}
where the second equality holds because
$L_{B_{k,1}}\cdots L_{B_{k,\alpha_k}}$ is a homogeneous
polynomial of degree $\alpha_k$ only in the variables $y_0$ and $y_1$, and the
coefficient of $y_1^{\alpha_k}$ is not zero. Consequently, combining~\eqref{eq: distribute} and~\eqref{eq: IXk y0}, it follows that the
LHS of~\eqref{eq: keylemma} is contained in its RHS, for any $a \geq 0$.
We now wish to show the reverse containment, i.e. the RHS of~\eqref{eq: keylemma} is contained in the LHS, for all $a \geq \lvert \pi_1(X) \rvert -1$.
Since both ideals are bihomogeneous, it suffices to show the inclusion on each $(i,j)$-th graded piece, that is, to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: reverse inclusion}
\left[ \bigcap_{A_k \in \pi_1(X)}
\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_i},L_{A_k} \rangle \cap \langle \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0\rangle\right]_{i,j} \subseteq \left[\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle \right]_{i,j}
\end{equation}
for all $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$. We now consider two cases: (1) $0 \leq i <a$ and (2) $a \leq i$.
We first argue for case (1). Suppose that $0 \leq i < a$ and suppose that $F$ lies in the LHS of~\eqref{eq: reverse inclusion}.
In particular, $F \in \langle \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle$.
Since $0 \leq i<a$ by assumption, we conclude that $F \in \langle y_0 \rangle$. But then $F \in \left[\langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle \right]_{i,j}$ also, so~\eqref{eq: reverse inclusion} holds.
For case (2), we have $a \leq i$, so $\left[\langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a\right]_{i,j} =S_{i,j}$. Consequently
$$\langle \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle_{i,j} = S_{i,j}
~~\mbox{and}
\left[ \langle I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle \right]_{i,j} =
\left[\langle I_X,y_0 \rangle\right]_{i,j}.$$
Thus, to prove~\eqref{eq: reverse inclusion} in this case it suffices to check that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: rev incl take 2}
\left[ \bigcap_{A_k \in \pi_1(X)}
\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},L_{A_k} \rangle \right]_{i,j} \subseteq \left[\langle I_X,y_0 \rangle \right]_{i,j}.
\end{equation}
We now analyze the ideals appearing in the intersection in the LHS of~\eqref{eq: rev incl take 2} individually. Fix a $k$
with $1 \leq k \leq \ell$. We consider cases. Suppose first that $\alpha_k \leq j$. In this case
$\left[\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},L_{A_k} \rangle\right]_{i,j} = S_{i,j}$ since
every monomial of degree $(i,j)$ with $j \geq \alpha_k$ is either divisible by $y_0$
or $y_1^{\alpha_k}$.
On the other hand, suppose that $j < \alpha_k$. Then we have
$$\left[\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_i},L_{A_i} \rangle\right]_{i,j} =
\left[\langle y_0,L_{A_i} \rangle\right]_{i,j}$$
since no monomial containing $y^{\alpha_k}$ contributes to the $(i,j)$-th graded piece of
the ideal if $\alpha_k > j$. In summary, we have shown that to prove~\eqref{eq: rev incl take 2} it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{vs}
\left[ \bigcap_{
\scriptsize{
\begin{array}{c}
A_k \in \pi_1(X) \\
\alpha_k > j
\end{array}}}
\langle y_0,L_{A_k} \rangle \right]_{i,j} \subseteq \left[\langle I_X,y_0 \rangle \right]_{i,j}.
\end{equation}
Because the vector space on the RHS of ~\eqref{vs} is a subspace
of the vector space on the LHS, it is enough
to show that the two vector spaces in ~\eqref{vs} have the same
dimension.
The ideal on the LHS of~\eqref{vs} is the ideal of the points
$$Y = \{A_k \times [0:1] ~|~ \alpha_k > j \} \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1.$$
The number of points in this set is the number of $\alpha_k \in \alpha_X$
with $\alpha_k \geq j+1$ which is by definition $\alpha^\star_{j+1}$. Moreover,
by Lemma \ref{pointsonruling} (and Remark \ref{swapruling}), we have
$H_Y(i,j) = \alpha^\star_{j+1}$ since $i \geq a \geq |\pi(X)|-1 = \alpha_1^{\star}-1$ by assumption
and $\alpha_1^\star \geq \alpha_{j+1}^\star$ by properties of partitions. On the other hand,
because $y_0$ is a non-zero-divisor
and since $i \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$, by Corollary \ref{specialvaluesofHX2} we also have
$$H_{S/\langle I_X,y_0 \rangle}(i,j) = \alpha_{j+1}^\star.$$
Since $H_Y(i,j) = \dim_{\Bbbk} S_{i,j} - \dim_{\Bbbk} [I_Y]_{i,j}$ and
$H_{S/\langle I_X,y_0 \rangle}(i,j) =\dim_{\Bbbk} S_{i,j}
-\dim_{\Bbbk} [\langle I_X,y_0\rangle]_{i,j}$, we can conclude that the two vector spaces in \eqref{vs} have the same dimension, as desired.
To complete the proof, we show that all the ideals
on the RHS are primary. Recall that a monomial ideal
$Q = \langle m_1,\ldots,m_t \rangle$ in a polynomial ring
$\Bbbk[z_1,\ldots,z_n]$ is a primary ideal if and only if, after
a permutation of the variables,
$Q = \langle z_1^{a_1},\ldots,z_r^{a_r},m'_1,\ldots,m'_p\rangle$
and the only variables that divide $m'_1,\ldots,m'_p$
are $z_1,\ldots,z_r$ (e.g, see
\cite[Proposition 6.1.7]{V}).
It follows that the ideal
$\langle \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a,y_0 \rangle$ is
a primary monomial ideal, since the generators
are $x_0^a,x_1^a,y_0$ and monomials of the
form $x_0^bx_1^c$ with $b+c = a$ and $b,c >0$. For
the ideals $\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},L_{A_k}=a_{k,1} x_0 - a_{k,0}x_1 \rangle$,
if $a_{k,0} =0$, then this is also a primary monomial ideal.
If $a_{k,0} \neq 0$, then
$$S/\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},a_{k,1}x_0-a_{k,0}x_1 \rangle
= S/\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},\frac{a_{k,1}}{a_{k,0}}x_0-x_1 \rangle \cong \Bbbk[x_0,y_0,y_1]/\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},x_0 \rangle.$$
Since $\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},x_0 \rangle$ is
primary, so is $\langle y_0,y_1^{\alpha_k},L_{A_i} \rangle$.
\end{proof}
The {\it virtual dimension} of a
graded $S$-module $M$, denoted
${\rm vdim}(M)$, is the minimum length
of a virtual resolution of $M$. By
\cite[Proposition 2.5]{Virtual}, we always
have ${\rm vdim}(M) \geq {\rm codim}(M)$.
We say $M$ is {\it virtually Cohen-Macaulay}
if ${\rm vdim}(M) = {\rm codim}(M)$.
Our main result implies the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ be a set of points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. Then $S/I_X$ is virtually
Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For any finite set of points
$X$ in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$,
we have ${\rm codim}(S/I_X) = 2$. The result now follows from Theorem \ref{maintheorem2}
which shows ${\rm vdim}(S/I_X) \leq 2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The above fact was already observed in
\cite{Virtual} (in particular, see the comments
after \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Virtual}), although the terminology
of virtually Cohen-Macaulay was not used. It was also observed in \cite[Corollary 4.2]{Virtual} that the ring $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1\rangle^a)$ is
Cohen-Macaulay for $a \gg 0$. This result
can also be recovered from Theorem \ref{maintheorem2}; in fact, our proof shows
that one can take $a \geq |\pi_1(X)|-1$.
The virtually Cohen-Macaulay property is further explored in \cite{Berkesch}.
\end{remark}
We conclude with some examples which illustrate our results. Our
first example shows that the uniform bound of Theorem \ref{maintheorem2} is
optimal.
\begin{example}
Let $X$ be a set of six points with generic Hilbert function, as in
Example \ref{runningexample}. For this example, $\lvert \pi_1(X) \rvert -1 = 5$,
and thus,
by Theorem \ref{maintheorem2}, the minimal graded free
resolution of $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ has length two for
all $a \geq 5$. A direct computation using a computer algebra system
shows that $S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ has a minimal
graded free resolution of length three for
$0 \leq a < 5$. For example, when $a=4$,
Macaulay2 yields the minimal free resolution:
$$0 \rightarrow
S \rightarrow S^6 \rightarrow S^6 \rightarrow S \rightarrow S/(I_X\cap\langle x_0,x_1\rangle^4) \rightarrow 0,$$
where we have dropped the bigraded shifts for readability.
Thus, the uniform bound for all points in
$\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$ of Theorem \ref{maintheorem2} cannot be improved.
\end{example}
For a specific set of points $X$ in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$, however, it is possible that the smallest integer $a$ such that
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ has a minimal resolution of length two
may be strictly smaller than $|\pi_1(X)|-1$. For example, if $X$ has the property that $S/I_X$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring (such $X$ are classified in \cite{FGM,GMR2,G,Adam}), then
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ has a minimal graded free resolution
of length two for all $a \geq 0$. Below, we give another example of
this phenomenon.
\begin{example}\label{nonboundexample}
Let $P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4$ be four distinct points in $\mathbb{P}^1$ and let
$Q_1,Q_2,Q_3,Q_4$ be another collection of four distinct points in $\mathbb{P}^1$ (we
allow for the case that $P_i = Q_j$ for some $i$ and $j$).
Consider the following set of nine points in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$:
$$X = \{P_1 \times Q_1, P_1 \times Q_2, P_1 \times Q_3, P_1\times Q_4,
P_2 \times Q_2, P_2 \times Q_4, P_3 \times Q_3, P_3 \times Q_4, P_4 \times Q_4\}.$$
We can visualize these points as follows:
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.6mm}
\begin{picture}(44,60)(-13,-15)
\put(-2,1){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-2,11){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-2,21){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(-2,31){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(1,-2){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(11,-2){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(21,-2){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(31,-2){\line(0,1){40}}
\put(1,31){\circle*{2}}
\put(11,31){\circle*{2}}
\put(21,31){\circle*{2}}
\put(31,31){\circle*{2}}
\put(31,21){\circle*{2}}
\put(31,11){\circle*{2}}
\put(11,21){\circle*{2}}
\put(21,11){\circle*{2}}
\put(31,1){\circle*{2}}
\put(-11,31){$P_1$}
\put(-11,21){$P_2$}
\put(-11,11){$P_3$}
\put(-11,1){$P_4$}
\put(-1,-11){$Q_1$}
\put(10,-11){$Q_2$}
\put(20,-11){$Q_3$}
\put(30,-11){$Q_4$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
Consequently, $|\pi(X)|-1 =4-1=3$.
On the other hand, using Macaulay2, we find that the smallest $a$ for which
$S/(I_X \cap \langle x_0,x_1 \rangle^a)$ has minimal resolution of
length two is $a=2 < |\pi_1(X)|-1$.
\end{example}
We round out this paper with some observations and questions.
\begin{remark} It is
well-known that for a set of points in $Z$ in $\mathbb{P}^1$, the
Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $R/I_Z$ (where $I_Z$ is the defining
ideal of $Z$ in $R = \Bbbk[x_0,x_1]$) is given by
${\rm reg}(R/I_Z) = |Z|-1$. If we combine this fact with Theorem
\ref{maintheorem2}, we can rewrite the bound in terms of the regularity
of the set of points in the projection, i.e., $a \geq {\rm reg}(R/I_Z)$ where
$Z = \pi_1(X) \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1$. This suggests that one
way to generalize Theorem \ref{maintheorem2} to $\mathbb{P}^n \times
\mathbb{P}^m$ (or even $\mathbb{P}^{n_1} \times \cdots \times \mathbb{P}^{n_r}$)
is to consider the regularity of $R/I_Z$ where $Z = \pi_1(X) \subseteq
\mathbb{P}^n$ (or the multigraded regularity in the case of more than two
projective spaces).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Example \ref{nonboundexample} shows that for some specific configurations of points
in $\mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{P}^1$, the bound in Theorem \ref{maintheorem2} can be improved.
For example, if we know that the set of
points has the property that $S/I_X$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring, then
we can take $a=0$. Moreover, these points can be classified geometrically. The
points in Example \ref{nonboundexample} do not have the Cohen-Macaulay property, but
they are not as ``sparse'' as a set of points with generic Hilbert function. It would be interesting to determine what conditions on the geometry of the points allow
us to improve our bounds on the existence of short virtual resolutions.
\end{remark}
|
\section{abstract}
This short paper addresses quasi synchronization
of heterogeneous complex dynamical networks. The similarity and difference between synchronization of homogeneous systems and quasi synchronization
of heterogeneous complex dynamical networks will be revealed.
Key words Quasi synchronization, complex network, heterogeneous,
homogeneous, synchronization.
\section{Introduction}
Synchronization of complex networks has been a hot issue for decades.
In [1], a general framework is presented to analyze
synchronization stability of Linearly Coupled Ordinary
Differential Equations (LCODEs). The uncoupled dynamical behavior
at each node is general, which can be chaotic or others; the
coupling configuration is also general, without assuming the
coupling matrix be symmetric or irreducible.
It is clear that complete synchronization applies only to homogeneous systems. Later, researchers discussed synchronization of heterogeneous systems or non-identical nodes. For example, in [2], the cluster synchronization of networks with nonidentical nodes was addressed. In [3]-[12], the quasi synchronization or bounded synchronization was investigated.
Based on the approach and techniques proposed in [1], in this paper, we proposed a new approach to discuss quasi-synchronization of complex networks.
This article is organized as follows. Section 3 introduces
the network model and some mathematical preliminaries. Section 4
presents our main results. Section 5 concludes the article.
\section{Models and basic mathematical concepts}
In [1], the synchronization of the coupled homogeneous systems
\begin{align}\label{modelhomo}
\frac{d x_{i}(t)}{dt}=f(x_{i}(t))
+c\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}a_{ij} x_{j}(t),\quad i=1,\cdots,m
\end{align}
were discussed. Here, every node $x_{i}(t)=[x_{i}^{1}(t),\cdots,x_{i}^{1}(t)]^{T}\in R^{n}$, $i=1,\cdots,m$, has same intrinsic dynamics $\dot{x}_{i}(t)=f(x_{i}(t))$.
Synchronization of the system (1) is defined as
\begin{align}\label{def1}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x_{i}(t)-x_{j}(t)||=0,\quad i=1,\cdots,m
\end{align}
Instead, in this paper, we discuss quasi synchronization of the following heterogeneous systems
\begin{align}\label{modelhetero}
\frac{d x_{i}(t)}{dt}=f_{i}(x_{i}(t))
+c\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}a_{ij} x_{j}(t),\quad i=1,\cdots,m
\end{align}
where every node has different intrinsic dynamics $\dot{x}_{i}(t)=f_{i}(x_{i}(t))$.
Quasi synchronization of the system (3) is defined as
\begin{align}\label{def1}
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x_{i}(t)-x_{j}(t)||\le \delta,\quad i=1,\cdots,m
\end{align}
for some positive constant $\delta>0$.
Readers can also refer to [3]-[12].
Throughout the paper, we assume that the coupling matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ is a connected Mezler matrix, i.e. $a_{ij}\ge 0$, if $i\ne j$ and $a_{ii}=-\sum_{j\ne i}a_{ij}$. $Rank(A)=m-1$.
Let~$\Xi=[\xi_{1},\cdots,\xi_{m}]^{T}$~be the left eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue $0$ of the coupling matrix $A$.
It was proved in [1] that the eigenvalues of $\Xi A+A^{T}\Xi$ can be written as $0=\lambda_{1}>\lambda_{2}\ge \cdots\ge \lambda_{m}$.
For any trajectory $x(t)=[x_{1}^{T}(t),\cdots,x_{m}^{T}(t)]^{T}$, denote $\bar{x}(t)=[\bar{x}^{1}(t),\cdots,\bar{x}^{n}(t)]^{T}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}x_{i}(t)$. $\bar{X}(t)=[\bar{x}^{T}(t),\cdots,\bar{x}^{T}(t)]^{T}$.
It was reported in [1]
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}a_{ij}=0,~ \sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}(x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t))J(t)=0
\end{align}
where $J(t)$ is any function independent of the index $i$. Thus,
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}(x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t))\dot{\bar{x}}(t)=0
\end{align}
\section{Main results}
Define two norms $||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||$ and $||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}$ by
\begin{align
||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||^{2}=
\sum_{i=1}^{m}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]
\end{align}
\begin{align
||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}=
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]
\end{align}
It is clear that
\begin{align
\underline{\xi}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||^{2}\le||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}\le \bar{\xi}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||^{2}
\end{align}
where
$$\underline{\xi}=\min_{i=1,\cdots,m}\xi_{i},~ \bar{\xi}=\max_{i=1,\cdots,m}\xi_{i}$$
Differentiating $||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}$, we have
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}&
=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[f_{i}(x_i(t)-J(t)]\nonumber\\&
+c\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(x_i(t)-\bar{x}(t))^{T}[\xi_{i} a_{ij}+\xi_{i} a_{ij}]
(x_j(t)-\bar{x}(t))\nonumber\\&=\tilde{K}_1(t)+\tilde{K}_2(t)
\end{align}
where $J(t)$ can be any function independent of index $i$. Here, we can choose $J(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}f_{i}(x_{i}(t))$,
It can be seen that $\tilde{K}_{2}(t)$ describes the effect of the coupled term, which helps synchronization. Instead, $\tilde{K}_{1}(t)$ describes the effect of deviation between nodes, which should be overcome.
Simple calculations show
\begin{align}
\tilde{K}_2(t)
&\le c\lambda_{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(x_i(t)-\bar{x}(t))^{T}(x_j(t)-\bar{x}(t))
\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{c\lambda_{2}}{\overline{\xi}}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\xi_{i}(x_i(t)-\bar{x}(t))^{T}(x_j(t)-\bar{x}(t))
\nonumber\\
&=\frac{c\lambda_{2}}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
\end{align}
Notice $\sum_{j=1}^{m}\xi_{j}=1$, by Jessen inequality
$$(\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}a_{i})^{1/2}\ge (\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}a_{i}^{1/2})$$
we have
\begin{align}
&|\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[f_{i}(x_i(t)-J(t)]|\le \tilde{c}(t)|\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\xi_{i}|x_{i}^{k}(t)-\bar{x}^{k}(t)|\nonumber
\\&\le
\tilde{c}(t)(\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)])^{1/2}
=\tilde{c}(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\tilde{c}(t)=\sup_{i=1,\cdots,m}||f_{i}(x_i(t)-J(t)||
\end{align}
Therefore,
\begin{align}\label{K1a}
\tilde{K}_1(t)=&\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[f(x_i(t)-J(t)]\nonumber\\
&\le \tilde{c}(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}
\end{align}
Combining them, we obtain
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
<-\frac{c|\lambda_{2}|}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
+\tilde{c}(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}
\end{align}
In case that
$$||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}
>\frac{\tilde{c}(t)\overline{\xi}}{c|\lambda_{2}|}$$
we have
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
<0
\end{align}
and
\begin{align
\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}\le \frac{\overline{\xi}}{c|\lambda_{2}|}\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{c}(t)
\end{align}
which implies
\begin{align
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||\le \frac{\overline{\xi}}{c|\lambda_{2}|\sqrt{\underline{\xi}}}
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{c}(t)
\end{align}
In summary, we have
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that there exists a function $J(t)$ and let $$\tilde{c}(t)=sup_{\{i=1,\cdots,m\}}||f_{i}(x_i(t)-J(t)||$$
Then, the trajectory of the system (3) satisfies
\begin{align
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x(t)-\bar{x}(t)||\le \frac{\overline{\xi}}{c|\lambda_{2}|\sqrt{\underline{\xi}}}
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{c}(t)
\end{align}
i.e. the system (3) reaches quasi synchronization.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The constant $c$ is the coupling strength, $\lambda_{2},\overline{\xi},\underline{\xi}$ are decided by the coupling matrix $A$. The function $\tilde{c}(t)$ plays key role, which depends heavily upon the $f_{i}(x)$ and selection of $J(t)$. The smaller $\tilde{c}(t)$ is, the better result of synchronization is.
\end{remark}
It is well known that if $A$ is symmetric, then all $\xi_{i}=\frac{1}{m}$. Therefore, we have
\begin{col}
Suppose that the coupling matrix $A$ is symmetric and there exists a function $J(t)$ and let $$\tilde{c}(t)=sup_{\{i=1,\cdots,m\}}||f_{i}(x_i(t))-J(t)||$$
Then, the trajectory of the system (3) satisfies
\begin{align
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}||x(t)-\bar{x}(t)||\le \frac{1}{c|\lambda_{2}|\sqrt{m}}
\overline{lim}_{t\rightarrow\infty}\tilde{c}(t)
\end{align}
i.e. the system (3) reaches quasi synchronization.
\end{col}
\begin{remark}
In [1], the complete synchronization of the coupled homogeneous systems
\begin{align
\frac{d x_{i}(t)}{dt}=f(x_{i}(t))
+c\sum\limits_{j=1}^{m}a_{ij} x_{j}(t),\quad i=1,\cdots,m
\end{align}
was discussed. Here, every node has same intrinsic dynamics $\dot{x}_{i}(t)=f(x_{i}(t))$.
In this case,
we have
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}&
=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[f(x_i(t)-f(\bar{x}(t)]\nonumber\\&
+c\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}(x_i(t)-\bar{x}(t))[\xi_{i} a_{ij}+\xi_{i} a_{ij}]
(x_j(t)-\bar{x}(t))\nonumber\\&=K_1(t)+K_2(t)
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
K_2(t)
\le\frac{c\lambda_{2}}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
\end{align}
\begin{align}K_{1}(t)&=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[f(x_i(t)-f(\bar{x}(t)]
\nonumber\\
&\le c(t)\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]^{T}[x_{i}(t)-\bar{x}(t)]\nonumber\\
&=c(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
\end{align}
which implies
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
<-\frac{c|\lambda_{2}|}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
+c(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}<0
\end{align}
Therefore, if $\frac{c|\lambda_{2}|}{\overline{\xi}}>c(t)$, synchronization is reached.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For homogeneous system, $J(t)=f(\bar{x}(t))$ and
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
<-\frac{c|\lambda_{2}|}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
+c(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}<0
\end{align}
$$J(t)=f(\bar{x}(t)),~~K_{1}(t)\le c(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}$$
Instead, for heterogeneous systems, $J(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\xi_{i}f_{i}(\bar{x}(t))$ and
\begin{align
\frac{d}{dt}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
<-\frac{c|\lambda_{2}|}{\overline{\xi}}||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}^{2}
+\tilde{c}(t)||x(t)-\bar{X}(t)||_{\xi}
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\section{Conclusions}
In this short paper, quasi synchronization
of heterogeneous complex dynamical networks is discussed. An effective theoretical analysis
is provided.
The dynamics of the coupled homogeneous complex networks is revealed. The comparisons between
dynamics for homogeneous complex networks and heterogeneous complex networks are revealed.
\noindent{\bf References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are large eruptions of magnetized plasma from the Sun into the heliosphere, and the key agent of geomagnetic storms. It is very likely that most CMEs contain magnetic flux ropes (MFRs; e.g., \citealt{Chen2017}), at least for a substantial period of their lives. CMEs always originate in pre-eruptive configurations (PECs), which are closed magnetic fields low in the solar corona with a current-carrying core region embedded in a largely potential field. Observations increasingly suggest that the core field is often comprised of, or contains, a nearly force-free MFR \citep[e.g.,][]{Canou2009, Green2009, Zhang2012, Patsourakos2013, Howard2014, Chintzoglou2015, Zhao2016, Wang2019}; see also the recent reviews by \cite{Liu2020} and \cite{Patsourakos2020}. This justifies the initialization of numerical models of CMEs with MFR configurations, both idealized \citep[e.g.,][]{Amari2000, Fan2005, Aulanier2010, Torok2011} and constructed using observed magnetograms \citep[e.g.,][]{Manchester2008, Lugaz2011, Kliem2013, Amari2014, Inoue2018, Torok2018}; see also the review by \cite{Inoue2016}.
CMEs result from the destabilization of the current-carrying substructures of PECs. The initial phase of CMEs can vary widely in terms of their acceleration \citep[e.g.,][]{Vrsnak2007}, rise direction \citep[e.g.,][]{Moestl2015}, or morphology \citep[e.g.,][]{Torok2010}. Furthermore, eruptions can be partial \citep[e.g.,][]{Gilbert2001} or even fully confined \citep[e.g.,][]{Ji2003}. Therefore, the accuracy of PEC reconstructions appears to be a crucial factor for a correct modeling of CMEs. An accurate reconstruction of PECs for observed cases, however, is particularly challenging \citep[][]{Patsourakos2020}, since the constraints required for the reconstruction can be inferred only indirectly from, e.g., observed filament shapes or the location of flare arcades or dimmings \citep[e.g.,][]{Palmerio2017}.
One way to produce observed equilibrium PECs is by trying to form MFRs via a slow boundary-driven evolution, which can be magnetofrictional \citep[e.g.,][]{Cheung2012, Price2020} or magnetohydrodynamic \citep[MHD; e.g.,][]{Lionello2002, Bisi2010, Zuccarello2012, Jiang2016, Hayashi2018}. This requires the design of photospheric boundary conditions that emulate the physical processes on the Sun leading to PECs, and at the same time are consistent with observed magnetograms and morphological features. This approach is non-trivial, even if one tries to match only the normal component of the photospheric magnetic field. It may, therefore, take many trial-and-error attempts to create a stable PEC that satisfactorily matches the observations---especially because this method has no simple means to control the detailed properties and stability of the resulting MFR.
Another way to reconstruct PECs is via non-linear force-free field (NLFFF) extrapolations \citep[e.g.,][]{Schrijver2008}, by using vector magnetic data. However, these data are measured at the photospheric level, where the characteristic gradients of plasma pressure are not negligible compared to the magnetic forces, corresponding to a significant deviation of the field from a force-free state. Therefore, the data must be ``pre-processed'' to be compatible with the extrapolation higher up in the chromosphere and low corona \citep{Wiegelmann2006}. Vector magnetic field observations also suffer from noise and disambiguation issues, which makes the reconstruction of PECs based on NLFFF extrapolations a non-trivial problem as well.
An alternative to these boundary-condition-based methods is the MFR insertion method \citep{vanBall2004, Su2011, Savcheva2012}, which uses observations of filaments, loops, etc., to directly constrain the field model. In this method, PEC equilibria are constructed via a two-step iterative procedure. First, following the desired MFR shape inferred from the observations, a field-free cavity is constructed within the background potential magnetic field. The cavity is then filled with axial and azimuthal magnetic flux, such that the corresponding electric current is fully neutralized. Second, the resulting MFR configuration is subjected to a magnetofrictional relaxation toward a force-free equilibrium, which may contain net currents. These two steps are repeated by varying the inserted magnetic fluxes and/or the cavity shape, until a suitable equilibrium is reached. Note that all configurations obtained after step one are, by construction, far from an equilibrium state. Therefore, the relaxation can significantly change the inserted MFR and its adjacent magnetic structure. This makes the properties of the modeled PECs difficult to control, and many iterations of trial and error may be required to reach the desired result.
Fortunately, this situation can be substantially improved by using regularized Biot--Savart laws ({\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}), which we recently proposed for constructing PECs with embedded MFRs \citep[][]{Titov2018}. Similarly to the MFR insertion method, our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method uses observations to constrain the shape of the modeled MFR. Additionally, however, it employs the ambient potential field at the apex point of the MFR axis to estimate the axial current. The estimation is obtained from the condition that the components of the ambient field and the field generated by the axial current cancel each other at this point in the plane perpendicular to the axis. For thin MFRs, the field produced by the azimuthal current is small at the apex point and, therefore, neglected. Except for this simplification, the estimation is done in the same way as for the Titov \& D\'emoulin-modified (TDm) MFR model described in \cite{Titov2014}.
In both approaches, the whole configuration is represented by a linear superposition of the MFR and ambient potential fields. However, while the TDm model describes the field for MFRs of arc shape only, the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s} do so for MFRs of arbitrary shape. Therefore, by using the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s} one can model a wider class of PECs with a more complex geometry of embedded MFRs.
For such cases, however, the estimation of the axial current via the ambient field at the axis apex may not be accurate enough. This is because, in general, the ambient and MFR fields vary along the axis path. It is desirable, hence, to adjust the MFR shape in such a way that the equilibrium condition holds not only at the apex point, but also at all other points along the axis path.
For this purpose, we propose here an efficient procedure that extends the equilibrium condition to the whole path of the MFR and additionally generalizes it in the following two ways. First, we incorporate the previously neglected influence of the azimuthal current on the MFR equilibrium. Second, we take into account the variations of the current density and magnetic field across the MFR, which were also discarded before. Both generalizations become important at path segments where the local curvature radius is comparable to the radius of the MFR.
This procedure allows one to determine the unbalanced magnetic forces at several cross-sections of the MFR, and to minimize them by optimizing the shape of the axis path and the axial current of the MFR, using the Least Squares method. The residual magnetic stress in the optimized PEC can then be relaxed via magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations performed under vanishing plasma pressure ($\beta=0$) and photospheric line-tying conditions.
Note that the optimization adjusts not just the axis path, but also the connectivity of magnetic field lines to the photospheric boundary. This can be important when seeking agreement with observed morphological features of the PEC, primarily because the initial guess for the MFR axis may not be perfect. Furthermore, the adjusted magnetic connectivity and minimized magnetic stress control, to a large extent, the subsequent line-tied MHD relaxation and thus the properties of the resulting PEC. In this way, the optimization allows one to reach the desired result with fewer trial-and-error attempts and less sensitivity to initial choices.
In addition to the optimization procedure, we present an improved formulation of the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}, which reduces the normal component of the MFR field at the photosphere (including the footprint areas) to negligibly small values. This provides a much closer match of observed magnetograms than our previous formulation, which is essential for event case-studies. Ultimately, we believe this combination of optimization, relaxation, and normal-matching using {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}, can greatly facilitate the rapid construction of realistic, stable, and highly energized PECs. We expect that our new method will also be useful for a variety of non-CME applications, such as the recently developed MHD models
of prominence formation \citep[e.g.,][]{Xia2014b, Fan2019}.
In Section \ref{s:M}, we fully describe our method, including the improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s} (Section \ref{s:AIAF}) and the basic theory used for the proposed optimization procedure (Sections \ref{s:path}-\ref{s:opt}). We then illustrate in Section \ref{s:examples} the method by applying it to the modeling of PECs for the 2009 February 13 CME. Section \ref{sum} summarizes our results, and the Appendix provides an auxiliary mathematical framework for calculating magnetic fields and current densities defined by the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}.
\section{Method
\label{s:M}}
\subsection{Improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}
\label{s:AIAF}
}
In this work, we model any PEC prior to its relaxation as the following superposition of three different components of the magnetic field:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{B}
&=&
{\bm B}_{\mathrm{p}}
+
{\bm B}_{I}
+
{\bm B}_{F}
\, ,
\label{B}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bm B}_{\mathrm{p}}$ represents a potential magnetic field corresponding to a certain distribution of the radial magnetic field, which is derived, for example, from observations. The other two components, ${\bm B}_{I}$ and ${\bm B}_{F}$, are, respectively, azimuthal and axial magnetic fields generated by axial net current $I$ and axial net flux $F$ of a thin MFR. These components, in turn, are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm B}_{I}
&=&
\nabla
\times
\bm{A}_I
\label{BI}
\, ,
\\
{\bm B}_{F}
&=&
\nabla
\times
\bm{A}_F
\label{BF}
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bm{A}_I$ and $\bm{A}_F$ are axial and azimuthal vector potentials, respectively, defined relative to the axis of MFR. The latter is a closed curve formed by coronal and subphotospheric paths, $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*$, respectively, and represented by a vector $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} (l)$ that depends on the arc length $l$ of the curve. For these vector potentials, we adopt here the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s} proposed earlier in \citep{Titov2018} by assuming that our MFR has a constant cross-sectional radius $a$. Then the axial vector potential at a given point $ \bm{x} $ is described by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm A}_I( \bm{x} )
&=&
\int_{\mathcal{C}\, \cup\,\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*}
K_I(r)
\;
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime}
\;
\frac{ \mathrm{d}l }{a}
\, ,
\quad
\dbr{
\frac
{\mu I}
{4\pi}
}
\, ,
\label{AI}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bm{r} \equiv \bm{r} (l) = \left( \bm{x} - \bm{\mathcal{R}} (l) \right) / a $, $ \bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime} ={\mathrm d} \bm{\mathcal{R}} /{\mathrm d}l$ is a unit vector tangential to the axis path. The double brackets henceforth contain the unit in which the value displayed on the left from it is measured. The {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ kernel of ${\bm A}_I$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{I}(r)
=
\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{\pi}
\left(
\frac
{\arcsin r}
{r}
+
\frac
{
5-2\, r^2
}
{
3
}
\sqrt{1-r^2}
\right)
\, ,
& \text{$r \in (0,1]$,}
\\
r^{-1}
\, ,
& \text{$r>1$,}
\end{cases}
\label{KI}
\end{eqnarray}
whose domain of definition smoothly extends to $r=0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim
_{
r
\rightarrow
0^{+}
}
K_{I}(r)
=
16
/
(3\,\pi)
\approx
1.698
\, .
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit of vanishing curvature of the MFR, $K_{I}(r)$ by construction provides the azimuthal magnetic field given by
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{\mathrm{az}}(\rho)
&=&
2
\rho
\left(
2
-\rho^2
\right)
\, ,
\quad
\rho
\in
[0,1]
\, ,
\qquad
\dbr
{
\frac
{\mu I}
{4 \pi a}
}
\, ,
\label{Baz}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho$ is the distance measured from the axis of the MFR and normalized to $a$. This field corresponds to a parabolic profile of the axial current density, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
j_\mathrm{ax}(\rho)
&=&
2
\left(
1
-
\rho^2
\right)
\, ,
\quad
\rho
\in
[0,1]
\, ,
\qquad
\dbr
{
\frac
{I}
{\pi a^2}
}
\, .
\label{jax}
\end{eqnarray}
We assume in this paper that the closure of the coronal current $I$ flowing along the path $\mathcal{C}$ is reached via a fictitious subphotospheric path $\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*$ that is simply a mirror image of $\mathcal{C}$ about the solar surface (see Section \ref{s:path}). This constraint on the shape of the path allows one to nearly vanish the resulting normal component of ${\bm B}_{I}$ at the solar surface.
To cause a similar effect to the ${\bm B}_{F}$--distribution at the boundary, we define the azimuthal vector potential as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm A}_F( \bm{x} )
&=&
\int_{\mathcal{C}}
K_F(r)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime}
\times
\bm{r}
\;
\frac{ \mathrm{d}l }{a}
\nonumber
\\
&-&
\int_{\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*}
K_F(r)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime}
\times
\bm{r}
\;
\frac{ \mathrm{d}l }{a}
\, ,
\quad
\dbr
{
\frac
{
F
}
{
4
\pi
a
}
}
\, .
\label{AF}
\end{eqnarray}
This expression implies that the corresponding axial fluxes flow along $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*$ in opposite directions. Since $\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*$ is a mirror image of $\mathcal{C}$ about the solar boundary, these fluxes meet at the same angles to the boundary and thereby cancel each other out. Due to this trick, the resulting normal component of ${\bm B}_{F}$ also becomes negligible at the solar surface.
The {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ kernel of ${\bm A}_F$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{F}(r)
=
\begin{cases}
\frac
{2}
{
\pi
r^2
}
\left(
\frac
{\arcsin r}
{r}
-
\sqrt{1-r^2}
\right)
+
\frac
{2}
{\pi}
\sqrt{1-r^2}
\nonumber
\\
+
\frac
{
5
-
2\,
r^2
}
{2
\sqrt{6}
}
\left[
1
-
\frac
{2}
{\pi}
\arcsin
\left(
\frac
{
1
+
2\,
r^2
}
{
5
-
2\,
r^2
}
\right)
\right]
\, ,
& \text{$r \in (0,1]$,}
\\
r^{-3}
\, ,
& \text{$r>1$,}
\end{cases}
\\
\label{KF}
\end{eqnarray}
whose domain of definition smoothly extends to $r=0$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim
_{
r
\rightarrow
0^{+}
}
K_{F}(r)
&=&
\frac
{10}
{3\pi}
+
\frac
{5}
{
2
\sqrt{6}
\pi
}
\left[
\pi
-
2\,
\arcsin
\left(
\frac
{1}
{5}
\right)
\right]
\nonumber
\\
&\approx&
1.951
\, .
\label{KF(0)}
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit of vanishing curvature of the MFR, $K_{F}(r)$ by construction provides the axial magnetic field and and azimuthal current density given, respectively, by
\begin{eqnarray}
B_\mathrm{ax}(\rho)
&=&
\frac
{20}
{
3
\sqrt{3}
}
\left(
1
-
\rho^2
\right)
\sqrt{
5
-
2
\,
\rho^2
}
\, ,
\quad
\rho
\in
[0,1]
\, ,
\quad
\dbr
{
\frac
{F}
{
4
\pi
\,
a^2
}
}
\, ,
\nonumber
\\
\label{Bax}
\\
j_\mathrm{az}(\rho)
&=&
\frac
{
40
\,
\rho
}
{
\sqrt{3}
}
\frac
{
\left(
2
-
\rho^2
\right)
}
{
\sqrt
{
5
-
2
\,
\rho^2
}
}
\, ,
\quad
\rho
\in
[0,1]
\, ,
\quad
\dbr
{
\frac
{F}
{
4
\pi
\mu
\,
a^3
}
}
\, .
\label{jaz}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that a straight cylindrical MFR defined by Eqs. (\ref{Baz}), (\ref{jax}), (\ref{Bax}), and (\ref{jaz}) is indeed force-free if the net axial flux and current are related by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac
{F}
{
\mu
I
a
}
\equiv
\sigma
=
\frac
{\pm 3}
{5\sqrt{2}}
\approx
0.424
\, ,
\label{Fpb}
\end{eqnarray}
where the positive and negative signs correspond to right- and left-handed twist (chirality) of the MFR, respectively.
We assume that this relationship also holds true for a curved MFR described by Eqs. (\ref{AI}), (\ref{KI}), (\ref{AF}), and (\ref{KF}). In this way, we manage to keep the resulting configuration as close as possible to an equilibrium for sufficiently thin MFRs, which quantitatively means that
\begin{equation}
\kappa
a
\ll
1
\label{ka}
\end{equation}
along the axis path of curvature $\kappa(l)$. The appropriate power-laws decay of $K_{I}(r)$ and $K_{F}(r)$ at $r>1$ ensures that, externally, our MFR manifests itself as a current and flux carrying thread described by classical Biot--Savart laws \citep{Jackson1962}.
\subsection{Axis Path Model of the MFR
\label{s:path}}
A special scrutiny is required for constructing a discretized model of the axis path $\mathcal{C}$ to make its optimization process stable. We represent $\mathcal{C}$ in terms of a cubic spline that smoothly join $N+1$ points, $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _0,\ldots, \bm{\mathcal{R}} _N$, called control nodes. Instead of $l$, it is convenient to parameterize $\mathcal{C}$ by a continuous parameter $\nu$ whose values coincide with the numbers $0,\ldots,N$ at the control nodes. Any other point $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} (\nu)$ of $\mathcal{C}$ is determined then by the vector function
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{\mathcal{R}} (\nu)
&=&
\sum^{N}_{i=0}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i
\, ,
\quad
\nu
\in
[0,N]
\, ,
\label{Rvnu}
\end{eqnarray}
in which $S^{N}_i(\nu)$ is a piecewise cubic polynomial of $\nu$ associated with the i-th control node, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
&=&
\begin{cases}
\sum
\limits_{m=0}^{3}
c^{1}_{i,m}
\nu^{m}
,
\quad
0
\le
\nu
<
1,
\\
\qquad
\ldots
\\
\sum
\limits_{m=0}^{3}
c^{j}_{i,m}
\nu^{m}
,
\quad
j-1
\le
\nu
<
j,
\\
\qquad
\ldots
\\
\sum
\limits_{m=0}^{3}
c^{N}_{i,m}
\nu^{m}
,
\quad
N-1
\le
\nu
\le
N\,.
\end{cases}
\label{SNi}
\end{eqnarray}
Its coefficients $c^{j}_{i,m}$, $j=1,\ldots,N$, are uniquely defined by a linear system of $4N$ equations.
This system consists of the following $2N$ equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{N}_i(j-1)
&\equiv&
\sum
\limits_{m=0}^{3}
(j-1)^{m}
c^{j}_{i,m}
=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $i=j-1$,}\\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\label{ce1}
\\
S^{N}_i(j)
&\equiv&
\sum
\limits_{m=0}^{3}
j^{m}
c^{j}_{i,m}
=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $i=j$,}\\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\label{ce2}
\end{eqnarray}
supplemented with $2(N-1)$ continuity conditions at $\nu = j = 1,\ldots,N-1$ for the first and second
derivatives of $S^{N}_i(\nu)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum
\limits_{m=1}^{3}
m
j^{m-1}
\left(
c^{j}_{i,m}
-
c^{j+1}_{i,m}
\right)
=
0
\,
,
\label{ce3}
\\
c^{j}_{i,2}
-
c^{j+1}_{i,2}
+
3
j
\left(
c^{j}_{i,3}
-
c^{j+1}_{i,3}
\right)
=
0
\,
,
\label{ce4}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, and two simple or natural endpoint conditions of vanishing second derivatives of $S^{N}_i(\nu)$ at $\nu=0$ and $\nu=N$:
\begin{eqnarray}
c^{1}_{i,2}
=
0
\,
,
\label{ce5}
\\
c^{N}_{i,2}
+
3N
c^{N}_{i,3}
=
0
\,
.
\label{ce6}
\end{eqnarray}
The defined spline $S^{N}_i(\nu)$ describes the contribution of the $i$-th node to the shape of the axis path under unchanged positions of the other $N$ nodes (see Figure \ref{f:SNi(nu)}).
As Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}) explicitly states, this contribution is linearly proportional to the vector $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$ representing the $i$-th control node.
It is smoothly distributed over the axis path with a maximum at this node and decays relatively fast by having smaller and smaller maximums between other nodes.
This representation of the axis-path spline allows one to assess the influence of the position of a single node on the whole shape of the path.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{f1.pdf}
\caption{
Basic cubic spline function $S^{N}_i(\nu)$ associated with the $i$-th control node for $N=8$ and $i=0,\ldots,4$.
\label{f:SNi(nu)}}
\end{figure}
The arc length $l(\nu)$ of $\mathcal{C}$ as a function of $\nu$ is a solution of the following ordinary differential equation (ODE):
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac
{
\mathrm{d}
l
}
{
\mathrm{d}
\nu
}
&=&
{\bigl|\Rvd(\nu)\bigr|}
\, ,
\label{nu2l}
\end{eqnarray}
in which
\begin{eqnarray}
\Rvd(\nu)
&=&
\sum^{N}_{i=0}
\frac
{
\mathrm{d}
\
}
{
\mathrm{d}
\nu
}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i
\label{dRvnu}
\end{eqnarray}
is the $\nu$--derivative of Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}). By integrating Eq. (\ref{nu2l}) from $0$ to $N$, one obtains the total arc length $L$ of $\mathcal{C}$.
The inverted Eq. (\ref{nu2l}) yields another ODE
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac
{
\mathrm{d}
\nu
}
{
\mathrm{d}
l
}
&=&
\frac
{1}
{\bigl|\Rvd(\nu)\bigr|}
\label{l2nu}
\end{eqnarray}
whose solutions define the inverse relationship $\nu(l)$ between $l$-- and $\nu$--parameterizations of the curve ${\mathcal C}$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{f2}
\caption{The coronal axis path ${\mathcal C}$ is represented by a vector function $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} (\nu)$, which is defined in terms of a cubic spline of $N+1$ equidistant control nodes $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$ (white circles) uniformly parameterized by parameter $\nu$ from $0$ to $N$.
The gray circles show evaluation nodes at which the line density $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ of the magnetic force is calculated by Eq. (\ref{f*}) via the integral of the Lorentz force, taken with a certain weight, over the corresponding cross-sections $S_\nu$ perpendicular to the path. The subphotospheric axis path ${\mathcal C}^{*}$ is a copy of ${\mathcal C}$ mirrored about a plane that locally approximates the spherical solar boundary.
\label{f:cross-section}}
\end{figure}
The described ODEs help us to keep the control nodes $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$ equidistant along the path at each iteration toward its optimized shape, which brings some kind of stiffness to the path during its deformation. Operationally, we determine first $L$, as described above, and then integrate Eq. (\ref{l2nu}) from $0$ to $l_j\equiv j\, L/N$ to obtain $\nu_j = \nu(l_j),\ j=1,\ldots,N-1$. To prevent a deterioration of the path model due to an excessive separation of the nodes, we reset $N$ at each iteration by the rounded $\max(N,L/\Delta l_\mathrm{max})$, where $\Delta l_\mathrm{max}\sim a$ is a maximally allowable arc length between the nodes.
The evaluation of Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}) at $\nu = \nu_j$ yields equidistant path points $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _j$ that are used as new control nodes in the same Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}). The newly defined path is slightly different than the starting one, so their arc lengths between the control nodes are different as well. Nevertheless, the $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _j$-nodes at the new path appear for the used $N$ more equidistant than the $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$-nodes at the starting path. Repeating such a procedure of resampling control nodes, one can make them more and more equidistant at the modeled path $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} (\nu)$. In fact, the application of this procedure shows that, after each sufficiently small deformation of the path, one such resampling might be enough to make the optimization procedure stable (Section \ref{s:opt}). The axis path defined by Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}) with equidistant control nodes is henceforth called {\it canonical}.
The control nodes, different from the foot points of the path, are allowed to be displaced only along the binormal $\hat{\bm M}$ and normal $\hat{\bm N}$ of the Frenet-Serret basis of the path. For our path model, they are calculated by using Eq. (\ref{dRvnu}) and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Rvdd(\nu)
&=&
\sum^{N}_{i=0}
\frac
{
\mathrm{d^2}
\
}
{
\mathrm{d}
\nu^2
}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i
\label{d2Rvnu}
\end{eqnarray}
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\bm T}
&=&
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime}
\equiv
\frac
{
\mathrm{d}
\bm{\mathcal{R}}
}
{
\mathrm{d}l
}
=
\frac
{
\Rvd
}
{
\left|
\Rvd
\right|
}
\, ,
\label{Tv}
\\
\hat{\bm N}
&=&
\frac
{
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
}
{
\left|
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
\right|
}
\, ,
\qquad
\kappa
\equiv
\left|
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
\right|
\, ,
\label{Nv}
\\
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
&\equiv&
\frac
{
\mathrm{d}^2
\bm{\mathcal{R}}
}
{
\mathrm{d}l^2
}
=
\frac
{
\Rvdd
}
{
\Rvd
^2
}
-
\frac
{
\Rvd
\bcd
\Rvdd
}
{
\Rvd
^4
}
\,
\Rvd
\, ,
\label{Rvpp}
\\
\hat{\bm M}
&=&
\hat{\bm T}
\times
\hat{\bm N}
\, .
\label{Mv}
\end{eqnarray}
By using these expressions evaluated at $\nu=\nu_j$, one can obtain the normal $\hat{\bm N}_j$ and binormal $\hat{\bm M}_j$ along which the corresponding control nodes $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _j,\ j=1,\ldots,N-1,$ are displaced in the optimization process.
In contrast, the control nodes $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _0$ and $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _N$ as being the foot points of the path are allowed to be displaced strictly along the solar surface. This implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
\hat{\bm M}_0 = \hat{\bm \theta}_{\mathrm{FP}1}, \quad
\hat{\bm M}_N = \hat{\bm \theta}_{\mathrm{FP}2}
\, ,
\\
&&
\hat{\bm N}_0 = \hat{\bm \phi}_{\mathrm{FP}1}, \quad
\hat{\bm N}_N = \hat{\bm \phi}_{\mathrm{FP}2}
\, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\hat{\bm \theta}$ and $\hat{\bm \phi}$ with the corresponding subscripts are the unit coordinate vectors at the foot points of the path defined in spherical coordinate system $(r,\theta,\phi)$ with the origin at the center of the Sun. Thus, a small variation of the axis path described by Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\! \bm{\mathcal{R}}
&=&
a
\sum^{N}_{i=0}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
\,
\left(
\xi_i
\hat{\bm M}_i
+
\eta_i
\hat{\bm N}_i
\right)
\, ,
\label{dR}
\end{eqnarray}
where the node displacements $\xi_i$ and $\eta_i $ are normalized to $a$. We hold these displacements to be $\ll 1$ through all iterations of the optimization process.
The subphotospheric axis path ${\mathcal C}^{*}$ at each iteration is chosen to be a copy of ${\mathcal C}$ mirrored about the plane that passes through the foot points $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _0$ and $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _N$ and has the normal
\begin{equation}
\nv
=
\Ov
/
\left|
\Ov
\right|
\, ,
\label{nv}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Ov
=
( \bm{\mathcal{R}} _0 + \bm{\mathcal{R}} _N)/2
\label{Ov}
\end{equation}
is an average of the foot points.
For $\left| \bm{\mathcal{R}} _N - \bm{\mathcal{R}} _0 \right| \ll R_\sun$, this plane well approximates a plane touching the solar surface at the point $R_\sun \nv$.
The corresponding mirror images of the control nodes are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i^{*}
=
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i
-
2
\,
\nv
\bcd
\left(
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i
-
\Ov
\right)
\nv
\, .
\label{Rvist}
\end{eqnarray}
By using the same direction and type of parameterization as for the path $\mathcal{C}$ (Eq. (\ref{Rvnu})), one can determine its corresponding mirrored points at $\mathcal{\mathcal C}^*$ from
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{\mathcal{R}} ^{*}(\nu)
&=&
\sum^{0}_{i=N}
S^{N}_i(\nu)
\,
\bm{\mathcal{R}} _i^{*}
\, ,
\quad
\nu
\in
[0,N]
\, .
\label{Rvnust}
\end{eqnarray}
This closure of $\mathcal{C}$ makes it possible to minimize the normal component of magnetic field that the flux-rope currents produce at the boundary, as discussed in Section \ref{s:AIAF}. The normal component of the resulting field then is almost due to the potential field ${\bm B}_{\mathrm{p}}$ (see Eq. (\ref{B})), or, in other words, it becomes almost identical to the component derived from observations. A difference between them is only due to the curvature of the solar surface, which is relatively small for typical source regions of CMEs.
The configurations of larger size require a more sophisticated approach, which we will consider in a further publication.
\subsection{Line Density of the Residual Magnetic Force
\label{s:fnu}}
In order to estimate how far our approximate MFR PEC deviates from an equilibrium, we have to determine the line density of the residual magnetic forces along MFR, or, in other words, the magnetic force $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ per unit length of the MFR.
Its expression can rigorously be derived by using {\color{dark-margenta} the} Maxwell stress tensor integrated over the surface of an elementary wedge of the rope.
The latter is formed by slicing the MFR with two planes that are perpendicular to the axis and separated from each other along the axis by a segment of length $\Delta l$ that is tending to zero.
The lateral surface of the wedge has to fully enclose the part of the MFR sliced by these planes.
The corresponding integral over the boundary of the wedge divided by $\Delta l$ provides{\color{dark-margenta},} after some lengthy algebra, the required expression of $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $.
The form of this expression suggests, however, that $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ can be obtained in a much easier manner by simply integrating the volumetric density of the Lorentz force $\bm{j\times B}$ over the volume of the elementary wedge.
Let $\mathrm{d}^2 \bm{x} $ be a surface element at a point $ \bm{x} $ on one of the wedge planes containing a cross-section $S_\nu$ of the MFR (see Figure \ref{f:cross-section}).
The wedge width is $(1-\kappa Y)\, \Delta l$, where $Y$ is the coordinate value measured along the normal $\hat{\bm N}$ from the point of intersection of $S_\nu$ with the axis path.
Then one obtains from Eq. (\ref{Nv}) that this coordinate is $Y=( \bm{x} - \bm{\mathcal{R}} ) \bcd \bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime} $,
so that the corresponding volume element of the wedge is $\left[1 - ( \bm{x} - \bm{\mathcal{R}} ) \bcd \bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime} \right]\, \Delta l\, \mathrm{d}^2 \bm{x} $.
Thus, the required expression for the line density of the Lorentz force is
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{f}_{\!\nu}
=
\int_{S_\nu}
\left[
1
-
( \bm{x} - \bm{\mathcal{R}} )
\bcd
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
\right]
\,
(\bm{j\times B})
\:
\mathrm{d}^2
\bm{x}
\, ,
\label{f}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} $ and $ \bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime} $ are given for our path model by Eqs. (\ref{Rvnu}) and (\ref{Rvpp}).
This consideration also allows one to see that the concept of $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ itself physically correct only for the axis points, where
$\kappa
a
\ll
1
$
holds true, or, in other words, the MFR is locally thin. If $\kappa a$ becomes larger than $1$ at some point (i.e., the MFR is locally thick), the corresponding center of curvature of the path turns out to be inside the rope, so that the corresponding cross-sectional planes start slicing the MFR into two elementary wedges. To cover, at least formally, such ``corner'' points, Eq. (\ref{f}) should be extended via the following modification:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{f}_{\!\nu}
=
\int_{S_\nu}
\left|
1
-
( \bm{x} - \bm{\mathcal{R}} )
\bcd
\bm{\mathcal{R}}^{\prime\prime}
\right|
\,
(\bm{j\times B})
\:
\mathrm{d}^2
\bm{x}
\, ,
\label{f*}
\end{eqnarray}
where we apply the modulus to the metric factor to handle both wedges on equal footing, as their contributions to $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ are similar.
Although this extension generally covers such ``corner'' points, it is desirable to prevent the formation of these points in the optimization process of the path for other reason. Note that, for our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ flux rope, the normalized current density is
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{j}
=
{\bm j}_{I}
+
\sigma
{\bm j}_{F}
\, ,
\qquad
\dbr
{
\frac
{I}
{4\pi a^2}
}
\, ,
\label{jv}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bm j}_{I}$ and ${\bm j}_{F}$ are normalized axial and azimuthal current densities described by Eqs. (\ref{jI})--(\ref{KjI2}) and (\ref{jF_int})--(\ref{KjF}), respectively. Appendix \ref{s:JFtorus} demonstrates that, for $\kappa a \rightarrow 1$, a singularity is developed in ${\bm j}_{F}$--distribution at the concave side of MFR, which signifies the condition of being avoided when applying the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method.
Such a sensitivity of the method to $\kappa a \sim 1$ motivated us to evaluate $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ for the purpose of optimization at points different from the control nodes $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$, because $\kappa a$ tends to have local maxima at $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} _i$. For the evaluation of $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $, therefore, we choose the points that are equidistantly separated from the nearest control nodes. To determine them, we first calculate the corresponding values $\nu_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, by using Eqs. (\ref{nu2l})--(\ref{l2nu}) and then evaluate Eq. (\ref{Rvnu}) at $\nu=\nu_i$ to obtain the required evaluation nodes, i.e, in a similar way as the control nodes are obtained before (see Section \ref{s:path}).
Let the potential field ${\bm B}_{\mathrm{p}}$ and axial current $I$ be measured in $\Bu$ and $\Iu$ units, respectively, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\Iu
=
4\pi a
\Bu/\mu
\end{eqnarray}
and so
\begin{eqnarray}
I
=
C_I
\Iu
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the dimensionless coefficient $C_I$ is yet to be determined in further optimization.
Then $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{f}_{\!\nu}
&=&
C_I
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
+
C_I^2
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\, ,
\qquad
\dbr
{
\frac
{
\Bu^2
}
{\mu}
a
}
\, ,
\label{fnunorm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}} $ and $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}} $ are two separate parts of $ \bm{f}_{\!\nu} $ due to $\bm{j \times}{\bm B}_{\mathrm{p}}$ and $\bm{j \times}({\bm B}_{I} + \sigma {\bm B}_{F})$, respectively. The current density and magnetic field components are calculated here by using differential {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ formulations described in Appendix \ref{s:diff_RBSL-forms}. The latter allows one to represent our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ integrals as solutions of certain ODEs, which in turn makes it possible to exploit the power of the adaptive step refinement in the existing ODE solvers.
\subsection{Optimization of the MFR Parameters
\label{s:opt}}
We constructed several metrics for measuring how far from equilibrium an MFR configuration is, and used them as cost functions in a minimization procedure to obtain approximate equilibria. The construction invokes the nonlinear least squares method, and the corresponding minimization is performed iteratively by varying independent MFR parameters, namely the axial current and the coordinates of the control nodes.
More precisely, we vary the dimensionless parameter $C_I$ and the $2(N+1)$--dimensional vector of the node displacements
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{\chi}
&=&
\left(
\xi_0
,
\ldots
,
\xi_{N}
,
\eta_0
,
\ldots
,
\eta_{N}
\right)^{\mathrm T}
\, ,
\label{chi}
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscript $\mathrm{T}$ denotes matrix transposition.
Note that the axial flux $F$ in our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ approach is not an independent parameter; it scales with the axial current $I$ according to Eq. (\ref{Fpb}), where the parameter $a$ is estimated from observations.
The metrics or cost functions are constructed as a mean square of a 3D vector characteristic $ \bm{w}_\nu $ of magnetic forces determined at cross-sections $S_\nu$, which in matrix notations is
\begin{eqnarray}
W
&=&
\frac
{1}
{N}
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\bm{w}_\nu ^{\mathrm T}
\bm{w}_\nu
\, .
\label{W}
\end{eqnarray}
We have found that two of such characteristics provide the most interesting results.
The first characteristics is derived from Eq. (\ref{f*}) by dividing it on $I$. After normalizing it in the same way as Eq. (\ref{fnunorm}), one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{w}_\nu
&=&
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
+
C_I
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\, ,
\qquad
\dbr
{
\frac
{
\Bu
}
{
4\pi
}
}
\, ,
\label{wnu1}
\end{eqnarray}
which is nothing else than a residual magnetic force per unit current and per unit length of the MFR. Thus, the cost function based on this characteristic is simply a mean square of the effective magnetic field with which the currents of the rope interact.
The second characteristic is derived by dividing Eq. (\ref{wnu1}) on the normalized self-force $C_I \left| \bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}} \right|$ to give
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{w}_\nu
&=&
\frac
{
C_I^{-1}
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
+
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
}
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|
}
\, .
\label{wnu2}
\end{eqnarray}
This dimensionless characteristic is a relative residual force with respect to the self-force of the MFR, so that the corresponding cost function is a mean square of this relative force.
Although the absolute minimum $W =0$ is the same for both introduced cost functions, it can ideally be reached only if all $\left| \bm{f}_{\!\nu} \right|$, $\nu=\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_N$ vanish during the iterative minimization process of these functions described below.
It turns out, however, that for the used {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ model of an MFR, the lower bound of $\max\limits_\nu \left| \bm{f}_{\!\nu} \right|$ generally does not vanish and depends on the form of the cost function.
Therefore, when starting from the same initial axis path, the minimization of these functions yields different results.
This raises the important question of how close these results can be made by varying the initial axis path.
We postpone this investigation for the future and consider below in Section \ref{s:examples} only the results for one possible initial axis path.
Note that the parameter $C_I$ ($C_I^{-1}$) enters quadratically into the first (second) $W$, which allows one to find immediately its optimal value for a given axis path. In the first case, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
C_I
=
\left.
-
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
^{\mathrm T}
\,
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right/
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|^2
\label{CI1}
\end{eqnarray}
and in the second case
\begin{eqnarray}
C_I
=
\left.
-
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\frac
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
\right|^2
}
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|^2
}
\right/
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\frac
{
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
^{\mathrm T}
\,
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
}
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|^2
}
\, .
\label{CI2}
\end{eqnarray}
The optimization of the axis path is a less trivial problem that generally can be tackled only numerically, because both cost functions have a very complex nonlinear dependence on the coordinates of control nodes. Therefore, we will solve this numerical problem iteratively in small steps. Let us first perturb $ \bm{w}_\nu $ with small displacements of the nodes (Eq. (\ref{dR})) and linearize it around an unperturbed path to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{w}_\nu
\approx
\bm{w}_\nu ^{0}
+
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
\bm{\chi}
\, ,
\label{wnulin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bm{w}_\nu ^{0}$ is the unperturbed characteristic and
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
\right)
_{ij}
\equiv
\pd
{
w^i_\nu
}
{
\chi^{j}
}
\label{Jnu}
\end{eqnarray}
is a $3\times 2 (N+1)$--dimensional Jacobian matrix determined numerically in terms of Fr\'{e}chet derivatives along the basis vectors $\hat{\bm M}_j$ and $\hat{\bm N}_j$, $j=0,\ldots, N$ (Section \ref{s:path}). The substitution of Eq. (\ref{wnulin}) into Eq. (\ref{W}) turns $W$ into a quadratic form in $\bm{\chi}$ with a symmetric and positive definite matrix
$
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}^{\mathrm T}
\,
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
$, so that with the minimization of this form we arrive at the classical Gauss--Newton method \citep{Fletcher2000}. This method alone, however, is not sufficient for our purposes, as it may generally result in a $|\bm{\chi}|$ that is too large in value and, therefore, invalidate our linearization approach.
To be self-consistent with this approach, one needs to minimize $W$ subject to the constraint $
\bm{\chi}^{\mathrm T}
\bm{\chi}
=
\mbox{const}
\ll
1
$.
This is reached by extending the cost function as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
W
&=&
\frac
{1}
{N}
\sum^{\nu_N}_{\nu=\nu_1}
\bm{w}_\nu ^{\mathrm T}
\bm{w}_\nu
+
\lambda
\,
\bm{\chi}^{\mathrm T}
\bm{\chi}
\, ,
\label{Wm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier, known in the least-squares method as damping parameter \citep{Levenberg1944, Marquardt1963}. Taking the derivative of this extended cost function with respect to $\bm{\chi}$ and setting the result to zero yields the following linear system of so-called normal equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\sum_{\nu=\nu_1}^{\nu_N}
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}^{\mathrm T}
\,
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
+
\lambda
{\bf I}
\right)
\bm{\chi}
=
-
\sum_{\nu=\nu_1}^{\nu_N}
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}^{\mathrm T}
\bm{w}_\nu ^{0}
\, .
\label{neqs}
\end{eqnarray}
In this form, the derived system is applicable to both cases defined by Eqs. (\ref{wnu1}) and (\ref{wnu2}). However, their Jacobian matrices are different: in the first case
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
=
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
+
C_I
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\, ,
\label{Jnu1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left(
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
\right)
_{ij}
\equiv
\pd
{
f_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}} ^i
}
{
\chi^{j}
}
\, ,
\label{Jnup}
\\
&&
\left(
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right)
_{ij}
\equiv
\pd
{
f_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}} ^i
}
{
\chi^{j}
}
\, ,
\label{JnuIF}
\end{eqnarray}
and in the second case
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf J}_{\!\nu}
=
\frac
{1}
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|
}
\left(
C_I^{-1}
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,\mathrm{p}}}
+
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
-
\frac
{
\bm{w}_\nu ^{0}
}
{
\left|
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right|
}
\,
\bm{f}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}} ^{\mathrm T}
{\bf J}_{\!\nu_{\,I\!\!F}}
\right)
\, .
\label{Jnu2}
\end{eqnarray}
To initialize optimization procedure, we first reconstruct an approximate axis path of the MFR by using observational data and convert it to the canonical form, as described in Section \ref{s:path}. For this canonical path, we compute then the corresponding $ \bm{w}_\nu $ and ${\bf J}_{\!\nu}$. By putting $ \bm{w}_\nu ^{0}= \bm{w}_\nu $ in Eq. (\ref{neqs}) we solve it for $\bm{\chi}$ at several different values of the parameter $\lambda>0$ until the inequality $\max\limits_{i=1,\ldots,2(N+1)} |\chi_i| \ll 1$ is satisfied. We consider that $\bm{\chi}$ satisfying this inequality is an acceptable solution, which we use to calculate by Eqs. (\ref{Rvnu}) and (\ref{dR}) a new axis path $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} +\delta\! \bm{\mathcal{R}} $ for the next iteration. We iterate in this manner until $W$ stops decreasing. The canonical path in this sequence of iterates that corresponds to a minimum of $W$ is regarded as a sought-for optimal path.
One should not expect a priori the existence of an axis path that would provide an exact force-free equilibrium. In general, even after all our efforts to reduce the residual force in the constructed PEC, its absolute value will always be above zero. How low the level of this force can be made, with the magnitude of the axial current bounded from below, depends on several factors.
To bring the residual force down by remaining within our approach, one can, in principle, play with the choice of the radius $a$ (1), the initial axis path (2), the form of the cost function (3), and the optimized parameter $C_I$ (4). In Section \ref{s:examples}, we make the choice of (1) and (2) only once with the help of observational image data.
We explore, however, what one would obtain by choosing (3) and (4) in several possible ways.
From the standpoint of the minimization of $W$ only, it would be self-consistent to use at each iterate the expression for $C_I$ derived from the same $W$ as the normal equations. However, if one takes into account the subsequent line-tied zero-beta MHD relaxation of the resulting optimized PEC, this part of the method has to be modified.
It turns out that, for PECs with an ambient potential field of a bipolar type, Eq. (\ref{CI1}) provides somewhat low $C_I$ values, such that the corresponding MFRs are pushed too much toward the solar surface after relaxation and are, therefore, partially deprived of their initial coherency.
In this respect, the use of Eq. (\ref{CI2}) for $C_I$ leads to better equilibria, where the MFRs hover over the surface, or barely touch it, as well-defined objects.
This different behavior can be explained in terms of the corresponding expressions for $C_I$.
Note that each of them is a sum of different terms $t_{\nu_{i}}$ over the evaluation nodes, so that $t_{\nu_{i}}/C_I$ is the weight with which the $i$-th node contributes to $C_I$.
The comparison of these weights at different iterations of our optimization process shows that Eq. (\ref{CI1}) generally has a more or less uniform distribution of the weights over the nodes.
In contrast, Eq. (\ref{CI2}) has generally higher weights at the central part of the MFR, where the ambient potential field is stronger.
This implies that a larger value of $|C_I|$ has to be obtained in the latter case, exactly as it is the case in our example study below.
Bearing this in mind, we will employ only Eq. (\ref{CI2}) from here on, irrespective of which cost function $W$ is used for optimizing the axis paths.
Furthermore, we would like to note that, in general, the radius $a$, the axial current profile, and the corresponding {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}-kernels can vary along the MFR.
The right hand side of Eq. (\ref{Fpb}) is then
not a constant, but a function of $\nu$.
This provides, in principle, additional degrees of freedom for MFR variations, which
could be used to improve the result of the optimization.
By taking those into account,
however, we would significantly increase the dimensionality of the optimization problem, making it less tractable.
Therefore, we considered here only the simplest {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ model for MFRs whose diameter and axial current profile do not vary along the axis path.
\section
{
Illustration of how the method works
\label{s:examples}
}
Let us now consider how our improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method works for relatively simple, yet realistic PECs. As in \cite{Titov2018}, we choose the 2009 February 13 CME event \citep{Patsourakos2009}, whose PEC had an often observed sigmoidal morphology \citep{Miklenic2011}. As in our previous effort, we do not intend here to perfectly reproduce the observed structure. Rather, our aim is to explore the new capabilities of our improved method by applying it to a familiar PEC. By this, we imply the capabilities that arise from the PEC optimization matching the radial component of the photospheric magnetic field.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{f3}
\caption{
The axis paths (red lines) and $Q$-maps for optimized Solutions 1 (a) and 2 (b) before MHD relaxation. The yellow line shows, for comparison, the initial axis path, which is the same for both solutions. Only high-$Q$ lines with $\log_{10}Q \ge 4.0$ (sky-blue and crimson for negative and positive polarities, respectively) are shown on top of the photospheric $B_r$-distribution (gray shaded). $Q$-maps are depicted also in the central cross-section of the optimized PECs (inverted grayscale palette with fully transparent colors at $\log_{10}Q<2.0$). The numerical grid is outlined at the boundary. The same color coding is used for similar maps below.
\label{f:ini_paths}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{f4}
\caption{
Solutions 1 and 2 vs. STEREO/EUVI EUV images of the PEC of the 2009 February 13 CME: top view on the field-line structure (1st row) and on iso-surfaces of $j/j_{\max}$ = 0.438 (magenta) and $\alpha/\alpha_{\max} = 0.079$ (semi-transparent cyan) (2nd row).
The foot points of field lines in the core field region are chosen for each solution according to the corresponding $Q$-map of the relaxed configuration (see Section \ref{s:Sol1} and \ref{s:Sol2}), so they are somewhat different. Outside of the core region, the same field-line foot points are used for both solutions.
\label{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}}
\end{figure*}
As explained in Section \ref{s:opt}, the result of the optimization is not unique and depends on the form of the used cost function $W$. Below we apply two cost functions with $ \bm{w}_\nu $ given by Eqs. (\ref{wnu1}) and (\ref{wnu2}), and call the solutions with the corresponding optimized axis paths Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. For both solutions we use the same initial axis path (yellow line in Figure \ref{f:ini_paths}) and $a = 0.01 R_\sun$, where $R_\sun$ is the solar radius. The path was approximated by equidistant control nodes, whose number (nine) was kept unchanged throughout the optimization iterations for both solutions, as the length of the iterated paths did not vary much. In each iteration, we kept the maximal displacement of the control nodes strictly equal to $0.1\, a$. The small displacements allowed us to prevent a deterioration of the path approximation and the associated breakdown of the iterative process (see Sections \ref{s:path} and \ref{s:opt}, respectively).
Both minimums of the cost functions $W$ with $ \bm{w}_\nu $ given by Eqs. (\ref{wnu1}) and (\ref{wnu2}) turn out to be relatively shallow.
The value of $W$, calculated in both cases for each iterated axis path, first decreases and then starts to increase with growing number of iterations.
We considered the iteration at which $W$ has a minimum value in this sequence as final, and the corresponding $C_I$ and $ \bm{\mathcal{R}} (\nu)$ as optimal.
The minimum of Solution\ 1 (Solution\ 2) is reached at the third (fourth) iteration of the optimization procedure, with the resulting $C_I \simeq -4.12$ ($C_I \simeq -3.72$) and $W$ reduced by $\sim 25\%$ ($\sim 24\%$) relative to its initial value.
We found no evidence for the occurrence of another minimum up to the sixth (eight) iteration.
One reason for the occurrence of shallow minima is the requirement of a constant MFR cross-section in our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ formulation (see Section\,\ref{s:AIAF}). We note that, during the subsequent MHD relaxation, the cross sections remain roughly constant in the center of our MFRs (albeit acquiring an oval shape; see Figures \ref{f:crossec_S1}-\ref{f:case_11c}), while the outer MFR parts expand strongly, especially for Solution 1 (Figures \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}, \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}, and \ref{f:case_11c}). Thus, even after our optimization, the imbalance between magnetic tension and gradient of magnetic pressure remains large enough to produce such an expansion, which will last until a balance between these components of the magnetic force is reached.
In other words, the preset of constant cross-section of the MFR is generally too restrictive to allow the system to closely approach a force-free state via the optimization of the axial current and the axis path. The MFRs with less expandable legs should be more adaptable to the optimization. Future investigations will show how typical these MFRs are. Fortunately, the subsequent line-tied MHD relaxation can bring even the expandable MFRs close to a force-free state, which significantly extends the applicability of our method.
To analyze the magnetic structures resulting from our MHD relaxations, we calculated cross-sectional and boundary maps of the squashing degree \citep{Titov2002} or squashing factor $Q$ \citep{Titov2007a} of elementary magnetic flux tubes, which characterizes the divergence of field lines in these tubes. The $Q$-maps helped us to identify the building blocks of those structures whose boundaries are defined by high-$Q$ surfaces. The latter are generally separatrix surfaces, quasi--separatrix layers \citep[QSLs,][]{Priest1995}, or their hybrids. A detailed analysis of the magnetic structure of our solutions is presented in Sections \ref{s:Sol1} and \ref{s:Sol2}, respectively.
The magnetic fluxes of our optimized PECs are partitioned by separatrix surfaces that disappear during the MHD relaxation, thereby yielding their role to newly formed QSLs. The separatrix surfaces are built of coronal field lines that touch the solar surface at the PIL segments called bald patches \citep[BPs,][]{Titov1993}. Such field lines are relatively easy to determine, as we demonstrate in Section \ref{s:Sol1} for Solution 1. The field-line structure of the QSLs can be recovered with the same precision by calculating so-called bracketing field-line pairs \citep[see][]{Titov2017}. While our QSLs possess an intricate internal structure, we restrict ourselves here, for simplicity, to an analysis of the overall magnetic structure, i.e., of the magnetic ``building blocks'' of our relaxed PECs. To do so, we simply identify all flux systems that are separated by QSLs and draw the corresponding field lines with different colors. We also identify all current layers that are present in the system.
The results of this analysis are summarized in Figure \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}, which compares our two solutions with EUV images of the observed PEC. One can see that both solutions reproduce the observed sigmoidal morphology. However, the MFR in Solution 1 is significantly more inflated, and the MFR in Solution 2 fits the observations better. Note that, despite this significant size difference, the optimized axis paths of Solutions 1 and 2 do not differ much from each other (cf. Figures \ref{f:ini_paths}(a) and \ref{f:ini_paths}(b)), and the difference between the corresponding optimized axial currents is only $\sim 10\%$. Thus, it appears that the result of the MHD relaxation is rather sensitive to the choice of the cost function in the optimization procedure.
One can see from Figure \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view} that the orientation of the modeled MFRs and observed sigmoids noticeably differs from each other. We believe that the main reason for this difference is that the initial MFR footprint locations were not chosen accurately enough in our model. For the purpose of comparison, we chose the same locations as in \citet{Titov2018}, where the observed configuration was modeled with
our earlier version of {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}{s}. That version did not preserve the observed magnetogram at the flux-rope footprints, while our upgraded {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ model used here practically preserves it. Therefore, the previous and present MFRs interact with slightly different ambient potential fields, which likely led to different orientations of the relaxed flux ropes. In other words, the footprint locations that worked well for the previous model are apparently not the best choice for our current model.
The resulting discrepancy could likely be removed by fine-tuning the footprint locations, but this is beyond the scope of the present publication and will be left for a future investigation.
It is interesting to note that our previous model \citep{Titov2018} used a rather different initial axis path, and it did not invoke an optimization of the MFR parameters or a matching of the radial field at the footprints of the MFR to the observations. Also, in contrast to our present solutions, the axial current $I$ was estimated from the balance of magnetic forces just at one middle point of the MFR axis path, and the contribution of the azimuthal current density ${\bm j}_{F}$ to that balance was neglected. Nevertheless, that model was also able to qualitatively reproduce the observed sigmoidal morphology. This implies a certain robustness of the {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method in reproducing this morphology regardless of whether the mentioned improvements are used or not.
\subsection{
Solution 1
\label{s:Sol1}
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotone{f5}
\caption{
BPSS structure of the optimized PEC for Solution 1, prior to MHD relaxation: (a) BP-BP separators (red, orange, and magenta); (b) BPSS (yellow field lines) that envelopes the MFR, BPSS (light-magenta field lines) that bounds a small arcade below the MFR, and BPSS (green field lines) that fills the gap between two separators (red and orange thick lines) and belongs to the MFR boundary; (c) BPSS (green field lines) that bounds the MFR itself. Panels on the right zoom into the PEC center, to reveal how the field lines are related to the cross-sectional $\log_{10} Q$-map.
\label{f:BPSS-top}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{f6}
\caption{
Maps of the field-line length (1st column), force-free parameter $\alpha = (\bm{B} \cdot \bm{\nabla}\times{\bm B} ) / \bm{B}^2$ (2nd column), and $\log_{10} Q$ (3rd column) in the central PEC cross-section for Solution~1, before (1st row) and after (2nd row) line-tied $\beta=0$ MHD relaxation of the optimized PEC. The greyshaded $\log_{10} Q$-maps are blended with the corresponding blue-red $\alpha$-maps.
\label{f:crossec_S1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{f7}
\caption{
The elements of the PEC before (left column) and after (right column) line-tied $\beta=0$ MHD relaxation for Solution 1. The field lines shown in panels (a) and (b) have the same foot points; the latter are depicted in panels (c) and (d) by small balls, whose conjugate foot points prior to the relaxation are shown in panel (c) by small bars of the same color. Panels (e) and (f) show the iso-surfaces $j/j_\mathrm{max} = 0.438$ of the current density (magenta) before and after the relaxation, respectively. Panel (f) also presents an iso-surface $\alpha/\alpha_\mathrm{max} = 0.079$ of the force-free parameter (semi-transparent cyan), to designate a layer of return current.
\label{f:FL-structure_S1}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\plotone{f8.jpg}
\caption{
A close-up view onto the relaxed PEC, close to its central cross-section.
Field lines outlining the enveloping arcade (blue), the MFR (green), the vertical current layer (light-magenta), and two flux tubes adjacent to the current layer (yellow thick lines; called ``arms'' below) are shown.
\label{f:inlet_CS_MFR_S1}}
\end{figure}
The structural skeleton of the optimized PEC is formed by two bald-patch separatrix surfaces \citep[BPSSs,][]{Titov1993} originating at two segments of the polarity inversion line (PIL) of the photospheric $B_r$-distribution. These BPSSs divide the volume enclosing the MFR into several domains and contain so-called BP-BP separators (red, orange, and magenta thick lines in Figure \ref{f:BPSS-top}), which are the field lines that touch the photosphere twice at BPs and lie at the intersection of two BPSSs. The separator colored in red in Figure \ref{f:BPSS-top} is located below the MFR, and is very similar to the one described for the first time by \citet{Titov1999} in a simple analytical model of a PEC with an arched MFR.
In addition, the structural skeleton of Solution 1 has some topological features that were not covered by that model. The most interesting one is the BPSS that envelopes the MFR boundary and touches it (see Figures \ref{f:BPSS-top}(b) and \ref{f:crossec_S1}(c)) along the other separator (thick magenta line in Figure \ref{f:BPSS-top}). The appearance of this feature is likely due to the fact that, by construction, the superposition of our MFR and ambient potential fields keeps the photospheric $B_r$-distribution unchanged.
All these BPSSs disappear in the course of the subsequent line-tied MHD relaxation. However, several QSLs, providing a similar partition of the PEC's core magnetic field, are formed during the relaxation. Figure \ref{f:crossec_S1} presents maps of the field-line length $l$, force-free parameter $\alpha$, and $\log_{10} Q$ in the central cross-section of the optimized PEC before (top row) and after (bottom row) the relaxation. By comparing these maps, one can see that the current, which is initially distributed over the whole MFR cross-section, transforms into several force-free current layers, which become aligned with the QSLs. The MFR itself survives this process as a distinct object, which is delineated in the cross-section by high-$Q$ lines. Its teardrop-like shape first shrinks a bit and then substantially rises during the relaxation. Simultaneously, the field lines of the overall MFR increase their length three to five times and acquire an S-like shape (see Figure \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}).
The cross-sectional $Q$-map in Figure \ref{f:crossec_S1}(c) shows that, prior to relaxation, a small magnetic arcade is present underneath the MFR. In a three-dimensional view, we can see that this arcade is adjoined to the MFR along one of the separators (red) depicted in Figure \ref{f:BPSS-top})(a). As a result of the MFR's rise during the relaxation, the arcade is stretched along the vertical direction, whereas it also develops strong shear and accumulates a large electrical current (see Figures \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(f) and \ref{f:inlet_CS_MFR_S1}). The development of shear is due to a substantial elongation of the field lines in the core-field region along the horizontal direction (cf. Figure \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(a) and (b)). Structural features such as this vertical current layer and the adjacent sheared field lines outside it, are generic for many existing models of PECs \cite[e.g.,][]{Kusano2012, Xia2014a}.
Our $\beta=0$ MHD relaxation was performed under line-tying boundary conditions. Nevertheless, the connectivity of magnetic field lines to the boundary could change due to the presence of (small) resistive and numerical diffusion of the magnetic field. At certain sites of the PECs, however, the connectivity changes were too large for being caused merely by slow diffusion, suggesting that magnetic reconnection took place at those sites. Evidence for that is provided by the above-mentioned disappearance of the initial BPSSs, which is certainly not a small change of the connectivity.
In order to identify such connectivity changes, we plotted field lines in the optimized and relaxed PECs as follows. In both cases, we used for the field lines the same color scheme and launch points. For each of the building blocks of the relaxed PEC, whose cross-sections are outlined in Figure \ref{f:crossec_S1}(f) by high-$Q$ lines, we chose a different color, with a slightly darker (lighter) hue for the field lines launched at the positive (negative) polarity. As launch points we used pairs of conjugate foot points of the relaxed PEC. Any such pair, by definition, gives two identical field lines in the relaxed PEC. However, the corresponding field lines can differ from each other in the optimized PEC, because of the non-vanishing resistivity present in our MHD relaxation. Such non-identical field-line pairs designate the foot points where the magnetic connectivity has changed during the relaxation.
For example, a comparison of Figures \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(a) and \ref{f:FL-structure_S1} (b) shows that some of the MFR field lines (green) strongly bulged out of the core structure during the relaxation, which hints at a large change of the connectivity at the corresponding foot points. This can be checked by comparing the launch and end points of the paired field lines of the optimized PEC. Depicting the launch and end points by small balls and bars, respectively, one can see that the connectivity significantly changed in the MFR, and also in other building blocks of the core field (cf. Figures \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(c) and \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(d)). These changes were apparently caused by magnetic reconnection that was driven in the forming current layers by the residual magnetic stress. By reducing this stress, the reconnection gradually turned into a diffusion at the largely developed current layers, which are shown in Figure \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(f) for the relaxed PEC.
The set of blue field lines shown in Figure \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(b) is a magnetic arcade that envelopes the core structure in the center of the PEC. The core contains the sigmodial MFR, which has almost untwisted, but strongly writhed (S-shaped) field lines (green), and two J-shaped magnetic ``loops'' (yellow) that bracket the MFR. In the center of the PEC (the strong-field region), these loops are nearly horizontal and adjoined to the vertical current layer mentioned above. The loops are much more extended than the enveloping arcade, and, at larger distances from the current layer, wrap around the MFR to add writhe and sigmoidality to the core structure (see Figures \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}, \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(b), and \ref{f:inlet_CS_MFR_S1}).
The vertical current layer underneath the MFR is composed of three sub-layers (see Figure \ref{f:crossec_S1}(f)). The central sub-layer is a narrow sheared arcade that consists of relatively short field lines (light-magenta in Figure \ref{f:inlet_CS_MFR_S1}), which are aligned with the PIL. The adjacent two sub-layers contain much longer field lines, which arch above the MFR and the current layer. One set of foot points of these field lines resides next to the sheared arcade, while the other is located far away from the PIL, at the outskirts of the conjugate polarity. These field lines, colored in orange in Figure \ref{f:FL-structure_S1}(b), have shapes that are similar to the neighboring yellow ones, but they interlock slightly differently with the MFR field lines (green).
\subsection{
Solution 2
\label{s:Sol2}
}
We performed an MHD relaxation also for Solution 2, which has a weaker optimized axial current than Solution 1 ($C_I$ is about 10\,\% smaller; see above). The relaxation of this case was accompanied by magnetic reconnection as well, and it resulted in a similar equilibrium structure.
Figure \ref{f:crossec_S2} shows maps of the field-line length, force-free parameter $\alpha$, and of $\log_{10} Q$ in the central cross-section of the optimized PEC, before and after the relaxation. Just as for Solution 1, the initially diffuse distribution of the current density transforms into several relatively sharp layers, which are largely aligned with the QSLs that form during the relaxation. Comparing Figures \ref{f:crossec_S1}(d) and \ref{f:crossec_S2}(d), one can see that the field lines of the relaxed MFR are much shorter than in Solution 1, yielding a much more compact core field (Figure \ref{f:case_11c}(b); see also Figure \ref{f:S1_vs_S2_top_view}). Note that, due to the weaker current, the MFR center is pushed downwards (rather than upwards) in this case. This results in the formation of a horizontal (rather than a vertical) current layer, in which the current flows in the opposite direction (see Figures \ref{f:crossec_S2}(f) and \ref{f:case_11c}(a)-(c)). The formation of this current layer could be prevented by a suitable increase of $|C_I|$ (as in Solution 1). We note that additional adjustments of the modeled PEC could also be obtained by modifying, for example, the shape of the initial axis path or the location of its foot points.
\subsection{
Concluding Remarks
\label{s:CR}
}
It should be emphasized that the magnetic structure of our specific Solutions 1 and 2 is probably representative for many sigmoidal PECs on the Sun. For example, the field lines shown in Figure \ref{f:case_11c}(d) can readily be associated with the ``envelope'', ``elbows'', and ``arms'' typically seen in observations of PECs in bipolar active regions \citep{Moore2001}. In our solutions, the electrical current is concentrated in relatively thin current layers, which are aligned with QSLs and reach the photospheric boundary along segments of high-$Q$ lines that are located close to the PIL.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{f9}
\caption{
Maps of the field-line length (1st column), $\alpha$ (2nd column) and $\log_{10} Q$ (3rd column) in the central cross-section for Solution~2 before (1st row) and after (2nd row) line-tied $\beta=0$ MHD relaxation of the optimized PEC. The grayshaded $\log_{10} Q$-maps are blended with the corresponding blue-red $\alpha$-maps. The color-bar scales are the same as in Figure \ref{f:crossec_S1}.
}
\label{f:crossec_S2}
\end{figure*}
It has yet to be verified how generic such a current structure is for sigmoidal PECs, but intuitively it seems that the layers constitute an inevitable interface between flux tubes of different types of geometry and connectivity, as described above. If this is indeed the case, then our solutions demonstrate the unique capability of the improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method to model these kind of equilibria. Given the complex pattern of QSL footprints and current densities at the boundary, and the limitations of other methods discussed in Section\,\ref{intro}, we do not believe that such PECs can be reproduced in a simple manner by either of those methods.
In contrast, these complex structures are easily obtained by our improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method from relatively simple input data. The input includes only the photospheric distribution of the normal component of the magnetic field, and an approximate axis path and diameter of the MFR to be modeled. The optimization adjusts the path and provides an approximate value of the axial current required for keeping the optimized MFR in equilibrium. From a topological point of view, this procedure corrects the (quasi-)separatrix surfaces that partition the magnetic flux of the PEC. It is important here that this correction stems from the minimization of unbalanced magnetic forces in the PEC{, so that the subsequent MHD relaxation of the resulting imbalance can only minimally affect the established partition of the magnetic flux.
During this step, the field-line connectivity is largely preserved due to the line-tying conditions imposed at the photospheric boundary. It changes only at the current layers that are self-consistently formed near (quasi-)separatrix surfaces. These connectivity changes are produced by magnetic reconnection, which is driven by not yet balanced magnetic forces. As soon as a force balance is reached in the PEC, the reconnection ceases and only slow magnetic diffusion commences in the current layers.
In other words, the complex current structure in our solutions is a result of the self-organization of the configuration during its MHD relaxation. The role of the boundary during this process is merely to preserve the bulk of the magnetic connectivity that was approximated during the previous step. In this respect, our improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method is very similar to the MFR insertion method by \citet{vanBall2004}. However, our method has the essential advantage that it makes the magnetic connectivity of the pre-relaxed PEC more adequate to the MFR shape suggested by the observations. This significantly reduces, or even fully eliminates, the number of subsequent trial-and-error relaxation attempts. This advantage of our method is achieved by minimizing the imbalance between magnetic tension and magnetic-pressure gradients in the MFR prior to the MHD relaxation.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\plotone{f10}
\caption{
The magnetic structure of
Solution 2. (a) The {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ MFR whose parameters minimize $W$ with $ \bm{w}_\nu $ and $C_I$ defined by Eqs. (\ref{wnu2}) and (\ref{CI2}), respectively;
(b) the same structure after line-tied zero-beta MHD relaxation;
(c) iso-surface $j/j_{\mathrm{max}} = 0.438$ (magenta) of the current density and the iso-surface $\alpha/\alpha_{\mathrm{max}} = 0.079$ (semi-transparent cyan) of the force-free parameter to designate the corresponding layers of direct and return currents;
(d) three different types of field lines that form the resulting structure.
Semi-transparent iso-surfaces of $|\bm{j}|$ and $\alpha\ (<0)$ are colored in magenta and cyan, respectively.
Panel (d) presents also a $|\bm{j}|$--distribution in the middle cross-section of the PEC.
The photospheric $B_r$--distribution is shown by grey shading from white ($B_r>0$) to black ($B_r<0$).
\label{f:case_11c}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary}
\label{sum}
We have improved our {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method \citep{Titov2018} for modeling PECs, by extending it in two ways. First, we have modified the method so that it allows one to construct, in a straightforward manner, an MFR field with a vanishing or negligibly small normal component at the photospheric boundary. This modification is particularly valuable at the locations of the MFR footprints, where the original method required a more complicated approach for preserving the photospheric normal component of the background field. The perturbation of that component by the insertion of the MFR is now only due to the curvature of the solar surface and, therefore, negligible if the distance between the footprints of the MFR is much less than the solar radius.
Second, we have developed an optimization method for minimizing unbalanced residual magnetic forces prior to the MHD relaxation of a modeled PEC. This minimization is obtained by optimizing the shape and axial current of the corresponding MFR with the Gauss-Newton method of least squares. To give an idea of how the method performs in practice, we note that our present implementation (written in Maple and Fortran) allows one to conduct an optimization for cases such as those shown in Section\ \ref{s:examples} on a laptop computer within less than one hour. The performance can be improved by fully implementing the optimization method in Fortran.
Our improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method allows one not only to minimize residual magnetic forces, but also to properly adjust the magnetic connectivity in PEC configurations. In order to evaluate the power of these new capabilities, we combined the method with line-tied $\beta=0$ MHD simulations to construct two numerically relaxed, approximately force-free PEC solutions for the 2009 February 13 CME event, which we had used previously for testing the original model \citep{Titov2018}. The main outcomes of this evaluation can be summarized as follows.
The MFR, as the current-carrying entity in our two optimized PECs has, by construction, a curved cylindrical body whose diameter is essentially the same over its length. However, during the relaxation, it acquires the shape of a sigmoid with inflated elbows. This transformation is accompanied by a change of the current density distribution, and by the conversion of twist into writhe and shear. The resulting relaxed PECs have a complex core magnetic structure, with the MFR nested within a sheared magnetic arcade. Both the MFR and the arcade are bounded in the central region of the PECs by curved current layers, where the newly developed shear is concentrated.
Depending on the strength of the axial current in the pre-relaxed MFR, the core of the final PEC can also contain a vertical current layer, which is then embedded in the sheared arcade, underneath the MFR. This vertical current layer itself is just another, lower-lying sheared arcade whose field lines are much shorter than the adjacent core field lines.
It is interesting to note that all these current layers are well aligned with QSLs that form during the MHD relaxation. The partition of the core field by the QSLs reveals building blocks that match the morphological features typically observed in bipolar pre-eruptive configurations \citep[e.g.,][]{Moore2001} very well.
We believe that this agreement is not just a coincidence, but rather a result of the increased accuracy of our improved {\footnotesize R}BS{\footnotesize L}\ method in constructing approximate magnetic equilibria. This suggests that the method will not only be beneficial as a tool for modeling solar eruptions, but also for scientific studies that require a detailed understanding of the magnetic structure of PECs.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her quick response and thorough report.
This research was supported by NASA programs HTMS (award\,no.\,80NSSC20K1274), HSR (80NSSC19K0858 and 80NSSC20K1317), SBIR (80NSSC19C0193); NASA/NSF program DRIVE (80NSSC20K0604); NSF grants AGS-1560411, AGS-1135432, AGS-1923377, ICER-1854790; and AFOSR contract FA9550-15-C-0001. Computational resources were provided by NSF's XSEDE and NASA's NAS facilities.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Two of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes are also based on two unique methods for measuring black hole mass ($\Mbh$\xspace). The most robust black hole mass measurement is that based on proper motion studies of stars in the Galactic Center around Sagittarius A*, which require a supermassive black hole with $M_{\rm BH}=4 \times 10^{6}$\,M$_{\odot}$ \citep{ghez2000,genzel2000,2002Natur.419..694S,2019A&A...625L..10G}. Unfortunately, observing the proper motions of individual stars in the centers of other galaxies is not possible due to the distances involved. The second robust black hole mass measurement is in the case of M87 which is based on image reconstruction using very-long baseline interferometry that provided the first image of emission from just outside the event horizon. These observations allowed the black hole mass to be constrained through comparison with general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic models \citep{2019ApJ...875L...1E}. Unfortunately, imaging of the event horizon is only currently possible for M87 and for Sagittarius A*, which has a comparable angular extent on the sky. All other black holes in the nearby universe are too small and/or too distant to be resolved with current technology, and so other techniques must be used to study additional supermassive black holes.
Another direct method for constraining $\Mbh$\xspace is the use of water maser emission in edge-on nuclear gas disks \citep{1995Natur.373..127M,2005ApJ...629..719H,2016ApJ...826L..32G}. The maser emission in the disk traces out the Keplerian rotation curve of the gas, constraining the enclosed mass. Unfortunately, water maser emission is quite rare and also requires a specific set of circumstances to be fulfilled before it can be used for $\Mbh$\xspace measurements, so there are only a few galaxies where this technique may be used.
For larger samples of black hole masses, there are three other established direct $\Mbh$\xspace measurement techniques. Gas dynamical (GD) modeling relies on spatially-resolved gas kinematics in galactic nuclei to infer the geometry and inclination of the gas as well as the enclosed mass (e.g., \citealt{1997ApJ...489..579M,2015ApJ...809..101D}), though the gas may be affected by non-circular motions and turbulence. Stellar dynamical (SD) modeling is similar, but considers a more general kinematic structure of the stellar motion, not limited to circular orbits (e.g., \citealt{1998ApJ...493..613V,1999ApJ...514..704C,2003ApJ...583...92G,2004ApJ...602...66V}). Reverberation mapping (RM, \citealt{1982ApJ...255..419B,1993PASP..105..247P}) uses light echoes in the emission from active galactic nuclei (AGN) to constrain the kinematics of gas on spatially-unresolvable scales deep in the nuclear region. Both GD and SD modeling require high spatial resolution and are dependent on the distance to the galaxy. RM instead requires high temporal sampling and is distance independent.
For active galaxies, RM is the most prevalent $\Mbh$\xspace measurement technique. Continuum emission, likely arising from the accretion disk, travels outwards at the speed of light and photoionizes gas in the broad line region (BLR), where it is processed and re-emitted as spectral lines. Variability in the continuum flux (most likely from instabilities in the disk and/or variable accretion rates) thus causes variability in the broad line flux as well. Through spectrophotometric monitoring, the time delay $\tau$ between variations in the continuum radiation and the response in the broad emission lines can be measured. The recombination timescale of the BLR is very short compared to typical time delays, so $\tau$ is simply the light-crossing time and $c \tau$ is the responsivity-weighted mean radius of the BLR. When combined with a constraint on the Doppler velocities of the BLR gas ($V$), $\Mbh$\xspace can be determined via the virial theorem:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm BH} = f\frac{c\tau V^2}{G},
\end{equation}
where $f$ is an order-unity scaling factor that depends on the detailed geometry and kinematics of the BLR gas and $G$ is the gravitational constant. RM is a direct method of determining $\Mbh$\xspace based on the gravitational influence of the black hole on a luminous tracer, but its most common application relies on an average $f$ factor that is derived from comparison with dynamical modeling (e.g., \citealt{2004ApJ...615..645O,2013ApJ...773...90G,2017ApJ...838L..10B}).
RM masses determined in this way rely on certain assumptions, such as a symmetric geometry of the BLR and the assumption that gravity dominates the kinematics of the BLR gas. The BLR exhibits ionization stratification, in that high ionization lines are observed to have shorter time delays than low ionization lines. These short time delays are accompanied by high velocities in the line widths. For those cases when it has been possible to explore the relationship between $\tau$ and $V$ for multiple broad emission lines in the same AGN, the measurements have been consistent with $V \propto \tau^{-0.5}$, as expected for a virial relationship (e.g., \citealt{peterson2004,kollatschny2003,2010ApJ...716..993B}) and thus supporting the assumption that gravity dominates the kinematics of the region.
Velocity-resolved RM \citep{2014MNRAS.445.3073P,2017ApJ...849..146G}, on the other hand, allows the full geometry and kinematics of the BLR to be constrained and avoids many of the assumptions involved in using a mean time delay and adopting a typical $f$ factor, thus providing a direct, primary constraint on $\Mbh$\xspace.
SD modeling is generally applied to quiescent galaxies -- elliptical or spheroidal galaxies and the bulges of disk galaxies. It is a direct, primary method that constrains $\Mbh$\xspace by fitting the bulk kinematics of stars derived from spatially-resolved spectroscopy with simulated kinematics constructed for a galaxy model with a similar surface brightness density profile to the observed galaxy.
Several different approaches have been employed for stellar dynamical modeling, e.g., the solution of the spherical or axisymmetric Jeans equation \citep{vandermarel_1994,cappellari_2008, cappellari_2014, cappellari_2020}, distribution function fitting \citep{vandermarel_1994,Magorrian_2019}, guided (``made-to-measure'') $N$-body simulations \citep{1996MNRAS.282..223S,2013MNRAS.429.2974D}, and the Schwarzschild orbit-superposition method \citep{1979ApJ...232..236S,1993ApJ...409..563S}.
In the past two decades, in conjunction with spatially-resolved absorption line spectroscopy, increasingly sophisticated versions of the orbit-superposition method \citep{1998ApJ...493..613V, 1999ApJ...514..704C, gebhardt_etal_2003, 2004ApJ...602...66V,
2004MNRAS.353..391T, 2008MNRAS.385..647V, 2010MNRAS.401.1770V, 2020ApJ...889...39V, 2021MNRAS.500.1437N} have been used to construct self-consistent dynamical models of galactic nuclei and to derive their black hole masses, stellar mass-to-light ratios $\Upsilon$, and internal orbit distributions. Consequently, orbit superposition is now the most widely used method for black hole mass determination and is responsible for obtaining the majority of BH mass measurements from dynamical modeling to date \citep[e.g.][]{2013ApJ...764..184M,2016ApJ...818...47S}.
The accuracy of any SD method depends on the ability to spatially resolve the SMBH sphere of influence (the region where the gravity of the SMBH dominates over the gravity of the stars),
although some authors argue that resolving the sphere of influence is not strictly necessary (e.g., see \citealt{2006ApJ...646..754D,Gultekin_2011}).
Like SD modeling, RM is also a prolific measurement technique, and has been used to determine masses of $\sim$100 supermassive black holes (e.g., \citealt{2015PASP..127...67B,grier2017}). However, for the vast majority of targets it is not possible to constrain $\Mbh$\xspace through both RM and SD modeling: bright broad-lined AGNs are rare in the local universe, so they are generally too far away to achieve the spatial resolution needed for dynamical modeling. This is an important point, because tens of thousands of indirect measurements have been made by large surveys and are used to explore the growth and evolution of black holes and galaxies throughout cosmic history based on the information gleaned from these smaller samples of direct $\Mbh$\xspace measurements, {\it yet we do not currently know if RM and SD modeling provide consistent mass measurements when applied to the same galaxies.}
Direct comparisons of RM and SD modeling through $\Mbh$\xspace measurements of the same targets, with their different assumptions, biases, and data and technical requirements, have only been accomplished for two galaxies to date: NGC\,4151 \citep{2006ApJ...651..775B,2014ApJ...791...37O,2018ApJ...866..133D} and NGC\,3227 \citep{2006ApJ...646..754D,2010ApJ...721..715D}. We have thus undertaken an effort to improve and increase the sample of high-quality $\Mbh$\xspace determinations for the small sample of nearby, bright Seyfert 1 galaxies where RM and SD modeling may be directly compared.
An important step in this program is a complete reanalysis of the SD modeling results for NGC\,4151, which we describe in this manuscript. NGC\,4151 is the brightest Seyfert~1 in the northern hemisphere and one of the nearest AGNs at $z=0.0033$. NGC\,4151 has been studied with both SD modeling \citep{2007ApJ...670..105O,2014ApJ...791...37O} and RM \citep{2006ApJ...651..775B,2018ApJ...866..133D}, as well as GD modeling (using H$_{2}$; \citealt{2008ApJS..174...31H}). The sphere of influence of NGC\,4151 is estimated to be $\sim$15\, parsecs, or $\sim0\farcs2$, which is well-matched to the spatial resolution that may be achieved from the ground with adaptive optics.
The original SD modeling analysis by \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O} did not take full advantage of the spatial resolution available with the instrumentation, and we have identified several additional improvements in the data reduction and analysis that we have implemented and describe below. On the modeling side, we use a powerful new orbit-superposition code \textsc{Forstand} \citep{2020ApJ...889...39V} that overcomes many limitations of other stellar-dynamical modeling codes (e.g. restriction to axisymmetry, not accounting for dark matter and inability to account for figure rotation, limited size of orbit libraries, etc.), although in the present study we do not use all its novel features.
In Section~\ref{sec:obs} of this paper, we introduce relevant integral field spectroscopy and imaging observations. Section~\ref{sec:phot} details the analysis of the photometry while Section~\ref{sec:kin} details the analysis of the two spectroscopic data sets. In Section~\ref{sec:models} we describe the application of the \textsc{Forstand} modeling code to NGC\,4151. Section~\ref{sec:diss} compares the modeling results and conclusions for $\Mbh$\xspace with previous studies of NGC\,4151, discusses the obstacles of stellar dynamical modeling in this application, and shares the upcoming direction of this project and related research. We summarize in Section~\ref{sec:sum}.
\section{Observations} \label{sec:obs}
NGC\,4151 has a \cite{1964rcbg.book.....D} classification\footnote{NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database; https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/} of (R?)SAB(rs)ab, having a possible outer ring, a weak bar, an inner ring and inner spiral structure, and tightly wound spiral arms (Figure~\ref{fig:n4151}). The large round component that has often been identified as the bulge of the galaxy is actually a barlens, and the true bulge is significantly more compact (cf.\ \citealt{2018ApJ...864..146B}). It is located at $\alpha=182.6357$, $\delta=+39.4058$ in the direction of the constellation Canes Venatici.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{n4151.pdf}
\caption{{\it HST}\xspace\ Wide-Field Camera 3/UVIS optical image of NGC\,4151 through the F350LP, F814W, and F555W filters. North is 30$^{\circ}$ counter-clockwise from up. Small magenta and large green rectangles show the footprints of the NIFS and SAURON kinematic maps, respectively; dashed red-blue line shows the orientation of the kinematic major axis. Image credit: Judy Schmidt. }
\label{fig:n4151}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Integral Field Spectroscopy}
\subsubsection{Gemini NIFS}
NGC\,4151 was observed with the Near-infrared Integral Field Spectrograph \cite[NIFS;][]{2003SPIE.4841.1581M} on the Gemini North telescope on 2008 February 16-17 and 19-24 (see Table~\ref{tab:observations}). We retrieved the raw data from the Gemini Archive (GN-2008A-Q-41, PI: C.\ Onken).
NIFS is an image-slicer style integral field unit (IFU) with 29 slices across the $3\farcs0 \times 3\farcs0$ field of view (FOV). The observations of NGC\,4151 were taken in the $H-$band with the H\_G5604 grating coupled with the JH\_G0602 filter, covering the spectral range $\sim 14900-18000$\,\AA\ with R$\approx$5290 and a dispersion of 1.6\,\AA\,pix$^{-1}$. The instrumental resolution was measured to have FWHM = $3.2$\,\AA\,pix$^{-1}$. The data were acquired with the instrument rotated to a position angle (PA) of $-15^{\circ}$ east of north. The Altair AO system \citep{1998SPIE.3353..488H} was used with the bright AGN serving as a natural guide ``star''.
\begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
\input{table-observations.tex}
\end{deluxetable}
Each exposure of NGC\,4151 had a length of 120\,s, and 252 individual exposures were obtained during the 8 nights of observations. The data quality and weather conditions were good; only 3\% of the data did not meet the expectations in quality checks such as cloud cover, water vapor/transparency, and background counts indicated by the PI prior to the observations. At all times the data were marked as usable by the Gemini staff's quality assessment. The airmass was rarely above 1.5 (only 5\% of the time), and the average airmass was 1.2.
Observations of Galactic stars were also collected to produce telluric spectra that quantify the absorption of light from molecules in Earth's atmosphere (most notably water vapor). Two A0\textrm{V} stars were used for these telluric observations, HD\,98152 and HD\,116405, with exposure times of 40\,s and 30\,s, respectively. They were observed throughout each of the eight nights, interspersed between the science observations in order to monitor the varying telluric feature strengths due to changing airmass and weather conditions.
G, K, and M stars dominate the near-IR stellar emission of galaxies, and the high luminosities of giant stars, in particular, are responsible for the bulk of the stellar emission at these wavelengths. Three giant stars --- HD\,35833 (G0), HD\,40280 (K0\textrm{III}), and HIP\,60145 (M0) --- were also observed on Feb.\ 23 and 24 to serve as velocity templates for assistance in the interpretation of the NGC\,4151 spectra. For each of the three stars, four 5.3\,s exposures were obtained in a single night.
Observations of NGC\,4151 and the telluric and velocity template stars were typically obtained in an object-sky-object dithering pattern to allow for sky subtraction. The telescope was slewed $\sim$200\arcsec\ to the side of the FOV for the NGC\,4151 data ($\sim$5\arcsec\ for telluric and velocity template stars) before re-centering on the target for the next exposure. The AO was turned on for the science data and the telluric stars, but not for the velocity templates.
Reduction of the data generally followed the NIFS reduction pipeline created by Tracy Beck and Richard McDermid for IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}. Many of the basic reduction procedures are the same as those employed in the original study of these data by \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, but we highlight the improvements we have made to the reductions below.
In particular, telluric spectra were created from the telluric star observations using the software {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont xtellcor} \citep{2003PASP..115..389V}. The telluric star spectra consist of stellar continuum and absorption with telluric features superimposed on top. {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont xtellcor} uses a high-resolution, synthetic spectrum of Vega to model the spectra of A0V stars and isolate the stellar features from the telluric features. Each telluric star spectrum was fed to {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont xtellcor} along with the B and V magnitudes of the star (8.98 and 8.93 for HD\,98152, 8.27 and 8.34 for HD\,116405).\footnote{Magnitudes of the telluric stars were retrieved from SIMBAD.} Our telluric standard stars, while being the same spectral type as Vega, had different absorption line widths in their spectra than those of Vega, and so {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont xtellcor} scaled and blurred the model of Vega to better match the intrinsic stellar absorption features. The best-fit model was then subtracted from the observed spectrum of the telluric standard, leaving only the telluric absorption spectrum. This process differs slightly from that of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, who instead employed the {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont nffixa0} IRAF script written by Peter McGregor, in which the stellar absorption lines of the telluric standards were individually fit with Voigt profiles and removed in order to isolate the features arising from Earth's atmosphere. In both cases, the execution of multiple telluric template observing blocks each night allowed individual frames of NGC\,4151 to be corrected using the telluric template spectrum obtained closest in time.
After telluric correction, all individual science frames were then reformatted into three-dimensional data cubes, drizzling and rectifying the 29 spectral slices of each exposure into a $60 \times 62$ spaxel (spatial pixel) data cube with a spatial sampling of $0\farcs05\times0\farcs05$, preserving more of the spatial resolution than \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O} where $0\farcs2\times0\farcs2$ was adopted instead. For the velocity template stars, a one-dimensional spectrum was then extracted from the data cube by summing all the spectra contained within a circular spatial aperture. The four individual spectra for each star were then median combined.
For observations of NGC\,4151, we ensured the wavelength axis was consistent among all the cubes by adopting a fixed dispersion of 1.6\,\AA\,pix$^{-1}$ and identical starting wavelengths for each cube as they were rectified. We then assessed the FWHM of the point spread function (PSF) for each cube and implemented a seeing cut at FWHM = $0\farcs25$, thus rejecting 21 of the 252 individual observations with the poorest spatial resolution (most of which had been observed in the last two nights of observations). This left 231 individual cubes that were aligned and median combined into a final data cube.
Variance information for each data frame was recorded at the time of observation, but the current version of the NIFS reduction pipeline does not carry this information through to the end of the process. Thus, we developed a method for quantifying the adjustments to the variance at each remaining step in the pipeline and producing a final noise cube to match the final data cube. The inclusion of propagated errors is an improvement on the reduction methods of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, where a constant fractional error of 2\% was assumed.
\subsubsection{WHT SAURON}
An additional data cube with wider-field IFU observations of NGC\,4151 was provided by Eric Emsellem. The observations were collected as part of the study by \cite{2007MNRAS.379.1249D}, where integral field spectroscopy from the SAURON IFU was used to examine the kinematics of the stellar and gaseous components of a sample of galaxies including NGC\,4151. Three 30\,min exposures were collected on the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) in La Palma, Spain in 2004 March. SAURON is a lenslet system rather than an image-slicer, and the IFU has a field-of-view of $33\arcsec\times41\arcsec$ with a spatial resolution of 0\farcs94, resulting in $\sim$1500 spectra per pointing. The spectral range is in the optical, covering 4825-5380\,\AA, and the instrument has a spectral resolution of 4.2\,\AA\,pix$^{-1}$.
The SAURON data were reduced with the {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont XSAURON} software and SAURON pipeline \citep{2001MNRAS.326...23B,2002MNRAS.329..513D}. In this process, a bias and dark subtraction was performed, followed by wavelength calibration, flat-fielding, cosmic ray correction, sky subtraction, and flux calibration. The three individual cubes were then aligned and drizzled onto a square grid with a spatial sampling of $0\farcs8\times0\farcs8$. The PSF of the final data cube has FWHM = $2\farcs0\pm0\farcs3$. For further information on the data, we refer the reader to \cite{2007MNRAS.379.1249D}.
\subsection{Photometry}\label{phot}
High-spatial resolution {\it Hubble Space Telescope} ({\it HST}\xspace) imaging of NGC\,4151 had been previously acquired with the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) through the F547M (medium-$V$; GO-11661, PI: M.\ Bentz) and F160W ($H$; GO-13765, PI: B.\ Peterson) filters.
Details of the reduction and processing of the F547M images are described in \citet{2018ApJ...864..146B}, but in brief, four images through the F547M filter were acquired in a single orbit on 2010 July 3 with a two-point dither pattern to cover the central gap between the detectors. At each point in the dither pattern, a short exposure and a long exposure were obtained, allowing for correction of saturation in the nucleus due to the AGN while also providing good sensitivity to the extended host galaxy. The total exposure time was 2310.0\,s, and the drizzled image covers a field of view of $2\farcm7 \times 2\farcm7$ at a pixel scale of 0\farcs04.
Six individual F160W images were acquired in pairs with equal exposure times and a two-point dither pattern over the course of three orbits on 2015 December 7, 2015 December 28, and 2016 January 5. The total exposure time was 3317.6\,s, and the drizzled image covers a field of view of $2\farcm3 \times 2\farcm1$ at a pixel scale of 0\farcs1283.
The drizzled F547M and F160W images were each fit separately with {\sc Galfit}\xspace\ \citep{2002AJ....124..266P,2010AJ....139.2097P} to construct two-dimensional surface brightness profiles (see \citealt{2013ApJ...767..149B,2018ApJ...864..146B} for more details). The surface brightness models allowed the PSF of the central AGN and the background sky to be removed from each image, leaving just the host galaxy for further analysis.
To compare the surface brightness profiles of the galaxy in the two filters, we rotated the F160W image to match the orientation of the F547M image, blurred and rebinned the F547M image to match the PSF profile and spatial scale of the F160W image, and then cropped the two images so they were both centered on the AGN and included a common field of view. Comparing the positions of the few resolved sources in common between the two images, we found that this process aligned the two images to an accuracy of $\sim0.5$\,pix at the final spatial scale. We then used the IRAF task {\sc ellipse} to fit elliptical isophotes to both images and measure their one-dimensional surface brightness profiles in a consistent manner. Finally, we applied the most recent calibration of the Vegamag zeropoints, corrected for Galactic extinction based on the \citet{2011ApJ...737..103S} recalibration of the \citet{1998ApJ...500..525S} dust map of the Milky Way, and applied small color corrections to account for the differences between a $V-$band filter and F547M, and an $H-$band filter and F160W. Figure~\ref{fig:surfacebrightness} ({\it top}) displays the one-dimensional surface brightness profiles in the inner regions of NGC\,4151, with $V$ shown in blue and $H$ shown in red. The $V-H$ color is displayed in the bottom panel. The pixels inside a radius of $\sim 0\farcs5$ (equivalent to a radius of about 4 pixels, and denoted by the vertical line in the bottom panel) are affected by residuals from the subtraction of the AGN PSF, but at radii outside this region the $V-H$ color of the galaxy is quite flat across the inner $\sim 1\farcm0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in]{n4151color.eps}
\caption{$V-$ (blue) and $H-$band (red) surface brightness ({\it top}) and $V-H$ color ({\it bottom}) as a function of radius from the center of NGC\,4151. The color is relatively constant, except for the innermost 0\farcs5 ($\sim4$ pixels) which are affected by the bright central AGN.}
\label{fig:surfacebrightness}
\end{figure}
\section{Photometric Analysis} \label{sec:phot}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig_density_profiles.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of several parametrizations of the surface brightness profiles. Orange solid line and green dotted lines show the {\sc Galfit}\xspace models to the F547M image with a single Nuker component or 3 S\'ersic components, respectively. Red dashed line is the $H$-band MGE model from \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O} scaled by $0.2$ to match the other profiles, which are based on the $V$-band HST image. Blue dot-dashed line is our fiducial \citet{1996MNRAS.278..488Z} profile, which closely follows the Nuker profile outside 0$\farcs$1 but is less cuspy.
} \label{fig:density_profiles}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Image Decompositions}
The surface brightness of NGC\,4151 in both the WFC3 F547M and F160W images were examined for their appropriateness in constraining the stellar luminosity density within the dynamical models. The F547M image shows clear regions of dust extinction and excess stellar flux, while the F160W image shows a smoother galaxy profile but at the expense of a lower intrinsic spatial resolution than the F547M image.
We first tried a Multi-Gaussian Expansion (MGE) analysis
\citep{1994A&A...285..723E,2002MNRAS.333..400C} using the AGN- and sky-subtracted images of the galaxy discussed above. MGE surface-brightness decomposition begins by finding the center then binning the field in angle and radius. Photometry is measured for each point on the grid, and then nested two-dimensional Gaussian profiles with variable axis ratios and central intensities are fit to this two-dimensional intensity map. During this process, we required that the PAs of any elongation in the Gaussians aligned with the kinematic PA determined previously (this restriction is mandated by our choice of axisymmetric modeling strategy). Although the observed velocity field shows twisting and misalignment with the photometric PA, indicative of the presence of a bar, we defer the study of bar models to the future.
The parameters of the best-fit nested Gaussian profiles are described by the intensity in counts, the width in pixels ($\sigma$), and axis ratio ($q$). These parameters can then be converted into surface density in $L_{\odot}$\,pc$^{-2}$ and $\sigma$ in arcsec. For both the F547M and the F160W images, the MGE solutions provided a surface brightness profile that included a lot of bumps and other structures, rather than a smooth increase in surface brightness from larger radii into the galaxy center.
We then examined the potential of using the surface brightness components that had been fit to the images with {\sc Galfit}\xspace\ in the process of subtracting the AGN and sky. These surface brightness components included an exponential disk, S\'ersic bulge, and an elongated S\'ersic component to represent the weak bar, with the central positions of all the galaxy components tied together, and the position angles of the central galaxy components (not including the disk) set to the kinematic position angle of the inner galaxy. While smoother than the MGE profile, a significant amount of structure was still visible in the surface brightness profile for both the F547M and the F160W image.
Finally, we also examined the results of fitting a Nuker profile to the images using {\sc Galfit}\xspace, to promote smoothness in the surface brightness profile while still retaining some flexibility to account for the complicated morphology. Figure~\ref{fig:density_profiles} demonstrates that the Nuker fit to the F547M image is very close to the combination of several S\'ersic profiles, but is smoother. However, both these profiles overpredict the amount of stellar light in the central $0\farcs1$ -- the region so dominated by the AGN emission that any residual stellar light is poorly constrained. A comparison with the MGE model from \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O}, suitably scaled in normalization, shows that the latter has a central core with the radius of the innermost Gaussian component $\sim 0\farcs11$, while the Nuker model has a cusp. As will be shown later in Section~\ref{sec:models}, a cuspy profile results in a best-fit black hole mass of zero, which is clearly unphysical for this bright AGN. We therefore constructed another model described by the \citet{1996MNRAS.278..488Z} profile, which closely follows the Nuker model except the innermost $0\farcs1$ -- the region dominated by the AGN emission. We note that both Nuker and Zhao profiles are equally flexible and can represent cuspy or cored systems for different choices of parameters; here we used the former parametrization for the cuspy profile and the latter for the cored one. These two extreme cases likely encompass the true range of possible density profiles for this galaxy. The 3d luminosity density for our adopted Zhao profile is \begin{equation}
j(r)=j_0\,(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}\,\big[1+(r/r_0)^\alpha\big]^{(\gamma-\beta)/\alpha},
\end{equation}
with $\gamma=0$, $\beta=2.47$, $\alpha=0.65$, $r_0=0\farcs113$, and $j_0=4.08\times10^6\,L_\odot\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-3}$.
We note that although $\gamma=0$ formally corresponds to a cored profile, the zero logarithmic slope is achieved only asymptotically, and in practice the density remains weakly cuspy at the resolution limit, unlike the MGE parametrization, which is much more obviously cored within $0\farcs1$.
\subsection{Mass-to-Light Ratio} \label{sec:mass_to_light}
Determination of how mass traces light is integral to understanding the gravitational potential of the galaxy for modeling. Based on OSUBSGS $H-$band imaging combined with SDSS $g-$ and $i-$band imaging, \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O} produced color-color maps of NGC\,4151 and found very flat colors across the galaxy bulge with average values of $g - i=1.1 \pm 0.1$\,mag and $i - H=2.4 \pm 0.2$\,mag.
This is in line with our findings based on {\it HST}\xspace\ F547M and F160W imaging as described in Section~\ref{phot}, where we also find a very flat color across the galaxy bulge, with $V-H=2.9\pm0.1$\,mag.
\cite{2014ApJ...791...37O} adopted the models of \cite{2009MNRAS.400.1181Z} to predict $\Upsilon_{H} \simeq 0.4 \pm 0.2$\, M$_{\odot}/$L$_{\odot}$. Comparison of many different prescriptions for estimating $\Upsilon$ by \citet{roediger15}, however, finds that \cite{2009MNRAS.400.1181Z} consistently predicts the lowest values at these galaxy colors. Furthermore, when compared to the known $\Upsilon$ for resolved stars in M31 \citep{telford20}, the prescriptions of \cite{2009MNRAS.400.1181Z} seem to be biased low at these colors.
Based on the analysis by \citet{roediger15}, we therefore adopt $\Upsilon_{H} \simeq 0.7 \pm 0.1$\,M$_{\odot}/$L$_{\odot}$ and $\Upsilon_{V} \simeq 2.9 \pm 0.3$\,M$_{\odot}/$L$_{\odot}$ as our best estimates for the $H-$ and $V-$band stellar mass-to-light ratios in the nucleus of NGC\,4151.
\subsection{Galaxy Inclination Angle} \label{sec:inclination}
Observations of HI 21\,cm emission from the large-scale disk of NGC\,4151 led \citet{davies1973} to report an inclination of $26^{\circ}\pm8^{\circ}$. \cite{1975ApJ...200..567S} examined the ratio of the minor to major axis using density tracings of wide-field photographic plate images and found the outermost isophotes of the galaxy to suggest an inclination of $21^{\circ} \pm 5^{\circ}$. The nearly circular shape of the galaxy disk in the HI 21\,cm maps presented by \citet{1977A&A....57...97B} also support a face-on orientation.
This is at odds with what has generally been determined from optical imaging alone. For example, surface brightness decomposition of optical ground-based imaging with a modest FOV generally provides a minor-to-major axis ratio of $\sim 0.7$ for the galaxy disk (e.g., \citealt{2009ApJ...697..160B}), suggesting an inclination of 46$^{\circ}$. However, as argued by \citet{davies1973}, this elongated structure is likely to be more representative of the weak galaxy bar than the disk, although they also note that there are difficulties with this interpretation as well.
Thus the inclination of NGC\,4151 is somewhat uncertain (\citealt{1975ApJ...200..567S} go so far as to describe NGC\,4151 as ``pathological''!), but is likely to be in the range of $20-45^{\circ}$.
For a nearly face-on orientation, it is very difficult to estimate the intrinsic flattening $q$ from the photometry (even a very flat disk would still appear nearly round in projection). Therefore, our strategy is to explore the parameter space of the inclination angle $i$ and intrinsic flattening $q$ independently. Specifically, we first take the 1d surface brightness profile $I(R)$ and deproject it under the assumption of spherical symmetry, obtaining the luminosity density profile
\begin{equation*}
j(r) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \int_r^\infty \frac{dR}{\sqrt{R^2-r^2}}\,\frac{dI}{dR}.
\end{equation*}
We then assume that the intrinsic luminosity density is actually axisymmetric and ellipsoidally stratified, with the axis ratio $q\equiv z/R$ being a free parameter in the model, where $q=1$ is spherical. If such a density profile is projected face-on, the result would be identical to $I(R)$, while for a nonzero inclination angle $i$, the projected minor axis is $q'=\sqrt{1-(1-q^2)\,\sin^2 i}$\; times smaller than the projected major axis. To preserve the angularly-averaged surface brightness profile, we multiply the scale radius of the 3d profile by $s \equiv 1/\sqrt{q'}$, so that the geometric mean of the projected major and minor axes is the same as in the spherical model. For instance, with an inclination $i=30^\circ$ and flattening $q=0.25$, the projected major and minor axes are $1.07$ and $0.935$ times the original scale radius of the one-dimensional surface brightness profile. We believe that the extra flexibility allowed by independent variation of flattening and inclination (with additional constraints coming from kinematics) is more important than an accurate reproduction of the density profile \textit{per se}.
\subsection{Galaxy Distance} \label{moddistance}
When performing SD modeling, the distance to the galaxy is a large source of uncertainty in determining $\Mbh$\xspace. The scale or radii of the galactic features being probed and the value of $\Mbh$\xspace scale linearly with the assumed distance. Based on the information available at the time, \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O} adopted a recessional velocity distance measurement of 13.9\,Mpc from \cite{1992MNRAS.259..369P}, cautioning that this distance was highly uncertain but that no better estimates were currently available.
Indeed, the only other information available was a Tully-Fisher distance to NGC\,4151 that was reported by \citet{2009AJ....138..323T} as 3.9\,Mpc and is highly-discrepant from the group-averaged distance to NGC\,4151 of $11.2\pm1.1$\,Mpc. \citet{2013ApJ...767..149B} recalculated the group-averaged distance to NGC\,4151, excluding NGC\,4151 itself, and reported a distance of $16.6\pm3.3$\,Mpc, albeit based on only three galaxies.
Since then, additional studies have worked to pin down the distance more accurately. \cite{2014Natur.515..528H} measured the physical size of the inner radius of the dusty torus using broad-band RM and the angular size of the torus with near-infrared interferometry, reporting a dust-parallax distance of $19.0^{+2.4}_{-2.6}$\,Mpc to NGC\,4151. \citet{tsvetkov19} reported the discovery of a Type IIP supernova in NGC\,4151. Adopting a standardizable candle approach, they find a distance of $16.6\pm1.1$\,Mpc, but they also report a distance of $20.0\pm1.6$\,Mpc if they instead adopt an expanding photosphere analysis.
Most recently, a Cepheid distance to NGC\,4151 has been obtained with {\it HST}\xspace\ WFC3 optical and near-infrared imaging (GO-13765, PI: B.\ Peterson), resulting in a distance of 15.8$\pm$0.4\, Mpc \citep{yuan2020}, which we have adopted for our modeling. At this distance, 1\arcsec\ corresponds to 77 pc.
\subsection{Point Spread Function} \label{modpsf}
To characterize the PSF of our NIFS datacube, we took a slice at a wavelength corresponding to an AGN broad emission line and subtracted off a slice at a wavelength corresponding to the stellar and AGN continuum, in effect creating narrowband images with an on-band image and an off-band image. The residual image thus contains an image of the unresolved AGN point source at a wavelength corresponding to a broad emission line, allowing for characterization of the PSF.
Using {\sc Galfit}\xspace, we modeled the PSF image with multiple two-dimensional Gaussian components, each having common centers but different widths ($\sigma$) and flux contributions. The final three-component model with circular Gaussian components is shown in Table~\ref{tab:psf}. This three-component model accurately matches the wings and the core of the PSF. If only two components were used, the fit was not as good but the values agreed more closely with what was found by \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}.
For the SAURON datacube, the PSF was characterized by \cite{2007MNRAS.379.1249D} as a single Gaussian component with width $\sigma=2\farcs0$.
\begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
\input{table-psf.tex}
\end{deluxetable}
\bigskip
\section{Kinematic Analysis} \label{sec:kin}
In the optical and near-infrared, the spectra of galaxies are dominated by the summation of spectra of luminous stars. The line-of-sight velocity distribution (LOSVD) gives the full range of projected stellar kinematics along a particular line-of-sight. To describe the bulk motions of unresolved populations of stars at each spatial position, the convolution kernel necessary to transform stellar template spectra into the absorption profiles of observed galaxy spectra must be determined. In addition to a central wavelength shift indicating typical velocity $V$, the detailed shapes of the convolution kernels can be approximated with higher-order Gauss-Hermite terms, including the width of the profile $\sigma$ (related to the velocity dispersion), $h_3$ (related to skewness), $h_4$ (related to kurtosis), $h_5$, and $h_6$. Data with S/N$>$30 is generally necessary for making sure that the higher order moments of the Gauss-Hermite polynomials can be constrained \citep{1994MNRAS.269..785B}. We employed the Penalized Pixel-Fitting method (pPXF; \citealt{2004PASP..116..138C, 2017MNRAS.466..798C}), which was developed to constrain the Gauss-Hermite approximation to absorption line profiles through determination of the shifting and blurring required to match a stellar absorption template to an observed galaxy spectrum.
\subsection{Kinematic Position Angle}
The kinematic position angle was derived using the method of \cite{2006MNRAS.366..787K}. The kinematic measurements derived from an initial pPXF run were smoothed and bi-symmetrized before determining the best-fit systemic velocity along with the kinematic position angle of the system as measured from the y-axis of the data cube. This angle represents the line of maximum galaxy rotation, perpendicular to the axis of rotation, and for our kinematics is 37.2$^{\circ}$ counterclockwise from the y-axis.
The photometric major axis of the galaxy is somewhat uncertain. At intermediate radii ($\gtrsim 30\arcsec$), the galaxy is visibly elongated in a direction almost perpendicular to the kinematic major axis (see Figure~\ref{fig:n4151}), while at smaller radii (within the footprint of the SAURON dataset, shown by a green rectangle), its elongation is still offset by some $30^\circ$ from the kinematic major axis. Furthermore, 21\,cm imaging of the galaxy shows a nearly circular gas disk extending several arcmin beyond the high surface brightness stellar features, with a position angle of $26^{\circ}$ \citep{davies1973}. The intrinsic galaxy shape is thus non-axisymmetric and radius-dependent. However, in the present study we do not attempt to model this complex morphology and instead assume an intrinsically axisymmetric shape. The use of axisymmetric models requires that the kinematic and photometric major axes are aligned, which motivates the constraint on the position angle during the photometric fit.
\subsection{Voronoi Binning}
Next, we employed the adaptive binning method of \cite{2003MNRAS.342..345C}. This binning procedure is based on \citet{1908C...134....198V} tessellations and assigns adjacent spaxels into bins in a scheme that approximates constant signal-to-noise (S/N) across the FOV. Bins that are similar in shape to the spaxels are prioritized, i.e.\ not overly irregularly shaped, even at the expense of some irregularity in the S/N. This Voronoi binning method preserves the high spatial resolution at the center of the galaxy where the S/N is highest while adaptively binning the spaxels at the edges of the field to increase their collective S/N.
The data and noise cubes were first cropped, ensuring that the center of the FOV was defined by the centroid of the AGN position, and that spaxels at the edges of the cube with very low counts due to dithering between exposures were rejected. This left us with 49$\times$49 spaxels, with the odd number of spaxels in each dimension ensuring that the central spaxel contained the AGN. We then produced both a slice of the data cube (the signal) and a slice of the noise cube that well-represented the cubes as a whole, focusing on the region between the 16200\,\AA\, CO (6-3) bandhead and the strong [FeII] emission line at 16440\,\AA. These signal and noise slices were then used to assign the individual spaxels to bins.
We identified the Voronoi bin pattern for only one-quarter of the FOV, bounded by the kinematic major and minor axes, and then we replicated the bin pattern for the other three quadrants of the FOV. This scheme ensures that each bin has symmetric analogs in the other quadrants of the FOV, while the central spaxel containing the AGN was assigned to its own single bin. With this approach, we divided the FOV into 165 total bins.
Once the Voronoi bin assignments were determined, the spaxels that were assigned to each particular bin were combined for both the data cube and the noise cube. For all the spaxels assigned to a particular bin, the spectra from the data cube were co-added, channel by channel, and the spectra from the noise cube were added in quadrature. Voronoi binning the NGC\,4151 integral field spectroscopy is an improvement of the analysis over that of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, where the cubes were rectified with a constant spatial sampling of 0\farcs2$\times$0\farcs2 across the FOV, thus degrading the spatial resolution in the crucial region near the black hole sphere of influence.
\subsection{NIFS Kinematic Fits} \label{sec:nifs_kinem}
The NIFS spectra cover the wavelengths $\sim 15100-17700$\,\AA. Notable features within the wavelength range include forbidden Fe emission on the blue side, including the strongest line at 16440\,\AA, and hydrogen Brackett 11 and 10 lines on the red side at 16811\,\AA\ and 17367\,\AA, respectively. We focused on the wavelength range $\sim 15200-16400$\,\AA, which included the $\sim$16200\,\AA\, CO (6-3) bandhead and blueward absorption. The spectra were fit within the wavelength ranges $\sim 15150-15330$, $15450-15500$, $15530-16000$, $16060-16130$, and $16180-16350$\,\AA, the same as \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}. These ranges satisfactorily masked the strong emission lines while focusing the analysis on the strongest expected stellar absorption features.
As LOSVDs can be described by Gauss-Hermite polynomials, when the noise of the spectra is high or the data are undersampled with a low velocity resolution, the proper use of pPXF is to bias or penalize higher order Gauss-Hermite terms toward zero, defaulting them to more Gaussian shapes. In the original study, \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O} adopted no penalty. Based on the details of the NIFS integral field spectroscopy, however, we adopted a {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont BIAS} of 0.3. We also examined the largest changes in kinematic measurements between {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont BIAS} = 0.3 and {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont BIAS} = 0 to determine which bins produce unreliable kinematic measurements that might need to be masked during the modeling process.
While convolving the velocity template spectra to match the observations, pPXF provides the option to include Legendre polynomials (\citealt{1920WW}) to improve the fit to the continuum. The additive polynomials ({\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont DEGREE}) can mediate some of the effects of template mismatch (where poor fits of kinematics are obtained due to templates that incompletely represent the observations) and imperfect sky subtraction in the data reduction, while the multiplicative polynomials ({\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont MDEGREE}) can aid with slight imperfections in the flux calibration and reduce or remove the need for reddening correction. We found a good balance between the weights of the various polynomial components and the goodness of fits to the galaxy spectra when adopting 2nd order additive and 2nd order multiplicative Legendre polynomials, identical to what was found by \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}. These low-order polynomials improved the overall shape of the best fits to the spectra without introducing localized fluctuations that might have inhibited our ability to constrain the stellar kinematics.
We adopted the point-symmetric two-sided pPXF fitting of our spectra, in which two identically-shaped bins symmetric across the center ($x,y$ and $-x,-y$) are fed to pPXF and fitted simultaneously. Point-symmetric fitting improves the S/N of the data and provides symmetric measurements that utilize the full information contained in each of the two spectra. This is another improvement in the analysis over that of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, where the bins were fit independently and then the output measurements ($V, \sigma, h_3, h_4$) were four-fold symmetrized (also known as bisymmetrization, described below) instead and their errors from individual bins were added in quadrature and divided by two. We opted not to perform such bisymmetrization, in which spectra from four bins at positions ($\pm x,\pm y$) are fitted simultaneously, for two reasons. First, bisymmetrized kinematic maps hide any non-axisymmetric features (although we currently explored only axisymmetric models, in the future we plan to extend the analysis to a more general geometry). Second, in the point-symmetrized case we have essentially two independent variants of kinematic maps (one in the opposing pair of quadrants $x>0,y>0$ and $x<0,y<0$, the other -- in the second pair $x>0,y<0$ and $x<0,y>0$; here $x$ and $y$ are coordinates aligned with the kinematic major axis). Even though for most models we fitted both halves of the dataset simultaneously (and hence the model maps, which are bisymmetric by construction, lie halfway between the two variants of the observed maps), we can fit the two variants separately to quantify the systematic differences in the model parameters arising from the asymmetries in the data -- this is explored later in Section~\ref{sec:model_grid} and in Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs_half}.
In our tests, we found that the G star was only used in 20\% of the best-fit spectra, and even when it was used its contribution had a low weight, and so we omitted it as a template. The M star contributed 98\% of the time and the K star contributed 97\% of the time, and so we included both the K and M templates in our final fit. This is a slight difference from the method of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}, who used only the M star template in the final kinematic fits.
With all of these adopted parameters, we determined the final stellar kinematics for the central region of NGC\,4151 as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nifs}. We were not able to reliably recover the stellar kinematic signature at the center because of the very bright AGN, so for the NIFS data we omit these bins by masking the central $3\times3$ spaxels. This left 156 bins in our final kinematic maps, which are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nifs}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{n4151_nifs80.pdf}
\caption{Kinematics measured from the NIFS data. $X$ axis is aligned with the kinematic major axis (position angle $202^\circ$ from North through East). The color bar for Gauss-Hermite coefficients $h_4-h_6$ is the same as for $h_3$ }
\label{fig:nifs}
\end{figure*}
In summary, the stellar kinematic maps presented here are based on the following improvements over the analysis procedures of \cite{2014ApJ...791...37O}: (1) an improved telluric absorption correction; (2) the inclusion of noise information carried through the full reduction pipeline (rather than assuming a constant noise of 2\%); (3) the adoption of Voronoi binning to preserve the native spatial resolution near the galaxy nucleus and maintain a constant S/N across the field; (4) the adoption of a penalty term in the implementation of pPXF; and (5) fitting the co-added symmetrized spectra in Voronoi bins with pPXF instead of symmetrizing the pPXF measurements in 0.2\arcsec bins.
\subsection{SAURON Kinematic Fits} \label{sec:sauron_kinem}
We also reanalyzed the SAURON data of NGC\,4151. The data cube was provided to us having already been Voronoi binned, with 482 total bins that were not symmetric across the FOV. We followed many of the same procedures as the original analysis carried out by \cite{2007MNRAS.379.1249D}, but we updated a few details, including the use of the MILES stellar template library of \citet{2006MNRAS.371..703S} with the updates and corrections of \citet{2011A&A...532A..95F}. The library contains 985 empirical stellar spectra covering $3525-7500$\,\AA\ with a well-constrained spectral resolution of 2.51\,\AA\ \citep{2011A&A...531A.109B}. We focused on a subset of 148 stars to consider as templates, selecting those stars that were in common with both the Indo-US and Elodie libraries \citep{2004ApJS..152..251V,2001A&A...369.1048P,1998A&AS..133..221S,1998A&A...338..151K} and spanned spectral types F0 to K7.
During the fitting with pPXF, we included the entire spectral range of $4825-5380$\,\AA\ except for small regions around the strong AGN emission lines, including H$\beta$ and [OIII] $\lambda \lambda 4959,5007$\,\AA. Following \citet{2011MNRAS.413..813C}, we determined a single best-fit template spectrum that was then adopted for all the bins, to avoid issues that might arise in the derived kinematics from imperfect velocity calibration of the various template stars in the library. We adopted a {\fontfamily{qcr}\selectfont BIAS} parameter of 0.4 and additive and multiplicative Legendre polynomials of degree 4 and 0, respectively. Because the data cube was already binned with a non-symmetric binning pattern, we were unable to carry out the kinematic fits using the two-sided point-symmetric option, so each bin was fit individually. Only the first two Gauss-Hermite moments, $V$ and $\sigma$, were included in the fit, with the other terms set to zero.
We then masked several dozen AGN-contaminated spaxels within a few arcseconds from the center, retaining 447 bins in the final dataset, which is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:sauron}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{n4151_sauron2terms.pdf}
\caption{Kinematics measured from the SAURON data. The orientation and the color scales are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:nifs}. The central region is excluded due to AGN contamination.}
\label{fig:sauron}
\end{figure}
\section{Dynamical Modeling} \label{sec:models}
\subsection{Method}
The \citet{1979ApJ...232..236S} orbit-superposition method is a standard approach for dynamical modelling of galaxies based on integrated-light stellar kinematics. In the last two decades, several independent implementations of this method have been widely used to determine black hole masses:
the \textsc{Nuker} code \citep{2000AJ....119.1157G,2003ApJ...583...92G,2004MNRAS.353..391T,2009ApJ...693..946S},
the \textsc{Leiden} code \citep{1998ApJ...493..613V,1999ApJS..124..383C,2002ApJ...578..787C},
the \textsc{MasMod} code \citep{2004ApJ...602...66V,2005ApJ...628..137V}, and
the \textsc{Heidelberg} code \citep{2008MNRAS.385..647V,2010MNRAS.401.1770V}.
In this paper, we use yet another recently developed code \textsc{Forstand}\footnote{The code is publicly available, for details see \citet{forstand}.} \citep{2020ApJ...889...39V}. Although it can be applied to galaxies of any geometry, in the present case we limit ourselves to the axisymmetric case. We refer to that paper for a detailed description of the method, and here only briefly summarize the general workflow of orbit-superposition modelling and the particular aspects used in this study of NGC 4151.
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, we determine the 3d luminosity density profile from the surface brightness profile. As explained in Section~\ref{sec:inclination}, we vary the assumed flattening $q$ and inclination $i$ independently, and each combination of these two parameters produces a different 3d density profile (although the spherically averaged profiles are all very similar). The \textit{mass} density profile $\rho(\boldsymbol r)$ is $\Upsilon$ times the \textit{luminosity} density $j(\boldsymbol r)$, where the mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$ is another free parameter that is varied at a later stage in the modelling pipeline. We denote the mass density profile with a fixed fiducial value of $\Upsilon_0$ as the ``baseline'' profile $\rho_0$.
\item The total gravitational potential $\Phi(\boldsymbol r)$ contains the contributions from the stars $\Phi_\star$ (which is related to $\rho_0$ by the Poisson equation), the black hole $\Phi_\mathrm{BH} \equiv -GM_\mathrm{BH}/r$, and optionally the dark matter halo $\Phi_\mathrm{h}$, for which we adopt a spherical NFW profile with a scale radius $r_\mathrm{h}$ and peak circular velocity $v_\mathrm{h}$. For simplicity, we fix $r_\mathrm{h}$ at $50\arcsec$ and vary only $v_\mathrm{h}$; since the inner part of the model is self-similar, it is sufficient to vary only the overall density normalization ($\rho\propto v_\mathrm{h}^2$).
\item For each choice of model parameters $i$, $q$, $M_\bullet$, and $v_\mathrm{h}$, we construct an orbit library by integrating $N_\mathrm{orb}$ orbits for 100 dynamical times in the given potential and recording the LOSVDs of each orbit in each Voronoi bin (convolved with the PSF). The initial conditions for the orbits are sampled randomly: the positions are sampled from the stellar density profile, and the velocities -- from a 3d Gaussian distribution with mean and dispersions given by the solution of an axisymmetric Jeans equation for the stellar density in the total potential. The random sampling ensures that all possible orbits supported by the given potential can enter the library, but the results (kinematic fit quality expressed in terms of $\chi^2$) do depend on the specific random realization, because some realizations might contain orbits that are more suitable for reproducing certain kinematic fluctuations caused by observational errors than other realizations. We stress that the scatter in $\chi^2$ values between different orbit libraries with the same model parameters is a general consequence of the highly flexible nature of the method, and the ability to consider different sets of initial conditions does not cause this effect but merely uncovers it. Nevertheless, this stochasticity is clearly undesirable when comparing $\chi^2$ values between models with different parameters, and we use two approaches to reduce its impact: (1) for each series of models with given $i$, $q$, and $v_\mathrm{h}$ but different $M_\bullet$, we use the same set of orbital initial conditions, and (2) we run series of models for several random realizations of the orbital initial conditions and consider the ``ensemble average'' $\chi^2$ contours to determine the range of best-fit model parameters.
\item We then seek a solution for orbit weights that (1) reproduces the 3d density discretized on a $20\times15$ cylindrical grid in the $R,z$ plane, and (2) minimizes the objective function $\mathcal F \equiv \mathcal F_\mathrm{kin} + \mathcal F_\mathrm{reg}$. The first term is the measure of fit quality for the kinematic constraints ($v$, $\sigma$, $h_3\dots h_6$). The second term is the regularization score, which penalizes large variations between orbit weights $\boldsymbol w$; in our case, $\mathcal F_\mathrm{reg} = \lambda\,N_\mathrm{orb}^{-1}\,\sum_{i=1}^{N_\mathrm{orb}} (w_i/ \overline w)^2$, where the mean orbit weight is $\overline w \equiv M_\star / N_\mathrm{orb}$, and the regularization coefficient $\lambda$ controls the tradeoff between smoothness (for large $\lambda$) and closeness of reproduction of kinematic constraints (for negligible $\lambda$). With a too small value of $\lambda$, there is a risk of overfitting (the model trying to reproduce noise in the data), which is undesirable because $\mathcal F_\mathrm{kin}$ of the best-fit solution exhibits large fluctuations between adjacent points in the parameter space. While a detailed analysis of model sensitivity and fidelity as a function of regularization coefficient is beyond the scope of this study, after some experiments we settle on a value $\lambda=100$ that produces reasonably smooth likelihood surfaces.
\end{enumerate}
The solution for orbit weights in step 4, and the corresponding $\chi^2$ score, are obtained separately for each value of $\Upsilon$, but reusing the same orbit library constructed in step 3, only rescaling the velocity in the model by $\sqrt{\Upsilon/\Upsilon_0}$ (which corresponds to a rescaling of all masses by $\Upsilon/\Upsilon_0$). We start the search from a plausible initial guess for $\Upsilon$ and increase or decrease it by a factor $2^{1/16}\approx 1.04$, until reaching a difference between $\chi^2(\Upsilon)$ and $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ greater than 100. The whole process is then repeated from steps 1--3 for a different choice of other model parameters ($i$, $q$, $M_\bullet$, and $v_\mathrm{h}$). In total, we considered a few thousand models, which took $\sim10^3$ CPU hours (the code is parallelized for multi-core architectures, so the wall-clock time is far shorter).
A technical detail worth mentioning is that when using Gauss--Hermite moments as observational constraints, one needs to decompose the LOSVDs of orbits in the model in the same basis, using the observed values $v$ and $\sigma$ as the parameters of the Gaussian--Hermite series for each bin, but expressing the measurement uncertainties $\delta v$, $\delta \sigma$ as uncertainties on the first two coefficients $\delta h_1$, $\delta h_2$, whose measured values are zero by construction. This makes the kinematic objective function $\mathcal F_\mathrm{kin} = \sum_{b=1}^{N_\mathrm{bins}} \sum_{c=1}^6 \big[ (h_{b,c}^\mathrm{model} - h_{b,c}^\mathrm{data}) / \delta h_{b,c} \big]^2$ quadratic in orbit weights and amenable to efficient quadratic optimization solvers. After obtaining the best-fit solution for orbit weights, we then compute the final $\chi^2$ with respect to the original measured values $v, \sigma, h_3\dots h_6$ and their associated uncertainties, which is somewhat different from $\mathcal F_\mathrm{kin}$. Nevertheless, the shapes and locations of the minima are similar for both $\chi^2$ and $\mathcal F_\mathrm{kin}$ as functions of model parameters.
\subsection{Analysis of the Model Grid} \label{sec:model_grid}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{fig_chi2_nifs.pdf}
\caption{Contours of $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2-\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ as a function of two model parameters (black hole mass $\Mbh$\xspace and mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$) in each panel, for a series of models constrained only by the NIFS kinematics. The contours are placed at $\Delta\chi^2=2.3,6.2,11.8,\dots$, equivalent to $1\sigma,2\sigma,3\sigma$ confidence intervals for two degrees of freedom. The inclination varies from top to bottom row as $i=12^\circ,\,20^\circ,\,30^\circ,\,40^\circ$, and the flattening is $q=0.15,\,0.25,\,0.35,\,0.5,\,0.8$ from left to right column, except the two leftmost panels in the bottom row, which show models with the cuspy Nuker density profile with $i=30^\circ,\,q=0.25,0.35$ (the remaining models use our fiducial Zhao profile). The marginalized 1d intervals of $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\Mbh$\xspace alone are shown by green lines in each panel. Gray dots show the actual values of $\Mbh$\xspace and $\Upsilon$ for the grid of models.
} \label{fig:chi2_nifs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{fig_chi2_both.pdf}
\caption{Contours of $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2-\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ as a function of two model parameters (black hole mass $\Mbh$\xspace and mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$) in each panel, for a series of models constrained simultaneously by NIFS and SAURON kinematics. In this case, we plot separately the contours corresponging to both kinematic datasets: NIFS in red (as in Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs}), SAURON in blue; the spacing between contours is the same as in the previous plot. All models in this series use the Zhao density profile and have the inclination angle $i=30^\circ$, while the flattening varies from left to right as $q=0.15,\,0.25,\,0.35,\,0.5$, and the normalization of the dark matter halo increases from top to bottom, parametrized by $v_\mathrm{h}$ (the ranges differ between columns). The marginalized 1d intervals of the total $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\Mbh$\xspace alone are shown by green lines in each panel.
} \label{fig:chi2_both}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig_chi2_nifs_half.pdf}
\caption{Contours of $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2-\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ for variants of models constrained either by the full NIFS datacube (central panels) or by two independent pairs of quadrants separately. The point-symmetric kinematic maps consist of two essentially independent pairs of opposing quadrants (illustrated by blue boundary polygons in the left and right columns).
The central panels are identical to the 2nd and 4th panels in the 3rd row of Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs} (inclination $i=30^\circ$, flattening $q=0.25$ and $q=0.5$); these models are fitted to both variants of kinematic maps simultaneously. The left and right columns instead are fitted to only one of these variants. Despite some differences in the precise location of minima, the shapes of the $\chi^2$ contours are qualitatively very similar between the three variants (although the contours are necessarily tighter in the central column, which has twice as many constraints), thus we conclude that the results are robust to small variations in the observed kinematics.
}\label{fig:chi2_nifs_half}
\end{figure}
Given the relatively large number of free parameters ($i$, $q$, $v_\mathrm{h}$, $\Mbh$\xspace, and $\Upsilon$), we do not attempt to cover this parameter space exhaustively, but use a multi-stage strategy.
It is clear that $\Mbh$\xspace is only constrained by the NIFS kinematics, since the SAURON data has lower spatial resolution, and moreover, we excise the central few arcsec of SAURON dataset because of AGN contamination. At the same time, the small spatial coverage of NIFS makes it insensitive to the dark matter halo normalization $v_\mathrm{h}$, which is merely a nuisance parameter in the present context. Since our primary goal is to determine $\Mbh$\xspace, we first consider a series of models fitted to NIFS kinematics alone and ignore the dark halo.
Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs} shows a four-dimensional grid of models in the parameter space of inclination $i$ (increasing from top to bottom rows), intrinsic axis ratio $q$ (increasing from left to right columns), and in each panel, black hole mass $\Mbh$\xspace (abscissa) and mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$ (ordinate).
The two leftmost panels in the lowest row show examples of models that use the cuspy Nuker density profile, and the best-fit $\Mbh$\xspace remains near zero for all such models regardless of $i$ and $q$.
The radius of influence $r_\mathrm{infl} \equiv G\,M_\mathrm{BH}/\sigma^2$ for a $2\times10^7\,M_\odot$ black hole and $\sigma\simeq 100$~km\,s$^{-1}$ is $\sim 0\farcs1$, at the limit of resolution of both kinematic and photometric data. Naturally, the stellar mass within this radius is comparable to $\Mbh$\xspace, but also varies by a factor of a few between the models with cuspy ($\sim4\times10^7\,M_\odot$) or cored ($\sim1.5\times10^7\,M_\odot$) profiles. We therefore conclude that a cuspy Nuker profile has too high stellar mass in the innermost region, which obviates the need for a black hole. As this is clearly in contradiction with observational evidence for a black hole as demonstrated by AGN activity, in the rest of the paper we consider only the models with the cored Zhao profile; we obtained very similar results with the cored MGE profile from \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O}.
The lowest values of $\chi^2$ differ between panels, but the contours of $\Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2(M_\mathrm{BH}, \Upsilon) - \chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ look similar in all panels, showing a ``tilted valley'' of acceptable models: higher $\Mbh$\xspace values correspond to lower $\Upsilon$, such that the total gravitating mass within the region $\lesssim 0.5-0\farcs6$ is approximately constant.
In most panels, the marginalized 1d profiles of $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\Mbh$\xspace, shown by green curves, have large, shallow minima in the range $0.5\times10^7\,M_\odot \lesssim M_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim (3-4)\times10^7\,M_\odot$.
Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_both} shows a series of models constrained by both NIFS and SAURON kinematics, with each panel plotting the contours of $\Delta\chi^2$ as functions of $\Mbh$\xspace and $\Upsilon$ for a given choice of other parameters. We fix the inclination to $i=30^\circ$ (the overall trends are similar for other values of $i$), and consider different choices of flattening $q$ (thickness increases from left to right) and dark matter halo normalization $v_\mathrm{h}$ (increases from top to bottom).
We plot the contributions of NIFS and SAURON datasets to the total $\chi^2$ of each model separately by red and blue contours.
It is clear that the NIFS contours are very similar to the ones in the third row of Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs}, independently of $v_\mathrm{h}$, and they constrain a certain linear combination of $\Upsilon$ and $\Mbh$\xspace, as discussed earlier. By contrast, the SAURON contours are insensitive to $\Mbh$\xspace, but constrain a combination of $\Upsilon$ and $v_\mathrm{h}$.
One could reasonably guess that a ``universally acceptable'' model must have compatible best-fit $\Upsilon$ from both datasets, which indeed minimizes the overall $\chi^2$. By adjusting the halo normalization $v_\mathrm{h}$, we can shift the location of best-fit SAURON $\Upsilon$ up or down, and it is natural to select such a value that maximizes the overlap with best-fit NIFS $\Upsilon$. Therefore, the dark matter halo normalization is not really an independent free parameter in our case, but rather should be determined from the consistency between the two datasets.
Comparing the series of models with different flattening $q$, we see that more disky models (smaller $q$) have higher best-fit $\Upsilon$ (especially for low inclination) and correspondingly lower $\Mbh$\xspace. This can be understood as follows: since we observe the galaxy at a nearly face-on orientation, the line-of-sight velocity dispersion $\sigma$ is determined by how far the stars travel in the vertical direction (i.e., thickness) and how large is the restoring force (i.e., the mass density). Indeed, for a thin isothermal disk with a surface mass density $\Sigma$ and scale height $h$, the vertical velocity dispersion is $\sigma = \sqrt{2\pi\,G\,\Sigma\,h}$ \citep[problem 4.21]{2008gady.book.....B}. Therefore, when decreasing $q$ towards more disky models and hence decreasing $h$, we must simultaneously increase $\Upsilon$ and hence $\Sigma$ to keep the velocity dispersion at the observed value. On the other hand, when adding a dark matter halo, we increase the gravitating mass and hence reduce the stellar $\Upsilon$, but only in the outer parts (i.e., in the SAURON dataset), where stars are not overwhelmingly dominating the total potential. This suggests that the flattening $q$ is largely degenerate with $\Upsilon$ and $v_\mathrm{h}$, but nevertheless we find that the overall $\chi^2$ is lower for values of $q$ in the range $0.2-0.4$.
Finally, the assumed inclination does have a significant impact on the model properties.
The mean rotational velocity of stars in the equatorial plane $\overline{v_\phi}(R)$ cannot exceed the circular velocity $v_\mathrm{circ}(R) \equiv \sqrt{R\,\partial\Phi/\partial R}$. In the case of a relatively cold disk, the difference (called asymmetric drift) is $v_\mathrm{circ}-\overline{v_\phi} \propto \sigma_R^2$ \citep[][equation 4.228]{2008gady.book.....B}.
The projected rotational velocity is $\sim \overline{v_\phi}\,\sin i$, but for small inclination angles, the line-of-sight velocity dispersion is nearly independent of $i$, being determined by the mass density and thickness of the galaxy. Thus the observed line-of-sight velocity gradient sets the lower limit on the inclination angle $i_\mathrm{min}$, for which stars need to move on nearly circular (``cold'') orbits to produce the given rotational signal. For larger inclinations, stellar orbits have to be ``warmer'' (have higher eccentricity or even rotate in the opposite direction) in order not to exceed the projected rotational velocity.
Comparing different rows of Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs}, we see that models with low inclination generally have higher $\chi^2$ even if the location of the minimum in the $\Mbh$\xspace--$\Upsilon$ plane is not strongly varying (except when both the inclination $i$ and the thickness $q$ are so low that the model is forced to have higher $\Upsilon$ to match the line-of-sight velocity dispersion). The tendency of orbit-superposition models to produce better fits at high inclination angles (edge-on orientations), even if the actual orientation is closer to face-on, has been noted in many studies (e.g., Section~5.3 in \citealt{2007MNRAS.381.1672T}, or \citealt{lipka2021}), and can be attributed to a greater flexibility in rearranging the orbits in the case of sub-maximal rotation. However, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:inclination}, NGC 4151 appears fairly round at large radii, and certainly resembles a disk galaxy seen close to face-on rather than an intrinsically round galaxy seen edge-on. For this reason, we only consider models with $i\le30^\circ$, with an exception of two models with $i=40^\circ$ and $q\ge0.5$. In any case, the range of acceptable values of $\Mbh$\xspace does not strongly depend on the inclination, and we take $i=30^\circ$, $q=0.25$ for our fiducial series of models.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:nifs_kinem}, point-symmetrized NIFS kinematic maps provide two independent variants of observational constraints and allow us to test the sensitivity of global model parameters to some asymmetries in the LOSVD. Indeed, the kinematic maps shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nifs} are not symmetric with respect to reflection about the kinematic major axis (exchanging the upper and lower halves of the maps), although they are symmetric (for even moments) or antisymmetric (for odd moments) between the opposite quadrants (upper left and lower right quadrants are identical and represent one variant of data reduction, while upper right and lower left quadrants represent another, independent variant). In most cases we fitted both pairs of quadrants simultaneously, but in Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs_half} we show the results obtained from a series of models constrained by only one of the two variants of kinematic maps. The similar morphology of the $\chi^2$ contours supports the robustness of our results with respect to small variations in the kinematic maps.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{fig_model_nifs.pdf}
\caption{Kinematic maps of the central region (the NIFS dataset) for the fiducial model with $i=30^\circ$, $q=0.25$, $M_\mathrm{BH}=1.3\times10^7\,M_\odot$, and $\Upsilon=2.5$; these maps can be directly compared to the observations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nifs}.
}
\label{fig:model_nifs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig_model_sauron.pdf}
\caption{Kinematic maps ($v$ and $\sigma$) of the larger region (the SAURON dataset) for the model with $i=30^\circ$, $q=0.25$, $Mbh=1.3\times10^7\,M_\odot$, $\Upsilon=2.5$, and $v_\mathrm{h}=60$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, which can be compared to the observations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sauron}. The input data did not have higher-order Gauss--Hermite moments, but we did constrain them in the model to have zero mean and associated formal uncertainty of 0.05; the actual values in the models are indeed fairly small and contribute negligibly to the total $\chi^2$.
} \label{fig:model_sauron}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:model_nifs} and \ref{fig:model_sauron} show the NIFS and SAURON kinematic maps, respectively, for a fiducial model with $i=30^\circ$, $q=0.25$, $M_\mathrm{BH}=1.3\times10^7\,M_\odot$, and $\Upsilon=2.5$, which has one of the lowest $\chi^2$ values. The maps actually look very similar for other nearby choices of parameters, even though the difference in $\chi^2$ may be rather significant (of order few tens). Variation of the black hole mass most noticeably affects $\sigma$ and $h_4$ maps in the innermost $\sim 0\farcs2$.
\subsection{Black Hole Mass}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig_chi2_marg.pdf}
\caption{Marginalized 1d plots of $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\Mbh$\xspace. Each curve shows the difference $\chi^2-\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$ for a series of models with a fixed inclination, flattening (shown by color) and dark matter fraction, where the minimum value varies between series.
Solid lines show NIFS-only models, which generally have broader range of acceptable black hole masses, and dashed lines -- NIFS+SAURON models.
} \label{fig:chi2_marg}
\end{figure}
Having considered the overall trends in the grid of models, we finally return to the main science question of this study -- the measurement of the black hole mass. Summarizing the above discussion, we find that the addition of the SAURON kinematics does not tighten constraints on $\Mbh$\xspace, since it also brings another free parameter (dark matter normalization) that is largely degenerate with $\Upsilon$. The limited spatial extent of the SAURON data does not allow us to detect the spatial gradients of dynamical mass-to-light ratio associated with the gradual increase of the halo contribution with radius and hence to disentangle these two parameters. Since the halo properties are irrelevant for the present study, we focus primarily on the NIFS-only series of models (Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs}), most of which have similar and rather broad ranges of $\Mbh$\xspace masses with small $\Delta\chi^2$.
It is difficult to establish statistically strict constraints on $\Mbh$\xspace for several reasons. First, the discrete nature of orbit-superposition models necessarily implies some noise in the value of $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$. For each of the panels in that figure, we considered several random realizations of the orbit library, which exhibited variations of $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} \sim \mathcal O(10)$, and the locations of the minima were randomly scattered within regions roughly bounded by $\Delta\chi^2 \lesssim 10$ (see, e.g., bottom row of Figure~2 in \citealt{2020ApJ...889...39V}); in the plot, we show the contours averaged across these realizations.
Second, the value of $\chi^2$ per constraint (reduced $\chi^2$) is $\sim 1.7$, indicating a moderately poor fit (or, more likely, underestimated measurement uncertainties). Third, there is little systematic study of statistical foundations of the Schwarzschild method, in particular, regarding the rigorous choice of confidence intervals on model parameters in terms of $\Delta\chi^2$. This choice cannot be guided by standard considerations applicable to the normally distributed errors (e.g., $\Delta\chi^2=1,4,\dots$ for $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, etc.), since this does not take into account the highly non-parametric nature of the method: for each choice of ``real'' model parameters ($\Mbh$\xspace, $\Upsilon$, etc.), we consider the $\chi^2$ value produced by only one of many possible combinations of orbit weights (``hidden'' parameters), instead of marginalizing over them (see \citealt{2006MNRAS.373..425M} for a discussion).
Pending a rigorous statistical analysis, we adopt a simple qualitative prescription guided by our experiments with a large suite of models. Namely, we take the 1d $\Delta\chi^2$ profile, marginalized over $\Upsilon$ in each panel, and plot these profiles for several choices of $i$, $q$, and in the case of NIFS+SAURON models, $v_\mathrm{halo}$, to examine the overall range of acceptable $\Mbh$\xspace values. Figure~\ref{fig:chi2_marg} shows $\sim20$ such profiles, whose minima span the range $0.5\times10^7\,M_\odot \lesssim M_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim 2\times10^7\,M_\odot$; given the inherent noise in $\chi^2\gtrsim \mathcal O(10)$, we extend the range of acceptable values to $0.25\times10^7\,M_\odot \lesssim M_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim 3\times10^7\,M_\odot$. The corresponding mass-to-light ratios lie in the range $\Upsilon \simeq 2.5\pm 0.3$, consistent with the photometric estimates (Section~\ref{sec:mass_to_light}).
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:diss}
\subsection{Comparison with Previous Results}
\begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
\input{table-mbh.tex}
\tablecomments{All masses from dynamical modeling have been adjusted to an assumed galaxy distance of 15.8\,Mpc.}
\end{deluxetable}
The results presented in the previous section generally agree with those of \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O}, which is unsurprising given the large error bars in both studies. \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O} found $M_\mathrm{BH}=(3.76 \pm 1.15)\times10^7\,M_\odot$ but assumed a distance of $D=13.9$\,Mpc. When adjusted for the recently published Cepheid distance to NGC\,4151 of $D=15.8\pm0.4$\,Mpc \citep{yuan2020}, their best-fit mass becomes $M_\mathrm{BH}=(4.27 \pm 1.31)\times10^7\,M_\odot$. Our range of $\Mbh$\xspace values is somewhat lower, which may be attributed to a somewhat lower velocity dispersion $\sigma$ in the central parts inferred from our reanalysis of the observational data. Their mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon_H=0.34 \pm 0.03$ is quoted for a different frequency band, and is generally consistent with our inferred $\Upsilon_V=2.5 \pm 0.3$, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:mass_to_light}.
We also list in Table \ref{tab:mbh} all other $\Mbh$\xspace determinations for NGC\,4151 from other direct methods. As we did for the \citet{2014ApJ...791...37O} SD mass, we have adjusted the GD modeling mass to account for our adopted distance of 15.8\,Mpc. We have also adjusted the RM masses so they have the same adopted value of $\langle{f}\rangle = 4.3$ \citep{2013ApJ...773...90G}. The SD mass range we report here generally agrees with the two RM masses from \cite{2006ApJ...651..775B} and \cite{2018ApJ...866..133D} and the H$_{2}$ GD modeling mass of \cite{2008ApJS..174...31H}.
\subsection{Limitations of the Dynamical Models}
Despite the improvements in the data reduction and analysis process, our uncertainties on $\Mbh$\xspace are much larger than in previous studies of the same galaxy, primarily due to the fact that we have explored a wide range of parameters but have only reported results for marginalizing over $\Upsilon$.
We acknowledge that the intrinsic shape and orientation of the galaxy are not well constrained, and instead of considering only one formally best-fit choice of these nuisance parameters, we accepted the $\Mbh$\xspace values from a broad range of models. However, Figures~\ref{fig:chi2_nifs}, \ref{fig:chi2_both} demonstrate that even for a given choice of galactic geometry, there is a relatively large uncertainty on $\Mbh$\xspace made possible by suitable rearrangement of orbits in our extensive orbit libraries. This confirms the expectations stemming from the analysis of mock data in Section~3.2 of \citet{2020ApJ...889...39V}, but stands at odds with more optimistic conclusions about the precision of $\Mbh$\xspace measurements reached by some other studies, e.g., \citet{2021MNRAS.500.1437N}. As these experiments did not use the same setup, it is clear that a more thorough investigation of this question is needed in the future.
The rather weak constraints on $\Mbh$\xspace that we obtain in this study may seem overly pessimistic, but we recall that this galaxy is a rather difficult case from the observational perspective, since the AGN strongly dominates the light profile and limits the precision of kinematic measurements at small radii.
For our estimated mass range $0.25\times10^7\,M_\odot \lesssim M_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim 3\times10^7\,M_\odot$, and our measured central value of $\sigma\sim 100$km~s$^{-1}$ in the inner few pixels, the sphere-of-influence of the black hole is $1.1-11.2$pc or 0$\farcs015-0\farcs$15. This implies that the radius of influence of the black hole is barely resolved by the innermost few pixels in the NIFS dataset. Moreover, the stellar luminosity profile in the same central region is also very difficult to constrain due to overwhelming AGN brightness, and as we have seen, for a plausible cuspy stellar profile consistent with observations, dynamical models prefer no black hole, which is clearly counterfactual. These considerations highlight the importance of spatially resolving the sphere of influence both photometrically and kinematically,
especially in late type galaxies where black hole masses and stellar velocity dispersions are typically smaller than in elliptical galaxies.
Previous authors \citep[e.g.][]{Gultekin_2009, Batcheldor_2010, Gultekin_2011} have focused on the estimated parameters of the $\Mbh$\xspace-$\sigma$ relation when $\Mbh$\xspace measurements that do not resolve the black hole sphere-of-influence are included or excluded from the sample. \citet{Gultekin_2011} found, for a sample of $\Mbh$\xspace in early type galaxies with central velocity dispersions with median $\sigma \gtrsim 260$km~s$^{-1}$, that excluding measurements which do not resolve the radius-of-influence of the black hole biases the estimated $\Mbh$\xspace-$\sigma$ relation. They concluded that instead of being excluded these measurements should be included as upper limits or with large error bars. For the elliptical galaxies and massive bulges in these studies, it is argued based on empirical evidence from repeated measurements, that resolving the radius-of-influence only helps to reduce the errors on the black hole mass estimate.
Using mock long-slit kinematic data \citet{2004ApJ...602...66V} showed that if the radius-of-influence of a black hole is not resolved, nuclear kinematical data can be fitted without a black hole. As far as we are aware the work presented in this paper is the first modeling study in a late type galaxy that clearly demonstrates the drawbacks of not resolving the influence radius on the stellar dynamical $\Mbh$\xspace measurement. Despite the fact that the AGN makes it difficult to resolve the influence radius of the black hole, its very presence necessitates a black hole. Yet we saw that because the central luminosity profile is not resolved below 0\farcs1, the assumption of a cuspy Nuker density profile (which is generally considered reasonable for a late type galaxy) would require no black hole to fit the kinematics. Therefore this study clearly illustrates the need for both photometric and kinematic data that resolve the influence radii of supermassive black holes, data that will become more readily available with JWST and the ELTs.
\subsection{Future Prospects}
Efforts to model the RM observations presented by \cite{2018ApJ...866..133D} are currently underway and will remove the dependence on $\langle{f}\rangle$ and provide a fully-independent RM mass for comparison with the SD and GD-based masses. Such analyses rely on strong AGN variability during the monitoring campaign, as well as careful management of all noise sources and the observing cadence, and have only been possible for a handful of objects thus far. The observations presented by \cite{2018ApJ...866..133D} are of similar quality to previously successful RM modeling attempts \citep{2014MNRAS.445.3073P,2017ApJ...849..146G,williams18}, and should therefore be sufficient for an accurate mass constraint.
Furthermore, NGC\,4151 is the target of an Early Release Science program with JWST (ERS 1364, PI Bentz). Observations with the NIRSpec IFU will probe the nuclear stellar dynamics and will be directly compared with the observations and analysis presented in this work. NIRSpec is expected to provide some crucial advantages over AO-assisted ground-based observations with its stable and diffraction-limited PSF and significantly lower backgrounds. However, NIFS provides a higher spectral resolution, which may allow for more accurate measurements of the higher-order moments of the stellar absorption profiles. We will thus revisit the topic of the black hole mass in NGC\,4151 from stellar dynamical modeling in the near future, once JWST has successfully launched.
\section{Summary} \label{sec:sum}
We have presented a full reanalysis of the black hole mass derived from nuclear stellar dynamics in NGC\,4151, beginning with the raw data cubes observed with Gemini NIFS and Altair adaptive optics. We implemented several improvements to the data reduction, including modifications to the NIFS pipeline to allow the variance information to be carried through the full reduction process to the final combined cubes. We also improved the spectral measurements derived from the final combined data cubes, preserving the spatial resolution near the central AGN through the use of adaptive binning, and jointly fitting the spectra for point-symmetrized bins rather than bisymmetrizing the Gauss-Hermite terms afterwards.
With the new orbit-superposition code \textsc{Forstand}, we conducted a thorough exploration of the parameter space within the dynamical models, investigating the use of a dark matter halo and including models with a range of $\Mbh$\xspace, $\Upsilon$, galaxy inclination $i$, and bulge flattening $q$. We have also adopted the first measurement of an accurate and precise distance to NGC\,4151 based on observations of Cepheid stars. We find the black hole mass lies within the range of $0.25\times10^7\,M_\odot \lesssim M_\mathrm{BH} \lesssim 3\times10^7\,M_\odot$, which is in general agreement with results from reverberation mapping and gas dynamical modeling. Future dynamical modeling of reverberation data as well as IFU observations with JWST will further constrain the mass of the central supermassive black hole in NGC\,4151.
\acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous referee for comments that improved the presentation of this work. CAR and MCB gratefully acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation through CAREER grant AST-1253702 and AAG grant AST-2009230.
CAO acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council through Discovery Project DP190100252. MV gratefully acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation through AAG grants AST-1515001 and AST-2009122, and the Space Telescope Science institute through HST-AR-13890.001 and JWST-ERS-01364.002-A. EV acknowledges support from STFC via the Consolidated grant to the Institute of Astronomy. We thank Eric Emsellem for providing SAURON IFU observations of NGC 4151.
This work is based on observations acquired through the Gemini Science Archive and processed using the Gemini IRAF package, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation on behalf of the Gemini Observatory partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), National Research Council (Canada), Agencia Nacional de Investigaci\'{o}n y Desarrollo (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'{i}a e Innovaci\'{o}n (Argentina), Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia, Tecnologia, Inova\c{c}\~{o}es e Comunica\c{c}\~{o}es (Brazil), and Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (Republic of Korea).
This work was enabled by observations made from the Gemini North telescope, located within the Maunakea Science Reserve and adjacent to the summit of Maunakea. We are grateful for the privilege of studying the Universe with observations that were acquired from a place that is unique in both its astronomical quality and its cultural significance.
The SAURON observations were obtained at the William Herschel Telescope, operated by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this paper is to highlight four levels of fixed-points in mean-field interacting particle systems, and to discuss the relationships among them. No new result is established. However, the unified perspective and the insights from the connections between the fixed-points are worthy of exposition.
Interacting particle systems specify the microscopic interactions of a particle with the other particles in the system, i.e., nature of interactions, their frequencies, and how they influence the state of the particle.
This microscopic description then leads to a collective macroscopic outcome, for example, the fraction of particles in each state at a given time or at equilibrium. In interactions of the \emph{mean-field} type, the evolution of the state of a particle depends on the states of the other particles only through the empirical measure, i.e., the distribution of the particles across states. Such mean-field models arise in the study of wireless local area networks (WLANs)~\cite{bianchi-98}, randomised algorithms in load balancing networks~\cite{mitzhenmaker-00,bramson2010randomized}, processor sharing systems~\cite{vasantam2018mean}, study of epidemic spread in a community~\cite{kermack1927contribution}, etc.
In the study of such systems, one often looks for {\em fixed-points}. Let $\gamma$ be some property associated with a tagged particle. For concreteness, in a WLAN, $\gamma$ could be the collision probability when a particular tagged node (particle) accesses the medium of communication. Intuitively, if the system is in equilibrium, then all the nodes may see collisions with the same probability $\gamma$. This creates a mean-field. The study of the collision probability of the tagged node, now viewed as a {\em response} to this mean-field, may yield an expression $G(\gamma)$ for the tagged node's collision probability. Consistency then demands that the node's appropriate collision probability $\gamma^*$ is one where the response to the mean-field $G(\gamma^*)$ equals $\gamma^*$, i.e., $\gamma^*$ is a fixed-point of $G$ and is the property that all the nodes are likely to experience at equilibrium, see~\cite{kumar-etal-06}. This provides a heuristic method to study the behaviour of such complex interacting particle systems.
To get this analysis machinery going, one needs a tractable property $\gamma$ and an analysis that generates the response $G(\gamma)$ to the mean-field arising from $\gamma$. In the WLAN analysis, this property $\gamma$ was the collision probability~\cite{kumar-etal-06}. This intuition has helped us analyse many natural and engineered systems. It works some times, fails some times, and we now have a good idea when it works and when it fails.
In this paper, we consider four properties of increasing levels of detail in a general mean-field interacting particle system, and describe the associated fixed-points. These four levels are (i) the macroscopic observables of the system, (ii) the probability distribution over states of a particle at equilibrium, (iii) the time evolution of the probability distribution over states of a particle, and (iv) the probability distribution over trajectories. We then discuss conditions under which the fixed-points exist and explore the inter-connections.
{\em Organisation}: Section~\ref{section:model} describes our finite-state mean-field interacting particle system. Section~\ref{section:fixed-points} describes the four levels of fixed-points. Section~\ref{section:discussion} discusses the relationships among these fixed-points. Section~\ref{section:conclusion} discusses issues related to multiple fixed-points.
\section{A mean-field model}
\label{section:model}
In this section we describe a finite-state mean-field interacting particle system and discuss some of its properties.
\subsection{The model}
\label{subsection:model}
Let there be $N$ particles. Each particle has a state. The particle states evolves over time in a Markovian fashion. Let $X^{(N)}_n(t)$ denote the state of the $n$th particle at time $t$ and let $\mathcal{Z}$, a finite set, denote the state space. The macroscopic behaviour of the system at time $t$ is encoded in the empirical measure
\begin{align*}
\mu_N(t) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N \delta_{X^{(N)}_n(t)};
\end{align*}
$\mu_N(t)(z)$ is the fraction of particles in state $z$ at time $t$. To describe the evolution of the states of the particles, we consider a directed and connected graph $(\mathcal{Z}, \mathcal{E})$. This graph encodes the set of all allowed transitions of a particle; whenever $(z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}$, a particle in state $z$ can move to state $z^\prime$. For each $(z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}$, we are given a function $\lambda_{z,z^\prime}$ on the space of probability distributions on $\mathcal{Z}$ (which we denote by $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$ and view as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{Z}|-1}$). A particle at state $z$ at time $t$ moves to state $z^\prime$ at rate $\lambda_{z,z^\prime}(\mu_N(t))$. That is, the evolution of the state of a particle depends on the states of the other particles only through the empirical measure of the states of all the particles. This description of the state evolution of the particles gives rise to two continuous-time Markov processes: (i) the Markov process $\{(X^{(N)}_n(t), 1\leq n \leq N), t \geq 0\}$ that describes the joint evolution of the states of all the particles, and (ii) the more convenient Markov process $\{\mu_N(t), t \geq 0\}$ that describes the evolution of the empirical measure of the system of particles, i.e., the empirical measure process.
\subsection{Two examples}
\subsubsection{Markovian model of a WLAN}
\label{section:mac}
$N$ wireless nodes (or particles) access a common wireless channel. Since multiple nodes can try to access the channel at a given time slot, an attempt to transmit a packet by a node can either result in a collision or in a successful transmission. A basic distributed Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol implemented in the nodes can be summarised as follows~\cite[Section~7.3]{kumar-etal-wireless}. Each node has a state belonging to the state space $\mathcal{Z} = \{0,1,\ldots, K\}$. The states represent aggressiveness of packet transmission. In each time slot, a node in state $i$ \emph{independently} attempts a packet transmission with probability $c_i/N$. The $O(1/N)$ scaling of the attempt probabilities results in $O(1)$ attempt probability for the entire system. In the basic implementation, $c_i = c_{i-1}/2$; thus state $0$ is the most aggressive state and state $K$ is the least aggressive state.
Let us write down the collision probability of a tagged node in state $z_0$ when the empirical measure of the system is $\xi$, i.e., the number of nodes in state $z$ is $N\xi(z)$, $z \in \mathcal{Z}$. Since nodes attempt independently, the probability that no other node (other than the tagged node) attempts in a given slot is
\begin{align*}
\left(1 - \frac{c_{z_0}}{N}\right)&^{N\xi(z_0)-1} \prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}, z \neq z_0}\left(1 - \frac{c_z}{N}\right)^{N\xi(z)} \simeq \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\}
\end{align*}
for large $N$, where $\langle c, \xi \rangle = \sum_z (c_z/N)(N\xi(z)) = \sum_z c_z \xi(z)$ can be interpreted as the system attempt probability. A collision occurs when at least one other node makes a transmission; hence the collision probability is $\gamma = 1-\exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\}$. Observe that the collision probability of a node depends on only $\xi$ rather than the individual states of the particles. The collision probability is an example of a macroscopic observable because one can observe the received power in the wireless channel and assess how many slots suffer collisions.
We now describe the evolution of a particle's state. Consider a tagged node in state $i$. If the node encounters a collision, it moves to a less aggressive state, i.e., to state $i+1$, and continues to attempt transmission of its head-of-the-queue packet with probability $c_{i+1}/N$. On the other hand, if the node makes a successful packet transmission, it moves to state $0$ and follows the same protocol for the next packet in its queue. When the node is in state $K$, it continues to attempt with probability $c_{K}/N$ until a successful transmission when it moves from state $K$ to $0$; see Figure~\ref{fig:transitions}, but with an additional self loop at state $K$. Based on the approximation to the collision probability in the previous paragraph, the probability that the node moves from state $i$ to state $i+1$ is
$
(c_i/N) (1 - \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\})
$
and the probability that the node moves from state $i$ to state $0$ is
$
(c_i/N) \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\}
$. The continuous-time caricature for the above WLAN is obtained by scaling the time-slot durations to be $1/N$ in the above discrete-time description. The rate at which a node in state $i$ moves to state $i+1$ is
{\small
\begin{align*}
\lambda_{i,i+1}(\xi) = \frac{(c_i/N) (1 - \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\})}{1/N} = c_i(1 - \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\})
\end{align*}
}%
and the rate at which a node in state $i$ moves to state $0$ is
{\small
\begin{align*}
\lambda_{i,0}(\xi) = \frac{(c_i/N)(\exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\})}{1/N} = c_i \exp\{-\langle c, \xi \rangle\}.
\end{align*}
}%
With these transition rates, the continuous-time Markovian caricature is an example of the mean-field model described in Section~\ref{subsection:model}. The transition graph for this continuous-time model is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:transitions}.
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.7pt}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{picture}(40,15)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(-20,15){\circle{9}}
\put(0,15){\circle{9}}
\put(20,15){\circle{9}}
\put(56,15){\circle{9}}
\put(-21,13.5){$0$}
\put(-1,13.5){$1$}
\put(19,13.5){$2$}
\put(54,13.5){$K$}
\put(-15.5,15){\vector(1,0){10.5}}
\put(4.5,15){\vector(1,0){10.5}}
\put(24.6,15){\vector(1,0){6}}
\qbezier(0,10)(-10,5)(-20,10)
\qbezier(20,10)(-5,0)(-20,10)
\qbezier(56,10)(0,-10)(-20,10)
\put(-11,7.5){\vector(-1,0){0.1}}
\put(-3,5){\vector(-1,0){0.1}}
\put(9,-0.2){\vector(-1,0){0.1}}
\put(33,15){\circle*{1}}
\put(41,15){\circle*{1}}
\put(49,15){\circle*{1}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Allowed transitions in a continuous-time caricature of the WLAN.}
\label{fig:transitions}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The SIS Model of spread of an infectious disease}
Let there be $N$ individuals in a community. An infection spread in this community can be modelled using our mean-field system as follows. At any given time, each individual is in one of the two states: susceptible (S) or infected (I). Individuals in state S are healthy but can potentially catch the infection. Individuals in state I are infected. The individuals interact with each other and these result in the evolution of the states of the individuals as follows. Whenever a susceptible individual comes in contact with an infected individual, the state changes from S to I. An individual in state I moves to state S after a random amount of time. Assuming \emph{uniform interaction} among the individuals in the community, the rate at which a susceptible individual becomes infected depends only on the fraction of infected individuals in the population. Therefore, this simple model of an epidemic spread is also of the mean-field type. See~\cite{kermack1927contribution} for an early study for such models.
\subsection{Law of large numbers}
Often in practice, properties that are relevant for the system (e.g., throughput in the WLAN example, equilibrium distribution in the SIS model) depend only on the macroscopic behaviour of the system and can be obtained from the empirical measure $\mu_N(t)$. Thus it is important to study the empirical measure process $\mu_N$ in some detail. Towards this, we discuss a law of large numbers result for $\mu_N$~\cite{benaim-leboudec-08,bordenave-etal-12}.
Assume that the transition rates $\lambda_{z,z^\prime},\, \, (z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}$, are Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$. Assume that the initial conditions $\{\mu_N(0)\}_{N \geq 1}$ converge (in $M_1(\mathcal{Z}))$ to a probability distribution $\nu \in M_1(\mathcal{Z})$. Then for any fixed $T > 0$, the empirical measure process $\{\mu_N(t), 0 \leq t \leq T\}$ converges in probability to the solution to the ODE
\begin{align}
\dot{\mu}(t) = \Lambda_{\mu(t)}^* \mu(t), \, 0 \leq t \leq T, \, \mu(0) = \nu,
\label{eqn:MVE}
\end{align}
as $N \to \infty$; here, for any $\xi \in M_1(\mathcal{Z})$, $\Lambda_{\xi}$ denotes the $|\mathcal{Z}|\times |\mathcal{Z}|$ rate matrix (i.e., $\Lambda_\xi(z,z^\prime)= \lambda_{z,z^\prime}(\xi)$ when $(z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}$, $\Lambda_{\xi}(z,z^\prime) = 0$ when $(z,z^\prime) \notin \mathcal{E}$, and $\Lambda_{\xi}(z,z) = -\sum_{z^\prime \neq z} \lambda_{z,z^\prime}(\xi)$ for all $z \in \mathcal{Z}$) when the empirical measure is $\xi$, $\Lambda^*_\xi$ denotes its transpose, $\mu(t)$ is the empirical measure at time $t$ viewed as a column vector, $\dot{\mu}(t)$ is its time derivative, and the convergence is in the space of $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$-valued trajectories on $[0,T]$. The above ODE is called the McKean-Vlasov equation, and it evolves on the space of probability distributions on $\mathcal{Z}$. Owing to this convergence result, one can view the empirical measure process as a small random perturbation of the McKean-Vlasov equation and, for large $N$, the properties of the empirical measure process can be well approximated by the corresponding properties of the McKean-Vlasov equation.
\subsection{Propagation of chaos}
\label{section:decoupling}
We now discuss a \emph{decoupling approximation} (also known as \emph{asymptotic independence} property) for the mean-field model~\cite{sznitman-91}. Again, we assume that the transition rates are Lipschitz continuous and that the initial conditions of particles are independent and identically distributed as $\nu$\footnote{As a consequence, $\mu_N(0) \rightarrow \nu$ in distribution as $N \to \infty$.}. Consider two tagged particles, $1$ and $2$. The decoupling approximation tells us that, for each $t > 0$, the random variable $(X^{(N)}_1(t), X^{(N)}_2(t)) \rightarrow (Y_1(t), Y_2(t))$ in distribution as $N \to \infty$, where both the marginals $Y_1(t)$ and $Y_2(t)$ are distributed according to the solution to the McKean-Vlasov equation~\eqref{eqn:MVE} at time $t$ with initial condition $\nu$, and $Y_1(t)$ and $Y_2(t)$ are independent. That is, the initial \emph{chaos} propagates over time\footnote{The initial condition of independence of the particle states at time $t = 0$ can be relaxed to exchangeability so long as $\mu_N(0) \to \nu$ in distribution as $N \to \infty$, where $\nu$ is a fixed initial condition.} in the large-$N$ limit even though particles interact with each other. This property also has an obvious extension to any finite number (but not depending on $N$) of tagged particles. A similar decoupling approximation holds in the stationary regime~\cite{bordenave-etal-12}. These decoupling approximations play a crucial role in framing the fixed-point equations; see Section~\ref{section:fixed-points}.
\section{The four levels of fixed-points}
\label{section:fixed-points}
We now describe fixed-point equations at four different levels that arise in the context of our mean-field model. These fixed-point equations are formed based on the convergence and decoupling approximation results discussed in the previous sections. Solutions to these fixed-point equations describe the limiting behaviour (as $N \to \infty$) of the mean-field system and they are good approximations of large but finite-$N$ systems in some cases but not always.
\subsection{Level-1: Macroscopic observables}
\label{section:level1}
We start with the fixed-point equations that arise at the level of macroscopic observables of the system. While an abstract description of a fixed-point equation for generic macroscopic observables is possible, for concreteness, we use the WLAN described in Section~\ref{section:mac} as a running example. Recall the MAC protocol (with slotted time) and the Markovian continuous-time caricature described in Section~\ref{section:mac}.
Consider a tagged node in a system of $N$ nodes and let $\gamma$ denote its collision probability (at stationarity). That is, $\gamma$ is the probability that a packet transmitted by this node undergoes a collision. By symmetry of the model, this collision probability can be taken to be the same for all nodes.
We now compute the total attempt probability of the system as a response to the mean-field induced by $\gamma$~\cite{kumar-etal-06}. If $\beta(\gamma)$ is the attempt probability of the system, by symmetry, the attempt probability of the tagged node is $\beta(\gamma)/N$. Observe that the time instants at which the state of the tagged node becomes $0$ are renewal instants. Consider a renewal cycle between two successive visits to state $0$. Since the collision probability is $\gamma$ and the attempt probability in state $i$ is $c_i/N$, the mean renewal cycle duration (in number of time slots) is
{\small
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{c_0/N} + \frac{\gamma}{c_1/N} + \cdots + \frac{\gamma^K}{c_K/N} + \left(\sum_{n \geq K+1} \frac{\gamma^{n}}{c_K/N}\right).
\end{align*}
}%
Similarly, the mean number of slots used for a successful packet transmission during a renewal cycle is
\begin{equation*}
1 + \gamma( 1 + \gamma (1+\gamma( \cdots )) \cdots).
\end{equation*}
Noting that the tagged node makes exactly one successful transmission in a renewal cycle, by the renewal-reward theorem, the attempt probability of the tagged node is
$
\frac{\beta(\gamma)}{N} = \frac{1+\gamma + \gamma^2 + \cdots}{\frac{N}{c_0} + \frac{\gamma N}{c_1} + \cdots + \frac{\gamma^K N}{c_K} + \frac{\gamma^{K+1}}{1-\gamma}\cdot \frac{N}{c_K}},
$
leading to
{\small
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:beta}
\beta(\gamma)= \frac{1+\gamma + \gamma^2 + \cdots}{\frac{1}{c_0} + \frac{\gamma}{c_1} + \cdots + \frac{\gamma^K}{c_K} + \frac{\gamma^{K+1}}{1-\gamma}\cdot \frac{1}{c_K}}.
\end{align}
}%
Let us now see the response of the tagged node when the mean-field is such that every other node sees a collision probability $\gamma$. Using the decoupling approximation (see Section~\ref{section:decoupling}), the collision probability is
{\small
\begin{equation*}
1 - (1-\beta(\gamma)/N)^{N-1} \simeq 1- \exp\{-\beta(\gamma)\}
\end{equation*}
}%
for large $N$. Defining $G(\gamma) = 1- \exp\{-\beta(\gamma)\} $, we see that $G(\gamma)$ is the response collision probability seen by the tagged node starting from an assumption that the collision probability $\gamma$. Hence self consistency demands that
\begin{align}
\gamma^* = G(\gamma^*),
\label{eqn:fixed-point-gamma}
\end{align}
which is a fixed-point of $G$. It can be checked that~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-gamma} has a unique solution $\gamma^* \in (0,1)$ when the parameters $c_k$ are decreasing in $k$~\cite{kumar-etal-06}. For WLANs with a few tens of nodes and with the standard exponential back-off, i.e., $c_i = c_{i-1}/2$, $i = 1,2,\ldots, K$, this approximation works well in practice and $\gamma^*$ is close to the collision probability observed in practice. Thus, the fixed-point analysis at the level of macroscopic observables provides a simple and elegant way to characterise the performance of the WLAN system at equilibrium.
For a generic macroscopic observable for the mean-field model in Section~\ref{subsection:model}, one can come up with a fixed-point equation involving this observable by using the decoupling approximation in a suitable manner.
\subsection{Level-2: Distribution over states}
We now describe a fixed-point equation in the space of (equilibrium) probability distributions on $\mathcal{Z}$
At time $t$, suppose that the distribution of each particle's state is $\xi$. Further, suppose that the initial conditions of the particles are exchangeable and $\mu_N(0) \to \nu$ in distribution as $N \to \infty$, for some deterministic $\nu$. Invoking the decoupling approximation in the transient regime, the empirical measure of the system at time $t$ concentrates near $\xi$ for large $N$. As the particles evolve over time, even though the empirical measure changes it remains close to $\xi$. We may assume that the mean-field is $\xi$. Consider a tagged particle. Let $m$ denote the equilibrium response map that maps a given mean-field to the equilibrium response of the tagged particle. That is, $m(\xi)$ denotes the equilibrium distribution of this tagged particle in response to the states of the particles distributed as $\xi$. Since the tagged particle's transition rates are given by the rate matrix $\Lambda_{\xi}$ when the mean-field is $\xi$, $m(\xi)$ is the $m$ that solves
\begin{align}
\sum_{z^\prime: (z^\prime, z) \in \mathcal{E}}m_{z^\prime}&\lambda_{z^\prime,z}(\xi) = m_z \sum_{z^\prime: (z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}}\lambda_{z,z^\prime}(\xi),\, \, z\in\mathcal{Z}.
\label{eqn:eq-responsemap}
\end{align}
In~\eqref{eqn:eq-responsemap}, the left-hand side (LHS) is the total probability flux into $z$ and the right-hand side (RHS) is the total probability flux out of $z$ for the tagged particle in response to the mean-field $\xi$. At equilibrium these are in balance, which is the condition~\eqref{eqn:eq-responsemap}, and $m(\xi)$ is the $m$ that solves~\eqref{eqn:eq-responsemap}.
Self consistency demands that the appropriate equilibrium distribution is the $\xi^*$ that solves
\begin{align*}
m(\xi^*) = \xi^*,
\end{align*}
a fixed-point equation on the distribution of states of the particle for the equilibrium response map $m$. Equivalently,
\begin{align}
(\Lambda_{\xi^*})^*\xi^* = 0.
\label{eqn:fixed-point-xi}
\end{align}
Existence of the fixed point would follow from Brouwer's fixed-point theorem if one can show that mapping $m$ is continuous. If there is a unique fixed-point $\xi^*$ for~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-xi}, then one might expect the system to equilibrate at $\xi^*$. This is not always the case, as we shall explain in Section~\ref{section:conclusion}.
\subsection{Level-3: Flow of distribution over time}
\label{section:level3}
We now describe a fixed-point equation on the space of $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$-valued trajectories for the dynamic response map that maps a given flow of the mean-field over time to the flow of the distribution over states of a particle over time under the given mean-field.
Let an $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$-valued trajectory $\xi(\cdot)$ denote the time-evolution of the distribution of a tagged particle, i.e., the state of the particle at time $t$ is distributed as $\xi(t)$. Suppose that each particle's state evolution is prescribed by the same $\xi(\cdot)$. Then the empirical measure of the system of particles at time $t$ is approximately $\xi(t)$ and hence the time-trajectory of the mean-field is approximately $\xi(\cdot)$. The decoupling approximation suggests that the particles evolve, approximately, in an iid fashion. In response, the state of the tagged particle evolves according to the rate matrix $\Lambda_{\xi(t)}$ at time $t$ under the mean-field $\xi(\cdot)$. This evolution produces a response probability distribution flow over time denoted $\mathcal{M}(\xi(\cdot))$ for the tagged particle in response to the mean-field being $\xi(\cdot)$, i.e., $\mathcal{M}$ is the dynamic response map. Write $m(t) = \mathcal{M}(\xi(t))$. One can write an ODE for $m(t)$ based on the fluxes of probability distributions into and out of each state:
\begin{align}
\dot{m}(t)(z) & = \hspace*{-.3cm} \sum_{z^\prime: (z^\prime, z) \in \mathcal{E}} \hspace*{-.3cm} m(t)(z^\prime) \lambda_{z^\prime,z}(\xi(t))
- m(t)(z) \hspace*{-.35cm} \sum_{z^\prime: (z,z^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}} \hspace*{-.3cm} \lambda_{z,z^\prime}(\xi(t)) \nonumber \\
& = (\Lambda_{\xi(t)}^* m(t))(z),\, \, z \in \mathcal{Z}, t \geq 0;
\label{eqn:mt-response}
\end{align}
here, the RHS is the difference between the total probability flux into and out of state $z$ in response to the mean-field $\xi(t)$. Self-consistency then demands that
\begin{align}
\xi^*(\cdot) = \mathcal{M}(\xi^*(\cdot)),
\label{eqn:fixed-point-mut-path}
\end{align}
a fixed-point equation on the space of $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$-valued trajectories for the response dynamics map $\mathcal{M}$. That is, we must have $m(t) = \xi^*(t) ~ \forall t \geq 0$. Substitution of this in~\eqref{eqn:mt-response} yields
\begin{align}
\dot{\xi}^*(t) = (\Lambda_{\xi^*(t)})^* \xi^*(t), \, \, t \geq 0,
\label{eqn:fixed-point-mut}
\end{align}
which is precisely the McKean-Vlasov equation~\eqref{eqn:MVE}.
If the transition rates are assumed to be Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$, then it is easy to check that the mapping $\xi \mapsto \Lambda_{\xi}^* \xi$ is also Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$. As a consequence, standard results from ODE theory imply that there exists a unique solution to the ODE~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-mut} and hence there exists a unique fixed-point for~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-mut-path}.
\subsection{Level-4: Distribution over trajectories}
We now describe a Level-4 fixed-point equation over the space of probability distributions $D([0,\infty), \mathcal{Z})$, which is the space of $\mathcal{Z}$-valued trajectories. Note that this is different from Level-3 in the following way. Level-3 refers to fixed-points in the space of $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$-valued trajectories over time whereas Level-4 refers to fixed-points in $M_1(D([0,\infty), \mathcal{Z}))$, the space of distributions over $D([0,\infty), \mathcal{Z})$.
Let $Q \in M_1(D([0,\infty), \mathcal{Z}))$ denote the probability distribution of a typical particle on the space of $\mathcal{Z}$-valued trajectories. At each time $t$, the time-marginal of $Q$ is the distribution of the state of the typical particle at time $t$. More precisely, it is the \emph{push forward} $Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}$ of the measure $Q$ under the canonical coordinate projection map $\pi_t$; $Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}$ is a probability distribution on $\mathcal{Z}$. Assuming the decoupling approximation, the mean-field approximately evolves as $\{Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}, t \geq 0\}$.
Now consider a tagged particle responding to the mean-field $\{Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}, t \geq 0\}$. Let $\mathcal{T}(Q)$ denote the law of the tagged particle's evolution over time. Note that $\mathcal{T}(Q) \in M_1(D([0,T), \mathcal{Z}))$, it is the response to the mean-field induced by $Q$, and it depends on $Q$ only through the flow $\{Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}, t \geq 0\}$. Since the flow is given by $ \xi(t) = \{Q \circ \pi_t^{-1}, t \geq 0\}$, $\mathcal{T}(Q)$ is the law of the Markov process associated with the rates $\Lambda_{\xi(t)}$. Consistency demands that
\begin{align}
Q^* = \mathcal{T}(Q^*).
\label{eqn:fixed-point-martingale-problem}
\end{align}
In probability theory, the problem of existence and uniqueness of Markov processes given a generator (in our case, the transition rates $\Lambda_{\xi(t)}$), or an extended generator, is known as the \emph{martingale problem}~\cite{stroock-varadhan}. In our case, the generator itself is flexible, is determined by $Q$, and we are looking for a special solution that fixes the map $Q \mapsto \mathcal{T}(Q)$. This is called a \emph{nonlinear martingale problem}~\cite{graham-00}. Let $Q^*$ be a fixed point. The analogue of the Kolmogorov forward equation that governs the evolution of the time-marginals of $Q^*$ is a nonlinear ODE~\eqref{eqn:MVE}, the McKean-Vlasov equation. It turns out that there exists a unique fixed-point for~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-martingale-problem} if the transition rates are uniformly Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$~\cite{graham-00}.
\section{Connections and Discussion}
\label{section:discussion}
We now describe some connections between solutions to fixed-point equations at the four levels. We also discuss questions related to the goodness of Level-2 fixed-points.
\subsection{Level-1 and Level-2}
\label{section:level1-level2-connection}
To explain the connection between Level-1 and Level-2 fixed-points, let us consider the WLAN example. Let $\xi^*$ be the unique Level-2 fixed-point.
We first compute the collision probability when the mean-field is at $\xi^*$. Consider a tagged node. Let $\gamma$ denote the collision probability of this node when the macroscopic behaviour of the system is $\xi^*$; this collision probability will be the same for all the nodes. Consider a tagged node in state $z_0$. As explained in Section~\ref{subsection:model}, the collision probability of the tagged node is
$\gamma \simeq 1 - \exp\{-\langle c, \xi^* \rangle\}$ for large $N$.
On the other hand, the Level-1 fixed-point analysis already gives us a collision probability $\gamma^*$, which is a fixed-point of~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-gamma}. We thus expect that the two are equal, i.e., $\gamma^* = 1-\exp\{-\langle c, \xi^* \rangle\}$. This can be seen as follows. On one hand, as explained in Section~\ref{section:level1}, a renewal argument tells us that $\beta(\gamma^*)/N$ is the attempt probability of a tagged node. On the other hand, using the decoupling approximation, assuming that each node at state $z$ independently attempts with probability $c_z/N$, we see that the attempt probability of a tagged node is $\langle c, \xi^* \rangle/N$ when the mean-field is $\xi^*$. Thus, we have $\langle c, \xi^* \rangle=\beta(\gamma^*)$, and hence $\gamma^* = 1-\exp\{-\langle c, \xi^* \rangle\}$. This identity $\langle c, \xi^* \rangle=\beta(\gamma^*) $ can indeed be checked using the expression of $\beta$ given in~\eqref{eqn:beta} and the fact that $\xi^*$ satisfies $(\Lambda_{\xi^*})^*\xi^* = 0$. Therefore, the Level-2 fixed-point, which is a distribution over the states of a particle, explains the Level-1 fixed-point which is a macroscopic observable.
Such connections between macroscopic observables and distribution over states of the particles appear in thermodynamics. The relationship between the macroscopic variables of collision probability and attempt probability and their connection to the Level-2 fixed-point in WLAN is analogous to the relationship between macroscopic variables like temperature, pressure, and volume of an ideal gas and their connection to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution that describes the distribution of the velocities of the gas molecules. The passage from statistical mechanics to thermodynamics is made rigorous by large deviation theory; minimisations of rate functions in large deviation theory are mapped to the variational principles of free energy minimisation in thermodynamics~\cite{ellis2006entropy}.
\subsection{Level-2 and Level-3}
We now describe the connection between the Level-2 and Level-3 fixed-points. Suppose that $\xi^*$ is a Level-2 fixed-point of~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-xi}, i.e., $(\Lambda_{\xi^*})^*\xi^* = 0$. The RHS of the Level-3 fixed-point equation~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-mut} implies that when we start the McKean-Vlasov equation at $\xi^*$, it stays at $\xi^*$ for all times. That is, $\xi(\cdot) \equiv \xi^*$ is a \emph{stationary} Level-3 fixed-point. Conversely, any stationary Level-3 fixed-point of~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-mut} is a Level-2 fixed-point of~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-xi}, since we must necessarily have $(\Lambda_\xi)^* \xi = 0$. Thus, Level-2 fixed-points are precisely those points in $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$ that are stationary Level-3 fixed-points.
Further, suppose that there is the unique stationary Level-3 fixed-point and that all its non-stationary Level-3 fixed-points (which are trajectories) converge to $\xi^*$ as time becomes large. Then there is a unique Level-2 fixed-point and it can be obtained from any Level-3 fixed-point by taking the large-time limit. In this special case, the macroscopic behaviour of the $N$-particle noisy system (which is a noisy version of the Level-2 fixed-point) in the large-$N$ limit \emph{concentrates} on the stationary Level-3 fixed-point~\cite[Theorem~2.3]{bordenave-etal-12}.
\subsection{Level-3 and Level-4}
Suppose that $Q$ is a Level-4 fixed-point of~\eqref{eqn:fixed-point-martingale-problem}. (We omit the superscript * to reduce clutter). Then the time-marginal of $Q$ at time $t$, $Q(t) = Q\circ \pi_t^{-1}$, is the distribution of a tagged particle at time $t$ (which is also approximately the mean-field at time $t$ when we have large number of particles). This distribution over states changes over time as particles make transitions. As we did in Section~\ref{section:level3}, the infinitesimal change in the distribution at time $t$ can be computed by the difference between the total probability flux entering and exiting various states. For state $z$, this difference is $(\Lambda_{Q(t)}^*Q(t))(z)$. On the other hand, this infinitesimal change is precisely $\dot{Q}(t)(z)$, the $z$-component of the time-derivative of $Q(t)$. Writing this condition as a vector condition for all $z$, we get
\begin{align}
\dot{Q}(t) = \Lambda_{Q(t)}^*Q(t).
\end{align}
Thus $Q(\cdot)$ is a Level-3 fixed-point. Hence, time-marginals of Level-4 fixed-points give rise to Level-3 fixed-points.
Conversely, consider a Level-3 fixed-point $\{Q(t), t\geq 0\}$. Clearly, $Q \in \mathcal{T}(\{R: R \circ \pi_t^{-1} = Q(t), t\geq 0\})$, but the set $\mathcal{T}(\{R: R \circ \pi_t^{-1} = Q(t), t\geq 0\})$ can possibly contain other probability distributions on trajectories. However, it turns out that when the transition rates $\lambda_{z,z^\prime}$ are Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$, $\mathcal{T}(\{R: R \circ \pi_t^{-1} = Q(t), t\geq 0\}) = \{Q\}$~\cite{graham-00}. Thus, under the assumption that the transition rates are Lipschitz continuous on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$, there is a one-one correspondence between the Level-3 and Level-4 fixed-points.
\section{Discussion on multiple fixed-points}
\label{section:conclusion}
We now discuss some issues that cannot be answered by just Level-1 and Level-2 fixed-point analysis. Let us focus on Level-2 fixed-points. By virtue of the relationship between Level-1 and Level-2 fixed-points, the issues for Level-2 will raise similar issues at Level-1.
{\em Multiple fixed-points:}
Suppose that $\xi_1^*$ and $\xi_2^*$ are two Level-2 fixed-points, and assume that these are \emph{locally asymptotically stable}, i.e., Level-3 fixed-points starting in a small neighbourhood of $\xi_1^*$ (resp.~$\xi_2^*$) converge to $\xi_1^*$ (resp.~$\xi_2^*$) as time becomes large. Since both $\xi_1^*$ and $\xi_2^*$ are Level-2 fixed-points, they are equilibria for the macroscopic state of the system. Therefore, whenever the finite-$N$ system's empirical measure is close $\xi^*_1$ (resp.~$\xi_2^*$), it remains close to $\xi_1^*$ (resp.~$\xi_2^*$) for a long time. However, because of the randomness present in the finite-$N$ system, the behaviour of the system can eventually move to the equilibrium $\xi_2^*$ and remain there for a long time. As explained in Section~\ref{section:level1-level2-connection}, the macroscopic observables may either be close to those arising from $\xi_1^*$ or $\xi_2^*$, and which of these is appropriate is a question that the Level-2 fixed-point analysis cannot answer by itself.
{\em Limit cycles:} Even if there is a unique Level-2 fixed-point, another issue can arise in the presence of stable \emph{limit cycles}. A limit cycle is a set $\mathcal{L} \subset M_1(\mathcal{Z})$ with the property that time-marginals of Level-3 fixed-points with initial conditions lying in $\mathcal{L}$ stays at $\mathcal{L}$ at all times. When there is a stable limit cycle, even if there is a unique fixed-point, the large time behaviour of the system may be in the neighbourhood of the stable limit cycle especially when the unique fixed-point is unstable. Again, the fixed-point analysis would predict $\xi^*$ as the equilibrium behaviour which would then be incorrect.
{\em A sufficient condition for large-time characterisation:}
One sufficient condition when a unique Level-2 fixed-point $\xi^*$ does indeed characterise the system behaviour, so that the Level-2 fixed-point analysis is indeed a good approach, is when the fixed-point is globally asymptotic stable for the McKean-Vlasov dynamics, see \cite{benaim-leboudec-08,bordenave-etal-12}. This involves an examination of the properties of the Level-3 fixed-points.
{\em Beyond the fixed-point analysis:}
In general, when there are multiple Level-2 fixed-points, limit cycles, and/or chaotic attractors, one has to go beyond the fixed-point analysis and do a finer analysis to understand macroscopic observables. In the above example, a sufficient condition on the Level-3 fixed-point worked. In general, one must study the \emph{large deviations} behaviour of the mean-field of the system. Here, one quantifies probabilities of transitions between Level-2 fixed-points (which are of the form $\exp\{-\text{constant}\times N\}$ for appropriate constants). These can be used to define an \emph{entropy function} $s$ on $M_1(\mathcal{Z})$ such that, under stationary, the probability that we find the mean-field of the system near $\xi$ is proportional to $\exp\{-Ns(\xi)\}$~\cite{borkar-sundaresan-12}. This entropy function $s$ is called the large deviations rate function for the system under stationarity. We also mention that the existence of multiple Level-2 fixed-points and limit cycles also results in slower convergence rate for a given finite-$N$ system to its stationarity~\cite{mypaper-1}. As a consequence, one has to be cautious in interpreting Level-1 and Level-2 fixed-points, particularly when these are not unique or when there are stable limit cycles or when there are chaotic attractors for the limiting dynamics.
{\em Short-term unfairness:}
In the context of WLANs, at the level of nodes, one can encounter \emph{short-term unfairness}~\cite{ramaiyan-etal-08,bhattacharya-kumar-17}. There are parameter choices where the wireless channel gets clogged by a single node for a long time which results in low throughput for the others. A transition then occurs, after which the situation is similar with another single node hogging the channel at the expense of the others, and so on. The connection between this phenomenon, chaoticity of an attractor, quasi-stationarity~\cite{pollett2008quasi} remains to be explored.
\bibliographystyle{IEEETran}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Data hiding \cite{SurveyDH} is the art of hiding secret data within a cover image or other multimedia signals imperceptibly
and has gained popularity in applications such as secret communication \cite{Stegastamp,VideoSte,LFM}, copy-right protection \cite{DMIP}, and content authentication \cite{Hidden}.
A data hiding scheme usually consists of two algorithms: \emph{hiding} and \emph{revealing} algorithms. The hiding algorithm encodes and embeds a secret message insider a cover image without affecting its visual perception that is outputted as the container. During the revealing phase, the revealing algorithm takes a container as input and reveals the secret message. Traditional data hiding schemes \cite{Hugo,Hill,Wow} can guarantee the revealed secret message is the same as the embedded one, but have a limited message capacity. For example, the capacity of HUGO \cite{Hugo}, a well-known data hiding scheme, is less than 0.5 bits per pixel (bpp).
Taking advantage of advance deep learning techniques, recent data hiding (i.e. deep hiding) schemes \cite{DS,ISGAN,UDH,HIWI} achieve a much higher message capacity (e.g. 24 bpp) and can hide a full image within another while preserving the visual quality of both secret and cover images. Existing deep hiding schemes can be classified into two categories based on their meta-architectures \cite{SurveyDH}: cover-dependent deep hiding (DDH) \cite{DS,ISGAN,HIWI} and universal deep hiding (UDH) \cite{UDH}. Figure \ref{fig:architectures_steganography} illustrates the meta-architectures of DDH and UDH. DDH encodes a secret image depending on the cover image, while UDH can encode and embed a secret image into multiple covers.
Although deep hiding schemes have greatly improved the message capacity, they have several fatal vulnerabilities in robustness. First, deep hiding schemes only embed pixels of secret images into the corresponding tiny regions of the cover image, which means the secret pixels cannot be revealed if the regions are destroyed. Second, the hiding is of low redundancy. Destroyed secret pixels cannot be recovered from or even affect the reveal of surrounding pixels.
Inspired by the above vulnerabilities, we propose a novel ProvablE rEmovaL attack (PEEL) on deep hiding to delete secret images from containers while preserving their visual quality. Our PEEL mainly consists of two phases: removal and inpainting. In particular, at each iteration, we remove pixels in a small sub-region of a container and maintain the visual quality of the container using image inpainting techniques \cite{EdgeConn,GICIC,structFlow,LSIC}. We repeat this process until all pixels in the container are removed and repaired once. Compared with existing removal attacks \cite{Destruction, PixelSteganalysis} that either rely on prior knowledge about deep hiding schemes or fail to remove secret images, we theoretically prove that PEEL can remove secret images as well as preserve the visual quality of container images without any prior knowledge.
We also propose a systemic methodology to optimize PEEL, which consists two design strategies. First, for the removal phase, we deal with more sub-regions of a container at each iteration to improve the efficiency of PEEL. Second, for the inpainting phase, we provide extra information of the removed regions (e.g., edge and distorted pixels) to improve the quality of the repaired container. With the carefully designed strategies, the optimized PEEL can remove secret images within a constant number of iterations and highly improve the visual quality of containers. We conduct extensive experiments to show that our PEELs provide much stronger removal ability on state-of-the-art deep hiding schemes and their robustness-enhance versions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[DDH]{\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{DDH.pdf}\label{fig:architectures_steganography:a}}
\subfigure[UDH]{\includegraphics[width=0.595\linewidth]{UDH1.pdf}\label{fig:architectures_steganography:b}}
\caption{Two kinds of meta-architectures for deep hiding, where $H, R$ are hiding and revealing models; $s$, $c$ ($c_i$) are secret and cover images; $c'$ ($c'_i$), $s'$ are container and revealed images; $P$ is an optimal preprocessing network; $\oplus$ is the element-wise addition.}
\label{fig:architectures_steganography}
\end{figure}
\section{Background}
\subsection{Deep Hiding}
Deep hiding employs deep neural networks to improve the message capacity and robustness and consists of the hiding and revealing phases. A deep hiding scheme has two goals: (1) the hiding of secret images cannot affect the visual quality of covers; (2) the recovered image must be consistent with the embedded one. We can formally define deep hiding as below.
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}($\xi$-deep hiding)
Let $c$ and $s$ be cover and secret images with the same size. $H$ and $R$ are the hiding and revealing algorithms designed using deep neural networks, where $H(c, s)$ outputs a container image $c'$ and $s' = R(c')$. Let $D$ be a visual distance metric between two images. The scheme $\mathcal{S} = (H, R)$ is a $\xi$-deep hiding if for $\forall \ c$ and $s$, (1) $\mathbb{E}_{\sim s,c}D(c,c') \leq \xi$ and (2) $\mathbb{E}_{\sim s,c}D(s,s') \leq \xi$.
\label{def:hiding}
\end{definition}
With deep hiding, a secret image can be encoded and embedded into a cover image imperceptibly. Since secret images are the same size with covers and carry a huge amount of information, the encoding and embedding strategies are critical for a deep hiding scheme. As shown in Section \ref{sec:intro}, existing deep hiding schemes can be classified into two categories, DDH and UDH, according to the difference between the hiding strategies.
\textbf{DDH.} For a secret image, both the encoding and embedding processes dependent on a specific cover image. For example, Baluja et al. proposed a scheme DS \cite{DS}, in which they utilize a preprocessing model $P$ to encode secret images first. Then, given a cover image $c$, the hiding model encodes and embeds the output of $P$ into $c$. Zhang et al. proposed ISGAN \cite{ISGAN}, in which the hiding model directly takes $s$ and $c$ as its inputs for encoding and embedding. In general, the hiding phase of DDH can be described as $c'=H(c,P(s))$ or $c'=H(c,s)$, shown as Figure \ref{fig:architectures_steganography:a}
\textbf{UDH.} The encoding and embedding processes are independent to cover images in UDH. For example, Zhang et al. proposed a UDH scheme that assigns the same secret image to multiple covers and minimizes the difference between the revealed images of the corresponding containers during the training process. Thus, the hiding model can learn universal code maps for secret images. In the embedding process, the universal code maps can be embedded into multiple covers by element-wise addition, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:architectures_steganography:b}.
\textbf{Adversarial Training.} These deep hiding models can be further enhanced by adversarial training \cite{UDH,DMIP,Hidden} to improve their robustness to different image distortions. With adversarial training, hiding models add one or multiple distortion layers to distort containers after embedded secret images. Then revealing models are trained to reveal the secret images from both the original and distorted containers.
For example, Zhang et al. \cite{UDH} adversarially train deep hiding networks by adding one or multiple types of distortions (e.g. noise, blur, compression, etc) into containers and the adversarially trained deep hiding schemes can successfully reveal secret images from distorted containers.
\subsection{Vulnerabilities of Deep Hiding}
Although current deep hiding schemes have different meta-architectures, they have similar vulnerabilities on robustness, which are summarized as follows. Although the robustness of existing data hiding schemes can be enhanced by \textit{adversarial training} \cite{UDH,DMIP,Hidden}, the vulnerabilities still exist even with such techniques (see Supplementary).
\textbf{Locality.} For each pixel $s_{ij}$ of a secret image $s$, existing deep hiding embeds $s_{ij}$ in a tiny region of the corresponding pixel $c'_{ij}$ of the container $c'$. Figure \ref{fig:vulnerabilities} (a) illustrates the locality vulnerability of a well-known deep hiding scheme DS \cite{DS}. In Figure \ref{fig:vulnerabilities} (a), the last two pairs of the container and recover images show that if we remove one region of the container, the corresponding region of the recover image cannot also be revealed. Besides DS, other deep hiding schemes also have the vulnerabilities (see Supplementary). Thus, once some regions of containers are destroyed, it is impossible to reveal the corresponding secret pixels.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.59\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.51\linewidth]{locality_c.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.51\linewidth]{locality_s.pdf} \\
(a) Locality
\end{tabular}
%
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=0.34\linewidth]{low_c.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.34\linewidth]{low_s.pdf} \\
(b) Low redundancy
\end{tabular}
\caption{Vulnerabilities of deep hiding. The top images of each group are containers. The bottom are the corresponding revealed images. (a) We remove a random square region from the container (middle) and only keep the random region as the container (right); (b) We set one pixel of the right container image as 0.}
\label{fig:vulnerabilities}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Low Redundancy.}
This vulnerability means that if we only remove one pixel $c'_{ij}$, existing deep hiding schemes cannot recover a tiny region of the corresponding secret image. This phenomenon can be empirically proved in Figure \ref{fig:vulnerabilities} (b). In Figure \ref{fig:vulnerabilities} (b), we set one pixel of the top right container as 0, which causes a corresponding tiny region cannot be recovered. We also observe that UDH \cite{UDH} seems to be robust when setting the pixel as 0 but still has this vulnerability if we change the pixel to other pixel values (see Supplementary). This phenomenon also confirms that a secret pixel is embedded into a tiny region of the corresponding pixel in the container.
Due to the above vulnerabilities, it is possible to remove the hidden images from the container without affecting its visual perception. We define such removal attack as the following.
\begin{definition}(($\epsilon, \lambda$)-Removal Attack) \label{def:attack}
Let $F$ be a removal attack on deep hiding. $\mathcal{S} = (H, R)$ is a deep hiding scheme. $F$ is a $(\epsilon, \lambda)$-removal attack on $\mathcal{S}$ if $\forall \ c$ and $s$, $\mathbb{E}_{\sim s,c}D(c', F(c'))\leq \epsilon$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\sim s,c}D(s', R(F(c'))\geq \lambda$.
\end{definition}
From Definition \ref{def:attack}, a removal attack has two goals: (1) the removal of secret images cannot affect the visual quality of containers; (2) the visual distance should be large enough between the revealed images before and after the removal attack. We will design a novel attack to achieve the two goals.
\section{Methodology} \label{sec:method}
Due to the above vulnerabilities, the robustness of deep hiding is challenged by this paper. We propose a ProvablE rEmovaL attack (PEEL) on deep hiding using image inpainting to remove secret images as well as preserve the visual quality of containers.
\subsection{PEEL}
\textbf{Insight.} Our PEEL mainly consist of two phases: removal and inpainting phases, which are used to remove secret images and preserve the quality of containers, respectively. Our design strateges are two-folds. \emph{First}, according to the locality vulnerability of deep hiding, secret pixels are encoded and embedded into the small regions of the corresponding pixels of a cover. Thus, to remove the secret pixels, we only need to remove the pixels in the corresponding regions of the container in the removal phase. However, the quality of the container drops sharply as we directly remove the pixels. Our \emph{second} design strategy is to utilize image inpainting techniques for recovering the missing regions. Since existing deep hiding schemes have the low redundancy vulnerability, the inpainting process would not contain the secret information of the missing regions.
\textbf{Attacking Sketch.} We first train an image inpainting model $I$ using publicly available unlabeled images. Then, Given a container $c'$ of size $K\times K$, we first split $c'$ into small square regions with side length $k$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:peel}. Then we remove and repair each square region. \emph{In the removal phase},
we set pixels of the $l\times l$ ($l > k$) region around $c'_{i,j}$ as 0. Note that we not only remove the square regions of side length $k$ but also remove its surrounding pixels, which ensures the secret information of the corresponding $k\times k$ region is removed completely.
The removal process can be described as
\begin{equation}
c'^M=Removal(c',m,n,k, l),
\end{equation}
where $(m,n)$ are the coordinates of the center of current square region. $c'^M$ is the output of the removal function, in which the $l\times l$ square region with the center ($m, n$) is removed. \emph{In the inpainting phase}, we repair the missing region with $I$. It is worth noting that the hyper-parameters $k, l$ should be carefully chosen because a large $l$ would affect the quality of the repaired container. We finish our attack by repeating the above phases till all squares are removed and repaired once.
\begin{figure}[t ]
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{PEEL.pdf}}
\caption{Pipeline of PEEL. We divide $c'$ into square regions of side length $k$. We process one square region in each iteration of PEEL. Specifically, in the removal phase, we use a red box of size $l\times l$ ($l>k$) to determine the missing region, whose center coincides are the same with that of the chosen square region. We set all pixels in the red box as 0 to remove the content. In the inpainting phase, we complete the missing content with the pre-trained inpainting model $I$ and save the repair content. After processing all square regions, we combine all repair content as $\hat{c'}$.}
\label{fig:peel}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Theoretical Analysis.} We theoretically analyze that for an arbitrary deep hiding scheme, our PEEL can completely remove secret images from containers under some reasonable assumptions. We first formalize the image inpainting technique.
\begin{definition}
(\textit{($l$, $\gamma$)-Image Inpainting}) Let $M$ be a $K*K$ binary mask, in which elements in a square with side length $l$ are 0 and others are 1.
Let $x$ is an image with the size of $K*K$. $I$ is a ($l$,$\gamma$)-image inpainting scheme if $\forall \ x$ and $M$, $\mathbb{E}_{\sim s,c}D(x,I(x\otimes M))\leq \gamma$, where $\otimes$ is the element-wise multiplication.
\end{definition}
We assume the visual metric is a norm and the locality and low redundancy vulnerabilities of deep hiding exist.
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:metric}
The visual metric $D$ is a norm on the $K\times K$ image space.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:hiding}
Let $\mathcal{S} = (H, R)$ be an arbitrary deep hiding scheme. For $\forall \ s$ and $c$, $H$ hides each pixel $s_{ij}$ of $s$ independently within the corresponding square with the center $c_{ij}$ and side length $\frac{l-k}{2}$.
\end{assumption}
With Assumption \ref{ass:metric}-\ref{ass:hiding}, we can prove that our PEEL is a $(\epsilon, \delta)$-removal attack. The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem} can be found in Supplementary.
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorme}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{S} = (H, R)$ be an arbitrary $\xi$-deep hiding. The proposed PEEL is a $(\epsilon, \lambda)$-removal attack on $\mathcal{S}$ if $\gamma \leq \frac{\epsilon}{(\frac{K}{k})^2-1}$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Optimization Strategies}
Although PEEL can completely remove embedded secret images, there are two drawbacks: \textit{ low efficiency of inpainting} and \textit{low quality of containers}. First, removing and repairing regions one by one is inefficient. We have to iterate $(K/k)^2$ times to finish the attack. As the resolution increases, the efficiency problem becomes more serious. Second, due to the limitation of existing image inpainting techniques, the quality of repaired regions is low when the missing square regions cannot provide any visual information. To solve the above two drawbacks, we propose a systemic methodology to optimize and enhance the efficiency and quality of our PEEL, which includes the following two design strategies.
\textbf{Strategy 1: Efficiency Optimization.}
We deal with multiple regions at each iteration instead of only one. Roughly speaking, the surrounding pixels of a missing region highly influence the inpainting process. The influence decays as the distance to the missing region increases.
Inspired by this fact, we choose and remove multiple regions of containers at each iteration and the number of regions is proportional to the resolution of the containers. For example, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:opti_peel}, we select and remove a region in every four regions. Thus, we can fix the number of iterations to a constant, regardless of the resolution of containers.
\textbf{Strategy 2: Quality Optimization.}
We optimize the inpainting phase to improve the quality of cover images from two aspects. First, similar to \cite{EdgeConn} that predicts the edge of missing regions before the inpainting, we directly provide the real edge to the inpainting model. This edge information contains little secret information and can delineate and determine the contour of the missing regions. Second, we provide the inpainting model heavily distorted version of the missing regions, in which secret images are destroyed. Such optimization can provide more useful information for image inpainting and improve the quality of the repaired regions.
\subsection{Overall Attacking Process}
Taking advantage of the two optimization strategies, we describe the overall attacking process. We first prepare a well-trained image inpainting model.
In the removal phase, we deal with multiple sub-regions each time to remove the corresponding secret information. In the inpainting phase, we repair the missing region in high quality using the quality optimization strategy. The overall pipeline of the optimized PEEL is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:opti_peel}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{PEELO.pdf}}
\caption{Pipeline of the optimized PEEL. We process more square regions of size ($k\times k$), liking the regions marked by blue boxes, in each iteration. The removal phase is similar to that of PEEL except we use more red box to determine the missing regions. In the inpainting phase, we provide extra inputs to the inpainting model: the edge information of $c'$ and the seriously distorted version of the original pixels of the missing regions (DR). The edge is extracted by existing edge detectors and DR is produced through adding noise or other distortions. We save the repair content of all chosen square regions. Afterwards, we slide the blue boxes to choose new square regions. the of the blue boxes (e.g. the top left one) only need to slide following the blue path (the dotted line). After processing all square regions of $c'$, we combine all the repair content as $\hat{c'}$ of .}
\label{fig:opti_peel}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Removal Phase.}
Similar to PEEL, we divide $c'$ into square regions with the side length $k$ before the removal phase. The difference is that we choose multiple regions each iteration according to the efficiency optimization. We select a region every $d$ regions as marked by the blue boxes in Figure \ref{fig:opti_peel}. In the removal phase, we set pixels of all chosen regions and pixels around all chosen regions as 0. The pixels to be repaired are determined by the red boxes of size $l\times l$ ($l>k$). We denote the output of the removal phase as $c'^M$.
\textbf{Inpainting Phase}.
With the quality optimization, we provide the inpainting model the edge information ($e$) and the heavily distorted version of all missing regions (DR). $e$ can be extracted using existing edge detectors and the missing regions can be obtained by adding heavy distortions. Note that $e$ does not provide any information about the secret image. As for the DR, since we add heavy distortions, the secret information of the missing regions is destroyed and the revealing model can hardly recover secret pixels from the repaired regions. We complete the mission regions using the inpainting model, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
c'^I=I(c'^M,e,\text{DR}).
\end{equation}
In the next iteration, we slide all blue boxes on $c'$ in the same direction to choose new regions. With the blue path in Figure \ref{fig:opti_peel}, we only conduct the removal and inpainting phases $(d+1)^2$ times to cover all regions of $c'$, no matter what the solution of $c'$ is. We collect the pixels of the repaired regions with size $k\times k$ in each iteration and own a new image without the secret image $\hat{c'}$.
\textbf{Preparation of the Inpainting Model.} We need to prepare a well-trained image inpainting model before the attacking process. The training dataset can be easily obtained by collecting cheap, publicly available, unlabeled images. We employ the loss function in \cite{EdgeConn} to train the inpainting model, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\min \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}_{recon}, \mathcal{L}_{perce}, \mathcal{L}_{style}, \mathcal{L}_{adver}),
\label{eq:loss}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_{recon}$, $\mathcal{L}_{perce}$, $\mathcal{L}_{style}$, and $\mathcal{L}_{adver}$ are reconstruction loss, perceptual loss, style loss, and adversarial loss, respectively. Details of these losses can be found in \cite{EdgeConn,StyleTransfer}.
For each training step, we first choose a batch of images from the training dataset. For each image, we divide it into square regions with the side length $k$. Then, we randomly select and remove regions as in the removal phase and provide the edge and distorted version of the removed regions for the minimization of $\mathcal{L}$.
Since these training images do not contain any secret images, the well-trained $I$ would not reveal secret information from the mission containers during the inpainting phase.
\section{Experimental Evaluation}
\subsection{Experiment Setup} \label{sec:exp:setup}
\textbf{Dataset.} Our attack is model-agnostic and dataset-agnostic. We conduct all experiments on the CelebA dataset \cite{CelebA}. We randomly select 80000 images to train the image inpainting models and 2000 images from the remain images for testing. One thousand of the 2000 images are used as cover images and the other thousand are used as secret images. All images are resized to the resolution of 255$\times$255 and the pixel values are normalized to the range of $[0,1]$.
\textbf{Deep Hiding.} We use state-of-the-art deep hiding schemes for evaluation, including DS \cite{DS}, ISGAN \cite{ISGAN}, and UDH \cite{UDH}.
Different from DS and UDH that embed color images into another, ISGAN hides gray images into color images because it only hides secret images in the Y channel of the YCrCb color space.
Further, we also consider the usage of adversarial training techniques to increase the robustness of the three schemes. In particular, we use a pre-trained auto-encoder to enhance the robustness.
The robust-enhanced deep hiding schemes are denoted as DS-AE, ISGAN-AE, and UDH-AE, respectively. We show the architecture of the auto-encoder in Supplementary.
\textbf{Implementation of PEELs and Baselines.}
For PEEL, we set $k=25$ and $l=35$.
Since the resolution 256 is not divisible by 25, we increase the size of containers by padding 0.
Before the inpainting, we remove all padded pixels to restore the original size.
For the optimized PEEL (PEEL-O), we set $k=50$, $d=2$, and $l=60$. Besides, we produce DR by adding scaled Gaussian noise to the original content of all missing regions. The Gaussian noise is sampled from the standard orthonormal distribution and is scaled by a real number $\delta$. The inpainting models $I$ in PEEL and PEEL-O have the same architecture (see Supplementary).
In addition to our proposed PEEL and PEEL-O, we also implement three other removal attacks for comparison:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Gaussian Noise (GN)}. This removal attack adds Gaussian noise to the whole containers. Adding enough noise can prevent the recover of valid information of secret images. But, adding too much noise seriously reduces the usability of containers. We scale the noise using the $\delta$ to control the usability.
\item \textbf{Gaussian Blurring (GB)}. One can use Gaussian blurring to remove secret images. In experiments, we set the kernel size and standard deviation as 5 and 3, respectively.
\item \textbf{Median Blurring (MB)}. Similar to GB, we use the median blurring as a removal attack. And we set the kernel size as 5.
\end{itemize}
The architectures of all models involved in our experiments (e.g. the deep hiding models, the inpainting model, and the auto-encoder) and related configurations in training are detailed in Supplementary. We do not consider the two removal attacks \cite{PixelSteganalysis,Destruction} in our experiments for the follow two reasons. First, training the purifier in \cite{Destruction} needs much prior knowledge of the data hiding schemes. Second, as shown in the supplementary \footnote{https://anonymous-steganalysis.github.io} of \cite{PixelSteganalysis}, the proposed removal attack cannot remove secret images even without adversarial training.
\textbf{Metric.} To evaluate the performance of removal attacks, we measure the visual distance between two images using
PSNR and VIF \cite{VIF}.
A larger score of PSNR or VIF indicates a better content similarity between two images. PSNR is a wildly used metric due to its simplicity and mathematical convenience, but it is too simple to build a strong correlation between PSNR and the perception of the human visual system in most scenarios \cite{VIF,PVS}. Thus, we further choose VIF because it is design to quantify the information that is shared between the test and the reference images, which fits the scenario in this paper. In order to distinguish the two kinds of distances easily, we use PSNR-C and VIF-C to denote the distance between the cover images before and after attacks. And we use PSNR-S and VIF-S denote the distance between the revealed images before and after attacks.
\subsection{Overall Evaluation}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.473\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{Attack results on UDH}
\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
\toprule
Attack & PSNR-C & PSNR-S & VIF-C & VIF-S \\ \hline
GN(0.03) & 30.68 & 15.14 & 0.567 & 0.091 \\
GN(0.05) & 26.36 & 11.16 & 0.346 & 0.043 \\
GB & 31.3 & 5.35 & 0.523 & 0.098 \\
MB & 32.74 & 6.07 & 0.579 & 0.058 \\ \hline
PEEL & 25.44 & 4.57 & 0.302 & 0.004 \\
PEEL-O & 29.75 & 4.54 & 0.579 & 0.004 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:normal_vif_psnr}%
\end{wraptable}%
We evaluate the overall performance of our removal attacks and the baselines. In particular, we set the $\delta$ in PEEL-O as 0.05. For GN, we use two different $\delta$ values: 0.03 (GN(0.03)) and 0.05 (GN(0.05)).
We first evaluate the performance of the involved attacks on the three deep hiding schemes. We observe that all the attacks can successfully remove secret images hidden by DS and ISGAN. Different from DS and ISGAN, UDH is more robust in our experiments. Thus, we only show the statistical attack results on UDH (see Supplementary for the attack results on DS and ISGAN). From Table \ref{tab:normal_vif_psnr}, we observe that all baseline attacks have larger PSNR-S and VIF-S values than our PEELs, which indicate our PEELs are superior to attack UDH. We also observe that the PSNR-S of GB is only 5.35 but the corresponding VIF-S is 0.098, much lager than that of GN(0.03). After we check the original results, GB fails in attacking UDH and we confirm again that PSNR is not proper for the quality evaluation of low-quality images and the results of VIF are more accurate. The visualization examples of the attack results on UDH are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:examples_nor}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\resizebox*{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
& &GN(0.03) & GN(0.05) &GB&MB& PEEL & PEEL-O \\
\rotatebox{90}{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $UDH}& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_GN3.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_GN5.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_GB.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_MB.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_PEEL.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDH_PEELO.pdf} \\
& &0.584|0.120& 0.455|0.056&0.456|0.155&0.524|0.108&0.245|0.004&0.569|0.005\\
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Visualization examples of the attacks on UDH. The images of the first row are containers. The images of the second row are the corresponding revealed secret images after the removal attacks. The two values under each group are VIF-C and VIF-S, respectively.}
\label{fig:examples_nor}%
\end{figure}%
Next, we evaluate these attacks on the adversarially trained deep hiding schemes. The experimental results are illustrated in Table \ref{tab:adv_vif_psnr}. We observe that our PEELs still achieve lower VIF-S values on all the enhanced schemes.
On the contrary, the baselines fail in attacking the enhanced versions in most cases since the corresponding VIF-S values in Table \ref{tab:adv_vif_psnr} are much larger than those of PEELs. For example, the VIF-S value of GB on DS-AE is 0.159, much larger than those of PEELs (0.33 and 0.66).
In addition, we can observe that PSNR-C and VIF-C values of PEEL-O are much higher than those of PEEL, which shows the effectiveness of the quality optimization strategy.
In order to visually exhibit the experimental results, we show some examples in Figure \ref{fig:examples_adv}. In Figure \ref{fig:examples_adv}, we can acquire obvious visual content of secret images from the attack results when we use the baselines to attack UDH-AE. As for attacking other adversarially trained schemes, the visual content of the secret images is still reserved in some cases. On the contrary, our PEELs can remove the secret images completely. More visualization examples can be found in Supplementary.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Attack results on the adversarially trained deep hiding schemes}
\resizebox*{0.95\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|ccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Attack} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{PSNR(PSNR-C|PSNR-S)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{VIF(VIF-C|VIF-S)} \\
\cline{2-7} & UDH-AE & DS-AE & ISGAN-AE & UDH-AE & DS-AE & ISGAN-AE \\
\hline
GN(0.03) & 30.68|19.33 & 30.58|15.59 & 30.63|13.39 & 0.564|0.160 & 0.564|0.105 & 0.584|0.084 \\
GN(0.05) & 26.35|14.28 & 26.27|11.84 & 26.29|9.93 & 0.432|0.072 & 0.432|0.049 & 0.454|0.040 \\
GB&30.65|15.43&32.65|11.72&32.42|10.49 &0.486|0.240&0.532|0.159&0.568|0.042\\
MB&32.05|17.11&34.09|12.88&34.4|11.12 &0.548|0.246&0.582|0.138&0.627|0.051\\
\hline
PEEL & 23.91|7.78 & 26.09|11.40 & 26.56|10.56 & 0.276|0.019 & 0.313|0.033 & 0.332|0.022 \\
PEEL-O & 29.03|8.56 & 30.19|12.12 & 29.29|11.42 & 0.543|0.040 & 0.592|0.066 & 0.651|0.048 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
}
\label{tab:adv_vif_psnr}%
\end{table}%
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\resizebox*{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
& &GN(0.03) & GN(0.05) &GB&MB& PEEL & PEEL-O \\
\rotatebox{90}{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $UDH-AE}& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_GN3.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_GN5.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_GB.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_MB.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_PEEL.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHAE_PEELO.pdf} \\
& &0.575|0.161& 0.448|0.076&0.522|0.255&0.608|0.265&0.363|0.018&0.559|0.042\\
\rotatebox{90}{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $DS-AE}& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_GN3.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_GN5.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_GB.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_MB.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_PEEL.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{DSAE_PEELO.pdf} \\
& & 0.558|0.081& 0.424|0.042&0.472|0.127&0.508|0.104&0.256|0.028& 0.558|0.056\\
\rotatebox{90}{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ISGAN-AE}& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_GN3.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_GN5.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_GB.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_MB.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_PEEL.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{ISGANAE_PEELO.pdf} \\
& & 0.581|0.092& 0.448|0.049&0.607|0.049&0.665|0.051& 0.372|0.024& 0.679|0.053\\
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Visualization examples of the attacks on the adversarially trained deep hiding schemes. The two values under each group are VIF-C and VIF-S, respectively.}
\label{fig:examples_adv}%
\end{figure}%
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.63\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{Attack results of PEELs with different $\delta$}
\resizebox*{0.63 \textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Attack} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{PSNR} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{VIF} \\
\cline{2-5} & UDH-C & UDH-P & UDH-C & UDH-P \\
\hline
PEEL & 23.88|10.51 & 24.43|12.44 & 0.260|0.014 & 0.293|0.038 \\
PEEL-O(0.05) & 27.31|10.67 & 29.43|16.81 & 0.500|0.015 & 0.569|0.157 \\
PEEL-O(0.1) & - & 28.17|14.54 & - & 0.480|0.082 \\
PEEL-O(0.2) & - & 26.92|11.97 & - & 0.402|0.036 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:udh_adv}%
}
\end{wraptable}
\subsection{Impact of Adversarial Training}\label{sec:exp:adv}
We further evaluate PEELs on UDH when the defender knows the attacker's configurations. Specifically, we train two adversarially enhanced UDH schemes. For the first one, we train a combined UDH (UDH-C) based on multiple distortions (e.g. Gaussian blur, Gaussian noise, Crop, Cropout, etc).
For the second one, we train an UDH scheme UDH-P adversarially based on PEEL-O ($\delta=0.05$). After the training processes, we use PEEL and PEEL-O with different $\delta$ to attack UDH-C and UDH-P. Table \ref{tab:udh_adv} illustrates the attack results. We observe that the VIF-S values of PEEL and PEEL-O(0.05) on UDH-C are 0.014 and 0.015, which means no visual information is recovered. Thus, UDH-C cannot defend PEEL and PEEL-O(0.05). The VIF-S value of PEEL on UDH-P is only 0.038, which also indicates that UDH-P fails in defending PEEL. We observe that PEEL-O(0.05) cannot remove the secret embedded by UDH-P. However, as we increase the value of $\delta$ in PEEL-O, the VIF-S value decreases. When we set $\delta=0.2$, the VIF-S value is only 0.036. Although the VIF-C value also decreases to 0.402, it is still larger than corresponding VIF-S value of PEEL. We show the visualization examples in Figure \ref{fig:examples_udhp}, from which we can also conclude that our PEELs still work even the defender knowns more information about the attacking process.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\resizebox*{0.6\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
PEEL & PEEL-O(0.05)&PEEL-O(0.1)& PEEL-O(0.2) \\
\includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHP_PEEL.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHP_PEELO05.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHP_PEELO1.pdf}
& \includegraphics[width=0.12\linewidth]{UDHP_PEELO2.pdf}
\\
0.371|0.036& 0.585|0.179 &0.513|0.091& 0.444|0.036\\
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Examples of attacking UDH-P using PEEL and PEEL-O with different $\delta$.}\label{fig:examples_udhp}%
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we first explore the vulnerabilities of current deep hiding schemes. Then, according to our observations, we propose a novel provable removal attack on deep hiding to erase embedded secret images from containers. We also design two optimization strategies to improve the attack efficiency of PEEL and the quality of containers. Both theoretical and experimental results indicate that our PEELs can remove secret images thoroughly without any prior knowledge of depp hiding schemes, even the schemes are enhanced by adversarial training. We hope our work can heat up the arms race to inspire the designs of more advanced deep hiding schemes and attacks in the future.
From the defense aspect, one potential defense is to design deep hiding schemes that overcome the locality and low redundancy vulnerabilities, such as hiding each secret pixel in a more big region and improve the redundancy of each pixel. However, this may affect the message capacity. We will consider this as an important direction for future work.
\clearpage
|
\section{Proof of Theorem 1}
\begin{theorem}{1}
Let $X \to Y$ be the causal direction following the data generation mechanism $X=N_X,Y = \alpha X + N_Y$. The least-square loss will fail to identify the correct causal direction if the causal strength $\alpha$, the noise variances $\sigma_{N_X}^{2}$ and $\sigma_{N_Y}^{2}$ satisfy the following inequality:
\begin{equation} \label{inequality mselinear}
\alpha ^{2} < 1 - \frac{\sigma_{N_Y}^{2}}{\sigma_{N_X}^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Then, for the causal direction, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:linear causal}
\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{X|\phi}^{2} = \sigma_{N_X}^{2}, \quad
\beta_{Y|X} = \frac{\alpha \sigma_{X}^{2}}{\sigma_{X}^{2}} = \alpha, \quad
\sigma_{Y|X}^{2} = \sigma_{N_Y}^{2}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For the anti-causal direction, we have
\begin{equation} \label{equ:linear anti-causal}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^{2}_{Y|\phi } & =\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} ,\quad \beta _{X|Y} =\frac{\alpha \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\sigma ^{2}_{Y|\phi }} =\frac{\alpha \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}}\\
\sigma ^{2}_{X|Y} & = \text{Var} (X-\beta _{X|Y} Y)=\frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that the least-square loss in the additive noise model is equivalent to the summation of estimated noise variance. Thus, using the Eq. \ref{equ:linear causal}, the least-square loss in the direction of $\displaystyle X\rightarrow Y$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:mse linear causal}
LS_{X\rightarrow Y} =\mathbb{E}\left[( X-0)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[( Y-\beta _{Y|X} \cdot X)^{2}\right] =\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle \beta _{Y|X}$ is the coefficient obtained from linear regression. Similarly, using Eq. \ref{equ:linear anti-causal}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mse linear anti-causal}
LS_{Y\rightarrow X} =\mathbb{E}\left[( X-\beta _{X|Y} \cdot Y)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[( Y-0)^{2}\right] =\frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} +\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} .
\end{equation}
Using Eq. \ref{equ:mse linear causal} and \ref{equ:mse linear anti-causal}, we consider the condition that the loss in causal direction is larger than the loss in the reverse direction, i.e., $LS_{X\rightarrow Y} >LS_{Y\rightarrow X}$, and we have the following inequality:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:linear_inequality}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} & > \frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} +\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} \\
\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} & > \left( \frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} +\alpha ^{2} \right) \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} \\
\alpha ^{2} & < 1- \frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} \\
\alpha ^{2} & < \frac{\alpha ^{2} \sigma _{N_{X}}^{2} +\sigma _{N_{Y}}^{2} -\sigma _{N_{Y}}^{2}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma _{N_{X}}^{2} +\sigma _{N_{Y}}^{2}} \\
\alpha ^{2} & < \frac{\alpha ^{2}}{\alpha ^{2} +\frac{\sigma _{N_{Y}}^{2}}{\sigma _{N_{X}}^{2}}} \\
\alpha ^{2} & < 1 - \frac{\sigma_{N_Y}^{2}}{\sigma_{N_X}^{2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma 2}
\begin{lemma}{1} \label{lemma 1}
(Theorem 2 in \cite{zhang2015estimation}) Given samples $\left\{x^{( i)} ,y^{( i)}\right\}^{m}_{i=1}$, and the causal model $Y=f(X,N_{Y} ;\theta )$ with any parameters $\displaystyle \theta $ and the estimated residual $\hat{N}_{Y}$, the log-likelihood $l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )$ and the mutual information between $X$ and $\hat{N}_Y$ are related in the following way:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mutual information vs likelihood}
I(X,\hat{N}_{Y} ;\theta )=\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{( i)} ,Y=y^{( i)} )-\frac{1}{m} l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta ),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:general_likelihood}
l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )=\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{( i)} )+\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{( i)}_{Y} ;\theta )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_{Y}} |_{N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{( i)}_{Y}}\right| .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lemma 1} builds a connection between the log-likelihood and the mutual information. In the following Lemma, we further build the connection between log-likelihood and the least-square loss.
\begin{lemma}{2} \label{lemma 2}
For the additive noise model $Y=f(X)+N_Y$, maximizing the log-likelihood $l_{X\to Y}(\theta)$ with the standard Gaussian noise assumption is equivalent to minimizing the least-square loss.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Based on Lemma \ref{lemma 1}, the log-likelihood under the standard Gaussian distribution has the following form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gaussian_likelihood}
\begin{aligned}
l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )=\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\exp\left( -\frac{(x^{( i)} -0)^{2}}{2}\right)\right) +\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\exp\left( -\frac{(y^{( i)} -\hat{f} (x^{( i)} ;\theta ))^{2}}{2}\right)\right) \\
- \sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_{Y}} |_{N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{(i)}_{Y}}\right| .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that, under the additive noise model, we have $\displaystyle \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_{Y}} =1$, and thus last term in \ref{eq:gaussian_likelihood} will be vanish. Then, log-likelihood can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{equation}
l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )=-\frac{1}{2}\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\left[ (x^{(i)}-0)^{2} +((y^{( i)} -\hat{f} (x^{( i)} ;\theta ))^{2}\right] +const.
\end{equation}
Comparing with the least-square loss $LS_{X\rightarrow Y}$ that used in NOTEARS:
\begin{equation}
LS_{X\rightarrow Y} =\mathbb{E}\left[ (X-0)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[ (Y-\hat{f} (X))^{2}\right] ,
\end{equation}
we can see that maximizing the log-likelihood with standard Gaussian noise assumption is equivalent to minimizing the least-square loss.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma 3}
\begin{lemma}{3} \label{lemma 3}
For the additive noise model, minimizing the least-square loss is equivalent to minimizing the mutual information under the standard Gaussian noise assumption with the following form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gaussian mutual information}
\begin{aligned}
I_q(X,\hat{N}_{Y} ;\theta ) & =\frac{1}{m}\left(\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{(i)} ,Y=y^{(i)} )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log q(X=x^{(i)} )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log q(N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{(i)}_{Y} ;\theta )\right) ,\\
& =\mathbb{E}_{x,y\sim p( x,y)}[\log p(X=x,Y=y)-\log q(X=x)-\log q(N_{Y} =\hat{n}_{Y} ;\theta )] .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle q$ is the density function of standard Gaussian distribution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Based on Lemma \ref{lemma 2}, as Eq. \ref{eq:gaussian_likelihood} shown, using the least-square loss, the distribution in the log-likelihood will become Gaussian. Then, by substituting \ref{eq:gaussian_likelihood} into \ref{eq:mutual information vs likelihood} we obtain \ref{eq:gaussian mutual information} which is the mutual information under the standard Gaussian noise assumption.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem 3}
\begin{theorem}{3} \label{theorem entropy vs likelihood}
In additive noise model, the entropy-based score has a consistency with the log-likelihood score when the sample sizes $m \rightarrow \infty $, that is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log p\left( x^{(j)}_{i} |x^{( j)}_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}( i)}\right) =-\sum ^{d}_{i=1} H(N_{i} ).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Based on Lemma 1 we generalize the log-likelihood from two variables case to the multivariate case as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log p\left( x^{(j)}_{i} |x^{( j)}_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}( i)}\right) & =\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log p(N_{i} =\hat{n}^{(j)}_{i} )-\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log\left| \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial N_{i}} |_{N_{i} =\hat{n}^{(j)}_{i}}\right| \\
& =\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log p\left( N_{i} =\hat{n}^{(j)}_{i}\right)=\sum ^{d}_{i=1} -H(N_{i} ).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The second equality is based on the property of the additive noise model in which $ \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial N_i}=1$. Then, as $m \rightarrow \infty$, we obtain the last equality.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Corollary 1}
\begin{lemma}{4}[Theorem 1 in \cite{hoyer2008nonlinear}] \label{ANM}
For the additive noise model $Y = f(X)+N_Y$, there is a the forward model of the form $p(X,Y)=p(Y-f(X))p(X)$. If there is a backward model of the same form $p(X,Y)=p(X-f(Y))p(Y)$, then for all $X$, $Y$ with the three time differentiable $f$ and $v^{\prime\prime}(Y-f(X))f^{\prime}(X) \neq 0$, the following equality holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:anm condition}
\xi^{\prime\prime\prime} = \xi^{\prime\prime} \left( - \frac{v^{\prime\prime\prime} f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} + \frac{f^{\prime\prime}}{f^{\prime}} \right) - 2v^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime} + v^{\prime}f^{\prime\prime\prime} + \frac{v^{\prime}v^{\prime\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} - \frac{v^{\prime}(f^{\prime\prime})^2}{f^{\prime}},
\end{equation}
where $v \coloneq \log p(N_Y)$, $\xi\coloneq \log p(X)$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{ANM} guarantees that the asymmetry of independence only vanishes under strictly conditions. In most cases, such asymmetry exists and the ANM can be identified. Based on Lemma \ref{ANM}, we prove the asymmetry of entropy also exists for most cases.
\begin{corollary}{1} \label{corollary:ent asymmetry}
For each pair of additive noise model $Y=f(X)+N_Y$, if $v^{\prime\prime}(Y-f(X))f^{\prime}(X) \neq 0$ and the following condition holds:
\begin{equation}
\xi^{\prime\prime\prime} = \xi^{\prime\prime} \left( - \frac{v^{\prime\prime\prime} f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} + \frac{f^{\prime\prime}}{f^{\prime}} \right) - 2v^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime} + v^{\prime}f^{\prime\prime\prime} + \frac{v^{\prime}v^{\prime\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} - \frac{v^{\prime}(f^{\prime\prime})^2}{f^{\prime}},
\end{equation}
where $v \coloneq \log p(N_Y)$, $\xi\coloneq \log p(X)$, then using the entropy-based loss each pair of additive model is identifiable and has the form
$H\left(X\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{Y}\right) < H\left(Y\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{X}\right).$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
To be clear, let $\hat{f}$ denote the function of regressing Y on X with a residual $\hat{N}_Y$, and let $\hat{g}$ denote the function of regressing X on Y with a residual $\hat{N}_X$.
To prove corollary \ref{corollary:ent asymmetry}, we will compare the mutual information between hypothetical cause and the regression residual in causal and anti-causal direction. Assuming the backward model does not exist based on Lemma \ref{ANM}, the noise and the hypothetical cause is independent, i.e., $N_{i} \Vbar X_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)} $ in the causal direction, but not vice versa. Such a property can be represented by mutual information form as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{MI compare}
\begin{aligned}
I(X, \hat{N}_Y) & < I(Y, \hat{N}_X) \\
\int p(X,\hat{N}_Y) \log \frac{p(X,\hat{N}_Y)}{p(X)p(\hat{N}_Y)} & < \int p(X,\hat{N}_Y) \log \frac{p(Y,\hat{N}_X)}{p(Y)p(\hat{N}_X)} \\
-\mathbb{E}\log p( X) -\mathbb{E}\log p(\hat{N}_Y) +\mathbb{E}\log p(X,\hat{N}_Y) & < -\mathbb{E}\log p(Y) -\mathbb{E}\log p(\hat{N}_X) +\mathbb{E}\log p(Y,\hat{N}_X) \\
H\left(X\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{Y}\right) +\mathbb{E}\log p(X,\hat{N}_Y) & < H\left(Y\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{X}\right) + \mathbb{E}\log p(Y,\hat{N}_X)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In fact, $p(X,\hat{N}_Y)$ and $p(Y,\hat{N}_X)$ can be transformed to $p(X, Y)$, and then be eliminated in both sides. We also denote $X'$ and $Y'$ for conveniently and clearly expressing the transformations as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{transfromation}
\text{causal direction:}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
X' & = X,
\\ \hat{N}_Y & = Y-\hat{f}(X).
\end{aligned}
\right. \quad \quad
\text{anti-causal direction:}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
Y' & = Y,
\\ \hat{N}_X & = X-\hat{g}(Y).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Then, the distribution transformations from $(X, Y)^{T}$ to $(X', \hat{N}_{Y})^{T}$ and $(X, Y)^{T}$ to $(Y', \hat{N}_{X})^{T}$ are as follows:
\begin{equation*}
p(X,Y)=p(X',\hat{N}_Y)\left|\det(J_{X\rightarrow Y})\right|
\quad \quad
p(X,Y)=p(Y',\hat{N}_X)\left|\det(J_{Y\rightarrow X})\right|
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation} \label{abs determinant J}
\begin{aligned}
\ \left| \det (J_{X\rightarrow Y}) \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial X'}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial X'}{\partial Y}\\
\frac{\partial \hat{N}_Y}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial \hat{N}_Y}{\partial Y}
\end{pmatrix} \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial X}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial X}{\partial Y}\\
\frac{\partial (Y-\hat{f}(X))}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial (Y-\hat{f}(X))}{\partial Y}
\end{pmatrix} \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\frac{\partial \hat{f}(X)}{\partial X} & 1
\end{pmatrix} \right| = 1 ,
\\
\ \left| \det (J_{Y\rightarrow X}) \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial Y'}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial Y'}{\partial Y}\\
\frac{\partial \hat{N}_X}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial \hat{N}_X}{\partial Y}
\end{pmatrix} \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial Y}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial Y}{\partial Y}\\
\frac{\partial(X-\hat{g}(Y))}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial (X-\hat{g}(Y))}{\partial Y}
\end{pmatrix} \right| =
\left| \det \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & -\frac{\partial \hat{g}(Y)}{\partial Y}
\end{pmatrix}\right| = 1 ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $J_{X\rightarrow Y}$ denotes the Jacobian matrix of the transformation from $(X, Y)^{T}$ to $(X', \hat{N}_{Y})^{T}$ and $J_{Y\rightarrow X}$ vice versa.
Thus using Eq. \ref{abs determinant J}, we rewrite the last terms in both sides of \ref{MI compare}:
\begin{equation} \label{distribution transformation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\log p(X,\hat{N}_Y) = \mathbb{E}\log p(X',\hat{N}_Y) = \mathbb{E}(\log p(X,Y) / \left| \det(J_{X\to Y}) \right| )= \mathbb{E}\log p(X,Y)\\
\mathbb{E}\log p(Y,\hat{N}_X) = \mathbb{E}\log p(Y',\hat{N}_X) = \mathbb{E}(\log p(X,Y) / \left| \det(J_{Y\to X}) \right| )= \mathbb{E}\log p(X,Y)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using \ref{MI compare} and \ref{distribution transformation}, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
H\left(X\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{Y}\right) < H\left(Y\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{X}\right),
\end{equation}
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Additional Experimental Details}
\subsection{Algorithm Parameter Settings}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameter Settings} \label{parameter table}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
Parameter & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Symbol} & Value & Applicable to \\
\midrule
threshold on $W$ & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\omega$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{0.3} & all \\
\multirow{2}{*}{acyclity penalty} & \multirow{2}{*}{$h(W)$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$tr\left(e^{W \circ W}\right)-d$} & NOTEARS, NOTEARS-MLP , \\
& & & ours, ours-MLP \\
acyclity penalty & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$h(W)$} & $tr\left((I+\frac{W \circ W}{d})^d\right)-d$ & DAG-GNN \\
$h$ tolerance & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\epsilon$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$10^{-8}$} & all \\
$h$ progress rate & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$c$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$0.25$} & all \\
initial Lagrange multiplier & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$\alpha_0$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$0$} & all \\
$\rho$ increase factor & & \multicolumn{1}{l}{10} & all \\
$\rho$ maximum & & $10^{16}$ & all \\
\multirow{2}{*}{optimize algorithms} & \multirow{2}{*}{ } & \multirow{2}{*}{L-BFGS} & NOTEARS, NOTEARS-MLP , \\
& & & ours, ours-MLP \\
optimize algorithms & & Adam & DAG-GNN \\
seed & & $123$ & all \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab:addlabel}%
\end{table}%
Parameter settings for all algorithms are shown in Table \ref{parameter table}. We use the least-squares loss $ \frac{1}{2m} \| \mathbf{X} - \mathbf{X} W \|^2_F + \lambda \left\|W\right\|_1 $ regardless of the noise type for NOTEARS \citep{zheng2018dags} and NOTEARS-MLP \citep{zheng2020learning}. We use the negative ELBO as the object function under standard Gaussian noise assumption for DAG-GNN \citep{yu2019dag}. For \textbf{our} and \textbf{our-MLP}, we use entropy-based loss as the objective function. The NOTEARS code is available at \url{https://github.com/xunzheng/notears } and the DAG-GNN code is available at \url{https://github.com/fishmoon1234/DAG-GNN } . Our code is available at Supplemental Material.
\subsection{Computing Environment}
Solution times were obtained using a single CPU (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40GHz).
\subsection{License}
We strictly follow the agreement of Apache-2.0 license used by NOTEARS code and do not use NOTEARS code commercially.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\section{Introduction}
Learning causal structure from observational data has become an important topic in many scientific fields, such as economics \citep{ghysels2016testing}, biology \citep{grosse2016identification}, and social science \citep{cai2016understanding}. Due to the expensive cost or the ethic of randomized experiments, the task of causal discovery from purely observational data has been drawn much attention.
Many approaches have been proposed for learning causal structure. Traditionally, by utilizing the conditional independence property among observed variables, the constraint-based approaches have been proposed, e.g., PC algorithm \citep{spirtes2000causation}, but only identify the underlying directed acyclic graph (DAG) up to Markov equivalence class \citep{andersson1997characterization}. Alternatively, by introducing a certain class of Structure Causal Model (SCM), and further assuming the causal mechanism that the noise and the hypothetical cause are independent, the functional-based causal models have been proposed, e.g., the Linear Non-Gaussian Acyclic Model (LiNGAM) \citep{shimizu2006linear}, the Additive Noise Model (ANM) \citep{hoyer2008nonlinear}, and the Post-Nonlinear causal Model (PNL) \citep{zhang2012identifiability}. However, due to the intractable search space superexponential in graph nodes, learning DAGs using functional-based causal models is challenging.
Recently, NOTEARS \citep{zheng2018dags}, under the additive noise model assumption, formulates the causal structure learning problem as a continuous optimization problem using least-square loss with a continuous DAG constraint. Such a technique has been extensively developed and applied to learning linear or nonlinear causal structures. \cite{yu2019dag} introduces a variational autoencoder framework for modeling the generative process of a causal structure equipped with evidence lower bound with a Gaussian prior of noise which is implemented by least-square loss. \cite{ng2019graph} and \cite{zheng2020learning} extend a linear causal model into a nonlinear causal model using neural networks but still rely on the least-square loss for reconstruction.
However, our analysis shows that using least-square loss as the score function will hinder the causal direction identification. In a linear system, such loss will be highly influenced by the causal strengths and the noise variances leading to a bias estimation comparing with the likelihood score. In a more general nonlinear system, the causal direction will be incorrectly identified if noise distribution has strong non-Gaussianity property.
In this paper, we show that the entropy-based loss is consistent with the likelihood score under the additive noise model using any noise distribution, and thus we advocate using the entropy-based loss instead of least-square loss. Overall, our contributions are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In Section \ref{sec:Limitations}, we study the limitations of least-square loss and provide theoretical bounds that least-square loss will fail to identify the causal direction in a linear and nonlinear system, respectively.
\item In Section \ref{sec:entropy}, we build a connection between the entropy-based loss and the log-likelihood score, and further provide the theory for its validness.
\item In Section \ref{sec:experiment}, we run extensive experiments over linear and nonlinear systems by using both synthetic data and real-world data and show our method performs more effectively and stably.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Works}
\textbf{Related to least-square loss:}
\cite{blobaum2018cause, blobaum2019analysis} address the problem of inferring the causal relation between two variables using least-square loss under the modularity property, i.e., the independence between the function and the distribution of cause. \cite{peters2014identifiability} prove the full identifiability of the linear Gaussian structural equation in case that all noise variables have the same variance.
\textbf{Related to NOTEARS:} \cite{yu2019dag} proposes an alternative characterization of acyclicity and utilizes a generative model to learn the nonlinear causal structure.
\cite{ng2019graph} utilizes a graph autoencoder framework to extend the linear SCM to nonlinear SCM. \cite{ng2019masked} extends to nonlinearity by putting the weighted matrix on the first layer of MLP. \cite{lachapelle2019gradient} expresses weighted matrix by neural network paths to deal with the nonlinear case. \cite{zheng2020learning} proposes a more general acyclicity constraint based on partial derivatives to support nonlinear models.
\section{Preliminary}
\subsection{Structure Causal Model}
Causal discovery problems can be formalized by a Structure Causal Model (SCM) \citep{didelez2001judea}. Given a set of random variables $ X=\left\{X_1,X_2,\dots,X_d\right\}$ and the corresponding noises $N=\left\{N_1,N_2,\dots,N_d\right\}$, SCM between $X_{i}$ and its direct parents $X_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}\left(i\right)}$ with respect to a DAG $\mathcal{G}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
X_i = f_i \left(X_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}\left(i\right)}, N_i\right),
\end{equation}
where $f_i$ could be a linear or nonlinear function. Following the previous works \citep{zheng2018dags}, we consider the additive noise model, i.e., $X_i = f_i \left(X_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}\left(i\right)}\right) + N_i$, and assume the causal sufficiency holds.
\subsection{NOTEARS}
\cite{zheng2018dags} proposed a continuous optimization for learning causal structure, using least-square loss with an acyalicity constraint. Given a set of observational data $\left\{ x_1^{(i)},\dots,x_d^{(i)}\right\}_{i=1}^m $ which is sampled from a joint distribution $p(X)$, we assume that the joint ditritbution is Markov with respect to a ground truth DAG $\mathcal{G}$ and can be factorized as $p(X)=\prod_{i=1}^dp(X_i|X_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)})$. Then the corresponding design matrix is $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$.
In particular, the directed graph in a linear SCM can be encoded by a weighted adjacency matrix $W \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, i.e., $ X = W^{\mathsf{T}} X + N$. \cite{zheng2018dags} shows that $W$ represents a DAG if and only if $tr\left(e^{W \circ W}\right)-d = 0$ holds, where $ \circ $ denotes the Hadamard product. Then, NOTEARS formulates the causal structure leaning problem as the following continuous optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\mathop{\arg\min}_{W \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d} } \frac{1}{2m} \| \mathbf{X} - \mathbf{X} W \|^2_F + \lambda \left\|W\right\|_1 \quad \text{subject to} \quad tr\left(e^{W \circ W}\right)-d = 0,
\end{equation}
where $ \frac{1}{2m} \| \mathbf{X} - \mathbf{X} W \|^2_F$ is the least-square loss and is equal, up to constant, to the log-likelihood score of a linear Gaussian DAG with equal noise variances, and $\left\|W\right\|_1$ denotes the $\ell_1$ penalty term on the causal structure.
\section{Limitations of Least-Square Loss} \label{sec:Limitations}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Accuracy varies with various causal strength]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{graph/mse_weight_shortcoming.pdf}
\label{figure 1a}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure[Accuracy varies with various variance of $N_{X}$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{graph/mse_variance_nx_shortcoming.pdf}
\label{figure 1b}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure[Accuracy varies with various variance of $N_{Y}$]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{graph/mse_variance_ny_shortcoming.pdf}
\label{figure 1c}
}
\caption{Control experiments of accuracy with respect to different conditions in linear system. At each experiments, we will control one of the parameters while fix others. The default parameters are set as $\alpha=0.5$, $\sigma_{N_{X}}=2$, and $\sigma_{N_{Y}} = 1$. And the controlled parameters will varies form $\alpha=[0.5,1]$, $\sigma_{N_{X}}=[0.6,1.6]$, $\sigma_{N_{Y}}=[0.6,1.6]$.
} \label{figure 1}
\end{figure*}
This section discusses why methods based on least-square loss fail to discover the underlying causal structure, and we theoretically show the conditions that they fail in both linear and nonlinear cases.
Without loss of generality, we analyze the causal pair of two variables, and assume that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
X & =N_{X} ,\\
Y & =\begin{cases}
\alpha X+N_{Y} & \text{Linear}\\
f(X)+N_{Y} & \text{Nonlinear}
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the variance $\text{Var}(N_{X})=\sigma_{N_{X}}^{2}$, $\text{Var}(N_{Y})=\sigma_{N_{Y}}^{2}$, $N_{X} \Vbar N_{Y}$, and $f$ is a nonlinear function.
To see the limitations of least-square loss, we take the two variables as an example. We run NOTEARS 100 times using the least-square loss with 400 samples per experiment in linear Gaussian, Uniform, and Gumbel data. As shown in Figure \ref{figure 1}, the accuracy is highly controlled by the causal strength as well as the noise variance. We see that using the least-square loss, NOTEARS could fail even under the non-Gaussian distribution that is notably identifiable \citep{shimizu2006linear}. The reason is the mismatch between the truth distribution and the standard Gaussian distribution implied by the least-square loss. In addition, due to the non-identifiability of the linear Gaussian causal model, the causal direction can still be controlled by the causal strength and the noise variance.
Next, we will formally analyze the condition that least-square loss fails to identify the causal direction in the linear and nonlinear cases.
\subsection{Linear Case}
In the linear case, let $X \rightarrow Y$ denotes the causal direction from cause $X$ to effect $Y$, and let $Y \rightarrow X$ denote the anti-causal direction. Let $\sigma_{X}^{2}$ denote the variance of variable $X$. Let $\beta_{Y|X}$ be the linear regression coefficient obtained from regressing $Y$ on $X$, and let $\sigma_{Y|X}^{2} = \text{Var}(Y - \beta _{Y|X} \cdot X)$ be the variance of the residual of regressing $Y$ on $X$.
Then, for the causal direction, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:linear causal}
\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{X|\phi}^{2} = \sigma_{N_X}^{2}, \quad
\beta_{Y|X} = \frac{\alpha \sigma_{X}^{2}}{\sigma_{X}^{2}} = \alpha, \quad
\sigma_{Y|X}^{2} = \sigma_{N_Y}^{2}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For the reverse direction, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:linear anti-causal}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^{2}_{Y|\phi } & =\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} ,\quad \beta _{X|Y} =\frac{\alpha \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\sigma ^{2}_{Y|\phi }} =\frac{\alpha \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}},\\
\sigma ^{2}_{X|Y} & = \text{Var} (X-\beta _{X|Y} Y)=\frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that NOTEARS will prefer the direction that has a smaller least-square loss. Thus, we are interested to see in what condition NOTEARS will fail, i.e., the least-square loss satisfying $LS_{X \to Y} > LS_{Y \to X}$. By using the above derivation, we can show such a condition in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem mseLinear}
Let $X \to Y$ be the causal direction following the data generation mechanism $X=N_X,Y = \alpha X + N_Y$. The least-square loss will fail to identify the correct causal direction if the causal strength $\alpha$, the noise variances $\sigma_{N_X}^{2}$ and $\sigma_{N_Y}^{2}$ satisfy the following inequality:
\begin{equation} \label{inequality mselinear}
\alpha ^{2} < 1 - \frac{\sigma_{N_Y}^{2}}{\sigma_{N_X}^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that the least-square loss in the additive noise model is equivalent to the summation of estimated noise variance. Thus, using the Eq. \ref{equ:linear causal}, the least-square loss in the direction of $\displaystyle X\rightarrow Y$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equ:mse linear causal}
LS_{X\rightarrow Y} =\mathbb{E}\left[( X-0)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[( Y-\beta _{Y|X} \cdot X)^{2}\right] =\sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} ,
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle \beta _{Y|X}$ is the coefficient obtained from linear regression. Similarly, using Eq. \ref{equ:linear anti-causal}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{equ:mse linear anti-causal}
LS_{Y\rightarrow X} =\mathbb{E}\left[( X-\beta _{X|Y} \cdot Y)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[( Y-0)^{2}\right] =\frac{\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}}}{\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}}} +\alpha ^{2} \sigma ^{2}_{N_{X}} +\sigma ^{2}_{N_{Y}} .
\end{equation}
Using Eq. \ref{equ:mse linear causal} and \ref{equ:mse linear anti-causal}, we consider the condition that the loss in causal direction is larger than the loss in the reverse direction, i.e., $LS_{X\rightarrow Y} >LS_{Y\rightarrow X}$, and we obtain \ref{inequality mselinear}. The details of derivation are given in Appendix \ref{appendix A}.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{theorem mseLinear} indicates that, under the linear additive noise model assumption, the least-square loss could fail to identify the correct causal direction unless the inequality \ref{inequality mselinear} does not hold. It is also interesting to see that if all noises follow the standard Gaussian distribution, we have $\sigma_{N_X}^{2} = \sigma_{N_Y}^{2}$, then the causal direction can still be correctly identified because the inequality $\alpha^2<0$ must not hold. However, it is unrealistic that all noises follow the same standard Gaussian distribution in the real world. And a simple standardization that is usually used for preprocessing will invalidate the assumption. In addition, Theorem \ref{theorem mseLinear} also explains the experiments in Figure \ref{figure 1} that why the change of causal strength or the noise variance will change the causal orientation.
Therefore, we conclude that the least-square loss is not a suitable score for learning linear causal structure.
\subsection{Nonlinear Case} \label{sec:nonlinear}
In the nonlinear case, we study SCM between $X \to Y$ with the nonlinear additive form $Y=f(X)+N_{Y}$. To show the limitation of least-square loss in a nonlinear case, we aim to show that using the least-square loss can be viewed as minimizing the mutual information between the noise and cause variables but with bias such that the independence measure will be not reliable, leading to identify the wrong direction. To do so, we first show that maximizing likelihood is equivalent to minimizing the mutual information between the cause and the noise variables (Lemma \ref{lemma 1}). Then, we further show that maximizing the likelihood under the standard Gaussian noise assumption is equivalent to minimizing the least-square loss (Lemma \ref{lemma 2}). Combing with Lemma \ref{lemma 1} and Lemma \ref{lemma 2}, we conclude that using least-square loss, the mutual information will be biased (Lemma \ref{lemma 3}). Finally, by considering the bias in mutual information, we provide the condition that least-square loss fails in Theorem \ref{theorem:mse nonlinear}.
To be clear, let $\hat{f}$ denote the function of regressing $Y$ on $X$, and $\hat{g}$ denote the function of regressing $X$ on $Y$. Keep in mind that $N_X$ and $N_Y$ are the noise variables.
To avoid ambiguity, we denote that: $\hat{N}_Y := Y-\hat{f}(X) $ and $\hat{N}_X := X-\hat{g}(Y) $.
Let $J_{X \to Y}$ denote the Jacobian matrix of the transformation from $(X, N_{Y})^{T}$ to $(X, Y)^{T}$ , i.e., $J_{X \to Y} = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial X}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial X}{\partial N_Y}\\
\frac{\partial Y}{\partial X} & \frac{\partial Y}{\partial N_Y}
\end{pmatrix}$, and let $J_{Y\to X}$ denote the Jacobian matrix of the transformation from $(Y, \hat{N}_{X})^{T}$ to $(Y, X)^{T}$.
\begin{lemma}[Theorem 2 in \cite{zhang2015estimation}] \label{lemma 1}
Given samples $\left\{x^{( i)} ,y^{( i)}\right\}^{m}_{i=1}$, and the causal model $Y=f(X,N_{Y} ;\theta )$ with any parameters $\displaystyle \theta $ and the estimated residual $\hat{N}_{Y}$, the log-likelihood $l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )$ and the mutual information between $X$ and $\hat{N}_Y$ are related in the following way:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mutual information vs likelihood}
I(X,\hat{N}_{Y} ;\theta )=\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{( i)} ,Y=y^{( i)} )-\frac{1}{m} l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta ),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:general_likelihood}
l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )=\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{( i)} )+\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{( i)}_{Y} ;\theta )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_{Y}} |_{N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{( i)}_{Y}}\right| .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lemma 1} builds a connection between the log-likelihood and the mutual information. In the following Lemma, we further build the connection between log-likelihood and the least-square loss.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma 2}
For the additive noise model $Y=f(X)+N_Y$, maximizing the log-likelihood $l_{X\to Y}(\theta)$ with the standard Gaussian noise assumption:
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:gaussian_likelihood}
\begin{aligned}
l_{X\rightarrow Y} (\theta )=\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\exp\left( -\frac{(x^{( i)} -0)^{2}}{2}\right)\right) +\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\exp\left( -\frac{(y^{( i)} -\hat{f} (x^{( i)} ;\theta ))^{2}}{2}\right)\right) \\
- \sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log\left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_{Y}} |_{N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{(i)}_{Y}}\right| .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
is equivalent to minimizing the least-square loss $LS_{X \to Y}$:
\begin{equation*}
LS_{X\rightarrow Y} =\mathbb{E}\left[ (X-0)^{2}\right] +\mathbb{E}\left[ (Y-\hat{f} (X))^{2}\right] .
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Based on Lemma \ref{lemma 1} and Lemma \ref{lemma 2}, one can straightforward develop the following Lemma that using the least-square loss will introduce the standard Gaussian distribution in the mutual information.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma 3}
For the additive noise model, minimizing the least-square loss is equivalent to minimizing the mutual information under the standard Gaussian noise assumption with the following form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gaussian mutual information}
\begin{aligned}
I_q(X,\hat{N}_{Y} ;\theta ) & =\frac{1}{m}\left(\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log p(X=x^{(i)} ,Y=y^{(i)} )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log q(X=x^{(i)} )-\sum ^{m}_{i=1}\log q(N_{Y} =\hat{n}^{(i)}_{Y} ;\theta )\right) ,\\
& =\mathbb{E}_{x,y\sim p( x,y)}[\log p(X=x,Y=y)-\log q(X=x)-\log q(N_{Y} =\hat{n}_{Y} ;\theta )] .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle q$ is the density function of standard Gaussian distribution.
\end{lemma}
Based on Lemma \ref{lemma 3}, in the following theorem, we show that in what condition the least-square loss will fail.
\begin{theorem} Let $X \to Y$ be the causal direction following the data generation mechanism $Y = f(X) + N_Y$. The causal direction is non-identifiable using least-square loss if the following inequality holds: \label{theorem:mse nonlinear}
\begin{equation} \label{inequality:mse nonlinear}
\begin{array}{l}
-\int p(X)\log q(X) -\int p(N_{Y})\log q(N_{Y})
> -\int p(Y)\log q(Y) -\int p(\hat{N}_{X} )\log q(\hat{N}_{X} ),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where q is the density function of standard Gaussian distribution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we assume the identifiability condition of the additive noise model holds. Then, we have $I(X,N_{Y} )< I(Y,\hat{N}_{X} )$. However, based on Lemma 3, using the least-square loss, the mutual information becomes:
\begin{equation} \label{I_g}
\begin{aligned}
I_{q} (X,N_{Y} ) & =-\int p(X)\log q(X)-\int p(N_{Y} )\log q(N_{Y} )+\int p(X,Y)\log p(X,Y),\\
I_{q} (Y,\hat{N}_{X} ) & =-\int p(Y)\log q(Y)-\int p(\hat{N}_{X} )\log q(\hat{N}_{X} )+\int p(X,Y)\log p(X,Y),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $q\sim N(0,I)$. In this cases, the inequality $\displaystyle I_{q} (X,N_{Y} )< I_{q} (Y,\hat{N}_{X} )$ is not necessary holds. In fact, by solving the inequality $\displaystyle I_{q} (X,N_{Y} ) >I_{q} (Y,\hat{N}_{X} )$ using \ref{I_g}, we obtain \ref{inequality:mse nonlinear}, which is the condition that least-square fails.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{theorem:mse nonlinear} shows that if inequality \ref{inequality:mse nonlinear} holds, the least-square loss could fail especially when Kullback-Leibler divergence between distribution $p(X)$ or $p(N_Y)$ and the standard Gaussian distribution is large.
For example, let $Y=\text{sigmoid}(X) +N_{Y}$ where $X \sim \text{Uniform}\left(-C, C\right)$ and $ N_{Y} \sim \text{Uniform}\left( -1,1\right)$. In this case, we can simply increase $C$ such that $-\int p(X)\log q(X)$ will tend to infinity while $Y$ and $\hat{N}_X$ are bounded due to the sigmoid function, such that the right hand side in \ref{inequality:mse nonlinear} are also bound, and hence the inequality must hold.
Therefore, it is necessary to use the correct distribution setting $q=p$ to obtain the correct result, which inspires a way that uses the entropy-based loss instead.
\section{Structure Learning Using Entropy-based Loss} \label{sec:entropy}
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:Limitations}, using least-square loss, which is equivalent to assuming the distribution of all noise terms is standard Gaussian distribution, will result in the incorrect causal identification. The reason for these errors is the mismatch of the truth distribution and the assumed standard Gaussian distribution.
Instead of using the square operator in least-square loss, we can replace it with the entropy such that:
\begin{equation}
\min \sum_{i=1}^d H(N_i) + \lambda \left\|W\right\|_1 \quad \text{subject to} \quad tr\left(e^{W \circ W}\right)-d = 0,
\end{equation}
where $H\left(N_i\right) = - \int p\left(N_i\right)\log p\left(N_i\right)$ denotes the entropy of variable $N_i$.
To explain why we use entropy-based loss, we first show that the entropy-based loss is consistent with the log-likelihood score under the additive noise model (see Theorem \ref{theorem entropy vs likelihood}). Based on Theorem \ref{theorem entropy vs likelihood}, by utilizing identifiability results in terms of likelihood, it is easy to show that the entropy-based loss is also identifiable.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem entropy vs likelihood}
In additive noise model, the entropy-based score has a consistency with the log-likelihood score when the sample sizes $m \rightarrow \infty $, that is
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{m}\sum ^{m}_{j=1}\sum ^{d}_{i=1}\log p\left( x^{(j)}_{i} |x^{( j)}_{pa_{\mathcal{G}}( i)}\right) =-\sum ^{d}_{i=1} H(N_{i} ).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem entropy vs likelihood} indicates that, under the additive noise model, the entropy-based loss is consistent with the log-likelihood score, while \cite{JMLR:v15:peters14a} had proven that under the ANM model, the log-likelihood is able to distinguish the causal direction under a mild assumption. Hence, the entropy-based loss has the same property, which is illustrated in the following corollary:
\begin{corollary} \label{corollary:ent asymmetry}
For each pair of additive noise model $Y=f(X)+N_Y$, if $v^{\prime\prime}(Y-f(X))f^{\prime}(X) \neq 0$ and the following condition holds:
\begin{equation}
\small
\xi^{\prime\prime\prime} = \xi^{\prime\prime} \left( - \frac{v^{\prime\prime\prime} f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} + \frac{f^{\prime\prime}}{f^{\prime}} \right) - 2v^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime} + v^{\prime}f^{\prime\prime\prime} + \frac{v^{\prime}v^{\prime\prime\prime}f^{\prime\prime}f^{\prime}}{v^{\prime\prime}} - \frac{v^{\prime}(f^{\prime\prime})^2}{f^{\prime}},
\end{equation}
where $v \coloneq \log p(N_Y)$, $\xi\coloneq \log p(X)$, then using the entropy-based loss each pair of additive model is identifiable and the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
H\left(X\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{Y}\right) < H\left(Y\right) + H\left(\hat{N}_{X}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Corollary \ref{corollary:ent asymmetry} illustrates the validity of the entropy-based loss under the additive noise model, which is based on the consistency with the likelihood score, indicating that by comparing the entropy of residuals between causal and anti-causal direction, we can identify the cause and effect variables in most cases.
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:experiment}
To investigate the effectiveness of the entropy loss, we compare it with baseline algorithms on both synthetic data and real-world data. The synthetic data are generated from linear non-Gaussian data and nonlinear additive noise data, respectively. The following algorithms that use the least-square loss for data reconstruction are taken as the baseline: NOTEARS \citep{zheng2018dags}, DAG-GNN \citep{yu2019dag}, NOTEARS-MLP \citep{zheng2020learning}. We reuse the parameter settings for those baseline algorithms in their original papers and codes.
For the differential entropy estimator, it turn out that the method proposed by \cite{10.5555/302528.302606} is well suit for this problem. in which the entropy can be estimated using following method:
\begin{equation}
H(X) \approx
H(\nu)-\left[k_{1}\left(E\left\{\bar{G}_{1}(X)\right\}\right)^{2}
+k_{2}\left(E\left\{\bar{G}_{2}(X)\right\}-E\left\{\bar{G}_{2}(\nu)\right\}\right)^{2}\right],
\end{equation}
where $k_{1} = 36/\left(8\sqrt{3}-9\right)$, $k_{2} = 24/\left(16\sqrt{3}-27\right)$, $\bar{G}_{1}(X) = X\exp\left(-X^{2}/2\right)$, $\bar{G}_{2}(X) = \exp\left(-X^{2}/2\right)$, $\bar{G}_{2}(\nu) = \sqrt{1/2}$, and $H(\nu) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\log(2\pi)\right)$.
Our implementation, denoted by \textbf{ours} (linear) and \textbf{ours-MLP} (nonlinear), is based on the codes of NOTEARS \citep{zheng2018dags} and NOTEARS-MLP \citep{zheng2020learning}, respectively. Following the previous works, the numerical optimize algorithms L-BFGS \citep{byrd1995limited} is used for optimization, and we will prune the edges after training with a small threshold $\omega = 0.3$ to rule out cycle-inducing edges.
In linear non-Gaussian case, the data are generated according to the following linear structure equations, $ X_i = \Sigma_{j \in pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)} \beta_{ij} X_j + N_j$ with random causal strength $\beta_{ij} \sim \text{Uniform}(-0.4, -0.8) \cup \text{Uniform}(0.4, 0.8) $ and the noise $N_j \sim \sigma_{N_j}*\text{Uniform}(-\sqrt{3},\sqrt{3})$ or $N_j \sim \sigma_{N_j}*\text{Gumbel}(0,\frac{\sqrt{6}}{\pi})$ with random standard deviation $\sigma_{N_j} \sim \text{Uniform}(0.5, 1.0)$. In nonlinear case, the data are generated according to the following nonlinear SCM: $X_i = \text{tanh}\left(\Sigma_{j \in pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)}\beta_{1,ij} X_j \right) + \text{cos}\left(\Sigma_{j \in pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)}\beta_{2,ij} X_j \right) + \text{sin}\left(\Sigma_{j \in pa_{\mathcal{G}}(i)}\beta_{3,ij} X_j \right) + N_j$ with random causal strength $\beta_{k,ij} \sim \text{Uniform}(0.5, 2.0)$ for $k=1,2,3$ and the noise $N_j \sim \sigma_{N_j}*\text{Uniform}(-\sqrt{3},\sqrt{3})$ with random standard deviation $\sigma_{N_j} \sim \text{Uniform}(0.5, 1.0)$.
Following previous works, Structural Hamming Distance (SHD), False Discovery Rate (FDR), and True Positive Rate (TPR) are recorded as the evaluation metrics for all algorithms.
\subsection{Synthetic Structures}
In this section, we design a series of controlled experiments with respect to the sample sizes and the number of variables on the synthetic random causal structures. At each experiment, we will control one of the parameters while fixing others. The range of the above controlled parameters are as follows: the number of samples=$\{200, 400, \textbf{600}, 800, 1000\}$ and the number of variables$=\{5, 10, \textbf{15}, 20, 25\}$ with in-degree=2 where the default setting is marked as bold. All experiments will run at least ten times.
\subsubsection{Linear Case}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Uniform $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ variables=15]{ \label{figure 2a}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_linear_uniform1530_sampleVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_linear_uniform1530_sampleVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_linear_uniform1530_sampleVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[Uniform $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ samples=600]{ \label{figure 2b}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_linear_uniform600_nodeVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_linear_uniform600_nodeVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_linear_uniform600_nodeVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[Gumbel $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ samples=600]{ \label{figure 2c}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_linear_gumbel600_nodeVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_linear_gumbel600_nodeVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_linear_gumbel600_nodeVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Structure recovery in linear data in terms of SHD, FDR and TPR to the true graph: in Figure \ref{figure 2a}, the noises are Uniform, the number of variables and edges are 15 and 30; in Figure \ref{figure 2b}, the noises are Uniform, and the sample sizes are 600; in Figure \ref{figure 2c}, the noises are Gumbel, and the sample sizes are 600.
} \label{figure 2}
\end{figure*}
In this part, we perform linear experiments on the synthetic linear non-Gaussian data. Here, we test our method on Uniform and the Gumbel distribution, respectively. Each algorithm runs 30 times for all experiments.
As shown in Figure \ref{figure 2}, our method outperforms all baseline methods on the three controlled experiments. Moreover, by using the entropy-based method, we have the least deviation error. It is also interesting to see the significant difference between ours and the NOTEARS, which verifies that the algorithm could learn the reverse causal direction using least-square loss. In detail, in Figure \ref{figure 2a}, as the sample size increase, all methods has the better performance, and we can see that when the sample size is small, we still outperform the other methods, which shows the robustness of our method. In Figure \ref{figure 2b} and \ref{figure 2b}, in general, the performance decrease as the number of variables increases, but compared with the baseline methods, our method decreases slowly.
In addition, we can see that under different distributions, our method has similar performance within experimental errors, which verifies the Theorem \ref{theorem mseLinear}.
\subsubsection{Nonlinear Case}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Uniform $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ variables=15]{ \label{figure 3a}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_nonlinear_uniform_var3_sampleVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_nonlinear_uniform_var3_sampleVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_nonlinear_uniform_var3_sampleVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[Uniform $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ samples=600]{ \label{figure 3b}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_nonlinear_uniform_1530var3_nodesVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_nonlinear_uniform_1530var3_nodesVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_nonlinear_uniform_1530var3_nodesVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[Uniform $\quad$ noises $\quad$ with $\quad$ variables=15]{ \label{figure 3c}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.31\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/SHD_nonlinear_uniform600_1530_stdVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/FDR_nonlinear_uniform600_1530_stdVary.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{graph/TPR_nonlinear_uniform600_1530_stdVary.pdf}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Structure recovery in nonlinear data in terms of SHD, FDR and TPR to the true graph: in figure \ref{figure 3a}, the noises are uniform with variance=3.0 and the number of variables and edges are 15 and 30; in Figure \ref{figure 3b}, the noises are Uniform with variance=3.0 and the number of sample sizes is 600; in Figure \ref{figure 3c}, the noises are Uniform, the number of sample sizes is 600, and the number of variables and edges are 15 and 30.
} \label{figure 3}
\end{figure*}
In this part, we test our entropy-based loss in nonlinear data. To further verify the Theorem \ref{theorem entropy vs likelihood} we generate the nonlinear data using Uniform distribution with different variances. That is, the higher the variance, the more non-Gaussianity. In the controlled experiments we further test our method on different noise variance=$\{1, 2, \textbf{3}, 4, 5\}$. Each algorithm will run at least ten times.
The results are given in Figure \ref{figure 3}. Overall, our method generally outperforms the baseline methods showing the robustness of our method in variable-varying and variance-varying cases. In detail, in Figure \ref{figure 3a}, we notice that comparing with the linear data, all methods require more data to acquire a decent performance, but our method still outperforms the baseline methods. For our method, 600 is a decent choice for the sample sizes. In figure \ref{figure 3b}, with the growing number of variables, the performance of NOTEARS-MLP decreases rapidly while our method remains stable. The reason is that as the number of variables grows, the edges increase simultaneously, and the incorrectly identified edges will also increase. In Figure \ref{figure 3b}, we can see that our method is not sensitive to the noise variances while the performance of other methods decreases rapidly as the variances grow. The reason is that the variance controls the noise non-Gaussianity making it far from the standard Gaussian. Therefore, the entropy-based loss is stable and identifiable under any distribution while other methods will lose its identifiability.
\subsection{Real-World Data}
Following previous works, we use the real-world data set provided by \cite{sachs2005causal}. This data set contains 7466 groups of continuous expression levels of 20 measured molecules in human immune system cells. The consensus network, accepted by the biological community, is represented by a Bayesian network with 11 variables and 20 edges. Compared with NOTEARS that predicts 16 edges with an SHD of 22, $\textbf{ours}$ predicts 19 edges with an SHD of 21, which shows the effectiveness of our method with higher recall and precision. Compared with NOTEARS-MLP predicting 13 edges with an SHD of 16, and DAG-GNN predicting 18 edges with an SHD of 19, $\textbf{ours-MLP}$ has a similar result predicting 13 edges with an SHD of 16.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we re-examine the least-square loss for learning causal structures in causal discovery and advocate to use a more general entropy-based loss as the objective function. Our analysis shows that the least-square loss is problematic to learn the underlying causal structure if the standard Gaussian noise assumption does not hold. On the contrary, the entropy-based loss is consistent with the log-likelihood score, which is robust and effective for learning causal structures. Our experimental results verify the proposed theoretical results and show the effectiveness of the proposed entropy-based loss. A clear next step is to generalize the theory and algorithms to a more general causal mechanism.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Despite the remarkable progress we have witnessed in neural-network-based machine learning, the stories of failures continue to accumulate \cite{geirhos2020shortcut}. Many of these failures are attributed to models exploiting spurious correlations or shortcuts (i.e. factors that are not used to generate the label). A colloquial example comes from \cite{beery2018recognition} where the authors show how a neural network trained to distinguish cows from camels exploits shortcut such as background color for prediction. In a much more concerning example, \cite{degrave2020ai} show how machine learning systems trained to detect COVID-19 exploited the data source (e.g., hospital) to artificially boost inference performance.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{figures/erm_lth.pdf}
\hspace{0.35cm}
\caption{OOD performance of models with different structures when trained with ERM algorithm on \textsc{FullColoredMNIST}. The oracle subnetwork and our MRM method significantly surpass the performance of full network. See details in Section~\ref{sec:lth}. }
\label{fig:erm_lth}
\end{figure}
What causes these failures? Recent works \cite{peters2016causal, Arjovsky2019InvariantRM} argue the principle of empirical risk minimization (ERM) is at fault: if the data is generated from a fully observed causal bayesian network (CBN), then ERM would typically use all the features in the Markov blanket including those which are not the causes of the label. It may consequently fail to perform well under distribution shifts. This is known as the out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization problem.
In an effort to alleviate the problem, \citet{peters2016causal} proposes to first identify the target's causal parents, and constrain the model structure by only updating the parameters for the parents.
Nevertheless, their approach is only applicable for linear problem.
\citet{sagawa2020investigation} also analyze the problem from a model structure perspective, but focusing on deep neural networks and showing that overparameterization will hurt OOD performance through data memorization and overfitting. Rather than focusing model structure, most recent works \cite{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM, sagawa2019distributionally, ahuja2020invariant, Krueger2020OutofDistributionGV, jin2020domain, koyama2020out, creager2020exchanging} mainly target improvements in the objective function over ERM.
In this work, we set out to study the effect of the model structure in OOD generalization beyond simple considerations of model capacity.
We begin by demonstrating that even already trained models that exploit spurious correlation can contain subnetworks that capture invariant features. We then turn to investigate whether the choice of structure matters in the training process. To this end, we propose a functional lottery ticket hypothesis -- a full network contains a subnetwork that can possibly achieve \textit{better} performance for OOD generalization than full network.
We confirm this hypothesis by experiments on a manually crafted dataset (Figure~\ref{fig:erm_lth}) with our ``oracle'' subnetwork that uses information from OOD examples. As a practical method to that avoids the use of OOD information, we propose the Modular Risk Minimization (MRM) approach. MRM is a simple algorithm to address OOD tasks via structure learning. Our approach hunts for subnetworks with a better OOD inductive bias and can also combine with other OOD algorithms, bringing consistent performance improvement.
We summarize our contributions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\item We show that large trained networks that exploit spurious correlations contain subnetworks that are less susceptible to these spurious shortcuts.
\item We propose a novel functional lottery ticket hypothesis: there exists a subnetwork that can achieve better OOD and commensurate in-distribution accuracy in a comparable number of iterations when trained in isolation.
\item We propose Modular Risk Minimization (MRM), a straightforward and effective algorithm to improve OOD generalization.
MRM helps select subnetworks and can be used in conjunction with other methods (\textit{e.g.}, IRM) and boosts their performance as well.
\end{itemize}
\section{Invariant Prediction}
\subsection{Out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization problem}
\label{sec:intro_OOD}
Consider a supervised learning setting where the data is gathered from different environments and each environment represents a different probability distribution. Let $\left(X^{e}, Y^{e}\right) \sim \mathbb{P}^e$, where $X^e\in \mathcal{X} ,Y^e\in \mathcal{Y} $ stands for the feature random variable and the corresponding label, $e \in \mathcal{E} = \{1, ..., E\}$ is the index for environments, and the set $\mathcal{E}$ corresponds to all possible environments. The
set $\mathcal{E}$ is divided into two sets: seen environments $\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}}$ and unseen
ones $\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{unseen}}$ ($\mathcal{E} = \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}} \cup \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{unseen}}$). The training dataset comprises samples from
$\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}}$. The dataset from environment $e$ is given as $D_e = \{x_i^e,y_i^e\}_{e=1}^{n^e}$, where each point $(x_i^e,y_i^e)$ is an independently identically distributed (IID) sample from $\mathbb{P}^e$ and $n^e$ is the number of samples in environment $e$. We write the training dataset as $D_{\mathsf{train}} = \cup_{e\in \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}}} D_e$.
In the rest of the work, we interchangeably use the term \textit{domain} and \textit{environment}, and we will use \textit{in}-distribution or \textit{in}-domain to refer to seen environmental data, and \textit{out}-distribution or \textit{out}-domain for unseen environmental data.
Let $f_\theta:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ denote the parametrized model with parameters $\theta \in \Theta$. Define the risk achieved by the model as $\mathcal{R}^e(\theta)= \mathbb{E}^{e}\big[\ell(X^{e}, Y^{e})\big]$ where $\ell$ is the loss per sample (\textit{e.g}., cross-entropy, square loss). The goal of out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization problem is to learn a model that solves
\begin{equation}
\min_{\theta\in \Theta}\max_{e\in \mathcal{E}} \mathcal{R}^e(\theta).
\end{equation}
Since we only have access to data from $D_{\mathsf{train}}$ and do not see samples from the unseen environments, the above problem can be challenging to solve.
\textbf{Data generation process.}
We assume $X^e$ is generated from latent variables $Z^e = (Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e, Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e)$. Consider an illustrative example where $X^e$ could be the pixels in images,
while $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}$ denotes invariant features (\textit{e.g.}, foreground) and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}$ denotes spurious features (\textit{e.g.}, background).
We write $X^e = G(Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e, Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e)$, where $G$ is a map from the latent space to the pixel space. $Y^e$ is the label for the object and it is determined based on the following map $Y_e = F(Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e)$. The combination pattern of $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e$ and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ varies across domains, hence generating different environmental distributions. In our description of the data generation, we do not use noise variables to keep things simple ($Y$ is related to $Z$ deterministically and $X$ is related to $G$ deterministically).
Suppose that we can recover $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e$ and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ from $X^e$ and we write these inverse maps as $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e = G^{\dagger}_{\mathsf{inv}}(X^e)$ and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e = G^{\dagger}_{\mathsf{sp}}(X^e)$. The ideal function that the model wants to learn is $F \circ G_{\mathsf{inv}}^{\dagger}$ as it yields zero error and only relies on invariant latents.
However, as we explain next that due to selection biases the model can often find it hard to learn a model that only relies on $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e$.
\textbf{Bias.} To explain why the datasets have a bias, let us consider a simple example, where $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e \in \{-1,1\}^{D_{\mathsf{inv}}}$, $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e \in \{-1,1\}^{D_{\mathsf{sp}}}$ and $Y^e\in \{-1, 1\}$. Suppose each component of $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e$ is $Y^e$ and each component of $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ independently takes a value equal to $Y^e$ with a probability $p^e$ and $-Y^e$ with a probability $1-p^e$. If $p^{e}$ is close to $1$ and $G_{\mathsf{sp}}^{\dagger}$ is an easier function to learn than $G_{\mathsf{inv}}^{\dagger}$, then it is intuitive that the model can instead learn $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ and predict the label $Y_e$. However, this can be catastrophic as the correlation between the spurious feature and the label only holds in the training environments and does not translate to the test environments where $p_e=\frac{1}{2}$.
Even if $p^e$ is small, as long as $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ is high dimensional ($D_{\mathsf{sp}} \gg D_{\mathsf{inv}}$), the model can be shown to significantly rely on $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e$ \cite{nagarajan2020understanding}. The above example uses binary valued latents for ease of exposition, but the same biases can occur in more general settings where the same problems plague the models.
\subsection{A Motivating Example}
In this section, we use a simple example to motivate the constraints we impose in our approach.
Consider the data setting described in the previous section, $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e \in \{-1,1\}$ ($D_{\mathsf{inv}}=1$) and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e \in \{-1,1\}^{D}$ ($D_{\mathsf{sp}}=D$). We take $G$ to be the identity map as in \citet{tsipras2019robustness, rosenfeld2020risks} and thus $X^e = (Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e,Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e)$. Suppose the model $f_\theta$ is a linear predictor; we refer to the components associated with invariant feature as $w_{\mathsf{inv}}$ and those associated with the spurious feature as $\boldsymbol{w}_{\mathsf{sp}}$.
\textit{Learning a sparse classifier:} Find a maximum margin classifier that satisfies the following sparsity constraint: the number of non-zero coefficients $\leq d$. We denote such a classifier as $f_{\mathsf{sparse}}^{d}$.
In the next proposition, we compare the behavior of the sparse classifier that we defined above with a classifier that relies only on spurious features. We construct a regular
classifier $f_{\mathsf{reg}}$ (with unit norm) that purely relies on the spurious features, i.e., $w_{\mathsf{inv}}=0$ and $\boldsymbol{w}_{\mathsf{sp}} = \boldsymbol{1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{D_{\mathsf{sp}}}}$ and thus has poor OOD performance.
We denote the average error rate of the classifier $h$ on seen (or unseen) environments as $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{seen}}(h)$ (or $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{unseen}}(h)$.) Here the error for binary classification is defined to be $\mathsf{Err}^e(h) = \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\left(X^{e}, Y^{e}\right) \sim \mathbb{P}^e}\left[1 - Y^e h(X^e)\right]$. We denote the margin of classifier for data in environment $e$ as $\mathsf{Margin}^e$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:linear}
Consider the dataset in Section~\ref{sec:intro_OOD} with $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}^e \in \{-1,1\}$ ($D_{\mathsf{inv}}=1$) and $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}^e \in \{-1,1\}^{D}$ ($D=D_{\mathsf{sp}}$).
Let $n$ be the number of training samples in $D_{\mathsf{train}}$, $c$ be a constant in $(0, 1)$ such that for all $e\in \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}}$, $p^e > \frac{1}{2} + \frac{c}{2}$ and $p^e=\frac{1}{2}$ for $e\in \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{unseen}}$. For sparsity constraint $d=2$, we have:
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item Compare margin for in-distribution sample: for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, if $D\geq \frac{1}{2c}\sqrt{2ln(n) / \delta}$, then with a probability at least $1-\delta$, $\mathsf{Margin}_{\mathsf{seen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{sparse}}^{d}) < \mathsf{Margin}_{\mathsf{seen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{reg}}^{}) $;
\item Similar in-distribution performance $\forall e \in \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{seen}},$ $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{seen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{sparse}}^{d}) = 0$, $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{seen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{reg}})\leq 2 e^{-2c^2D}$;
\item Better out-distribution performance: $\forall e \in \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{unseen}}$, $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{unseen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{sparse}}^{d}) = 0$ and $\mathsf{Err}_{\mathsf{unseen}}^e(f_{\mathsf{reg}})=0.5$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
From the above Proposition, we can conclude that if $c$ or $D$ is high, then the train accuracy of the sparse classifier and the regular classifier are similar but the OOD accuracy of the two classifiers are different with sparse classifier being much better.
The algorithm is likely to select the regular classifier over the sparse classifier as it has a much higher margin than the sparse classifier.
Proposition 1 compares the optimal sparse classifier with a purely spurious one. Both have same in-distribution performance, but the former has a better OOD performance.
We compare the margins to show that if we use a gradient descent on logistic loss, it will be biased towards the spurious classifier \cite{soudry2018implicit}.
We clarify that Proposition 1 is not intended to show a tradeoff between OOD performance and margin.
Consider the experiment of spiral vs. linear boundary of Sec 3.1 in \citet{parascandolo2020learning}.
In the experiment, the spiral boundary is associated with invariant features and the linear boundary is associated with spurious ones. The authors set the margin for linear boundary to be larger than the that of the spiral boundary. In this case, ERM learns a model that uses spurious features. Even if we were to reduce the margin of the linear boundary to be smaller than the spiral boundary, ERM continues to rely on the spurious features as it prefers to use a simpler margin \cite{shah2020pitfalls}.
For this linear setting that we discussed above,
we can learn a constrained max-margin classifier by adding $\ell_1$ constraints. This is a tractable problem to solve as the problem remains convex. However, as we move to neural networks, learning sparse classifiers with good OOD performance is significantly more challenging owing to the non-convexity. This issue is the subject of later sections.
Before we address this issue of learning sparse networks with good OOD properties, there is another important question to be answered. In the setting of the above proposition, we rely on the fact that a sparse model exists that relies on invariant features only and yields better OOD performance. How do we do know that this is a proper assumption for real datasets used for neural network training? In the next section, we analyze neural networks via modular subnetwork introspection to show that such a sparse model exists.
\section{A Functional Modularity Based Analysis}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\textbf{Technical approach.\ }
The modularity property of neural network has long been considered as an essential foundation of systematical generalization \cite{ballard1987modular, marcus1998rethinking, csordas2020neural}.
Consider a task that can be compositionally separated into different independent subtasks, we aim to probe a functional module subpart of the full neural network that can solve one particular subtask.
Following \citet{zhou2019deconstructing, csordas2020neural}, we identify different subnetworks which perform different functions, from a given pretrained network.
Specifically, we deem functional modules to be particular subsets of the weights inside a neural network.
For a $L$ layer neural network model $f(\mathbf{w}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{w}_L; \cdot)$ where $\mathbf{\theta} = \{\mathbf{w}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{w}_L\}$, we model the subnetwork with a set of binary masks $\mathbf{m}_l \in \{0, 1\}^{n_l}$ on the $l$-th layer weight tensor $\mathbf{w}_l \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n_l}$, where ${n_l}$ is the number of dimensionality of the $l$-th layer network parameters. The subnetwork is then given by $f(\mathbf{m}_1\odot \mathbf{w}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{m}_L\odot \mathbf{w}_L; \cdot)$. Further, in order to make this subnetwork structure learnable, we assume each entry of the mask to be independent Bernoulli random variables, and model their logits as $\boldsymbol{\pi}_l \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n_l}$. Hence, in this probabilistic modeling setting, the $l$-th layer subnetwork structure $\mathbf{m}_l$ is generated by performing Bernoulli sampling with parameters $\mathrm{sigmoid}(\boldsymbol{\pi}_l)$. We adopt Gumbel-sigmoid trick \cite{jang2016categorical} to enable an end-to-end training process, together with a logit regularization term to promote subnetwork sparsity \cite{csordas2020neural}. For each particular subtask, our analysis will output a
logits tensor for each neuron in the form of $\boldsymbol{\pi} = \{\boldsymbol{\pi}_1, \cdots, \boldsymbol{\pi}_L\}$, and thereby uncover the corresponding functional module within the neural network in the form of binary tensor $\mathbf{m} = \{\mathbf{m}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{m}_L\} = \{\text{sigmoid}(\boldsymbol{\pi}_l) > 0.5 \ | \ l = 1,2,\cdots\}$.
We then use the term \textit{modularity probing} method to refer to this technique subsequently.
We will interchangeably use the term of \textit{module} and \textit{subnetwork} due to their consistency in our context.
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[Accuracy of baselines.]{
\begin{minipage}{3.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/baselines_acc.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:baselines_acc}
}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\subfigure[Accuracy of module in ERM.]{
\begin{minipage}{4cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/erm_digit_acc.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:digit_acc}
}
\caption{\textit{Left}: OOD accuracy for four algorithms. \textit{Right}: OOD accuracy for ERM algorithm and its digit module. The plot shows that a highly biased model can contain an unbiased subnetwork.}
\label{fig:universal_digit_acc}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Dataset construction.\ }
We take the intuition from \citet{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM, nam2020learning,ahuja2020empirical, ahmed2021systematic} to design a biased variant of the original MNIST dataset \cite{lecun1998gradient}. A discussion about the difference between ours and theirs is deferred to supplementary materials.
The digit shape semantics are considered as $Z_{\mathsf{inv}}$ while color semantics as $Z_{\mathsf{sp}}$. We choose ten different kinds of color and define a one-to-one corresponding bias relationship with ten digit class (\textit{e.g.}, ``2" $\leftrightarrow$ ``green", ``4" $\leftrightarrow$ ``yellow"
).
For each domain, we define the bias coefficient to be the ratio of the data that obeys this relationship. Those images which don't follow this relationship are then assigned with random colors. The bias coefficient for two in-domains is $(1.0, 0.9)$ respectively,
which means the first domain is completely biased and 90 percent of the second domain is biased.
For the out-domain, all images are assigned a random color for evaluating to how much extent the model has learned the invariant feature. The out-domain will serve as a tool environment for module learning in this section, representing a thorough disentanglement of two attributions. It will then act as the test distribution in a realistic setting in Section~\ref{sec: practical}.
Unless otherwise specified, the label is set as the class where the invariant attribution lies.
We use the term \textsc{FullColoredMNIST} to refer to this
task to distinguish with the binary colored mnist dataset in \citet{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM}.
\textbf{Algorithms analyzed.}
We study four OOD generalization algorithms in this paper: Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) \cite{vapnik1999overview}, Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) \cite{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM}, Risk Extrapolation (REx) \cite{Krueger2020OutofDistributionGV} and group Distributional Robust Optimization (DRO) \cite{sagawa2019distributionally}. More details about them are left to supplementary materials.
Figure~\ref{fig:baselines_acc} plots the generalization performance of these algorithms w.r.t. the training process. REx (76.17\%) and DRO (78.56\%) methods surpass ERM baseline by a large margin, while IRM (59.55\%) only gets slightly better results than ERM (58.04 \%).
The failure of IRM in realistic problems has been analyzed in \citet{jin2020domain, nagarajan2020understanding, rosenfeld2020risks, ahuja2020empirical} and attributed to the overparameterization regime and curse of dimensionality, hence we omit related discussion here.
\subsection{Modular subnetwork introspection}
\label{sec:instropection}
Departing from previous
approaches, in this section we think of learning the digit and color semantics as different functional subtasks of the original task, rather than opposite non-spurious / spurious features. We split the out-domain into two parts and refer to them as the \textit{in}-split and \textit{out}-split of the \textit{out}-domain (terminology from \citet{gulrajani2020search}).
We define two subtasks, identification of digit and identification of color. For each subtask, we assume that we have access to respective semantic labels. It's important to note that the semantic color label is used here for analysis and is not a part of our main method described later.
In order to study the functional module for the two subtasks, we apply the modularity probing method to diagnose given pretrained models.
Specifically, we separately train and get a digit and a color subnetwork for each model across different algorithms and training steps.
We evaluate the obtained digit modules' behaviors on the out-split of out-domain (as the in-split has been taken for module searching).
Figure~\ref{fig:digit_acc} suggests a significant evidence that, even for biased models such as ERM trained ones, there exist unbiased invariant subnetworks (digit modules) with good OOD generalization ability.
We also explore this property for other modules and algorithms and defer these results to supplementary materials.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{figures/ERM_seed0_0_conv1.pdf}
\caption{The visualization of the Bernoulli probability of digit and color functional module for the first (convolutional) layer. The weight tensor is reshaped to two dimension for display convenience. The probability takes value from 0 to 1.}
\label{fig:visualize}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Discussion about the sparsity of digit weights / features.}
We additionally visualize the Bernoulli probability of learned subtask modules.
Figure~\ref{fig:visualize} displays the first layer of model trained on two in-domains with ERM. We can see that the color feature is more pervasive than digit feature, spreading over a broader range across the neurons.
Although the sparsity of weights is not exactly the sparsity of features, the discovery
is aligned with
the assumption in Proposition~\ref{prop:linear} that $D_{\mathsf{inv}}$ has a small number of dimensionality.
The visualization results of other layers are similar to this, and can be found in the supplementary materials.
In this section we confirm in large \textit{trained} models, there lie invariant functional modules, \emph{viz}\onedot\ subnetwork that behaves well for target invariant function (\textit{e.g.}, digit classification).
However, it's more worthwhile to find out about whether an appropriate subnetwork structure can help improve in the sense of OOD generalization \textit{during training}. We investigate this problem in the next section.
\section{Structure Matters: Towards Functional Lottery Tickets Hypothesis}
\label{sec:lth}
\citet{frankle2018lottery} proposes the lottery ticket hypothesis from a pruning perspective, suggesting that among all different subnetworks, there exists a so-called ``winning ticket" that can \textit{reach} the generalization ability of the full network with faster training speed. In this original lottery ticket hypothesis, the data distribution remains unchanged across training and testing. Whereas in our OOD context, we seek a model subnetwork whose functional predictions are invariant with respect to the change in distribution.
\textbf{The functional lottery ticket hypothesis:} {A randomly initialized, dense neural network contains a subnetwork that is initialized such that — when trained in isolation — it can achieve \textit{better} out-of-distribution performance
w.r.t. the given function (\textit{e.g.}, digit identification in our context)
than the original full network after training for the same number of iterations.
}
Concretely, our functional lottery ticket hypothesis claims that for a dense neural network model $f(\mathbf{w};\mathbf{x})$ with initialization parameter $\mathbf{w}_0$, there exists a module $\mathbf{m}$ enabling a subnetwork $f(\mathbf{m}\odot\mathbf{w};\mathbf{x})$ to \textit{surpass} the OOD performance of full network when trained from $f(\mathbf{m}\odot\mathbf{w}_0;\mathbf{x})$ on in-distribution data.
Note that this is a stronger statement than the original lottery ticket hypothesis, which only requires the winning ticket to reach similar performance to the full network in the IID setting.
\textbf{Demonstration.}
How do we identify the functional winning tickets? How should one search for a structure that is best for OOD generalization?
To unravel the possible best result one can reach, we design an ``oracle" subnetwork. After obtaining an ERM trained model, the structure of oracle module is found with the aid of the in-split data part of out-domain. Namely, we use the modularity probing technique introduced in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} with these ``oracle" data from the out-distribution, and then deploy the resulting subnetwork back onto the previous initialization. We then evaluate all methods on the out-split.
According to \citet{sagawa2020investigation}, the underparameterized regime can keep the model from overfitting to spurious features. Therefore, we choose the random subnetwork as another option to investigate whether sparsity / underparametrization alone can achieve an unbiased solution.
``\text{rand}$_{\text{whole}}$" method keeps the ratio of full network same as the oracle subnetwork. In other works it has been claimed that the sparsity per layer is the only working factor for pruning \cite{su2020sanity, frankle2020pruning}, we also experiment with the ``\text{rand}$_{\text{layer}}$" method, where we randomly sample subnetworks with the same per-layer-sparsity.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{
\begin{minipage}{3.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/erm_lth_sparsity.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:lth_sparsity}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure{
\begin{minipage}{4cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/erm_lth_in.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:erm_lth_indistribution}
}
\caption{\textit{Left:} Performance of different networks for various levels of sparsity. Here the \emph{keep ratio} is defined to be $1 -$ sparsity and left side of figure means smaller keep ratio. \textit{Right:} In-distribution generalization performance of different subnetworks in Section~\ref{sec:lth}.}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:erm_lth} and \ref{fig:erm_lth_indistribution} show the OOD and in-distribution generalization results for these subnetworks with ERM training on the \textsc{FullColoredMNIST} dataset respectively.
The oracle subnetwork beats the original ERM by a large margin for OOD and maintains indistinguishable performance for the in-distribution examples, confirming that a good module structure can indeed surpass the full network in terms of this digit function.
We show their performance with greater levels of sparsity in Figure~\ref{fig:lth_sparsity} and see a considerable consistent accuracy gap between oracle and random baselines for all level of sparsity.
The validity of our functional lottery ticket hypothesis is thereby empirically affirmed, and we thus propose that \textit{appropriate structure induction can impose a needed inductive bias to prevent the model from fitting the spurious correlation}.
We also conclude that sparsity constraint imposed cannot help alone, as two random methods don't yield non-trivial benefit than ERM (both under 60\% accuracy). Additionally, we demonstrate our hypothesis is also applicable for other OOD algorithms in the supplementary materials.
\textbf{Discussion.}
One can rightly criticize this investigation as unfair in that it compares a method using out-domain data to baselines without such privileged access. We acknowledge this issue and, for now, only seek out this ``oracle subnetwork" to highlight the importance of structure.
We now turn to the question of how we can design a practical structure searching algorithm to overcome this limitation.
\subsection{Modular risk minimization}
\label{sec:mrm_methodology}
The motivation behind the Modular Risk Minimization (MRM) method is to get rid of spurious features by hunting for a desired functional winning ticket.
Since we have shown in previous subsection that
contrary to \citet{sagawa2020investigation},
only sparsity constraints imposed at the beginning of training cannot do the magic,
we propose the following criterion:
\textit{A good structure should balance the predictiveness for invariant feature and sparsity well.}
Our procedure first trains the model with ERM resulting in a potentially biased classifier.
At this time, the functional lottery ticket hypothesis suggests that the model has already learned a promising functional module within.
Hence, we simply apply the subnetwork probing technique with \textit{training} data to learn the potential advantageous structure.
The structure learning objective takes a combination of cross entropy loss and sparsity regularization to balance the two desiderata mentioned above.
We then simply train from scratch again only with the weights in the obtained subnetwork and fix the other weights to zero. We summarize this procedure in Algorithm~\ref{alg:mrm}, where $i, c, l$ are respectively the index for a datum, label class and network layer.
It's notable that in Figure~\ref{fig:erm_lth}, our proposed MRM algorithm successfully reaches a very close accuracy to the oracle optimal structure.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Modular Risk Minimization}
\label{alg:mrm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {{\bfseries Input}: Data $\{(x^e_i, y^e_i)\}_{i, e}$, neural network $f(\mathbf{w}; \cdot)$, subnetwork logits $\boldsymbol{\pi}$, the coefficient of sparsity penalty $\alpha$, number of steps for model and subnetwork structure training $N_1, N_2$.}
\\~\\
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\STATE{\textbf{Stage 1}:\ full model (pre-) train}
\STATE{Get model initialization $\mathbf{w}_0$}.
\FOR{n=1 \textbf{to} $N_1$}
\STATE{Update $f$ with $\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}(\mathbf{w}) := \sum_{i,c} y_{i, c}\log f(\mathbf{w}; x_i)_c $.}
\ENDFOR
\STATE{\textbf{Stage 2}: module structure probing}\\
\FOR{n=1 \textbf{to} $N_2$}
\STATE Sample subnetwork $\mathbf{m}$ $\sim$ $\text{sigmoid}(\boldsymbol{\pi})$.\\
Update module $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ with \\
\qquad $\mathcal{L}_{\text{MOD}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}(\mathbf{m}\odot\mathbf{w}) + \alpha \sum_{l,j} \boldsymbol{\pi}_{l, j}$.
\ENDFOR
\STATE \textbf{Stage 3}: subnetwork retrain\\
\STATE Obtain the module by hard thresholding:\\
\qquad\quad$\mathbf{m} = \{\boldsymbol{\pi}_l > 0 \ | \ l=1,2, \cdots \}$.\\
\STATE{Set model parameters back to $\mathbf{w}_0$.}
\FOR{n=1 \textbf{to} $N_1$}
\STATE Update $f$ with $\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}(\mathbf{m}\odot\mathbf{w})$.\\
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\textbf{Structure learning by invariance capturing.}
Notably, MRM \textit{does not impose any invariance across domains} and is thus orthogonal to the advantage of other OOD algorithms.
Unlike heuristic structure searching paradigms \cite{lee2018snip, wang2020picking}, our method can incorporate \textit{any} OOD generalization approach to help improve the structure learning and model training process.
This enables MRM to act as a plug-in method to boost other algorithms by supplying a good subnetwork learned from their respective objectives.
We simply replace the cross entropy loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:mrm} with recently developed OOD losses: $\mathcal{L}_{\text{IRM}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{REx}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\text{DRO}}$ by IRM, REx and DRO. These new methods are therefore referred by Modular Invariant Risk Minimization (ModIRM), Modular Risk Extrapolation (ModREx) and Modular Distributionally Robust Optimization (ModDRO).
With these explicitly OOD learning algorithms, the cross domain variance is taken into account and thereby ameliorates the invariance property of the subnetwork. We note that more flexible combinations can be explored (\textit{e.g.}, use a different loss design for subnetwork and model learning), but we leave this for future work and only study these three variants in this paper.
\subsection{Ablation for winning tickets learning}
To better understand
the crucial succeeding reasons for two kinds of winning tickets -- oracle subnetworks and MRM subnetworks, we conduct corresponding ablation studies.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{
\begin{minipage}{3.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/reinit_erm_lth.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:reinit_lth}
}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\subfigure{
\begin{minipage}{4cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{figures/reseed_erm_lth.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:reseed_lth}
}
\caption{\textit{Left:} Ablation for the importance of initialization. With re-initialized model weights, the winning tickets fail to win the jackpot. \textit{Right:} Rearrange the color-digit relationship slightly reduces performance.}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Importance of initialization.}
One of the main argument of \citet{frankle2018lottery} is
that the winning tickets cannot be learned effectively
without its original initialization.
We verify this for our hypothesis as well.
Figure~\ref{fig:reinit_lth} depicts the failure of functional winning tickets when random \textit{re}-initialization is performed before the training of subnetworks. At this time, both subnetworks achieves similar OOD performance to full network ERM. This ablation study confirms the importance of reusing initialization.
\textbf{Effects of bias relationship.}
Our \textsc{FullColoredMNIST} keeps one fixed color-digit relationship for all biased data. Will rearranging this bias relationship defined in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} before the subnetwork is trained destroy the tickets? We then apply this to both winning tickets in Figure~\ref{fig:reseed_lth} and witness only a small accuracy drop of MRM after resetting the bias. This suggests our method indeed finds a subnetwork with a robust inductive bias for the invariant function, instead of only memorizing the bias relationship.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{0.1cm}
\subfigure[\textsc{ColoredObject}]{
\begin{minipage}{3.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{figures/coloredobject.png}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:coloredobject}
}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\subfigure[\textsc{SceneObject}]{
\begin{minipage}{3.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{figures/sceneobject.png}
\end{minipage}
\label{fig:sceneobject}
}
\caption{
The visualization of \textsc{ColoredObject} (left) and \textsc{SceneObject} (right) datasets. We keep the same object (invariant feature) for each row and assign random backgrounds (spurious feature) to the images across different columns.
}
\label{fig:coco}
\vspace{-0.45cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec: practical}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Generalization performance on \textsc{FullColoredMNIST}.}
\label{tab:fullcoloredmnist}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{c | cc}
\toprule
Methods & Train Accuracy & Test Accuracy \\
\midrule \midrule
ERM & 98.10 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.09} & 57.75 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.84} \\
MRM & 98.90 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.05} & \textbf{72.98} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.58} \\
\midrule
IRM & 98.18 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.09} & 59.30 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.88} \\
ModIRM & 98.77 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.12} & \textbf{70.86} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.12} \\
\midrule
REx & 98.86 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.10} & 75.61 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.26} \\
ModREx & 99.28 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.04} & \textbf{82.06} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.73} \\
\midrule
DRO & 98.96 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.09} & 78.25 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.31} \\
ModDRO &99.39 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.04 } & \textbf{85.53} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.61}\\
\midrule
Unbias & 99.07 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.04 } & 99.03 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.08} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In this section, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our modular risk minimization algorithm on a variety of datasets. We compare our algorithm and its OOD variants with recent methods aiming at robust predictions across environments. For all methods we keep the same model architectures and training settings. We build three OOD datasets according to the bias protocol introduced in Section~\ref{sec:intro_OOD}: \textsc{FullColoredMNIST}, \textsc{ColoredObject} and \textsc{SceneObject}. For all datasets we design two training in-domains and one out-domain for evaluating OOD generalization capability.
We defer all other experimental details to the supplementary materials.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Generalization performance on \textsc{ColoredObject}.}
\label{tab:coloredobject}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{c | cc}
\toprule
Methods & Train Accuracy & Test Accuracy \\
\midrule \midrule
ERM & 87.56 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.52} & 43.74 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.11} \\
MRM & 94.01 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.82} & \textbf{54.85} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.11} \\
\midrule
IRM & 88.68 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.11} & 45.4 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.40} \\
ModIRM & 93.01 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.36} & \textbf{52.35} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.28} \\
\midrule
REx & 89.85 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.50} & 47.20 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 3.43} \\
ModREx & 93.55 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.45} & \textbf{55.51} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.76} \\
\midrule
DRO & 91.73 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.40} & 51.95 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.62} \\
ModDRO & 92.67 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.92 } & \textbf{55.20} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.40}\\
\midrule
Unbias & 95.00 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.70 } & 72.37 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.53}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.55cm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Generalization performance on \textsc{SceneObject}.}
\label{tab:sceneobject}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{c | cc}
\toprule
Methods & Train Accuracy & Test Accuracy \\
\midrule \midrule
ERM & 98.87 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.23} & 37.29 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.74} \\
MRM & 99.61 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.04} & \textbf{39.44} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.77} \\
\midrule
IRM & 98.68 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.27} & 37.19 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.58} \\
ModIRM & 99.39 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.01} & \textbf{39.14} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.34} \\
\midrule
REx & 92.91 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.11} & 38.84 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.39} \\
ModREx & 96.71 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.53} & \textbf{41.04} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.46} \\
\midrule
DRO & 98.89 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.35} & 36.34 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.67} \\
ModDRO & 99.41 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.13 } & \textbf{39.14} \scriptsize{$\pm$ 1.60}\\
\midrule
Unbias & 95.25 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 2.21 } & 56.46 \scriptsize{$\pm$ 0.75} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\textsc{FullColoredMNIST.} Details of the construction are in Section~\ref{sec:intro_OOD}. We summarize the results in Table~\ref{tab:fullcoloredmnist}. We also use ERM trained with completely unbiased data whose bias coefficient is $(0.0, 0.0, 0.0)$ to serve as an upper bound (coined as ``Unbias" in the tables).
Our method can consistently promote the OOD performance on this task, bringing around 10\% accuracy promotion.
The best behaved algorithm, ModDRO, reaches $85.53\%$ accuracy, contrary to the 78.25\% of top-grade baseline DRO and 99.0\% achieved by unbiased solution.
\textsc{ColoredObject.}
We take inspiration from \citet{ahmed2021systematic} to build this biased dataset together with the following \textsc{SceneObject} one. Ten classes of objects extracted from MSCOCO dataset \cite{Lin2014Microsoft} are put onto ten kinds of color backgrounds.
Figure~\ref{fig:coloredobject} displays 100 samples from this crafted biased dataset. Like \textsc{FullColoredMNIST}, we also set a one-to-one object-color relationship and set the bias coefficient differently as $(0.8, 0.6, 0.0)$.
Results in Table~\ref{tab:coloredobject} demonstrate the advantages of our methods: all our four methods all achieve accuracy above 50\%, boosting their different baselines towards the optimal ``unbias" solution.
\textsc{SceneObject.}
Ten classes of objects extracted from MSCOCO dataset are put onto ten kinds of scenery backgrounds from Places dataset \cite{Zhou2018Places}. These scenery backgrounds make this task a more complex one than \textsc{ColoredObject}. Figure~\ref{fig:sceneobject} displays 100 samples from this crafted dataset. Like \textsc{FullColoredMNIST}, we set a one-to-one object-scenery relationship and set the bias coefficient to be $(0.9, 0.7, 0.0)$, making it a even more biased and thus more difficult one than the previous task. This can also be shown with only 56.46\% accuracy of unbias solution. Corresponding results in Table~\ref{tab:sceneobject} shows that for this highly biased task, MRM and its variants can still accordingly improve out-distribution generalization performance in this highly bias setting, where previous OOD algorithms bring very limited benefit.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Related Work}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\textbf{Out-of-distribution generalization.}
Machine learning beyond IID assumption is a very important problem and many research areas such as domain adaptation \cite{crammer2008learning, ben2010theory} and domain generalization \cite{muandet2013domain, motiian2017unified} have received much attention \cite{gulrajani2020search}. To get stable prediction for new unseen data distribution, it is desired to only rely on invariant features among the causal factorization of physical mechanisms of problem settings \cite{scholkopf2012causal}. \citet{peters2016causal} (ICP) claims that the residual of invariant method should remain IID and thus proposes to adopt statistical tests for mining invariant feature set. \citet{rojas2018invariant} generalizes this approach to nonlinear settings.
Recently, since \citet{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM} brings invariant prediction into a more practical scenario, a large amount of works has made solid progress for alleviating spurious correlation and shortcut exploitation \cite{geirhos2020shortcut, koh2020wilds}: \citet{sagawa2019distributionally} proposes to use group DRO when attribution information is provided; \citet{chang2020invariant} incorporates this invariant inference idea into selective rationalization area; \citet{ahuja2020invariant} studies the IRM formulation from a game theory and bilevel optimization formulation; \citet{Krueger2020OutofDistributionGV} propose REx to enforce the variance of losses across distribution, which is further analyzed by \citet{xie2020risk}; \citet{koyama2020out} (IGA) also has a similar contribution with different theoretical analysis; \citet{jin2020domain} (RGM) proposes another training objective from regret minimization viewpoint;
\citet{pezeshki2020gradient} studies the gradient starvation phenomenon which is connected with spurious correlation and proposes an insightful solution;
\citet{creager2020exchanging} (EIIL) points out that invariant prediction shares the same spirit with fair representation learning; \citet{parascandolo2020learning} (ILC) proposes to focus second order landscape information;
\citet{ahmed2021systematic} adopts a divergence term to match the output distribution spaces of different domains;
\citet{muller2020learning} achieves invariance from an information theory start point and enforces conditional invariance with HSIC terms.
Some other works also point out the pitfalls of current approaches, showing only in very limited situations can \citet{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM} (\textit{e.g.}, low dimension settings) really capture invariance: \citet{rosenfeld2020risks} proves the validity of IRM for linear cases but gives a negative example for nonlinear cases; \citet{nagarajan2020understanding} analyzes different failure modes of OOD generalization; \citet{ahuja2020empirical} analyze the sample efficiency properties of IRM; \citet{kamath2021does} investigates the success and failure cases of IRM and IRMv1 on simple but insightful settings, and claims the community might need a better invariance notion.
Another line of works study a related but different topic named \textit{debiasing}, where there is no explicit multiple environments setting provided. Bias in realistic datasets are usually exploited in a spurious way, such as the texture-bias of Imagenet-trained models \cite{geirhos2018imagenet}. Subsequent works \cite{wang2019learning, bahng2020learning, shi2020informative, nam2020learning, li2021shapetexture, sauer2021counterfactual} focus on addressing the bias problem with explicit debiasing procedure.
\textbf{Modularity.}
Modularity \cite{ballard1987modular, fodor1988connectionism, newman2006modularity} has been considered as a crucial part of intelligent systems.
Lots of works focus on imposing explicit module level modularity \cite{clune2013evolutionary, andreas2016neural, chang2018automatically, goyal2021recurrent}, while others also explore weight level modularity in a more fine-grained way \cite{mallya2018packnet, watanabe2019understanding, filan2020neural, csordas2020neural}. Our work also belongs to the latter category.
\textbf{Pruning.}
We mainly focus on unstructured pruning literature.
This line of model compression literature dates back to \citet{1989Skeletonization, lecun1989optimal, hassibi1993second} with more recent pruning methods \cite{han2015deep, molchanov2016pruning, dong2017learning}. Recently, the lottery ticket hypothesis \cite{frankle2018lottery} sheds more light into this field, showing the importance of initialization. \cite{liu2018rethinking} also propose another viewpoint that for practical settings the inherited weights are not important.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Discussion}
\textbf{Data settings.}
The seminal work \cite{Arjovsky2019InvariantRM} proposes to use color in digit identification as a spurious correlation.
In order to exposit the effectiveness of IRM, the authors enforce a 25\% label noise in the binary classification data and assign color a \textit{larger} correlation than the true digit shape. In this way, ERM exploits color feature to predict.
While there is controversy surrounding whether one should still treat digit as desired learning target under this situation, we choose to impose no label noise in \textsc{FullColoredMNIST} as is the case in \citet{nam2020learning, ahmed2021systematic}. This choice enables the structure learning procedure could mine the true invariant feature.
On the other hand, our work is limited as we haven't considered the data settings such as group attribution available ones \cite{sagawa2019distributionally, xie2020n, khani2021removing} and we shall fill this gap in future work. More about datasets can be found in Section~\ref{sec:data_detail}.
\textbf{Success of MRM.}
There are several reasons for why MRM can improve OOD performance without invariance constrain.
The first reason is related to our label noise free setting discussed above.
This makes the invariant feature itself perfectly predictive of the label, thus containing all information about the desired target function. Then the problem would be how to exploit this information effectively.
MRM becomes competent for OOD tasks by providing a novel and helpful parameterization method for the original optimization problem with extra parameters.
One notable thing is that more structure parameters actually don't increase the expressive power of the neural network, since every weight can take zero value in nature.
Another reason is we adopt an explicit approach to zero out the ``spurious part" of the model weights, hence achieving a not-so-biased solution.
Notice this cannot be achieved with random sparse model, revealing the structure is a key element for OOD generalization.
Therefore, a positive answer is given to the title of this work.
We further refer to Section~\ref{sec:mask_ablation} for empirical results of the importance of a proper sparsity level in structure learning.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
Kartik Ahuja acknowledges the support provided by IVADO postdoctoral fellowship funding program. Yilun Xu is supported by the MIT HDTV Grand Alliance Fellowship. Yisen Wang is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62006153, and CCF-Baidu Open Fund (OF2020002). Aaron Courville acknowledges the funding from CIFAR Canadian AI Chair and Hitachi. The authors would also like to thank Róbert Csordás, David Krueger, Faruk Ahmed, Mohammad Pezeshki, Baifeng Shi, Sara Hooker and anonymous reviewers for insightful discussion and feedbacks.
\newpage
\section{}
{\color{Maroon}\textbf{Reviewer 4}}
1 \& 2. R4 seems to want us to add discussion about ``assumption that the "bias" or "spurious correlation" of these models are explicitly labeled making it easy to divide them into environments/groups. Another class of algorithms does not employ such -- mostly unrealistic -- assumption (R1, R2). Both the above references and the discussion about which are missing from the manuscript" in revised version
3. experiment details should be put into main text
4. (Nitpicking) distinction between "debiasing" and "OOD generalization" is not as clear or large
{\color{Dandelion}\textbf{Reviewer 5}}
1. Is there any way to control the sparsity of the subnetworks to an exact level?
2. In Figure 4, rand {layer} and rand {whole} seem to have similar results. Since it is suggested that the layerwise sparsity is important, why the performance of these two subnetworks are so similar?
{\color{SeaGreen}\textbf{Reviewer 6}}
1. theoretical linear model setting is misleading: first, prop1 shows a trade-off between margin and OOD performance, it's not true according to xxx (reference). Second, the analysis may not be applicable to deep nn.
2a. (mnist is almost linear separable (and hence easy), suggest to try on: high bias mnist / xor data / mnist-cifar)
2b. (mrm on sceneobject is not much better than erm) this might because the sceneobject data is hard in itself (as unbias accuracy is not high)
reporting linear model accuracies on the invariant task (with bias coefficient 0) to quantify the difficulty gap between spurious and invariant features
evaluating OOD performance on harder datasets such as Waterbirds, PACS, ImageNetV2, CIFAR 10.2, and/or WILDS.
3. why mrm is ood good with only in-domain data.
{\color{ProcessBlue}\textbf{Reviewer 7}}
1. relationship of in/out distribution and also used train/seen
2. where does the x-axis start from all figures?
3. What is the overhead of the proposed method? {\color{red} (ZDH: i don't understand, what is ``overhead"?)}
\newpage
{\color{Maroon}\textbf{Reviewer 4}} \
We will add a discussion about the assumptions under which methods such as IRM/DRO operate and contrast them with the assumptions we make. Our method (MRM) does not require access to the label of the spurious feature, but can be further helped with that label (ModIRM, \textit{etc.}). We will make the experiments description in the main manuscript as self contained as possible.
{\color{Dandelion}\textbf{Reviewer 5}} \
Our current method is to keep the neurons with positive logits $\boldsymbol{\pi}$. To precisely control the sparsity level, we can first sort all the logits and only keep the large ones with a certain proportion.
In Fig 4, all methods share similar in-distribution results due to the simpleness of iid generalization. In the meantime, we can see a generalization gap in Fig 1 between two random methods, implying an advantage of ``rand$_{\text{layer}}$", which is consistent to prunning literature.
{\color{SeaGreen}\textbf{Reviewer 6}} \
\textbf{Margin vs. OOD and some clarification about MRM:} We want to clarify that Proposition 1 is not intended to show a tradeoff between OOD performance and margin. We will describe in the next paragraph that there is no direct relationship between the OOD performance and the margin.
Proposition 1 is meant to compare the optimal sparse classifier with a purely spurious classifier. Both the optimal sparse classifier and the purely spurious classifier have the same in distribution performance but the optimal sparse classifier has a much better OOD performance. We compared the margins to show that if we use a gradient descent on logistic loss it will be biased towards the spurious classifier \cite{soudry2018implicit}. We can also modify the Proposition 1 as follows: if we reduce the magnitude of the spurious feature, then the margins of both spurious and optimal sparse classifier can be similar. We can continue to show that the optimal sparse classifier has very similar (marginally better) in distribution performance in comparison to the purely spurious classifier but a significantly better OOD performance.
We now show that the margin is not necessarily reflective of OOD performance. Consider the experiment of spiral vs. linear boundary (Section 3.1 in \cite{parascandolo2020learning}). In the experiment, the spiral boundary is associated with invariant features and linear boundary is associated with spurious features. The authors set the margin for linear boundary to be larger than the margin of the spiral boundary. In this case, the ERM based procedure learns a model that uses spurious features. In this experiment, even if we were to reduce the margin of the linear boundary to be smaller than the spiral boundary, the ERM based model continues to rely on the spurious features and prefer to use a simpler margin for classification \cite{shah2020pitfalls}.
\textbf{Why does MRM work without the knowledge of spurious feature and even for settings beyond linear model in Section 2.1?} MRM relies on the observation that when ERM based learning occurs, it has the tendency to over utilize the spurious features and give much less credit to the invariant features. As a result, the neural network trained in the first phase of MRM have more neurons that are associated with detecting the spurious feature and less neurons that are associated the invariant feature. This is very similar to the setup in Section 2.1, where the invariant feature is lower dimensional than the spurious feature. Proposition 1 showed that sparse models that do not compromise on in distribution performance also have a good OOD performance. The same finding inspires the search for a sparse sub-network in the next phase of MRM. In Proposition 1, we showed that for linear models the optimal sparse model assigns zero weight to spurious feature. In more complex non-linear models, the dependence on the spurious feature
would not be exactly zero but would be considerably lesser than the invariant feature. A formal theory for non-linear models is a very exciting future work.
The reviewer also asked if the proposed method would work if spurious feature is as predictive of label as invariant feature. We have carried out more experiments with fullcoloredmnist dataset to show that the method continues to be effective even in this extreme case.
{\color{ProcessBlue}\textbf{Reviewer 7}} \
In distribution (out distribution) refers to the training (testing) distributions and we refer to them as seen (unseen) as well. We will make sure we stick to one usage in the final version -- in and out distribution.
|
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Two-player zero-sum games have been a central interest of the recent development of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) \cite{yang2020overview,baker2019emergent,vinyals2019grandmaster}.
In solving such games, a MARL agent has a clear objective: to minimise the worst case performance, its exploitability, against any potential opponents.
When both agents achieve zero exploitability, they reach a Nash equilibrium (NE) \cite{nash1950equilibrium}, a classical solution concept from Game Theory \cite{morgenstern1953theory,deng2021complexity}.
Even though this objective is straightforward, developing effective algorithms to optimise such an objective often requires tremendous human efforts. One effective approach is through iterative methods, where players iteratively expand a population of agents (a.k.a \emph{auto-curricula} \cite{leibo2019autocurricula}) where at each iteration, a new agent is trained and added to the player's strategy pool.
However, within the auto-curricula process, it is often non-trivial to design effective update rules of \textit{"who to compete with"} (i.e., opponent selections) and \textit{"how to beat them"} (i.e., finding best responses).
The problem becomes more challenging when one considers additional requirements such as generating agents that have behavioural diversity \cite{yang2021diverse, nieves2021modelling, balduzzi2019open,liu2021unifying} or generalisation ability \cite{singh2020parrot, oh2020discovering}.
One effective approach to designing auto-curricula is to follow game theoretical principles such as fictitious play \cite{brown1951iterative} and Double Oracle (DO) methods \cite{mcmahan2003planning,dinh2021online}. For example, in the DO dynamics, each player starts from playing a sub-game of the original game where only a restricted set of strategies are available; then, at each iteration, each player will add a best-response strategy, by training against a NE mixture of opponent models at the current sub-game, into its strategy pool. When an exact best response is hard to compute, approximation methods such as reinforcement learning (RL) methods are often applied \cite{lanctot2017unified}. One of the potential downsides of this approach is, under approximate best response methods, one no longer maintains the theoretical properties of DO and a worthwhile avenue of exploration is to find auto-curricula that are more conducive to these approximation solutions.
Apart from following game theoretical principles, an appealing alternative approach one can consider is to automatically discover auto-curricula from data generated by playing games, which can be formulated as a meta-learning problem \cite{finn2017model}.
However, it remains an open challenge whether it is feasible to discover fundamental concepts (e.g., NE) entirely based on data. If we can show that it is possible to discover fundamental concepts from scratch, it opens the avenue to trying to discover fundamentally new concepts at a potentially rapid pace. Although encouraging results have been reported in single-agent RL settings showing that it is possible to meta-learn RL update rules, such as temporal difference learning \cite{oh2020discovering,xu2020meta,xu2018meta}, and the learned update rules can generalise to unseen tasks, we believe discovering auto-curricula in multi-agent cases is particularly hard.
Two reasons for this are that the discovered auto-curriculum itself directly affects the development of the agent population, and each agent involves an entire training process, which complicates the meta-learning process.
Albeit challenging, we believe a method capable of discovering auto-curricula without explicit game theoretic knowledge can potentially open up entirely new approaches to MARL.
As a result, this paper initiates the study on discovering general-purpose MARL algorithms in two-player zero-sum games.
Specifically, our goal is to develop an algorithm that learns its own objective (i.e., the auto-curricula) solely from environment interaction, and we offer a meta-learning framework that achieves such a goal. Our solution framework -- \emph{Neural Auto-Curriculum (NAC)} -- has two promising properties. Firstly, it does not rely on human-designed knowledge about game theoretic principles, but instead lets the meta-learner decide what the meta-solution concept (i.e., who to compete with) should be during training. This property means that our meta-learner shares the ability of game theoretic principles in being able to accurately evaluate the policies in the population. Secondly, by taking the best-response computation into consideration, NAC can \emph{end to end} offer more \emph{suitable} auto-curricula within the approximate best-response scenario compared with previous approaches; this is particularly important since an exact best-response oracle is not always available in practice.
Our empirical results show that NAC can discover meaningful solution concepts alike NE, and based on that build effective auto-curricula in training agent populations.
In multiple different environments, the discovered auto-curriculum achieves the same performance or better than that of PSRO methods \cite{lanctot2017unified,balduzzi2019open}.
We additionally evaluate the ability of our discovered meta-solvers to generalise to unseen games of a similar type (e.g., training on Kuhn Poker and testing on Leduc Poker), and show that the auto-curricula found on a simple environment is able to generalise to a more difficult one. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that demonstrates the possibility of discovering an entire auto-curriculum in solving two-player zero-sum games, and that the rule discovered from simple domains can be competitive with human-designed algorithms on challenging benchmarks.
\section{Related Work}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Whilst it is theoretically possible to solve for NE in two-player zero-sum games via linear programming (LP) \cite{morgenstern1953theory} in polynomial time \cite{van2020deterministic}, this is a strictly limited approach. For example, when the action space become prohibitively large, or continuous, using LP becomes intractable; other approximation methods such as fictitious play (FP) \cite{brown1951iterative}, DO \cite{mcmahan2003planning,dinh2021online} or PSRO \cite{lanctot2017unified, mcaleer2020pipeline, mcaleer2021xdo} methods are required. These methods all follow iterative best-response dynamics where at each iteration, a best response policy is found against a previous aggregated policy (e.g., DO/PSRO applies a sub-game NE, FP applies time-average strategy). Under this general iterative framework,
other solution concepts include Rectified NE \cite{balduzzi2019open}, $\alpha$-Rank \cite{muller2019generalized,yang2020alphaalpha} or no-regret algorithms \cite{dinh2021online}.
In this paper, instead of following any existing game theoretic knowledge, we try to discover effective solution concepts solely through environment interactions via meta-learning techniques.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-20pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.93\textwidth]{figs/mainflow.pdf}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{NAC. The top box illustrates the training process where we iteratively expand ${\tens{M}}_t$ with best responses to $f_{\bm{\theta}}({\tens{M}}_t)$, and then calculate the exploitability (in red). The bottom box illustrates expanding the population by finding $\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\text{BR}}$. The blue arrows show how the gradients pass backwards, from the exploitability through the best-response trajectories. The gradient paths {\color{blue}{[1], [2]}} refer to the two gradient terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:brbp2}) and the gradient paths {\color{blue}{[3], [4]}} refer to the two gradient paths in Eq. (\ref{eq:brbp}).
\label{fig:main-flow}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
Meta-learning, also known as learning to learn, has recently gained increased attention for successfully improving sample efficiency in regression, classification and RL tasks.
MAML \cite{finn2017model} meta-learns model parameters by differentiating the learning process for fast adaptation on unseen tasks.
PROMP \cite{rothfuss2018promp} theoretically analyses the MAML-RL formulation and addresses the biased meta-gradient issue.
ES-MAML \cite{song2019maml} bypasses the Hessian estimation problem by leveraging evolutionary strategies for gradient-free optimisation.
RL$^2$ \cite{duan2016rl} and L2RL \cite{wang2016learning} formulate the meta-learning problem as a second RL procedure but update the parameters at a "slow" pace.
Recently, there is a trend to meta-learn the algorithmic components of RL algorithms, such as the discount factor \cite{xu2018meta}, intrinsic rewards \cite{zheng2018learning,zheng2020can}, auxiliary tasks \cite{veeriah2019discovery,zhou2020online}, objective functions for value/policy networks \cite{bechtle2021meta,xu2020meta,kirsch2019improving}, off-policy update targets \cite{zahavy2020self}, and the bootstrapping mechanism \cite{oh2020discovering}. Their success is built on the \emph{meta-gradient} technique, which leverages gradient descent on the sequence of gradient descent updates resulting from the choice of objective function.
The meta-learned RL algorithms demonstrate promising generalisation capability in solving different tasks. Apart from meta-gradients, evolutionary strategies (ES) have also been successfully applied \cite{houthooft2018evolved}.
Our paper, in comparison, has a parallel goal to these prior arts: to discover MARL algorithms that are effective for solving various two-player zero-sum games, and to demonstrate their generalisation ability across different games.
So far, there have been very few attempts to conduct meta-learning in multi-agent settings \cite{yang2020overview}. MNMPG \cite{shao2021credit} applied meta-gradients for training credit assignment modules for better decomposing the value network \cite{sunehag2017value,yang2020multi}. Meta-PG \cite{al2017continuous} was proposed as a meta-gradient solution to continuous adaptations for non-stationary environments. Building on the opponent modelling technique called LOLA \cite{foerster2017learning,foerster2018dice}, Meta-MAPG \cite{kim2020policy} extends Meta-PG \cite{al2017continuous} to multi-agent settings by considering both the non-stationarity from the environment and from the opponent's learning process.
Our work rather focuses on automatically discovering multi-agent auto-curricula through meta-learning, without explicit game theoretic knowledge, that leads to general MARL algorithms for solving two-player zero-sum games.
\section{Multi-Agent Meta-Learning Framework}
\vspace{-0.5em}
In this section, we discuss our meta-learning framework NAC for discovering multi-agent auto-curricula in two-player zero-sum games. We follow the road-map set out by Fig. (\ref{fig:main-flow}) which illustrates the flow of NAC. The relevant sections for each part of Fig. (\ref{fig:main-flow}) are marked in pink.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\subsection{The Meta-game}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Consider two-player zero-sum games ${\bm{G}}$\footnote{${\bm{G}}$ encapsulates all of the information for a $Player$ to take part in a game (e.g., actions, reward functions).} drawn from some distribution $P({\bm{G}})$, where players have the state-action space ${\bm{S}} \times {\bm{A}}$. We start by introducing the notion of an \textit{agent} who is characterised by a policy $\boldsymbol{\phi}$, where a policy is a mapping $\boldsymbol{\phi} : {\bm{S}} \times {\bm{A}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ which can be described in both a tabular form or as a neural network. The payoff between two \textit{agents} is defined to be $\mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_i, \boldsymbol{\phi}_j)$ (i.e., the game engine), and represents the utility to agent $i$, or alternatively, the negative utility to agent $j$.
Our population-based framework revolves around iterative updates on the meta-game ${\tens{M}}$.
At every iteration $t \in T$, a \textit{Player} is defined by a population of fixed \textit{agents} $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{t} = \boldsymbol{\Phi}_{0} \cup \left\{\boldsymbol{\phi}_1^{\text{BR}}, \boldsymbol{\phi}_2^{\text{BR}}, ... , \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t}^{\text{BR}}\right \}$, where $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{0}$ is the initial random agent pool and the $\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\text{BR}}_t$ are discussed further in Sec. (\ref{sec:br}). From here, for the sake of notation convenience, we will only consider the \emph{single-population} case where \textit{Players} share the same $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_t$. As such,
the single population will generate a \textit{meta-game} ${\tens{M}}_t$, a payoff matrix between all of the \textit{agents} in the population, with individual entries being $\mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_i, \boldsymbol{\phi}_j) \; \forall \boldsymbol{\phi}_i, \boldsymbol{\phi}_j \in \boldsymbol{\Phi}_{t}.$
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{The Meta-Solver}
\label{meta_solver}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Based on ${\tens{M}}_{t}$, the \textit{Player} will solve for the meta-distribution $\boldsymbol{{\bm{\pi}}}_{t}$ which is defined as an aggregated \textit{agent} over the fixed agents in $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{t}$. These meta-solvers in recent work have stuck to human-designed solution concepts such as a uniform distribution \cite{lanctot2017unified} or NE and its variants \cite{balduzzi2019open,nieves2021modelling,liu2021unifying}, whereas we introduce a method to actively learn these distributions through solely interacting with the game.
Specifically, we parameterise our meta-solver via a neural network. This network $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ with parameters ${\bm{\theta}}$ is a mapping $f_{\bm{\theta}} : {\tens{M}}_t \rightarrow [0,1]^t$ which takes as input a meta-game ${\tens{M}}_t$ and outputs a \textit{meta-distribution} ${\bm{\pi}}_t = f_{\bm{\theta}}({\tens{M}}_t)$. The output ${\bm{\pi}}_t$ is a probability assignment to each \textit{agent} in the population $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_t$ and, as we are in the \textit{single}-population setting, we do not distinguish between different populations.
There are two characteristics that our network $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ should have: \textbf{firstly}, it should be able to handle \emph{variable-length} inputs as the size of ${\tens{M}}_t$ is $(t \times t)$, and $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ outputs a vector of size $(t \times 1)$, where the value of $t$ increments at every iteration. \textbf{Secondly}, $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ should have both \emph{column-permutation invariance} and \emph{row-permutation equivariance}. Given an input ${\tens{M}}_t$, $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ will output the distribution ${\bm{\pi}}_t = f_{\bm{\theta}}({\tens{M}}_t)$ for the row \textit{Player} and it should be equivariant to any permutation of the row index, and be invariant to any permutation of the column index as neither of these actions should affect ${\bm{\pi}}_t$.
Much work has been done on how to maintain permutation invariance/equivariance for neural networks such as Deepsets \cite{zaheer2017deep} for handling tasks defined on sets, or PointNet \cite{qi2017pointnet} for handling 3D point cloud data processing. Our first Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) based network is inspired by PointNet, which consists of three components: (1) An MLP over each element ${\tens{M}}_t^{ij}$ for a non-linear representation, (2) Column Mean-Pooling for column-permutation invariant information aggregation, which will be concatenated to each row and (3) Row-wise MLP for the row-permutation equivariant meta distribution.
We also offer two alternatives, inspired by a fully Conv1d-based model \cite{long2015fully} and a GRU-based model \cite{chung2014empirical}.
We refer to Appendix \ref{meta-solver} for detailed architectures of our network $f_{\bm{\theta}}(\cdot)$.
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{Best Response Oracle}\label{sec:br}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Once a meta-distribution ${\bm{\pi}}_t \in \Delta_{|\boldsymbol{\Phi_{t-1}}|}$ is obtained, the goal is to solve for a best-response against ${\bm{\pi}}_t$ to strengthen the population. Formally, we define
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}, \langle {\bm{\pi}}_t, {\bm{\Phi}}_{t} \rangle ) \vcentcolon= \sum_{k=1}^{t}{\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{k}\mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi},\boldsymbol{\phi}_k),
\end{smalleralign}
to represent the payoff for agent $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ against the aggregated agent (aggregated by ${\bm{\pi}}_t$) of population $\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{t}$.
Consequently, we have that the best-response to an aggregated strategy is:
\vspace{-.5em}
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}} = \argmax_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \sum_{k=1}^{t}{\bm{\pi}}_t^k \mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k),
\end{smalleralign}
and the best-response is appended to the population to form a new fixed population, aiming to strengthen the population so as to become less exploitable.
Depending on the sophistication of games, one may choose appropriate oracles. We consider different oracle implementations in Sec.
(\ref{sec:meta_solver_upd}).
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{The Learning Objective of Players}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The goal of NAC is to find an auto-curricula that after $T$ best-response iterations returns a meta-strategy and population, $\langle{\bm{\pi}}_T, {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}\rangle$, that helps minimise the exploitability, written as:
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{exp}
&\min_{\bm{\theta}}\mathfrak{Exp}({\bm{\pi}}_T({\bm{\theta}}),{\bm{\Phi}}_T({\bm{\theta}})),\text{ where }\mathfrak{Exp}\vcentcolon= \max_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \mathfrak{M}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}, \langle {\bm{\pi}}_{T}, {\bm{\Phi}}_{T} \rangle \right), \\
& \ \ {\bm{\pi}}_{T} = f_{{\bm{\theta}}}({\tens{M}}_T), {\bm{\Phi}}_{T} = \left\{\boldsymbol{\phi_T^{\text{BR}}}({\bm{\theta}}), \boldsymbol{\phi_{T-1}^{\text{BR}}}({\bm{\theta}}), ..., \boldsymbol{\phi_{1}^{\text{BR}}}({\bm{\theta}})\right\}.
\label{exp2}
\end{smalleralign}
$ \mathfrak{Exp}(\cdot)$ \footnote{In the \textit{multi-}population case, $\mathfrak{Exp}$ expresses the notion of each \textit{Player} having a different population and final meta-strategy, in the single-population case we only need to evaluate the deviation incentive for one population.} represents \emph{exploitability} \cite{davis2014using}, a measure of the incentive to deviate from the meta-strategy over $\langle{\bm{\pi}}_T, {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}\rangle$.
When exploitability reaches zero, it means one can no longer improve performance. $\boldsymbol{\phi_{t}^{\text{BR}}}({\bm{\theta}})$ in Eq. (\ref{exp2}) shows that each best-response has a dependency on ${\bm{\theta}}$ since $\boldsymbol{\phi_{t}^{\text{BR}}}$ is influenced explicitly by the curriculum at iteration $t$ and implicitly by all previous curricula. We believe such an objective maximises the generality of our framework on solving different types of zero-sum games.
NAC can use any oracle, however different considerations must be taken dependent on the choice. In the following sections we will discuss the technicality of directly solving for the meta-gradients of ${\bm{\theta}}$ with respect to a gradient-descent (GD) oracle and an RL-based oracle. Additionally, we will provide an oracle-agnostic method based on zero-order gradients that allows us to ignore oracle trajectories via Evolutionary Strategies \cite{salimans2017evolution}. Pseudo-code\footnote{Pseudo-code including details of the best-response oracles is shown in Appendix \ref{pseudo}} for these methods is shown in Alg. (\ref{alg:auto-psro-es}).
\vspace{-12pt}
\begin{minipage}{0.98\textwidth}
\vspace{-0pt}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Neural Auto-Curricula (NAC) - statements in \textcolor{teal}{teal} refer only to ES-NAC, statements in \textcolor{red}{red} only to standard NAC.}
\label{alg:auto-psro-es}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Game distribution $p({\bm{G}})$, learning rate $\alpha$, time window $T$, \textcolor{teal}{perturbations $n$, precision $\sigma$}.
\State Randomly initialise policy pool $\boldsymbol{\phi_{0}}$, Initialise parameters ${\bm{\theta}}$ of the meta solver $f_{\bm{\theta}}$.
\For{each training iteration}
\State{\textcolor{red}{Store current model $f_{\bm{\theta}}$}.}
\State{\textcolor{teal}{Sample $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_1,...,\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_n \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I)$ and store $n$ models $f_{({\bm{\theta}} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i)}$.}} \Comment{\textit{If using ES, include this step}}
\For{each stored model $f$}
\State Sample games $\{G_{k}\}_{k=1,...,K}$ from $p({\bm{G}})$.
\For{each game $G_k$}
\For{each iteration $t$}
\State Compute the meta-policy ${\bm{\pi}}_{t-1}=f({\tens{M}}_{t-1})$.
\State Compute the best response $\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t}^{\text{BR}}$ by Eq. (\ref{eq:one-step}) or Eq. (\ref{eq:dice}).
\State Expand the population $\boldsymbol{\Phi_{t}} = \boldsymbol{\Phi_{t-1}} \cup \{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t}^{\text{BR}}\}$
\EndFor
\State Compute $\mathfrak{Exp}_i({\bm{\pi}}_T, \boldsymbol{\Phi}_T)$ by Eq. (\ref{exp})
\EndFor
\State{Compute the meta-gradient $\textbf{g}_k$ via \textcolor{red}{Eq. (\ref{meta_gradient})} or \textcolor{teal}{Eq. (\ref{es:metagrad})}}
\State Update meta-solver's parameters ${\bm{\theta}}^{\prime} = {\bm{\theta}} - \alpha \frac{1}{K} \sum_k{\textbf{g}_k}$.
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\subsection{Optimising the Meta-Solver through Meta-gradients}\label{sec:meta_solver_upd}
\label{meta_objective}
\vspace{-.5em}
Based on the \textit{Player's} learning objectives in Eq. (\ref{exp}), we can optimise the meta-solver as follows:
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-0pt}
{\bm{\theta}}^* = \argmin_{\bm{\theta}} \; J \left({\bm{\theta}}\right), \; \text{where } J({\bm{\theta}}) = \mathbb{E}_{{\bm{G}} \sim P({\bm{G}})} \big[ \mathfrak{Exp}\left({\bm{\pi}}, {\bm{\Phi}} |{\bm{\theta}}, {\bm{G}} \right)\big].
\label{eq:obj}
\vspace{-0pt}
\end{smalleralign}
Deriving the (meta-)gradient of ${\bm{\theta}}$ is non-trivial, which we show in the below Remark (\ref{remark:gradients}).
\begin{restatable}{remark}{gradients}
\label{remark:gradients}
For a given distribution of game $p({\bm{G}})$, by denoting exploitability at the final iteration $\mathfrak{M}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}, \langle {\bm{\pi}}_{T}, {\bm{\Phi}}_{T} \rangle \right)$ as $\mathfrak{M}_{T+1}$, the meta-gradient for ${\bm{\theta}}$ (see also Fig. \ref{fig:main-flow}) is
\vspace{-.0em}
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{meta_gradient}
\nabla_{{\bm{\theta}}}J({\bm{\theta}})
=& \mathbb{E}_{\bm{G}}\Big[\frac{\partial \mathfrak{M}_{T+1}}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}}\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} + \frac{\partial \mathfrak{M}_{T+1}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_{T}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_{T}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} + \frac{\partial \mathfrak{M}_{T+1}}{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}}\Big], \text{where}\\
\label{eq:brbp}
\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_T}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}}
= &\frac{\partial f_{{\bm{\theta}}}({\tens{M}}_{T})}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} + \frac{\partial f_{{\bm{\theta}}}({\tens{M}}_{T})}{\partial {\tens{M}}_{T}}\frac{\partial {\tens{M}}_{T}}{\partial \boldsymbol{\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{{\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}}, \
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} = \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_T}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_T}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} + \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{T+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}},\\
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{{\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} =& \left\{\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{{\bm{\Phi}}_{T-1}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}},\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\phi}_{T}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\theta}}} \right\},
\label{eq:brbp2}
\end{smalleralign}
\vspace{-.0em}
and Eq. (\ref{eq:brbp2}) can be further decomposed by iteratively applying Eq. (\ref{eq:brbp}) from iteration $T-1$ to $0$.
\vspace{-0pt}
\end{restatable}
\begin{comment}
\begin{smalleralign}
\Delta {\bm{\theta}} \propto \mathbb{E}_{\bm{G}}\Big[\nabla _{{\tens{M}}_{T-1}}\mathfrak{Exp}_T\big(f_\theta({\tens{M}}_T)\big)\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} \; {\tens{M}}_{T-1}\Big].
\label{meta_gradient}
\end{smalleralign}
\end{comment}
The full proof is in Appendix \ref{meta_gradient_theory}.
Intuitively, in the forward process, the population adds $T$ new agents.
In the backward process, the meta-gradient traverses through the full $T$ best-response iterations (each iteration may involve many gradient updates) and back-propagates through all trajectories.
Therefore, the gradients of ${\partial \boldsymbol{{\bm{\Phi}}_{T}}}/{\partial {\bm{\theta}}}$
need collecting from ${\tens{M}}_{T-1}$ to ${\tens{M}}_1$. Whilst this is critical in ensuring that every \textit{agent} is influential in optimising ${\bm{\theta}}$, it introduces computational troubles. Firstly, due to the long-trajectory dependency, computing meta-gradients becomes inefficient due to multiple Hessian-vector products.
Secondly, the gradients are susceptible to exploding/vanishing gradients in the same manner as RNNs \cite{hochreiter1997long}. To alleviate these issues, we introduce a truncated version similar to \cite{oh2020discovering}, where we back-propagate up to a smaller \textbf{window size} (i.e., $n < T$) of population updates. We shall study the effect of the window size later in Figure \ref{fig:ablation}.
Notably, the gradients of ${\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}/{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}}$ and ${\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}/{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_{t}}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:brbp}) also depends on the type of best-response subroutines. In the next section, we demonstrate two types of oracles and show how the meta-gradients are derived accordingly.
\begin{comment}
\begin{align}
\Delta {\bm{\theta}} \propto \mathbb{E}_{\bm{G}} \Big[\nabla _{{\tens{M}}_{t:t+n}}\mathfrak{Exp}_{t:t+n}\big(f_\theta({\tens{M}}_{t+n})_{t:t+n}\big)\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} \; {\tens{M}}_{t:t+n} \Big].
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsubsection{Gradient-Descent Best-Response Oracles} \label{sec:gdbr}
\vspace{-0.5em}
When the payoff function ${\bm{G}}$ is known and differentiable, one can approximate the best-response through gradient descent (GD).
A one-step GD oracle example is written as:
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}=\boldsymbol{\phi}_{0}+\alpha \frac{\partial \mathfrak{M}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_0, \langle {\bm{\pi}}_t, {\bm{\Phi}}_{t} \rangle \right)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_0},\label{eq:one-step}
\end{smalleralign}
where $\boldsymbol{\phi}_0$ and $\alpha$ denote the initial parameters and learning rate respectively.
The backward gradients of one-step GD share similarities with MAML \cite{finn2017model}, which can be written as:
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t} =\alpha\frac{\partial^{2} \mathfrak{M}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{0}, \langle{\bm{\pi}}_{t}, {{\bm{\Phi}}}_{t}\rangle\right)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_0 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t}, \ \ \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}} = \alpha \frac{\partial^2 \mathfrak{M}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{0}, \langle{\bm{\pi}}_{t}, {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}\rangle\right)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_0 \partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}}.
\label{eq:br_bp}
\end{smalleralign}
We refer to Appendix \ref{gd_meta_gradient} for the specification of Remark (\ref{remark:gradients}) for gradient descent-based oracles.
Though Eq. (\ref{eq:one-step}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:br_bp}) can be easily extended to multi-step GD case, it becomes easily intractable to take the gradient of a computational graph that includes hundreds of gradient updates \cite{song2019maml,rajeswaran2019metalearning,lorraine2020optimizing}. To solve this problem,
we offer another solution for efficient back-propagation based on the \emph{implicit gradient} method \cite{rajeswaran2019metalearning}, which does not need the full trajectory as a dependency.
The idea is that,
when we arrive at the best response point such that ${\partial \mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}, \langle\pi_t, \boldsymbol{\Phi}_{t}\rangle)}/{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_t^{\text{BR}}} = 0$, we can apply
the implicit function theorem and derive the gradient by,
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}{\partial {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}}
&= -\left[\frac{\partial^2 \mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}, \langle{\bm{\pi}}_t, \boldsymbol{\Phi_{t}}\rangle)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}\partial {\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}}^ {T}}\right]^{-1}\frac{\partial^{2} \mathfrak{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}}, \langle {\bm{\pi}}_t, \boldsymbol{\Phi_{t}}\rangle)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{t+1}^{\text{BR}} \partial \boldsymbol{\Phi_{t}}}.
\label{eq:imp2}
\end{smalleralign}
See the proof in Appendix \ref{ig_meta_gradient}.
Eq. (\ref{eq:imp2}) allows for efficient back-propagation by ignoring the dependency on trajectories.
Note that the implicit gradient methods can theoretically be applied to compute the meta-gradient \emph{w.r.t} RL oracles (next section), but empirically we had little success.
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsubsection{Reinforcement Learning Best-Response Oracles}
\vspace{-0.5em}
The above GD-based oracles require the pay-off function (i.e., the game engine) to be differentiable.
Yet, for complex real-world games such as StarCraft \cite{vinyals2019grandmaster}, we have to rely on RL methods to approximate the best-response agent.
Overall, the RL meta-gradient shares a similar structure to that of the above. The major difference is that we replace the GD terms with Policy Gradient estimator \cite{williams1992simple}.
Considering the unbiased estimators for the first and the second-order meta-(policy-)gradients, we apply
Differentiable Monte Carlo Estimator (DICE) \cite{foerster2018dice} in Eq. (\ref{eq:one-step}). DICE is an unbiased higher-order gradient estimator that is fully compatible with automatic differentiation.
Thanks to DICE, for an RL-based oracle, by regarding the best-response agent $\boldsymbol{\phi}_t^{\text{BR}}$ as $\boldsymbol{\phi_1}$ and the aggregated agent $\langle{\bm{\pi}}_t, {\bm{\Phi}}_{t}\rangle$ as $\boldsymbol{\phi_2}$ respectively, we obtain the follow equation:
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}=\boldsymbol{\phi_}{0}+\alpha \frac{\partial \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{DICE}}}{\partial \boldsymbol{\phi}_{0}}, \text { where } \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{DICE}}=\sum_{k=0}^{H-1}\left(\prod_{k^{\prime}=0}^{k} \frac{{\bm{\pi}}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}}\left(a_{k^{\prime}}^{1} \mid s_{k^{\prime}}^{1}\right) {\bm{\pi}}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}}\left(a_{k^{\prime}}^{2} \mid s_{k^{\prime}}^{2}\right)}{\perp\left({\bm{\pi}}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}}\left(a_{k^{\prime}}^{1} \mid s_{k^{\prime}}^{1}\right) {\bm{\pi}}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}}\left(a_{k^{\prime}}^{2} \mid s_{k^{\prime}}^{2}\right)\right)}\right) r_{k}^{1},
\label{eq:dice}
\end{smalleralign}
where $\perp$ refers to the stop-gradient operator, $r_k^1$ for the reward for agent 1, and $H$ represents the trajectory length.
\begin{comment}
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \sim P(\boldsymbol{\tau} \mid \boldsymbol{\phi}_1, \boldsymbol{\phi}_2)}\left[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_1} J^{\mathrm{DICE}}\right] &= \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}} \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \sim P\left(\boldsymbol{\tau} \mid \boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}, \boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}\right)}\left[R_1(\boldsymbol{\tau})\right],\\
\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \sim P(\boldsymbol{\tau} \mid \boldsymbol{\phi}_1, \boldsymbol{\phi}_2)}\left[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_1}\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_2} J^{\mathrm{DICE}}\right] &= \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}} \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \sim P\left(\boldsymbol{\tau} \mid \boldsymbol{\phi}_{1}, \boldsymbol{\phi}_{2}\right)}\left[R_1(\boldsymbol{\tau})\right].
\end{smalleralign}
\end{comment}
We refer to Appendix \ref{pg_meta_gradient} for how DICE provides the unbiased first and second-order meta gradient, and the specification of Remark (\ref{remark:gradients}) for RL-based oracles. This RL-based formulation is limited in the fact that it is does not directly extend to SOTA RL techniques such as value-based methods \cite{hessel2018rainbow}, and therefore we next introduce a zero-order method that is able to tackle the case of a non-differentiable pay-off function with any best-response oracle.
\vspace{-2pt}
\subsection{Optimising the Meta-Solver through Evolution Strategies}
\label{sec:es_NAC}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Inspired by the generality of Evolutionary Strategies (ES) \cite{salimans2017evolution} in optimising black-box functions and ES-based MAML \cite{song2019maml}, we also propose an ES based framework that can cope with any best-response oracle and underlying game engine. We name our method ES-NAC.
The ES approach of \cite{salimans2017evolution} states that if we have an objective function $F({\bm{\theta}})$ over a network parameterised by ${\bm{\theta}}$, we can apply Gaussian perturbations to the parameters so that a gradient estimate of the objective function can be achieved by $\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}F({\bm{\theta}} + \sigma \boldsymbol{\epsilon}) = \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}F({\bm{\theta}} + \sigma \boldsymbol{\epsilon})\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$.
In our framework, if we set the objective function $F({\bm{\theta}}) = \mathfrak{Exp}_T({\bm{\pi}}_T, {\bm{\Phi}}_T)$ and ${\bm{\pi}}_T = f_{\bm{\theta}}({\tens{M}}_{T})$, we can have an objective function as a function of ${\bm{\theta}}$ which can be perturbed. This allows us to write the gradient of a surrogate objective of Eq. (\ref{eq:obj}) as follows:
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{smalleralign}
\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} \hat{J}_\sigma({\bm{\theta}}) = \mathbb{E}_{\substack{{\bm{G}} \sim P({\bm{G}}), \boldsymbol{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}}\left[\frac{1}{\sigma}\big(\mathfrak{Exp}_T({\bm{\pi}}_T, {\bm{\Phi}}_T)\Big|{\bm{\theta}}+ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, {\bm{G}} \big) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\right].
\label{es:metagrad}
\end{smalleralign}
Additionally, we make use of control variates \cite{liu2019taming} to reduce the variance of the estimator whilst remaining unbiased, for example we apply forward finite differences \cite{choromanski2018structured} whereby the exploitability of the unperturbed meta-solver $f_{\bm{\theta}}$ is subtracted from the perturbed meta-solver, that is
\begin{smalleralign}
\vspace{-5pt}
\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} \mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}F\big({\bm{\theta}} + \sigma \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\big) = \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbb{E}_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}\big(F({\bm{\theta}} + \sigma \boldsymbol{\epsilon}) - F({\bm{\theta}})\big)\boldsymbol{\epsilon}.
\label{eq:cvar}
\end{smalleralign}
The key benefit of ES-NAC is that it is agnostic to the best-response oracle choice, as only the final exploitability is required. Unlike the implicit formulation we provided in Sec. (\ref{sec:gdbr}), it is not restricted by the fixed-point condition, which we note is difficult to attain for RL oracles, and therefore may be more widely applicable. This is particularly useful in practice since most games require hundreds of game simulations for each entry in ${\tens{M}}$ (e.g., StarCraft \cite{vinyals2019grandmaster}), in which case we lose the applicability of either GD or RL-based oracles. We note that Alg. (\ref{alg:auto-psro-es}) encapsulates ES-NAC when the number of perturbations $n > 0$, and that lines in {\color{teal}{teal}} refer only to the ES formulation.
\vspace{-2pt}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:exps}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We validate the effectiveness of NAC on five types of zero-sum environments\footnote{To stay self-contained, we provide a detailed description for each game in Appendix \ref{envir}.} with different levels of complexity.
They are Games of Skill (GoS) \cite{czarnecki2020real}, differentiable Lotto \cite{balduzzi2019open}, non-transitive mixture game (2D-RPS) \cite{nieves2021modelling}, iterated matching pennies (IMP) \cite{foerster2017learning,kim2020policy} and Kuhn Poker \cite{kuhnpoker}. All selected games are non-trivial to solve as an effective solver has to consider both \emph{transitive} and \emph{non-transitive} dynamics in the policy space \cite{czarnecki2020real,sanjaya2021measuring}.
The motivation behind our selections is to evaluate the performance of NAC under the different oracles proposed in Sec. (\ref{meta_objective}) and Sec. (\ref{sec:es_NAC}).
Specifically, we test the gradient descent-oracle (GD) in GoS, Lotto and 2D-RPS and the RL oracle in IMP.
For ES-NAC, we conduct experiments on Kuhn poker \cite{kuhnpoker} with two approximate tabular oracles (V1, V2), an exact tabular oracle\footnote{Training performance for the exact tabular oracle provided in Appendix \ref{ap:kuhn-poker}} and a PPO \cite{schulman2017proximal} oracle.
We conduct the experiments on multiple random seeds for NAC and the details of how we conduct meta-testing on baseline algorithms and NAC are reported in Appendix \ref{Meta-testing}. More details of all of the applied oracles and their hyper-parameters are in Appendix \ref{hyper}, and details of the baseline implementations are in Appendix \ref{additional_implementaion}
We select the baselines to be vanilla self-play (i.e., best responding to the latest agent in the population) and the PSRO variants, including PSRO \cite{lanctot2017unified}, PSRO-Uniform \cite{balduzzi2019open} (equivalent to Fictitious Play \cite{brown1951iterative}) and PSRO-rN \cite{balduzzi2019open}.
Their implementations can be found in OpenSpiel \cite{lanctot2019openspiel}.
We believe these methods offer strong benchmarks for NAC since they are all underpinned by game theoretic principles, and NAC tries to discover solution algorithms purely from data.
Results are presented in the form of answering five critical questions \emph{w.r.t} the effectiveness of NAC.
\begin{comment}
Here we will present brief introduction to environments we utilise in our experiments - gradient environments and gradient-free environments. For each environment we set up an environment distribution for meta-training.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
In Sec. (\ref{sec:meta_solver_upd}) we noted that the differentiable property of the underlying game was the main determinant for which meta-solver update method we could employ. Therefore, we focus on the following three differentiable games that will capture the ability of our method X to find effective meta-solvers under a variety of game dynamics.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\textbf{Random Games of Skill} \cite{czarnecki2020real} are normal-form games designed to consist of both a transitive and non-transitive element. The payoff function is shown as: $G_{i, j}:=\frac{1}{2}(W_{i, j}-W_{j, i})+S_{i}-S_{j} \text { with } W_{i, j}, S_{i} \stackrel{i . i . d}{\sim} \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{W}^{2} \text { or } \sigma_{S}^{2})$
\textbf{Differentiable Lotto} is a game inspired by \cite{hart2008discrete} and is introduced in \cite{balduzzi2019open}. This game is defined over a fixed set of customers $c_i\in \mathbb{R}^{2}, i \in \{1,...,n\}$ where each customer represents a fixed point on a 2D plane. In this game, each agent determines $\left\{\left(p_{1}, \mathbf{v}_{1}\right), \ldots,\left(p_{k}, \mathbf{v}_{k}\right)\right\}$, where $v_i$ and $p_i$ respectively denote the position and the units of resources of server $i$. Given two agent $(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{v})$ and $(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{w})$, the customers c are softly assigned to servers based on the distance between customer and server. The payoff function is then given as: $
\phi((\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{v}),(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{w})):=\sum_{i, j=1}^{c, k}\left(p_{j} v_{i j}-q_{j} w_{i j}\right)
\text{, where }\left(v_{i 1}, \ldots, w_{i k}\right):=\operatorname{softmax}(-\left\|\mathbf{c}_{i}-\mathbf{v}_{1}\right\|^{2}, \ldots,-\left\|\mathbf{c}_{i}-\mathbf{w}_{k}\right\|^{2})$
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection*{Gradient-Free Environments}
Generally games will be gradient-free, with the stand-out reason being that when we calculate the payoffs between agents in most games we do it via game simulation which is clearly non-differentiable. Therefore, we also validate our method X on the following gradient-free environments.
\textbf{Iterated Matching Pennies (IMP)} - We follow the works of \cite{foerster2017learning} and \cite{kim2020policy} in using IMP\cite{gibbons1992game}, a zero-sum game in which the row player wants to have matching pennies whilst the column player wants to have clashing pennies. The original matching pennies game is shown in Table (\ref{tab:imp}) as $a=b=1$. We extend it to the iterated form where agents can condition their actions on past history. We follow \cite{foerster2017learning} to model it as a memory-1 two-agent MRP and agent's action at timestep $t$ will condition on the joint action at timestep $t-1$.
\textbf{Kuhn Poker} was introduced by \cite{kuhnpoker} as a two-player, sequential-move, imperfect information poker game. A round of Kuhn Poker is as follows: Both players start with 2 chips and both put in 1 chip in order to play. The deck is only 3 cards, and each player is dealt one card. At this point, both players have the choice of betting or passing - if both players take the same action then the player with the higher card wins, otherwise the player who made a bet wins.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs_nips/result.pdf}
\vspace{-.5em}
\caption{Exploitability results on five different environments with differing best-response oracles. NAC performs at least as well as the best baseline in all settings, and often outperforms the PSRO baselines. Settings of adopted oracles in each game can be found in Appendix {\ref{hyper}}. }
\label{fig:q1exps}
\vspace{5pt}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Question 1. } \textbf{\emph{How does NAC perform in terms of exploitability on different games?}}
Firstly, we are interested in whether NAC can learn an auto-curricula that can solve games effectively. In order to characterise performance, we measure the exploitability, Eq. (\ref{exp}), of NAC and compare it against other baselines.
Surprisingly, results in Fig. (\ref{fig:q1exps}) suggest that, by learning an effective meta-solver, NAC is able to solve games without explicit game theoretic solution concepts.
In particular, NAC performs at least as well as PSRO (only slightly worse than PSRO in IMP), and in multiple games outperforms PSRO.
We notice that NAC performs better in the presence of \textit{approximate} best-responses.
One explanation is that Double Oracle relies upon a \textit{true} best-response oracle to guarantee convergence, when it comes to PSRO where only \emph{approximate} best responses are available, the principles of sub-game NE may not necessarily fit with PSRO anymore.
In contrast, NAC considers the outcomes of approximate best-responses in an end-to-end fashion; therefore, the auto-curricula for each player tends to be adaptive, leading to the development of a stronger population.
Overall, we believe these results suggest a promising avenue of research for solving larger-scale games (e.g., StarCraft \cite{vinyals2019grandmaster} or XLand \cite{team2021open} ) with no exact best responses available and no prior game theoretic solution concepts involved.
\textbf{Question 2. } \textbf{\emph{What does the learned curricula (i.e., $f_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}({\tens{M}}_t)$) look like?}}\label{q:vis}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\vspace{-0pt}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs_nips/nash_2d_rps.pdf}
\label{fig:hor_2figs_2cap_1}
\end{minipage}
\\
\begin{minipage}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs_nips/nac.pdf}
\label{fig:hor_2figs_2cap_2}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.5em}
\caption{Visualisations of curricula on 2D-RPS. Red points denote the meta-solver output, and darker refers to higher probability in ${\bm{\pi}}$. The blue star denotes the latest best-response.
To achieve low exploitability, one needs to climb up and explore each Gaussian.
PSRO fails to explore fully, where as NAC creates an effective curricula to explore all modes and assigns each of them high weights.
}
\label{visualization}
\vspace{0pt}
\end{figure*}
To address this question\footnote{We also visualise Kuhn-Poker policy for understanding how NAC works in Appendix \ref{visualisation}}, we visualise the auto-curricula on the 2D-RPS game between PSRO and NAC in Fig. (\ref{visualization}).
PSRO is successful in climbing up some Gaussians before iteration $7$; however, it fails to offer an effective auto-curricula that can lead it to discover other Gaussians. PSRO fails to select an auto-curricula that takes into consideration whether the best-response oracle is capable of learning a \emph{suitable} best-response.
This result is inline with \cite{nieves2021modelling} and we believe it is because the approximate best responses may lead to a local optimum in the policy space for PSRO-type methods.
In contrast, NAC adaptively generates an auto-curricula which is more \emph{suitable} for approximate best-responses, as evidenced by a wide spread of agents over the plane, and lower exploitability.
\textbf{Question 3. } \textbf{\emph{Does back-propogation through multiple best-response iterations help the training?}}
As shown by the blue lines in Fig. (\ref{fig:main-flow}), the backward meta-gradient will propagate through multiple iterations of best-response processes. To demonstrate its effects, in Fig. (\ref{fig:ablation}c) we conduct an ablation study on NAC by varying the how many best-response iterations (i.e., the window size) we consider, by controlling how many agents are added into the population before computing the meta-gradient. A window size of 0 refers to the setting where we completely detach the gradients of the best-response process.
We can see that NAC achieves lower exploitability when considering multiple best-response iterations, which reflects the effectiveness of NAC in offering a more \emph{suitable} and appropriate curricula to strengthen the whole population.
\textbf{Question 4.} \textbf{\emph{How is NAC affected by the architecture and capacity of meta-solver?}}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\vspace{-5pt}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.95\linewidth}
\centering \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs_nips/ablation.pdf}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{(a), (b) The effect of different neural architectures on the exploitability in GoS and IMP games. (c) The effect of window size on the exploitability in 2D-RPS game.}
\label{fig:ablation}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.0em}
\end{figure*}
In Sec. (\ref{meta_solver}), we provide several neural architectures for the meta-solver. Thus, to understand the effect of these different architectures, we conduct an ablation study on GoS and IMP. We specify six different models by varying both the architecture and the size.
Results in Fig. (\ref{fig:ablation}a, \ref{fig:ablation}b) show that, firstly, the permutation invaraiance/equivariance is not a necessary property, as the GRU-based models achieve great performance. Secondly, the effect of the meta-solver's architecture is heavily dependent on the game. The performance of all three models are comparable for GOS while only MLP and GRU work well for IMP. Different games may need different meta-solver's architecture and GRU-based meta-solver tend to work better. In addition, the increase of network capacity does not correspond to performance improvement. We refer the reader to Appendix (\ref{ap:hyper}) for details of our model choices for different games.
\vspace{20pt}
\textbf{Question 5. } \textbf{\emph{What is the generalisation ability of the neural meta-solver by NAC?}}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs_nips/kuhn_toleduc_exact-20.pdf}
\caption{(a) Exploitability when trained on Kuhn Poker with an exact tabular BR oracle using ES-NAC and tested on Leduc Poker. (b) Same as (a) with approximate tabular BR V2 (c) Exploitability when trained on GoS with a GD oracle and tested on the AlphaStar meta-game from \cite{czarnecki2020real} (d) Final exploitability when trained on 200 Dimension GoS and tested on a variety of dimension size GoS.}
\label{fig:gen}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.0em}
\end{figure*}
The most promising aspect of NAC is that the neural auto-curricula (i.e., meta-solvers) have the ability to generalise to different out-of-distribution games. This is particularly impactful, as it allows for training on simpler games and then deploying them on larger, more difficult games.
We test the generalisation capability of NAC in two settings. First, we take our meta-solver trained over $200$ dimensional GoS and test on new unseen GoS of varying dimension. We consider this to be the most direct way of ascertaining whether the neural meta-solvers are able to generalise to larger, more difficult games, and whether the in-task performance still holds out-of-task. Fig. (\ref{fig:gen}d) plots the final exploitability after 20 PSRO iterations against the dimension of the GoS, and noticeably, NAC still outperforms the PSRO baselines in all dimensions larger than the training dimension. Additionally, we test our trained meta-solver on the AlphaStar meta-game generated by \cite{czarnecki2020real}\footnote{We provide the results on the other tens of meta-games from \cite{czarnecki2020real} in Appendix \ref{ap:gener}} in Fig. (\ref{fig:gen}c), which is also considered to be a form of a GoS. Interestingly, our meta-solver is able to perform well on a GoS that is outside of the task distribution and therefore has a different type of underlying dynamics.
Secondly, we introduce an example of our meta-solver showing the ability to scale-up to different games, namely we train on the Kuhn Poker environment ($2^{12}$ pure strategies) and test on the Leduc Poker environment ($3^{936}$ pure strategies). As shown in Fig. (\ref{fig:gen}a, \ref{fig:gen}b) the trained meta-solver is able to outperform the PSRO algorithms when used on Leduc Poker, which suggests NAC enjoys effective generalisation abilities for both an exact best-response oracle and an approximate best-response oracle. We hypothesise that, whilst Leduc Poker is different from Kuhn Poker, the "Poker" nature of both games means they encapsulate similar dynamics, allowing our meta-solver to perform favourably.
\vspace{-1.5em}
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-0.5em}
We introduce a method for discovering auto-curricula on two-player zero-sum games based on meta-learning. To our best knowledge, we are the first to show that it is entirely possible to perform as well as solutions underpinned in game-theoretic concepts that are designed through human insights, without any active design of the auto-curricula itself. In particular, we show that our NAC method can learn in small games and generalise to larger games, more difficult games that follow a similar underlying structure. We believe this initiates an exciting and promising research area in which large-scale difficult games can be solved effectively by training on simplified versions of the game.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Problem Formulation}
\subsection{Learning a NN-NE Solver via Auto-PSRO}
We are trying to get rid of the inductive bias induced by using LP or NN-LP by letting auto-PSRO solve for itself what a NE/may not be an NE but an equilibrium is by reducing exploitability to 0.
There are four phases to the PSRO algorithm which we will discuss:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Solving the meta-game
\item Solving for an equilibrium over the meta-game
\item Finding best-response agents to this equilibrium to augment the population
\item Measuring the exploitability of this new population
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection*{Solving the meta-game}
For now we make the assumption that we are dealing with 2-player zero-sum differentiable games ${\bm{G}}$. The population sets for each player $\mathbb{S}^1$ and $\mathbb{S}^2$ can be regarded as two populations of deep neural networks (DNNs) and each $S^1 \in \mathbb{S}^2, S^2 \in \mathbb{S}^2$ is a DNN with independent weights representing a different agent in a population. The meta-game payoff is ${\tens{M}}=\big\{\phi(S^1, S^2): (S^1, S^2) \in \mathbb{S}^1 \times \mathbb{S}^2 \big\}$, and
it is \emph{symmetric} if $\mathbb{S}^1 = \mathbb{S}^2$, and
$\phi(S^1, S^2) = - \phi(S^2, S^1), \forall S^1, S^2 \in \mathbb{S}^1$. In the case of differentiable games, as in our setting, $\phi$ can be computed directly via a set payoff function, whereas in non-differentiable games simulation must be used to approximate $\phi$.
\subsubsection*{Solving for an equilibrium over ${\tens{M}}$}
We define a meta-policy solver, denoted $\mathcal{S}(\cdot)$, as some routine that computes a joint meta-policy profile ${\bm{\pi}}$ based on the current meta-game ${\tens{M}}$ where different solution concepts can be adopted (e.g. NE, $\alpha$-Rank). One of the primary aims of this work is to, instead of hand-defining a solution concept, let the auto-PSRO routine learn a suitable meta-policy solver via gradient descent. For now, let the meta-policy solver be defined by a DNN that when given a 2-player zero-sum meta-game ${\tens{M}}$ it returns:
\begin{align}
{\bm{\pi}}^1_t, {\bm{\pi}}^2_t = \operatorname{SELECT}_\theta({\tens{M}}_t)
\end{align}
where ${\bm{\pi}}^1_t, {\bm{\pi}}^2_t$ are the meta-policy probability distributions for each player over the agents $S^1$ and $S^2$ in their respective populations $\mathbb{S}^2$ and $\mathbb{S}^2$. Notably, $\operatorname{SELECT}_\theta$ is a DNN parameterised by the weights $\theta$ which will be updated during the auto-PSRO process.
\subsubsection*{Finding a best-response to the equilibrium over ${\tens{M}}$}
The PSRO algorithm increases the size of a population by solving via an Oracle $\mathcal{O}$ for a best-response to the probability distributions defined by the meta-solver. In two-player zero-sum cases, an oracle represents $\mathcal{O}^1({\bm{\pi}}^2) =\{S^1: \sum_{S^2\in \mathbb{S}^2} {\bm{\pi}}^2(S^2) \cdot \phi (S^1, S^2) > 0 \}$, where we have that ${\bm{\pi}}^2$ is defined by the DNN stated above. As we are in the realm of differentiable games, we can solve for this best-response via gradient descent. If we initialise a new training agent who is a DNN parameterised by the weights $\phi^{train}$, then we can update the weights in the following manner to solve for a best-response (this is for player 1):
\begin{align}
\phi^{train}_{t+1} = \phi^{train}_t + \alpha \cdot \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_t^{train}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2)}{\partial \phi_t^{train}}
\end{align}
where $\alpha$ is a pre-specified learning rate and training occurs for a pre-specified amount of updates. Therefore, if we define the above optimisation process as $\operatorname{BR}$, then we have that the new agents are:
\begin{align}
S^1_{t+1} &= \operatorname{BR}({\bm{\pi}}^2_t) \\
S^2_{t+1} &= \operatorname{BR}({\bm{\pi}}^1_t)
\end{align}
and that the populations of each agent are augmented as so:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{S}^1_{t+1} &= \mathbb{S}^1_t \cup S^1_{t+1} \\
\mathbb{S}^2_{t+1} &= \mathbb{S}^2_t \cup S^2_{t+1}
\end{align}
\subsubsection*{Backpropagating through the exploitability}
Exploitability of the Nash equilibrium of a population is a measure of how close that population is to finding the true Nash equilibrium of the underlying game. We can define the exploitability of an arbitrary population distribution profile as ${\bm{\pi}} = \{{\bm{\pi}}^{1}, {\bm{\pi}}^{2}\}$:
\begin{align}
\operatorname{EXPLOITABILITY({\bm{\pi}})} &= \sum_{i=1,2}{\tens{M}}\left(\operatorname{BR}({\bm{\pi}}^{-i}), {\bm{\pi}}^{-i}\right) - {\tens{M}}({\bm{\pi}}^{i}, {\bm{\pi}}^{-i})
\end{align}
which measures how much the players would gain from unilaterally deviating to their best response strategies with regards to the opponent's strategy, which should be approximately 0 if both player's are at a Nash equilibrium. We are interested in representing this exploitability in terms of the parameter $\theta$ of the meta-solver DNN, which we can as follows:
\begin{align}
\operatorname{E}(\mathbb{S}^1_t \cup S^1_{t+1}, \mathbb{S}^2_t \cup S^2_{t+1}) = \operatorname{E}\left(\operatorname{SELECT}_\theta \left(\mathbb{S}^1_t \cup \operatorname{BR}(\operatorname{SELECT}^2_\theta({\tens{M}}_t)), \mathbb{S}^1_t \cup \operatorname{BR}(\operatorname{SELECT}^2_\theta({\tens{M}}_t)\right)\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+
\end{align}
Therefore, as we can express our exploitability measure in terms of the parameters $\theta$ of the meta-solver, we can make gradient updates in the exploitability also with respect to $\theta$. As our goal is to find a policy distribution ${\bm{\pi}}^* = \{{\bm{\pi}}^{1,*}, {\bm{\pi}}^{2,*}\}$ such that $\operatorname{EXPLOITABILITY}({\bm{\pi}}^*)=0$ we can update our meta-solver DNN weights as follows:
\begin{align}
\theta_{t+1} = \theta_t + \alpha \cdot
\frac{\partial\operatorname{E}_\theta\left(\mathbb{S}^1_t\cup S^1_{t+1}, \mathbb{S}^2_t \cup S^2_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta_t}
\end{align}
with the goal such that
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial\operatorname{E}_\theta\left(\mathbb{S}^1_t\cup S^1_{t+1}, \mathbb{S}^2_t \cup S^2_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta_t} \rightarrow 0
\end{align}
As we know under the double oracle mechanism that if we find best-response strategies to a Nash equilibrium we will eventually converge to 0 exploitability, updating our DNN so that exploitability decreases will potentially find the Nash equilibrium, however it is uncertain whether other equilibrium policies may also lead to 0 exploitability and this idea is open to exploration.
\subsubsection{Differentiation process and Algorithmic box}
To make the whole process comprehensible, we detail the algorithm process in alg \ref{alg1}.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Auto-PSRO-v1}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A given game G.
\STATE Initialize policy pool with n random initialized policies
\STATE Initialize meta solver parameters $\theta$
\FOR{each psro iteration}
\STATE Compute payoff matrix M for the meta-game
\STATE Compute policy distribution $\pi_1$ over policies in the policy pool by the meta solver $f_\theta(M)$
\STATE Initialize a new policy and update its parameters via gradient ascent to maximize its payoff against the policy from the meta solver.
$\phi_{1}^{'} = \phi_{1} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1}$
\STATE Add the new policy into the policy pool. $\text{New policy pool} = \text{policy pool} \cup \phi_{1}^{'}$
\STATE Compute payoff matrix $M_{new}$ for the new meta-game and the new policy distribution $\pi_2$ over policies in the policy pool by the meta solver $f_\theta(M_{new})$
\STATE Compute exploitability following equ 18.
\STATE Compute the meta-gradient for model and update the meta-solver. $\theta_{'} = \theta - \alpha \frac{\partial \text{exploitability}}{\partial \theta}$. Note the gradient here will only flow in one iteration because we detach previous iteration's gradient.
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In the following process, we are going to detail the whole process of how the gradient is calculated in one iteration.\par
We denote $f_\theta$ as the meta model function, $\mathbf{M}_{t}$ as the payoff matrix for the strategy pool at timestep t and ${\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{1}$ as the output policy distribution.
\begin{equation}
{\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{1}=f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t}\right)
\end{equation}
Then, a best response agent for this mixed strategy is optimized via gradient ascent. We denote $\phi_1$ as the initial parameters for new agent, $\alpha$ as the learning rate, ${\tens{M}}$ as a function that calculates the payoff of two strategies -- $(\phi_1)$ and $({\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})$. Here we only utilize one step gradient ascent for convenience but multiple-step gradient ascent follows the similar process.
\begin{equation}
\phi_{1}^{'} = \phi_{1} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1}
\end{equation}
Then we add the new best response strategy into the policy pool.
\begin{equation}
\text{new policy pool} = \text{policy pool} \cup \phi_{1}^{'}
\end{equation}
In the following part, we are going to calculate the exploitability for optimizing the meta model. Firstly, we calculate the new payoff matrix $\mathbf{M}_{t+1}$ for the new policy pool via function $\text{Payoff matrix}$. Note that the function Payoff matrix is in fact calculated via ${\tens{M}}$ but we denote the calculation process for the whole strategy pool as Payoff matrix for convenience.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}_{t+1} = \text{Payoff matrix}(\text{new policy pool})
\end{equation}
Then, we calculate the meta nash for new payoff matrix $\mathbf{M}_{t+1}$.
\begin{equation}
{\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{2}=f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)
\end{equation}
We need a best response agent for calculating the exploitability. Following the similar way with equation (2), we optimize the best response agent via gradient ascent. We denote the initial parameters of the new agent as $\phi_2$ and we utilize one-step gradient ascent.
\begin{equation}
\phi_{2}^{'} = \phi_{2} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_2, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2}
\end{equation}
The exploitability is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\text { EXPLOITABILITY }(\boldsymbol{\pi})=\sum_{i=1,2} {\tens{M}}\left(\mathrm{BR}\left(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right), \boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right)-{\tens{M}}\left(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{i}, \boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right)
\end{equation}
For blotto or other Symmetric Zero-sum game, ${\bm{\pi}}_1 = {\bm{\pi}}_2$ and ${\tens{M}}({\bm{\pi}}_1, {\bm{\pi}}_2) + {\tens{M}}({\bm{\pi}}_2, {\bm{\pi}}_1) = 0$, so we only need to calculate the following equation, which is the payoff between two strategies -- $(\phi_2^{'})$ and $({\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expl}
exploitability = 2{\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}^{'}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})
\end{equation}
In the following part, we are going to derive the meta-gradient for meta model parameter $\theta$.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial exploitability}{\partial \theta} &= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}^{'}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \phi_2^{'}}\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\label{exploit_grad}
\end{align}
Thus, we need to calculate three terms: $\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} \text{ and } \frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$.\\
For $\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}$,
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
Thus, we only need to calculate two terms: $ \frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} \text{ and } \frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial (\mathbf{M}_{t+1})}\frac{\partial (\mathbf{M}_{t+1})}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
And the final term $\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$. Note that in this formulation we detach the gradient for previous policy in the policy pool, so we only need to calculate the gradient w.r.t the new policy.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial \phi_1^{'}}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t}\right)}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Model specification}
So in equation 1, we need a model which is capable of dealing the following problems: Input size n * n, output size n * 1 and n can vary.\par
Here are two ways to handle such problem.
\begin{itemize}
\item Fully convolutional network(FCN) with max/mean operation.\\
The key insight of FCN is to build "fully convolutional" networks that take input of arbitrary size and produce correspondingly-sized output with efficient inference and learning. In original FCN, they will use upsampling or transposed convolution to increase the size of feature map which ensures the final output size is equal to the size of input. The figure \ref{fig:fcn} illustrates the idea in detail. And in our implementation, we utilize a specific setting of kernel size and padding to ensure the convolution won't decrease the feature size through the whole forward process. Thus, we will have an output with size n*n and by taking mean/max operation in this output, we can get n * 1 vector at last.
\item Row max pooling with invariant property.\\
There exists a problem for current FCN based model. when we swap two rows/columns in the payoff matrix, the policy distribution output should also swap correspondingly. The FCN cannot guarantee such invariant property.(todo)
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figs/FCN.png}
\caption{FCN}
\label{fig:fcn}
\end{figure}
\subsection{What we are doing and potential problems}
The intuition of our current method is to utilize the meta-gradient to optimize our model at each training iteration to decrease the exploitability at that time, which means we may rely on the generalization ability of neural network across different dimensions(believe the training on low dimension payoff matrix can also help decrease the exploitability on high dimension payoff matrix) and across different games(believe the training on one game can also help decrease the exploitability on other games).\par
However, there might exist some problems in current formulation. The optimization process ignores the relationship between different iterations and only focuses on current exploitability decrease. This can be short-sighted since there might exist some policies that have higher return on future iteration while immediate exploitability decrease might not be significant.\par
And also, since we detach the gradient between iterations, our algorithm is trying to decrease the exploitability in one iteration given a policy pool (though policies in the policy pool is generated by previous iteration's meta model, but the gradient has been detached so for current iteration, previous policy has no relationship with our current model).\par
So we are hoping that given a fixed policy pool, the meta model can generate a better best response agent and a better policy distribution over new policy pool, which can decrease the exploitability. And we are also hoping the new fixed policy pool of current iteration can be helpful for next iteration's meta model to do the same thing. However, once our model cannot decrease the exploitability by only changing one iteration's new added policy and policy distribution given a fixed policy pool, the exploitability loss cannot change our meta model's parameters. And when this happens, our training process will get stuck because fixed model parameters will bring the same new added policy and policy distribution, resulting in zero meta gradient since the exploitability cannot decrease.\par
In addition, based on current experiments, the generalization across different dimensions may happen in a given game, while the generalization across different games cannot happen. We need to find out other ways for the generalization problems across different games.
\subsection{Another perspective - backpropagation through iterations}
As mentioned in section above, current method is trying to solve the problem based on the neural network generalization ability across different iterations or even different games. It ignores the relationship between different iterations, and only focuses on decreasing current iteration's exploitability which might be short-sighted and also easily trapped in local minima.\par
Thus, the intuition is to optimize the model for the whole process rather than one iteration, following similar way with LPG. Out ultimate goal is to optimize the final exploitability. The figure \ref{fig:bpti} shows the idea of LPG.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/lpg.png}
\caption{backpropagation through iterations}
\label{fig:bpti}
\end{figure}
If we treat the parameter updates as the policy pool update in our settings and consider the final exploitability G as the optimization objectives, we can rewrite the formulation as follows. The goal of the proposed meta-learning framework is to find the optimal model, parameterised
by $\theta$, from a distribution of games $p(\mathcal{E})$, to maximize the final exploitability G.
\begin{equation}
\theta^{*}=\underset{\theta}{\arg \max } \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{E} \sim p(\mathcal{E})}[G]
\end{equation}
Inner loop:\par
The detailed process from policy pool at iteration t to iteration t+1 is illustrated from equation 11 to equation 14.\\
Outer loop:
\begin{equation}
\Delta \theta \propto \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{E}} [\nabla_{\mathbf{M}_{N}} G_{\mathbf{M}_{N}} \nabla_{\theta} \mathbf{M}_{N}]
\end{equation}
Where $\mathbf{M}_{N}$ is the payoff matrix for meta policy at iteration N. And the way to calculate the exploitability for ${\mathbf{M}_{N}}$(denoted as $G_{\mathbf{M}_{N}}$) is illustrated from equation 14 to 18. Note that the $\nabla_{\theta} \mathbf{M}_{N}$ will take derivatives w.r.t $\theta$ from $\mathbf{M}_{N}$ to $\mathbf{M}_{1}$ since the each iteration is related with $\theta$. Considering that sometimes the amount of iterations is large, which might result in inefficient back propogation and vanishing or exploding gradient, we also provide an alternative with truncated back propogation. With truncated back propogation, we will truncate the back propogration within a given range of psro iterations rather than the whole one. \par
In all, by doing so, we can fully concentrate on the final exploitability and also believe it can generalize to any other games. By making the whole process as an end to end optimization objective, the algorithm will consider the relationship between different iterations and will consider the exploitability in the future iterations, which might help it get out of the local minima.
\subsubsection{Differentiation process and algorithmic box for backpropagation through iterations}
To make the whole process comprehensible, we detail the algorithm process in alg \ref{alg2}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\caption{Auto-PSRO-v2}
\label{alg2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A given distribution of game $p(G)$.
\STATE Initialize policy pool with c random initialized policies
\STATE Initialize meta solver parameters $\theta$
\FOR{each training iteration}
\STATE sample some games $\{G_{n}\}_{n=1,...,M}$ from $p(G)$
\FOR{each game $G_i$}
\FOR{each psro iteration}
\STATE Compute payoff matrix M for the meta-game
\STATE Compute policy distribution $\pi_1$ over policies in the policy pool by the meta solver $f_\theta(M)$
\STATE Initialize a new policy and update its parameters via gradient ascent to maximize its payoff against the policy from the meta solver.
$\phi_{1}^{'} = \phi_{1} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1}$
\STATE Add the new policy into the policy pool. $\text{New policy pool} = \text{policy pool} \cup \phi_{1}^{'}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Compute payoff matrix $M_{final}$ for the final meta-game and the policy distribution $\pi_2$ over policies in the policy pool by the meta solver $f_\theta(M_{final})$
\STATE Compute exploitability following equ 18 and the meta-gradient for model $g_{i}=\frac{\partial \text{exploitability}_{G_{i}}}{\partial \theta}$. Note the gradient here will flow from the final psro iteration to the first iteration.
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update model's parameters $\theta$. $\theta^{'} = \theta - \frac{1}{n} \sum{g_i}$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The only difference between this formulation and previous one is the gradient from policy pool to the model parameters. Thus we may need to change the equation 25 to:
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial ((\phi_1^{'})_{t}, (\phi_1^{'})_{t-1} ..., (\phi_1^{'})_{1})}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
Where $(\phi_1^{'})_{i}$ denotes ith new policy in the policy pool. Then we try to analyze the gradient from $(\phi_1^{'})_{t}$ w.r.t $\theta$, while the rest gradient follow similar way.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial (\phi_1^{'})_{t}}{\partial \theta}
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha (\frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}{\partial \theta} +
\frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial \text{policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{policy pool}}{\partial \theta})\\
&= \alpha (\frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t}\right)}{\partial \theta} +
\frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial \text{policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{policy pool}}{\partial \theta})
\end{align}
Where $\frac{\partial \text{policy pool}}{\partial \theta} = \frac{\partial ((\phi_1^{'})_{t-1} ..., (\phi_1^{'})_{1})}{\partial \theta}$
To illustrate the differentiation process, we present the stochastic computation graph(SCG)\cite{schulman2015trust}, showing the gradient flow throughout the updating step. Note that we do not have $\theta^\prime$ in the graph of V1 and V2 since there is no post-update policy as defined in \cite{rothfuss2018promp}.
$G$ denotes the sampled game $G\sim p(G)$. $\pi_{\theta}$ denotes the meta-policy. $\phi_{new}$ denotes a initialized new policy. $U$ denotes the gradient ascent process to find a best response strategy. $\phi_{new}^{\theta}$ denotes the best response strategy which involves parameter $\theta$. $Q_{\theta}$ denotes the renewed payoff matrix of meta-game. $\phi_{final}^{\theta}$ denotes the best response strategy for computing the exploitability which involves parameter $\theta$. $Expl$ denotes the exploitability i.e. eq.\ref{eq:expl}.
The SCG can be used both for Auto-PSRO-V1 and Auto-PSRO-V2 algorithm. The difference between them is that in Auto-PSRO-V2 algorithm $Q_{\theta}$ is updated for every psro iteration and the update on parameter $\theta$ is based on the game distribution.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/SCG_V1and2.jpg}
\caption{Stochastic computation graph for Auto-PSRO-V1 and Auto-PSRO-V2 algorithm.\\ (Deterministic nodes: Square; Stochastic nodes: Circle)}
\label{fig:SCG_V1andV2}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection{Auto-PSRO for non-differentiable Games}
For the Auto-PSRO-v2 algorithm over differentiable games, one of the key features of the algorithm is solving for the model meta-gradient for each sampled game,
\begin{align}
g_i = \frac{\partial \text{exploitability}_{G_i}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
which we compute via equation (\ref{exploit_grad}). However, if we look at this equation:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial exploitability}{\partial \theta} &= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}^{'}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \phi_2^{'}}\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align*}
we clearly require that our meta-game ${\tens{M}}$ be differentiable in order to calculate the gradient of the exploitability with respect to the parameters of the meta-solver. For games such as differentiable lotto, and randomly generated Games of Skill this is achievable as meta-game payoffs are computed via some direct payoff function, which is differentiable. However, for the large majority of games we do not have access to some underlying payoff function, and rather ${\tens{M}}$ has to be evaluated through game simulations. In this case, our exploitability term is no longer differentiable with respect to the parameters of the meta-solver and we must therefore solve for the meta-gradient by zero-order methods.
Additionally, as ${\tens{M}}$ is no longer considered to be differentiable, we cannot solve for the best response agent via gradient ascent - we therefore move to the domain of RL where we can solve for approximate best response agents without the need for gradients over the meta-game.
\subsection*{Evolutional strategy based meta-gradient}
We let $F(\cdot)$ denote our objective function (i.e. in our case the exploitability), and $\theta$ as the parameters of the meta-solver. So here the function $F(\cdot)$ denotes the exploitability we will get by psro iterations based on the meta parameters $\theta$. It has been shown that we can apply a gaussian blur to these parameters in order to calculate a stochastic gradient estimate via the following:
\begin{align}
\nabla_\theta \mathbb{E}_{\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}F(\theta + \sigma \epsilon) = \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbb{E}_{\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)}F(\theta + \sigma \epsilon)\epsilon
\end{align}
which we are able to approximate via samples.
Now let us re-formulate the outer loop of Auto-PSRO-v2 where the meta-gradients $g_i$ are calculated via a zero-order approximation based on evolutionary strategies. Note here when solving for best response agent for smaller games, it is not necessary for us to use an RL agent to solve for the approximate BR, as all we require for the ES gradient is a final objective score and it therefore does not need to be differentiable - therefore we can use a direct game tree search method to solve exploitability however this will not scale hugely well.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\caption{Non-Diff Outer Loop}
\label{ndiff-outer}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Sample $\epsilon_1, ..., \epsilon_n \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)$
\FOR{i = 1,...,n}
\STATE Apply perturbation to the meta-solver and solve for the policy distribution over the meta-game $\pi_1 = f_{\theta + \sigma \epsilon_i}({\tens{M}})$
\STATE Initialise an RL Best Response Agent
\STATE Solve for approximate Best Response, $\operatorname{BR}_i$, via RL agent (\textit{Note here that for smaller games it is not necessary for us to use an RL agent to solve for the approximate BR, as all we require for the ES gradient is a final objective score and it therefore does not need to be differentiable - therefore we can use a direct game tree search method to solve exploitability however this will not scale hugely well})
\STATE Set the objective score to be the performance of the BR agent versus the policy distribution $F_i(\theta + \sigma \epsilon_i) = {\tens{M}}(\operatorname{BR}_i, \pi_1)$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Set the meta-gradient $g_i = \frac{1}{n\sigma}\sum^n_{i=1}F_i$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Based on the above outer loop we can restate the entire algorithm as follows:
\end{comment}
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\caption{Auto-PSRO-ES}
\label{alg2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A given distribution of game $p(G)$.
\STATE Initialize policy pool with c random initialized policies
\STATE Initialize meta solver parameters $\theta$
\FOR{each training iteration}
\STATE sample some games $\{G_{n}\}_{n=1,...,M}$ from $p(G)$
\FOR{each game $G_i$}
\STATE Sample $\epsilon_1, ..., \epsilon_n \sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)$
\FOR{i = 1,...,n}
\FOR{each psro iteration}
\STATE Compute payoff matrix $M_i$ for the meta-game via simulation
\STATE Compute policy distribution $\pi_1^i$ over policies in the policy pool by the meta solver $f_{\theta + \sigma \epsilon_i}(M_i)$
\STATE Initialize a new RL agent and update its parameters via some policy gradient algorithm
\STATE Add the new policy into the policy pool. $\text{New policy pool} = \text{policy pool} \cup \phi_{1}^{'}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Compute payoff matrix $M_{final}$ for the final meta-game
\STATE Apply perturbation to the meta-solver and solve for the policy distribution over the meta-game $\pi_1 = f_{\theta + \sigma \epsilon_i}({\tens{M}})$
\STATE Initialise an RL Best Response Agent
\STATE Solve for approximate Best Response, $\operatorname{BR}_i$, via RL agent
\STATE Set the exploitability to be the performance of the BR agent versus the policy distribution $F_i(\theta + \sigma \epsilon_i) = {\tens{M}}(\operatorname{BR}_i, \pi_1)$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Set the meta-gradient $g_i = \frac{1}{n\sigma}\sum^n_{i=1}F_i \epsilon_i$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update model's parameters $\theta$. $\theta^{'} = \theta - \frac{1}{n} \sum{g_i}$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection*{Policy gradient based meta-gradient}
We can also utilize policy gradient to estimate the gradient if the function ${\tens{M}}$ can be represented as something similar with cumulative reward in RL's objective.\par
Here, we only need to replace the gradient from ${\tens{M}}$ w.r.t $\theta, \pi, \text{policy pool}$ with policy gradient term. The detailed derivitives is shown as follows. Let us assume there exist only two policies $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ in the policy pool.
\begin{equation}
{\tens{M}}\left(\phi_{1}, \pi^{1},(\theta_1, \theta_2)\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{2}\pi_{i}^1{\tens{M}}(\phi_1, \theta_i)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {\tens{M}}\left(\phi_{1}, \pi^{1},(\theta_1, \theta_2)\right)}{\partial \phi_{1}} = \sum_{i=1}^{2}\pi_{i}^1 E_{\tau \sim P_{\theta_i}(\phi_1)}[log P(\tau|\phi_1)R(\tau)]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {\tens{M}}\left(\phi_{1}, \pi^{1},(\theta_1, \theta_2)\right)}{\partial \theta_{i}} = \pi_{i}^1 E_{\tau \sim P_{\phi_1}(\theta_i)}[-log P(\tau|\theta_1)R(\tau)]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {\tens{M}}\left(\phi_{1}, \pi^{1},(\theta_1, \theta_2)\right)}{\partial \pi_{1}} = {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, \theta_i)
\end{equation}
After replacing all gradient related with ${\tens{M}}$ with policy gradient, we can calculate the meta-gradient following similar way with differentiable game.
\begin{equation}
J(\theta) = 2m(\phi_{i}^{br},\pi_{\theta},M_{\theta})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\theta} J(\theta) =
\end{equation}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction}
\section{Related Work}
\cite{finn2017model}:classical gradient based meta learning;
\cite{rothfuss2018promp}: Promp;
\cite{song2019maml}: es-maml;
\cite{oh2020discovering}, \cite{xu2020meta}, \cite{xu2018meta}, \cite{zheng2020can}: gradient based meta learning for learning rl algorithms, value update target, discount factor and intrinsic reward respectively;
\cite{houthooft2018evolved}: evolutionary strategy to find a policy update rule;
\cite{kirsch2019improving} gradient based meta learning for rl objectives;
\cite{rakelly2019efficient} classical and SOTA context based meta-rl.
\section{Our Methods}
In this section we introduce three different approaches for learning a distribution over ones opponents, dependent on the inner-loop optimisation technique of choice. Our approaches will be structured through a meta-learning framework, where both our inner loop and outer loop formulations will vary dependent on the need to access relevant gradients. Specifically, we introduce a gradient-based method in the case of a differentiable underlying game, and both an Evolutionary Strategy-based (ES) method and a Policy Gradient-based (PG)
method for the case of non-differentiable underlying games. We will begin by introducing some notation.
\subsection{Notation}
We consider 2-player zero-sum games ${\bm{G}}$, in which players share the action space ${\bm{A}}$. As we consider a meta-learning setting, we assume our games are drawn from some game distribution $P(G)$. Each player $i$ performs a policy $\phi_i$ which is a mapping from the states of the game to some action $a \in {\bm{A}}$. A payoff function over two players $m(\phi_i,\phi_j)$ denotes the utility for player 1 when player 1 adopts policy $\phi_i$ and player 2 adopts policy $\phi_j$. Here we focus on symmetric games, where $m(\phi_i,\phi_j)=m(\phi_j,\phi_i)$. We denote the best-response to some policy $\phi_j$ as $\phi^{\prime} = \max_\phi m(\phi, \phi_j)$.
As we consider a population of agents, let $\boldsymbol{\varphi}$ be a population of fixed policies. For example, after ${i-1}$ iterations, we will get a policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}=\boldsymbol{\varphi_0} \cup (\phi_1^{\prime},\phi_2^{\prime},...,\phi_{i-1}^{\prime})$, where $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{0}}$ denotes the initialized policies and the best responses $\phi^{\prime}_i$ are taken with respect to some aggregated agent over the population $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}$. In the following paper we assume that there is only one initialized policy in the initial policy pool. A meta-game ${\tens{M}}$ is a payoff matrix, in which the row player and the column player share the policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi}$, and is therefore a matrix which evaluates the pairs of policies in $\varphi$. At iteration $i$, we denote a distribution over $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}$ as $\pi_i$, namely a meta-policy. We also utilize the notation $m(\phi_i, \pi_i, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}})$, to denote the payoff between agent with policy $\phi_i$ and the aggregated agent $(\pi_{i}, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}})$, and we note that the following holds:
\begin{equation}
m(\phi_i, \pi_i, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}) = \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}\pi_{i}^{j}m(\phi_i,\phi_j^{\prime})
\end{equation}
\subsection{Outer Loop}
The problem that we are attempting to solve is similar in nature to the meta-learning problem. Over a set of games $G \in {\bm{G}}$ we are attempting to find some policy $\theta^*$ which will help us solve some unseen $G \in {\bm{G}}$ efficiently. The outer loop optimisation that we are attempting to solve formally is:
\begin{align}
\theta^{*}&=\underset{\theta} { \arg \min }J(\theta), \label{thetastar} \\\text{ where } J(\theta) &= E_{G\sim p(G)}[m(\phi_{t}^{\prime},\pi_t,\boldsymbol{\varphi_{t-1}}|\theta, G)] \label{Jtheta}
\end{align}
where equation (\ref{Jtheta}) can be seen to be an expectation of the exploitability measure we introduced earlier over games $G \sim p({\bm{G}})$. This is the case because $m(\phi_t^\prime, \pi_t, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{t-1}}|\theta, G)$ is simply the payoff of the best response agent $\phi_i^{\prime}$ against the meta-policy $\pi_i$ over policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{t-1}}$. In the case of this work, $\theta$ will directly parameterise a solver $f_\theta$ which will output the meta-policy $\pi_i$, and therefore the aim of this optimisation is to find a meta-solver that is able to minimise the exploitability for distribution of games ${\bm{G}}$
\subsection{Inner Loop}
At each iteration of the inner loop we start by solving for the meta-policy via the current meta-solver,
\begin{equation}
\pi_i = f_\theta({\tens{M}}_{i-1})
\end{equation}
which we then utilise for our best response, namely in following the same approach as that used in PSRO algorithms \cite{lanctot2017unified} where a best response is found to the meta-policy, and we treat this as our game-specific adaptation. Specifically, given $\pi_t$ and $\varphi_{i-1}$ we solve the following optimisation problem:
\begin{equation}
\phi_i^\prime =\underset{\phi_i} { \arg \min } \; m(\phi_i, \pi_t, \varphi_{t-1})\label{bragent}
\end{equation}
where equation (\ref{bragent}) can be solved via optimisation techniques such as gradient descent, reinforcement learning or tree-search - and this will impact our selection of approach that are introduced in the next sections.
Once $\phi_i^\prime$ has been found then we update the policy pool with the new policy, $\boldsymbol{\varphi_i} \coloneqq \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}} \cup (\phi_i^\prime)$ and solve for the new meta-game ${\tens{M}}_i$.
\subsection{Gradient-Based Method}
When we refer to a differentiable game, we refer to the scenario where there exists some underlying differentiable payoff function for the game that can evaluate pairs of agents. For example, this rules out games where pairs of agents are evaluated via simulation. In the case of a differentiable game, we can propose a fully differentiable formulation of our optimisation problem.
Taking our main objective, equation (\ref{Jtheta}), we note that the gradient with respect to $\theta$ for a single game $G \in {\bm{G}}$ is:
\begin{align}
\nabla_\theta J_G(\theta) &= \frac{\partial m(\phi_{i}^{\prime}, \pi_i, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}})}{\partial \phi_i^{\prime}}\frac{\partial \phi_i^{\prime}}{\partial \theta} \\
&+ \frac{\partial m(\phi_{i}^{\prime}, \pi_i, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}})}{\partial \pi_i}\frac{\partial \pi_i}{\partial \theta}\\ &+ \frac{\partial m(\phi_{i}^{\prime}, \pi_i, \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}}\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
where the gradient is decomposed into three main factors, namely the gradient with respect to the new best response agent $\phi_i^\prime$, the meta-policy $\pi_i$ and the full policy-pool $\varphi_{i-1}$. We refer the reader to Appendix ? for the full meta-gradient formulation.
Importantly, as our gradient depends upon the full policy pool, rather than solely the most recently added policy, we have generated an end-to-end optimisation process. As the goal of this work is to learn a meta-solver which should consider, at every iteration, how its choice of opponents will affect future exploitability, we believe it is important to consider the relationships between iterations and how this is affected by $\theta$.
\subsection{Policy Gradient-based Method}
In applications, scenarios with deterministic payoff function are not common, in which simulation is needed to evaluate the utility of each agent.
Contrary to the differentiable game we considered in the last section, here we begin to handle the more general non-differentiable game cases.
Reinforcement learning is a way to obtain learned policies by simulating multiple times with the environment in which the reward function is not required to be differentiable; therefore, we propose a meta-learning formulation for non-differentaible games based on the policy gradient algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\caption{Policy Gradient-based Auto-PSRO}
\label{alg:auto-psro-pg}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A given distribution of game $p(G)$.
\STATE Initialize policy pool with c random policy-based RL agents
\STATE Initialize parameters $\theta$ of the meta solver
\FOR{each training iteration}
\STATE sample some games $\{G_{k}\}_{k=1,...,n}$ from $p(G)$
\FOR{each game $G_k$}
\FOR{each psro iteration $i$}
\STATE Compute the payoff matrix ${\tens{M}}_{i-1}$ for the meta-game
\STATE Compute the policy distribution $\pi_i=f_\theta({\tens{M}}_{i-1})$ over policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}$ by the meta solver
\STATE Initialize a new policy-based RL agent $\phi_i$
\label{line:RL_begin}
\FOR{each MDP step $t$}
\STATE Compute the environment RL agent $\phi_e= \sum_j^{i-1}\pi_i^j\phi_j$ over the policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}}$
\STATE obtain the reward $r_t$ and compute the DiCE loss $J^{\mathrm{DICE}}_t=\left(\prod_{t^{\prime}=0}^{t} \frac{P_{\phi_i}\left(a_{t^{\prime}}^{i} \mid s_{t^{\prime}}^{i} \right)P_{\phi_e}(a_{t^{\prime}} ^{e}\mid s_{t^{\prime}}^{e})}{\perp\left(P_{\phi_i}\left(a_{t^{\prime}} ^{i}\mid s_{t^{\prime}}^{i}\right)P_{\phi_e}\left(a_{t^{\prime}} ^{e}\mid s_{t^{\prime}}^{e}\right)\right)}\right) r_t$
\ENDFOR
\STATE update RL parameters $\phi_i^{\prime} = \phi_i - \beta\sum_{t=0}^{H-1} J^{\mathrm{DICE}}_t$
\label{line:RL_end}
\STATE add the new agent into the policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{i}} = \boldsymbol{\varphi_{i-1}} \cup \phi_{i}^{'}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Compute the payoff matrix ${\tens{M}}_{final}$ for the final meta-game
\STATE Compute the policy distribution $\pi_{final} = f_\theta({\tens{M}}_{final})$ over the policy pool $\boldsymbol{\varphi_{final}}$ by the meta solver
\STATE Compute a new RL agent following the same procedure from line 9 to 14
\STATE Compute the meta-gradient over the parameters $\theta$ of the meta solver following eq. \ref{} $g_k=\nabla_{\theta} [m_k(\phi_{final}^{\prime},\pi_{final},\boldsymbol{\varphi_{final}})$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update model's parameters $\theta^{\prime} = \theta - \lambda \frac{1}{n} \sum{g_k}$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Stochastic computation graph Fig. \ref{fig:SCG_PG}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figs/SCG_PG.jpg}
\caption{stochastic computation graph for policy gradient based Auto-PSRO. (Deterministic nodes: Square; Stochastic nodes: Circle)}
\label{fig:SCG_PG}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evolutionary Strategy-based Method}
We additionally offer a second approach for the context of non-differentiable games. Our first policy-gradient based approach suffers from having to estimate with backpropagation second-order derivatives over stochastic policies, and whilst we offer solutions in the form of our suggested approach, we also offer another simple yet effective approach to avoid these issues.
Therefore, the approach we suggest is similar to that of ES-MAML \cite{song2019maml}, in that we utilise Evolutionary Strategies (ES) to approximate our outer-loop meta-gradient. We note that ES-MAML also employs ES within the inner-loop adaptation, whereas due to the nature of approximating our outer-loop gradients with ES we are free to use any best-response optimisation techniques.
ES in the context of the optimisation
\section{Experiments}
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{icml2021}
\section{Differentiation process}
We denote $f_\theta$ as the meta model function, $\mathbf{M}_{t}$ as the payoff matrix for the strategy pool at timestep t and ${\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{1}$ as the output meta nash.
\begin{equation}
{\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{1}=f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t}\right)
\end{equation}
Then, a best response agent for this mixed strategy is optimized via gradient ascent. We denote $\phi_1$ as the initial parameters for new agent, $\alpha$ as the learning rate, ${\tens{M}}$ as a function that calculates the payoff of two strategies -- $(\phi_1)$ and $({\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})$. Here we only utilize one step gradient ascent for convenience but multiple-step gradient ascent follows the similar process.
\begin{equation}
\phi_{1}^{'} = \phi_{1} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1}
\end{equation}
Then we add the new best response strategy into the policy pool.
\begin{equation}
\text{new policy pool} = \text{policy pool} \cup \phi_{1}^{'}
\end{equation}
In the following part, we are going to calculate the exploitability for optimizing the meta model. Firstly, we calculate the new payoff matrix $\mathbf{M}_{t+1}$ for the new policy pool via function $\text{Payoff matrix}$. Note that the function Payoff matrix is in fact calculated via ${\tens{M}}$ but we denote the calculation process for the whole strategy pool as Payoff matrix for convenience.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}_{t+1} = \text{Payoff matrix}(\text{new policy pool})
\end{equation}
Then, we calculate the meta nash for new payoff matrix $\mathbf{M}_{t+1}$.
\begin{equation}
{\bm{\pi}}_{t}^{2}=f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)
\end{equation}
We need a best response agent for calculating the exploitability. Following the similar way with equation (2), we optimize the best response agent via gradient ascent. We denote the initial parameters of the new agent as $\phi_2$ and we utilize one-step gradient ascent.
\begin{equation}
\phi_{2}^{'} = \phi_{2} + \alpha \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_2, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2}
\end{equation}
The exploitability is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\text { EXPLOITABILITY }(\boldsymbol{\pi})=\sum_{i=1,2} {\tens{M}}\left(\mathrm{BR}\left(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right), \boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right)-{\tens{M}}\left(\boldsymbol{\pi}^{i}, \boldsymbol{\pi}^{-i}\right)
\end{equation}
For blotto or other Symmetric Zero-sum game, ${\bm{\pi}}_1 = {\bm{\pi}}_2$ and $\mathbf{M}({\bm{\pi}}_1, {\bm{\pi}}_2) + \mathbf{M}({\bm{\pi}}_2, {\bm{\pi}}_1) = 0$, so we only need to calculate the following equation, which is the payoff between two strategies -- $(\phi_2^{'})$ and $({\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})$.
\begin{equation}
exploitability = {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}^{'}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})
\end{equation}
In the following part, we are going to derive the meta-gradient for meta model parameter $\theta$.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial exploitability}{\partial \theta} &= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}^{'}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \phi_2^{'}}\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial {\tens{M}}}{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
Thus, we need to calculate three terms: $\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}, \frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} \text{ and } \frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$.\\
For $\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}$,
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \phi_2^{'}}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_{2}, {\bm{\pi}}_t^2, \text{new policy pool})}{\partial \phi_2 \partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
Thus, we only need to calculate two terms: $ \frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta} \text{ and } \frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^2}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial (\mathbf{M}_{t+1})}\frac{\partial (\mathbf{M}_{t+1})}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \theta} + \frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t+1}\right)}{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
And the final term $\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}$.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \text{ new policy pool}}{\partial \theta}
&= \frac{\partial \phi_1^{'}}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}{\partial \theta}\\
&= \alpha \frac{\partial^2 {\tens{M}}(\phi_1, {\bm{\pi}}_t^1, \text{policy pool})}{\partial \phi_1 \partial {\bm{\pi}}_t^{1}}\frac{\partial f_{\theta}\left(\mathbf{M}_{t}\right)}{\partial \theta}
\end{align}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved remarkable success in various computer vision tasks, under the development of algorithms~\cite{resnet,fasterrcnn,xu2021renas}, computation power, and large-scale datasets~\cite{imagenet,coco}. However, the outstanding performance is accompanied by large computational costs, which makes CNNs difficult to deploy on mobile devices. With the increasing demand for CNNs on real-world applications, it is imperative to reduce the computational cost and meanwhile maintain the performance of neural networks.
Recently, researchers have devoted much effort to model compression and acceleration methods, including network pruning, low-bit quantization, knowledge distillation, and efficient model design. Network pruning aims to prune the unimportant filters or blocks that are insensitive to model performance through a certain criterion~\cite{2020Accelerate,l1-pruning,thinet,tang2021manifold}. Low-bit quantization methods represent weights and activation in neural networks with low-bit values~\cite{bnn,quantization}. Knowledge distillation transfers the knowledge of the teacher models to the student models to improve the performance~\cite{Distill,xu2020kernel,yang2020distilling}. The efficient model design utilizes lightweight operations like depth-wise convolution to construct some novel architectures successfully\cite{mobilenet,shufflenet,ghostnet}. Orthogonal to those methods that usually focus on the network weights or architectures, Guo~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{multi_pruning} and Wang~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{GFnet} study the redundacy that exists in the input images. However, the resolutions of the input images in most of existing compressed networks are still fixed. Although deep networks are often trained using an uniform resolution (\emph{e.g.}, 224$\times$ 224 on the ImageNet), sizes and locations of objects in images are radically different. Figure~\ref{fig1} shows some samples that the required resolution for achieving the highest performance are different. For the given network architecture, the FLOPs (floating-number operations) of the network for processing image will be significantly reduced for images with lower resolution.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.5\textwidth}
\small
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./figure_comparison_2.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{The prediction results of a well-trained ResNet-50 model for samples under different resolutions (112$\times$112, 168$\times$168, 224$\times$224). Some "easy" samples like the left column (panda), can be classified correctly using both low and high resolutions. However, some "hard" samples like the right column (damselfly), where the foreground objects are hidden or blend with the background, can only be classified correctly using the high resolution.}\label{fig1}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{wrapfigure}
Admittedly, the input resolution is a very important factor that affects the computational costs and the performance of CNNs. For the same network, a higher resolution usually results in larger FLOPs and higher accuracy~\cite{train_test_discrepancy}. In contrast, the model with a smaller input resolution has lower performance while the required FLOPs are also smaller. However, the shrink of input resolutions of deep networks provides us another potential to alleviate the computation burden of CNNs. To have an explict illustration, we first test some images under different resolutions with a pre-trained ResNet50 as shown in Figure~\ref{fig1} and count the minimum resolution required to give the correct prediction for each sample. In practice, ``easy'' samples, such as the panda with obvious foreground, can be classified correctly in both low and high resolution, and ``hard'' samples, such as the damselfly whose foreground and background are tangled can only be predicted accurately in high resolution. This observation indicates that a larger proportion of images in our datasets can be efficiently processed by reducing their resolutions. On the other hand, it is also compatible with the human perception system~\cite{simplelinedrawing},~\emph{i.e.}, some samples can be understood easily just in blurry mode while the others need to be seen in clear mode.
In this paper, we propose a novel dynamic-resolution network (DRNet) which dynamically adjusts the input resolution of each sample for efficient inference. To accurately find the required minimum resolution of each image, we introduce a resolution predictor which is embedded in front of the entire network. In practice, we set several different resolutions as candidates and feed the image into the resolution predictor to produce a probability distribution over candidate resolutions as the output. The network architecture of the resolution predictor is carefully designed with negligible computational complexity and trained jointly with classifier for recognition in an end-to-end fashion. By exploiting the proposed dynamic resolution network inference approach, we can excavate the reduncancy of each image from its input resolution. Thus, computational costs of easy samples with lower resolutions can be saved, and the accuracy for hard samples can also be preserved by maintaining higher resolutions. Extensive experiments on the large-scale visual benchmarks and the conventional ResNet architectures demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method for reducing the overall computational costs with comparable network performance.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./structure_2.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Overall framework, the resolution predictor guides the resolution selection for the large classifier. 'BN': batch normalization layer; 'P$_{ri}$': probability distribution over categories under resolution $ri$; In the inference stage, a one-hot vector is predicted by the resolution predictor, in which the '1' denotes a corresponding selected resolution. The original image is then resized to the selected resolution and input to the large classifier with chosen BN.}
\label{structure}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Works}\label{sec:related}
Although deep CNN models have shown excellent accuracy, they often contain millions of parameters and FLOPs. Thus the model compression techniques are becoming a research hostpot for reducing the computational costs of CNNs. Here, we revisit existing works in two parts, \emph{i.e.}, static model compression and dynamic model compression.
We classify model compression methods that are not instance-aware as the static. Group-wise Convolution (GWC), Depth-wise Convolution and Point-wise Convolution are widely used for efficient model design, such as MobileNet~\cite{mobilenet}, ResNeXt~\cite{resnext}, and ShuffleNet~\cite{shufflenet}. Revealing pattern redundancy among feature maps, Han~\cite{ghostnet} proposes to generate more feature maps from intrinsic ones through some cheap operations and Zhang~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{zhang2020spconv} adopts relatively heavy computation to extract intrinsic information while tiny hidden details are processed with some light-weight operations. The methods above achieve model acceleration to some extent. However, they treat all input samples equally, whereas the difficulty for CNN models or humans to recognize each sample is unequal. So instance-aware model compression can be further explored.
Dynamic model compression takes the unequal difficulty of each sample into consideration. Huang~\cite{huang2018} proposes multi-scale dense networks with multiple classifiers to allocate uneven computation across "easier" and "harder" inputs. Wu~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{blockdrop} introduces BlockDrop which learns to dynamically execute the necessary layers so as to best reduce total computation. Veit~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{aig2018} proposes ConvNet-AIG to adaptively define their network topology conditioned on the input image. Except for dynamic adjustment on model architectures, recent works pay more attention to input images. Verelst~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{verelst2020dynamic} proposes a small gating network to predict pixel-wise masks determining the locations where dynamic convolutions are evaluated. Uzkent~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{uzkent2020learning} proposes PatchDrop to dynamically identify when and where to use high-resolution data conditioned on the paired low-resolution images. Yang~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{yang2020resolution} dynamically utilize sub-networks of the base network to process images with different resolutions. Wang~\emph{et.al.}~\cite{GFnet} proposes GFNet with patch proposal networks that strategically crop the minimal image regions to obtain reliable predictions. There exists many works on multiple resolutions and dynamic mechanisms. ELASTIC~\cite{wang2019elastic} uses different scaling policies for different instances and it learns from the data how to select the best policy. Hydranets~\cite{mullapudi2018hydranets} chooses different branches for different inputs by a gate and aggregates their outputs with a combiner. RS-Net~\cite{wang2020resolution} utilizes private BNs, shared convolutions, and fully-connected layer and to train input images with different resolutions.
Different from dynamic adjustment on model architectures and dynamic modification on input images with reinforcement learning, we consider the whole image and propose a resolution predictor to dynamically choose the performance-sufficient and cost-efficient resolution for a single model to obtain reliable prediction with end-to-end training.
\section{Approach}\label{sec:approach}
In this section, we first introduce the overall framework of the proposed Dynamic Resolution Network (DRNet), then describe the resolution predictor, resolution-aware BN, and optimization algorithm in detail, respectively.
\subsection{Dynamic Resolution Network}
Inspired by the fact that different sample requires different resolution to achieve the least accurate prediction, we propose to develop an instance-aware resolution selection approach for a single large classifier network. As shown in Figure~\ref{structure}, the proposed method mainly consists of two components. The first is the large classifier network with both high performance and expensive computational costs, such as the classical ResNet~\cite{resnet} and EfficientNet~\cite{efficientnet}. The other is a resolution predictor for finding the minimal resolution so that we can adjust the input resolution of each image to have a better trade-off on the accuracy and efficiency. For an arbitrary input image, we first forecast its suitable resolution $r$ using the resolution predictor. Then, the large classifier will take the resized image as inputs and the required FLOPs will be reduced significantly when $r$ is lower than that of the origional resolution. To achieve better performance, the resolution predictor and the base network are optimized end-to-end during training.
\paragraph{Resolution Predictor.}
The resolution predictor is designed as a CNN-based preprocessing operation before input samples are fed to the large base network. It's from the inspiration that our well-trained large models can also predict a relative amount of samples correctly though they are in relatively small resolutions while large amounts of computation cost can be saved. On the one hand, the goal of the resolution predictor is to find an appropriate instance-aware resolution by inferring a probability distribution over candidate resolutions. Note that there are a vast number of candidates from 1$\times$1 to 224$\times$224, which makes it difficult, also meaningless, for the resolution predictor to explore such a long-range of resolutions. As a simplification strategy and practical requirement, we choose $m$ resolution candidates $r_1,r_2,\cdots,r_m$ to shrink the exploration range. On the other hand, we have to keep the model size of the proposed resolution predictor as small as possible since it will bring extra FLOPs, otherwise, it becomes impractical to implement such a module if its extra introduced computation exceeds the saved one from the low resolution. In this spirit, we design the resolution predictor with a few convolutional layers and fully-connected layers to complete a resolution classification task. Then the preprocessing of the proposed resolution predictor $R(\cdot)$ can be given as follows:
\begin{equation}
p_r=[p_{r_1}, p_{r_2},..., p_{r_m}] = R(X),
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $X$ is the input samples fed to the resolution predictor, $m$ is the total number of candidate resolutions, and $p_r \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the outputs of the resolution predictor which represents the probability of each candidate. Then the resolution corresponding to the highest probability entry is selected as the resolution fed to the large classifier. Since the process from the soft outputs of resolution predictor to the discrete resolution resizing operation does not support end-to-end training, here we adopt Gumbel-Softmax~\cite{gumbel_softmax} module $\mathbb{G}$ to turn soft decisions $p_r$ into hard decisions $h \in \{0,1\}^{m}$ by applying Gumbel-Softmax trick to solve the non-differentiable problem:
\begin{equation}
h=\mathbb{G}(p_r)=\mathbb{G}(R(X)),
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where the Gumbel-Softmax trick will be described in the next subsection. For validation, the resolution predictor makes decisions first then the input with the selected resolution only is fed to the large classifier in the normal way as shown in the left part of Figure~\ref{structure}.
\paragraph{Resolution-aware BN.}
Our framework is proposed to use only a single large classifier for the sake of storage pressure and loading latency, which results in that the single classifier has to process multi-resolution inputs and raises two problems. One obvious problem is that the first fully-connected layer will fail to work with a different input resolution and can be solved with global average pooling. Thus we can process multiple resolutions in one single network. The other hidden problem exists in Batch Normalization (BN)~\cite{bn} layers. BN is used to make deep models converge faster and more stable through channel-wise normalization of the input layer by re-centering and re-scaling. However, activation statistics including means and variances under different resolutions are incompatible~\cite{train_test_discrepancy}. Using shared BNs under multiple resolutions leads to lower accuracy in our experiments as shown in section~\ref{resolution_bn}. Since the batch normalization layer contains a negligible amount of parameters, we propose resolution-aware BNs as shown in Figure~\ref{structure}. We decouple the BN for each resolution and choose the corresponding BN layer to normalize the features:
\begin{equation}
x_j = {\gamma}_j \frac{x_j-{\mu}_j}{\sqrt{{\sigma_j}^2+\epsilon}}+{\beta}_j, \ j\in\{1,2,...,m\},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a small number for numerical stability, ${\mu}_i$ and ${\sigma}_i$ are private averaged mean and variance from the activation statistics under separate resolutions; ${\beta_i}$ and ${\gamma_i}$ are private learnable scale weights and bias. Since shared convolutions are insensitive to performance, the overall adjustment for the original large classifier is shown in the right part of Figure~\ref{structure}.
\subsection{Optimization}
The proposed framework is optimized to perform instance-aware resolution selection for inputs of a single large classifier with end-to-end training. The loss function and Gumbel softmax trick are described in the following.
\paragraph{Loss Function.}
The base classifier and the resolution predictor are optimized jointly. The loss function includes two parts: the cross-entropy loss for image classification and a FLOPs constraint regularization to restrict the computation budget.
Given a pretrained base image classifier $\mathcal{F}$ which takes image $X$ as input and outputs the probability predictions $y=\mathcal{F}(X)$ for image classification, we optimize the resolution predictor and finetune the pretrained base classifier together so as to make them compatible with each other. For the input image $X$, we first resize it into $m$ candidate resolutions as $X_{r_1}, X_{r_2}, \cdots, X_{r_m}$. We use the proposed resolution predictor to produce the resolution probability vector $p_r\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ for each image. The soft resolution probability $p_r$ is transformed into hard one-hot selection $h\in\{0,1\}^{m}$ using Gumbel-Softmax trick as equation~\ref{eq2} where the hot entry of $h$ represents the resolution choice for each sample. We first obtain the final prediction of each resolution $y_{rj}=\mathcal{F}(X_{rj})$, and then sum them up with $h$ to obtain the recognition prediction for the selected resolution:
\begin{equation}
\hat{y} = \sum_{j=1}^{m} h_j y_{r_j}.
\end{equation}
The Cross-Entropy loss $\mathcal{H}$ is performed between $\hat{y}$ and target label $y$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
L_{ce} = \mathcal{H}(\hat{y}, y).
\end{equation}
The gradients from the loss $L_{ce}$ are back-propagated to both the base classifier and the resolution predictor for optimization.
If we use the Cross-Entropy loss only, the resolution predictor will converge to a sub-optimal point and tend to select the largest resolution because samples with the largest resolution correspond to relatively lower classification loss generally. Although the classification confidence of the low-resolution image is relatively lower, the prediction can be correct and requires fewer FLOPs. In order to reduce the computational cost and balance the different resolution selection, we propose a FLOPs constraint regularization to guide the learning of resolution predictor:
\begin{align}
F &= \sum_{j=1}^{m}(C_j\cdot h_j),\\
L_{reg} &= \max\left(0, \frac{\mathbb{E}(F)-\alpha}{C_{max}-C_{min}}\right),
\end{align}
where $F$ is the actual inference FLOPs, $C_j$ is the pre-computed FLOPs value for the $j$-th resolution, $\mathbb{E}(\cdot)$ is the expectation value over samples, and $\alpha$ is the target FLOPs. Through this regularization, there will be a penalty if averaged FLOPs value is too large, enforcing the proposed resolution predictor to be instance-aware and predict the resolution that is both performance-sufficient (with correct prediction) and cost-efficient (with low resolution).
Finally, the overall loss is the weighted summation over the classification loss and the FLOPs constraint regularization term:
\begin{equation}
L= L_{ce} + \eta L_{reg},
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is a hyper-parameter to match the magnitude of $L_{ce}$ and $L_{reg}$.
\paragraph{Gumbel Softmax Trick.}
Since there exists an non-differentiable problem in the process from the resolution predictor's continues outputs to discrete resolution selection, we adopt Gumbel Softmax trick~\cite{asampling,gumbel_softmax} to make discrete decision differentiable during the back-propagation. In Eq.~\ref{eq1}, the resolution predictor gives the probabilities for the resolution candidates $p_r=[p_{r_1}, p_{r_2},..., p_{r_m}]$. Then the discrete candidate resolution selections can be drawn using:
\begin{equation}
h = \mbox{one\_hot}[(\underset{j}{\arg\max}(\log{p_{r_j}}+g_j)],
\end{equation}
where $g_j$ is Gumbel noise obtained through two $\log$ operation applied on i.i.d samples $u$ drawn from a uniform distribution as follows:
\begin{equation}
g_j = -\log({-\log{u}}), \quad u \sim U(0, 1).
\end{equation}
During training, the derivative of the one-hot operation is approximated by Gumbel softmax function which is both continuous and differentiable:
\begin{equation}
h_j = \frac{\exp{(\log({\pi}_j)+g_j)/\tau}}{{\sum}_{j=1}^{m}{exp((\log{({\pi}_j)}}+g_j/\tau))},
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the temperature parameter. The introduction of Gumbel noise has two positive effects. On the one hand, it will not influence the highest entry of the original categorical probability distribution. On the other hand, it makes the gradient approximation from discrete hardmax to continuous softmax more fluent. By this straight-through Gumbel softmax trick, we can optimize the overall framework end-to-end.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiment}
To show the effectiveness of our proposed method, in this section, we conduct experiments on the small-scale ImageNet-100 and large-scale ImageNet-1K~\cite{imagenet} with classic large classifier networks, including ResNet~\cite{resnet} and MobileNetV2~\cite{mobilev2}, where we replace their single batch normalization layer(BN) with resolution-aware BNs and add the proposed resolution predictor to guide the resolution selection.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
\emph{ImageNet-1K} dataset (ImageNet ILSVRC2012)~\cite{imagenet} is a widely-used benchmark to evaluate the classification performance of neural networks, which consists of 1.28M training images and 50K validation images in 1K categories. \emph{ImageNet-100} is a subset of the ImageNet ILSVRC2012, whose training set is random selected from the original training set and consists of 500 instances of 100 categories. The validation set is the corresponding 100 categories of the original validation set. The categories of ImageNet-100 is provided in supplementary materials. For the license of ImageNet dataset, please refer to \url{http://www.image-net.org/download}.
\paragraph{Experimental Settings.}
For data augmentation during training for both ImageNet-100 and ImageNet-1K, we follow the scheme as in~\cite{resnet} including randomly cropping a patch from the input image and resizing to candidate resolutions with the bilinear interpolation followed by random horizontal flipping with probability 0.5. For data processing during validation, we first resize the input image into $256 \times 256$ and then crop the center $224 \times 224$ part. The details of the resolution predictor are provided in supplementary materials. For both datasets, we firstly employ the images of different resolutions to pre-train a model without the resolution predictor. The losses of each resolution are summed up for optimization. Then we add a designed predictor to the model and conduct finetuning. Optimization is performed using SGD (mini-batch stochastic gradient descent) and learning rate warmup is applied for the first 3 epochs. In the pretraining stage, the model is trained with total epochs 70, batch-size 256, weight decay 0.0001, momentum 0.9, initial learning rate 0.1 which decays a factor of 10 every 20 epochs. We adopt a similar training scheme in finetuning stage. The total epochs are 100 with the learning rate decaying a factor of 10 every 30 epochs. We adopt 1$\times$ learning rate to finetune the large classifier and 0.1$\times$ learning rate to train the resolution predictor from scratch. The framework is implemented in Pytorch~\cite{pytorch} on NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPUs.
\subsection{ImageNet-100 Experiments}
We conduct small-scale experiments on ImageNet-100 to guide the resolution selection for large classifiers ResNet-50. The resolution predictor is designed as a 4-stage residual network with input resolution $128\times 128$ where each stage contains one residual basic block, which consumes about 300 million FLOPs. For candidate resolutions of the large classifier, we choose resolutions of [$224\times224$, $168\times168$, $112\times112$] and we denote them as [224, 168,112] for simplicity. Thus the last fully-connected layers of the resolution predictor contain three neurons. We only replace each batch normalization layer in ResNet-50 with three optional resolution-aware batch normalization layers, change the last average pooling layer to an adaptive average pooling layer, and then integrate the resolution predictor to form the overall framework. Experiment results are shown in Table~\ref{tab2}.
For the calculation of the average FLOPs in Table~\ref{tab2}, we sum up the FLOPs of each sample under the predicted resolution, take the extra FLOPs introduced by the resolution predictor into account and finally take the average over the whole validation set. From the results in Table~\ref{tab2}, we can see our dynamic-resolution ResNet-50 obtains about 17\% reduction of average FLOPs while gains 4.0\% accuracy increase with the candidate resolutions [224, 168, 112]. When we tune the hyperparameters (\emph{i.e.}, $\eta$ and $\alpha$) in FLOPs constraint regularization, the dynamic-resolution ResNet-50 obtains about 32\% FLOPs reduction and achieve 1.8\% increase in accuracy. We also extend the range of resolutions (\emph{i.e.}, [224, 192, 168, 112, 96]) for fully exploration, especially the lower resolution. We can see that our DRNet still performs better than the baseline model. Setting a larger $\alpha$ can even obtain 44\% FLOPs reduction with performance increase, which is shown in Table~\ref{tab:flops}.
\begin{table}[htp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.6\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Resolutions & RA-BN & FLOPs & Acc \\ \hline
{[}224{]} & - & 4.1 G & 78.5\% \\
{[}224, 168, 112{]} & Yes & 3.4 G & 82.5\% \\
{[}224, 168, 112{]} & Yes & 2.8 G & 81.4\% \\
{[}224, 168, 112{]} & No & 2.9 G & 80.3\% \\
{[}224, 192, 168, 112, 96{]} & Yes & 3.0 G & 81.9\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of ResNet-50 on ImageNet-100. The first row demonstrates the results of ResNet-50 backbones. The second row presents the results of the DRNet with regularization. The third row presents the DRNet trained with $\eta=0.2$ and $\alpha=2.5$ in the FLOPs constraint regularization, and the fourth row shows the DRNet w/o resolution-aware BN. }
\centering
\label{tab2}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{1.0em}
\begin{minipage}{0.35\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}{$\eta$}\end{tabular} & $\alpha$ & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Average \\ FLOPs\end{tabular} & Acc \\
\hline
0.2 & 2.0 & 2.3 G & 80.6\% \\
0.2 & 2.5 & 2.8 G & 81.4\% \\
0.2 & 3.0 & 3.3 G & 82.3\% \\
0.2 & 3.5 & 3.5 G & 82.6\% \\
\hline
0.1 & 3.0 & 3.3 G & 82.1\% \\
0.2 & 3.0 & 3.3 G & 82.3\% \\
0.5 & 3.0 & 3.1 G & 81.9\% \\
1 & 3.0 & 3.1 G & 81.5\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Influence of FLOPs Constraint Regularization.}
\label{tab:flops}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
To form the dynamic resolution network, we propose two adjustments, 1) replacing each BN layer with resolution-aware BNs; 2) proposing a FLOPs balance regularizer. Here we conduct ablation studies on ImageNet-100 to investigate the influence of each part.
\paragraph{Resolution-Aware BN.}
\label{resolution_bn}
Here we compare the results where the large classifier ResNet-50 is equipped with resolution-aware BN or not. From Table~\ref{tab2}, we can see that resolution-aware BNs obtain extra one more points for ResNet-50 with similar computational cost, which demonstrates that we need to normalize feature maps with different resolutions separately, thus their activation statistics can be more accurate.
\paragraph{Influence of FLOPs Constraint Regularization.}
\label{penalty}
Here we explore the influence of the penalty factor $\eta$ and target FLOPs value $\alpha$ in the FLOPs constraint regularization as shown in Table~\ref{tab:flops}. We first fix $\eta$ as 0.2 and tune $\alpha$ from 2.0 to 3.5. We can see that the average FLOPs increase from 2.3G to 3.5G gradually, and the accuracy also increase consequently. As for $\eta$, we fix $\alpha=3.0$ and tune $\eta$ in the range of [0.1, 1]. A larger penalty factor leads to lower FLOPs and accuracy. That is to say when selecting images dynamically, the resolution predictor with lower penalty $\eta$ tends to choose the larger resolution, where the effect of the balance regularizer is relatively weaker.
\subsection{ImageNet-1K Experiments}
\paragraph{ResNet Results.}
We conduct large-scale experiments with DR-ResNet-50 on ImageNet-1K as shown in Table~\ref{tab:resnet}. When we set the candidate resolutions as [224, 168, 112], our DR-ResNet-50 also outperforms the baseline by 1.4 percentage with 10\% FLOPs reduced. Similar to the results in Table~\ref{tab:flops}, the effectiveness of FLOPs constraint regularization is also verified in Table~\ref{tab:resnet}, where the FLOPs drop with larger $\alpha$. Our DRNet focuses on input resolution and keeps the structure of the large classifier almost unchanged, thus the parameters of our DRNet-equipped models are more than the original large classifier due to the introduction of the resolution predictor. In other words, since our DRNet is orthogonal to those architecture compression methods, careful combinations of the two methods would make a more compact result.
\begin{table*}[htp]
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
Model & $\alpha$ & Params & FLOPs & $\downarrow$FLOPs & Acc@1 & Acc@5 \\
\hline
ResNet-50-baseline & - & 25.6 M & 4.1 G & - & 76.1\% & 92.9\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 & - & 30.5 M & 3.7 G & 10\% & 77.5\% & 93.5\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 & 2.0 & 30.5 M & 2.3 G & 44\% & 75.3\% & 92.2\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 & 2.5 & 30.5 M & 2.7 G & 34\% & 76.2\% & 92.8\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 & 3.0 & 30.5 M & 3.2 G & 22\% & 77.0\% & 93.2\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 & 3.5 & 30.5 M & 3.7 G & 10\% & 77.4\% & 93.5\% \\
\hline
ResNet-101-baseline & - & 44.5 M & 7.8 G & - & 77.4\% & 93.5\% \\
DR-ResNet-101 & - & 49.4 M & 7.0 G & 10\% & 79.0\% & 94.3\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 results on the ImageNet-1K dataset.}
\label{tab:resnet}
\end{table*}
We also compare DR-ResNet-50 with other representative model compression methods to verify the superiority of the proposed method. The compared methods include Sparse Structure Selection (SSS)~\cite{huang2018data}, Versatile Filters~\cite{versatile}, PFP~\cite{PFP}, and C-SGD~\cite{sgd-pruning}. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:resnet2}, our DR-ResNet-50 achieves better performance than other methods with similar FLOPs.
\begin{table*}[htp]
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
Model & Params & FLOPs & $\downarrow$FLOPs & Acc@1 & Acc@5 \\
\hline
ResNet-50-baseline & 25.6 M & 4.1 G & - & 76.1\% & 92.9\% \\
ResNet-50 (192$\times$192) & 25.6 M & 3.0 G & 27\% & 74.3\% & 91.9\% \\
\hline
SSS-ResNet-50~\cite{huang2018data} & - & 2.8 G & 32\% & 74.2\% & 91.9\% \\
Versatile-ResNet-50~\cite{versatile} & 11.0 M & 3.0 G & 27\% & 74.5\% & 91.8\% \\
PFP-A-ResNet-50~\cite{PFP} & 20.9 M & 3.7 G & 10\% & 75.9\% & 92.8\% \\
C-SGD70-ResNet-50~\cite{sgd-pruning} & - & 2.6 G & 37\% & 75.3\% & 92.5\% \\
RANet~\cite{yang2020resolution} & - & 2.3 G & 44\% & 74.0\% & - \\
\hline
DR-ResNet-50 & 30.5 M & 3.7 G & 10\% & 77.5\% & 93.5\% \\
DR-ResNet-50 ($\alpha=2.0$) & 30.5 M & 2.3 G & 44\% & 75.3\% & 92.2\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison with other model compression methods on the ImageNet-1K dataset.}
\label{tab:resnet2}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Effect of Dynamic Resolution.}
To evaluate the effect of the proposed dynamic resolution mechanism, we compare DR-ResNet-50 with randomly selected resolution. We repeat the random selection 3 times and report their accuracies and FLOPs in Imagenet-1K dataset. From the results in Table~\ref{tab:dynamic}, DRNet shows much better performance than random baseline, indicating the effectiveness of dynamic resolution.
\paragraph{On-device Acceleration of Dynamic Resolution.}
In Figure~\ref{fig:latency}, we demonstrate the practical accelerations of our DR-ResNet-50, which are obtained by measuring the forward time on a Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6151 CPU. We directly set the batch size as 1 and the input resolution for the resolution predictor is 128. The candidate resolutions are 224, 168, and 112. We average the test time in ImageNet-1K val set. Our model substantially outperforms ResNet-50 by a significant margin.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{minipage}[htp]{0.6\linewidth}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
Model &FLOPs &Acc (\%) \\
\hline
Random-1 &2.6 G &74.70 \\
Random-2 &2.6 G &74.65 \\
Random-3 &2.6 G &74.60 \\
Random (mean) &2.6 G & 74.65$\pm$0.04\\
DRNet & 2.7 G &76.2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tabcaption{Dynamic resolution {vs.} Random resolution.}
\label{tab:dynamic}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[htp]{0.35\linewidth}
\flushright
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./acc-cpulatency.pdf}
\figcaption{Acc \emph{vs.} Latency.}
\label{fig:latency}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{MobileNetV2 Results.}
We also test our method on a representative lightweight neural network, \emph{i.e.} MobileNetV2~\cite{mobilev2}. We set the candidate resolution as {[}224, 168, 112{]}. The training setting of MobileNetV2 follows that in the original paper~\cite{mobilev2} for a fair comparison. To reduce the FLOPs of the resolution predictor, we replace the residual block with an inverted residual block and set the input size as 64$\times$64. From the results in Table~\ref{MoileNetV2}, we can see that DRNet achieves 72.7\% top-1 accuracy with fewer computational costs.
\begin{table*}[htp]
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\hline
Model & Params & FLOPs & $\downarrow$FLOPs & Acc@1 \\ \hline
MobileNetV2-baseline & 3.5 M & 300 M & - & 71.8\% \\
MobileNetV2 (192$\times$192) & 3.5 M & 221 M & 26\% & 70.7\% \\
MobileNetV2-0.75$\times$ & 2.6 M & 209 M & 30\% & 69.8\% \\
\hline
DR-MobileNetV2 & 3.8 M & 268 M & 10\% & 72.7\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{MobileNetV2 results on the ImageNet-1K dataset.}
\label{MoileNetV2}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Visualization}
The prediction results of the resolution predictor are visualized in Figure~\ref{visualization}. The first four samples with obvious foreground which occupy most of the whole image are predicted to use $112\times112$ resolution in high confidence. The middle three whose foreground is a little blurred are predicted to select $168\times168$ resolution. The last three samples' hidden foregrounds nearly blend with the background, thus the largest resolution are selected. Although the ``easy'' and ``hard'' examples may be different for humans and machines, these results are compatible with the human perception system.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./figure_visualize.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Image visualization results of DR-ResNet-50. Each row denotes the selected resolutions for these images. Image classification confidences and labels are shown below the images.}
\label{visualization}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we reveal that different sample acquires different resolution threshold to achieve the least accurate prediction. Thus large amounts of computation cost can be saved for some easier samples under lower resolutions. To make CNNs predict efficiently, we propose a novel dynamic resolution network to dynamically choose the performance-sufficient and cost-efficient resolution for each input sample. Then the input is resized to the predicted resolution and fed to the original large classifier, in which we replace each BN layer with resolution-aware BNs to accommodate the multi-resolution input. The proposed method is decoupled with the network architecture and can be generalized to any network. Extensive experiments on various networks demonstrate the effectiveness of DRNet.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec: Introduction}
Cepheids are intermediate to high-mass stars ($\sim$3--13\,M$_{\odot}$) which undergo core helium-burning phase. They are amongst the most important class of intrinsic variable stars in the local universe. Cepheids exhibit pulsations of period roughly in the range 1--100 days and obey well-defined Period-Luminosity ($P-L$) relationship \citep{leavitt19081777}. They are ubiquitous and bright which makes them easily observable systems to study. Moreover, they have stable light curves over the subsequent pulsation cycle. Over the years, Cepheids have been found to be pulsating in radial modes: fundamental mode (F), first overtone (1O), double-mode (such as F+1O, 1O+2O) and even triple-mode (F+1O+2O, 1O+2O+3O) \citep[eg.,][]{moskalik2004nonradial,soszynski2008optical,soszynski2010optical,soszynski2011optical,soszynski2016multi}. Their importance extends from extracting knowledge about the conditions at the stellar interior and deriving physical parameters \citep[such as mass, radius, temperature and metallicity;][]{MoskalikDziembowski2005A&A...434.1077M,Beaulieu2006ApJ...653L.101B,Pilecki2018ApJ...862...43P,DeSomma2020ApJS..247...30D} to even cosmological probes for measuring the Hubble constant \citep{freedman2001final, freedman2012carnegie, riess20113, riess20162, riess2019large} using the $P-L$ relationship. \\
The modes that Cepheid pulsate in, were earlier thought to be only radial ones but this notion was amended by a study of Magellanic Clouds, in particular the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), eg., \cite{Moskalik&Kolaczkowski2008,soszynski2008optical, moskalik2009frequency}. In the latter study, a significant fraction ($\sim$9 \,per cent) of Cepheids with dominant radial first overtone and additional, likely non-radial mode (referred as FO-$\nu$ in their paper) was reported, based on analysis of the OGLE-II data. Two groups could be distinguished. In the first, the period of the additional variability is very close to the period of radial first overtone, $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$. In the second group, additional variability is always of higher frequency, with period ratios, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$. In the following years more than 200 such stars were detected \citep[eg.][]{soszynski2010optical,soszynski2016multi,Suveges2018b}. In the Petersen diagram \citep[a plot of the shorter-to-longer period ratio vs. the longer period;][]{petersen1973masses} these stars form three distinct sequences. A detailed study of this group was conducted by \cite{smolec2016non}. They found that a noticeable fraction of these stars (35 \,per cent) show the signature of a power excess at the sub-harmonic frequency (1/2$\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$). Interestingly, the majority of these are located in the middle sequence in the Petersen diagram.
An analogous group of double-periodic pulsators with dominant radial first overtone and period ratios, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$, in the $(0.60,\, 0.65)$ range exists also in first overtone RR Lyrae (RRc) stars \citep[eg.,][]{Gruberbauer2007MNRAS,Olech_Moskalik_2009A&A...494L..17O, moskalik2015kepler, netzel2019census}. The latest review of the physical interpretation of the non-radial modes in both 1O Cepheids and RRc stars via theoretical modeling is discussed by \cite{dziembowski2016}. For Cepheids, the period ratios of $(0.60,\, 0.65)$ are proposed to be caused by harmonics of non-radial modes of moderate angular degrees ($\ell$) 7, 8 and 9. The two most populated sequences present in the Petersen diagram of RRc stars are explained through $\ell=8$ and 9 modes, while the third, middle sequence arises due to the linear combination of these two.
\cite{Suveges2018b}, while investigating additional mode content in Magellanic Clouds OGLE data found yet another counterpart of a double-periodic group detected earlier in RRc stars by \cite{netzel2015discovery}. Dominant variability is due to radial first overtone and additional variability is of a longer period; characteristic period ratio is around 0.686 \citep[1.46-mode in][]{Suveges2018b}. The origin of this additional variability remains a mystery. One may conclude that there are parallels in empirical behavior between Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars, in terms of the presence of non-radial mode along with radial mode.
In contrast to RR Lyrae stars, which frequently exhibit large-amplitude quasi-periodic modulation of pulsation amplitude and phase, known as the Blazhko effect \citep{blazko1907mitteilung}, Cepheids still have a reputation of being regular pulsators. In the last decade, however, some of them have been found to exhibit periodic modulations in the radial modes as well. In addition to a long-known oddball, V437 Lyr \citep[eg.][]{Molnar2014MNRAS.442.3222M}, \cite{moskalik2009frequency} reported that a large fraction of double-mode, 1O+2O classical Cepheids have both radial modes periodically modulated, with large amplitude. Large-amplitude modulation was reported in a few single-mode 1O Cepheids \citep{soszynski2016multi}. F-mode Cepheids appear more stable, but low-amplitude periodic modulation was reported in the only F-mode Cepheid in the {\it Kepler} field, V1154 Cyg \citep{Derekas2012MNRAS.425.1312D,Kanev2015EPJWC.10106036K,Derekas2017MNRAS.464.1553D}. Finally, \cite{smolec2017unstable} reported low-amplitude periodic modulation of pulsation in 51 F-mode Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds, showing that for pulsation periods around 10 days the phenomenon may be quite common. Cycle-to-cycle variation of the radial velocities hinting at modulation were also reported \citep[eg.,][]{anderson2014tuning,Anderson2016MNRAS.463.1707A,Anderson2018pas6.conf..193A}.
Most of the above detections of additional periodicities and modulations were done for Magellanic Cloud Cepheids. The Galactic fields remain fairly unexplored. Information whether and how the above-discussed phenomena, their incidence rate and characteristics, depend on metallicity, or on a host population may be crucial for proposing and testing the models behind. This encouraged the present analysis -- search for additional periodicities in the OGLE Galactic Cepheids sample.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we present the data and analysis procedure in Section \ref{sec: Data and Analysis}. Results are presented in Section \ref{sec: Results}, followed by discussion in Section \ref{sec: Discussion}. In the end, we compile our conclusions from the study in Section \ref{sec: Summary and Conclusions}.
\section{DATA AND ANALYSIS}
\label{sec: Data and Analysis}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=12.0cm,width=8cm]{Figures/LC1.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=12.0cm,width=8cm]{Figures/LC2.pdf}
\caption{The plot shows the representative time-series observations, window function and light curves to show the phase and temporal coverage for fundamental (Galactic disk) and first overtone (Galactic bulge) Cepheids. The subplot (in blue) in the middle panel shows the zoom-in at the window function centered at zero and the side peaks represent the yearly aliases.}
\label{fig: Representative light curves}
\end{figure*}
We conducted a frequency analysis study of Galactic disk and Galactic bulge Cepheids from Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE-IV) publicly available\footnote{\url{ftp://ftp.astrouw.edu.pl/ogle/ogle4}} photometric data \citep{udalski2015ogle,soszynski2017AcA....67..297S,Udalski2018AcA....68..315U,soszynski2020AcA....70..101S}. The analysis employs only I-band data as more sampling points are available, compared to the V-band. The fourth phase of the OGLE project, OGLE-IV, started in 2010 and is ongoing. OGLE-IV is ideal for investigation of mode content and of long-term pulsation behavior due to high-quality photometry (typical error of a single data point is a few mmag), long temporal baseline (up to 8 seasons) and high sampling rate (cadence of 19–60 minutes for inner Galactic bulge and 1–3 days for remaining bulge fields and Galactic disk).
We wrote a semi-automatic procedure to perform frequency analysis. As an initial step, we compute the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of the time series to identify the principal/dominant frequency, $\nu_0$. Then the procedure fits a Fourier series as shown by the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
m(t) = A_{0} + \sum_{k=1}^{N}A_{k} \sin(2\uppi k\nu_0t + \varphi_{k} ).
\end{equation}
Here, $A_{k}$ and $\varphi_{k}$ represent, respectively, amplitudes and phases of $k^{\rm{th}}$ order term. The order is chosen to satisfy $\frac{A_{k}}{\sigma(A_{k})} > 4 $ criteria, where $\sigma(A_{k})$ is the uncertainty in the amplitude.
During the automatic procedure, we remove 6-$\sigma$ outliers in the data (in the following manual analysis 4-$\sigma$ criterion is used) and also de-trend using low order polynomials to reduce possible season to season variation in the data, which may lead to undesired low frequency signals. Residuals are inspected for additional signals with S/N > 4 and based on this, stars are categorised into those potentially interesting and those in which the frequency spectra essentially contain noise.
After the automatic analysis is complete, the resulting inventory of interesting stars is analyzed manually. First, all resolved significant frequencies are included in the fit as independent frequencies and we look for any linear combination frequencies for subsequent inclusion in the sine series fit. Two signals are considered resolved, if their separation, $\Delta\nu$, fulfills the condition: $\Delta \nu>2/T$ where $T$ is the total time of the observation for a given star. Unresolved significant power at radial mode frequency may appear in the frequency spectrum due to the radial mode undergoing long-term phase/amplitude variations. Such significant unresolved power as a remnant in the frequency spectra increases the noise level and may hinder the detection of additional low-amplitude periodicities.
We get rid of the unresolved signals using the time-dependent pre-whitening technique \citep{moskalik2015kepler}, applied on a season-to-season basis.
Daily and yearly aliases in the frequency spectrum are inherent in the analysis of data from ground-based surveys such as OGLE. To illustrate this, data sampling, corresponding window function and light curve of two representative Cepheids are given by Fig.~\ref{fig: Representative light curves}. In the middle panels, zooms in the insets illustrate yearly aliases arising due to seasonal data sampling. At times (see for example window function for OGLE-GD-CEP-0100 in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig: Representative light curves}), the daily aliases are expected to be of comparable amplitude. Consequently, the identification of the {\it real} frequency of the periodic signal, based on peak amplitudes in the frequency spectra may be ambiguous. Such problematic cases that arise in our sample, will be discussed in detail in Section~\ref{subsec: Cepheids with double-mode radial pulsation}
Another type of unwanted signals that are sometimes detected in the frequency spectra are the ones that occur at close-to-integer frequencies and are most likely of instrumental origin. In OGLE data, a signal of the highest amplitude at $\approx$2$\,{\rm d}^{-1}$ is sometimes present in the frequency spectrum.
At times, there might be flux contamination of the primary source by the background stars. If the secondary is a variable star as well, it may introduce periodic signals in the frequency spectrum leading to erroneous results. In particular, we may suspect such contamination when we detect two signals with harmonics but detect no or only a few weak linear frequency combinations. To verify, we analyse flux instead of magnitude time series, as combination frequencies are not expected for two independent signals in flux data. This way we verified that OGLE-BLG-CEP-067 and OGLE-BLG-CEP-0291 are not double-periodic stars, but contain two independent periodicities due to contamination. In OGLE-BLG-CEP-067, two independent periodicities detected in the star, 2.6107 d and 1.6924 d, are likely originating from two different Cepheids in the same line of sight.
{
\footnotesize
\begin{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{-0.5pt}
\caption{Analysis summary of Cepheid sample in Galactic fields.}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|r|@{\hskip 0.2cm}r}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Galactic Field} & \textbf{Pulsation} & \textbf{ Raw Sample} & \textbf{For manual analysis} \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{DISK} & F & 1103 & 124 \\
& 1O & 495 & 117 \\
& F+1O & 45 & 45 \\
& 1O+2O & 133 & 133 \\
& 2O+3O & 1 & 1 \\
& 1O+2O+3O & 5 & 5 \\
\hline
Total disk stars & & 1782 & 425 \\
\hline
\textbf{BULGE} & F & 94 & 19 \\
& 1O & 56 & 32 \\
& F+1O & 12 & 12 \\
& 1O+2O & 19 & 19 \\
& 2O+3O & 1 & 1 \\
& 1O+2O+3O & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
Total bulge stars & & 184 & 85 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: Analysis summary}
\end{table}
}
Since, the description of automatic procedure outlined above well suits the analysis of single-periodic stars and not multi-mode ones (F+1O; 1O+2O; 2O+3O; 1O+2O+3O), these stars were analyzed manually. Finally, starting from a raw sample of 1966 stars, our sample reduced to 510 Cepheids including both Galactic disk and bulge fields, for subsequent manual inspection. The complete analysis summary is given in Tab.~\ref{tab: Analysis summary}.
\section{RESULTS}
\label{sec: Results}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Properties of additional periodicities in stars classified in the OGLE collection as single-mode, F Cepheids. The columns below are as follows: OGLE ID (OGLE-GD/BLG-CEP-xxxx), radial fundamental mode period (\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi), period of the additional variability (\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi), ratio of radial fundamental mode and additional periodicity, $R_{\rm F}$, where $R_{\rm F}=\min(\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)/\max(\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)$, amplitude of the fundamental mode (\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi), amplitude of the additional variability (\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi); signal to noise ratio of the additional variability (\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi$_{\rm x}$) and final column with remarks about the star (where pulsation classification is mentioned, `al' represents marking of lower alias signal, `ap' means additional periodicity, `det' means detrending of the time-series done, `nsF' means non-stationary fundamental mode, `comb' means combination frequencies detected). In some stars two possible solutions, sol 1/sol 2, of the frequency spectrum are given, arising due to alias ambiguity. In case one of the solutions seems more likely, it is marked with boldface font.}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllr}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{DISK F} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
OGLE ID & $\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi$ (d) & $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d) & $R_{\rm F}$ & $\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag) & {$\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$} & Remarks\\
\hline
0425 & 2.604827(6) & 1.85392(8) & {0.7117} & {0.1875} & {0.0071} & {4.2} & F+1O, al, comb \\
0079 & 3.171777(5) & 4.3849(8) & {0.7233} & {0.1548} & {0.0031} & {4.1} & det, ap \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{BULGE F} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
OGLE ID & $\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi$ (d) & $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d) & $R_{\rm F}$ & $\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$ & Remarks\\
\hline
007 & 1.5455011(8) & 0.86369(4) & 0.5588 & 0.2140 & 0.0030 & 3.7 & sol 1: F+2O, al\\
& 1.5455011(8) & 0.462842(9) & 0.2995 & 0.2140 & 0.0037 & 4.5 & \textbf{sol 2: unknown} \\
040 & 3.022076(5) & 3.9104(4) & 0.7728 & 0.1364 & 0.0041 & 5.3 & det, ap, nsF \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: F mode data table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Properties of additional periodicities in stars classified in the OGLE collection as double-mode, F+1O Cepheids. The columns below are as follows: OGLE ID (OGLE-GD/BLG-CEP-xxxx), radial fundamental mode period (\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi), radial first overtone period (\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi), period of the additional variability (\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi), ratio of radial mode and additional periodicity, $R_{\rm F/1O}$, where $R_{\rm F/1O}=\min(\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)/\max(\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)$, amplitude of the radial fundamental mode (\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi), amplitude of the radial first overtone (\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi), amplitude of the additional variability (\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi), signal to noise ratio of the additional variability (\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi$_{\rm x}$) and final column with remarks about the star (where pulsation classification is mentioned, `ap' means additional periodicity.).}
\begin{tabular}{ll@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.2cm}l@{\hskip 0.1cm}r}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{DISK F+1O} & & & & & & & & \\
\textbf{OGLE ID} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d)} & {$R_{\rm F}$} & {$R_{\rm 1O}$} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$} & {Remarks} \\
\hline
0910 & 0.3614131(7) & 0.2731497(3) & 0.216995(1) & 0.6004 & 0.7944 & 0.0426 & 0.0650 & 0.0108 & 6.3 & F+1O+2O \\
1743 & 9.8477(2) & 6.7516(1) & 8.251(2) & 0.8379 & 0.8182 & 0.0874 & 0.0709 & 0.0070 & 5.7 & ap\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: F+1O mode data table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Properties of additional periodicities in stars classified in the OGLE collection as double-mode, 1O+2O Cepheids. The columns below are as follows: OGLE ID (OGLE-GD/BLG-CEP-xxxx), radial first overtone mode period (\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi), radial second overtone period (\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi), period of the additional variability (\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi), ratio of radial mode and additional periodicity, $R_{\rm 1O/2O}$, where $R_{\rm 1O/2O}=\min(\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)/\max(\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)$,
amplitudes of the first and second overtones ($\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$, $\ifmmode A_{\rm 2O}\else$A_{\rm 2O}$\fi$), amplitude of the additional variability (\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi), signal to noise ratio of the additional periodicity (\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi$_{\rm x}$) and final column with remarks about the star (where pulsation classification is mentioned, `al' represents marking of lower alias signal, `ap' means additional periodicity, `det' means detrending of the time-series done, `tdp' means time dependent pre-whitening, `comb' means combination frequencies detected).}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{-20pt}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\hskip 0.05cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.3cm}l@{\hskip 0.01cm}r}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{DISK 1O+2O} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
\textbf{OGLE ID} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d)} & {$R_{\rm 1O}$} & {$R_{\rm 2O}$} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm 2O}\else$A_{\rm 2O}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$} & {Remarks} \\
\hline
0211 & 0.957678(4) & 0.77038(3) & 1.2938(2) & 0.7402 & 0.5954 & 0.1488 & 0.0138 & 0.0041 & 3.9 & F+1O+2O, al, tdp, nsO \\
1638 & 0.945532(4) & 0.761901(9) & 1.30247(5) & 0.7260 & 0.5850 & 0.0960 & 0.0302 & 0.0180 & 4.8 & F+1O+2O, det, al \\
1711 & 0.4345698(7) & 0.349831(1) & 0.57440(1) & 0.7566 & 0.6090 & 0.0921 & 0.0248 & 0.0179 & 4.0 & F+1O+2O, al \\
1804 & 0.2410947(3) & 0.1917771(9) & 0.1596242(6) & 0.6621 & 0.8323 & 0.0806 & 0.0193 & 0.0181 & 6.4 & 1O+2O+3O, al \\
1730 & 0.262288(1) & 0.211827(1) & 0.35629(1) & 0.7362 & 0.5945 & 0.0787 & 0.0596 & 0.0310 & 5.0 & F+1O+2O \\
0106 & 0.2897632(2) & 0.231837(1) & 0.291936(3) & 0.9926 & 0.7941 & 0.1048 & 0.0103 & 0.0074 & 4.6 & ap \\
1610 & 0.327297(1) & 0.262079(4) & 0.159473(5) & 0.4872 & 0.6085 & 0.1224 & 0.0150 & 0.0061 & 4.1 & ap \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{BULGE 1O+2O} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
\textbf{OGLE ID} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi$ (d)} & {$\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d)} & {$R_{\rm 1O}$} & {$R_{\rm 2O}$} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm 2O}\else$A_{\rm 2O}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag)} & {$\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$} & {Remarks} \\
\hline
004 & 0.24004608(6) & 0.1902526(3) & 0.1520951(2) & 0.6336 & 0.7994 & {0.0538} & {0.0067} & 0.0054 & 12.9 & det, comb, ap \\
& & & 0.1684677(5) & 0.7018 & 0.8855 & & & 0.0029 & 7.2 & ap \\
& & & 0.1523386(5) & 0.6346 & 0.8007 & & & 0.0023 & 6.1 & ap \\
009 & 0.27256693(7) & 0.2167214(2) & 0.263823(2) & 0.9679 & 0.8215 & {0.0510} & {0.0136} & 0.0015 & 4.4 & det, comb \\
192 & 0.2494514(2) & 0.1967324(3) & 0.1222691(2) & 0.4902 & 0.6215 & {0.0346} & {0.0118} & 0.0062 & 7.3 & det, ap \\
& & & 0.2027133(7) & 0.8126 & 0.9705 & & & 0.0057 & 7.1 & ap \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: 1O+2O mode data table}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Properties of additional periodicities in stars classified in the OGLE collection as single-mode, 1O Cepheids. The columns below are as follows: OGLE ID (OGLE-GD/BLG-CEP-xxxx), radial first overtone mode period ($\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$), period of the additional variability ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$), ratio of radial first overtone period and additional variability, $R_{\rm 1O}$, where $R_{\rm 1O}=\min(\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)/\max(\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi,\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi)$, amplitude of the first overtone ($\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$), amplitude of the additional variability ($\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$), amplitude ratio ($\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$), signal to noise ratio of the additional variability ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$) and final column with remarks about the star (where pulsation classification is mentioned, `al' represents marking of lower alias signal, `det' means detrending of the time-series done, `nsO' means non-stationary first overtone mode, `ns' refers to non-stationary additional signal/power excesses, `tdp' means time dependent pre-whitening, `comb' means combination frequencies detected). In some stars two possible solutions, sol 1/sol 2, of the frequency spectrum are given, arising due to alias ambiguity. In case one of the solutions seems more likely, it is marked with boldface font.}
\begin{tabular}{llllllllr}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{DISK 1O} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
OGLE ID & $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (d) & $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d) & $R_{\rm 1O}$ & $\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag)& $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ & $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$ & Remarks\\
\hline
0032 & 0.3905313(4) & 0.312673(4) & 0.8006 & 0.1167 & 0.0076 & 0.0649 & 5.2 & \textbf{sol 1: 1O+2O} \\
& 0.3905314(4) & 0.238040(2) & 0.6095 & 0.1169 & 0.0078 & 0.0663 & 5.2 & sol 2: F+2O, al \\
0847 & 0.547452(7) & 0.44155(3) & 0.8066 & 0.1077 & 0.0265 & 0.2465 & 4.7 & 1O+2O \\
0936 & 0.3095034(6) & 0.247183(3) & 0.7986 & 0.0732 & 0.0101 & 0.1377 & 4.2 & 1O+2O, al \\
1220 & 0.507044(2) & 0.68168(5) & 0.7438 & 0.0735 & 0.0089 & 0.1210 & 4.3 & sol 1: F+1O \\
& 0.507044(1) & 0.404911(4) & 0.7986 & 0.0735 & 0.0090 & 0.1221 & 4.3 & sol 2: 1O+2O, al \\
1479 & 1.7060(1) & 1.3698(2) & 0.8029 & 0.1022 & 0.0218 & 0.2133 & 4.7 & 1O+2O, al \\
1620 & 0.2345349(3) & 0.187493(2) & 0.7994 & 0.1080 & 0.0087 & 0.0807 & 6.4 & 1O+2O, al, comb \\
1753 & 0.2540406(3) & 0.202664(2) & 0.7978 & 0.0841 & 0.0100 & 0.1187 & 5.1 & \textbf{sol 1: 1O+2O, al} \\
& 0.2540404(4) & 0.168436(3) & 0.6630 & 0.0842 & 0.0114 & 0.1351 & 5.2 & sol 2: 1O+3O \\
1806 & 0.2551434(9) & 0.203460(3) & 0.7974 & 0.0713 & 0.0134 & 0.1885 & 4.2 &\textbf{ sol 1: 1O+2O, al} \\
& 0.2551442(5) & 0.168967(2) & 0.6623 & 0.0705 & 0.0127 & 0.1795 & 4.2 & sol 2: 1O+3O \\
0076 & 3.01033(2) & 2.1462(2) & 0.7130 & 0.1081 & 0.0051 & 0.0473 & 5.1 & sol 1: F+1O \\
& 3.01033(2) & 1.8629(2) & 0.6188 & 0.1080 & 0.0051 & 0.0469 & 4.9 & \textbf{sol 2: Group 1}, al \\
0420 & 1.194529(2) & 0.71745(2) & 0.6006 & 0.1520 & 0.0046 & 0.0302 & 4.0 & \textbf{sol 1: Group 1}, al \\
& 1.194528(2) & 1.60766(1) & 0.7430 & 0.1523 & 0.0046 & 0.0305 & 3.9 & sol 2: F+1O, al \\
0126 & 3.27317(2) & 1.9765(1) & 0.6038 & 0.0922 & 0.0060 & 0.0649 & 4.2 & Group 1, nsO \\
0041 & 2.49740(2) & 1.4651(1) & 0.5866 & 0.0928 & 0.0045 & 0.0488 & 3.7 & Group 1, al \\
0632 & 3.66766(5) & 4.689(2) & 0.7821 & 0.0900 & 0.0046 & 0.0515 & 4.7 & Group 2, al, ns \\
0793 & 4.28649(3) & 2.6763(4) & 0.6244 & 0.1160 & 0.0036 & 0.0313 & 3.5 & Group 1, det, tdp, nsO \\
0932 & 4.25461(3) & 2.7066(3) & 0.6362 & 0.1300 & 0.0049 & 0.0374 & 4.5 & Group 1, al, det \\
1346 & 1.74826(3) & 1.0952(3) & 0.6264 & 0.1078 & 0.0061 & 0.0567 & 4.0 & Group 1, al \\
1308 & 3.6996(6) & 2.1815(8) & 0.5897 & 0.1245 & 0.0322 & 0.2588 & 5.6 & Group 1 \\
1314 & 2.41598(5) & 1.5012(3) & 0.6214 & 0.1158 & 0.0073 & 0.0629 & 6.3 & Group 1 \\
1668 & 2.68862(1) & 1.6817(1) & 0.6255 & {0.1114} & 0.0045 & 0.0403 & 4.0 & Group 1 \\
& & 3.1564(3) & 0.8518 & & 0.0069 & 0.0616 & 4.5 & Group 2, ns \\
0850 & 3.67494(3) & 5.4984(10) & 0.6684 & 0.0879 & 0.0046 & 0.0527 & 4.3 & ap \\
& & 2.2785(3) & 0.6200 & & 0.0029 & 0.0335 & 3.5 & Group 1 \\
0475 & 4.31162(3) & 5.7684(9) & 0.7475 & 0.1393 & 0.0064 & 0.0462 & 4.3 & Group 2, comb, ns \\
0546 & 5.17904(4) & 6.629(2) & 0.7812 & 0.0867 & 0.0046 & 0.0530 & 4.6 & Group 2, det, ns \\
1332 & 1.86971(5) & 1.1658(2) & 0.6235 & 0.1073 & 0.0047 & 0.0440 & 4.1 & Group 1 \\
& & 2.442(2) & 0.7655 & & 0.0050 & 0.0464 & 4.4 & Group 2, ns \\
1280 & 3.07538(1) & 3.951(2)& 0.7783 & 0.0944 & 0.0049 & 0.0517 & 4.1 & Group 2 \\
0863 & 6.47964(5) & 7.812(3) & 0.8294 & 0.1149 & 0.0039 & 0.0338 & 4.6 & Group 2, det \\
1193 & 5.10932(8) & 6.894(2) & 0.7412 & 0.0772 & 0.0055 & 0.0718 & 5.1 & Group 2, al, det \\
1339 & 3.30572(9) & 4.176(4) & 0.7917 & 0.0919 & 0.0046 & 0.0499 & 4.0 & Group 2, al, ns \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{BULGE 1O} & {} & {} & {} & {} & {} & \\
OGLE ID & $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (d) & $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$ (d) & $R_{\rm 1O}$ & $\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$ (mag) & $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ & $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$ &Remarks\\
\hline
024 & 0.35542535(4) & 0.199454(1) & 0.5612 & 0.1656 & 0.0016 & 0.0097 & 4.3 & det, tdp, ap \\
027 & 0.29652811(7) & 0.276636(2) & 0.9329 & 0.0541 & 0.0010 & 0.0187 & 5.2 & nsO, tdp \\
& & 0.1047693(3) & 0.3533 & {} & 0.0011 & 0.0206 & 6.1 & ap \\
056 & 4.76894(2) & 6.241(1) & 0.7642 & 0.0936 & 0.0023 & 0.0250 & 4.2 & Group 2,det, tdp, ns\\
196 & 0.2535573(2) & 0.2558523(4) & 0.9878 & 0.0747 & 0.0175 & 0.2343 & 13.2 & ap \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: 1O mode data table}
\end{table*}
In our sample we have detected new candidates for double-mode and triple-mode radial pulsation (Section~\ref{subsec: Cepheids with double-mode radial pulsation}) and several candidates for double-periodic pulsators in which the detected additional periodicity cannot be associated with radial mode (Section~\ref{subsec: Cepheids with double periodic pulsation} and \ref{subsec: Additional periodicities in other radial mode sample}). We have also discovered periodic modulation of pulsation in a few classical Cepheids including F-mode pulsator, 1O pulsator and double-mode radial pulsator, F+1O (Section~\ref{subsec: Periodic modulation of pulsation}). Detection of modulation in F+1O double-mode Cepheid is the first reported in literature whereas the modulation in F-mode is a Galactic detection, adding to the scarce collection of such candidates in the literature.
\subsection{New detection of radial multi-mode Cepheids}
\label{subsec: Cepheids with double-mode radial pulsation}
In several Cepheids, we have detected additional periodicity that can be attributed to radial mode. Two stars were originally classified as single-mode F-mode pulsator, ten stars as single-mode 1O mode pulsators (candidates for new double-mode Cepheids), one star as double-mode F+1O pulsator, and five stars as double-mode 1O+2O pulsators (candidates for new triple-mode Cepheids). Data for these stars are collected in the top sections of Tabs~\ref{tab: F mode data table}--\ref{tab: 1O mode data table} for stars originally classified as F, F+1O 1O+2O and 1O pulsators, respectively. The columns in the tables contain star id (OGLE-GD/BLG-CEP-xxx), periods of the already classified radial modes ($P_{\rm F/1O/2O}$) and of the additional detection ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi$), corresponding period ratios -- shorter to longer period, amplitude of radial modes ($A_{\rm F/1O/2O}$), amplitude of additional detection ($\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi$), signal-to-noise ratio for the new detection ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi_{\rm x}$) and remarks.
In 10 stars of the OGLE single-mode 1O sample we have detected additional periodicities that may be classified as radial modes, ranging from fundamental to radial third overtone. For some of these stars alternate interpretation is possible which is mentioned as an added row against the star in Tab.~\ref{tab: 1O mode data table}. Such multiple interpretation are due to ambiguities in characterizing {\it correct} peak in the frequency spectrum due to daily aliases of comparable height.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10cm,width=16cm]{Figures/Petersen_multimode.pdf}
\caption{Petersen diagram showing new detections of double-mode (plus symbol) and triple mode (star symbol) candidates (same colour denotes different modes for the same star). Hollow circles are OGLE-IV Cepheids from LMC (blue) SMC (orange) and Galaxy (green). Black dotted line connects the two possible double-mode solutions for OGLE-GD-CEP-1806 as mentioned in Sect.~\ref{subsec: Cepheids with double-mode radial pulsation}.}
\label{fig: Petersen_1O2O}
\end{figure*}
One of the representative of the ambiguities that arise in radial mode classification is well captured for OGLE-GD-CEP-1806 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\approx 0.255$\,d). After pre-whitening the first overtone frequency and its harmonic -- see Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1806} -- the highest peak ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4.19$ may be interpreted as due to radial 2O, with $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.7974$, whereas a bit lower daily alias ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4.17$) may be interpreted as due to radial 3O ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi= 0.6623$). Both solutions are illustrated in the Petersen diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig: Petersen_1O2O} (crosses connected with the dashed line) and fall well withing the 1O+2O or 1O+3O progressions. As window function in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1806} indicates, the consecutive daily aliases are expected to be of similar height. Even though both solutions are likely, our preference is inclined to double-mode 1O+2O pulsation, as this pulsation type involving consecutive radial modes is much more frequently detected as compared to the 1O+3O pulsation. A similar example was seen in OGLE-GD-CEP-1753 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\approx 0.254$\,d) from 1O sample, with two radial double-mode classification possibilities. The first one being 1O+2O ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=5.11$, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.7978$; preferred solution) pulsation and the other possibility as 1O+3O ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=5.17$, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.6630$).
OGLE-GD-CEP-0032 (classified as 1O, with $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\approx0.391$\,d) presents yet another case where two solutions are possible. The first case indicates the presence of second overtone radial mode ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.8006$, $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=5.2$). By selecting the other alias of comparable height, $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=5.2$, we get $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.6095$, which does not point towards double-mode radial pulsation, unless the primary frequency corresponds to radial fundamental mode instead of radial 1O. Then, the period ratio points towards F+2O double-mode radial pulsation. The primary periodicity is of too low amplitude to firmly identify it as due to radial F or radial 1O based on light curve shape. Our preference goes to 1O+2O solution that agrees with primary OGLE classification and represents a more common class of double-mode pulsators.
OGLE-GD-CEP-1220 (classified as 1O, $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\approx0.507$\,d) is another star for which two radial double-mode scenarios are possible based on which peak is selected after pre-whitening with the first overtone frequency. If higher frequency alias is selected ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4.3$), the period ratio, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.7986$, points toward 1O+2O pulsation. If lower frequency alias is selected ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4.3$) the period ratio of $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=0.7438$ points toward F+1O double-mode pulsation.
Fundamental mode sample analysis gave a couple of detection of double-mode candidates. In OGLE-GD-CEP-0425 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi\approx2.605$\,d), we detect an additional periodicity of $1.854$\,d, which can be associated with radial first overtone as indicated by period ratio of $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi= 0.7117$ (see Tab.~\ref{tab: F mode data table}). Another originally classified F-mode candidate OGLE-BLG-CEP-007 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi\approx1.546$\,d), after pre-whitening with all possible F-mode harmonics, gave two possible solutions. The first is when the lower alias ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=3.7$) of period 1.854 d is considered; it may correspond to second overtone radial mode which makes the star a candidate F+2O double-mode Cepheids. For the second solution ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4.5$), the period is shorter than in the above solution ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi\approx0.463$\,d) and it does not corresponds to any radial mode interpretation.
In the OGLE F+1O sample we have identified one star, OGLE-GD-CEP-0910, that may, in fact, be triple-mode radial pulsator. The candidate and its pulsation period/amplitude data is provided in Tab.~\ref{tab: F+1O mode data table}. In this Cepheid, after pre-whitening with fundamental and first overtone radial modes we identify a significant ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=6.3$) detection of a third periodicity ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=0.217$\,d). The period ratios ($\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi=0.6004$ and $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.7944$) indicate that it is likely a F+1O+2O candidate. Moreover, on the Petersen diagram, this star lies at the boundary of multi-mode delta Scuti and classical Cepheids. Previously cataloged Cepheids of triple-mode nature in OGLE database are rare with only 2 detections in Galactic disk and none in the bulge \citep{soszynski2017AcA....67..297S}.
In 1O+2O inventory, we found 5 triple-mode candidates. The periods and amplitudes for the presumably additional radial modes in the sample are provided in Tab.~\ref{tab: 1O+2O mode data table}. All of these triple-mode detections were from the Galactic disk sample. OGLE-GD-CEP-1804 presents one such case likely with third radial overtone mode present as period ratios $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.6621$ and $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi=0.8323$ indicate. Moreover, in three Cepheids, OGLE-GD-CEP-0211, OGLE-GD-CEP-1638 and OGLE-GD-CEP-1711, the additional periodicity is of longer period; corresponding period ratios are $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=(0.7402,\, 0.7260,\, 0.7566)$ and $\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=(0.5954,\, 0.5850,\, 0.6090)$. Hence, our analysis points towards them being triple-mode candidates (F+1O+2O) with fundamental radial mode periods of $1.294$, $1.302$ and $0.574$\,d, respectively. There is another candidate star, OGLE-GD-CEP-1730, for F+1O+2O class of pulsation with $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=0.7362$ and $\ifmmode P_{\rm 2O}\else$P_{\rm 2O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=0.5945$. However, in this particular candidate, the presence of a third radial mode is only one of the possible solutions depending on the alias selected. In the second solution, we have an unresolved peak at radial first overtone frequency, which may arise due to non-stationary nature of the radial 1O.
For last radial double-mode group, 2O+3O, and triple mode-mode group, 1O+2O+3O, in raw sample we had 2 and 7 Cepheids respectively. These were analyzed manually and eventually no traces of additional periodicities, that could be associated with radial modes, were found in these samples.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=9cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-GD-CEP-1806.pdf}
\caption{Frequency spectra for OGLE-GD-CEP-1806. Upper panel shows a window function. Lower panel shows frequency spectrum pre-whitened with radial first overtone and its harmonic (blue dashed lines). Two daily aliases are marked with their respective $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi$ and interpretation.}
\label{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1806}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Double-periodic pulsation with $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in(0.60,\, 0.65)$ and associated variability}
\label{subsec: Cepheids with double periodic pulsation}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10cm,width=16cm]{Figures/Petersen_non_radial.pdf}
\caption{Petersen diagram showing candidates with period ratios in the $(0.60,\, 0.65)$ range (black filled circle; marked as `Group 1') and additional periodicity detection (black plus symbol) in the first overtone sample. Hollow plus symbol denote our detection of additional periodicity in radial F (pink); F+1O (brown) and 1O+2O (black) pulsators. Literature detection are taken from SMC \citep{smolec2016non} (orange circle) for 1O+additional non-radial periodicity Cepheids and other double-mode Cepheids from OGLE-IV database. Colour scheme as per metallicity environment is as follows: LMC (blue hollow circle), SMC (orange hollow circle) and Galaxy (green hollow circle).}
\label{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm,width=9cm]{Figures/zoom_non_radial.pdf}
\caption{Petersen diagram showing Galactic sample candidates with period ratios in the $0.60-0.65$ range (`Group 1'; black filled circles) and possibly, detection of sub-harmonic signal (`Group 2', black plus symbols). The symbol enclosed in black square represents OGLE-GD-CEP-1668 and OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 with simultaneous presence of periodicity in both groups. The literature detections are taken from SMC \citep[][orange circles]{smolec2016non}, LMC \citep[][blue circles]{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} and \citet{Pietrukowicz2013AcA....63..379P}.}
\label{fig: Zoom_non_radial}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/1Ocep_1.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7cm}
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/1Ocep_2.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/1Ocep_3.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7cm}
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/1Ocep_4.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of periods and amplitudes of non-radial first overtone Cepheids (black plus symbols) with similar classes of stars from SMC \citep[orange circles,][]{smolec2016non}, LMC \citep[blue circles,][]{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} and Milky-Way \citep[green star symbol,][]{Pietrukowicz2013AcA....63..379P}}
\label{fig: non-radial first overtone}
\end{figure*}
In this section we focus on 12 stars in which additional periodicity corresponds to $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$ (`Group 1' in Figs~\ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic} and \ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}) and on stars in which additional periodicity seems to be directly linked to the same group (`Group 2' in Figs~\ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic} and \ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}). Cepheids with additional periodicities in the $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$ range were detected earlier in the LMC \citep{moskalik2009frequency,soszynski2008optical}
and the SMC \citep{soszynski2010optical}; in the latter system, stars form three clear and distinct sequences in the Petersen diagram (orange open circles in Fig.~\ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic}). Recently, \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} analyzed 85\,per cent of the LMC 1O sample in OGLE-IV database and reported 277 stars with additional low-amplitude periodicities, a fraction of which corresponds to period ratio mentioned above. Later, \cite{Pietrukowicz2013AcA....63..379P} detected additional periodicity in one Galactic Cepheid (OGLE-GD-CEP-0001), belonging to the bottom sequence, from OGLE-III data. These double-periodic stars from three metallicity fields are plotted in the Petersen diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}. The basic pulsation properties for stars from our Galactic sample are presented in Tab.~\ref{tab: 1O mode data table}. A more detailed comparison with the SMC and LMC samples, as analysed by \cite{smolec2016non} and \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z}, respectively, is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig: non-radial first overtone} in which the panels show the Petersen diagram, a plot of $\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ vs. $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ and plots of $\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ and amplitude ratio, $\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ vs. the period ratio, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$. Based on these plots we conclude that only one of our detections fits well within the top sequence, whereas likely four correspond to the bottom sequence, provided the sequence is extended to significantly longer first overtone periods. Comparatively, more stars (7) are found to fit the middle sequence. There is a larger spread in period ratios in our sample as one goes to longer first overtone periods. The amplitude ratio ($\ifmmode A_{\rm x}\else$A_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$) for Galactic Cepheids is higher than for both LMC and SMC stars in all three sequences.
The analyses of \cite{smolec2016non} and \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} \citep[see also][]{Suveges2018b} show that in a significant fraction of the discussed stars, one more periodicity is detected, centered at the sub-harmonic frequency, $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi\approx 1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$. In a model proposed by \cite{dziembowski2016}, the signal detected at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi$ corresponds to a non-radial mode of moderate degree ($\ell=7,\, 8$ or $9$), while the signal at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ corresponds to its harmonic which typically gains larger amplitude than non-radial mode due to geometrical effects.
We detected two candidates, OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 and OGLE-GD-CEP-1668, in which we found simultaneous presence of $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ and $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi\approx 1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ in the frequency spectra -- see Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1668}. The signals detected at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ place both stars within the middle sequence in the Petersen diagram, see Fig.~\ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}, where both stars are marked by filled circle enclosed by square, and both period ratios, ie. $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ (fits the middle sequence) and $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm sh}\else$P_{\rm sh}$\fi$ ($\ifmmode P_{\rm sh}\else$P_{\rm sh}$\fi=1/\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi$) are plotted. Signals detected at $1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$, in particular in OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 have a complex structure; appear as a power excess, rather than a single and coherent peak, which is also the charactersitics of these signals in Magellanic Clouds Cepheids. Following earlier work of \cite{smolec2016non} we characterise such signals using the highest peak within the power excess, marked with green arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1668}. Even though for OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 we have $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi/\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi=0.4774$, using the frequency of the highest peak for $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi$, it is clear that the detected power excess is centred at the subharmonic frequency. For OGLE-GD-CEP-1668, the power excess is not well visible, but $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi/\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi=0.5328$ is still within the range found by \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z}.
Interestingly, there were 9 other candidates with significant detection of additional low-amplitude periodicities, with period ratios falling in a similar area in the Petersen diagram, where $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm sh}\else$P_{\rm sh}$\fi$ for OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 and OGLE-GD-CEP-1668 are placed. These stars are marked by `Group 2' in Fig.~\ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial} and the same remark is added in relevant rows in Tab.~\ref{tab: 1O mode data table}. These are firm detections with $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi>4$; average amplitude exceeds 5 per cent of first overtone amplitude. In these stars, the additional variability usually has a complex structure in the frequency spectrum, just as is typically observed for $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi$ signals discussed above. In fact, we speculate that our `Group 2' may represent the same type of variability: we detect a signal at subharmonic frequency \citep[direct detection of non-radial mode according to the model by][]{dziembowski2016}, but the corresponding harmonic has too low amplitude to be detected. This claim is further supported with the comparison to SMC and LMC samples, as analysed by \cite{smolec2016non} and \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z}, respectively. In the Petersen diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}, in addition to period ratios in the (0.60,\, 0.65) range, $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm sh}\else$P_{\rm sh}$\fi$ period ratios are plotted for stars in which detections at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ and $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm sh}\else$\nu_{\rm sh}$\fi\approx 1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ were done simultaneously. Part of our `Group 2' clearly overlaps with SMC/LMC $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm sh}\else$P_{\rm sh}$\fi$ period ratios and part is shifted towards longer periods. This shift seems to follow a metallicity-related trend that is apparent when comparing the SMC and LMC stars: more metal rich LMC stars are shifted towards longer first overtone periods. Galactic Cepheids are on average more metal rich than LMC Cepheids and hence, a shift to even longer first overtone periods.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-GD-CEP-1332.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=6cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-GD-CEP-1668.pdf}
\caption{Frequency spectra of OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 centred at additional periodicity (first panel) and at its sub-harmonic (second panel). Note that the power excess visible at $\nu-0.5\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi\approx0.15$ in the second panel corresponds to a daily alias of the power excess centered at subharmonic frequency. The green arrow marks the peaks added to the frequency solutions. Red bar location shows the $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=4$ level. The third and the fourth panel are the same but for OGLE-GD-CEP-1668.}
\label{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1668}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Additional periodicities in F, F+1O and 1O+2O pulsators}
\label{subsec: Additional periodicities in other radial mode sample}
In some stars, after prewhitening with the radial mode(s), additional periodicity is detected at direct vicinity of the prewhitened radial mode frequency. Such detections have period ratio with respect to radial mode period close to unity and are not included in the Petersen diagram in Fig. \ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic}. These additional periodicities may arise eg. due to close non-radial mode or due to modulation of the radial mode present. To claim the periodic modulation of pulsation (a few cases are discussed in the next Section), we require at least two additional peaks in the frequency spectrum that would correspond to modulation with the same period. This is not the case for stars discussed here. Examples of such candidates include OGLE-GD-CEP-0106, OGLE-BLG-CEP-009 and OGLE-BLG-CEP-192 in 1O+2O sample; OGLE-BLG-CEP-027 and OGLE-BLG-CEP-196 in 1O sample.
Remaining candidates from F+1O and 1O+2O pulsators sample, which have additional periodicities detected with no radial association, are marked by hollow plus symbols in Fig. \ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic}. Their period ratios do not fall directly into the literature radial double-mode sequences. In one F-mode candidate (OGLE-GD-CEP-0079), the radial mode pre-whitened frequency spectra shows an additional variability of longer period. Hence, while period ratio, $\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi=0.7233$ places the star within the F+1O double-mode sequence, this interpretation cannot be correct. The other F mode Cepheid shows the additional periodicity located in the `Group 2' region, but the origin of additional periodicity must be different than discussed in the previous Section as the primary pulsation mode is radial fundamental rather than radial first overtone mode.
One candidate (OGLE-GD-CEP-1743) from F+1O sample show additional periodicity nearly in the same location on the Petersen diagram as the `Group 2' region. The interpretation can be the same as discussed in the previous Section, because its period ratio (0.8182), neighboring one of the classified `Group 2' star, is with respect to first overtone mode (\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi $\approx$ 6.752 d).
Lastly, in 1O+2O sample, additional periodicity in OGLE-GD-CEP-1610 leads to period ratio with respect to radial second overtone placed in the bottom left part of the Petersen diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig: 1O+X and subharmonic} and with respect to radial first overtone beyond the range included in the plot. Another candidate, OGLE-BLG-CEP-004, which is classified as 1O+2O double-mode star, has much more to offer in the radial mode pre-whitened spectrum. There are at least 6 resolved additional periodicities which do not belong any class discussed so far. Three of these frequencies with the highest $\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi$ are reported in Tab.~\ref{tab: 1O+2O mode data table}. The additional frequencies could be due to contamination by nearby variable star(s).
\subsection{New detection of Cepheids with periodic modulation of pulsation}
\label{subsec: Periodic modulation of pulsation}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Characteristics of frequency spectra: frequencies, amplitudes and interpretation for the detected peaks, for new detection of Cepheids with periodic modulation of pulsation.}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\hline
\hline
\textbf{OGLE ID (F mode)} & \textbf{Frequency (d$^{-1}$)} & \textbf{Amplitude (mag)} & \textbf{Interpretation} \\
\hline
OGLE-GD-CEP-1247 & 0.27653018 & 0.2221 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi$ \\
&0.34196669 & 0.0240 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$ \\
& 0.21109367 & 0.0219 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 0.61849687 & 0.0284 & $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$ \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{OGLE ID (F+1O mode)} &{\textbf{Frequency (d$^{-1}$)}} &{\textbf{Amplitude (mag)}} & \textbf{Interpretation} \\
\hline
OGLE-BLG-CEP-095 & 2.30794775 & 0.0698 & \ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi \\
& 3.03732761 & 0.0743 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ \\
& 2.27290653 & 0.0259 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 5.31023414 & 0.0076 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 4.58085428 & 0.0036 & $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 0.76442107 & 0.0031 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$ \\
& 2.49982528 & 0.0037 & $\nu_{\rm u1}$\\
& 4.09487519 & 0.0031 & $\nu_{\rm u2}$\\
& 2.31727992 & 0.0028 & $\nu_{\rm u3}$\\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{OGLE ID (1O mode)} &{\textbf{Frequency (d$^{-1}$)}} &{\textbf{Amplitude (mag)}} & \textbf{Interpretation} \\
\hline
OGLE-BLG-CEP-196 & 3.94388286 & 0.0747 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi$ \\
& 3.90851011 & 0.0252 & $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 7.85239297 & 0.0029 & $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ \\
& 7.81702022 & 0.0043 & $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-2\fm$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: Modulation candidates}
\end{table*}
In this section we present the results for classical Cepheids with periodic modulation in single and double-mode sample. In the frequency spectrum, periodic modulation of pulsation is characterised by equidistant multiplet structures centered at radial mode frequency (and its harmonics). In the ground-based data these are mainly triplets, rarely quintuplets. These multiplets may be highly asymmetric i.e. the side peaks may occur only on one side of radial mode frequency (so called doublets). See \cite{Benko2011MNRAS.417..974B} for detailed analysis explaining the effect of modulation properties on the appearance of the frequency spectra.
\subsubsection{Modulation in fundamental mode Cepheid}
\label{subsubsec: Modulation F mode}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=8.8cm]{Figures/OGLE-GD-CEP-1247.pdf}
\caption{Top panel shows radial mode and its harmonics (red arrows) in the frequency spectrum of OGLE-GD-CEP-1247. The bottom panel shows the modulation peaks marked (green arrows) and their spacing with pre-whitened radial mode as well as its harmonics (blue dashed lines).}
\label{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1247_freq_spectra}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-GD-CEP-1247_LC.pdf}
\caption{ Phased light curve for OGLE-GD-CEP-1247. The light curve in blue denotes the original light curve of the star. The green one is after extracting the modulations from the original light curve.}
\label{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1247_modulation_light_curve}
\end{figure}
In the analysis of fundamental mode Cepheids, the sample from Galactic disk revealed an interesting candidate, OGLE-GD-CEP-1247 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi\approx3.616$\,d), with modulated radial fundamental mode. The modulation ($\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi=15.282(5)$\,d) can be well seen in the frequency spectra pre-whitened with the fundamental mode and its harmonics (see Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1247_freq_spectra}). In radial mode pre-whitened frequency spectra, the modulation signature manifest as equidistant triplet around the fundamental mode (peaks at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$ and $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$) and as a doublet at the first harmonic ($2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$) (data provided in Tab.~\ref{tab: Modulation candidates}). All modulation side peaks are of comparable amplitude. The relative modulation amplitude defined as, $\max(A_-,A_+)/\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi$ (where $A_-$ and $A_+$ are amplitudes of side peaks at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$ and $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$, respectively) is 10.9\,per cent. After adding these modulation peaks in the frequency solution, we generated the overall light curve along with a modulation signature subtracted one (see Fig. \ref{fig: OGLE-GD-CEP-1247_modulation_light_curve}). Since, it is a low amplitude modulation, the changes in the light curves are marginal, but a lower scatter for light curve with modulation filtered out is noticeable.
\subsubsection{Modulation in double-mode Cepheid}
\label{subsubsec: Modulation double mode}
In the double-mode inventory of the Galactic bulge sample we found a modulation candidate OGLE-BLG-CEP-095. This Cepheid pulsates in fundamental and first overtone radial modes with periods $0.433$\,d and $0.329$\,d, respectively. After pre-whitening the frequency spectra with these two modes along with their harmonics and combination frequencies, additional peaks that can be attributed to periodic modulation of the radial fundamental mode with a period of $\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi=28.5(4)$\,d were detected -- see Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-BLG-CEP-095} and Tab.~\ref{tab: Modulation candidates}. Modulation side peaks appear only on lower frequency side of the fundamental mode frequency. Four modulation peaks are detected, including two at combination with radial first overtone frequency: $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$, $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi-\fm$, $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ and $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\ifmmode \nu_{\rm F}\else$\nu_{\rm F}$\fi+\fm$. The relative modulation amplitude of the fundamental mode, $A_-/\ifmmode A_{\rm F}\else$A_{\rm F}$\fi$, is 37.1\,per cent. First overtone is not modulated.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-BLG-CEP-095_radial_modes.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-BLG-CEP-095_modulation.pdf}
\caption{Top panel shows radial modes, their harmonics and combination frequencies (red arrows) in the frequency spectrum of OGLE-BLG-CEP-095. Bottom panel shows zoom in of the modulation peaks (green arrows) and their constant spacing with pre-whitened radial mode, its harmonic and combination frequencies (blue dashed lines).}
\label{fig: OGLE-BLG-CEP-095}
\end{figure}
After adding these modulation peaks to the solution and pre-whitening, there were still at least three additional signals in the spectra above the detection limit ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi>4$) that do not originate due to modulation discussed above ($\nu_{\rm u1}$, $\nu_{\rm u1}$ and $\nu_{\rm u3}$ in Tab.~\ref{tab: Modulation candidates}). Corresponding periods are 0.4000; 0.2442 and 0.4315 days respectively. The period ratios with respect to radial fundamental and radial first overtone period do not fit within the sequences discussed in Section \ref{subsec: Cepheids with double periodic pulsation}. The nature of these signals remains unexplained.
\subsubsection{Modulation in first overtone Cepheid}
\label{subsubsec: Additional or Modulation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8.0cm,width=9cm]{Figures/OGLE-BLG-CEP-196.pdf}
\caption{Frequency spectrum of first overtone candidate OGLE-BLG-CEP-196 with periodic modulation detection. Top panel shows modulation peak on lower frequency side of the pre-whitened first overtone mode (blue dashed lines) and the peak of unknown origin marked as $\nu_{\rm x}$. Bottom panel shows the modulation side peaks detected at the harmonic.}
\label{fig: OGLE-BLG-CEP-196}
\end{figure}
In OGLE-BLG-CEP-196, after pre-whitening with the first overtone radial mode ($\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi=0.254$\,d) and its harmonic, four significant peaks are detected in the frequency spectrum -- see Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-BLG-CEP-196}. Three of them can be attributed to a modulation of radial first overtone with a period of $\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi=28.27(1)$\,d. Their frequencies are $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$, $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ and $2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-2\fm$. All modulation peaks are located on the lower frequency side of the first overtone frequency. Interestingly, at the harmonic, we detect quintuplet components. Relative modulation amplitude, $A_-/\ifmmode A_{\rm 1O}\else$A_{\rm 1O}$\fi$, is 33.7\,per cent. The fourth peak ($\ifmmode {\rm S/N}\else${\rm S/N}$\fi=12.6$) is located close to $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi-\fm$ (see upper panel in Fig.~\ref{fig: OGLE-BLG-CEP-196}). It may correspond eg., to non-radial mode, or to secondary modulation, but since we find no combinations with radial mode frequency no firm interpretation is possible.
\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec: Discussion}
\subsection{Incidence rate of $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$ double-periodic Cepheids in the Galactic field
\label{subsec: Comparison with LMC/SMC}}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/Histogram.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/Histogram_Iband.pdf}
\caption{Left panel shows histogram of OGLE-IV first overtone Cepheid sample with the number of observations in the SMC (blue), LMC (red), Galactic disk (green) and Galactic bulge (black). Right panel shows the histogram with same colour scheme but for I-band magnitude.}
\label{fig: Histogram}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=8cm]{Figures/Cep_F1O_detection_limit.pdf}
\caption{The figure represents 4-$\sigma$ noise level computed as a function of mean I-band magnitude for Galactic Cepheids pulsating in fundamental (filled square) and first overtone (filled circle) modes. The colour bar represents number of observations for each star.}
\label{fig: detection-limit}
\end{figure}
Till now, nearly all double-periodic Cepheids with $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$ were discovered in the Magellanic Clouds. \cite{soszynski2010optical} analyzed the OGLE-III data for SMC sample, and detected such stars with an incidence rate of 8.4\,per cent (in 138 out of 1644 1O Cepheids). Later, \cite{Suveges2018b} studied Magellanic Clouds using local kernel regression pre-whitening method \citep{Suveges2018a}. Considering their unambiguous detections only, incidence rates are 6.9\,per cent (120 stars out 1739) in the LMC and 7.8\,per cent (139 stars out of 1782) in the SMC. The most recent, but incomplete investigation of the above mentioned additional variability in Cepehids using SMC/LMC OGLE-IV data by \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} reported incidence rates of 21.0\,per cent (205 out of 976 analysed stars) for LMC and 11.0\,per cent (168 out of 1522 analysed stars) for SMC. \\
The incidence rates given above can only serve as lower limits. \cite{soszynski2008optical} did not intend to comprehensively search for these additional periodicities. The incidence rates from \cite{Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z} are derived from preliminary and incomplete analysis. Moreover, analysis by \cite{Suveges2018b} only focused on characterising and interpreting only a single additional peak beyond the radial mode, hence other additional signals may be missed and the numbers not providing the accurate incidence rate of the complete sample.
Now bringing the discussion to Galactic Cepheids, let us first note that we have detected double-periodic Cepheids of the discussed class in the Galactic disk fields only (no detection in the Galactic bulge). The overall Galactic disk Cepheid sample is order of magnitude smaller than the Magellanic Cloud samples. For context, total Galactic disk 1O sample is roughly 2.6 times smaller than their LMC/SMC counterparts. Incidence rates in Galactic disk sample turns out to be 2.4\,per cent (12 stars out of 495). The incidence rate is thus much smaller than in the Magellanic Clouds. To get insight into reason behind significantly smaller incidence rate we need to look at the detection limit and compare it with the ones in Magellanic Clouds.\\
There are essentially two factors that affect the noise level in the frequency spectrum of a Cepheid: number of observations and mean brightness. The noise level scales with $N^{-1/2}$, where $N$ is the total number of observations for each Cepheid. To to put this into context, Fig. \ref{fig: Histogram} left panel shows the histogram of number of observations per Cepheid, in OGLE-IV survey, based on observing fields. The histogram is plotted for 1O Cepheids in SMC (blue), LMC (red), Galactic disk (green) and Galactic bulge (black). We can see that there are larger number of observations in SMC/LMC as compared to Galactic disk and bulge fields. Hence, for Cepheids of similar brightness, one can expect that on an average the mean noise level in the frequency spectra of Galactic Cepheids will be higher than in the SMC/LMC. The right panel of Fig. \ref{fig: Histogram} depicts the mean I-band brightness distribution of Cepheids from the above mentioned four observing fields. Cepheids in the Galactic disk cover a much larger range of I-band magnitudes, including bright targets. At similar number of observations, the brighter the Cepheid, the lower the noise level is to be expected.
For direct estimation of the detection limit, we follow the approach given in \cite{smolec2016non} (see their fig. 13) and use 1O Cepheid sample from the Galactic field to do a homogeneous analysis where we fit 6$^{\text{th}}$ order Fourier series of the corresponding principle frequency (i.e. \ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi). We also remove possible trends in the data along with first overtone associated non-stationary signals using time-dependent pre-whitening on a season-to-season basis. Finally, we compute the frequency spectrum of the pre-whitened data in the (0,\,3\ifmmode \nu_{\rm 1O}\else$\nu_{\rm 1O}$\fi) range and record the average noise level which, multiplied by 4, corresponds to our detection limit. In Fig.~\ref{fig: detection-limit}, it is represented as a function of both mean I-band magnitude and number of observations. The estimation of the detection limit for fundamental mode stars follows a similar procedure with difference in fitting a 14$^{\text{th}}$ order Fourier series (to account for more non-linear light curve shape) as performed in \cite{smolec2017unstable} (see their fig. 5). With this exercise, we can clearly see that for fainter stars, the noise level increases. Whereas, at the same brightness, the noise level of some bulge Cepheids is low, since they have higher number of observations.
Qualitatively, if we compare our detection limit for 1O sample with \cite{smolec2016non} (their fig. 13) and for F-mode sample with \cite{smolec2017unstable} (their fig.~5), we conclude that the detection limit for Galactic sample is, on average, significantly higher and hence the chances to detect additional low-amplitude periodicities are lower in the Galactic fields. Consequently, the reported incidence rates are also significantly smaller.\\
We note that period ratios in the 0.60--0.65 range exist in first overtone RR Lyrae stars as well, known as RR$_{0.61}$ group. \cite{netzel2019census} quantified their occurrence to a total of $\sim$8.3\,per cent (960 stars out of 11,415) for the Galactic bulge OGLE-IV sample. This fraction is a lower limit. For high cadence fields, the detection limit is much lower and this fraction is as high as 27\,per cent \citep{Netzel2015bMNRAS.453.2022N}. Even higher incidence rates of 100 per cent, are found for space observations \citep{Molnar2015MNRAS.452.4283M,moskalik2015kepler}.
\subsection{Galactic Cepheids with non-radial modes}
\label{subsec: Comparison of non-radial mode }
Till now, more than 300 Cepheids pulsating in 1O mode have been detected to be exhibiting additional periodicity with period ratio $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$. These stars were nearly exclusively detected in the Magellanic Clouds \citep{soszynski2008optical,soszynski2010optical,soszynski2016multi,moskalik2009frequency,smolec2016non,Suveges2018b,Ziolkowska2020past.conf...75Z}. Our analysis reports only 12 such candidates in the Galactic field. Nevertheless, our detections significantly increases the sample of Galactic 1O Cepheids with period ratio of 0.60--0.65, as prior to this, there was only one detection reported by \cite{Pietrukowicz2013AcA....63..379P}. \\
The discussed stars form three sequences in the Petersen diagram. \cite{Suveges2018b} reported a systematic shift (see their fig. 8) in all three sequences when SMC and LMC candidates are compared. The higher metallicity LMC stars are shifted towards longer pulsation periods. As we compare our Galactic sample with that of the OGLE Magellanic Clouds (see Fig. \ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}), we reinforce the existence of this metallicity-related trend. The sequences from Galactic Cepheids (even more metal-rich, on average, than LMC Cepheids) are even more shifted to higher 1O periods. Hence the picture becomes even more comprehensive. We note that these shifts follow the shift observed for period distribution of all Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds, see eg. fig. 9 from \cite{soszynski2010optical}.
In the discussed group, additional low-amplitude periodicities (at \ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi) are often accompanied with signals centered at sub-harmonic frequency (1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi). The signals at sub-harmonic frequency are almost never found as a coherent peak but rather a group of peaks or a power excess. It indicates that associated variability may be prone to phase and/or amplitude variations. \cite{smolec2016non} reported these sub-harmonic cases to be 35\,per cent in total. In our sample we have two candidates (OGLE-GD-CEP-1332 and OGLE-GD-CEP-1668) with simultaneous presence of both $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ and $1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ signals. According to \cite{dziembowski2016} model, the signals detected at sub-harmonic frequencies (1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi) are due to non-radial modes of moderate degrees, $\ell=7,\,8$ and $9$. Direct detection of such non-radial modes is difficult as their observed amplitude is reduced due to geometric cancellation. It is easier to detect the harmonics, ie. signals at $\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$, that form three sequences in the Petersen diagram with period ratios in the 0.60--0.65 range. The top sequence arises due to harmonics of $\ell=7$ modes, the middle sequence due to harmonics of $\ell=8$ modes and the bottom sequence due to harmonics of $\ell=9$ modes. Geometric cancellation is the lowest for even-$\ell$ modes, so it should be relatively easy to detect sub-harmonics, ie., to directly detect non-radial modes, for Cepheids of the middle sequence. It is indeed the case as analysed by \cite{smolec2016non} who reported 74 per cent stars of the middle sequence accompanied with simultaneous presence of $1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$ signal. For the top and bottom sequences the corresponding numbers are 31 and 8 per cent, respectively, again in agreement with \cite{dziembowski2016} model. Interestingly, the two cases we report here correspond to the middle sequence. While the statistics is low, it well agrees with predictions of the model.
As we already argued earlier, stars of our `Group 2`, most likely correspond to direct detection of non-radial modes. In these stars harmonics, are not detected, as likely their amplitudes fall below our detection limit. It is interesting to note that their numbers are quite comparable to the overall number of detections in `Group 1', ie. double-periodic Cepheids with period ratios $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$. The amplitude comparison analysis ($A_{\rm sh}$ vs. $A_{\rm x}$) by \cite{smolec2016non} reported cases where the sub-harmonic signal amplitude is larger than its harmonic (see their fig. 12). \cite{Suveges2018b} also reported a prominent group of double-periodic Cepheids, called 1.25-modes, that seem equivalent to our `Group 2' and discussed their connection to 0.62-modes, i.e. double-periodic stars with period ratios in the 0.60--0.65 range. Considering the placement of sub-harmonic signals detected in the Magellanic Clouds, and of our `Group 2' in the Petersen diagram (Fig. \ref{fig: Zoom_non_radial}), we note a shift of our `Group2' towards longer pulsation periods. It well agrees with the metallicity-related shift for the linked three sequences with 0.60--0.65 period ratios. An interpretation in which additional periodicities detected in `Group 2' correspond to non-radial modes of $\ell=7-9$ seems most likely.
To complete the picture with RR Lyrae stars, the sub-harmonic detection from Galactic bulge sample constitutes to 11.9\,per cent \citep[114 stars out of 960 RR$_{0.61}$;][]{netzel2019census}, with sub-harmonic detections corresponding to the top sequence being the most populated. It well agrees with the \cite{dziembowski2016} model, in which the top sequence for RR Lyrae stars arises due the harmonic of an even order, $\ell=8$ mode. Interestingly, \cite{netzel2019census} also reported additional signals in RRc stars that can be interpreted as due to direct detection of non-radial mode, without harmonic signal present -- an analogue of our `Group 2'.
\subsection{Galactic Cepheids with modulation}
\label{subsec: Comparison of modulated Cepheids}
The quasi-periodic modulation in amplitude and/or phase in RR Lyrae stars, known as the Blazhko effect \citep{blazko1907mitteilung} was a motivation to search for similar behaviour in classical Cepheids. Despite recent progress on both observational and theoretical side, see the reviews by \cite{Kovacs2016CoKon.105...61K} and \cite{Smolec2016bpas..conf...22S} and summary of the most promising theoretical model by \cite{Kollath2021}, a fully satisfactory explanation of the Blazhko mechanism is still missing. Till recently, modulations were nearly exclusively associated with RR Lyrae stars. \cite{moskalik2009frequency} discovered periodic modulation of pulsation in double-mode, 1O+2O Cepheids. As both radial modes are modulated with the same period, and their amplitudes are anti-correlated, they linked the origin of these modulations to the resonant interaction either between the radial modes or one radial mode with a non-radial mode. Modulations were also discovered in single-mode 1O Cepheids \citep{soszynski2016multi} and in the second overtone oddball, V473 Lyrae \citep{Molnar2014MNRAS.442.3222M}. Low-amplitude periodic modulation of pulsation was discovered in {\it Kepler} observations of single-mode F-mode Cepheid, V1154 Cyg \citep{Derekas2012MNRAS.425.1312D,Derekas2017MNRAS.464.1553D}, followed by the discovery of a numerous sample of 51 modulated F-mode Cepheids in the OGLE sample of Magellanic Cloud Cepheids \citep[29 stars in the SMC and 22 stars in the LMC;][]{smolec2017unstable}. In the Magellanic Cloud sample, modulations are very frequent in stars with pulsation periods around 10 days. Based on that, \cite{smolec2017unstable} suggested that the modulations may be caused by the. 2:1 resonance between the fundamental mode and the second overtone, which is also responsible for Cepheid bump progression \citep{simon1976ApJ...205..162S, buchler1986ApJ...303..749B, Buchler1990ApJ}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=9cm]{Figures/Modulation_literature.pdf}
\caption{Upper panel shows comparison of modulation period as a function of fundamental mode period in Cepheids in SMC (blue diamonds) and LMC (green diamonds) from \citet{smolec2017unstable}, with OGLE-GD-CEP-1247 (black plus) and OGLE-BLG-CEP-095 (orange plus). V1154 Cyg, a \textit{Kepler} detection is marked with purple star symbol. Lower panel has the same colour scheme but for ratio of modulation period to F-mode pulsation period.}
\label{fig: Modulation literature comparison}
\end{figure}
We have detected periodic modulation of the fundamental mode in two Cepheids, one pulsating in the F-mode (OGLE-GD-CEP-1247) and one being a double-mode, F+1O Cepheid (OGLE-BLG-CEP-095). The latter detection, is the first of its kind -- no modulated double-mode F+1O Cepheids was known before. Since in both stars it is the fundamental mode that is modulated, we can compare their properties, pulsation and modulation periods, with the Magellanic Clouds sample from \cite{smolec2017unstable}. V1154 Cyg, in which F-mode is modulated as well, is also added to the comparison. As seen from Fig. \ref{fig: Modulation literature comparison}, the fundamental mode period and modulation period of OGLE-BLG-CEP-095 follow the extended trend of the SMC/LMC modulated stars. The \textit{Kepler} detection, V1154 Cyg, also falls along the same progression. It may indicate that the mechanism behind the modulation of pulsation is the same in all discussed Cepheids. However OGLE-GD-CEP-1247, shows a larger departure from the discussed progression. Admittedly, we have only a handful of detections at the moment and no elaborated model behind.
Considering single-mode fundamental mode Cepheids we have detected only one modulated star, while in the Magellanic Clouds there are many more detections. In particular, \cite{smolec2017unstable} noticed that in the SMC the phenomenon is very common (incidence rate of 40 per cent) in the period range of $12\,{\rm d}<\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi<16\,{\rm d}$. For higher metallicty LMC, the the highest incidence rate was only 5 per cent for $8\,{\rm d}<\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi<14\,{\rm d}$. To investigate a possible role of metallicity, we recalculate the incidence rates for a period interval centered on 10 days, $6\,{\rm d}<\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi<14\,{\rm d}$ to arrive at 6.5 per cent and 4 per cent in the SMC and LMC, respectively. The incidence rate decreases for more metal rich LMC. Assuming the same incidence rate for the Galactic fields as for the LMC, we should detect about 9 modulated Cepheids in the disk and one modulated Cepheid in the bulge (the bulge sample is scarce). We have detected only a single modulated F-mode Cepheid in the disk, OGLE-GD-CEP-1247. One cannot conclude however, that for even more metal rich Galactic disk the incidence rate of modulated Cepheids must be intrinsically lower. This is because of a significantly higher detection limit of Galactic samples as discussed already in Sect.~\ref{subsec: Comparison with LMC/SMC}. The typical amplitude of the modulation peaks in the LMC sample is 2--3 mmag \citep[see tab. 2 in][]{smolec2017unstable}, while for majority of stars in our sample the detection limit is at larger magnitudes, see Fig.~\ref{fig: detection-limit}.
The third detection of modulated Cepheid from our sample, is a single-mode first overtone Cepheid. Several other modulated first overtone Cepheids were reported earlier by \cite{soszynski2016multi}. The main difference between ours and previous detections is in modulation amplitude -- it is small in our detection, and much larger in previous detections, in which modulation is easily visible in lightcurves alone.
\section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
\label{sec: Summary and Conclusions}
The major findings of the analysis from the latest OGLE-IV survey photometry data for Cepheids in Galactic disk and bulge fields is summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Twelve new candidates for double-mode radial pulsation were identified. These include F+1O, 1O+2O and F+2O pulsations.
\item Six triple-mode radial candidates were identified: five F+1O+2O and one 1O+2O+3O. These triple-mode candidates are very rare and yet very valuable assets as they are excellent laboratories for asteroseismology to test stellar evolution theory \citep[eg.][]{MoskalikDziembowski2005A&A...434.1077M}.
\item Admittedly, additional periodicities that we associate with radial pulsations are of low amplitude and no linear combination frequencies with dominant radial frequency are detected. In some cases of double-mode pulsation alternative interpretation, mostly in terms of other radial mode, is possibly due to daily alias ambiguity (eg. either 1O+2O or 1O+3O pulsation is possible, depending which alias is selected). Consequently, the new candidates should be considered with caution.
\item In twelve first overtone Cepheids we detect additional low-amplitude periodicity of shorter period, corresponding period ratios, $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$, fall in the $(0.60,\, 0.65)$ range. Such double-periodic Cepheids are well known in the Magellanic Clouds and form three sequences in the Petersen diagram. In the Galactic fields only one such double-periodic Cepheid was known -- our detections significantly increases the Galactic sample. Comparing with Magellanic Cloud Cepheids we note that the more metal rich field, the more shifted are double-periodic stars towards longer periods. According to a model proposed by \cite{dziembowski2016}, these additional periodicities are harmonics of non-radial modes of moderate degrees, $\ell=7,\, 8$ and 9, which are easier to detect than non-radial modes themselves, as amplitudes of the latter are reduced by geometric cancellation.
\item In two double-periodic stars with $\ifmmode P_{\rm x}\else$P_{\rm x}$\fi/\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi\in (0.60,\, 0.65)$ we detect significant signal at sub-harmonic frequency, ie., et $1/2\ifmmode \nu_{\rm x}\else$\nu_{\rm x}$\fi$. According to the model proposed by \cite{dziembowski2016} these signals are direct detections of non-radial modes of moderate degrees. Moreover, in nine first overtone Cepheids we detect additional variability that most likely corresponds to direct detection of the above mentioned non-radial modes, with no signature of signal at the harmonic.
\item We report the discovery of three Cepheids with low-amplitude, periodic modulation of pulsation. Modulation was detected in single-mode F Cepheid OGLE-GD-CEP-1247 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi$=3.61624(5)\,d and $\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi$=15.282(5)\,d), double-mode F+1O Cepheid, OGLE-BLG-CEP-095 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm F}\else$P_{\rm F}$\fi$=0.43329(2)\,d, $\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$=0.32924(3)\,d and $\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi$=28.5(4)\,d) and in single-mode, 1O Cepheid, OGLE-BLG-CEP-196 ($\ifmmode P_{\rm 1O}\else$P_{\rm 1O}$\fi$=0.2535572(1)\,d and $\ifmmode P_{\rm m}\else$P_{\rm m}$\fi$=28.27(1)\,d). With our sample, the number of known modulated Cepheids in the Galactic fields is significantly increased. Modulation in the F+1O double-mode Cepheid is the very first detection of modulation in such combination of double-mode Cepheid pulsation. Of the two radial modes, we detect modulation of fundamental mode only.
The homogeneous OGLE photometry for classical Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds and in the Galactic bulge and disk fields in principle should allow to systematically study how the incidence rate of various phenomena, like excitation of additional non-radial modes or of periodic modulation of pulsation, depends on metallicity. Unfortunately, incidence rates in the Galactic fields turn to be much lower than in the Magellanic fields and do not allow detailed statistical studies of the detected phenomena. This however is not due to intrinsically lower incidence rates in the more metal-rich Galactic fields, but due to significantly larger detection limit. The main reason is lower sampling rates in the Galactic fields and shorter baseline of observations. Consequently, continuous monitoring of Galactic fields, possibly with higher sampling rate is of extreme value to get more insight into still poorly known phenomena of non-radial mode excitation and periodic modulation of pulsation in classical Cepheids.
Since the discussed phenomena are of low amplitude, new detections are also expected from space telescopes, eg., from the ongoing NASA \textit{Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite} \citep{Ricker2015JATIS...1a4003R} mission delivering precise photometry of Galactic fields. The mission will enable to closely monitor cycle-to-cycle variations for bright Cepheids. The Cepheid first light results of the TESS mission \citep{Plachy2021ApJS..253...11P} shows promising signs as it detects one candidate ($\beta$ Dor), with cycle-to-cycle variations of the F-mode. An anomalous Cepheid (XZ Cet) pulsating in first overtone mode was also detected to contain low amplitude non-radial mode of 0.61-type.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Data availability}
The photometry data for OGLE-IV Galactic Cepheids \citep{udalski2015ogle,soszynski2017AcA....67..297S,Udalski2018AcA....68..315U,soszynski2020AcA....70..101S} used in this paper is publicly available and can be downloaded from \url{ftp://ftp.astrouw.edu.pl/ogle/ogle4}. Other data products will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research is supported by the National Science Center, Poland, Sonata BIS project 2018/30/E/ST9/00598. H.N. is supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under grant 0192/DIA/2016/45 within the Diamond Grant Programme and by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP).
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Background}
The majorization-minimization (MM) principle for constructing optimization algorithms \citep{BeckerYangLange97MM,Lange00OptTrans,hunter2004tutorial} finds broad range of applications in
\begin{itemize}
\item statistics: multidimensional scaling \citep{BorgGroenen2005modern}, quantile regression \citep{HunterLange00QuantileRegMM}, ranking sports teams \citep{Hunter04BreadleyTerry}, variable selection \citep{HunterLi05MM,Yen11MMSpikeSlab,BienTibshirani11SparseCov,LeeHuang13MMSpPCA}, multivariate distributions \citep{ZhouLange10DMMLE,ZhangZhouZhouSun17mglm}, variance components models \citep{ZhouHuZhouLange19VCMM}, robust covariance estimation \citep{SunBabuPalomar15RobustCov}, and survival models \citep{HunterLange02PropOdds,DingTianYuen15CoxMM};
\item optimization: geometric and sigmoid programming \citep{LangeZhou14GPMM}, proximal distance algorithm \citep{chi2014distance,XuChiLange17GLMProxDist,KeysZhouLange19ProxDist};
\item imaging: transmission and positron tomography \citep{Lange84PET}, wavelets \citep{Figueiredo07MMWavelet}, magnetic resonance imaging, sparse deconvolution;
\item and machine learning: nonnegative matrix factorization \citep{LeeSeung99NNMF}, matrix completion \citep{Mazumder10SVDReg,chi2013genotype}, clustering \citep{ChiLange13ConvexClustering,XuLange19Kmeans}, discriminant analysis \citep{WuLange10DA}, support vector machines \citep{Nguyen17MMIntro}.
\end{itemize}
The recent book \citep{Lange16MMBook} and survey papers \citep{SunBabuPalomar17MM,Nguyen17MMReview} give a comprehensive overview of MM algorithms.
The MM principle involves majorizing the objective function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ by a surrogate function $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ around the current iterate $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ of a search. Majorization is defined by the two conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) &=& g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \label{eqn:tangency}\\
f(\boldsymbol{x}) &\le& g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n), \quad \boldsymbol{x} \ne \boldsymbol{x}_n. \label{eqn:dominance}
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, the surface $\boldsymbol{x} \mapsto g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ lies above the surface $\boldsymbol{x} \mapsto f(\boldsymbol{x})$ and is tangent to it at the point $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{x}_n$. Construction of the majorizing function $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ constitutes the first M of the MM algorithm. The second M of the algorithm minimizes the surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ rather than $f(\boldsymbol{x})$. If $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ denotes the minimizer of $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$, then this action forces the descent property $f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$. This fact follows from the inequalities
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \le g (\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \le g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) = f(\boldsymbol{x}_n),
\end{eqnarray*}
reflecting the definition of $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ and the tangency condition.
The same principle applied to the maximization problems leads to the minorization-maximization algorithms that monotonically increase the objective values. The celebrated EM algorithm in statistics is a special case of the minorization-maximization algorithm as the E-step constructs a Q-function that satisfies the minorization properties. Derivation of EM algorithm hinges upon the notion of missing data and conditional expectation while that of MM algorithm upon clever use of inequalities. For most problems where a EM algorithm exists, the MM derivation often leads to the same algorithm. Notable exceptions include the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of the Dirichlet-Multinomial model \citep{ZhouLange10DMMLE,ZhouZhang12EMvsMM} and the variance components model \citep{ZhouHuZhouLange19VCMM}. However the MM principle has much wider applications as it applies to both minimization and maximization problems and does not rely on the notion of missing data.
\section{Convergence Theorems}
Throughout, we denote by $\mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ the subset underlying our problems. All of the functions we consider have domain $\mathcal{X}$ and are extended real-valued with range $\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\}$. The interior of set $S$ is denoted by $\mathbf{int}S$, and its closure by $\mathbf{cl}S$.
The following concepts are useful.
\begin{definition}[Effective domain]
The effective domain of a function $f$ is defined and denoted by
$$
\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{f} = \{\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathcal{X}: f(\boldsymbol{x}) < \infty \}.
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Properness]
Function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is called \emph{proper} if $\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{f} \neq \emptyset$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Directional derivatives]
The directional derivative of function $f$ at $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ is defined and denoted as
$$
d_{\boldsymbol{v}}f(\boldsymbol{x}) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{f(\boldsymbol{x}+t\boldsymbol{v})-f(\boldsymbol{x})}{t}
$$
if the limit exists.
\end{definition}
\noindent If $f$ is differentiable at $\boldsymbol{x}$, then $d_{\boldsymbol{v}}f(\boldsymbol{x})=\langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}), \boldsymbol{v} \rangle$.
\begin{definition}[$L$-smoothness]
Function $f$ is said to be $L$-smooth with respect to a norm $\|\cdot\|$ if it is differentiable on $\mathbf{int}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{f}$ and the gradient $\nabla f$ is Lipschitz continuous with a Lipschitz constant $L$:
$$
\|\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f(\boldsymbol{y})\| \le L\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|,
\quad
\forall \boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{y} \in \mathbf{int}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{f}
.
$$
\end{definition}
\noindent It can be shown that $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $L$-smooth if and only if
$$
f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le f(\boldsymbol{y}) + \langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \rangle + \frac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2
, \quad
\forall \boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{y} \in \mathbf{int}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{f}.
$$
\begin{definition}[Strong convexity]
Function $f$ is called $\mu$-strongly convex with respect to a norm $\|\cdot\|$, $\mu\ge 0$, if $f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2$ is convex.
\end{definition}
\noindent It can be shown that if $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $\mu$-strongly convex and has its minimum at $\boldsymbol{y}$, then
$$
f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{y}) \ge \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2
.
$$
\begin{definition}[Tangent vector, tangent cone]
For a closed nonempty set $C\subset\mathcal{X}$,
the \emph{tangent cone} of $C$ at $\boldsymbol{x}$ is
$$
T_C(\boldsymbol{x}) = \big\{\boldsymbol{v} \in \mathcal{X} : \exists \{\boldsymbol{x}_n\} \subset C , \{t_n\} \subset \mathbb{R} \text{ such that } t_n \downarrow 0, \boldsymbol{x}_n \to \boldsymbol{x} \text{ and } \frac{\boldsymbol{x}_n-\boldsymbol{x}}{t_n} \to \boldsymbol{v}\big\},
$$
where the notation $t_n\downarrow 0$ means that $t_n$ approaches 0 from above.
A vector $\boldsymbol{v} \in T_C(\boldsymbol{x})$ is said to be a \emph{tangent vector} of $C$ at $\boldsymbol{x}$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Classical convergence theorem}
Consider the problem of minimizing the objective function $f$ over a closed nonempty set $C\subset\mathcal{X}$. The following is immediate from the decent property of the MM algorithms:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}\subset\mathcal{X}$ be the iterates generated by an MM algorithm.
Assume (a) $\boldsymbol{x}_n \in C$ for each $n$.
Then the sequence of objective values $\{f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)\}$ monotonically decreases.
Furthermore, if (b) $p^\star = \inf_{x\in C}f(\boldsymbol{x}) > -\infty$, then $\{f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)\}$ converges.
\end{proposition}
Whether the limit is the desired minimum and whether the iterate $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ will converge to a minimizer is more subtle.
For the latter,
a classical theory of convergence in nonlinear optimization algorithms is due to \cite{ZangwillMond69Book}. We first recap Zangwill's theory following the modern treatment of \cite{LuenbergerYe08Book}. Note that most of the iterative optimization algorithms, including the MM algorithms, generate a sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ by mapping $\boldsymbol{x}_n\in\mathcal{X}$ to another point $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\in\mathcal{X}$. For example, in MM algorithms, $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ is a point that minimizes the surrogate function $g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ in $\mathcal{X}$. However, such a minimizer may not be unique unless the $g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ satisfies certain assumptions. Rather, $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ is \emph{one of the minimizers} of $g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ and can be written as $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\in\mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x}_n)$. Thus we may in general define an algorithm map as a \emph{set-valued map}:
\begin{definition}[Algorithm map]
An \emph{algorithm map} $M$ is a mapping defined on $\mathcal{X}$ that assigns to every point $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ a subset of $\mathcal{X}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent Among which point $M(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ to choose as $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ depends on the specific details of the actual optimization algorithm. If $M$ is a single-valued map, i.e., $M(\boldsymbol{x})$ is singleton for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}$, we write $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}=M(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$.
A desirable property of an algorithm map is closure, which extends continuity of single-valued maps to set-valued ones:
\begin{definition}[Closure]
A set-valued map $M$ from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ is said to be \emph{closed} at $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ if $\boldsymbol{y}\in M(\boldsymbol{x})$ whenever $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}\subset\mathcal{X}$ converges to $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $\{\boldsymbol{y}_n: \boldsymbol{y}_n\in\boldsymbol{M}(\boldsymbol{x}_n)\}$ converges to $\boldsymbol{y}$.
The map $M$ is said to be closed on $\mathcal{X}$ if it is closed at each point of $\mathcal{X}$.
\end{definition}
The celebrated Zangwill's global convergence theorem is phrased in terms of an algorithm map $M$, a solution set $\Gamma$, and a \emph{descent function} $u$:
\begin{lemma}[Convergence Theorem A, \cite{ZangwillMond69Book}]\label{lem:zangwill}
Let the point-to-set map $M: \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{X}$
determine an algorithm that given a point
$\boldsymbol{x}_0 \in \mathcal{X}$ generates the sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$.
Also let a solution set $\Gamma \subset \mathcal{X}$ be given.
Suppose that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item all points $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ are in a compact set $C \subset \mathcal{X}$;
\item there is a continuous function $u : \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that (a) if $\boldsymbol{x} \notin \Gamma$, $u(\boldsymbol{y}) < u(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{y} \in M(\boldsymbol{x})$, and (b) if $\boldsymbol{x} \in \Gamma$, then either the algorithm terminates or $u(\boldsymbol{y}) \le u(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{y} \in M(\boldsymbol{x})$;
\item the map $M$ is closed at $\boldsymbol{x}$ if $\boldsymbol{x} \notin \Gamma$.
\end{enumerate}
Then either the algorithm stops at a solution, or the limit of any convergent subsequence is a solution.
\end{lemma}
In applying Lemma \ref{lem:zangwill} to specific algorithms, one usually needs to show the closure of the algorithm map $M$, and carefully choose the solution set $\Gamma$ and the descent function $u$.
For example, in an MM algorithm, we can choose $u$ as the objective function $f$ and the solution set
$$
\Gamma = \{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}: f(\boldsymbol{y}) \ge f(\boldsymbol{x}), ~\forall\boldsymbol{y}\in M(\boldsymbol{x}) \}
$$
for $M(\boldsymbol{x})=\mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{z}\in\mathcal{X}}g(\boldsymbol{z}|\boldsymbol{x})$.
Since $f(\boldsymbol{y}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{y}\in M(\boldsymbol{x})$ by the descent property of MM, in fact
$$
\Gamma = \{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}: f(\boldsymbol{y}) = f(\boldsymbol{x}), ~\forall\boldsymbol{y}\in M(\boldsymbol{x}) \} =: \mathcal{P},
$$
which we will call a set of \emph{no-progress points}.
The final requirement that $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ is contained within a compact set is satisfied whenever $f$ is lower semicontinuous and coercive.
We summarize the above discussion as the following proposition;
see also Proposition 8 of \cite{KeysZhouLange19ProxDist}.
\begin{proposition}[Global convergence to no-progress points]
Suppose that the objective $f$ is lower semicontinuous and coercive, and the algorithm map $M$ defined by the MM algorithm is closed.
Then all the limit points of the iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\in M(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ generated by the MM algorithm are no-progress points.
\end{proposition}
This general result is slightly disappointing. Even though the objective values do not change within $\mathcal{P}$, the iterate $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ may not even converge -- it may cycle through distinct no-progress points.
\begin{example}[EM algorithm] As a classical example of cycling, \citet{Vaida2005} showed that in minimizing
$$
f(\rho, \sigma^2) = 8\log\sigma^2 + \frac{18}{\sigma^2} + 2\log(1-\log\rho^2) + \frac{4}{\sigma^2(1-\rho^2)}
$$
over $\sigma^2 \le 0$ and $-1 \le \rho \le 1$ (this objective function originates from the maximum likelihood estimation of the variance and correlation coefficient of bivariate normal data with missing observations),
the following particular surrogate function
$$
g(\rho, \sigma^2\mid \rho_n, \sigma_n^2) = f(\rho, \sigma^2)
+ 2\left(\log\frac{\sigma^2(1-\rho^2)}{\sigma_n^2(1-\rho_n^2)} + \frac{\sigma_n^2(1-\rho_n^2)}{\sigma^2(1-\rho^2)} - 1\right)
$$
obtained by applying the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, a special case of the MM algorithms,
has two symmetric minima, $(\sigma_{n+1}^2, \rho_{n+1}) = (3, \pm\sqrt{2/3 - \sigma_n^2(1-\rho_n^2)/6})$.
If we take $\sigma_0^2=3$ and $$\rho_{n+1} = -\mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits{(\rho_n)}\sqrt{2/3 - 3(1-\rho_n^2)/6}),$$
then the sequence $\{(\sigma_n^2, \rho_n)\}$ oscillates between two minima $(3, \pm 1/\sqrt{3})$ of $f$ in the limit.
\end{example}
Although the above cycling can be considered desirable as it reveals multiple optima, the next example shows that this is not always the case:
\begin{example}[Generalized CCA]\label{ex:cca}
The popular MAXDIFF criterion \citep{vandegeer1984linear,ten1988generalized,hanafi2006analysis}
for generalizing the canonical correlation analysis (CCA)
into $m > 2$ sets of (partially) orthogonal matrices
solves
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:maxdiff}
\text{maximize} ~~ \sum_{i<j}\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{O}_i^T\boldsymbol{A}_i^T\boldsymbol{A}_j\boldsymbol{O}_j) ~~
\text{subject to} ~~ \boldsymbol{O}_i^T\boldsymbol{O}_i = \boldsymbol{I}_r , ~ i=1,\dotsc,m,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{I}_r$ is an $r\times r$ identity matrix and $\boldsymbol{O}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{d_i\times r}$;
$\boldsymbol{A}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d_i}$ are $n$ observations of variables of possibly different dimensions.
A standard algorithm for solving the MAXDIFF problem is Ten Berge's block relaxation algorithm \citep{ten1984orthogonal,ten1988generalized}, shown as
Algorithm \ref{alg:blockrelax}.
This is an MM algorithm (here minorization-maximization), since
at the update of the $i$th block in the $k$th sweep, the surrogate function
\begin{align*}
g(\boldsymbol{O}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{O}_m |&\;\boldsymbol{O}_1^{k+1},\dotsc,\boldsymbol{O}_{i-1}^{k+1},\boldsymbol{O}_i^k,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{O}_m^k)
\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^m \mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits\left[\boldsymbol{O}_i^T \left(\sum_{j=1}^{ i-1}\boldsymbol{A}_{i}^T\boldsymbol{A}_{j}\boldsymbol{O}_j^{k+1}
+ \sum_{j=i+1}^{ m}\boldsymbol{A}_{i}^T\boldsymbol{A}_{j}\boldsymbol{O}_j^{k} \right)
\right]
\end{align*}
minorizes the objective function of problem \eqref{eqn:maxdiff}
at
$(\boldsymbol{O}_1^{k+1}, \allowbreak \dotsc, \allowbreak \boldsymbol{O}_{i-1}^{k+1}, \allowbreak \boldsymbol{O}_i^k, \allowbreak \dotsc, \allowbreak \boldsymbol{O}_m^k)$
and is maximized based on
the von Neuman-Fan inequality
\[
\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{A}^T\boldsymbol{B}) \le \sum_{l} \sigma_l(\boldsymbol{A})\sigma_l(\boldsymbol{B}),
\]
which holds for any two matrices $\boldsymbol{A}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$ of the same dimensions with the $l$th largest singular values $\sigma_l(\boldsymbol{A})$ and $\sigma_l(\boldsymbol{B})$, respectively; equality is attained when $\boldsymbol{A}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$ share a simultaneous ordered SVD \citep[see, e.g.,][]{lange2016mm}.
While each iteration monotonically improves the objective function, \citet{won2018orthogonal} show that Algorithm \ref{alg:blockrelax} may oscillate between suboptimal no-progress points.
Set $m=3$, $d_1=d_2=d_3=d=r$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_{1}=[\boldsymbol{I}_d, \boldsymbol{I}_d, \mathbf{0}]^T$, $\boldsymbol{A}_{2}=[-\boldsymbol{I}_d, \mathbf{0}, \boldsymbol{I}_d]^T$,
$\boldsymbol{A}_{3}=[\mathbf{0}, \boldsymbol{I}_d, \boldsymbol{I}_d]^T$
\citep[Table 1]{TenBerge1977orthogonal}.
If Algorithm \ref{alg:blockrelax} is initialized with $(\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{K},\boldsymbol{J})$ where
\[
\boldsymbol{J}=\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\boldsymbol{K}=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}
,
\]
then both $\boldsymbol{J}-\boldsymbol{K}$ and $\boldsymbol{J}+\boldsymbol{K}$ have rank 1, and we see that $-\boldsymbol{K}$ is one of the maximizers of $\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits\big[\boldsymbol{O}^T(\boldsymbol{J}-\boldsymbol{K})\big]$,
and likewise
$\boldsymbol{J}$ maximizes $\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits\big[\boldsymbol{O}^T(\boldsymbol{J}+\boldsymbol{K})\big]$.
Taking these values as the outputs of Line 5 of Algorithm \ref{alg:blockrelax}, we have the following cycling sequence at the end of each sweep:
\[
(\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{K},\boldsymbol{J}) \to (-\boldsymbol{K},\boldsymbol{J},-\boldsymbol{K}) \to (-\boldsymbol{J},-\boldsymbol{K},-\boldsymbol{J})
\to (\boldsymbol{K},-\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{K}) \to (\boldsymbol{J},\boldsymbol{K},\boldsymbol{J}) \to \cdots.
\]
All four limit points yield the same objective values of 1. However, the global maximum of $f$ can be shown to be 3.
The main reason for this oscillatory behavior is that the map $\boldsymbol{B}=\sum_{j\neq i}\boldsymbol{A}_{i}^T\boldsymbol{A}_{j}\boldsymbol{O}_j \mapsto \boldsymbol{P}_i\boldsymbol{Q}_i^T$ in Lines 5 and 6 is set-valued.
If $\boldsymbol{B}$ is rank deficient,
any orthonormal basis of the null space of $\boldsymbol{B}^T$ (\textit{resp.} $\boldsymbol{B}$) can be chosen as left (\textit{resp.} right) singular vectors corresponding to the zero singular value. Furthermore, the product $\boldsymbol{P}_i\boldsymbol{Q}_i^T$ may not be unique
\citep[Proposition 7]{absil2012projection}.
\end{example}
\begin{algorithm}[h!
\caption{Ten Berge's algorithm for generalized CCA}
\label{alg:blockrelax}
\begin{tabbing}
{\small~~1:}\enspace Init\=ialize \= $\boldsymbol{O}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{O}_m$\\
{\small~~2:}\enspace For $k=1,2,\dotsc$ \\
{\small~~3:}\enspace\> For $i=1,\dotsc,m$ \\
{\small~~4:}\enspace\>\> Set $\boldsymbol{B} = \sum_{j\neq i}\boldsymbol{A}_{i}^T\boldsymbol{A}_j\boldsymbol{O}_j$ \\
{\small~~5:}\enspace\>\> Compute SVD of $\boldsymbol{B}$ as $\boldsymbol{P}_i\boldsymbol{D}_i\boldsymbol{Q}_i^T$ \\
{\small~~6:}\enspace\>\> Set $\boldsymbol{O}_i = \boldsymbol{P}_i\boldsymbol{Q}_i^T$ \\
{\small~~7:}\enspace\> End For \\
{\small~~8:}\enspace\> If there is no progress, then break \\
{\small~~9:}\enspace End For \\
{\small~10:}\enspace Return $(\boldsymbol{O}_1,\dotsc,\boldsymbol{O}_m)$
\end{tabbing}
\end{algorithm}
More satisfying ``solution sets'' are in order.
\begin{itemize}
\item Fixed points:
$$
\mathcal{F} = \{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}: \boldsymbol{x} = M(\boldsymbol{x}) \},
$$
if $M$ is single-valued.
\item Stationary points:
$$
\mathcal{S} = \{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}: d_{\boldsymbol{v}} f(\boldsymbol{x}) \ge 0,~\text{for all tangent vectors $\boldsymbol{v}$ of $C$ at $\boldsymbol{x}$}\}.
$$
\end{itemize}
All fixed points are no-progress points, i.e., $\mathcal{F}\subset\mathcal{P}$, but not vice versa.
Note that $\boldsymbol{y}\in\mathcal{S}$ is a \emph{necessary} condition that $\boldsymbol{y}$ is a local minimizer of $f$ in $C$.
No-progress points and fixed points depend on the algorithm map $M$, whereas the stationary points depend on the problem itself.
To make $M$ single-valued, note that any convex (and weakly convex) surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ can be made strongly convex, thus attains a unique minimum, by adding the viscosity penalty $\frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2$ majorizing $0$; see Section \ref{sec:convergence:cycling}. If $M$ is closed and single-valued, then it is continuous.
The classical global convergence results for MM algorithms \citep{Lange10NumAnalBook,Lange16MMBook}, which we summarize below, hinge on continuity of the map $M$:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:fixedpoints}
If the MM algorithm map $M$ is continuous, then $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:limitpoints}
If (i) $f$ is continuous, (ii) $f$ is coercive, or the set $\{\boldsymbol{x}: f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\}$ is compact, and (iii) the algorithm map $M$ is continuous, then every limit point of an MM sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ is a fixed point of $M$. Furthermore, $\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathop{\rm dist}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{x}_n, \mathcal{F}) = 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:limitpointsprops}
Under the same assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop:limitpoints}, the MM sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ satisfies
$$
\lim_{n \to \infty} \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\| = 0.
$$
Furthermore, the set $\mathcal{T}$ of the limit points of $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ is compact and connected.
\end{proposition}
\noindent Note Proposition \ref{prop:limitpoints} states that $\mathcal{T}\subset\mathcal{F}$. Proposition \ref{prop:limitpointsprops} ensures there is no cycling.
Connecting the fixed points $\mathcal{F}$, which coincides with the no-progress points $\mathcal{P}$ for continuous $M$, with the stationary points $\mathcal{S}$ needs more assumptions. To equate stationary points of $f$ to those of $g(\cdot|\boldsymbol{x})$, we require a stronger tangency condition than the usual tangency condition \eqref{eqn:tangency}:
\begin{definition}[Strong tangency]
An MM surrogate function $g(\cdot|\cdot)$ is said to be \emph{strongly tangent} to $f$ at $\boldsymbol{x}\in C$ if $d_{\boldsymbol{v}}g(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x})=d_{\boldsymbol{v}}f(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}\in C$ and tangent vector $\boldsymbol{v}$ in $C$ at $\boldsymbol{x}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:strongtangency}
Suppose (i) the surrogate function $g(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x})$ is strongly tangent to the objective function $f$, (ii) the algorithm map $M$ is closed and single-valued, and (iii) stationary points and minimizers of $g(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x})$ are equivalent.
Then $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{S}$, i.e., the sets of fixed points, no-progress points, and stationary points of $f$ coincide.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:isolation}
In addition to the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop:strongtangency}, if $\mathcal{S}$, the set of all stationary points of the objective function $f$, consists of isolated points, then the set $\mathcal{T}$ of the limit points of the MM sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ is singleton, i.e., an MM sequence $\{\boldsymbol{x}_n\}$ possesses a limit, and that limit is a stationary point of $f$ as well as a fixed point of $M$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent Strong tangency holds when $g(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x})=f(\boldsymbol{x}) + h(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x})$ and $h(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x})$ is differentiable with $\nabla h(\boldsymbol{x}|\boldsymbol{x})=\mathbf{0}$. See \cite{Vaida2005,Yu2015} for examples of these results in action.
\iffalse
We summarize the classical global convergence results for MM algorithms \citep{Lange10NumAnalBook,Lange16MMBook}. Denote the MM algorithmic mapping $M(\boldsymbol{x})$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The MM iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ monotonically decreases the objective and the values $f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$, if bounded below, converge. We call a point satisfying $f(M(\boldsymbol{x})) = f(\boldsymbol{x})$ a \emph{no-progress point}.
\item If (i) $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is coercive, or the set $\{\boldsymbol{x}: f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\}$ is compact, (ii) the algorithmic map $M(\boldsymbol{x})$ is continuous, and (iii) all no-progress points are fixed points of $M(\boldsymbol{x})$, then every cluster point of an MM sequence is a fixed point of $M(\boldsymbol{x})$. Furthermore, the set of fixed points $F$ is closed, and $\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathop{\rm dist}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{x}_n, F) = 0$.
\item Under same conditions (i)-(iii), the MM sequence satisfies
$$
\lim_{n \to \infty} \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\| = 0
$$
and the collection of cluster points of an MM sequence is compact and connected.
\item If all stationary points of the objective function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ are isolated, then an MM sequence possesses a limit, and that limit is a stationary point of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
\end{enumerate}
\fi
We next present results that extend to non-asymptotic analysis and more general settings such as non-smooth objectives.
\subsection{Smooth objective functions}
The following proposition gives a weak form of convergence for MM
algorithms. The proposition features minimization and majorization by Lipschitz smooth functions.
\begin{proposition}
Let $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ be a coercive differentiable function majorized by a uniformly $L$-Lipschitz surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n})$ anchored at $\boldsymbol{x}_{n}$. If $\boldsymbol{y}$ denotes a minimum point of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$, then the iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ delivered by the corresponding MM algorithm satisfy the sublinear bound
\begin{eqnarray}
\min_{0 \le k \le n}\| \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_k) \|^2 & \le &
\frac{2L}{n+1} [f(\boldsymbol{x}_0) - f(\boldsymbol{y})] . \label{sublinear_bound}
\end{eqnarray}
When $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is continuously differentiable, any limit point of the sequence $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ is a
stationary point of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given that the surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ satisfies the tangency condition
$\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) = \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$, the $L$-smoothness assumption entails the quadratic upper bound
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) & \le &
g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \\
& \le& g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \\
&\le& \langle{\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n}}\rangle
+ \frac{L}{2} \lVert{\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n}}\rVert^{2} \\
&=& \langle{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n}}\rangle
+ \frac{L}{2} \lVert{\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n}}\rVert^{2}
\end{eqnarray*}
for any $\boldsymbol{x}$. The choice $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{x}_{n} - L^{-1} \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})$
yields the sufficient decrease condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:sufficient-descent}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) & \ge &
\frac{1}{2 L} \|\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})\|^{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
A simple telescoping argument now gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{n+1}{2L} \!\min_{0 \le k \le n}\| \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_k) \|^2 & \!\le \!& \frac{1}{2L} \sum_{k=0}^{n} \|\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_k) \|^2 \\
& \le & \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits f(\boldsymbol{x}_{0}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \\
& \le & \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits f(\boldsymbol{x}_{0}) - f(\boldsymbol{y}),
\end{eqnarray*}
which is equivalent to the bound (\ref{sublinear_bound}).
The second assertion follows directly from condition (\ref{eq:sufficient-descent}), the convergence of the sequence $f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$, and the continuity of $\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
\end{proof}
As a prelude to our next result, we state and prove a simple result of independent
interest.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex with surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$ at the point $\boldsymbol{x}$. Then $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is differentiable at $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})$ equals $\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$ wherever $\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$ exists.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Suppose $\boldsymbol{x}$ is such a point. Let $\boldsymbol{v} \in \partial f(\boldsymbol{x})$ be a subgradient of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$. It suffices to show that $\boldsymbol{v}$
is uniquely determined as $\boldsymbol{v} = \nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$. For any
direction $\boldsymbol{u}$, consider the forward difference quotient
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{g(\boldsymbol{x}+t\boldsymbol{u} \mid \boldsymbol{x})-g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})}{t}
& \ge & \frac{f(\boldsymbol{x}+t\boldsymbol{u})-f(\boldsymbol{x})}{t} \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits \ge \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits
\langle{\boldsymbol{v}, \boldsymbol{u}}\rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking limits produces
$\langle{\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}), \boldsymbol{u}}\rangle \ge
\langle{\boldsymbol{v}, \boldsymbol{u}}\rangle$.
This cannot be true for all $\boldsymbol{u}$ unless the condition
$\boldsymbol{v} = \nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$ holds.
\end{proof}
Imposing strong convexity on $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ recovers linear convergence. The ratio $\frac{\mu}{L}$ makes an appearance but, unlike convergence theorems for gradient descent, this ratio is not the condition number of either the objective or the surrogate.
\begin{proposition}
Let $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ be a $\mu$-strongly convex function majorized by a uniformly $L$-Lipschitz surrogate $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n})$. If the global minimum occurs at $\boldsymbol{y}$, then the MM iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - f(\boldsymbol{y}) & \le &
\left[1 - \left(\frac{\mu}{L}\right)^{2}\right]^{n}
[f(\boldsymbol{x}_{0}) - f(\boldsymbol{y})],
\end{eqnarray*}
thus, establishing linear convergence of $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ to $\boldsymbol{y}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Existence and uniqueness of $\boldsymbol{y}$ follow from strong convexity. Because
$\nabla g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) = {\bf 0}$, the smoothness of $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y})$ gives the quadratic upper bound
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{y}) & \le & g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) - g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) \nonumber \\
& \le & \langle{\nabla g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}}\rangle
+ \frac{L}{2} \lVert{\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}}\rVert^{2} \label{eq:prop2-pl-upper} \\
& = & \frac{L}{2} \lVert{\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}}\rVert^{2}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which incidentally implies $\mu \le L$. By the previous proposition, $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is everywhere differentiable with $\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})=
\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x})$. In view of the strong convexity assumption, we have the lower bound
\begin{eqnarray}
\lVert{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})}\rVert \cdot \lVert{\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}}\rVert
&\ge & - \langle{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}), \boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}}\rangle \nonumber \\
&\ge & f(\boldsymbol{y}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \langle{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}), \boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}}\rangle
\label{eq:prop2-pl-lower} \\
&\ge & \frac{\mu}{2} \lVert{\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}}\rVert^{2}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that $\lVert{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})}\rVert \ge \frac{\mu}{2}\lVert{\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}}\rVert$. Combining inequalities (\ref{eq:prop2-pl-upper}) and (\ref{eq:prop2-pl-lower}) furnishes the Polyak-\L{}ojasiewicz (PL) bound
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lVert{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})}\rVert^{2} & \ge &
\frac{\mu^{2}}{2 L} [f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{y})].
\end{eqnarray*}
We now turn to the MM iterates and take $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{x}_{n} - \frac{1}{L} \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})$. The PL inequality implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})
& \le & g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \\
& \le & g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \\
& \le & \Big\langle{\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}), -\frac{1}{L} \nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n})}\Big\rangle +
\frac{L}{2}\Big\lVert{\frac{1}{L} \nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n})}\Big\rVert^{2} \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2L}\lVert{\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})}\rVert^{2} \\
&\le & - \frac{2\mu^2}{L^2} \left[ f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - f(\boldsymbol{y})\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Subtracting $f(\boldsymbol{y})$ from both sides of the previous inequality
and rearranging gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{y}) & \le & \left[1 - \frac{\mu^{2}}{2 L^{2}}
\right]
[f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - f(\boldsymbol{y})].
\end{eqnarray*}
Iteration of this inequality yields the claimed linear convergence.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Non-smooth objective functions}
Consider an MM minimization algorithm with objective $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ and surrogates $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$. If $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is coercive and continuous and the $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ are $\mu$-strongly convex, then we know that the MM iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}} g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ remain within the compact sublevel set $S = \{\boldsymbol{x}: f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\}$ \citep{Lange16MMBook}. Furthermore, the strong convexity inequality
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)-f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) & \ge & g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)
\mathop{\;\:}\nolimits \ge \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}_n-\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\|^2
\label{strong_convexity_ineq}
\end{eqnarray}
implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \|\boldsymbol{x}_n-\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\|^2
& \le & \frac{1}{\mu} \Big[f(\boldsymbol{x}_0)-\bar{f}\Big],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\bar{f} = \lim_{n \to \infty} f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$. It follows from a well-known theorem of Ostrowski \citep{Lange16MMBook} that the set $W$ of limit points of the $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ is compact and connected. It is also easy to show that $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ takes the constant value $\bar{f}$ on $W$ and that
$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathop{\rm dist}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{x}_n, W) = 0$.
We will need the concept of a Fr\'echet subdifferential. If $f(\boldsymbol{x})$
is a function mapping $\mathbb{R}^p$ into $\mathbb{R} \cup \{+\infty\}$,
then its Fr\'echet subdifferential at $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits f$ is the set
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x}) & = & \left\{\boldsymbol{v}: \liminf_{\boldsymbol{y} \to \boldsymbol{x}}
\frac{f(\boldsymbol{y})-f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \boldsymbol{v}^t(\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{x})}{\|\boldsymbol{y}-\boldsymbol{x}\|} \ge 0 \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The set $\partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is closed, convex, and possibly empty. If $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex, then $\partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x})$ reduces to its convex subdifferential. If $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is differentiable, then $\partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x})$ reduces to its ordinary differential. At a local minimum $\boldsymbol{x}$, Fermat's rule ${\bf 0} \in \partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x})$ holds.
\begin{proposition}
In an MM algorithm, suppose $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is coercive, $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is differentiable, and the algorithm map $M(\boldsymbol{x})$ is closed. Then all points
$\boldsymbol{z}$ of the convergence set $W$ are critical in the sense that
${\bf 0} \in \partial^F (-f)(\boldsymbol{z})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let the subsequence $x_{n_m}$ of the MM sequence
$\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \in M(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converge to $\boldsymbol{z} \in W$. By passing a subsubsequence if necessary, we may suppose that $\boldsymbol{x}_{n_m+1}$ converges to $\boldsymbol{y}$. Owing to our closedness assumption, $\boldsymbol{y} \in M(\boldsymbol{z})$. Given that $f(\boldsymbol{y})=f(\boldsymbol{z})$, it is obvious that $\boldsymbol{z}$ also minimizes $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{z})$ and that
${\bf 0} = \nabla g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{z})$. Since the difference $h(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{z})= g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{z})-f(\boldsymbol{x})$ achieves it minimum at $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{z}$, the Fr\'echet subdifferential $\partial^F h(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{z})$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf 0} & \in & \partial^F h(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{z}) \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits = \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits
\nabla g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{z}) + \partial^F (-f) (\boldsymbol{z}).
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that ${\bf 0} \in \partial^F (-f) (\boldsymbol{z})$.
\end{proof}
We will also need to invoke \L{}ojasiewicz's inequality. This deep result depends on some rather arcane algebraic geometry \citep{BierstoneMilman88Semianalytic,BochnakCosteRoy98RealAlgebraicGeometry}. It applies to semialgebraic functions and their more inclusive cousins semianalytic functions and subanalytic functions. For simplicity we focus on semialgebraic functions. The class of semialgebraic subsets of $\mathbb{R}^p$ is the smallest class such that:
\begin{description}
\item[a)] It contains all sets of the form
$\{\boldsymbol{x}: q(\boldsymbol{x})>0 \}$ for a polynomial $q(\boldsymbol{x})$ in $p$ variables.
\item[b)] It is closed under the formation of finite unions, finite intersections, and set complementation.
\end{description}
A function $a:\mathbb{R}^p \mapsto \mathbb{R}^r$ is said to be semialgebraic if its graph is a semialgebraic set of $\mathbb{R}^{p+r}$.
The class of real-valued semialgebraic contains all polynomials $p(\boldsymbol{x})$.
It is closed under the formation of sums, products, absolute values,
reciprocals when $a(\boldsymbol{x}) \ne 0$, roots when $a(\boldsymbol{x}) \ge 0$, and maxima
$\max\{a(\boldsymbol{x}),b(\boldsymbol{x})\}$ and minima $\min\{a(\boldsymbol{x}),b(\boldsymbol{x})\}$. For our purposes, it is important to note that $\mathop{\rm dist}\nolimits(\boldsymbol{x}, S)$ is a semialgebraic function whenever $S$ is a semialgebraic set.
\L{}ojasiewicz's inequality in its modern form \citep{AttouchBolte09KLIneq} requires that $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ be continuous and subanalytic with a closed domain. If $\boldsymbol{z}$ is a critical point of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
|f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{z})|^{\theta(\boldsymbol{z})} & \le & c(\boldsymbol{z}) \|\boldsymbol{v} \|
\end{eqnarray*}
for some constant $c(\boldsymbol{z})$, all $\boldsymbol{x}$ in some open ball $B_{r(\boldsymbol{z})}(\boldsymbol{z})$ around $\boldsymbol{z}$ of radius $r(\boldsymbol{z})$, and all $\boldsymbol{v}$ in $\partial^F f(\boldsymbol{x})$. This inequality applies to semialgebraic functions since they are automatically subanalytic. We will apply \L{}ojasiewicz's inequality to the points in the limit set $W$.
\subsubsection{MM convergence for semialgebraic functions}
\begin{proposition} Suppose that $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is coercive, continuous, and subanalytic and all $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ are continuous, $\mu$-strongly convex, and satisfy the
Lipschitz condition
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\nabla g(\boldsymbol{u} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)-\nabla g(\boldsymbol{v} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \|
& \le & L \|\boldsymbol{u}-\boldsymbol{v}\|
\end{eqnarray*}
on the compact sublevel set $\{\boldsymbol{x}: f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_0)\}$. Then the MM iterates
$\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}} g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converge to a critical point in $W$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because $h(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y})= g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y})-f(\boldsymbol{x})$ achieves it minimum at $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{y}$, the Fr\'echet subdifferential $\partial^F h(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y})$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bf 0} & \in & \partial^F h(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits = \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits
\nabla g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) + \partial^F (-f) (\boldsymbol{y}).
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $-\nabla g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{y}) \in \partial^F (-f) (\boldsymbol{y})$.
By assumption
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\nabla g(\boldsymbol{u} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)-\nabla g(\boldsymbol{v} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \|
& \le & L\|\boldsymbol{u}-\boldsymbol{v}\|
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_n$. In particular, because $\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) = {\bf 0}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \|
& \le & L \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{x}_n\|. \label{lipschitz_MM}
\end{eqnarray}
According to the \L{}ojasiewicz inequality applied for the subanalytic function $\bar{f}-f(\boldsymbol{x})$, for each $\boldsymbol{z} \in W$ there exists a radius $r(\boldsymbol{z})$ and an exponent $\theta(\boldsymbol{z}) \in [0,1)$ with
\begin{eqnarray*}
|f(\boldsymbol{u}) - f(\boldsymbol{z})|^{\theta(\boldsymbol{z})} & = &
|\bar{f} - f(\boldsymbol{u}) - \bar{f}+\bar{f}|^{\theta(\boldsymbol{z})}
\mathop{\;\:}\nolimits \le \mathop{\;\:}\nolimits c(\boldsymbol{z}) \|\boldsymbol{v} \|
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $\boldsymbol{u}$ in the open ball $B_{r(\boldsymbol{z})}(\boldsymbol{z})$ around $\boldsymbol{z}$ of radius $r(\boldsymbol{z})$ and all
$\boldsymbol{v} \in \partial^F (\bar{f}-f) (\boldsymbol{u})= \partial^F (-f) (\boldsymbol{u})$. We will apply this inequality to $\boldsymbol{u}=\boldsymbol{x}_n$ and
$\boldsymbol{v} = -\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$.
In so doing, we would like to assume that the exponent $\theta(\boldsymbol{z})$ and constant $c(\boldsymbol{z})$ do not depend on $\boldsymbol{z}$. With this end in mind, cover
$W$ by a finite number of balls balls $B_{r(\boldsymbol{z}_i)}(\boldsymbol{z}_i)$ and take
$\theta=\max_i \theta(\boldsymbol{z}_i)<1$ and $c = \max_i c(\boldsymbol{z}_i)$. For a sufficiently large $N$, every $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ with $ n \ge N$ falls within one
of these balls and satisfies $|\bar{f}-f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)| < 1$. Without loss
of generality assume $N=0$. The \L{}ojasiewicz inequality now
entails
\begin{eqnarray}
|\bar{f}-f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)|^{\theta} & \le & c \|\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \|.
\label{Lojasiewicz_MM}
\end{eqnarray}
In combination with the concavity of the function $t^{1-\theta}$ on $[0,\infty)$, inequalities (\ref{strong_convexity_ineq}),
(\ref{lipschitz_MM}), and (\ref{Lojasiewicz_MM}) imply
\begin{eqnarray*}
[f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) - \bar{f}]^{1-\theta}-[f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})-\bar{f}]^{1-\theta} & \ge &
\frac{1-\theta}{[f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)-\bar{f}]^{\theta}}[f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)-f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})] \\
& \ge & \frac{1-\theta}{c\|\nabla g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \|}
\frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2 \\
& \ge & \frac{(1-\theta)\mu}{2cL}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{x}_n\|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Rearranging this inequality and summing over $n$ yield
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{x}_n\| & \le &
\frac{2cL}{(1-\theta)\mu}[f(\boldsymbol{x}_0) - \bar{f}]^{1-\theta}
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, the sequence $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ is a fast Cauchy sequence and converges to a unique limit in $W$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A proximal trick to prevent cycling}\label{sec:convergence:cycling}
Consider minimizing a function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ bounded below and possibly subject to constraints. The MM principle involves constructing a surrogate function $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ that majorizes $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ around $\boldsymbol{x}_n$. For any $\rho>0$, adding the penalty $(\rho/2) \|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2$ to the surrogate produces a new surrogate
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) + \frac{\rho}{2} \|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Rearranging the inequality
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) + \frac{\rho}{2} \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2 \le g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)
\end{eqnarray*}
yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\rho}{2} \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2 \le g(\boldsymbol{x}_n \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus the MM iterates induced by the new surrogate satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \|\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\| = 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
This property is inconsistent with algorithm cycling between distant limit points.
\section{Paracontraction}
Another useful tool for proving iterate convergence of MM algorithms is paracontraction. Recall that a map $T : \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}^d$ is contractive with respect to a norm $\|\boldsymbol{x}\|$ if $\|T(\boldsymbol{y}) - T(\boldsymbol{z})\| < \|\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{z}\|$ for all $\boldsymbol{y} \neq \boldsymbol{z}$ in $\mathcal{X}$. It is strictly contractive if there exists a constant $c \in [0,1)$ with $\|T(\boldsymbol{y}) - T (\boldsymbol{z})\| \le c\|\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{z}\|$ for all such pairs. If $c=1$, then the map is nonexpansive.
\begin{definition}[Paracontractive map]
A map $T : \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}^d$ is said to be \emph{paracontractive} if for every fixed point $\boldsymbol{y}$ of $T$ (i.e., $\boldsymbol{y}=T(\boldsymbol{y})$),
the inequality $\|T(\boldsymbol{x}) - \boldsymbol{y}\| < \|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|$ holds unless $\boldsymbol{x}$ is itself a fixed point.
\end{definition}
\noindent A strictly contractive map is contractive, and a contractive map is paracontractive.
An important result regarding paracontractive maps is the theorem of Elsner, Koltract, and Neumann \citep{elsner92}, which states that whenever a continuous paracontractive map $T$ possesses one or more fixed points, then the sequence of iterates $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = T(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converges to a fixed point regardless of the initial point $\boldsymbol{x}_0$. More formal statement is as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:elsner}
Suppose the continuous maps $T_0, \cdots, T_{r-1}$ of a set into itself are paracontractive under the norm $\|x\|$.
Let $F_i$ denote the set of fixed points of $T_i$.
If the intersection $F = \cap_{i=0}^{r-1}F_i$ is nonempty, then the sequence
$$
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = T_{n\mod r}(\boldsymbol{x}_n)
$$
converges to a limit in $F$.
In particular, if $r = 1$ and $T = T_0$ has a nonempty set of fixed points $F$, then
$\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = T(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converges to a point in $F$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent A simple proof is given in \citet{lange13}.
Proposition \ref{prop:elsner} converts the task of proving convergence of MM iterates to that of showing 1) continuity, 2) paracontractivity, and 3) existence of a fixed point, of the MM algorithm map,
and that 4) any fixed point is a stationary point of the objective.
A nice example is the recent work by \citet{won2019projection} on Euclidean projection onto the Minkowski sum of sets. The Minkowski sum of two sets $A$ and $B$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is
$$
A+B = \{\boldsymbol{a}+\boldsymbol{b}: \boldsymbol{a} \in A, ~ \boldsymbol{b} \in B\}.
$$
It is easy to show that $A+B$ is convex whenever $A$ and $B$ are both convex and is closed if at least one of the two sets is compact and the other is closed.
When $A+B$ is closed with $A$ and $B$ convex, we may employ a block descent algorithm, an instance of MM algorithms, for finding the closest point to $\boldsymbol{x} \notin A+B$, which consists of alternating
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:blockdescent}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{b}_{n+1} & = P_B(\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{a}_n) \\
\boldsymbol{a}_{n+1} & = P_A(\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{b}_{n+1}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
assuming that the projection operators $P_A$ and $P_B$ onto $A$ and $B$ are both known or easy to compute.
In order to show that the sequence
$\{\boldsymbol{a}_n+\boldsymbol{b}_n\}$ converges to the closest point using Proposition \ref{prop:elsner}, we first need to show the continuity of the map
$$
T(\boldsymbol{a}) = P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})].
$$
The obtuse angle property of Euclidean projection \citep[Example 6.5.3]{lange13} yields
\begin{align*}
\langle \boldsymbol{a} - P_A(\boldsymbol{a}), P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}) - P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) \rangle &\le 0 \\
\langle \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}} - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}), P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}) \rangle &\le 0
\end{align*}
for any $\boldsymbol{a}, \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}} \in \mathbb{R}^d$.
Adding these inequalities, rearranging, and applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality give
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nonexpansive}
\begin{split}
\|P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})\|^2
&\le \langle \boldsymbol{a} - \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}, P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}) \rangle
\\
&\le \|\boldsymbol{a} - \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}\|\|P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})\|
.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus $\|P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})\| \le \|\boldsymbol{a} - \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}\|$. That is, $P_A$ is nonexpansive, and the inequalty holds if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:cauchyswartz}
P_A(\boldsymbol{a}) - P_A(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}) = c(\boldsymbol{a} - \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})
\end{equation}
for some constant $c$. Likewise, $P_B$ is nonexpansive.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:paracontraction}
\begin{split}
& \|P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})] - P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})]\|
\\
& \le
\|P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})- P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})\|
\le
\|\boldsymbol{a}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}\|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This proves that $T$ is nonexpansive, hence continuous.
Next, we show that $T$ is paracontractive. Suppose $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}$
is a fixed point, $\boldsymbol{a} \neq \tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}$, and equality holds throughout inequalities \eqref{eqn:paracontraction}.
Inequalities \eqref{eqn:nonexpansive} and equation \eqref{eqn:cauchyswartz}
indicate that equality is achieved in the previous two inequalities only if
\begin{align*}
&P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})]-[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})]
\\
& ~=
P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})]-[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})],
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})-(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})
= P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})-(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}).
\end{align*}
Subtracting the second of these equalities from the first
gives
\[
P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})]-\boldsymbol{a}
=
P_A[\boldsymbol{x} - P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})]-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}
= {\bf 0}.
\]
It follows that equality in inequalities \eqref{eqn:paracontraction} is achieved only if $\boldsymbol{a}$ is also
a fixed point.
To show that $T$ possesses a fixed point,
note that given the closedness of $A+B$, there exists a closest point
$\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}+\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}$ to $\boldsymbol{x}$, where $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}\in A$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}\in B$.
Since block descent cannot improve
the objective $f(\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{b}) = \frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a}-\boldsymbol{b}\|^2$ on the set $A\times B$ starting from $(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}},\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}})$, it is clear that $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}} = T(\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})$.
Finally, suppose $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}$ is any fixed point, and define $\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}} = P_B(\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}})$.
To prove that $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}+\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}$ minimizes the distance to $\boldsymbol{x}$, it suffices
to show that for every tangent vector $\boldsymbol{v} =\boldsymbol{a}+\boldsymbol{b}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}$ at
$\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}+\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}$, the directional derivative
\begin{align*}
d_{\boldsymbol{v}}\frac{1}{2} \|\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}\|^2
& = -\langle \boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}, \boldsymbol{v} \rangle \\
& = -\langle \boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}, \boldsymbol{a}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}} \rangle - \langle \boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}, \boldsymbol{b}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}} \rangle
\end{align*}
is nonnegative. However, the inequalities
$-\langle \boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}, \boldsymbol{a}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}\rangle \ge 0$
and $-\langle\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}, \boldsymbol{b}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}\rangle \ge 0$ hold because $\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}$ minimizes
$\boldsymbol{a} \mapsto \frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}\|^2$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{b}}$ minimizes
$\boldsymbol{b} \mapsto \frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}-\tilde{\boldsymbol{a}}-\boldsymbol{b}\|^2$.
Thus, any fixed point of $T$ furnishes a minimum of the convex function
$f(\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{b})$ on the set $A \times B$.
\section{Bregman Majorization}
Bregman majorization is a technique for constructing a sequence of surrogate functions pertinent to an MM algorithm. Let us first define the notion of Bregman divergence.
\begin{definition}[Bregman divergence]
For a proper convex function $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ that is continuously differentiable on $\mathbf{int}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{\phi}$, the Bregman divergence $B_{\phi}:\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{X}\to\mathbb{R}$ is defined as
$$
B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y}) = \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \phi(\boldsymbol{y}) - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \rangle,
\quad \boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{y} \in \mathbf{int}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{\phi}
.
$$
\end{definition}
We are concerned with the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:main}
\min_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C} f(\boldsymbol{x}), \quad C \subset \mathcal{X} \text{ is closed and convex,}
\end{equation}
where $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is a convex, proper, and lower semicontinuous.
In order to solve this problem, the Bregman majorization method constructs the sequence of surrogate functions
$$
g(\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{x}_n) = f(\boldsymbol{x}) + B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_n)
.
$$
and successively minimizes these.
This is a valid MM algorithm since
the following properties of the Bregman divergence are immediate from definition:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y}) \ge 0$;
\item $B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}) = 0$;
\item If $\phi$ is strictly convex, then $B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y})=0$ if and only if $\boldsymbol{x}=\boldsymbol{y}$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus, $g(\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge f(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $g(\boldsymbol{x}_n\mid\boldsymbol{x}_n) = f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$.
We can choose $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ so that for $\mathbf{cl}\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{\phi} = C$.
The subsequent section studies the convergence property of the Bregman majorization.
\subsection{Convergence analysis via SUMMA}
The sequential unconstrained minimization method algorithm \citep[SUMMA;][]{Byrne08Sequential} is a class of algorithms for solving optimization problems of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:constrained}
\min_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C} f(\boldsymbol{x}), \quad C \subset \mathcal{X} \text{ is closed,}
\end{equation}
by minimizing a sequence of auxiliary functions
$$
G_n(\boldsymbol{x}) = f(\boldsymbol{x}) + g_{n+1}(\boldsymbol{x}), \quad n=1, 2, \dotsc,
$$
over $\mathcal{X}$.
The minimizer of $G_n(\boldsymbol{x})$ is denoted by $\boldsymbol{x}_n$.
The conditions imposed on the sequence of functions $g_n(\boldsymbol{x})$ are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $g_n(\boldsymbol{x}) \ge 0$ for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathcal{X}$;
\item $g_n(\boldsymbol{x}_{n-1}) = 0$;
\item $G_n(\boldsymbol{x}) - G_n(\boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge g_{n+1}(\boldsymbol{x})$ for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in C$.
\end{enumerate}
If $g_n(\boldsymbol{x})$ depends on $n$ only through the iterate $x_n$, then this method coincides with the MM algorithm by identifying $G_n(\boldsymbol{x}) = g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ and $g_n(\boldsymbol{x}) = g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n-1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x})$, with the additional requirement
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:summa}\tag{SUMMA}
g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x})
\end{equation}
for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in C$.
Let us show that condition \eqref{eqn:summa} is satisfied by the Bregman majorization
$g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) =
f(\boldsymbol{x}) + \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_n) - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle$. The optimality condition for minimizing $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is
$$
{\bf 0} \in \partial f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) + \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_n).
$$
For the appropriate choice of $\boldsymbol{s}_{n+1} \in \partial f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)
&= f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) + \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \\
& - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \rangle \\
&= f(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - \langle \boldsymbol{s}_{n+1}, \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \rangle \\
& \quad + \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \rangle \\
&\ge B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) = g(\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}),
\end{align*}
where the last inequality is a consequence of the convexity of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
The following propositions concern convergence of MM algorithms satisfying condition \eqref{eqn:summa}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:objectiveconvergence}
Assume (a) $p^\star = \inf_{x\in C}f(\boldsymbol{x}) > -\infty$ and
(b) $\boldsymbol{x}_n \in C$ for each $n$.
If condition \eqref{eqn:summa} holds, then any MM sequence generated by the map $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \in \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}} g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ satisfies $\lim_{n \to \infty}f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) = p^\star$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the descent property of MM and the bound $f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge p^\star > -\infty$ given $\boldsymbol{x}_n \in C$,
the sequence $f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converges to a limit $d \ge p^\star$.
Suppose for some $\boldsymbol{x}\in C$ that $f(\boldsymbol{x}) < d$. Then, by condition \eqref{eqn:summa},
\begin{align*}
[g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x})] - [g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x})] &\ge g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
&\ge f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
&\ge d - f(\boldsymbol{x}) \\
& > 0.
\end{align*}
Thus. the sequence $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x})$ decreases and its successive differences are bounded away from zero. The latter property contradicts the requirement for the surrogate function that $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge f(\boldsymbol{x})$, and therefore $d=p^\star$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:iterateconvergence}
In addition to the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop:objectiveconvergence},
further assume that (c) the minimum $p^\star$ is attained and the set $F$ of the minimizers of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ in $C$ is nonempty, (d) $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is continuous on $D\subset\mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathbf{cl}D = C$, (e) for each $n$ $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is $\mu$-strongly convex with respect to the norm $\|\cdot\|$ and $\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits g(\cdot \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)=D$, and
(f) $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}) \le \frac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2$ for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in D$ and each $n$.
If condition \eqref{eqn:summa} holds, then the MM sequence $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathcal{X}} g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ converges to a point in $F$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because of strong convexity, the minimum of $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is uniquely attained for each $n$. Furthermore, for any $\boldsymbol{x} \in D$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:strongconvexity}
g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \ge \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\|^2
\end{equation}
Let $\boldsymbol{y} \in F$ be a minimizer of $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ in $C$.
Since $f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \le g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:lowerbound}
g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \ge g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)
\ge \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{y} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \|^2,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the strong convexity of $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$.
Condition \eqref{eqn:summa} also implies
\begin{align*}
[g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{y})] - [g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{y})] &\ge g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{y}) \\
&\ge f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - p^\star
\ge 0
\end{align*}
Hence the decreasing nonnegative sequence $g(\boldsymbol{y} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{y})$ has a limit. In addition, $f(\boldsymbol{y}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})$ tends to zero by Proposition \ref{prop:objectiveconvergence}.
It follows that the leftmost side of inequality \eqref{eqn:lowerbound} tends to a limit, and the sequence $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ is bounded.
Suppose the convergent subsequence $\boldsymbol{x}_{n_m}$ of $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ has a limit $\boldsymbol{z}$. By continuity, $f(\boldsymbol{z}) = \lim_{m\to\infty} f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n_m}) = p^\star$, so $\boldsymbol{z}$ is also optimal.
Now,
\begin{align*}
0 &\le g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \\
&= [g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{z})] + f(\boldsymbol{z}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - [g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})] \\
&\le g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{z}) \\
&\le \frac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}_n - z\|^2
\end{align*}
due to $f(\boldsymbol{z}) \le f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1})$, $g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) \ge 0$, and assumption (f).
Again by Condition \eqref{eqn:summa}, we further have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:sandwich}
0 \le g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) \le g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{z})
\le g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n-1}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n-1}).
\end{equation}
Thus, the nonnegative sequence $g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is monotonically decreasing and convergent. Its subsequence $g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n_m}) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n_m+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n_m})$ is also bounded by $\frac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}_{n_m} - \boldsymbol{z}\|^2$, which converges to zero. Thus the whole sequence tends to zero.
By inequality \eqref{eqn:sandwich}, it follows that the sequence $g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{z})$ converges to zero.
The final inequality
\begin{align*}
g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - f(\boldsymbol{z}) &= g(\boldsymbol{z} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) - g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_n) + g(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} \mid \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - f(\boldsymbol{z}) \\
&\ge \frac{\mu}{2}\|\boldsymbol{z} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}\|^2 + f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}) - f(\boldsymbol{z})
\end{align*}
now proves that the entire sequence $\boldsymbol{x}_n$ converges to $\boldsymbol{z} \in F$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Assumption (e) (uniform strong convexity of the surrogate functions) is much less restrictive than assuming strong convexity on the objective $f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
For example, assumption (e) is satisfied when $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex and the convex function $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ defining the Bregman divergence is $\mu$-strongly convex.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Assumption (f) is satisfied if
$\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $L$-smooth.
Assumption (f) can be replaced by
\begin{itemize}
\item[(f\;\textprime)] $g(\boldsymbol{x} \mid \boldsymbol{y})$ is continuous in $\boldsymbol{y}$ in $D$.
\end{itemize}
This is the condition implicitly imposed in the proof of Proposition 7.4.1 in \citet{lange2016mm}. (This assumption is not made perfectly clear in the statement of the proposition.)
Assumption (f\;\textprime) is satisfied, when
$\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ is a Bregman-Legendre function \citep{Byrne08Sequential,Byrne14lecture}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Examples}
\subsubsection{Proximal gradient method}
The proximal gradient method minimizes $f(\boldsymbol{x}) = f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) + h(\boldsymbol{x})$ over $C=\mathcal{X}$, where both $f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $h(\boldsymbol{x})$ are convex, proper, and lower semicontinuous. It is further assumed that $f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $L$-smooth. The algorithm iteratively solves
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:proxgrad}
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}} \left\{ f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n} \rangle + h(\boldsymbol{x}) + \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2 \right\}
\end{equation}
for a step size $0<\alpha < L^{-1}$.
To see that the proximal gradient algorithm is an instance of Bregman majorization, set $\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 - f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bregma-proxgrad}
\begin{split}
f(\boldsymbol{x}) + B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_n) &= f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) + h(\boldsymbol{x}) + \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 - f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2 + f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n) \\
& \quad - \langle \frac{1}{\alpha}\boldsymbol{x}_n - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle \\
&= f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle + h(x)
+ \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
as desired.
It remains to verify that $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ satisfy conditions (a) through (f) of Propositions \ref{prop:objectiveconvergence} and \ref{prop:iterateconvergence}. Conditions (a) and (c) are assumed; (b) and (d) are true. Condition (e) is satisfied
since $\alpha \in (0, 1/L)$. The following fact is well-known:
\begin{lemma}
A differentiable convex function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $L$-smooth $\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x})$ if and only if $\frac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 - f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex.
\end{lemma}
\noindent Then, since $\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{1}{\alpha} - L\right)\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 + \dfrac{L}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 - f(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $\frac{1}{\alpha} > L$, $\phi$ is $(\frac{1}{\alpha} - L)$-strongly convex.
To check condition (f), we invoke the Baillon-Haddad theorem:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Baillon-Haddad}
If function $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex, differentiable, and is $L$-smooth, then
$$
\langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f(\boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \rangle \ge \frac{1}{L}\|\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f(\boldsymbol{y}) \|^2
.
$$
\end{lemma}
\noindent Note $\nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\boldsymbol{x} - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{y})\|^2 &= \|\alpha^{-1}(\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}) - [\nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{y})] \|^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2 + \|\nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{y})\|^2
- \frac{2}{\alpha}\langle \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}, \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{y}) \rangle \\
&\le \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2 + \|\nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{y})\|^2
- \frac{2}{\alpha L}\| \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) - \nabla f_0(\boldsymbol{y}) \|^2 \\
&\le \frac{1}{\alpha^2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2
.
\end{align*}
The first inequality is due to Lemma \ref{lemma:Baillon-Haddad}. The last inequality holds since $\alpha \in (0, 1/L)$ implies $1 - \frac{2}{\alpha L} \le 0$.
Therefore $\nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $1/\alpha$-Lipschitz continuous and condition (f) is satisfied.
We summarize the discussion above as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:proxgrad}
Suppose $f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $h(\boldsymbol{x})$ are convex, proper, and lower semicontinuous. If $f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $L$-smooth, then for $0 < \alpha < 1/L$, the proximal gradient iteration \eqref{eqn:proxgrad} converges to a minimizer of $f(\boldsymbol{x}) = f_0(\boldsymbol{x}) + h(\boldsymbol{x})$ if it exists.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Lemma \ref{lemma:Baillon-Haddad} suggests that $\nabla\phi$ is $1/\alpha$-Lipschitz continuous if $0 < \alpha < 2/L$; in other words, the step size may be doubled. Indeed, employing monotone operator theory \citep{Bauschke11convex,Ryu16primer} it can be shown that iteration \eqref{eqn:proxgrad} converges for $1/L \le \alpha < 2/L$ as well. Even though the MM interpretation is lost for this range of step size, the descent property remains intact \citep{She09thresholding,Bayram15convergence}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The assumption that $h(\boldsymbol{x})$ is convex can be relaxed: if $h(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $\rho$-weakly convex, which means $h(\boldsymbol{x}) + \frac{\rho}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2$ is convex, and $f_0(\boldsymbol{x})$ is $\rho$-strongly convex as well as $L$-smooth (this implies $\rho \le L$), then the objective $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ remains convex. The inner optimization problem in iteration \eqref{eqn:proxgrad} is also strongly convex if $\rho\alpha < 1$ and $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ is uniquely determined. The latter condition is guaranteed if $\alpha \in (0, 1/L)$, and the conclusion of Proposition \ref{prop:proxgrad} holds. In fact, by using monotone operator theory, a larger step size $\alpha \in (0, \frac{2}{L+\rho})$ is allowed \citep{Bayram15convergence}. Statistical applications include nonconvex sparsity-inducing penalties such as the MCP \citep{Zhang10MCP}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Mirror descent method}
For the constrained problem \eqref{eqn:constrained} and the Euclidean norm $\|\cdot\|_2$ the proximal gradient method takes the form of \emph{projected gradient}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:projgrad}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} &= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C} \left\{ f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n} \rangle + \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n\|_2^2 \right\}
\\
&= P_C\left(\boldsymbol{x}_n - \alpha \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_n)\right)
.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This method relies heavily on the Euclidean geometry of $\mathbb{R}^d$, not $C$: $\|\cdot\|_2 = \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$.
If the distance measure $\frac{1}{2}\|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}\|_2^2$ is replaced by something else (say $d(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$) that better reflects the geometry of $C$, then update such as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mirrordescent}
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} = P_C^{d}\left( \arg\min_{\boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{R}^d} \left\{ f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle + \frac{1}{\alpha}d(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \right\} \right)
\end{equation}
may converge faster. Here,
$$
P_C^d(\mathbf{y}) = \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C} d(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})
$$
is a new (non-Euclidean) projection operator that reflects the geometry of $C$.
To see that iteration \eqref{eqn:mirrordescent} is a Bregman majorization for an appropriately chosen $d(\cdot,\cdot)$, let
$$
d(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{y}) = B_{\psi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y}) = \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{y}) - \langle \nabla \psi(\boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \rangle \ge \frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\|^2
$$
for a $1$-strongly convex (with respect to some norm $\|\cdot\|$) and continuously differentiable function $\psi$ in $C$,
and set $\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{x})$.
Similarly to equation \eqref{eqn:bregma-proxgrad}, we have
\begin{align*}
f(\boldsymbol{x}) + B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_n)
&= f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle \\
& \quad + \frac{1}{\alpha}\left[\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x}_n) - \langle \nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle \right]
\\
&= f(\boldsymbol{x}_n) + \langle \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_n), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_n \rangle + \frac{1}{\alpha} d(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}_n)
.
\end{align*}
Let $\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}$ be the \emph{unconstrained} minimizer of $f(\boldsymbol{x}) + B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ (which is unique since $d(\boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is strongly convex in $\boldsymbol{x}$). The associated optimality condition entails
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bregman_optimality}
\nabla \psi(\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}) = \nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - \alpha \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} &= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}d(\boldsymbol{x}, \tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}) \\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}\left\{ \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}) - \langle \nabla\psi(\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}), \boldsymbol{x} - \tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1} \rangle \right\} \\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}\left\{ \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \langle \nabla\psi(\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}), \boldsymbol{x} \rangle \right\} \\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}\left\{ \psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \langle \nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - \alpha \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n} \rangle \right\}
\\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}\left\{ f(\boldsymbol{x}) + \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{x}_{n} \rangle - \phi(\boldsymbol{x}_n) \right\}
\\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in C}\left\{ f(\boldsymbol{x}) + B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{x}_n) \right\}
,
\end{align*}
as sought.
To establish iterate convergence via SUMMA, we see that just as the proximal gradient method, $f(\boldsymbol{x})$ and $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})$ satisfy conditions (a) through (e) of Propositions \ref{prop:objectiveconvergence} and \ref{prop:iterateconvergence} if $f$ is $L$-smooth and $\alpha \in (0, 1/L)$. In particular,
$$
\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) - f(\boldsymbol{x}) \ge \frac{1}{2\alpha}\|\boldsymbol{x}\|^2 - f(\boldsymbol{x})
$$
to check condition (e). Condition (f\textprime) is fulfilled since $B_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y})=\phi(\boldsymbol{x}) - \phi(\boldsymbol{y}) - \langle \nabla\phi(\boldsymbol{y}), \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y}\rangle$ is continuous in $\boldsymbol{y}$ by construction.
Computation of $\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}$ can be further analyzed.
It is well known that if $\psi$ is $\mu$-strongly convex, then $\psi^*$ is $1/\mu$-smooth,
where $\psi^*$ is the Fenchel conjugate function of $\psi$:
$$
\psi^*(\boldsymbol{y}) = \sup_{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathop{\rm dom}\nolimits{\psi}} \langle \boldsymbol{x}, \boldsymbol{y} \rangle - \phi(\boldsymbol{x})
$$
\citep{Bauschke11convex}.
Hence $\nabla\psi^*$ is well-defined.
Furthermore, $\nabla\psi^*(\nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}))=\boldsymbol{x}$.
Therefore the unconstrained optimality condition \eqref{eqn:bregman_optimality} is equivalent to
$$
\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1} = \nabla \psi^* \left(\nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - \alpha \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \right),
$$
and we decompose the update \eqref{eqn:mirrordescent} into three steps:
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol{y}_{n+1} &= \nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) - \alpha \nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \quad \text{(gradient step)} \\
\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1} &= \nabla \psi^*(\boldsymbol{y}_{n+1}) \quad \text{(mirroring step)} \\
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} &= P_C^{d}(\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1}). \quad \text{(projection step)}
\end{align*}
Hence Bregman majorization with $\phi(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{1}{\alpha}\psi(\boldsymbol{x})-f(\boldsymbol{x})$ coincides with the mirror descent method under $B_{\psi}$ \citep{juditsky2011}.
The first step performs the gradient descent step in the dual space $\mathcal{X}^*$ of $\mathcal{X}$,
and the second step maps the dual vector back to the primal space by the inverse mapping $\nabla\psi^*=(\nabla\psi)^{-1}$.
The final step projects (in a non-Euclidean fashion) the mapped primal vector onto the constraint set $C$.
\begin{example}[Exponentiated gradient]
As a concrete instance of mirror descent, consider optimization over probability simplex $C = \Delta^{d-1} = \{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{R}^d: \sum_{i=1}^d x_i = 1,~ x_i \ge 0, ~i=1, \dotsc, d\}$.
%
An appropriate Bregman divergence is the Kullback-Leibler divergence, i.e., we use negative entropy $\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^d x_i\log x_i - \sum_{i=1}^d x_i$.
It is easy to check, using the Taylor expansion and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
that $\psi$ is 1-strongly convex with respect to the $\ell_1$ norm $\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_1=\sum_{i=1}^d |x_i|$ within $C$.
Furthermore, we have
$\nabla\psi(\boldsymbol{x}) = (\log x_1, \dotsc, \log x_d)^T =: \log\boldsymbol{x}$
and
$\nabla\psi^*(\boldsymbol{y}) = (\nabla\phi)^{-1}(\boldsymbol{y}) = (e^{y_1}, \dotsc, e^{y_d})^T =: \exp(\boldsymbol{y})$.
The mirror descent or Bregmen MM update is then
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol{y}_{n+1} &= \log\boldsymbol{x}_{n} - \alpha\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \\
\tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1} &= \exp\left(\boldsymbol{y}_n \right)
= \boldsymbol{x}_{n}\odot\exp\left(- \alpha\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n}) \right)
\\
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1} &= \tilde{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n+1} / Z_t,
\end{align*}
where $\odot$ denotes an elementwise product, and
$$
Z_t = \sum_{i=1}^d {x}_{n,i}\exp\left(- \alpha\nabla f(\boldsymbol{x}_{n})_i \right)
$$
is the normalization constant.
The last step is because
\begin{align*}
P_{C}^{d}(\boldsymbol{y})
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in\Delta^{d-1}} B_{\psi}(\boldsymbol{x}\Vert\boldsymbol{y})
\\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{x_i \ge 0, \sum_{i=1}^d x_i=1} \sum_{i=1}^d\left(x_i\log\frac{x_i}{y_i} - x_i + y_i\right)
\\
&= \mathop{\rm argmin}\nolimits_{x_i \ge 0, \sum_{i=1}^d x_i=1} \sum_{i=1}^d\left(x_i\log\frac{x_i}{y_i}\right).
\end{align*}
and the associated Lagrangian
$$
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{x}, \mu) = \sum_{i=1}^d \left(x_i\log\frac{x_i}{y_i}\right) + \mu\left(\sum_{i=1}^d x_i - 1\right)
$$
yields
$$
x_i = y_i\exp(-\mu-1) = c y_i,
\quad i=1, \dotsc, d.
$$
for some $c>0$.
Summing these over all $i$ yields $c = 1/(\sum_{i=1}^d y_i)$ to have
$$
x_i = \frac{y_i}{\sum_{j=1}^d y_j}, \quad i=1,\dotsc, d.
$$
This special case is called the \emph{exponentiated gradient method} \citep{helmbold1997,azoury2001}.
\end{example}
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:tau-decomposition}} \label{sec:proof-of-first-order-lemma}
We begin by stating the first order optimality conditions for \cref{eq:convex-program}:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:convex-conditions-mdim}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convex-condition-tau-mdim}
\inner{Z_l}{O - \hat M - \sum_{m=1}^k \hat \mathrm{\tau}_m Z_m} = 0
\quad {\rm for \ } l = 1,2,\dots,k
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\begin{subequations}
\setcounter{equation}{1}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convex-condition-M-mdim}
O - \hat{M} - \sum_{m=1}^k \hat \mathrm{\tau}_m Z_m &= \lambda (\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + W), \nonumber\\
\norm{W} &\leq 1, \; P_{\hat{T}^\perp}(W) = W,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Substituting \cref{eq:convex-condition-M-mdim} in \cref{eq:convex-condition-tau-mdim} immediately yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mdim_sub_w}
\inner{Z_l}{\hat U \hat V^\top}
= - \inner{Z_l}{W}
\end{equation}
Whereas projecting both sides of \cref{eq:convex-condition-M-mdim} onto $\hat T^\perp$ yields
\[
P_{\hat T^{\perp}}\left(
M^* + \hat{E} + \sum_{m=1}^k (\mathrm{\tau}^*_m - \hat \mathrm{\tau}_m) Z_M
\right)
= \lambda W
\]
where we use the fact that $P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(\hat M)$ and $P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(\hat U \hat V^\top)$ are identically zero, and $P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(W) = W$. Together with \cref{eq:mdim_sub_w} this yields
\[
\begin{split}
-\lambda \inner{Z_l}{\hat U \hat V^\top}
&=
\lambda \inner{Z_l}{W}
\\
& =
\inner{Z_l}{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(M^*)}
+
\inner{Z_l}{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(\hat{E})}
+
\sum_{m=1}^k (\mathrm{\tau}^*_m - \hat \mathrm{\tau}_m) \inner{Z_l}{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(Z_M)}
\\
& =
\inner{Z_l}{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(M^*)}
+
\inner{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(Z_l)}{\hat{E}}
+
\sum_{m=1}^k (\mathrm{\tau}^*_m - \hat \mathrm{\tau}_m) \inner{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(Z_l)}{P_{\hat T^{\perp}}(Z_M)}
\end{split}
\]
which is the result.
\section{Proof Outline of Theorem \ref{thm:error-rate-theorem} and Theorem \ref{thm:main-theorem}}\label{sec:Proof-Outline}
We conclude by describing the main ideas and technical challenges in the proof of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} and \cref{thm:main-theorem}. The full details can be found in \cref{sec:full-details-proof-main} and \cref{sec:full-details-proof-error-rate}.
The first challenge is that a direct analysis of the minimizer of $g(M, \mathrm{\tau})$, defined in \cref{eq:convex-program}, appears to be insufficient. So instead, we introduce the following non-convex {\em proxy} problem which plays a critical role in the analysis (note that our algorithm itself does {\em not} involve solving this proxy problem).
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\mathop{\mathrm{minimize}}\limits}_{X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}, Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}, \mathrm{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}} f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) := \frac{1}{2}\norm{O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z}_{F}^{2} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \norm{X}_{\F}^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2}\norm{Y}_{\F}^2 \label{eq:non-convex-program}
\end{align}
\cref{eq:non-convex-program} can be viewed as minimizing the Euclidean error with a hard constraint $\mathrm{rank}(XY^{\top}) = r$ and additional regularization terms that serve to maintain an important `balance' between $X$ and $Y$. The hope is that $X \approx X^{*}, Y \approx Y^{*}$ where $M^{*}=X^{*}Y^{*\top}$ with $X^{*} = U^{*}\Sigma^{*1/2}, Y^{*} = V^{*}\Sigma^{*1/2}$.
The proof of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem,thm:main-theorem} involves two major parts: (i) characterizing the estimation error of the non-convex problem $f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})$ by an inductive argument, and (ii) showing that one of the critical points of $f$ is extremely close to the optimal points of $g(M,\mathrm{\tau})$. Combining these two parts leads to the guarantees in \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem,thm:main-theorem}.
This larger framework is inspired by recent developments on bridging convex and non-convex problems \cite{chen2019noisy,chen2020bridging} for matrix completion and Robust-PCA. In contrast to those works, which assume a completely random pattern (i.e. independent across entries) of missing or corrupted entries, our deterministic treatment pattern $Z$ necessitates a substantially more-careful analysis.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Gradient Descent of Non-convex Optimization} \label{alg:GD}
{\bf Input:} the observation $O$ and $Z$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State{\textbf{{Initialization}}: $X^{0} = X^{*}, Y^{0}=Y^{*}, \mathrm{\tau}^{0} = \frac{\inner{Z}{O-X^{0}Y^{0\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$ where $X^{*} = U^{*}(\Sigma^{*})^{1/2}, Y^{*} = V^{*}(\Sigma^{*})^{1/2}$.}
\State{\textbf{{Gradient updates}}: \textbf{for }$t=0,1,\ldots,t_{\star}-1$
\textbf{do}
\begin{subequations}\label{subeq:gradient_update_ncvx-loo}
\begin{align}
X^{t+1}= & X^{t}-\eta[(X^{t}Y^{t\top} + \mathrm{\tau}^{t} Z - O)Y^{t}+\lambda X^{t}]; \nonumber \\
Y^{t+1}= & Y^{t}-\eta[(X^{t}Y^{t\top} + \mathrm{\tau}^{t} Z - O)^{\top}X^{t}+\lambda Y^{t}]; \nonumber \\
\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1} = & \frac{\inner{Z}{O - X^{t+1}Y^{(t+1)\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\eta$ determines the learning rate.
\end{subequations}
}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{1em}
Below we present more concrete ideas for proving \cref{thm:main-theorem}, where \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} can be viewed as a special case that follows the same proof framework.
{\it Part 1: Properties of the Non-convex Optimizers:}
In the first part of the proof, we show that an alternating gradient descent algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:GD}) on $f$, initialized at $(X^{*}, Y^{*})$, finds $(X, Y, \mathrm{\tau})$ with extremely small gradient (and hence is `approximately' a critical point of $f$), and such that $(X, Y)$ is `close' to $(X^{*}, Y^{*})$ in a way that enables various guarantees on the closeness of $T$ and $T^{*}$. Again, note that this gradient descent algorithm exists purely for the purpose of analyzing the properties of the convex optimizer of $g$, so this idealized choice of initialization is not illegitimate.
Our measure of the accuracy of $(X^t,Y^t)$ should be rotation-invariant (since $X^{t}H^{t}H^{t\top}Y^{t\top} = X^{t}Y^{t\top}$ for any rotation/orthogonal matrix $H \in \O^{r\times r}$). Thus, the coming result is stated for the optimal rotation for aligning $(X^{t}, Y^{t})$ to $(X^{*}, Y^{*})$:
\begin{equation*}
\bm{H}^{t} :=\arg\min_{\bm{R}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}} \norm{X^{t}R-X^{*}} _{\mathrm{F}}^2 + \norm{Y^{t}R-Y^{*}} _{\mathrm{F}}^2.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, defining the quantities $F^t,F^*,\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n\times r}$ greatly simplifies the presentation:
\begin{equation}
F^{t}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
X^{t}\\
Y^{t}
\end{array}\right],\qquad\bm{F}^{*}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
X^{*}\\
Y^{*}
\end{array}\right],
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) := \left[\begin{array}{c}
\nabla_{X} f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})\\
\nabla_{Y} f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})
\end{array}\right].
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Then, the following lemma provides guarantees for the iteration sequence of Algorithm \ref{alg:GD}. To simplify the analysis, we use the fact that $\delta$ can be absorbed as a part of noise $E$.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{ThmNonConvexTheorem}\label{thm:non-convex-theorem}
Assume \cref{assum:incoherence} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} hold. Suppose $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$ where $E_{ij}$ are independent sub-Gaussian random variables with $\|E_{ij}\|_{\psi_2} \leq \sigma.$ Suppose \[\kappa^{4}\mu^2 r^2 \log^2(n) \leq C_1 n \;\;\;\;\; \text{and} \;\;\;\;\; \frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \leq C_2\frac{1}{\kappa^3 \mu r^{4.5}\log^{5}(n)}.\]
Let $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n), \eta = \frac{C_{\eta}}{n^{20}\sigma_{\max}}, t^{\star} = n^{C_t}$. For any $C_3 > 0$, for large enough $n$, with probability $1-O(n^{-C_3})$, the iteration $(X^{t}, Y^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t})_{0\leq t\leq t^{\star}}$ given in Algorithm \ref{alg:GD} satisfies the following:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:induction-main}
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F}&\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-main}\\
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{2,\infty} &\leq C_{\infty}\left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\right)\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm-main}\\
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| &\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\label{eq:tau-taustar-main}\\
\min_{0\leq t\leq t^{\star}} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\leq \frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{n^{10}} \label{eq:gradient-small-main}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Furthermore, let $T_t$ be the tangent space of $X^{t}Y^{t\top}$. With probability $1-O(n^{-C_3})$, the following hold for all iterations $0\leq t \leq t^{\star}$ simultaneously:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:PT-bound-main}
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,1}\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\label{eq:PTM-bound-main}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,2}\frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\label{eq:PTE-bound-main}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} &\leq C_{T,3}\frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}
\label{eq:PTZ-bound-main}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,4}\frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right) \label{eq:PTZ-infinity-bound-main}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $C_{\lambda}, C_{\eta}, C_{t}, C_{\F}, C_{\infty}, C_{\mathrm{\tau}}, C_{T,1}, C_{T,2}, C_{T,3}, C_{T,4}$ are constants depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_{r_1}$ (where $C_{r_1}$ is the constant in \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}).
\end{restatable}
To provide some intuition, the goal of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} is to establish that there exists $(X, Y, \mathrm{\tau})$ such that the gradient of the non-convex function $f$ is extremely small (\cref{eq:gradient-small-main}), while $(X, Y, \mathrm{\tau})$ is close to $(X^{*}, Y^{*}, \mathrm{\tau}^{*})$ (\cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-main,eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm-main,eq:tau-taustar-main}). In addition, there are various guarantees for $T$ (\cref{eq:PT-bound-main}), which are desired given the results of \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}.
\vspace{1em}
\textit{Technical challenge.}
The proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} is based on the framework of iteration analysis and leave-one-out techniques developed in \cite{ma2019implicit,chen2019noisy,chen2020nonconvex} with significant improvement for this problem. The main difficulty here brought by the deterministic pattern of $Z$ is the interdependence between $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ and $\|{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}\|_{\F}, \|{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}\|_{2,\infty}.$ In particular, a direct application of \cite{ma2019implicit} here will lead to either (i) strong assumptions on $Z$ (e.g., entries in $Z$ are i.i.d occurred) (ii) or divergence of the estimation errors (e.g., increasing $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ leads to an increase of $\|{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}\|_{\F}$ and $\|{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}\|_{2,\infty}$, and in turn $\|{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}\|_{\F}$ and $\|{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}\|_{2,\infty}$ also increases $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$).
\textit{Decoupling idea:} We tackle this issue by `decoupling' this interdependence throughout a much more careful analysis on (i) mitigating the impact of $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ on $\|{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}\|_{\F}$; (ii) establishing a new iterative analysis for $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ without a strong requirement on $\|{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}\|_{2,\infty}.$ This minimizes the additional assumption for $Z$ while maintaining a desired bound for the estimation errors. In addition to tackling the deterministic pattern of $Z$, we also put significant effort into obtaining various guarantees for the tangent space $T^{t}$ from the guarantees on $X^{t}, Y^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t}.$ The full proof details of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} can be found in \cref{sec:full-non-convex-proof}.
\vspace{1em}
{\it Part 2: Connecting the Convex and Non-convex Optimizers:}
Next, we show that the near-critical point of $f$ provided by \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} is extremely close to the optimal points of the convex problem $g$. Recall that the first order conditions of the convex program for $(M, \mathrm{\tau})$ are: (i) $\mathrm{\tau} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 = \inner{Z}{O-M}$ (\cref{eq:convex-condition-tau}); and (ii) there exists certificate $W$ such that $O - M - \mathrm{\tau} Z = \lambda (UV^{\top} + W)$ and $\norm{W} \leq 1, P_{T^{\perp}}(W) = W$ (\cref{eq:convex-condition-M,eq:convex-condition-W1,eq:convex-condition-W2}).
To establish the connection between the two problems, consider the exact conditions satisfied by the critical points of $f$:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:non-convex-conditions}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{\tau} {\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} &= {\inner{Z}{O-XY^{\top}}} \label{eq:nonconvex-tau}\\
(O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z)Y &= \lambda X \label{eq:nonconvex-first-order-X}\\
(O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z)^{\top}X &= \lambda Y \label{eq:nonconvex-first-order-Y}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We establish a lemma showing that some approximately critical points of $f$ satisfy the first-order conditions of $g$ approximately. In particular, we have the following result. See the detailed proof in \cref{appendix:lemma-R-approximate-W}.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{LemRApproximateW}\label{lem:R-approximate-W}
Assume \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} hold, and $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \leq C_1\frac{1}{\kappa^2 r^2 \log^{5}(n)}.$ Suppose $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*} Z + E$ for a deterministic $E$. Assume $\|E\| \leq C_2\sigma \sqrt{n}$ with $|\inner{E}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}| \leq C_3 \sigma \sqrt{n/\log(n)} \|Z\|_{\F}.$
Let $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n), X, Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, $\mathrm{\tau} = \frac{\inner{Z}{O-XY^{\top}}}{\|Z\|_{\F}^2}$, and $T$ is the tangent space of $XY^{\top}.$
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:R-W-conditions}
\begin{align}
\norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y - Y^{*}}_{\F} &\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{X^{*}}_{\F}, \\
\norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} &\leq \frac{\lambda\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\kappa n}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Let $R = \frac{1}{\lambda}(O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z - \lambda UV^{\top})$ where $U\Sigma V^{\top}$ is the SVD of $XY^{\top}.$ Then,
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T}(R)}_{\F} \leq \frac{72\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \text{~\quad and \quad} \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(R)} \leq \left(1-\frac{C}{\log n}\right). \label{eq:approximate-first-order-convex}
\end{align}
Here, $C$ is a constant depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_{\lambda}, C_{\F}$.
\end{restatable}
We can view \cref{eq:approximate-first-order-convex} as an approximated version of \cref{eq:convex-conditions} since $\norm{P_{T}(R)}_{\F} \approx 0$ implies $P_{T^{\perp}}(R) \approx R$ and then $\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(R)} \leq 1$ approximately implies $\norm{R} \leq 1.$
If $(XY^{\top}, \mathrm{\tau})$ satisfies the first-order conditions of $g$ approximately, we can expect that $(XY^{\top}, \mathrm{\tau})$ is close to the optimizer of $g$. Based on the results of \cref{lem:R-approximate-W}, we establish the following key property (see detailed proof in \cref{appendix:approximation-nonconvex-convex}).
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{LemApproximationNonconvexConvex}\label{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}
Assume the same setup from \cref{lem:R-approximate-W}. For any minimizer $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ of the convex program \cref{eq:convex-program}, we have
\begin{align}
\norm{XY^{\top} - \hat{M}}_{\F} &\leq C\frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X,Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \nonumber\\
|\mathrm{\tau} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}| &\leq C\frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}_{\F}} \norm{\nabla f(X,Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Furthermore, let $\hat{T}$ be the tangent space of $\hat{M}$. For any matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(A) - P_{T^{\perp}}(A)}_{\F} &\leq C \norm{A} \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^{1.5}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}\\
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(XY^{\top})}_{\F} &\leq C \frac{\kappa^{3}\log^{2}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^2} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Here, $C$ is a constant depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_{\lambda}, C_{\F}$.
\end{restatable}
The proofs of \cref{lem:R-approximate-W} and \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex} are based on the framework in \cite{chen2019noisy,chen2020bridging}, though we require a more-refined analysis to address the additional terms induced by $\mathrm{\tau}$ and to limit the assumptions needed on $Z$. In particular, a direct application of \cite{chen2019noisy} for \cref{lem:R-approximate-W} would require that $\norm{Z} \ll {n}/{\log(n)}$ (noting that $1^{\top}Z1$ is the number of entries in $Z$, this implies that $Z$ would need to be sparse), which rules out many interesting patterns in causal inference.
In contrast, \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} is notably weaker and almost necessary for the convex optimizers to be close to $M^{*}.$ In addition, \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex} requires utilizing the special form of $\mathrm{\tau}$, along with results for the soft-thresholding estimator \cite{mazumder2010spectral} to show the claimed `closesness' of $\hat{T}$ to $T$.
\vspace{1em}
{\it Putting it Together:}
Given the results in \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem,lem:tau-decomposition,lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, we are ready to finish the proof of \cref{thm:main-theorem}.
First, the bounds on $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ and $\|{\hat{M}-M^{*}}\|_{\infty}$. From \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}, an approximate critical point $(X, Y, \mathrm{\tau})$ of $f$ can be found with various guarantees, from which we can establish bounds on $|\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ and $\|{XY^{T}-M^{*}}\|_{\infty}$ through \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm-main,eq:tau-taustar-main}. Then by \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, we also obtain that $\mathrm{\tau} \approx \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$ and $XY^{T} \approx \hat{M}.$ The desired bounds on $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ and $\|{\hat{M}-M^{*}}\|_{\infty}$ follow directly.
Finally, in order to prove the guarantee on $\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ in \cref{thm:main-theorem}, recall that by \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}
& = \frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} +\frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} \\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}
\end{align*}
where in (i) we use the fact that for any $A, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, $\inner{A}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(B)} = \inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(A)}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(B)} = \inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(A)}{B}.$ The remainder boils down to controlling the error of $P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*}), P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)$ and showing that $P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z) \approx P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)$, which matches the bounds provided in \cref{eq:PT-bound-main} of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}. Combining the results in \cref{eq:PT-bound-main} and \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, together with Berry-Esseen inequalities, we obtain the desired result on $\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}.$ See details in \cref{sec:full-details-proof-main}.
\textit{Proof of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem}:} The proof framework of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} is similar to the presented framework above, where the main difference is that we use the following \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious} to replace \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{ThmFrobeniousNonConvexTheorem}\label{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}
Assume \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} holds and $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \leq C_1\frac{1}{\kappa^2 r^{2}\log^{5}(n)}.$
Suppose $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$ for a deterministic $E$. Assume $\norm{E} \leq C_2 \sigma \sqrt{n}$ and $|\inner{Z}{E}| \leq C_3 \sigma\sqrt{n}\norm{Z}_{\F}.$
Let $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n), \eta = \frac{C_{\eta}}{\kappa^{3} n^{20}\sigma_{\max}}, t^{\star} = \kappa^{5}n^{10000}$. Algorithm \ref{alg:GD} satisfies the following:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:induction-main}
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F}&\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-main}\\
\min_{0\leq t\leq t^{\star}} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\leq \frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\kappa n^{10}} \label{eq:gradient-small-main}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $C_{\F}$ is a constant depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_{\lambda}, C_{\eta}, C_{r_1}$ (where $C_{r_1}$ is the constant in \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}).
\end{restatable}
In contrast with \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}, \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious} does not assume $E_{ij}$ is independent sub-Gaussian random variable. Although the guarantees in \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious} are only for Frobenius norms, it is sufficient to establish the proof for \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} by combining \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious} and \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}. See details in \cref{sec:full-details-proof-error-rate}.
\section{Basis Transformation for Assumption \ref{assum:conditions-Z}}\label{appendix:conditions-illustration}
Here, we present an ``intuitive'' way to interpret \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} by a change of basis for $Z$.
Let $M^{*}=U^{*}\Sigma^{*}V^{*\top}$ be the SVD of $M^{*}$ where $U^{*}, V^{*} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times r}$ characterize the column and row space of $M^{*}$ respectively. We consider the expansion of $U^{*}$ and $V^{*}.$ Note that $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) = (I - U^{*}U^{*T}) Z (I - V^{*}V^{*\top})$ has the columns and rows orthogonal to the spaces of $U^{*}$ and $V^{*}.$ We take $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) = U^{\perp}\Sigma^{\perp}V^{\perp \top}$ be the SVD of $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z).$ Then $\tilde{U} = [U^{*}, U^{\perp}]$\footnote{Expand $U^{\perp}$ to $n-r$ columns if it is not.} constitutes the basis matrix for the space of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (the same for $\tilde{V} = [V^{*}, V^{\perp}]$).
We then consider a basis transformation for $Z$ (left and right basis respectively) based on $\tilde{U}$ and $\tilde{V}$:
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{U}^{\top}Z \tilde{V}
=\begin{bmatrix}
U^{*\top}ZV^{*} & U^{*\top}ZV^{\perp} \\
U^{\perp \top}ZV^{*} & U^{\perp \top} Z V^{\perp}
\end{bmatrix}
=:
\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{A} & Z_{B} \\
Z_{C} & Z_{D}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Here, the $2 \times 2$ block representation with $Z_{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}, Z_{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times (n-r)}, Z_{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n-r) \times r}, Z_{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n-r) \times (n-r)}$ is closely connected to $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)$ and $P_{T}(Z)$, which will provide nice interpretations for our conditions (described momentarily). To begin, from the definition of $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)$, one can see that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{U}^{\top} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) \tilde{V}
=\begin{bmatrix}
U^{*\top} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) V^{*} & U^{*\top} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)V^{\perp} \\
U^{\perp \top} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) V^{*} & U^{\perp \top} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) V^{\perp}
\end{bmatrix}
=:
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & Z_{D}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, due to $P_{T^{*}}(Z) + P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) = Z$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{U}^{\top} P_{T^{*}}(Z) \tilde{V}
=:
\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{A} & Z_{B} \\
Z_{C} & \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
In addition, this also provides a way to interpret $U^{*\top} Z$ and $Z V^{*}$ by noting that
\begin{equation*}
\left(U^{*\top} Z\right) \tilde{V}
=:
\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{A} & Z_{B}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad
\quad
\tilde{U}^{\top} \left(Z V^{*}\right)
=:
\begin{bmatrix}
Z_{A}\\
Z_{C}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
Then, we are ready to state the \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} in an equivalent way (See \cref{lem:condition-non-convex-implication} for a generalized statement and a more algebraic proof).
\begin{claim*}
\cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} is equivalent to the following condition: there exists a constant $C > 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\frac{C}{\log n}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \leq \norm{Z_{D}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z_{A}}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
\end{claim*}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 = \norm{Z_{A}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_{B}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_{C}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_{D}}_{\F}^2$, $\norm{Z V^{*}}_{\F}^2 = \norm{Z_{A}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_{C}}_{\F}^2$, and $\norm{U^{*\top} Z}_{\F}^2 = \norm{Z_{A}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_{B}}_{\F}^2$ due to the unitary invariance of the Frobenius norm. Then Condition \ref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} can be transformed into
\begin{align*}
\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z_A}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z_D}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(1-\frac{C}{\log n}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Since $\norm{Z_{D}}_{\F}^2 = \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2$, the \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} is effectively a lower bound for requiring $\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2$ being sufficiently large.
For \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex}, note that $\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*T}} = {\rm tr}(U^{*T}ZV^{*}) = {\rm tr}(Z_{A})$ and $\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} = \norm{Z_{D}}$ due to the unitary invariance of the operator norm. We have
\begin{claim*}
\cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} is equivalent to the following condition: there exists a constant $C > 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
|{\rm tr}(Z_{A})| \norm{Z_{D}} \leq \left(1-\frac{C}{\log n}\right) \norm{Z_{D}}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
\end{claim*}
To see the looseness of these two conditions, note that $Z_{A}$ is a $r\times r$ matrix and $Z_{D}$ is a $(n-r) \times (n-r)$ matrix where $n \gg r.$ Intuitively, some degree of non-overlapping between $Z$ and $M^{*}$ is enough to guarantee a small $Z_{A}$ and large $Z_{D}$ and sufficient for these two conditions. See \cref{sec:treatment-conditions} for a few examples to make this intuition precise.
\section{Discussions of Panel Data Regression}\label{appendix:panel-data-regerssion}
We provide a detailed discussion here for comparing assumptions and guarantees between \cite{moon2018nuclear} and our algorithm. To fit \cite{moon2018nuclear} into our model, we consider $k=1$ and view $Z$ as a regressor and $\delta$ as the idiosyncratic noise.
The key assumptions for Theorem 4 in \cite{moon2018nuclear} are (i) $\|\delta\| =O(\sqrt{n})$, (ii) $\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{\delta} = O(n)$, (iii) $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2 = \Omega(n^2)$, (iv) $|\mathrm{\tau}^{0}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| = o(1)$, and other low-rank and incoherence conditions. Then Theorem 4 in \cite{moon2018nuclear} provides an iterative estimator $\mathrm{\tau}^{t}$ such that $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|=O(1/n)$ for large enough $t$.
In contrast, our \cref{eq:simplified-rate} provides $|\mathrm{\tau}^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| = \tilde{O}\left(1/\|Z\|_{\F} + |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(\delta)}{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}|/\|Z\|_{\F}^2\right).$ Note that their assumption (ii) implies $\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{P_{T^{*}}(\delta)}=O(n)$ (since $\inner{Z}{\delta} = 0$) and (iii) implies $\|Z\|_{\F}^2 \geq \|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2 = \Omega(n^2).$ Hence, our \cref{eq:simplified-rate} can be simplified to $|\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| = \tilde{O}(1/n)$, which recovers their results up to log(n) factors.
The assumption (iii) $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2 = \Omega(n^2)$ is probably the most restrictive one, which rules out many interesting scenarios (such as synthetic control). This assumption is also implicitly made in Theorem 1 and 2 in \cite{moon2018nuclear}, where the bound $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|=O(1/\sqrt{n})$ is provided (recall $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$ is the convex estimator). In particular, Theorem 1 \cite{moon2018nuclear} requires that $rank(Z)=O(1)$ and $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{*} - \norm{U^{*T}ZV^{*}} = \Omega(n)$, hence implying $\sqrt{rank(Z)}\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F} \geq \|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{*} = \Omega(n)$, i.e., $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F} = \Omega(n).$ Similarly, $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F} = \Omega(n)$ is implied by their Assumption 1 and Theorem 2(iii) \cite{moon2018nuclear}.
Technically, the assumption $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}=\Theta(n^2)$ greatly simplifies analysis in \cite{moon2018nuclear} since a global bound on $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ can be easily obtained. One of the main technical innovations in our paper, building on recent advances in the matrix completion literature, is to conduct a refined `local' analysis without the assumption on the density of $Z$.
Other than technical challenges, another potential reason that panel data regression literature \cite{bai2009panel,moon2017dynamic,moon2018nuclear} did not loose the $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}=\Theta(n^2)$ assumption, is probably the regressor is usually viewed as a dense matrix (e.g., GDP, wages). In the contrast, the scenario we are considering is different, where $Z$ characterizes the treatment pattern and $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}=\Theta(n^2)$ becomes a more problematic restriction.
Note that \cite{moon2018nuclear} also provides the results for $k$ being a constant, where we think it is an interesting open question to study what are the minimal identification conditions for $Z_{m}$ in that scenario.
\section{Additional Details of Experiments}\label{appendix:experiments}
In this section, we present more details for \cref{sec:experiments}.
\textbf{Computing Infrastructure.} All experiments are done in a personal laptop equipped with 2.6 GHz 6-Core
Intel Core i7 and 16 GB 2667 MHz DDR4. The operating system is macOS Catalina. For each instance, the
running time for our algorithm is within seconds.
\textbf{Algorithm Implementations.} Recall that we implemented the following four benchmarks: (i) Matrix-Completion with Nuclear Norm Minimization (MC-NNM): \cite{athey2021matrix} that applies matrix completion by viewing the treated entries as missing. (ii) Robust Synthetic Control (RSC): ``Algorithm 1'' in \cite{amjad2018robust} with linear regression used to recover the counterfactual results. This can be viewed as a robust variant of the well-known synthetic control method \cite{abadie2003economic,abadie2010synthetic}. (iii) Ordinary Least Square (OLS): Selects $a,b \in \mathbb{R}^{n}, \mathrm{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}$ to minimize $\|O-a1^{T} - 1b^{T} - \mathrm{\tau} Z\|_{\F}^2$, where $1 \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the vector of ones. This can be viewed as regression adapted to the difference-in-differences frameworks \cite{imbens2009recent,xiong2019optimal}. (iv) Synthetic Difference-in-Difference (SDID): An algorithm proposed in \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic} as a generalization of both synthetic control and difference-in-difference.
This section presents more details for algorithm implementations. All algorithms share the same input $(O, Z)$ and $r$, where $r$ is a pre-defined rank.
For implementing MC-NNM described in \cite{athey2021matrix}, let $\Omega$ be the set of observed control entries ($\Omega$ is the complement of $Z$). We optimize the following problem
\begin{align*}
\min_{M \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}, a\in \mathbb{R}^{n}, b \in \mathbb{R}^{n}} \norm{P_{\Omega}(O - a1^{T} - 1b^{T} - M)}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{M}_{*}
\end{align*}
where $a, b$ are for characterizing the fixed effects. Let $(\hat{M}, \hat{a}, \hat{b})$ be the optimizer for the above problem. The estimator of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ is then given by $\mathrm{\tau} = \inner{Z}{O-\hat{M}-\hat{a}1^{T}-1\hat{b}^{T}} / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2.$ To tune the hyper-parameter $\lambda$, we choose a large enough $\lambda$ and then gradually decrease $\lambda$ until the rank of $\hat{M}$ achieves a pre-defined rank $r$.
For implementing RSC described in \cite{amjad2018robust} for the block and stagger patterns, let $S_1$ be the set of treated units and $S_2$ be set of the control units. For each $i \in S_1$, we use the ``Algorithm 1'' in \cite{amjad2018robust} with the ``linear regression ($\eta = 0$)'' to estimate the counterfactuals of the $i$-th row based on the control units $S_2$. Let $\hat{M}$ be their final estimate of the counterfactuals (combining all estimations across different rows). Let $\mathrm{\tau} = \inner{Z}{O-\hat{M}} / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ be the estimator of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}.$
For OLS, we obtain the solution by a single linear regression. For SDID, we implement ``Algorithm 1'' in \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic}. The SDID is designed for block patterns, to extend to stagger patterns, we adopt the suggestions in ``Footnote 1'' of \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic}.
For De-biased Convex (our algorithm), we implement an alternating optimization to solve the convex problem. Let $\mathrm{\tau} = \mathrm{\tau}^{d}$ be the estimator for $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}.$ To tune the hyper-parameter $\lambda$, similar to the MC-NNM, we choose a large enough $\lambda$ and then gradually decrease $\lambda$ until the rank of $\hat{M}$ achieves a pre-defined rank $r$.
\textbf{The Choice of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$.}
For all algorithms we implemented, given $(M^{*}, Z, E)$, the error $\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ is in fact invariant from the change of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}. $ For MC-NNM, RSC, this is obvious since they do not use the information from treatment entries. In particular, one can check $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}-\mathrm{\tau} = \inner{Z}{M^{*}+E-\hat{M}}/\|Z\|_{\F}^2$ where $\hat{M}$ is independent from the choice of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ in their algorithms.
For De-biased Convex, one can verify that if $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ satisfies the first-order conditions of the instance $O=M^{*}+Z*\mathrm{\tau}^{*}+E$, then $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}+\Delta)$ satisfies the first order conditions of the instance $O=M^{*}+Z*(\mathrm{\tau}^{*}+\Delta)+E.$ This linear response together with the linear debias procedure implies that $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}-\mathrm{\tau}$ is independent from the choice of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}.$ Similarly, OLS and SDID also shares the same property. See \cref{fig:invariance-tau-test} for the invariance of $\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ for a particular instance.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figs/invariance-tau.eps}
\caption{An example of showing that $|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ is invariant for different choice of $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ for various algorithms.}
\label{fig:invariance-tau-test}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Real Data.} The data is collected from a Kaggle competition \cite{Rossmannsales2021}. There are two types of promotion information: Promo $Z_1$ and Promo2 $Z_2$, which are both binary matrices. Since $Z_1$ is store-independent (in a specific day, stores either all have promotions or all have no promotions), we discard $Z_1$ (viewing $Z_1$ being absorbed by latent features of days) and focus on estimating treatment effects of $Z_2$. We also filter out stores that have no promotions for any days.
\textbf{Asymptotic Normality.} We consider a set of synthetic instances. For each instance, we used a typical procedure for generating low-rank non-negative matrices $M^{*} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2}$ (e.g. \cite{cemgil2008bayesian,farias2020solving}). We select the rank $r$ and mean-value $\bar{M^{*}}$. Given $(r, \bar{M^{*}})$, we generate $U \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times r}$ and $V \in \mathbb{R}^{n_2 \times r}$ with entries drawn i.i.d from $\mathrm{Gamma}(2, 1)$, and set $M^{*} = kUV^{T}$ with $k$ chosen that the mean-value is indeed $\bar{M}^{*}$. For $E$ and $\delta$, its entries were drawn i.i.d from a Gaussian $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$ and $\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{\delta})$ respectively. The observation is given by $O = M^{*} + E + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + \delta \circ Z.$
\cref{fig:stagger-distribution} confirms the asymptotic normality of $\mathrm{\tau}^{d}$ using an ensemble of 10,000 instances with $r = 10, \bar{M^{*}}=10, \mathrm{\tau}^{*}=\sigma=\sigma_{\delta}=1$, and randomly generated stagger patterns $Z$ where $m_1 \sim \mathrm{Uni}[1, n_1), m_2 \sim \mathrm{Uni}[n_2/2, n_2)$.\footnote{Experiments on other tested patterns (e.g., block patterns) also showed similar performances.} For each instance, we computed $(\mathrm{\tau}^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})/(\sigma/\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F})$, which is predicted by \cref{thm:main-theorem} to be distributed according to $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. \cref{fig:stagger-distribution} (Left) shows the empirical distribution of $\delta_{\mathrm{\tau}}$ over instances with $n_1=n_2=100$, overlaid with the true density function of $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$.
We also computed the {\em coverage rate}: the proportion of instances where $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ is within the predicted 95\% confidence interval of $\mathrm{\tau}^{d}$, calculated based on the estimated variance. \cref{fig:stagger-distribution} (Right) shows the desired coverage rates for different sizes of matrices. Both results suggest the effectiveness of our estimator for performing inference on $\mathrm{\tau}^*$.
\textbf{Row-specific Treatment Effects.} We also test the performances of various algorithms for multiple treatment effects ($k>1$). In particular, we reuse the setting for semi-synthetic (Tobacco) in \cref{sec:experiments}, where $(O, Z)$ is generated with the same distribution. Instead of estimating the overall average treatment effects, we now consider to estimate the unit-specific treatment effects $\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}$, where $\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}_{i} = \sum_{j} Z_{ij}\mathcal{T}_{ij} / \sum_{j} Z_{ij} = \mathrm{\tau}^{*} + \delta_{i}.$
To estimate $\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}$, we use De-biased Convex algorithm for multiple treatment effects specified in \cref{eq:estimator} (each $Z_{l}$ corresponds to one row). We also extend RSC, MC-NNM, and OLS in this case, where the estimator $\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}$ can be obtained directly based on their estimation of counterfactuals $\hat{M}$: $\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}_i = \sum_{j} Z_{ij}(O_{ij} - \hat{M}_{ij}) / \sum_{j} Z_{ij}$.\footnote{SDID is not easy to extend for multiple treatment effects here.} \cref{tab:synthetic-average-delta-multiple-tau} reports the average $\|\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}-\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}\| / \|\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}\|$ over 1000 instances. The results show the compelling performance of De-biased Convex algorithm compared to the state-of-the-arts.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of our algorithm (De-biased Convex) to benchmarks on the semi-synthetic (Tobacco) dataset. Average normalized error $\|\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}-\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}\| / \|\vec{\mathrm{\tau}}^{*}\|$ is reported.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc@{}}
\toprule
Pattern & De-biased Convex & MC-NNM & RSC & OLS \\
\midrule
Block & 0.05 ($\pm 0.06$) &0.08 ($\pm 0.13$) & 0.10 ($\pm 0.12$) & 0.10 ($\pm 0.16$)\\
Stagger & 0.03 ($\pm 0.02$) &0.05 ($\pm 0.03$) & 0.06 ($\pm 0.07$) & 0.07 ($\pm 0.03$)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:synthetic-average-delta-multiple-tau}
\end{table}
\subsection{Proof of \cref{lem:exact-nonconvex-convex}}
\newcommand{\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}}{\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:R-approximate-W}}\label{appendix:lemma-R-approximate-W}
Restating \cref{lem:R-approximate-W}:
\LemRApproximateW*
Let $XY^{\top} = U\Sigma V^{\top}$ be the singular value decomposition of $XY^{\top}.$ Recall that $T$ is the tangent space of $XY^{\top}$ and $P_{T}(A)$ is the projection of $A$ into the space $T$ for any $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$:
\begin{align}
P_{T}(A) = A - (I_{n} - UU^{\top})A (I_n - VV^{\top}). \nonumber
\end{align}
By \cref{lem:singular-values}, for large enough $n$, the singular values of $X, Y$ are in the intervals $\left[\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}, \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}\right]$ and
$$
\sigma_{\min}/2 \leq \sigma_{\min}(\Sigma) \leq \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}.
$$
We then consider $P_{T}(R)$ and $P_{T^{\perp}}(R)$ separately. The proof of $P_{T}(R)$ is similar to the proof of Claim 2 in \cite{chen2019noisy}, while the proof of $P_{T^{\perp}}(R)$ is based on a careful analysis of the property of $\mathrm{\tau}.$
\subsection{Control of \texorpdfstring{$P_{T}(R)$}{P\_T(R)}}
By the definition of $P_{T}$, we have
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T}(R)}_{\F}
&= \norm{R - (I - UU^{\top}) R (I - VV^{\top})}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&= \norm{UU^{\top} R (I - VV^{\top}) + R(VV^{\top})}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{U}\norm{U^{\top} R}_{\F} \norm{I-VV^{\top}} + \norm{RV}_{\F}\norm{V^{\top}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{U^{\top}R}_{\F} + \norm{RV}_{\F} \label{eq:PTR-bound}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\norm{ABC}_{\F} \leq \norm{A}\norm{B}_{\F}\norm{C}$ and (ii) is due to $\norm{U}, \norm{I-VV^{\top}}, \norm{V} \leq 1$.
Before showing bounds on $\norm{U^{\top}R}_{\F}$ and $\norm{RV}_{\F}$, consider an examination for the properties of $X$ and $Y$. By \cref{lem:SigmaQ}, we can write $X = U\Sigma^{1/2} Q, Y = V\Sigma^{1/2} Q^{-\top}$ where $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ is an invertible matrix and
\begin{align}
\norm{\Sigma_{Q} - \Sigma_{Q}^{-1}}_{\F} \leq \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma)} \norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F}, \label{eq:sigma-Q-sigma-Q-inverse}
\end{align}
where $U_{Q}\Sigma_{Q}V_{Q}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $Q$. In fact, we can show that $X^{\top}X \approx Y^{\top}Y$ due to that $\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) \approx 0.$ To see this, set $B_1, B_2$ for the gradient $\nabla_{X} f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})$ and $\nabla_{Y} f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})$:
\begin{align}
B_1 &:= (XY^{\top} + \mathrm{\tau} Z - O)Y + \lambda X \label{eq:aX}\\
B_2 &:= (XY^{\top} + \mathrm{\tau} Z - O)^{\top}X + \lambda Y \label{eq:aY}.
\end{align}
Left-multiplying $X^{\top}$ on both sides of \cref{eq:aX} and left-multiplying $Y^{\top}$ on both sides of \cref{eq:aY} and taking the transpose, we can obtain
\begin{align*}
\lambda X^{\top}X &= X^{\top}B_1 - X^{\top}(\mathrm{\tau} Z + XY^{\top} - O)Y\\
\lambda Y^{\top}Y &= B_2^{\top}Y - X^{\top}(\mathrm{\tau} Z + XY^{\top} - O)Y.
\end{align*}
This implies $\norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} = \frac{1}{\lambda}\norm{X^{\top}B_1 - B_2^{\top}Y}_{\F} \leq \frac{1}{\lambda}\max(\norm{B_1}_{\F},\norm{B_2}_{\F})(\norm{X}+\norm{Y}).$ Combining this with \cref{eq:sigma-Q-sigma-Q-inverse}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\norm{\Sigma_{Q} - \Sigma_{Q}^{-1}}_{\F}
&\leq \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma)} \norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma) \lambda} \max(\norm{B_1}_{\F},\norm{B_2}_{\F})(\norm{X}+\norm{Y}) \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{8\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}}{\sigma_{\min} \lambda}\max(\norm{B_1}_{\F},\norm{B_2}_{\F}) \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{8\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}}{\sigma_{\min} \lambda} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \overset{(ii)}{\leq} 1 \label{eq:sigmaQ-bound}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma) \geq \sigma_{\min}/2, \sigma_{1}(X) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}, \sigma_1(Y) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}$ and (ii) holds for large enough $n$. This also implies $\norm{\Sigma_{Q}} \leq 2$. Intuitively speaking, $\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) \approx 0$ implies that $\Sigma_{Q} \approx I$ and hence $Q$ is similar to an orthogonal matrix.
Next, we show how to control $\norm{RV}_{\F}$. Recall that
\begin{align}
O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z = \lambda UV^{\top} + \lambda R. \label{eq:defintion-R}
\end{align}
Combining \cref{eq:aX} and \cref{eq:defintion-R}, we have
\begin{align}
(-\lambda UV^{\top} - \lambda R) Y + \lambda X = B_1.\nonumber
\end{align}
Therefore, $\lambda RY = \lambda X - B_1 - \lambda UV^{\top} Y.$ Substituting $X$ and $Y$ with $X = U\Sigma^{1/2} Q, Y = V\Sigma^{1/2} Q^{-\top}$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\lambda R (V\Sigma^{1/2} Q^{-\top}) = \lambda (U\Sigma^{1/2} Q) - B_1 - \lambda UV^{\top} (V\Sigma^{1/2} Q^{-\top}).\nonumber
\end{align}
Right-multiplying $Q^{\top}\Sigma^{-1/2}$ on both sides and using $V^{\top}V = I$ leads to
\begin{align}
\lambda R V = \lambda U\Sigma^{1/2} QQ^{\top} \Sigma^{-1/2} - B_1 Q^{\top}\Sigma^{-1/2} - \lambda U. \nonumber
\end{align}
Then this implies
\begin{align}
\norm{RV}_{\F}
&= \norm{U\Sigma^{1/2}(QQ^{\top}-I)\Sigma^{-1/2} - \frac{1}{\lambda} B_1Q^{\top}\Sigma^{-1/2}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{B_1}_{\F} \norm{Q} \norm{\Sigma^{-1/2}} + \norm{U} \norm{\Sigma^{1/2}} \norm{\Sigma^{-1/2}} \norm{I - QQ^{\top}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{B_1}_{\F} \norm{Q} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} + \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{I-QQ^{\top}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{B_1}_{\F} + 2 \sqrt{\kappa} \norm{U_{Q}\Sigma_{Q}(\Sigma_{Q}^{-1} - \Sigma_{Q})U_{Q}^{\top}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} + 4\sqrt{\kappa} \norm{\Sigma_Q^{-1} - \Sigma_{Q}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iv)}{\leq} \left(\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} + \frac{32\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \right) \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{36\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \nonumber.
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma) \geq (1/2)\sigma_{\min}, \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}$, (ii) is due to $\norm{Q}=\norm{\Sigma_Q} \leq 2$ and $Q = U_Q \Sigma_Q V_Q^{\top}$ is the SVD of $Q$, (iii) is due to $\norm{B_1}_{\F} \leq \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}$ and $\norm{U_Q} = 1, \norm{\Sigma_Q} \leq 2$, (iv) is due to the bound of $\|\Sigma_Q^{-1} - \Sigma_{Q}\|_{\F}$ (\cref{eq:sigmaQ-bound}).
Similarly, one can obtain $\norm{U^{\top}R}_{\F} \leq \frac{36\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}.$ Combining these with \cref{eq:PTR-bound} leads to the result:
\begin{align}\label{eq:PTR-proof-bound}
\norm{P_{T}(R)}_{\F} \leq \frac{72\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}.
\end{align}
This completes the proof for the bound of $P_{T}(R).$
\subsection{Control of \texorpdfstring{$\PTp{R}$}{PTperp(R)}}
Next, we control $\PTp{R}.$ Using $O = M^{*} + E + \mathrm{\tau}^{*} Z$ and applying $P_{T^{\perp}}$ on both sides of $O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z = \lambda UV^{\top} + \lambda R$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\lambda \PTp{R}
&\overset{(i)}{=} \PTp{E} - \PTp{XY^{\top} - M^{*}} - (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})\PTp{Z} \nonumber\\
&= \PTp{E} - \PTp{(X-X^{*})Y^{\top} + X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}} + \PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}} \nonumber\\
&\quad - (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})\PTp{Z} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \PTp{E} + \PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}} - (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})\PTp{Z} \label{eq:XXstar-YY}.
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\PTp{UV^{\top}} = 0$, (ii) is due to $Y=V\Sigma^{1/2}Q$ and $X = U\Sigma^{1/2}Q^{-\top}$ by \cref{lem:SigmaQ} and $\PTp{UA^{\top}+BV^{\top}} = 0$ for any $A,B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times r}.$
This implies that
\begin{align}
\norm{\PTp{R}}
&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{\PTp{E}} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}} + \frac{1}{\lambda}|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{\PTp{Z}}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{E} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \norm{X-X^{*}}\norm{Y-Y^{*}} + \frac{1}{\lambda} |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{\PTp{Z}} \nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\norm{\PTp{A}} \leq \norm{I-UU^{\top}}\norm{A}\norm{I-VV^{\top}} \leq \norm{A}$ for any $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}.$ Then it boils down to control $\frac{\norm{E}}{\lambda}, \frac{\norm{X-X^{*}}\norm{Y-Y^{*}}}{\lambda}$, and $\frac{|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\lambda}$ separately.
Consider $\frac{\norm{E}}{\lambda}$. Since we have the condition $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$, then
\begin{align}
\frac{\norm{E}}{\lambda} \leq \frac{c\sigma \sqrt{n}}{C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)} \lesssim \frac{1}{\log^{1.5}(n)}. \label{eq:E-bound}
\end{align}
Consider $\frac{\norm{X-X^{*}}\norm{Y-Y^{*}}}{\lambda}$. We have
\begin{align}
\frac{\norm{X-X^{*}}\norm{Y-Y^{*}}}{\lambda}
&\leq \frac{\norm{X-X^{*}}_{\F} \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F}}{\lambda} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C_{\F}^2 \frac{\sigma^2 n \log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^2} \sigma_{\max}r \frac{1}{C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{1.5}(n)} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{C_{\F}^2}{C_{\lambda}} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa r}{\sigma_{\min}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \frac{1}{\log^{1.5}(n)} \label{eq:XXstarYYstar-bound}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to
$$
\norm{X-X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F} \leq C_{\F} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}
$$
with $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)$, and (ii) is due to $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}.$
Consider $\frac{1}{\lambda}|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{\PTp{Z}}$. We have the following claim.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:PTP}
Suppose \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} hold. Suppose $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$. Then
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\lambda}|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{\PTp{Z}} \leq 1 - \frac{C}{\log(n)} \label{eq:tau-taustar-Z-bound}
\end{align}
for some constant $C$.
\end{claim}
Combining \cref{eq:E-bound,eq:XXstarYYstar-bound,eq:tau-taustar-Z-bound}, we complete the proof for controlling $P_{T^{\perp}}(R)$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:PTP}]
Similar to the proof of \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}, we first consider the characterization for $\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$. Since $\mathrm{\tau} = \inner{Z}{O-XY^{\top}}/\norm{Z}_{\F}^2$, we have $\inner{O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z}{Z} = 0$. Combining this with $O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z = \lambda UV^{\top} + \lambda R$, we have
\begin{align}
&\inner{Z}{UV^{\top} + R} = 0\nonumber\\
\implies& \inner{Z}{UV^{\top}} = -\inner{Z}{R} \nonumber\\
\implies& \inner{Z}{UV^{\top}} + \inner{\PT{Z}}{\PT{R}} = -\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{R}} \label{eq:ZUVT}
\end{align}
Substituting $\PTp{R}$ in \cref{eq:ZUVT} by \cref{eq:XXstar-YY}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}} + \inner{\PT{Z}}{\PT{R}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda} (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{Z}} \\
&\quad -\frac{1}{\lambda} \inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{E}} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{Z}} = \norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2$. This implies
\begin{align}
\frac{(\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})}{\lambda}\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2
&= \inner{Z}{UV^{\top}} + \inner{\PT{Z}}{\PT{R}} + \frac{1}{\lambda}\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{E}} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda}\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
This further implies
\begin{align}
&\frac{|\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|}{\lambda} \norm{\PTp{Z}} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\frac{\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2} + \left|\inner{\PT{Z}}{\PT{R}}\right|\frac{\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{E}}\right|\frac{\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda}\left|\inner{\PTp{Z}}{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}}\right|\frac{\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \underbrace{\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\frac{\norm{\PTp{Z}}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2}}_{A_0} + \underbrace{\frac{\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}} \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}}_{A_1} + \underbrace{\frac{|\inner{\PTp{Z}}{E}|}{\lambda\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}}}_{A_2}\nonumber\\
&\quad + \underbrace{\frac{1}{\lambda}\norm{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}}_{\F}}_{A_3}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\norm{\PTp{Z}} \leq \norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}$ and $|\inner{A}{B}| \leq \norm{A}_{\F}\norm{B}_{\F}$ by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
Then it boils down to control $A_0, A_1, A_2, A_3$.
By \cref{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}, we have that
\begin{align}
A_0 &\leq 1 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)} \nonumber\\
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 &\geq \frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log(n)} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \label{eq:PTperpZ-F-bound}\\
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{*} &\lesssim \frac{1}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)}\norm{Z}_{\F}. \label{eq:PTPZ-PTstarZ-bound}
\end{align}
For $A_1$, this implies
\begin{align*}
A_1
&= \frac{\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F}}{\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}} \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{2\log(n)}{C_{r_1}} \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}\\
&\leq \frac{2\log(n)}{C_{r_1}} \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{1}{\log^{2}(n)}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $ \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}.$
For $A_2$, with probability $1-O(1/\text{poly}(n))$, we have
\begin{align*}
|\inner{\PTp{Z}}{E}|
&\leq |\inner{\PTp{Z}-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}| + |\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}|\\
&\leq \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{*} \norm{E} + |\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}|\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)} \sigma \sqrt{n} + |\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}|\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim}\frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)} \sigma \sqrt{n} + \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{Z}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:PTPZ-PTstarZ-bound} and $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$, and (ii) is due to $|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n/\log(n)} \norm{Z}_{\F}$. This implies
\begin{align*}
A_2
&= \frac{|\inner{\PTp{Z}}{E}|}{\lambda\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{Z}_{\F}}{\sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2}(n) \norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}}{\log^{1.5}(n)\norm{Z}_{\F}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{\log^{1.5}(n)}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:PTperpZ-F-bound}.
For $A_3$, we have
\begin{align*}
A_3
&= \frac{1}{\lambda}\norm{\PTp{(X-X^{*})(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}}_{\F} \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda}\norm{X-X^{*}}_{\F}\norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F} \overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{1}{\log^{1.5}(n)}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:XXstarYYstar-bound}
Combining all the results for $A_0, A_1, A_2, A_3$, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{|\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|}{\lambda} \norm{\PTp{Z}}
&\leq A_0 + A_1 + A_2 + A_3\\
&\leq 1 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)} + \frac{c_1}{\log^2(n)} + \frac{c_2}{\log^{1.5}(n)} + \frac{c_3}{\log^{1.5}(n)}\\
&\leq 1 - \frac{C}{\log(n)}
\end{align*}
for some constants $c_1, c_2, c_3, C$. This completes the proof of the claim.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}}\label{appendix:approximation-nonconvex-convex}
Restating \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}:
\LemApproximationNonconvexConvex*
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}]
Based on \cref{lem:R-approximate-W}, recall that for $ R = \frac{1}{\lambda}(O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau} Z - \lambda UV^{\top})$, we have $\norm{P_{T}(R)}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\kappa}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}$ and $\norm{\PTp{R}} \leq 1 - C/\log(n).$
Let $(M_{\mathrm{cvx}}, \mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}})$ be one of the minimizers of $g$. Then we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:optimizer-property}
\frac{1}{2} \norm{O - M_{\mathrm{cvx}} - \mathrm{\tau}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}}) Z}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{*} \leq \frac{1}{2} \norm{O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{XY^{\top}}_{*}
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{\tau}(M) := \frac{\inner{Z}{O - M}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}.$
Let $\Delta = M_{\mathrm{cvx}} - XY^{\top}.$ Let $\Delta' = \mathrm{\tau}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}})Z - \mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z.$ Then \cref{eq:optimizer-property} implies
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{2} \norm{O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z - \Delta - \Delta'}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{*} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2} \norm{O - XY^{\top} - \mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{XY^{\top}}_{*}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Hence,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2} \norm{\Delta + \Delta'}_{\F}^2 \leq \inner{O-XY^{\top}-\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}{\Delta+\Delta'} - \lambda \norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{*} + \lambda \norm{XY^{\top}}_{*}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Note that $\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top}) = \inner{Z}{O-XY^{\top}}/\inner{Z}{Z}$, then $\inner{O-XY^{\top}-\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}{Z} = 0.$ Hence
\begin{align}
\inner{O-XY^{\top}-\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}{\Delta'} = 0\nonumber.
\end{align}
This implies that
\begin{align}
0 \leq \frac{1}{2} \norm{\Delta + \Delta'}_{\F}^2 \leq \inner{O-XY^{\top}-\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}{\Delta} - \lambda \norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{*} + \lambda \norm{XY^{\top}}_{*}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Note that $\norm{\cdot}_{*}$ is convex and $UV^{\top}+W$ is the subgradient of $\norm{XY^{\top}}_{*}$ given that $W \in T^{\perp}$ and $\norm{W} \leq 1.$
This implies that $\norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{*} \geq \norm{XY^{\top}}_{*} + \inner{UV^{\top}+W}{\Delta}$ due to the property of the convex function. Choose $W$ such that $\inner{W}{\Delta} = \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(\Delta)}_{*}$, we have
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}\norm{\Delta + \Delta'}_{\F}^2 \nonumber
&\leq \inner{O-XY^{\top}-\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top})Z}{\Delta} - \lambda \inner{UV^{\top}}{\Delta} - \lambda \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*} \nonumber\\
&= \lambda \inner{R}{\Delta} - \lambda \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*}\nonumber\\
&= \lambda \inner{\PT{R}}{\PT{\Delta}} + \lambda \inner{\PTp{R}}{\PTp{\Delta}} - \lambda \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*}\nonumber\\
&\leq \lambda \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F} \norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} + \lambda \norm{\PTp{R}} \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*} - \lambda \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \lambda \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F} \norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} - \frac{C\lambda}{\log(n)} \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*} \label{eq:add-inequality}.
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to $\norm{\PTp{R}} \leq 1 - C/\log(n).$ This implies that
\begin{align}
\norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*} \leq \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F} \norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} \frac{\log(n)}{C} \lesssim \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}\norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F}. \label{eq:PTP-Delta-bound}
\end{align}
Note that $\Delta' = - \inner{\Delta}{Z} / \inner{Z}{Z}\cdot Z$. Investigate further on $\norm{\Delta+\Delta'}_{\F}^2$:
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta+\Delta'}_{\F}^2
&= \inner{\Delta}{\Delta} - 2 \inner{\Delta}{Z}^2 / \inner{Z}{Z} + \inner{\Delta}{Z}^2 / \inner{Z}{Z}\nonumber \\
&= \inner{\Delta}{\Delta} - \inner{\Delta}{Z}^2 / \inner{Z}{Z}\nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 - (\inner{\PT{\Delta}}{\PT{Z}}+ \inner{\PTp{\Delta}}{\PTp{Z}})^2 / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&\geq \norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 - (\norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} \norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F} + \norm{\PTp{\Delta}}_{*} \norm{\PTp{Z}} )^2 / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F}^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \cdot \left(\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F} + \frac{C'\kappa\log(n)}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}\norm{\PTp{Z}}\right)^2 \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\geq} \norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \cdot \left(\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F} + \frac{C'\kappa \log(n)}{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}\right)^2\right)\nonumber
\end{align}
for some constant $C'$. Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:PTP-Delta-bound} and (ii) is due to $\norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} \leq \norm{\Delta}_{\F}.$
Note that $\norm{\PT{Z}}_{\F}^2 / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \leq 1-\frac{C''}{\log(n)}$ for some constant $C''$ (by \cref{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}), and $ \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}$ is small enough. This implies
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta+\Delta'}_{\F}^2 \gtrsim \norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 \frac{1}{\log(n)}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Combining this with \cref{eq:add-inequality}, we have
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\log(n)}\norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 \lesssim \lambda \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F} \norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} \overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}\norm{\Delta}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to the bound for $\norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}$ and $\norm{\PT{\Delta}}_{\F} \leq \norm{\Delta}_{\F}.$ This implies
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Delta}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
|\mathrm{\tau}(XY^{\top}) - \mathrm{\tau}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}})|
&= \left|\inner{Z}{M_{\mathrm{cvx}} - XY^{\top}}\right| / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\\
&\leq \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta}_{\F} / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta}_{\F} / \norm{Z}_{\F}\\
&\leq \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{Z}_{\F}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Let $M_{\mathrm{cvx}} = U_{\mathrm{cvx}}\Sigma_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}$ be SVD of $M_{\mathrm{cvx}}$. Let $T_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ be the tangent space of $M_{\mathrm{cvx}}.$ Next, we analyze the relation between $T_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ and $T.$
We aim to show (i) $\text{rank}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}}) = r$ based on the fact that $M_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ is obtained by soft-thresholding; (ii) establish the closeness between eigen-subspaces $U_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ ($V_{\mathrm{cvx}}$) and $U$ ($V$) by invoking the Davis-Kahan theorem; (iii) establish the closeness between $T_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ and $T$ based on the closeness between eigen-subspaces.
We first aim to show that $\text{rank}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}}) = r.$ Note that
\begin{align*}
O - M_{\mathrm{cvx}} - \mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}} Z = \lambda U_{\mathrm{cvx}} V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top} + W_{\mathrm{cvx}}
\end{align*}
where $\norm{W_{\mathrm{cvx}}} \leq 1, P_{T_{\mathrm{cvx}}}(W_{\mathrm{cvx}}) = 0.$ Let $\sigma_i(A)$ be the $i$-th largest singular values of $A.$ Note that there is $O - \mathrm{\tau} Z = U(\lambda I_{r} + \Sigma) V^{\top} + \lambda R.$ By Weyl's inequality, for $1\leq i \leq r$
\begin{align*}
\sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z)
&\geq \sigma_i(U(\lambda I_{r} + \Sigma) V^{\top}) - \lambda\norm{R}\\
&\geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} + \lambda - \lambda (\norm{\PTp{R}} + \norm{\PT{R}})\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} \\
&\overset{(ii)}{>} 2\lambda.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to the bound of $\norm{\PTp{R}}$ and $\norm{\PT{R}} \leq \norm{\PT{R}}_{\F}$, (ii) is due to $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}.$ Then, for $1\leq i \leq r$,
\begin{align*}
\sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}} Z)
&\geq \sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z) - |\mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}} - \mathrm{\tau}|\norm{Z}\\
&\geq \sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z) - \frac{C \kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{Z}_{\F}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F} \norm{Z}\\
&\geq \sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z) - \frac{C \kappa \log(n)}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}\\
&\geq 2\lambda - \frac{\lambda \log(n)}{n^3}\\
&>\lambda.
\end{align*}
providing that $\norm{\nabla f} \leq \frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\kappa n}$ and $ \log(n) \lesssim n.$
Meanwhile, for $r+1\leq i \leq n$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z)
&\leq \sigma_i(U(\lambda I_{r} + \Sigma) V^{\top}) + \lambda \norm{R}\\
&\leq \lambda \norm{R} \\
&\leq (1 - C/\log(n)) \lambda.
\end{align*}
Then for $r+1\leq i \leq n$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}}Z)
&\leq \sigma_i(O - \mathrm{\tau} Z) + |\mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}} - \mathrm{\tau}|\norm{Z}\\
&\leq (1 - C/\log(n)) \lambda + \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^2}\\
&< \lambda.
\end{align*}
Then, by soft-thresholding ($M_{\mathrm{cvx}}$ is obtained by truncating the singular values of $\left(O - \mathrm{\tau}_{\mathrm{cvx}} Z\right)$ by $\lambda$, see \cite{mazumder2010spectral}), we have that $\mathrm{\mathrm{rank}}(M_{\mathrm{cvx}}) = r.$ Then, by Davis-Kahan's theorem \cite{yu2015useful}, there exist rotation matrices $R_1, R_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, where
\begin{align*}
\max(\norm{UR_1 - U_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{\F}, \norm{VR_2 - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{\F})
&\lesssim \frac{\norm{M_{\mathrm{cvx}} - M}_{\F}}{\sigma_r(M)}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^{1.5}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
This simply implies that $\norm{UU^{\top} - U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}}_{\F} \lesssim \norm{UR_1-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}}_{\F}\norm{U} \lesssim \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^{1.5}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.$ Similarly, $\norm{VV^{\top} - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^{1.5}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.$
Then, for any matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$,
\begin{align*}
&\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(A) - P_{T^{\perp}_{\mathrm{cvx}}}(A)}_{\F} \\
&= \norm{(I-UU^{\top})A(I-VV^{\top}) - (I-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})A(I-V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})}_{\F}\\
&\leq \norm{(UU^{\top}-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})A(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{(I-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})A(VV^{\top} - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})}_{\F}\\
&\lesssim \norm{A}\max\left(\norm{UU^{\top}-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}}_{\F}, \norm{VV^{\top}-V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}}_{\F}\right)\\
&\lesssim \norm{A} \frac{\kappa \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^{1.5}} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, let $\Delta_{U} = U - U_{\mathrm{cvx}}R_1^{\top}, \Delta_{V} = V - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}R_2^{\top}$. Then $U\Sigma V^{\top} = U\Sigma R_2V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top} + U_{\mathrm{cvx}}R_1^{\top}\Sigma \Delta_{V}^{\top} + \Delta_{U}\Sigma\Delta_{V}^{\top}.$ We then have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{P_{T_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\perp}}(XY^{\top})}_{\F} \\
&= \norm{(I-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}) (U\Sigma V^{\top}) (I - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})}_{\F}\\
&= \norm{(I-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}) (U\Sigma R_2V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top} + U_{\mathrm{cvx}}R_1^{\top}\Sigma \Delta_{V}^{\top} + \Delta_{U}\Sigma\Delta_{V}^{\top}) (I - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})}_{\F}\\
&= \norm{(I-U_{\mathrm{cvx}}U_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top}) (\Delta_{U}\Sigma\Delta_{V}^{\top}) (I - V_{\mathrm{cvx}}V_{\mathrm{cvx}}^{\top})}_{\F}\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{U}\Sigma\Delta_{V}^{\top}}_{\F}\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{U}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{V}}_{\F} \norm{\Sigma}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\kappa^{3}\log^{2}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}^2} \norm{\nabla f}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Analysis of Non-convex Estimators: Proof of Lemma \ref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}}\label{sec:proof-non-convex-iteration}\label{sec:full-non-convex-proof}
We introduce some notations to simplify the presentation. Let
\begin{equation}
\bm{F}^{t}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\bm{X}^{t}\\
\bm{Y}^{t}
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{2n\times r}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\bm{F}^{*}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\bm{X}^{*}\\
\bm{Y}^{*}
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{2n\times r}.
\end{equation}
Note that the $X^{t}H^{t}H^{tT}Y^{tT} = X^{t}Y^{tT}$ for any rotation matrix $H \in \O^{r\times r}$. To avoid the ambiguity, we consider the optimal rotation for $(X^{t}, Y^{t})$ that is defined in the following way.
\begin{equation}
\bm{H}^{t} :=\arg\min_{\bm{R}\in\mathcal{O}^{r\times r}}\left\Vert \bm{F}^{t}\bm{R}-\bm{F}^{*}\right\Vert _{\mathrm{F}}.\label{eq:defn-H-appendix}
\end{equation}
Note that we have the following facts for $F^{*}$.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\sigma_{1}(F^{*}) &= \norm{F^{*}} = \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}, \qquad \sigma_{r}(F^{*}) = \sqrt{2\sigma_{\min}} \label{eq:F-singular-value}.\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We use the mathematical induction to obtain the desired results. In particular, we aim to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:induction-Frobenious}
Suppose \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} holds. Assume $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$ for a deterministic $E$. Suppose $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$ and $|\inner{Z}{E}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{Z}_{\F}.$ Suppose $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$.
Let $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n), \eta = \frac{C_{\eta}}{\kappa^3 n^{20} \sigma_{\max}}$. Suppose the following induction hypotheses \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious} for $q=t$ hold with (pre-determined) constants $C_{\F}, C_{B}$. Then we have the \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious} for $q=t+1$ holds.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:induction-Frobenious}
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{q}H^{q} - F^{*}}_{\F} &\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-Frobenious}\\
\norm{X^{q \top} X^{q} - Y^{q \top}Y^{q}}_{\F} &\leq C_{B} \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} \label{eq:XX-YY-Frobenious}.
\end{align}
Furthermore, if \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious} holds for $q = t$, the following inequality holds.
\begin{align}
f(X^{q+1}, Y^{q+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q+1}) &\leq f(X^{q}, Y^{q}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q}) - \frac{\eta}{2} \norm{\nabla f(X^{q}, Y^{q}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q})}_{\F}^2. \label{eq:f-decrease-Frobenious}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
Based on \cref{lem:induction-Frobenious}, we can prove \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious} which is restated below for convenience.
\ThmFrobeniousNonConvexTheorem*
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}]
Then we can prove the result based on above \cref{lem:induction-Frobenious}. Note that when $q = 0$, $X^{0} = X^{*}$ and $Y^{0} = Y^{*}$ easily satisfy \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious}.
Then by \cref{lem:induction-Frobenious}, we have \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious} hold for $q = 0, 1, \dotsc, t^{\star}-1.$ Telescoping the \cref{eq:f-decrease-Frobenious} implies the following
\begin{align*}
f(X^{t_\star}, Y^{t_\star}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star}) \leq f(X^{0}, Y^{0}; \mathrm{\tau}^{0}) - \frac{\eta}{2} \sum_{t=0}^{t_\star - 1} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\min_{0 \leq t < t_\star} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2
&\leq \frac{1}{t_\star} \sum_{t=0}^{t_0-1} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2\\
&\leq \frac{2}{\eta t_\star} \left(f(X^{0}, Y^{0}; \mathrm{\tau}^{0}) - f(X^{t_{\star}}, Y^{t_\star}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star})\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\mathrm{\tau}^{0} = \arg\min_{\mathrm{\tau}} f(X^{*}, Y^{*}; \mathrm{\tau})$, hence $f(X^{*}, Y^{*}; \mathrm{\tau}^{0}) \leq f(X^{*}, Y^{*}; \mathrm{\tau}^{*})$. Then
\begin{align*}
&f(X^{0}, Y^{0}; \mathrm{\tau}^{0}) - f(X^{t_{\star}}, Y^{t_\star}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star}) \\
&\leq f(X^{*}, Y^{*}; \mathrm{\tau}^{*}) - f(X^{t_{\star}}, Y^{t_\star}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star}) \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\left(\norm{E}_{\F}^2 + \lambda(\norm{X^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Y^{*}}_{\F}^2) \right) \\
&\quad- \frac{1}{2}\left(\norm{O-X^{t_\star}Y^{t_\star \top} - \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star} Z}_{\F}^2 + \lambda\norm{X^{t_\star}}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{Y^{t_\star}}_{\F}^2 \right)\\
&\leq \norm{E}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \left|\norm{X^{*}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{X^{t_\star}}_{\F}^2\right| + \lambda \left|\norm{Y^{*}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Y^{t_\star}}_{\F}^2\right|\\
&= \norm{E}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \left|\norm{X^{*}}_{\F} - \norm{X^{t_\star}H^{t_\star}}_{\F}\right| \left|\norm{X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{X^{t_\star}H^{t_\star}}_{\F}\right| \\
&\quad + \lambda \left|\norm{Y^{*}}_{\F} - \norm{Y^{t_\star}H^{t_\star}}_{\F}\right| \left|\norm{Y^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y^{t_\star}H^{t_\star}}_{\F}\right|\\
&\lesssim n\norm{E}^2 + \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \norm{F^{t_\star}H^{t_\star} - F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma^2 n^2 + \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sigma_{\max} r\\
&\lesssim \sigma^2 n^2 + \sigma^2 n \log^{4}(n) r \kappa.
\end{align*}
Here (i) is due to $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$. This implies
\begin{align*}
&\min_{0 \leq t < t_\star} \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} \\
& \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\eta t_\star} \left(f(X^{0}, Y^{0}; \mathrm{\tau}^{0}) - f(X^{t_{\star}}, Y^{t_\star}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t_\star})\right)}\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2 n^2 + \sigma^2 n \log^{4}(n) r\kappa}{(\kappa^{3} n^{20}\sigma_{\max})^{-1} t^{\star}}} \\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\lambda\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\kappa n^{10}}.
\end{align*}
Here (i) is obtained by taking $t^{\star} = n^{10000} \kappa^{5}$. This completes the proof for \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}.
\end{proof}
The remainder is to finish the proof for \cref{lem:induction-Frobenious}. Under the hypothesis for $q = t$, we prove \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious} and \cref{eq:f-decrease-Frobenious} for $q = t+1$ in the following subsections.
\subsection{Direct implication of Eq.~(\ref{eq:induction-Frobenious}) for \texorpdfstring{$q=t$}{q=t}}\label{sec:implication-non-convex-proof-Frobenious}
Under the hypothesis $q=t$, we first present a few direct implications that are helpful in the proof for $q=t+1$. For large enough $n$, we have that the following results hold for $F^{t}$.
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}}_{\F} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \\
\norm{F^{t}} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}.
\end{align*}
In addition, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}_{\F} &\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n) r^{0.5} \label{eq:tau-taustar-Frobenious}\\
\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\lesssim \sigma r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{n} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \label{eq:gradient-bound-easy}
\end{align}
These bounds can be verified directly by the triangle inequality and \cref{eq:induction-Frobenious}. We may use them implicitly in the following subsections.
Consider the proof for the above bounds. It is easy to check that $\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}, \norm{F^{*}} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$ For $\norm{F^{t}}_{\F}$, note that by \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-Frobenious}, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{\F}
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\kappa r}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}\\
&\leq \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{2}.
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$ and holds for large enough $n$. Hence, by the traingle inequality,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F}
&\leq \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{2}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} 2\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
where (i) holds due to $\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \geq \sqrt{\sigma_{\min} r}.$ Then $\norm{F^{t}}_{\F} = \norm{F^{t}H^{t}H^{tT}}_{\F} \leq \norm{F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F} \norm{H^{t}} \leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.$
Similarly, for $\norm{F^{t}H^{t}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t}}
&\leq \norm{F^{*}} + \norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{F^{*}} + \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{2}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} 2\norm{F^{*}}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $\norm{F^{*}} \geq \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}.$ This implies that $\norm{F^{t}} = \norm{F^{t}H^{t}H^{tT}} \leq \norm{F^{t}H^{t}} \norm{H^{t}} \leq 2\norm{F^{*}}.$
For $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}_{\F}$, we have
\begin{align*}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}_{\F}
&= \left|\frac{\inner{Z}{X^{t}Y^{t\top} - X^{*}Y^{*\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} - \frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right| \norm{Z}_{\F}\\
&\leq \norm{X^{t}Y^{t\top} - X^{*}Y^{*\top}}_{\F} + |\inner{Z}{E}| \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \norm{X^{t}H^{t} - X^{*}}_{\F} \norm{Y} + \norm{X^{*}} \norm{Y^{t}H^{t}-Y^{*}}_{\F} + \sigma \sqrt{n}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \sigma \sqrt{n}\kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $|\inner{Z}{E}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$ and (ii) is due to $\norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \sigma_{\max}^{0.5} r^{0.5}$ (\cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-Frobenious}).
For $\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}$, note that
\begin{align}
&\norm{\nabla_{X} f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&= \norm{(X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z))Y^{t} + \lambda X^{t}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq\left(\norm{X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*}} + \norm{E} + |\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}\right)\norm{Y^{t}}_{\F} + \lambda \norm{X^{t}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(\norm{X^{t}H^{t}-X^{*}}\norm{Y^{t}} + \norm{X^{*}}\norm{Y^{t}H^{t} - Y^{*}}+ \norm{E} + |\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}\right)\norm{Y^{t}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \lambda \norm{X^{t}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \left(\left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \sigma_{\max} r^{0.5} + \sigma \sqrt{n} + \sigma \sqrt{n}\kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)
\right) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}\nonumber\\
&\quad + \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}.\nonumber
\end{align}
In (i), we use that $\norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \sigma_{\max}^{0.5} r^{0.5}$ (\cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-Frobenious}), $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma\sqrt{n}$ and $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}\kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)$ (\cref{eq:tau-taustar-Frobenious}).
This implies
\begin{align}
\norm{\nabla_{X} f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}.\label{eq:nablaX-fXY-sigma-mu-Frobenious}
\end{align}
Similarly, one can get $\norm{\nabla_{Y} f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}.$ Hence
\begin{align*}
\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}
&\lesssim \norm{\nabla_{X} f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} + \norm{\nabla_{Y} f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} \\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm-Frobenious})}
Recall that we want to show
$$
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{*}}_{\F} \leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.
$$
Write $\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})$ as $\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})$ for simplification. Consider
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{*}}_{\F}^2
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F}^2\label{eq:FHt+1-F-FHt-F}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \inner{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}-\eta \nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})H^{t}}{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}-\eta \nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})H^{t}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to that $H^{t+1}$ is the optimal rotation to align $F^{t+1}$ and $F^{*}$, and (ii) is due to $F^{t+1} = F^{t} - \eta \nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}).$ Write $F^{t}H^{t}, X^{t}H^{t}, Y^{t}H^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t}$ as $F, X, Y, \mathrm{\tau}$ if there is no ambiguity. Let $\Delta_X = X - X^{*}, \Delta_{Y} = Y-Y^{*}, \Delta_{F} = F-F^{*}$. Then we have
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2\eta \inner{\Delta_{F}}{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})H^{t}} + A_0 \nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2\eta \inner{\Delta_{X}}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*}-E+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y + \lambda X} \nonumber \\
&\quad - 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*}-E+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X + \lambda Y} + A_0 \label{eq:FH-Fstar}
\end{align}
where in (i) $A_0$ is the term with $\eta^{2}$ coefficient
\begin{align}
A_0 := \eta^2 \norm{\nabla f(F; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
Recall that $\norm{\nabla f(F; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F}^2 \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$ (\cref{eq:nablaX-fXY-sigma-mu-Frobenious}). Then we have
\begin{align}
|A_0|
&\lesssim \eta^2 (\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2 \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \frac{1}{\kappa^3 n^{20}\sigma_{\max}} \sigma^2 r^{2} \kappa^2 \log^{5}(n) n \sigma_{\max} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}. \label{eq:FH-Fstar-A0-bound}
\end{align}
Continue the analysis on \cref{eq:FH-Fstar}, by some algebra, we have
\begin{align}
&\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 -2\eta \inner{\Delta_X}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y} \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X} \nonumber \\
&\quad + \underbrace{2\eta \inner{\Delta_X}{EY} + 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{E^{\top}X}}_{A_1} +\underbrace{2\eta \inner{\Delta_X}{-\lambda X} + 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{-\lambda Y}}_{A_2} + A_0 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 -2\eta \inner{XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}+X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} + A_0 + A_1 + A_2\nonumber \\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2\eta \underbrace{\inner{XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}_{A_3} + A_0 + A_1 + A_2 \nonumber\\
&\quad -\underbrace{2\eta \inner{XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}{2\Delta_{X}\Delta_Y^{\top}}}_{A_4}.\label{eq:FH-Fstar-2}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $Y = Y^{*} + \Delta_{Y}, X = X^{*} + \Delta_X.$ For $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_4$, we have the following claim.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-A}
\begin{align}
|A_1| &\lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|A_2| &\lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{1.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|A_4| &\lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
For $A_3$, note that $XY^{\top}-M^{*} = \Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}+\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}, \mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \frac{\inner{Z}{M^{*}-XY^{\top}+E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$, then we have
\begin{align}
A_3
&= \inner{XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 + \underbrace{\inner{\Delta_X\Delta_Y^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}_{B_0}\nonumber\\
& \quad + \frac{\inner{Z}{M^{*}-XY^{\top}}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} + \underbrace{\frac{\inner{Z}{E}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}}_{B_1}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad - \underbrace{\frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}}_{B_2} + B_0 + B_1\nonumber
\end{align}
In (i), we use again $XY^{\top}-M^{*} = \Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}+\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}$.
We then have the following claim to control $B_0, B_1, B_2$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-B}
\begin{align}
|B_0| &\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|B_1| &\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|B_2| &\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Let $T^{*} = \{BV^{*\top} + U^{*}A^{\top}~|~A, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}\}$ be the tangent space of $M^{*}$. Then $\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*\top}\Delta_Y^{\top} = \Delta_{X}\Sigma^{*1/2}V^{*\top} + U^{*}\Sigma^{*1/2}\Delta_{Y}^{\top} \in T^{*}.$
Let $P_{T^{*}}$ be the projection to $T^{*}$. Then we have
\begin{align}
\left|\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*\top}\Delta_Y^{\top}}\right|^2
&= \left|\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*\top}\Delta_Y^{\top}}\right|^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\F}^2\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*\top}\Delta_Y^{\top}}_{\F}^2\nonumber
\end{align}
This implies there exists a constant $C$, such that
\begin{align}
A_3 &\geq \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*\top}\Delta_Y^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - B_2 + B_0 + B_1\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \frac{C}{\log(n)}\underbrace{\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2}_{B_3} - B_2 + B_0 + B_1. \label{eq:A3}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{lem:condition-non-convex-implication}. We then have the following claim for connecting $\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2$ and $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:XDeltaY-lower-bound}
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}. \label{eq:DeltaXY}
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Combining \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-2}, \cref{eq:A3}, and \cref{eq:DeltaXY}, we arrive at
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2 \eta A_3 + A_0 + A_1 + A_2 + A_4 \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2\eta \left( \frac{C}{\log(n)}\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - B_2 + B_0 + B_1\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad + A_0 + A_1 + A_2 + A_4 \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - 2\eta \left( \frac{C}{\log(n)}\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \underbrace{\frac{C\sigma^2}{\log(n)n^{13}}}_{B_3}- B_2 + B_0 + B_1\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad + A_0 + A_1 + A_2 + A_4 \label{eq:2eta-A0-A1-A2-A4}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-2}, (ii) is due to \cref{eq:A3}, and (iii) is due to \cref{eq:DeltaXY}. Next, due to the bound on $A_0 $ (\cref{eq:FH-Fstar-A0-bound}), the bound on $A_1, A_2, A_4$ (\cref{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-A}), and the bound on $B_0, B_1, B_2$ (\cref{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-B}), we have
\begin{align*}
&|A_0| + |A_1| + |A_2| + |A_4| + \eta|B_0| + \eta|B_1| + \eta|B_2| + \eta|B_3|\\
&\lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} + \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}.
\end{align*}
Continue the analysis for \cref{eq:2eta-A0-A1-A2-A4}, we then have (for some constant $C'$),
\begin{align}
&\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 \left(1-\eta \frac{C\sigma_{\min}}{\log n}\right) +|A_0| + |A_1| + |A_2| + |A_4| + 2\eta(|B_0| + |B_1| + |B_2| + |B_3|)\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 \left(1-\eta \frac{C\sigma_{\min}}{\log n}\right) + C'\eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + C' \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}} \label{eq:delta-f-bound}.
\end{align}
Plug $\norm{\Delta_{F}} \leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ into above \cref{eq:delta-f-bound}, we then get
\begin{align*}
&\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \\
&\leq \left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2 \left(1-\eta \frac{C\sigma_{\min}}{\log n}\right) \\
&\quad + C' \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + C'\eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}\\
&= \left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2 - \eta \underbrace{\frac{C\sigma_{\min}}{\log n} \left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2}_{K_1}\\
&\quad + \eta \underbrace{C'\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}}_{K_2} + \eta\underbrace{C'\frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}}_{K_3}.
\end{align*}
Then, in order to show $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2$, it is sufficient to show that $K_1 \geq K_2 + K_3.$ Note that
\begin{align*}
K_1 - K_2
&= \frac{C\sigma_{\min}}{\log n}\left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)\left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)\\
&\quad - C'\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}^2\\
&= C C_{\F} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \\
&\quad - C'\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \\
&= \left(CC_{\F} - C'\right) \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Then, take $C_{\F} \geq \max(2C'/C, 1)$, we have
\begin{align*}
K_1 - K_2
&\geq C' \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \sigma_{\max}\\
&= C' \sigma^2 n \log^{4}(n) \kappa \\
&\geq C' \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}} \\
&= K_3.
\end{align*}
This implies that $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2.$ Recall that (by \cref{eq:FHt+1-F-FHt-F})
$$
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}- F^{*}}_{\F} \leq \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}- F^{*}}_{\F},
$$
hence $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}- F^{*}}_{\F} \leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$, which completes the proof for \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-A}] In this claim, we provide bounds for $A_1, A_2, A_4.$
Recall that $A_1 = 2\eta \inner{\Delta_X}{EY} + 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{E^{\top}X}$ and we want to show
$$
|A_1| \lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}.
$$
This can be verified by the following.
\begin{align}
|A_1|
&\lesssim \eta \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}\norm{EY}_{\F} + \eta \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \norm{E^{\top}X}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{E} \norm{F}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$.
Recall that $A_2 = 2\eta \inner{\Delta_X}{-\lambda X} + 2\eta \inner{\Delta_Y}{-\lambda Y}$ and we want to show
$$
|A_2| \lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{1.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}.
$$
This can be verified by the following.
\begin{align}
|A_2| &\lesssim \eta \lambda \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}\norm{Y}_{\F} + \eta \lambda \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \norm{X}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \lambda \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Recall that $A_4 = 2\eta \inner{XY^{\top}-M^{*}+(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}{2\Delta_{X}\Delta_Y^{\top}}$ and we want to show
$$
|A_4| \lesssim \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}.
$$
This can be verified by
\begin{align}
|A_4|
&\lesssim \eta \norm{\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}\left(\norm{XY^{\top}-M^{*}}_{\F} + |\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \norm{Z}_{\F}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \eta \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}\norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \left(\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}_{\F} + \norm{X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F} + |\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}_{\F}\right)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \eta \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2\left(\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}} + \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)\right) \label{eq:A4-intermediate-step}.
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $|\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \norm{Z}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)$ (by \cref{eq:tau-taustar-Frobenious}).
Next, recall that $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$. This implies that
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}} + \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}} + \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sigma_{\max} \sqrt{r} + \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)\\
&\lesssim \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n).
\end{align*}
Combining this with \cref{eq:A4-intermediate-step}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
|A_4| &\lesssim \eta \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \eta \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n) \\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \eta \sigma \sqrt{n} \log(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}
\end{align*}
where in (i) we use $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ again, in (ii) we use $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$. This completes the proof for the bounds on $A_1, A_2, A_4$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\cref{claim:FtHt-Fstar-Control-B}]
In this claim, we aim to provide bounds on $B_0, B_1, B_2$.
For $B_0$, recall that $B_0 = \inner{\Delta_X\Delta_Y^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}$ and we want to show $ |B_0| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$. This can be verified by
\begin{align}
|B_0|
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_Y}_{\F} \left( \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F} \norm{Y^{*}} + \norm{\Delta_Y}_{\F} \norm{X^{*}} \right) \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^3 \norm{F^{*}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n) \kappa r^{0.5} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
providing that $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}.$
For $B_1$, recall that $B_1 = \frac{\inner{Z}{E}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$ and we want to show $$
|B_1| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.
$$
Note that $|\inner{Z}{E}|/\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}/\norm{Z}_{\F}$. Then
\begin{align}
|B_1|
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
For $B_2$, recall that $B_2 = \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$ and we want to show $|B_2| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.$ Note that
\begin{align}
|B_2|
&\lesssim \frac{(\norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F})(\norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}})}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^3 \norm{F^{*}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{\Delta_{F}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to the similar analysis for $B_0$. This completes the proof for the bounds on $B_0, B_1, B_2.$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:XDeltaY-lower-bound}]
In this claim, we want to show $\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}+X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}$.
Note that
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2
&= {\rm tr}\left((\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})(\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})^{\top}\right) \nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 + {\rm tr}(\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}X^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}\Delta_{X}^{\top}) \nonumber\\
&= \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}(X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}\Delta_{X}^{\top}) \nonumber.
\end{align}
Consider
$$
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top}}_{\F}^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \norm{(\Delta_{X})_{i,\cdot} \cdot Y^{*\top}}^2 \geq \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sigma^2_r(Y^{*}) \norm{(\Delta_{X})_{i,\cdot}}^2 = \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2.
$$
Similarly, $\norm{X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}^2.$ This implies that
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2
&\geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2 + \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}(X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}\Delta_{X}^{\top}) \nonumber\\
&= \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}(\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}).\nonumber
\end{align}
Furthermore, note that we can do the following derivation to reduce the problem to control $\norm{\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}$.
\begin{align}
&\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}(\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) \nonumber\\
&= \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}(Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) + 2{\rm tr}((\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y})\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) \nonumber\\
&= \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 + 2\norm{Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}^2 + 2{\rm tr}((\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y})\Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2-2\norm{\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \norm{Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}. \label{eq:sigma-min-Delta-F}
\end{align}
Here, in (i) we use $\norm{Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}^2 \geq 0$ and ${\rm tr}(AB^{\top}) \leq \norm{A}_{\F}\norm{B}_{\F}$ by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
Then it boils down to control $\norm{\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}$. In order to show $\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} \approx Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}$, we tend to invoke \cref{lem:orthogonal-procrustes} and use the property that $X^{\top}X \approx Y^{\top}Y$. Note that by \cref{lem:orthogonal-procrustes}, we have $(F^{t}H^{t})^{\top}F^{*}$ is symmetric since $H^{t}$ is the optimal rotation to align $F^{t}$ and $F^{*}$. Recall that $X = X^{t}H^{t}, Y = Y^{t}H^{t}.$ This implies that $X^{\top}X^{*} + Y^{\top}Y^{*}$ is symmetric. Furthermore, since $X^{*\top}X^{*}, Y^{*\top}Y^{*}$ is symmetric, then
$$
\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*} = X^{\top}X^{*} + Y^{\top}Y^{*} - X^{*\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}Y^{*}
$$
is also symmetric. Therefore $\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*} = (\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*})^{\top} = X^{*\top}\Delta_{X} + Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}$, which further implies
\begin{align}
\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y} = X^{*\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}.\label{eq:DeltaXX-YDeltaY}
\end{align}
On the other hand, note that
\begin{align}
X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y
&= (X^{*}+\Delta_{X})^{\top}(X^{*}+\Delta_{X}) - (Y^{*}+\Delta_{Y})^{\top}(Y^{*}+\Delta_{Y})\nonumber\\
&= X^{*\top}X - Y^{*\top}Y + \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y\nonumber\\
&\quad + (\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}) + (X^{*\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y + (\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}) + (X^{*\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}Y^{*}) \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} - \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y + 2(\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}) \label{eq:XTX-YTY-DeltaXTX}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $X^{*\top}X^{*} = Y^{*\top}Y^{*} = \Sigma^{*}$, and (ii) is due to \cref{eq:DeltaXX-YDeltaY}. Then \cref{eq:XTX-YTY-DeltaXTX} implies that
\begin{align}
\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*} - Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y} = \frac{1}{2}\left( X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y - \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
Plug this equality into \cref{eq:sigma-min-Delta-F}, we obtain
\begin{align}
&\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2-2\norm{\Delta_{X}^{\top}X^{*}-Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \norm{Y^{*\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y - \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y}_{\F} \norm{Y^{*}}\norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Recall that $\norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} = \norm{H^{tT}(X^{tT}X^{t}-Y^{tT}Y^{t})H^{t}} \lesssim \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}}$ (by \cref{eq:XX-YY-Frobenious}) and $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}r}$, then we have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y - \Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X} + \Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_Y}_{\F}\norm{Y^{*}}\norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}\\
&\leq \left(\norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} + \norm{\Delta_{X}^{\top}\Delta_{X}}_{\F} + \norm{\Delta_{Y}^{\top}\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}\right)\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}r} \\
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} + \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2\right) \sigma \sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{\log^{0.5}(n)} + \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$. Then this implies, for large enough $n$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{*\top} + X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2
&\geq \sigma_{\min} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} - \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}\\
&\geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:XX-YY-Frobenious})}
Following the algebra of section D.8 in \cite{chen2019noisy}, one can verify the following equality
\begin{align}
A^{t+1} = (1-\lambda \eta)^2 A^{t} + \eta^2 (Y^{tT}D^{tT}D^{t}Y^{t} - X^{tT}D^{t}D^{tT}X^{t})\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
A^{t} &:= X^{tT} X^{t} - Y^{tT} Y^{t}\nonumber\\
A^{t+1} &:= X^{(t+1) \top}X^{t+1} - Y^{(t+1) \top} Y^{t+1}\nonumber\\
D^{t} &:= X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z. \nonumber
\end{align}
Similar to showing $\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$ in \cref{eq:nablaX-fXY-sigma-mu-Frobenious}, one can verify that $\max(\norm{D^{t}Y^{t}}_{\F}, \norm{D^{tT}X^{t}}_{\F}) \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}.$ Then there exists a constant $C$, where
\begin{align}
\norm{A^{t+1}}_{\F}
&\leq (1-\lambda \eta)^2 \norm{A^{t}}_{\F} + \eta^2 \left(\norm{D^{t}Y^{t}}_{\F}^2+\norm{D^{tT}X^{t}}_{\F}^2\right) \nonumber\\
&\leq (1-\lambda \eta) \norm{A^{t}}_{\F} + C\eta^2(\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq C_{B} \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} - C_{B} \lambda \eta \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} + C\eta^2(\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2 \nonumber.
\end{align}
In order to show the desired bound $\norm{A^{t+1}}_{\F} \leq C_{B} \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}}$, it is sufficient to show that $C_{B} \lambda \eta \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} \geq C\eta^2(\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2.$ This can be obtained by noting that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\kappa n^{15}}{\sigma \lambda \eta} \eta^2(\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2
&= \frac{\kappa n^{15}}{\sigma \cdot \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \kappa^3 n^{20} \sigma_{\max}} \sigma^2 n r^{2} \kappa^2 \log^{5}(n) \sigma_{\max}\\
&= \frac{\sqrt{n} r^{2} \log^{3.5}(n)}{n^5}\\
&\ll 1.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:f-decrease-Frobenious})}
Note that
\begin{align}
f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) = \frac{1}{2}\norm{X^{t+1}Y^{t+1T} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}_{\F}^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \norm{X^{t+1}}_{\F}^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \norm{Y^{t+1}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber
\end{align}
We write $X^{t}, Y^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t}$ as $X, Y, \mathrm{\tau}$ if there is no ambiguity. Let $D := XY^{\top} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z.$ Then
\begin{align}
X^{t+1} &= X - \eta (DY + \lambda X)\nonumber\\
Y^{t+1} &= Y - \eta (D^{\top}X + \lambda Y).\nonumber
\end{align}
Furthermore,
\begin{align}
\norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2
&= \norm{DY + \lambda X}_{\F}^2 + \norm{D^{\top}X + \lambda Y}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&= {\rm tr}(Y^{\top}D^{\top}DY) + 2\lambda {\rm tr}(X^{\top}DY) + \lambda^2 {\rm tr}(X^{\top}X) \nonumber\\
&\quad + {\rm tr}(X^{\top}DD^{\top}X) + 2\lambda {\rm tr}(Y^{\top}D^{\top}X) + \lambda^2 {\rm tr}(Y^{\top}Y).\nonumber
\end{align}
Consider
\begin{align}
&\norm{X^{t+1}Y^{t+1T} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{X^{t+1}}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{Y^{t+1}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&=\norm{D - \eta \left((DY+\lambda X)Y^{\top}+ X(X^{\top}D+\lambda Y^{\top})\right) + \eta^2 (DY + \lambda X) (D^{\top}X + \lambda Y)^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad + \lambda \norm{X - \eta (DY + \lambda X)}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{Y - \eta (D^{\top}X + \lambda Y)}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&= \norm{D}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{X}_{\F}^2 + \lambda \norm{Y}_{\F}^2 + \eta^2 A_0\nonumber \\
&\quad - 2\eta \left({\rm tr}(D^{\top}DYY^{\top})+2\lambda{\rm tr}(D^{\top}XY^{\top}) + {\rm tr}(D^{\top}XX^{\top}D)\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2\eta \left(2\lambda {\rm tr}(DYX^{\top}) + \lambda^2 ({\rm tr}(X^{\top}X) + {\rm tr}(Y^{\top}Y))\right)\nonumber \\
&= 2f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) - 2\eta \norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 + \eta^2 A_0\nonumber
\end{align}
where $A_0$ is the term associated with the coefficient $\eta^2$ and one can verify that
\begin{align}
\norm{A_0}_{\F}
&\leq 2\norm{D}_{\F} \norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F} \norm{D^{\top}X+\lambda Y}_{\F} + \lambda \norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad + \lambda \norm{D^{\top}X + \lambda Y}_{\F}^2 + \left(\norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F}\norm{Y^{\top}}_{\F}+ \norm{X}_{\F}\norm{X^{\top}D+\lambda Y^{\top}}_{\F}\right)^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad + 2\eta \norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F}\norm{Y^{\top}}_{\F} \left(\norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F} \norm{D^{\top}X+\lambda Y}_{\F}\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + 2\eta \norm{X}_{\F}\norm{X^{\top}D+\lambda Y^{\top}}_{\F} \left(\norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F} \norm{D^{\top}X+\lambda Y}_{\F}\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + \eta^2 (\norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F} \norm{D^{\top}X+\lambda Y}_{\F})^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
In order to show that $f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) \leq f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) - \frac{\eta}{2} \norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2$, it is sufficient to show that $A_0 \eta \leq \norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2.$
Note that $\max\left( \norm{DY+\lambda X}_{\F}, \norm{D^{\top}X+\lambda Y}_{\F}\right) \leq \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}$, recall that
$$
\norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}},
$$ then we have
\begin{align*}
&\eta\norm{A_0}_{\F} \\
&\lesssim \eta\norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 (\norm{D}_{\F} + \lambda + \norm{F}_{\F}^2) + \eta^2 \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^3 \norm{F}_{\F} + \eta^3 \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^4\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 \eta( \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) + \sigma_{\max}r) \\
&\quad + \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 \eta^2 \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \\
&\quad + \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2\eta^3 ( \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2 \\
&\lesssim \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 \frac{ \sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) + \sigma_{\max} r}{\kappa^{3}n^{20}\sigma_{\max}} \\
&\quad + \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} r \kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sigma_{\max}}{\kappa^{6}n^{40}\sigma_{\max}^2} \\
&\quad + \norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2 \frac{\sigma^2 n r^{2} \kappa^2 \log^{5}(n) \sigma_{\max}}{\kappa^{9} n^{60} \sigma_{\max}^{3}}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \frac{\norm{\nabla f(F^{t};\mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2}{n^{10}}.
\end{align*}
In (i), we use that $\norm{D}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}r^{0.5} \kappa \log^{2.5}(n)$ (shown in \cref{eq:nablaX-fXY-sigma-mu-Frobenious}). In (ii), we use that $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \frac{1}{r^2\kappa^2 \log^{5}(n)}$. This implies $\eta A_0 \leq \norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2.$
Therefore
\begin{align}
f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) \leq f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}) - \frac{\eta}{2} \norm{\nabla f(F^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
By our choice of $\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1} := \min_{\mathrm{\tau}} f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau})$, we have $f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t+1}) \leq f(F^{t+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t}).$ This completes the proof.
\section{Analysis of Non-convex Estimators: Proof of Lemma \ref{thm:non-convex-theorem}}\label{sec:proof-non-convex-iteration}\label{sec:full-non-convex-proof}
The proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} is similar to \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}, but with significant refined analyses on controlling $l_{2,\infty}$-norm error.
Following the notations in the proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}, by the incoherence condition of $M^{*}$, we have the following facts for $F^{*}$.
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty} &= \max\{\norm{X^{*}}_{2,\infty}, \norm{Y^{*}}_{2,\infty}\} \leq \sqrt{\mu r\sigma_{\max}/n}.\label{eq:F-incoherence}
\end{align}
Before proceeding, inspired by the leave-one-out technique developed in \cite{ma2019implicit,abbe2017entrywise,chen2019noisy}, we introduce a set of auxiliary loss functions to facilitate the analysis of the gradient descent algorithm. In particular, for $1\leq l \leq 2n$, let
\begin{align}
f^{(l)}(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau}) := \frac{1}{2}\norm{XY^{\top} + \mathrm{\tau} Z + P_{l}(E) - O}_{\F}^2+ \frac{\lambda}{2}\norm{X}_{\F}^2 + \frac{\lambda}{2} \norm{Y}_{\F}^2 \nonumber
\end{align}
where $P_{l}$ is defined as the following
\begin{align}
[P_{l}(B)]_{ij} =\begin{cases} B_{ij} & i = l\\ 0 & i \neq l\end{cases} \quad 1\leq l\leq n \text{\quad and \quad } [P_{l}(B)]_{ij} =\begin{cases} B_{ij} & j = l - n\\ 0 & j \neq l - n\end{cases} \quad n+1 \leq l \leq 2n.\nonumber
\end{align}
Intuitively, $f^{(l)}$ removes the $l$-th row (or $(l-n)$-th column for $l > n$) of the noise matrix $E$. We then consider the following gradient descent algorithm on the loss function $f^{(l)}$ for $1\leq l \leq 2n.$
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Leave-one-out Gradient Descent of non-convex optimization} \label{alg:GD-leave-one-out}
{\bf Input:} the observation $O$ and $Z$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State{\textbf{{Initialization}}: $X^{0, (l)} = X^{*}, Y^{0, (l)}=Y^{*}, \mathrm{\tau}^{0, (l)} = \frac{\inner{Z}{O-P_{l}(E)-X^{*}Y^{*\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$.}
\State{\textbf{{Gradient updates}}: \textbf{for }$t=0,1,\ldots,t_{\star}-1$
\textbf{do}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
X^{t+1, (l)}= & X^{t, (l)}-\eta[(X^{t, (l)}(Y^{t, (l)})^\top + \mathrm{\tau}^{t, (l)} Z + P_{l}(E)- O)Y^{t,(l)}+\lambda X^{t, (l)}];\\
Y^{t+1, (l)}= & Y^{t, (l)}-\eta[(X^{t, (l)}(Y^{t,(l)})^{\top} + \mathrm{\tau}^{t, (l)} Z + P_{l}(E)- O)^{\top}X^{t, (l)}+\lambda Y^{t, (l)}]\\
\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1,(l)} = & \frac{\inner{Z}{O-P_{l}(E)-X^{t+1,(l)}Y^{(t+1, (l))\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}.
\end{align}
where $\eta$ determines the learning rate.
\end{subequations}
}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Let $F^{t,(l)} := \begin{bmatrix} X^{t,(l)} \\ Y^{t,(l)} \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n \times r}$. Similar to the definition of $H^{t}$ in \cref{eq:defn-H-appendix}, we define the optimal rotation for aligning $F^{t, (l)}$ and $F^{*}$ by the following
\begin{align}
H^{t,(l)} &:= \arg\min_{A \in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F^{t,(l)}A - F^{*}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Furthermore, we are also interested in analyzing the relation between $F^{t, (l)}$ and $F^{t}$. Therefore, we introduce the following rotation to align $F^{t, (l)}$ and $F^{t}$.
\begin{align}
R^{t,(l)} &:= \arg\min_{A \in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F^{t,(l)}A - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Next, consider $\mathrm{\tau}^{t} = \frac{\inner{Z}{O-X^{t}Y^{tT}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$. Use $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\tau}^{t} = \frac{\inner{Z}{M^{*} - X^{t}Y^{tT}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}.
\end{align*}
To analyze $\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$, the main difficulty is to bound the error $\frac{\inner{Z}{M^{*} - X^{t}Y^{tT}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$ (note that $\inner{Z}{E}/\norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ keeps the same for each iteration, hence easier to analyze) To establish the result, we introduce the ``component separation'' idea by analyzing each one of $r$ components of the error separately. In particular, note that $M^{*} = X^{*}Y^{*\top}.$ Let $x^{*}_s, y^{*}_s$ be the $s$-column of $X^{*}$ and $Y^{*}$ respectively. Then
\begin{align*}
M^{*} = \sum_{s=1}^{r} x^{*}_s y^{*\top}_s.
\end{align*}
In addition, note that $X^{t}Y^{tT} = (X^{t}H^{t})(Y^{t}H^{t})^{\top}.$ Let $(X^{t}H^{t})_{s}, (Y^{t}H^{t})_{s}$ be the $s$-th column of $X^{t}H^{t}$ and $Y^{t}H^{t}$ respectively. Then
\begin{align*}
X^{t}Y^{tT} = \sum_{s=1}^{r} (X^{t}H^{t})_{s} (Y^{t}H^{t})_{s}^{\top}
\end{align*}
We introduce the ``component error'' $\Delta^{t}_s$ defined as the following
\begin{align}
\Delta^{t}_{s} &:= \frac{\inner{Z}{x_s^{*}y_s^{*\top} - (X^{t}H^{t})_s(Y^{t}H^{t})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}. \label{eq:def-Deltats}
\end{align}
It is easy to see the connection between $\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ and $\Delta^{t}_s$ through the following.
\begin{align}
\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} = \frac{\inner{Z}{M^{*} - X^{t}Y^{tT}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} = \sum_{s=1}^{r} \Delta^{t}_s. \label{eq:delta-t-s-tau}
\end{align}
In order to analyze the bounds for $\Delta^{t}_s$, we introduce the ``component coefficient'' $b_s$. In particular, let $u^{*}_s, v^{*}_s$ be the $s$-column of $U^{*}$ and $V^{*}$
respectively. We denote
\begin{align}
b_s &:= \frac{{\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv_{s}^{*}v_{s}^{*\top})+{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}u_{s}^{*}u_s^{*\top})}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \label{eq:def-bs}
\end{align}
One shall see the connection between $b_s$ and \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}. In fact, \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} implies that, for some constant $C$,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s=1}^{r} b_s \leq 1-\frac{C}{\log(n)}
\end{align*}
due to that $\sum_{s=1}^{r} v_{s}^{*}v_{s}^{*\top} = V^{*}V^{*\top}, \sum_{s=1}^{r} u_{s}^{*}u_{s}^{*\top} = U^{*}U^{*\top}.$ The usefulness of $b_s$ will be evident in bounding the component error $\Delta^{t}_s$ in \cref{sec:proof-taus}.
We use the mathematical induction to obtain the desired results. In particular, we aim to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:induction}
Suppose \cref{assum:random-noise,assum:incoherence} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} hold. Suppose $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$. Suppose $\kappa^{4}\mu^2 r^2 \log^2(n) \lesssim n$, $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$. Let $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n), \eta = \frac{C_{\eta}}{\kappa^3 n^{20} \sigma_{\max}}$. Suppose the following induction hypotheses \cref{eq:induction} for $q=t$ hold with (pre-determined) constants $C_{\mathrm{\tau}}, C_{\F}, C_{l,1}, C_{l,2}, C_{\infty}$. Then, with probability at least $1-O(n^{-10^{6}})$, we have the \cref{eq:induction} for $q=t+1$ holds.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:induction}
\begin{align}
|\Delta_s^{q}| &\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\label{eq:taus-taustars}\\
|\mathrm{\tau}^{q} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| &\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\label{eq:tau-taustar}\\
\norm{F^{q}H^{q} - F^{*}}_{\F} &\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm}\\
\max_{1\leq l\leq 2n}\norm{F^{q}H^{q} - F^{q, (l)} R^{q, (l)}}_{\F} &\leq C_{l,1} \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FH-FlRl}\\
\max_{1\leq l\leq 2n} \norm{(F^{q, (l)}H^{q, (l)} - F^{*})_{l, \cdot}}_{2} &\leq C_{l,2} \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FlHl-Fstar}\\
\norm{F^{q}H^{q} - F^{*}}_{2,\infty} &\leq C_{\infty}\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}\\
\norm{X^{q \top} X^{q} - Y^{q \top}Y^{q}}_{\F} &\leq C_{B} \frac{\sigma}{\kappa n^{15}} \label{eq:XX-YY}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Furthermore, let $T_t$ be the tangent space of $X^{t}Y^{tT}.$ If \cref{eq:induction} holds for $q = t$, the following inequality holds with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{6}})$ for (pre-determined) constants $C_{T_1}, C_{T,2}, C_{T,3}$.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:PT-bound}
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,1}\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\label{eq:PTM-bound}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,2}\frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\label{eq:PTE-bound}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} &\leq C_{T,3}\frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}\label{eq:PTZ-bound}\\
f(X^{q+1}, Y^{q+1}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q+1}) &\leq f(X^{q}, Y^{q}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q}) - \frac{\eta}{2} \norm{\nabla f(X^{q}, Y^{q}; \mathrm{\tau}^{q})}_{\F}^2. \label{eq:f-decrease}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
Note that based on \cref{lem:induction}, we can prove \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem} in a straightforward way.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}]
Note that $\norm{E} \leq C\sigma\sqrt{n}$ with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{6}})$ for some constant $C$. Note that when $q = 0$, $X^{0} = X^{*}, X^{0,(l)}=X^{*}$ and $Y^{0} = Y^{*}, Y^{0,(l)} = Y^{*}$ easily satisfy \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm,eq:FH-FlRl,eq:FlHl-Fstar,eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm,eq:XX-YY} along with $\Delta_{s}^{0} = 0$ satisfying \cref{eq:taus-taustars}. For $\mathrm{\tau}^{0}$, noting that $\mathrm{\tau}^{0} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \inner{Z}{E}/\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \lesssim \sigma\sqrt{\log(n)}/\norm{Z}_{\F}$ with probability $1-O(n^{-10^6}).$ This verifies the induction hypotheses for $q = 0.$
Take $t^{\star} = \kappa^{3}n^{10000}$, then by \cref{lem:induction} and the union bound, with probability at least $1-O(n^{-10^4})$, we have \cref{eq:induction} and \cref{eq:PT-bound} hold for $q = 0, 1, \dotsc, t^{\star}-1.$ By the same analysis in the proof of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}, we obtain the desired results of \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}.\footnote{Here, we consider all the bounds hold with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{4}})$. The generalization to $1-O(n^{-C})$, for some constant $C$, is straightforward.}
\end{proof}
The remainder is to finish the proof for \cref{lem:induction}. Under the hypothesis for $q = t$, we prove \cref{eq:induction} and \cref{eq:PT-bound} for $q = t+1$ in the following subsections. Note that under the assumptions of \cref{lem:induction}, we can directly invoke \cref{lem:induction-Frobenious}, and hence \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm,eq:XX-YY,eq:f-decrease} directly hold.
\subsection{Direct implication of Eq.~(\ref{eq:induction}) for \texorpdfstring{$q=t$}{q=t}}
Under the hypothesis $q=t$, we first present a few direct implications that are helpful in the proof for $q=t+1$. For large enough $n$, we claim that the following results hold for $F^{t}$.
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}}_{\F} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \\
\norm{F^{t}} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\\
\norm{F^{t}}_{2,\infty} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\max} \mu r}{n}}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, for $l \in [2n]$, for large enough $n$, we also have
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t,(l)}}_{\F} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}\\
\quad \norm{F^{t,(l)}} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}} \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\\
\norm{F^{t,(l)}}_{2,\infty} &\leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\max} \mu r}{n}}.
\end{align*}
In addition, we have
\begin{align}
\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma r\kappa \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{n} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \label{eq:gradient-bound-easy}
\end{align}
The proof for $\norm{F^{t}}_{\F}, \norm{F^{t}}, \norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F}$ have been shown in \cref{sec:implication-non-convex-proof-Frobenious}. We show the bound for $\norm{F^{t}H^{t}}_{2,\infty}$ below.
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t}}_{2,\infty}
&\leq \norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{*}}_{2,\infty} + \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C_{\infty}\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5}\kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} 2C_{\infty}\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{2}\kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\max} r}{n}} + \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}}{2\sqrt{\kappa}\log(n)} \sqrt{\frac{r}{n}} + \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(iv)}{\leq} 2\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}, (ii) is due to $\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \leq \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max} r}$, (iii) is due to $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$ and holds with large enough $n$, and (iv) is due to $\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \geq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min} r}{n}}.$ This also implies $\norm{F^{t}}_{2,\infty} = \norm{F^{t}H^{t}H^{tT}}_{2,\infty} \leq \norm{F^{t}H^{t}}_{2,\infty} \norm{H^{t}} \leq 2\norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}.$
The similar bounds can be obtained for $F^{t,(l)}$ based on $\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{t, (l)} R^{t, (l)}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ (\cref{eq:FH-FlRl}) and the triangle inequality. We omit the proof for brevity.
\subsection{Proof of Eqs.(\ref{eq:taus-taustars}) and (\ref{eq:tau-taustar})}\label{sec:proof-taus}
Recall that $\Delta^{t}_{s} = \frac{\inner{Z}{x_s^{*}y_s^{*\top} - (X^{t}H^{t})_s(Y^{t}H^{t})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}.$ Then we have
\begin{align}
\Delta_{s}^{t+1}
&= \Delta_{s}^{t} + \frac{\inner{Z}{(X^{t}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t}H^{t})^{\top}_{s} - (X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{s}^{t} + \frac{\inner{Z}{(X^{t}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t}H^{t})^{\top}_{s} - (X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\nonumber\\
&\quad + \underbrace{\frac{\inner{Z}{(X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top} - (X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}}_{A_0} \label{eq:delta-s}.
\end{align}
To control $A_0$, we have the following claim to show that $A_0$ is negligible.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:taus-taustars-A0}
\begin{align}
\norm{H^{t} - H^{t+1}}_{\F} &\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n)).\nonumber\\
|A_0| &\lesssim \eta \sigma^2 \log^{6}(n) \kappa^3 \mu^2 r^4.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Next, by the gradient updating rule,
$$
X^{t+1} = X^{t} - \eta \left((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z - E)Y^{t} + \lambda X^{t}\right).
$$
Let $A_s$ be the $s$-column of $A$ for any matrix $A$. Suppose $x^{t}_s = (X^{t}H^{t})_{s}, y^{t}_s = (Y^{t}H^{t})_s$. Then, we have
\begin{align}
(X^{t+1}H^{t})_s
&= (X^{t}H^{t})_s - \eta \left( (X^{t}Y^{tT}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E)(Y^{t}H^{t})_{s} + \lambda (X^{t}H^{t})_s\right) \nonumber\\
&= x^{t}_s - \eta (X^{t}Y^{tT}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E)y^{t}_s - \eta \lambda x^{t}_s.\label{eq:XH-decompose}
\end{align}
Similarly,
\begin{align}
(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s
&= (Y^{t}H^{t})_s - \eta \left(X^{t}Y^{tT}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E)^{\top}(X^{t}H^{t})_{s} + \lambda (Y^{t}H^{t})_s\right)\nonumber\\
&= y^{t}_s - \eta (X^{t}Y^{tT}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E)^{\top}x^{t}_s - \eta \lambda y^{t}_s.\label{eq:YH-decompose}
\end{align}
To simplify the notation, we write $(XH)^{t}, (YH)^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t}, x^{t}_s, y^{t}_s$ by $X, Y, \mathrm{\tau}, x_s, y_s$ if there is no ambiguity.
Continuing the analysis for $\Delta_s^{t+1}$ in \cref{eq:delta-s}, we have
\begin{align}
\Delta_{s}^{t+1}
&= \Delta_{s}^{t} + A_0 + \frac{\inner{Z}{x_{s}y^{\top}_{s} - (X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&= \Delta_{s}^{t} + A_0 + \frac{\inner{Z}{(x_{s} - (X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s})y^{\top}_{s}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{x_{s}(y_{s}-(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s)^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\quad - \frac{\inner{Z}{(x_{s} - (X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s})(y_{s}-(Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s)^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}. \nonumber
\end{align}
By expanding $x_s - (X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}$ and $y_{s}-(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s$ using \cref{eq:XH-decompose} and \cref{eq:YH-decompose}, we then have
\begin{align}
\Delta_{s}^{t+1} &= \Delta_{s}^{t} + A_0 + \frac{\eta}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \underbrace{\inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E) y_{s}y^{\top}_{s}+\lambda x_s y_{s}^{\top}}}_{A_1} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{\eta}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\underbrace{\inner{Z}{x_{s}x^{\top}_{s}(XY^{\top} - M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E)+\lambda x_sy_s^{\top}}}_{A_2} + A_3
\label{eq:Deltas-equation}
\end{align}
where $A_3$ includes the term with coefficient $\eta^2$:
\begin{align}
A_3 := \frac{-\eta^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \inner{Z}{D_1D_2^{\top}}\nonumber
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
D_1 &:= (XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E) y_{s}+\lambda x_s\\
D_2 &:= (XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z - E) x_{s}+\lambda y_s.
\end{align*}
Note that $\eta$ has be chosen small enough, one can verify that
\begin{align}
|A_3|
&\leq \frac{\eta^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{D_1}_{\F} \norm{D_2}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq \eta^2 \norm{D_1}_{\F} \norm{D_2}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \eta \frac{1}{n^{20}\sigma_{\max}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}})^2 \nonumber\\
&= \eta \sigma^2 \frac{\mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{2} \log^{7}(n)}{n^{19}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}. \label{eq:A3-sigma-square}
\end{align}
In (i), we use the bound $\norm{D_1}_{\F}+\norm{D_2}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$ (the proof is the same as showing $\norm{\nabla f(X, Y; \mathrm{\tau})}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$ in \cref{eq:nablaX-fXY-sigma-mu} and hence omitted here). In (ii), we use that $\kappa^4 \mu^2 r^2 \log^2(n) \lesssim n.$
Next, we analyze $A_1$ ($A_2$ is similar to $A_1$ by symmetry). For $A_1$, to facilitate the analysis, let
\begin{align}
B_0 &:= \inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z) \left(y_s y^{\top}_{s}-y^{*}_{s}y^{*\top}_{s}\right)}\nonumber\\
B_1 &:= \inner{Z}{\lambda x_s y_s^{\top}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Then, we have
\begin{align}
A_1
&= \inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z) y^{*}_{s}y^{*\top}_{s}} + B_0 + B_1 + \underbrace{\inner{Z}{-E y_s y^{\top}_s}}_{B_2}\nonumber\\
&= \inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*})y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s} + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \inner{Z}{Zy^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s}
+ B_0+B_1 + B_2\nonumber.
\end{align}
Recall that $y^{*}_s = \sqrt{\sigma_s^{*}} v^{*}_s$ where $\sigma_s^{*}$ is the $s$-th largest singular value of $M^{*}$ and $v^{*}$ is the $s$-th corresponding right singular vector. Hence, for any $k\in [r]$, we have
\begin{align*}
y^{*\top}_{k} y^{*}_{s} = \sqrt{\sigma_s^{*}} \sqrt{\sigma_k^{*}} v^{*\top}_k v^{*}_s \overset{(i)}{=} \sigma_s^{*} \1{k=s}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to orthogonality between different singular vectors. This will help us simplify the analysis for $A_1$. In particular,
\begin{align}
A_1
&\overset{(i)}{=} \inner{Z}{(X-X^{*})Y^{*\top}y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s + X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s} + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \sigma_s^{*} {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv^{*}_sv^{*\top}_s)\nonumber\\
&\quad + B_2 + B_1 + B_0\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \sigma_s^{*} \inner{Z}{(x_s-x^{*}_s)y^{*\top}_s} + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \sigma_s^{*} {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv^{*}_sv^{*\top}_s) +
\underbrace{\inner{Z}{X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s}}_{B_3}\nonumber\\
&\quad + B_2 + B_1 + B_0.\nonumber
\end{align}
where in (i) we use that $XY^{\top} - M^{*} = (X-X^{*})Y^{*} + X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}$ and $y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s = \sigma_s^{*} v^{*}_s v^{*\top}_s$, in (ii) we use the fact that
$y^{*}_s$ is orthogonal to $y^{*}_k, k \neq s$, which implies
\begin{align}
(X-X^{*})Y^{*\top}y^{*}_s = \sum_{k=1}^r (X-X^{*})_{k} y^{*\top}_k y^{*}_s y^{*\top}_s = \sigma_s^{*} (x_s - x^{*}_s) y^{*\top}_s. \nonumber
\end{align}
In order to bound $B_0, B_1, B_2, B_3$, we have the following claim.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:taus-control-B}
With probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_0| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min} \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_1| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_2| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_3| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Let $\Delta = |B_0| + |B_1| + |B_2| + |B_3|$. Then we have
\begin{align}
A_1 \leq \sigma_s^{*} \inner{Z}{(x_s-x^{*}_s)y^{*\top}_s} + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \sigma_s^{*} {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv^{*}_sv^{*\top}_s) + \Delta\nonumber.
\end{align}
Here,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\Delta = \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} (|B_0| + |B_1| + |B_2| + |B_3|) \overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min} \label{eq:bound-for-Delta}
\end{align}
where (i) uses \cref{claim:taus-control-B} and $\sigma_{\min} = \sigma_{r}^{*} \leq \sigma_s^{*}$ for $s \in [r].$
By symmetry, we can obtain the similar results for $A_2$ and in particular, we have
\begin{align}
A_1 + A_2
&\leq \sigma_s^{*} \inner{Z}{(x_s-x^{*}_s)y^{*\top}} + \sigma_s^{*} \inner{Z}{x^{*}(y_s-y^{*})^{\top}} \nonumber\\
&\quad + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \sigma_s^{*} {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv^{*}_sv^{*\top}_s) + (\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \sigma_s^{*} {\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}u^{*}_su^{*\top}_s)\nonumber\\
&\quad + 2\Delta\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \sigma_{s}^{*} \inner{Z}{x_sy_s^{\top}-x^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s} - \sigma_s^{*} \inner{Z}{(x_s-x_s^{*})(y_s-y_s^{*})^{\top}} +
|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \sigma_s^{*} b_s \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 + 2\Delta \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} -\Delta_{s}^{t} \sigma_s^{*} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 + \sigma_s^{*} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 + |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \sigma_s^{*} b_s \norm{Z}_{\F}^2
+2\Delta\nonumber
\end{align}
where in (i) we use that $x_sy_s^{\top}-x^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s = (x_s-x^{*}_s)y^{*\top}+x^{*}(y_s-y^{*})^{\top}+(x_s-x_s^{*})(y_s-y_s^{*})^{\top}$ and
$b_s \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 = {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Zv^{*}_sv^{*\top}_s)+{\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}u^{*}_su^{*\top}_s)$, in (ii) we use that $\Delta_{s}^{t}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 =
\inner{Z}{x^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s - x_sy_s^{\top}}$ and $\left|\inner{Z}{AB^{\top}}\right|\leq \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \norm{AB^{\top}}_{\infty} \leq \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\norm{A}_{2,\infty} \norm{B}_{2,\infty}$ for binary matrix $Z$.
Next we can bound $\Delta_{s}^{t+1}$ by using the bounds all above for $A_0, A_1, A_2, A_3$ in \cref{eq:Deltas-equation}.
\begin{align}
|\Delta_{s}^{t+1}|
&\leq \left|\Delta_{s}^{t} + \eta \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} (A_1+A_2) + A_0 + A_3\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq |\Delta_s^{t}|(1-\eta \sigma_{s}^{*}) + \eta \left(\sigma_s^{*} \norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 + |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \sigma_s^{*} b_s + \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}2\Delta\right) + |A_0| + |A_3|\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) (1-\eta \sigma_s^{*}) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \eta C_{\mathrm{\tau}}\left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \sigma_s^{*} b_s\nonumber\\
&\quad + \eta \sigma_s^{*} \norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 + \eta \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}2\Delta + |A_0| + |A_3| \label{eq:etasigmas}
\end{align}
Here (i) is by the induction hypothesis \cref{eq:taus-taustars} and \cref{eq:tau-taustar}. Let
$$
D := \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right).
$$
Then $D\log(n)r = \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)$. To simplify \cref{eq:etasigmas}, by the direct algebra, we have
\begin{align*}
&C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D (1-\eta \sigma_s^{*}) + \eta C_{\mathrm{\tau}} D\log(n) r \sigma_s^{*}b_s \\
&= C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D - C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D \eta \sigma_s^{*} + \eta C_{\mathrm{\tau}} D\log(n) r \sigma_s^{*}b_s \\
&= C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D - C_{\mathrm{\tau}} C_0 D \eta \sigma_s^{*} - C_{\mathrm{\tau}}b_s r\log(n)D \eta \sigma_s^{*} + \eta C_{\mathrm{\tau}} D\log(n) r \sigma_s^{*}b_s\\
&= C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D - C_{\mathrm{\tau}} C_0 D \eta \sigma_s^{*}.
\end{align*}
To control $\eta \sigma_s^{*} \norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 + \eta \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}2\Delta + |A_0| + |A_3|$, recall that $\norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}}{\sigma_{\min}}$ by \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}, $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\Delta \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min}$ by \cref{eq:bound-for-Delta}, $|A_0| \lesssim \eta \sigma^2 \log^{6}(n) \kappa^3 \mu^2 r^4$ by \cref{claim:taus-taustars-A0}, and $|A_3|\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}$. Then, we have, for some constant $C$,
\begin{align*}
&\eta \sigma_s^{*} \norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 + \eta \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}2\Delta + |A_0| + |A_3| \\
&\lesssim \eta \left(\sigma^{*}_s \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \log^{7}(n) \kappa^3}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*}\right) \\
&\quad + \left(\frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min} + \sigma^2 \log^{6}(n) \kappa^3 \mu^2 r^4 + \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}\right) \\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \eta \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min}\right) \\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} C \eta \sigma_s^{*} \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu}$ (hence some terms are negligible), and (ii) is due to $\sigma_{\min} \leq \sigma_{s}^{*}.$
This leads to the bound for $|\Delta_s^{t+1}|.$
\begin{align}
|\Delta_s^{t+1}|
&\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D - C_{\mathrm{\tau}} C_0 D \eta \sigma_s^{*} \nonumber\\
&\quad + C \eta \sigma_s^{*} \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \nonumber\\
&\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D - C_{\mathrm{\tau}} C_0 D \eta \sigma_s^{*} + C \eta \sigma_s^{*} D \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) D \nonumber.
\end{align}
Here, (i) is obtained by choosing the constant $C_{\mathrm{\tau}}$ large enough. This then completes the proof for the bound on $\Delta_{s}^{t+1}.$
The bound on $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|$ is a direct consequence of the bound on $\Delta_{s}^{t+1}$ and \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}. Recall that $\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} = \sum_{s=1}^{r} \Delta_{s}^{t+1}$ by \cref{eq:delta-t-s-tau}. Then, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|
&\leq \left|\sum_{s=1}^{r} \Delta_{s}^{t+1}\right|+ \left|\frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right| \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \left|\sum_{s=1}^{r} \Delta_{s}^{t+1}\right| + C \frac{\sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \sum_{s=1}^{r} C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(C_0 + b_s r\log(n)\right) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) + C \frac{\sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left( rC_0 + \left(1 - \frac{C_{r_1}}{\log(n)}\right) r\log(n)\right) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad + C \frac{\sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
$\left|\frac{\inner{Z}{E}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right| \leq C\frac{\sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}$ and (ii) is due to $\sum_{s=1}^{r} b_s \leq 1 - C_{r_1}/\log(n)$ by \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}. Note that $rC_0 + \left(1 - \frac{C_{r_1}}{\log(n)}\right) r\log(n) = rC_0 + r\log(n) - rC_{r_1}$ and choose $C_0 \leq C_{r_1} / 2$, we have
\begin{align}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t+1} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|
&\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left(rC_0 + r\log(n) - rC_{r_1}\right) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \nonumber\\
&\quad + C \frac{\sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C_{\mathrm{\tau}} r\log(n) \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{ \sigma
\log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \nonumber\\
&\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} + C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \frac{ \sigma
\log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is obtained by choosing $C_0 \leq C_{r_1} / 2$ and $C_{\mathrm{\tau}}$ large enough. This completes the proof for
\cref{eq:tau-taustar}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:taus-taustars-A0}]
Recall that we want to show
\begin{align*}
\norm{H^{t} - H^{t+1}}_{\F} &\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n))
\end{align*}
where $H^{t} = \arg\min_{A\in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F^{t}A - F^{*}}_{\F}, H^{t+1} = \arg\min_{A\in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F^{t+1}A - F^{*}}_{\F}$ with
$F^{t+1} = [X^{t+1}; Y^{t+1}]$ and
\begin{align*}
X^{t+1} &= X^{t} - \eta ((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y^{t} +\lambda X^{t})\\
Y^{t+1} &= Y^{t} - \eta ((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X^{t} +\lambda Y^{t}).
\end{align*}
The proof is similar to section D.4 in \cite{chen2019noisy}. We intend to invoke \cref{lem:F0-F1-F2} to control $\norm{H^{t} - H^{t+1}}_{\F}.$ However, $\norm{F^{t} - F^{t+1}}_{\F}$ is too large to provide the desired bounds. We tackle this by constructing an auxiliary point $\tilde{F}^{t+1}$ such that (i) $H^{t}$ is also the optimal rotation to align
$\tilde{F}^{t+1}$ and $F^{*}$ and (ii) $\norm{\tilde{F}^{t+1} - F^{t+1}}_{\F} \ll \norm{F^{t} - F^{t+1}}_{\F}.$
In particular, we construct the auxiliary point $\tilde{F}^{t+1} := \begin{bmatrix} \tilde{X}^{t+1}\\ \tilde{Y}^{t+1} \end{bmatrix}$ by substituting some of $X^{t}, Y^{t}$ in $F^{t+1}$ with $X^{*}H^{t \top}, Y^{*}H^{t \top}$ in the following
\begin{align}
\tilde{X}^{t+1} = X^{t} - \eta ((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y^{*}H^{t \top} +\lambda X^{*}H^{t \top})\nonumber\\
\tilde{Y}^{t+1} = Y^{t} - \eta ((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X^{*}H^{t \top} +\lambda Y^{*}H^{t \top}).\nonumber
\end{align}
We then claim that $H^{t}$ is also the optimal rotation to align $\tilde{F}^{t+1}$ and $F^{*}$:
$$
\norm{\tilde{F}^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F} \leq \min_{A\in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{\tilde{F}^{t+1}A - F^{*}}_{\F}.
$$
To verify this, by the property of Orthogonal Procrustes problem (\cref{lem:orthogonal-procrustes}), it is sufficient to show that $F^{* \top} \tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t}$ is symmetric and positive semi-definite. The symmetry can be verified by direct algebra:
\begin{align*}
F^{* \top} \tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t}
&= X^{*\top}\tilde{X}^{t+1}H^{t}+Y^{*\top}\tilde{Y}^{t+1}H^{t}\\
&= X^{*\top}X^{t}H^{t} - \eta X^{*\top} (X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y^{*} - \eta \lambda X^{*\top}X^{*} \\
&\quad + Y^{*\top}Y^{t}H^{t} - \eta Y^{*\top}(X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X^{*} - \eta \lambda Y^{*\top}Y^{*}\\
&= F^{*\top}F^{t}H^{t} - \eta \lambda X^{*\top}X^{*} - \eta \lambda Y^{*\top}Y^{*} - \eta B_0
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
B_0 &:= (X^{*\top} (X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y^{*} \\
&\quad + Y^{*\top}(X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E +
(\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)^{\top}X^{*}).
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that $X^{*\top}X^{*}, Y^{*\top}Y^{*}$ are symmetric, together with $B_0 = B_0^{\top}$. Furthermore, note $H^{t}$ is the optimal rotation for aligning $F^{t}$ and
$F^{*}$ by definition. Then, by \cref{lem:orthogonal-procrustes}, $F^{*\top}F^{t}H^{t}$ is also symmetric. This leads to the result that $F^{* \top} \tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t}$ is symmetric.
To verify the positive semi-definiteness, it is easy to check that
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{* \top}\tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t} - F^{* \top} F^{*}}
&\leq \norm{F^{* \top}} \norm{\tilde{F}^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{*}} \\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*} + \eta \delta} \\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \sigma_{\min}.
\end{align*}
Here, $\delta$ in (i) represents the term with coefficient $\eta$; and (ii) is due to \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm} and that we choose $\eta$ being sufficiently small.
Also note that $\lambda_{\min}(F^{*\top}F^{*}) = 2\sigma_{\min}.$ By Weyl's inequality, this implies that the positive semi-definiteness of $F^{* \top}\tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t}$.
\begin{align}
\lambda_{\min}(F^{* \top}\tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t}) \geq 2\sigma_{\min} - \norm{F^{* \top}\tilde{F}^{t+1} H^{t} - F^{* \top} F^{*}} > 0.\nonumber
\end{align}
Then, we can invoke \cref{lem:F0-F1-F2} to bound $\norm{H^{t} - H^{t+1}}.$ Let $F_0 = F^{*}, F_1 = \tilde{F}^{t+1}, F_2 = F^{t+1}.$ Recall that
$\lambda \lesssim \sigma\sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)$, $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$, $|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n)$ and
$$
\norm{X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*}} \lesssim \norm{F^{*} - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sigma_{\max} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n) \kappa.
$$
Then
\begin{align}
\norm{F_2 - F_1}_{\F} \nonumber
&\lesssim \eta \norm{F^{*} - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F}\left(\lambda + \norm{X^{t}Y^{tT}-M^{*}-E+(\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z}\right)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \norm{F^{*} - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F} (\lambda + \norm{X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*}} + \norm{E} + |\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\norm{Z}) \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)).\nonumber
\end{align}
Then by \cref{lem:F0-F1-F2}, we have
\begin{align}
\norm{H^{t} - H^{t+1}}_{\F}
&\leq \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F_2 - F_1}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n))\nonumber.
\end{align}
This completes the control for $H^{t} - H^{t+1}.$
Next, to control $A_0$, recall that $A_0 = \frac{\inner{Z}{(X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top} - (X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$. Then, we have
\begin{align}
|A_0|
&\leq \left|\frac{\inner{Z}{(X^{t+1}H^{t})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top} - (X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right| \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|\inner{Z}{(X^{t+1}H^{t} - X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s^{\top}}| \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|\inner{Z}{(X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}(Y^{t+1}H^{t} - Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s^{\top}}| \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{(X^{t+1}H^{t} - X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s}_{\infty}\norm{(Y^{t+1}H^{t})_s}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{(X^{t+1}H^{t+1})_{s}}_{\infty}\norm{(Y^{t+1}H^{t} - Y^{t+1}H^{t+1})_s}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{X^{t+1}(H^{t} - H^{t+1})}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y^{t+1}H^{t}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{X^{t+1}H^{t+1}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y^{t+1}(H^{t}-H^{t+1})}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\lesssim} \norm{X^{t+1}}_{2,\infty} \norm{H^{t}-H^{t+1}} \norm{Y^{t+1}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2 \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n))\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \sigma^2 \log^{6}(n) \kappa^3 \mu^2 r^4.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \left|\inner{Z}{ab^{\top}}\right| \leq \norm{ab^{\top}}_{\infty} \leq \norm{a}_{\infty}\norm{b}_{\infty}$ for any $a, b \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$,
(ii) is due to $\norm{(A)_{s}}_{\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty}$ for any $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$, and (iii) is due to $\norm{AH}_{2,\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty} \norm{H}$ for any matrices $A$ and $H$. This completes the proof for $A_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:taus-control-B}]
Recall that we hope to show with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_0| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min} \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_1| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_2| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_3| &\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*} \nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
B_0 &= \inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*} + (\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z) \left(y_s y^{\top}_{s}-y^{*}_{s}y^{*\top}_{s}\right)}\\
B_1 &= \inner{Z}{\lambda x_s y_s^{\top}}\\
B_2 &= \inner{Z}{-E y_s y^{\top}_s}\\
B_3 &= \inner{Z}{X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s}.
\end{align*}
To control $B_0$, consider
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_0|
&\leq \underbrace{\left|\frac{\inner{Z}{(XY^{\top}-M^{*})(y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top})}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right|}_{D_0} + \underbrace{\left|\frac{\inner{Z}{(\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z(y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top})}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right|}_{D_1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Note that $y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top} = y_s^{*}(y_s-y_s^{*})^{\top} + (y_s-y_s^{*})y_s^{\top}.$ Then
\begin{align*}
\norm{y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top}}_{\F}
&\leq (\norm{Y^{*}}+\norm{Y})\norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\leq \sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)\kappa r^{0.5}.
\end{align*}
This implies
\begin{align}
D_1
&\leq |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \frac{\norm{ZZ^{\top}}_{\F}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \norm{y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)\kappa r^{0.5}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\frac{\norm{ZZ^{\top}}_{\F}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \leq \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}\norm{Z^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \leq 1.$
Also, by $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|\inner{Z}{A}| \leq \norm{A}_{\infty}$, one can verify that
\begin{align*}
D_0
&\leq \norm{(XY^{\top}-M^{*})(y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top})}_{\infty} \\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{XY^{\top}-M^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{y_sy_s^{\top} - y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\leq \norm{(X-X^{*})Y^{*\top} + X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}_{2,\infty} \norm{y_s^{*}(y_s-y_s^{*})^{\top} + (y_s-y_s^{*})y_s^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} (\norm{X-X^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y^{*}} + \norm{X}_{2,\infty}\norm{Y-Y^{*}}) \\
&\quad \cdot (\norm{Y^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y-Y^{*}} + \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y}).
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is by $\norm{AB^{\top}}_{\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty}\norm{B}_{2,\infty}$ for any matrices $A,B$, (ii) is by the triangle inequality and $\norm{AB}_{2,\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty} \norm{B}.$ Recall that
\begin{align*}
\max(\norm{X-X^{*}}_{2,\infty}, \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{2,\infty}) &\leq \norm{F-F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5}
\kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
\max(\norm{X}, \norm{Y}, \norm{X^{*}}, \norm{Y^{*}}) &\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\\
\max(\norm{X-X^{*}}, \norm{Y-Y^{*}}) &\leq \norm{F-F^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
\max(\norm{X}_{2,\infty}, \norm{Y}_{2,\infty}) &\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}}.
\end{align*}
We then have
\begin{align}
D_0
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5}
\kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} + \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5}
\kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\right)^2 \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \left(\sigma \mu r^{3} \kappa^2 \log^{3.5}(n)\right)^2\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \log^{7}(n) \kappa^4.\nonumber
\end{align}
This completes the bound for $B_0$ below.
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_0|
&\leq |D_0| + |D_1| \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \log^{7}(n) \kappa^4 + |\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)\kappa r^{0.5}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \log^{7}(n) \kappa^4 + \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\sigma\sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)\kappa r^{0.5} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma \mu r^{1.5} \log^{2}(n) \kappa \cdot (\sigma \kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{\kappa^2 r^{4}\log^{2.5}(n)} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n) \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \mu \log(n)}{\kappa r^{1.5}} \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma}{r^2\kappa^4\log(n)\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n) \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{0.5}(n)}{r\norm{Z}_{\F}} \sigma_{\min} \nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) and (ii) are due to that $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$.
Next, consider $B_1$. Recall that $B_1 = \inner{Z}{\lambda x_s y_s^{\top}}$. We can directly obtain the desired bound $ \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_1| \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}$ by the following.
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_1| &\leq \norm{x_s}_{\infty} \norm{y_s}_{\infty} \lambda \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \lambda \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty}^2\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \sigma_{\max} \frac{\mu r}{n}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \mu r \log^{1.5}(n) \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\max}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Next, consider $B_2$. Recall that $B_2 = \inner{Z}{-E y_s y^{\top}_s}$ and we aim to show $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_2| \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}$. Note that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_2| \leq \norm{Ey_s}_{\infty} \norm{y_s}_{\infty}. \nonumber
\end{align}
To bound $\norm{Ey_s}_{\infty}$, let $y_s^{(l)}$ be the $s$-th column of $F^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)}$ for $l \in [n]$. Let $E_{l,\cdot} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$ be the $l$-th row of $E$. Then with probability $1-O(n^{-{10}^7})$
\begin{align*}
|(Ey_s)_{l}|
&= |E_{l,\cdot} y_s|\\
&\leq |E_{l,\cdot} y_s^{(l)}| + |E_{l,\cdot} (y_s^{(l)}-y_s)|\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma\norm{y_s^{(l)}}\log^{0.5}(n) + \norm{E_{l,\cdot}} \norm{y_s^{(l)} - y_s}\\
&\lesssim \sigma \norm{F^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)}} \log^{0.5}(n) + \norm{E} \norm{F^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to independence between $E_{l,\cdot}$ and $y_s^{(l)}$ (Recall that the update of $F^{t,(l)}$ is independent from the $l$-th row of noise matrix $E$) and Hoeffding's inequality.
Recall that $\norm{F^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)}} \lesssim \norm{F^{*}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$, $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma\sqrt{n}$, and $\norm{F^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - F^{t}H^{t}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$, we then have
\begin{align*}
|(Ey_s)_{l}|
&\leq \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n) + \sigma \sqrt{n}\frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n) + \sigma \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \sqrt{r}}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n) + \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n).
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }.$ Then this directly implies
\begin{align*}
\norm{Ey_s}_{\infty} = \max_{l \in [n]} |(Ey_s)_{l}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n).
\end{align*}
Therefore, we can obtain the desired bound for $B_2$ by the following.
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_2|
&\leq \norm{Ey_s}_{\infty} \norm{y_s}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \log^{0.5}(n) \sqrt{\frac{\mu r \sigma_{\max}}{n}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{\min}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Finally, for $B_3$, recall that $B_3 = \inner{Z}{X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}y^{*}_sy^{*\top}_s}.$ We can obtain the desired bound $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_3| \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{1.5}\kappa \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \sigma_{s}^{*}$ by the following.
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}|B_3|
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{X(Y-Y^{*})^{\top}}_{2,\infty} \norm{y_s^{*}y_s^{*\top}}_{2,\infty}\nonumber \\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \norm{X}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y-Y^{*}} \norm{y_s^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{y_s^{*}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sigma_{s}^{*} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \kappa r^{1.5} \log^{2.5}(n) \mu \frac{\sigma_{s}^{*}}{\sqrt{n}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to $\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} |\inner{Z}{AB^{\top}}| \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty}\norm{B}_{2,\infty}$ for any matrices $A, B$, and (ii) is due to $\norm{AB}_{2,\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty}\norm{B}$ for any matrices $A, B$. This completes the proof of the bounds for $B_0, B_1, B_2, B_3$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:FH-FlRl})}
Recall that we aim to obtain $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1, (l)} R^{t+1, (l)}}_{\F} \leq C_{l,1} \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.$
We will show the proof for $1\leq l \leq n$ below. The scenario that $n< l \leq 2n$ is similar and omitted for brevity.
Note that $R^{t+1,(l)}$ is the optimal rotation to align $F^{t+1,(l)}$ and $F^{t+1}H^{t+1}$. In fact, we have
$$
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t+1,(l)}}_{\F} \leq \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}}_{\F}.
$$
Otherwise, by contradiction, suppose we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t+1,(l)}}_{\F}
&> \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t}(H^{tT}H^{t+1}) - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}(H^{tT}H^{t+1})}_{\F}\\
&= \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}H^{tT}H^{t+1}}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to the unitary invariance of the $\norm{\cdot}_{\F}$. This contradicts with that $R^{t+1,(l)} = \arg\min_{A \in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1,(l)}A}$. Hence we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t+1,(l)}}_{\F} \leq \norm{F^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Then it is sufficient to control $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t} - F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}}_{\F}.$
First consider $\norm{X^{t+1}H^{t} - X^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)}}_{\F}.$ Recall the updating rule for $X^{t+1}$ and $X^{t+1, (l)}$ is
\begin{align*}
X^{t+1} &= X^{t} - \eta \left((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z) Y^{t} + \lambda X^{t}\right) \\
X^{t+1, (l)} &= X^{t,(l)} - \eta \left((X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z) Y^{t,(l)} + \lambda X^{t,(l)}\right)
\end{align*}
We then have
\begin{align}
&X^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - X^{t+1}H^{t}\nonumber\\
&= \left( X^{t,(l)} - \eta \left((X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z) Y^{t,(l)} + \lambda X^{t,(l)}\right) \right)R^{t,(l)}\nonumber\\
&\quad - \left( X^{t} - \eta \left((X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z) Y^{t} + \lambda X^{t}\right) \right) H^{t}\nonumber \\
&= X^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - \eta \left(X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{t})Z\right) Y^{t,(l)} R^{t,(l)} \nonumber\\
&\quad - \eta \lambda X^{t,(l)} R^{t,(l)} - \left(X^{t}H^{t} - \eta (X^{t}Y^{tT} - M^{*} - E + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z) Y^{t} H^{t} - \eta \lambda X^{t}H^{t}\right) \nonumber\\
&= (1-\eta \lambda) (X^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - X^{t}H^{t}) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \eta \underbrace{(X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z)\left(Y^{t}H^{t} -
Y^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)} \right)}_{A_0}\nonumber\\
&\quad - \eta \left(X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - X^{t}Y^{tT} + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{t})Z\right) Y^{t} H^{t}\nonumber.
\end{align}
To simplify the rotation, we write $X^{t}H^{t}, Y^{t}H^{t}, F^{t}H^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t}$ as $X, Y, F, \mathrm{\tau}$ if there is no ambiguity. Also, we write $X^{t,(l)}R^{t}, Y^{t,(l)}R^{t}, F^{t,(l)}R^{t}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}$ as $X^{(l)}, Y^{(l)}, F^{(l)}, \mathrm{\tau}^{(l)}$ . Furthermore, we write $\Delta_{X} = X^{(l)} - X, \Delta_{Y} = Y^{(l)} - Y, \Delta_{F} = F^{(l)} - F.$ We have the following claim to control $A_0$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FH-FlRl-Control-A0}
With probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
\begin{align}
\norm{A_0}_{\F} \lesssim \sigma \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Then
\begin{align}
&\norm{X^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - X^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&= \norm{(1-\eta \lambda) \Delta_{X} - \eta \left(\left(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top}-XY^{\top} + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau})Z\right) Y-A_0\right)}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&= (1-\eta \lambda)^2 \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2 + A_1\nonumber\\
&\quad - 2(1-\eta \lambda) \eta \underbrace{\inner{\Delta_{X}}{\left(\left(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top}-XY^{\top} + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau})Z\right) Y-A_0\right)}}_{A_2}\nonumber
\end{align}
where $A_1$ includes the term with coefficient $\eta^2$:
\begin{align}
A_1 := \eta^2 \norm{\left(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top}-XY^{\top} + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau})Z\right) Y-A_0}_{\F}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
Since we choose $\eta$ sufficiently small, one can verify that $A_1 \lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}$ (similar as \cref{eq:A3-sigma-square}).
Then, we proceed to analyze $A_2$. Note that
\begin{align}
A_2
&= \inner{\Delta_{X}}{(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - XY^{\top})Y} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}) \inner{\Delta_X}{ZY} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \underbrace{\inner{\Delta_{X}}{P_{l}(E)Y}}_{B_0} - \inner{\Delta_X}{A_0}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} \inner{X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - XY^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}} + \frac{\inner{Z}{XY^{\top} - X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} }\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\nonumber \\
&\quad + \underbrace{\frac{\inner{Z}{-P_{l}(E)}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}}_{B_1} + B_0 - \inner{\Delta_{X}}{A_0}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} \inner{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}} +
\underbrace{\inner{\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}_{B_2} \nonumber\\
&\quad - \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\nonumber\\
&\quad -\underbrace{\frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}}_{B_3} + B_1 + B_0 -\inner{\Delta_{X}}{A_0}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau} &= \frac{\inner{Z}{O-X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top}-P_{l}(E)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} - \frac{\inner{Z}{O-XY^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \\
&= \frac{\inner{Z}{XY^{\top}-X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top}-P_{l}(E)}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2},
\end{align*} and (ii) is due to
$X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - XY^{\top} = \Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top} + \Delta_X \Delta_{Y}^{\top}.$
We have the following claim to control $B_0, B_1, B_2$ and $B_3$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FHl-Control-B}
With probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
\begin{align}
|B_0| &\lesssim \sigma \log^{0.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
|B_1| &\lesssim \sigma \log^{0.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|B_2| &\lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
|B_3| &\lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Then, note that $\eta$ is choosing sufficiently small where $\eta \lambda \ll 1$, we have (for some constant $C$)
\begin{align}
&\norm{X^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - X^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&= (1-\eta \lambda)^2 \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2 + A_1 - 2(1-\eta \lambda)\eta A_2\nonumber\\
&= (1-\eta \lambda)^2 \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2 + A_1 - 2(1-\eta \lambda) \eta (B_0 + B_1 + B_2 - B_3 - \inner{\Delta_{X}}{A_0}) \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2(1-\eta \lambda)\eta \left(\inner{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}} - \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right) \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F}^2 + \eta C \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\quad - 2(1-\eta \lambda)\eta \left(\inner{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}} - \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
By the symmetry, we can similarly obtain the results for $Y^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - Y^{t+1}H^{t}$
\begin{align}
&\norm{Y^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - Y^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F}^2 + \eta C \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2(1-\eta \lambda)\eta \left(\inner{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{X\Delta_Y^{\top}} - \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{X\Delta_Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
Together implies that
\begin{align}
&\norm{F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 + 2\eta C \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2(1-\eta \lambda)\eta\left( \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\left(\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}\right)^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right) \nonumber.
\end{align}
Let $T$ be the tangent space of $XY^{\top}$. We have (for some constant $C'$)
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\left(\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}\right)^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \\
&= \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\inner{P_{T}(Z)}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\\
&\geq \norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \left(1 - \frac{\norm{P_{T}(Z)}_{\F}^2}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right)\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \frac{C'}{\log(n)}\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Here (i) is due to the implication of \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} for $(X, Y)$ (by \cref{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}).
Then we have the following claim. The proof is similar to the analysis in \cref{claim:XDeltaY-lower-bound} by using the property that $\norm{X^{(l)\top}X - Y^{(l)\top}Y}_{\F}\lesssim \frac{\sigma}{n^{15}}$ (similar to \cref{eq:XX-YY}). We omit the proof for the brevity.
\begin{claim}
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top} + X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}_{\F}^2 \geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{4}\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{13}}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Then, we have
\begin{align}
&\norm{F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^2\left(1 - \eta \frac{C'\sigma_{\min}}{4\log(n)}\right) + 2\eta \frac{C'\sigma^2}{\log(n)n^{13}} + 2\eta C \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left(C_1 \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2 - \eta \underbrace{\frac{C'\sigma_{\min}}{4\log(n)}\left(C_1 \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2}_{K_1}\nonumber\\
&\quad + \eta \underbrace{2\frac{C'\sigma^2}{\log(n)n^{13}}}_{K_2} + \eta \underbrace{2C\left(C_1 \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)\sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}}_{K_3}\nonumber.
\end{align}
In order to show $\norm{F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(C_1 \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2$, it is sufficient to show that $K_1 \geq K_2 + K_3.$ Take $C_1\geq 4+8\frac{C}{C'}$, one can verify that
\begin{align*}
K_1 - K_2
&= \left(\frac{C'C_1}{4} - 2C\right)\left(C_1 \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right) \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\geq 2C' \frac{\sigma^2 \log^{2}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}^2\\
&\geq 2C' \sigma^2 \log^2(n) \kappa\\
&\geq K_3.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof for \cref{eq:FH-FlRl}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:FH-FlRl-Control-A0}]
Recall that we want to show $|A_0| \lesssim \sigma \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $A_0 = (X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}) Z)\left(Y^{t}H^{t} - Y^{t,(l)}R^{t,(l)}\right)$.
In fact, we have the following bounds for leave-one-out sequences similar to \cref{eq:tau-taustar} and \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm}. The proof is exactly the same by viewing $E - P_{l}(E)$ as the noise. We omit it for brevity.
\begin{align}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| &\lesssim \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\nonumber\\
\norm{F^{(l)}H^{(l)} - F^{*}}_{\F} &\lesssim C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} .\nonumber
\end{align}
Then, with probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$,
\begin{align}
|A_0|
&\leq \left(\norm{X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - M^{*}} + \norm{E} + \norm{Z} |\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\right) \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim (\norm{F^{(l)}H^{(l)} - F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}} + \sigma \sqrt{n} + \sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n))\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim (\sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n) \kappa r + \sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)) \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
providing that $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$ and $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:FHl-Control-B}]
For $B_0$, recall that we want to show $|B_0| \lesssim \sigma\log^{0.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_0 = \inner{\Delta_{X}}{P_{l}(E)Y}$. With probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$, we have
\begin{align}
|B_0|
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F} \norm{P_{l}(E) Y^{(l)}}_{\F} + \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F} \norm{P_{l}(E)} \norm{Y-Y^{(l)}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{\F} \norm{P_{l}(E)} \norm{Y-Y^{(l)}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \sqrt{n} \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \sigma \log^{0.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to the independence between $P_{l}(E)$ and $Y^{(l)}$ and the Hanson-Wright inequality \cite{rudelson2013hanson}.
For $B_1$, recall that we want to show $|B_1| \lesssim \sigma \log^{0.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_1 = \frac{\inner{Z}{-P_{l}(E)}\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$. With probability $1-O(n^{-10^{7}})$, we have
$$
|\inner{Z}{P_{l}(E)}| \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\log(n)} \norm{P_{l}(Z)}_{\F}
$$ by the Hoeffding's inequality, hence
\begin{align}
|B_1|
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\log(n)} \norm{P_{l}(Z)}_{\F} \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{\log(n)}\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
For $B_2$, recall that we want to show $|B_2| \lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_2 = \inner{\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}$. We have
\begin{align}
|B_2|
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^3 \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \frac{\sigma^2 \log^{3}(n) r \kappa }{\sigma_{\min}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
For $B_3$, recall that we want to show $|B_3| \lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_3 = \frac{\inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}} \inner{Z}{\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}.$ Similar to $B_2$, we have
\begin{align}
|B_3|
&\lesssim \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F}^3 \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
This completes the proof for $B_0, B_1, B_2, B_3.$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:FlHl-Fstar}) and (\ref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm})}
Recall that we want to show (\cref{eq:FlHl-Fstar})
$$
\max_{1\leq l\leq 2n} \norm{(F^{t+1, (l)}H^{t+1, (l)} - F^{*})_{l, \cdot}}_{2} \leq C_{l,2} \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}
$$ and $\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1} - F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \leq C_{\infty}\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ (\cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}).
For \cref{eq:FlHl-Fstar}, we consider $1 \leq l \leq n$, where the scenario $n+1\leq l \leq 2n$ is similar. By triangle inequality,
\begin{align}
\norm{(F^{t+1, (l)}H^{t+1, (l)} - F^{*})_{l, \cdot}}_{2}
&\leq \norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot}}_{2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \underbrace{\norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}(H^{t,(l)} - H^{t+1,(l)}))_{l,\cdot}}_{2}}_{T_0}.\nonumber
\end{align}
We have the following claim.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FlHl-Fstar-Control-T0}
\begin{align}
|T_0| \lesssim \eta \sigma \mu^{0.5} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
For $(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot}$, note that
\begin{align}
&(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot} \nonumber\\
&= (X^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - X^{*})_{l,\cdot} \nonumber\\
&= (X^{t, (l)}H^{t,(l)} - X^{*})_{l,\cdot}\nonumber \\
&\quad - \eta ((X^{t,(l)}Y^{t,(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)Y^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)} + \lambda X^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)})_{l,\cdot}.\nonumber
\end{align}
For simplifying the notation, we write $X^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)}, Y^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)}$ as $X^{(l)}, Y^{(l)}$ and $F^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)}, \mathrm{\tau}^{t,(l)}$ as $F^{(l)}, \mathrm{\tau}^{(l)}$. Furthermore, we write $\Delta_{X} = X^{(l)} - X^{*}, \Delta_{Y} = Y^{(l)} - Y^{*}, \Delta_{F} = F^{(l)} - F^{*}$. Then, we have
\begin{align}
&\norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot}}_{2}^2\nonumber\\
&=\norm{(\Delta_X)_{l,\cdot}}_2^2 +A_0 \nonumber\\
&\quad - 2\eta \underbrace{\inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)} + \lambda X_{l,\cdot}}}_{A_1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
where $A_0$ includes the term with $\eta^2$:
\begin{align}
A_0 := \eta^2 \norm{(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - M^{*} - E + P_{l}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z)_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)} + \lambda X_{l,\cdot}}_{2}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
Since we choose $\eta$ sufficiently small, one can verify that $|A_0| \lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma^2}{n^{15}}$ (similar to \cref{eq:A3-sigma-square}).
Next, consider $A_1$. Note that $(P_{l}(E) - E)_{l,\cdot} = 0$, then
\begin{align}
A_1
&= \inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(X^{(l)}Y^{(l)\top} - M^{*})_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)}} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \underbrace{\inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z_{l,\cdot} Y^{(l)}}}_{B_0}
+ \underbrace{\inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{\lambda X_{l,\cdot}}}_{B_1}\nonumber\\
&= \underbrace{\inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(\Delta_{X}Y^{(l)\top})_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)}}}_{B_2} + \underbrace{\inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)}}}_{B_3}
+ B_0 + B_1.\nonumber
\end{align}
Note that
\begin{align}
B_2
&= {\rm tr}((\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}^{\top}(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot} Y^{(l)\top} Y^{(l)})\nonumber\\
&= {\rm tr}((\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}^{\top}(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot} (Y^{(l)\top} Y^{(l)}-\sigma_r(Y^{(l)\top} Y^{(l)}) I_{r})) + \sigma_{r}(Y^{(l)\top} Y^{(l)}){\rm tr}((\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}^{\top}(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot})\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \sigma_{r}(Y^{(l)\top} Y^{(l)}){\rm tr}((\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}^{\top}(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot})\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\geq} \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} \norm{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}_2^2. \nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is due to ${\rm tr}(AB) \geq 0$ if $A,B$ are positive semi-definite matrices, (ii) is due to $\sigma_{r}(Y^{(l)}) \geq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}.$ We also have the following claim for controlling $B_0, B_1$ and $B_3$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:FlHl-Fstar-Control-B}
\begin{align}
|B_0| &\lesssim \sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
|B_1| &\lesssim \sigma r^{0.5} \mu^{0.5} \kappa^{0.5} \log^{1.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
|B_3| &\lesssim \sigma \kappa r^{1.5} \mu^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n) \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{claim}
Finally, take $C_2 > 4C$ large enough and note that $\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$, we arrive at
\begin{align}
&\norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot}}_{2}^2\nonumber\\
&=\norm{(\Delta_X)_{l,\cdot}}_2^2 +A_0 - 2\eta A_1\nonumber\\
&= \norm{(\Delta_X)_{l,\cdot}}_2^2 - 2\eta (B_2 + B_3 + B_0 + B_1) + A_0\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{(\Delta_X)_{l,\cdot}}_2^2 - 2\eta \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} \norm{(\Delta_X)_{l,\cdot}}_2^2 + C\eta \sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2 (1-\eta \sigma_{\min})\nonumber\\
&\quad + C\eta \left(C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\kappa\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right)^2 \left(1 - \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{4}\eta \right)^2\nonumber.
\end{align}
Furthermore
\begin{align}
&\norm{(F^{t+1, (l)}H^{t+1, (l)} - F^{*})_{l, \cdot}}_{2} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t,(l)} - F^{*})_{l,\cdot}}_{2} + T_0\nonumber\\
&\leq \left(C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\right) \left(1 - \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{4}\eta \right) + C\eta \sigma \mu^{0.5} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\leq C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
This completes the proof for \cref{eq:FlHl-Fstar}.
Then, for \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}, note that by triangle inequality, for each $l \in [n]$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}
&\leq \norm{F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t+1,(l)} - F^{*}}_{2,\infty} + \norm{F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t+1,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t+1}}_{\F}\\
&\leq C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t+1,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t+1}}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
Then it is sufficient to consider $\norm{F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t+1,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t+1}}_{\F}$. Take $F_0 = F^{*}, F_1 = F^{t+1}H^{t+1}, F_2 = F^{t+1,(l)}R^{t+1,(l)}$. By \cref{lem:F0-F1-F2} and the definition of $H^{t+1}, H^{t+1,(l)}$ and $R^{t+1,(l)}$, we then have
\begin{align}
\norm{F^{t+1,(l)}H^{t+1,(l)} - F^{t+1}H^{t+1}}_{\F}
&\leq \norm{F_1 - F_2}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \kappa \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \label{eq:FtlHtl-FtHt-Fnorm}.
\end{align}
This implies, for large enough $n$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t+1}H^{t+1}-F^{*}}_{2,\infty}
&\leq C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} + C\kappa \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\leq 2C_2 \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:FlHl-Fstar-Control-T0}]
Recall that we want to show $|T_0| \lesssim \eta \sigma \mu^{0.5} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where
$$
T_0 = \norm{(F^{t+1,(l)}(H^{t,(l)} - H^{t+1,(l)}))_{l,\cdot}}_{2}.
$$
Note that
\begin{align}
|T_0| &\lesssim \norm{F^{t+1,(l)}}_{2,\infty} \norm{H^{t,(l)}-H^{t+1,(l)}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \norm{H^{t,(l)}-H^{t+1,(l)}}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n))\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \sigma^2 \sqrt{n} \mu^{1.5} r^{4} \kappa^{2.5} \log^{5}(n) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma^2 \sqrt{n} \mu^{1.5} r^{4.5} \kappa^{2.5} \log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \eta \sigma \mu^{0.5} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
where (i) is by the bound of
\begin{align}
\norm{H^{t,(l)}-H^{t+1,(l)}}_{\F} \lesssim \eta \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} (\sigma \sqrt{n} \mu r^{3} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n)).\nonumber
\end{align}
This proof of the bound of $\norm{H^{t,(l)}-H^{t+1,(l)}}_{\F}$ is exactly the same as the \cref{claim:taus-taustars-A0} by viewing $E - P_{l}(E)$ as the noise matrix, where we omit for the brevity.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:FlHl-Fstar-Control-B}]
For $B_0$, recall that we want to show
$$
B_0 \lesssim \sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}
$$
where $B_0 = \inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})Z_{l,\cdot} Y^{(l)}}.$ We have
\begin{align}
|B_0|
&\leq |\mathrm{\tau}^{(l)} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{ZY^{(l)}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty}
\norm{Z}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5}(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right) \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty}
\min(\norm{Z}_{\F}, \sqrt{n}) \norm{Y^{*}}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \mu r^{2.5} \log^{3.5}(n) \kappa \norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
For $B_1$, recall that we want to show $B_1 \lesssim \sigma r^{0.5} \mu^{0.5} \kappa^{0.5} \log^{1.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_1 = \inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{\lambda X_{l,\cdot}}.$ We have
\begin{align}
|B_1|
&\leq \lambda \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{X}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n) \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma r^{0.5} \mu^{0.5} \kappa^{0.5} \log^{1.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \sqrt{\sigma_{\min} r} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma r^{0.5} \mu^{0.5} \kappa^{0.5} \log^{1.5}(n)\norm{\Delta_{F}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
For $B_3$, recall that we want to show $B_3 \lesssim \sigma \kappa r^{1.5} \mu^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n) \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}$ where $B_3 = \inner{(\Delta_{X})_{l,\cdot}}{(X^{*}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})_{l,\cdot}Y^{(l)}}.$ We have
\begin{align}
|B_3|
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{X^{*} \Delta_{Y}^{\top} Y^{(l)}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{X^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{\Delta_{Y}}_{\F} \norm{Y^{(l)}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \kappa r^{1.5} \mu^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n) \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{F^{*}}_{\F}.\nonumber
\end{align}
This completes the proof for $B_0, B_1, B_3.$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:PTM-bound})}
Let $T$ be the tangent space of $X^{t}Y^{tT}$. Recall we want to show $\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} \leq C_{T,1}\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}$.
Let $X = X^{t}H^{t}, Y = Y^{t}H^{t}, \Delta_{X} = X - X^{*}, \Delta_{Y} = Y - Y^{*}$ if there is no ambiguity. Then $T = \text{span}\{XA^{\top} + BY^{\top}~|~A, B\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}\}.$
Note that we have
\begin{align*}
P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})
&= P_{T^{\perp}}(X^{*}Y^{*\top})\\
&= P_{T^{\perp}}((X-\Delta_{X})(Y-\Delta_{Y})^{\top})\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} P_{T^{\perp}}(\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $P_{T^{\perp}}(XY^{\top}) = P_{T^{\perp}}(\Delta_{X}Y^{\top}) = P_{T^{\perp}}(X\Delta_{Y}^{\top}) = 0.$
Let $U\Sigma V^{\top}$ be the SVD of $XY^{\top}$. We also have that $U^{*}\Sigma^{*}V^{*\top}$ is the SVD of $X^{*}Y^{*\top}.$ By \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm}, \cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}, and \cref{eq:XX-YY}, we can invoke \cref{lem:XY-UV} and obtain that there exists a rotation matrix $R \in \O^{r\times r}$ such that
\begin{align}
\max(\norm{UR - U^{*}}_{\F}, \norm{VR - V^{*}}_{\F}) &\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \label{eq:UR-Ustar-Fnorm}\\
\max(\norm{UR - U^{*}}_{2,\infty}, \norm{VR - V^{*}}_{2,\infty}) &\lesssim \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}. \label{eq:UR-2-infty-bound}
\end{align}
Then consider
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty}
&= \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top})}_{\infty} \\
&= \norm{(I-UU^{\top})\Delta_{X}\Delta_{Y}^{\top}(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty}\\
&\leq \norm{(I-UU^{\top})\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} \norm{(I-VV^{\top})\Delta_{Y}}_{2,\infty}.
\end{align*}
From \cref{eq:UR-2-infty-bound}, we have $\norm{U}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \norm{U^{*}}_{2,\infty} + \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}}$ due to the incoherence condition and $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$. Then
\begin{align*}
\norm{(I-UU^{\top})\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty}
&\leq \norm{\Delta_{X}}_{2,\infty} + \norm{U}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{\top}} \norm{\Delta_{X}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{3}\kappa \log^{3.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}}{\sigma_{\min}} + \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{3}\kappa^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n) }{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, one can also obtain that $\norm{(I-VV^{\top})\Delta_{Y}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{3}\kappa^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n) }{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}.$ This completes the proof for \cref{eq:PTM-bound}:
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty}
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{3}\kappa^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n) }{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}\cdot \frac{\sigma \mu r^{3}\kappa^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n) }{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:PTE-bound})}
Recall that we want to show $\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} \leq C_{T,2}\frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.$
Let $U'\Sigma V^{'\top}$ be the SVD of $X^{t}Y^{tT}$, $U^{*}\Sigma^{*}V^{*\top}$ be the SVD of $X^{*}Y^{*\top}$. By \cref{eq:FtHt-Fstar-Fnorm},\cref{eq:FH-Fstar-rownorm}, and \cref{eq:XX-YY}, we can invoke \cref{lem:XY-UV} and obtain that there exists a rotation matrix $R \in \O^{r\times r}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\max(\norm{U'R - U^{*}}_{\F}, \norm{V'R - V^{*}}_{\F}) &\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
\max(\norm{U'R - U^{*}}_{2,\infty}, \norm{V'R - V^{*}}_{2,\infty}) &\lesssim \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
One particular choice of $R$ is $R = U_{Q}V_Q^{\top}$ where $U_Q\Sigma_QV_Q^{\top}$ is the SVD of $\Sigma^{-1/2}U^{'\top}X^{t}H^{t}.$
Let $U = U'R, V = V'R$ for simplification. Note that
\begin{align*}
&\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty}\\
&\leq \norm{(I-UU^{\top})E(I-VV^{\top}) - (I-U^{*}U^{*\top})E(I-V^{*}V^{*\top})}_{\infty}\\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})E(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})E(V^{*}V^{*\top} - VV^{\top})}_{\infty}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})E(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})E}_{\infty} + \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})EVV^{\top}}_{\infty} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}-U)U^{*\top}E}_{\infty} + \norm{U(U^{*}-U)^{\top}E}_{\infty} \\
&\quad + \norm{(U^{*}-U)U^{*\top}EVV^{\top}}_{\infty} + \norm{U(U^{*}-U)^{\top}EVV^{\top}}_{\infty}\\
&\leq \underbrace{\norm{(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty} \norm{E^{\top}U^{*}}_{2,\infty}}_{A_0} + \underbrace{\norm{U}_{2,\infty} \norm{E^{\top}(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty}}_{A_1} \\
&\quad + \underbrace{\norm{(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{*}} \norm{E} \norm{V} \norm{V}_{2,\infty} + \norm{U}_{2,\infty} \norm{U-U^{*}} \norm{E} \norm{V} \norm{V}_{2,\infty}}_{A_2}.
\end{align*}
For $A_2$, given that $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$, \cref{eq:UR-Ustar-Fnorm} and \cref{eq:UR-2-infty-bound}, it is easy to check that
\begin{align*}
A_2 \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
For $A_0$, one can verify that $\norm{E^{\top}U^{*}}_{2,\infty} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{r\log(n)}$ with probability $1-O(n^{-10^6})$ since $E$ and $U^{*}$ are independent. This provides
\begin{align*}
A_0 \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
For $A_1$, we intend to use the leave-one-out technique. Let $U^{'(l)}\Sigma^{(l)}V^{'(l)}$ be the SVD of $X^{(l),t}(Y^{(l),t})^{\top}.$ By \cref{lem:XY-UV}, we can obtain that there exists a rotation matrix $R^{(l)}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{U^{'(l)}R^{(l)} - U^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
In particular, $R^{(l)} = U_{Q^{(l)}}V_{Q^{(l)}}^{\top}$ where $U_{Q^{(l)}}\Sigma_{Q^{(l)}}V_{Q^{(l)}}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $\Sigma^{(l) -1/2}U^{'(l)\top}X^{(l),t}H^{(l),t}$
Let $U^{(l)} = U^{'(l)}R^{(l)}$. In fact, due to the construction of $R$ and $R^{(l)}$, by \cref{lem:XY-UV}, one can further verify that
\begin{align*}
\norm{U^{'(l)}R^{(l)} - U'R}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{\kappa} \sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}\norm{F^{t}H^{t}-F^{t,(l)}H^{t,(l)}}_{\F} \overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\sigma r\kappa^{2} \log^{1.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Here, (i) is due to \cref{eq:FtlHtl-FtHt-Fnorm}. Then for $n< l \leq 2n$, we have with probability $1-O(n^{10^{-6}})$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{(E^{\top}(U^{*}-U))_{l-n,\cdot}}
&\leq \norm{(E^{\top}(U^{(l)}-U^{*}))_{l-n,\cdot}} + \norm{E^{\top}(U^{(l)}-U)}_{2,\infty} \\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma \norm{U^{(l)} - U^{*}}_{\F} \sqrt{\log(n)} + \sigma \sqrt{n} \norm{U^{(l)}-U}_{\F} \\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \sqrt{n} r \kappa^{2} \log^{3}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to the independence between $E^{\top}_{l-n}$ and $U^{(l)}, U^{*}.$ This implies that
\begin{align*}
A_1
&\lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}}\norm{E^{\top}(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty} \\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{1.5} \mu^{0.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
In conclusion,
\begin{align*}
\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})E(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty}
&\leq A_0 + A_1 + A_2\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
This similar results hold for $\norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})E(V^{*}V^{*\top} - VV^{\top})}_{\infty}$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\subsection{Proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:PTZ-bound})}
Follow the derivation for the proof of \cref{eq:PTE-bound}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top} - UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{U^{*}U^{*\top} - UU^{\top}}_{\F} \norm{Z} + \norm{V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top}}_{\F} \norm{Z} \\
&\lesssim (\norm{U-U^{*}}_{\F}+\norm{V-V^{*}}_{\F})\norm{Z}\\
&\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}.
\end{align*}
For the entrywise norm bound, we also have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top} - UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\infty}.
\end{align*}
Similar to the bounds on \cref{eq:PTE-bound}, note that
\begin{align*}
&\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z}_{\infty} + \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})ZVV^{\top}}_{\infty} \\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}-U)U^{*\top}Z}_{\infty} + \norm{U(U^{*}-U)^{\top}Z}_{\infty} \\
&\quad + \norm{(U^{*}-U)U^{*\top}ZVV^{\top}}_{\infty} + \norm{U(U^{*}-U)^{\top}ZVV^{\top}}_{\infty}\\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty} \norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{*}} + \norm{U}_{2,\infty} \norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\norm{(U^{*}-U)} \\
&\quad + \norm{(U^{*}-U)}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{*}} \norm{Z} \norm{V} \norm{V}_{2,\infty} + \norm{U}_{2,\infty} \norm{U-U^{*}} \norm{Z} \norm{V} \norm{V}_{2,\infty}.
\end{align*}
Based on
\begin{align*}
\max(\norm{U^{*}-U}_{2,\infty}, \norm{V^{*}-V}_{2,\infty}) &\lesssim \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\\max(\norm{U^{*}-U}_{\F}, \norm{V^{*}-V}_{\F}) &\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}},
\end{align*}
we have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\infty} \\
&\lesssim \norm{Z} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty} \frac{r^{3}\mu \kappa^{1.5}\sigma \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
&\lesssim \norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, one can obtain the bounds for $\norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\infty}$. This implies that
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} \lesssim \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right).
\end{align*}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:error-rate-theorem}}\label{sec:full-details-proof-error-rate}
To begin, let $E' = \delta + E$. We show a few properties about $E'.$ Note that with probability $1-O(n^{-C})$, we have $\norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}$. Hence
$$
\norm{E'} \leq \norm{\delta} + \norm{E} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}.
$$
Next, note that $\inner{\delta}{Z} = 0$ by definition, then
\begin{align*}
|\inner{Z}{E'}| \leq |\inner{Z}{\delta}| + |\inner{Z}{E}| \overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \sigma\sqrt{\log(n)} \norm{Z}_{\F}
\end{align*}
where (i) holds with probability $1-O(n^{-C})$ by Chernoff bound (note that the sum of independent sub-Gaussian random variables is still sub-Gaussian).
Furthermore, consider
\begin{align*}
|\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{E'}|
&\leq |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{E}| + |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{\delta}|\\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{E}| + \sigma \log(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \sigma \sqrt{\log(n)} \norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\F} + \sigma \log(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}\\
&\lesssim \sigma \log(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to the assumption of the theorem, (ii) holds with probability $1-O(n^{-C})$ by Chernoff bound. This also implies
\begin{align}
|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E'}|
&\leq |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}{E'}| + |\inner{Z}{E'}| \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sigma \log(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}. \label{eq:bound-PTperpZ-E}
\end{align}
Then given \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious,lem:tau-decomposition,lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, it is easy to finish the proof of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem}. Based on \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem-Frobenious}, there exists a $0\leq t < t^{\star}$, such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F}&\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \\
\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\leq \frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\kappa n^{10}}.
\end{align*}
Let $X = X^{t}H^{t}, Y = Y^{t}H^{t}, \mathrm{\tau} = \mathrm{\tau}^{t}, T = T^{t}.$ By \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, for any minimizer $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ of the convex program, we have $\norm{XY^{\top} - \hat{M}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\lambda \log(n)}{n^{10}}$. This further implies
\begin{align*}
\norm{M^{*} - \hat{M}}_{\F}
&\lesssim \norm{M^{*} - XY^{\top}}_{\F} + \norm{XY^{\top} - \hat{M}}_{\F}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} + \frac{\lambda \log(n)}{n^{10}}\\
&\lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n).
\end{align*}
Let $\hat{U}\Sigma\hat{V}^{\top}$ be the SVD of $\hat{M}$. Then by Davis-Kahan theorem, we have
\begin{align}
\max\left(\norm{\hat{U}\hat{U}^{\top} - U^{*}U^{*\top}}_{\F}, \norm{U^{*} - \hat{U}\hat{U}^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F}\right)
&\lesssim \frac{\norm{M^{*} - \hat{M}}_{\F}}{\sigma_{r}(\hat{M})} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}. \label{eq:Mhat-M-UU}
\end{align}
Similar bounds for $V$ also hold by symmetry.
Recall by \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}, we have
\begin{align*}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|
&= \left|\frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E'}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E')-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E')} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|\\
&\leq \underbrace{\left|\frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E'}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|}_{A_0}
+ \underbrace{\frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E')-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E')}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}}_{A_1} + \underbrace{\frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}}_{A_2}.
\end{align*}
For controlling $A_0$, note that $|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}| \lesssim \sigma \log(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}$ by \cref{eq:bound-PTperpZ-E}. We also have the facts that $\log(n)\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 \gtrsim \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ by \cref{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}.
This implies
\begin{align*}
A_0
&= \left|\frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E'}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \log^{2}(n) \norm{Z}_{\F}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \log^{2}(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}.
\end{align*}
Next, we control $A_1$. Note that
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E')}_{\F}
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top} - UU^{\top})E'(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})E'(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{U^{*}U^{*\top} - UU^{\top}}_{\F} \norm{E'} + \norm{V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top}}_{\F} \norm{E'} \\
&\overset{(i)}{\lesssim} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sigma \sqrt{n}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 n \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to \cref{eq:Mhat-M-UU} and $\norm{E'} \lesssim \sigma \sqrt{n}.$ Then we have
\begin{align*}
A_1
&= \frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E')-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E')}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E')-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E')}_{\F} \norm{Z}_{\F}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim\frac{\sigma^2 n \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F} \log(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 n \kappa r^{0.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}.
\end{align*}
Finally, we can control $A_2$.
\begin{align*}
A_2
&= \frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\F}\norm{Z}_{\F}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&= \norm{\left(U^{*} - \hat{U}\hat{U}^{\top}U^{*}\right)\Sigma^{*}\left(V^{*} - \hat{V}\hat{V}^{\top}V^{*}\right)^{\top}} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \norm{U^{*} - \hat{U}\hat{U}^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F} \norm{\Sigma^{*}} \norm{V^{*} - \hat{V}\hat{V}^{\top}V^{*}}_{\F} \frac{\log(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 n \kappa^{3} r \log^{6}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}
\end{align*}
Combining $A_0, A_1, A_2$ together, we have
\begin{align*}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \lesssim \frac{\sigma}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \left( \frac{\kappa^3 r n \sigma \log^{6}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \log^{2}(n)\right)
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main-theorem}}\label{sec:full-details-proof-main}
In this section, we present the proof of an extended version of \cref{thm:main-theorem}, which is stated below.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:extended-main-theorem}
Assume \cref{assum:random-noise,assum:incoherence,assum:conditions-Z} hold. Suppose $O = M^{*} + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + E$. Suppose \[\kappa^{4}\mu^2 r^2 \log^2(n) \leq C_1 n \;\;\;\;\; \text{and} \;\;\;\;\; \frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \leq C_2\frac{1}{\kappa^3 \mu r^{4.5}\log^{5}(n)}.\]
Let $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ be any minimizer of \cref{eq:convex-program} with $\lambda = C_{\lambda} \sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{1.5}(n)$, and let $\mathrm{\tau}^{d}$ be defined as in \cref{eq:construct-taud} based on $\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$. Then for any $C_3 > 0$, for sufficiently large $n$, with probability $1-O(n^{-C_3})$, we have
\begin{align}
\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \delta, \label{eq:taud-characterization}
\end{align}
where
\[|\delta| \leq C_{\delta}\left(\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\right).\]
Here, $C_{\lambda}, C_{\delta}, C_{\mathrm{\tau}}, C_{\infty}$ are constants depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_{r_1}, C_{r_2}$ (where $C_{r_1}$ and $C_{r_2}$ are the constants in Assumptions \ref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \ref{cond:Z-condition-convex}).
\end{theorem}
Given \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem,lem:tau-decomposition,lem:R-approximate-W,lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, it is easy to finish the proof of \cref{thm:extended-main-theorem}. Based on \cref{thm:non-convex-theorem}, there exists a $0\leq t < t^{\star}$, such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{\F}&\leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \\
\norm{F^{t}H^{t} - F^{*}}_{2,\infty} &\leq C_{\infty}\frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \\
|\mathrm{\tau}^{t} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| &\leq C_{\mathrm{\tau}} \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\\
\norm{\nabla f(X^{t}, Y^{t}; \mathrm{\tau}^{t})}_{\F} &\leq \frac{\lambda \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{n^{10}}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,1}\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,2}\frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{2} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} &\leq C_{T,3}\frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}\\
\norm{P_{T_t^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} &\leq C_{T,4} C_{T,4}\frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right).
\end{align*}
Let $X = X^{t}H^{t}, Y = Y^{t}H^{t}, \mathrm{\tau} = \mathrm{\tau}^{t}, T = T^{t}.$ By \cref{lem:approximation-nonconvex-convex}, for any minimizer $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ of the convex program, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{XY^{\top} - \hat{M}}_{\F} &\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}}\\
|\mathrm{\tau} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}| &\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}\norm{Z}_{\F}}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, let $\hat{T}$ be the tangent space of $\hat{M}$, for any $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(A) - P_{T^{\perp}}(A)}_{\F} &\lesssim \norm{A} \frac{\lambda \kappa^2 \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min} n^{10}}\\
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(XY^{\top})}_{\F} &\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2\kappa^{5}\log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{n^{19}}.
\end{align*}
Given all above information, we can bound $\norm{\hat{M}-M^{*}}_{\infty}$ by the triangle inequality.
\begin{align}
\norm{\hat{M} - M^{*}}_{\infty}
&\leq \norm{\hat{M} - XY^{\top}}_{\F} + \norm{XY^{\top} - M^{*}}_{\infty}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}} + \norm{X-X^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y}_{2,\infty} + \norm{X^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}} + \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\norm{F^{*}}_{\F} \norm{F^{*}}_{2,\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}} + \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \sqrt{\frac{\mu r \sigma_{\max}}{n}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)\kappa}{n^{10}} + \frac{\sigma \mu^{1.5} r^{3.5} \kappa^2 \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu^{1.5} r^{3.5} \kappa^2 \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\nonumber.
\end{align}
Similarly, by the triangle inequality, we can bound $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|.$
\begin{align*}
|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|
&\leq |\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}| + |\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|\\
&\lesssim \frac{\lambda \kappa \log(n)}{n^{10}\norm{Z}_{\F}} + \left( \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}\right)\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma \mu r^{2.5} \kappa \log^{3.5} n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sigma \log^{1.5} n}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}.
\end{align*}
Finally, we aim to provide a characterization for $\mathrm{\tau}^{d} := \hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \frac{\inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}$ where $\hat{M} = \hat{U}\hat{\Sigma}\hat{V}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $\hat{M}.$
By the triangle inequality again, we can obtain the bounds for $\hat{T}$ from $T$. We have
\begin{align}
&\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})-P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*}-XY^{\top}+XY^{\top})-P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*}-XY^{\top})}_{\infty} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*}-XY^{\top}) -P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*}-XY^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(XY^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\lesssim} \norm{M^{*}-XY^{\top}} \frac{\lambda \kappa^2 \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min} n^{10}} + \frac{\sigma^2\kappa^{5}\log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{n^{19}} + \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\lesssim} \sigma\kappa r^{0.5} \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n) \frac{\sigma\sqrt{n} \kappa^2 \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min} n^{10}} + \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.\label{eq:delta-1}
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to $P_{T}^{\perp}(XY^{\top}) = 0$, (ii) is due to $\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(A) - P_{T^{\perp}}(A)}_{\F} \lesssim \norm{A} \frac{\lambda \kappa^2 \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min} n^{10}}$ and $\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(XY^{\top})}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2\kappa^{5}\log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{n^{19}}$, and (iii) is due to $\kappa^{4}\mu^2 r^2 \log^2(n) \lesssim n.$
Similarly, one can obtain
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty}
&\leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{\perp}}(E)}_{\F} + \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.\label{eq:delta-2}
\end{align}
Also,
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}
&\leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} + \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}_{\F}. \label{eq:delta-3}
\end{align}
In fact, we can also obtain the entrywise norm bounds for $P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)$ here (will be used for characterizing the distribution of $M^{d} - M^{*}$).
\begin{align}
&\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} + \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} + C_{T,4}\frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right) \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \norm{Z} \frac{\lambda \kappa^2 \log(n)}{\sigma_{\min} n^{10}} + \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right). \label{eq:delta-4}
\end{align}
Recall by \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}
& = \frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} +\frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} \\
& \overset{(i)}{=} \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}
\end{align*}
where in (i) we use the fact that for any $A, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$,
$$\inner{A}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(B)} = \inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(A)}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(B)} = \inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(A)}{B}.
$$
Let
$$
\delta = \mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}.
$$
The following claim provides the bounds for $\delta$, which completes the proof of \cref{thm:main-theorem}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:delta-bound-claim}
Providing \cref{eq:delta-1,eq:delta-2,eq:delta-3}, we have
\begin{align*}
|\delta| \lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{claim}
\subsection{Proof of Claim \ref{claim:delta-bound-claim}}
By the definition of $\delta$, we have
\begin{align*}
|\delta|
&= \left|\frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} - \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|\\
&\leq \underbrace{|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}|\left|\frac{1}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} - \frac{1}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|}_{A_0}
+ \underbrace{\frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}}_{A_1} \\
&\quad + \underbrace{\frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}}_{A_2}.
\end{align*}
For controlling $A_0$, note that $|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}| \lesssim \sigma\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}\log^{0.5}(n)$ since the sum of independent sub-Gaussian random variables is still sub-Gaussian. We also have the facts that $\log(n)\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 \gtrsim \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ by \cref{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}.
This implies
$$\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{Z}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{3}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}.
$$
Then due to $\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{n} \lesssim \frac{1}{\kappa^3 r^{4.5} \log^{5}(n) \mu }$, we have
$$
\frac{1}{2}\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \leq 2\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}.
$$ Also, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\frac{1}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} - \frac{1}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right|
&\leq \frac{|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 -\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2|}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^3}\\
&\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{3}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}.
\end{align*}
Then, we can control $A_0$.
\begin{align*}
A_0
&\lesssim \sigma\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}\log^{0.5}(n) \cdot \frac{r\kappa \sigma \sqrt{n}\log^{3}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{1}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \sqrt{n}\log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\frac{1}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \sqrt{n}\log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}}.
\end{align*}
Next, we control $A_1$. Note that $|\inner{Z}{A}| = |\sum_{ij}A_{ij}Z_{ij}| \leq \norm{A}_{\infty}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ for binary matrix $Z$. We have
\begin{align*}
A_1
&= \frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E)-P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we can control $A_2$.
\begin{align*}
A_2
&= \frac{|\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M - M^{*})}|}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M - M^{*})}_{\infty}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \frac{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Combining $A_0, A_1, A_2$ together, we have
\begin{align*}
|\delta| \lesssim \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \sqrt{n}\log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\frac{1}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} + \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\section{Recovery of Counterfactuals}\label{section:proof-of-theorem-M}
We also studied the following de-biased estimator $M^{d}$ and derived the entry-wise characterization for $M^{d}-M^{*}$ (where the asymptotical normality follows directly).
This particular way of de-biasing $\hat{M}$ can be seen from the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:M-decomposition}
Suppose $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ is a minimizer of \eqref{eq:convex-program}. Let $\hat{M} = \hat{U}\hat{\Sigma} \hat{V}^{\top}$ be the SVD of $\hat{M}$, and let $\hat{T}$ denote the tangent space of $\hat{M}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\hat{M} - M^{*}
&= - \lambda \hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} - \frac{\lambda \inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} P_{\hat{T}}(Z)\\
&\quad -\left(\frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}
+\frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right) P_{\hat{T}}(Z)\\
&\quad - P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*}) + P_{\hat{T}}(E).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch of \cref{lem:M-decomposition}]
From the first-order conditions of $(\hat{M},\hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$, we have $M^{*} - \hat{M} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})Z + E = \lambda \hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + \lambda W.$ Substituting $\lambda W$ with $P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*}) + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - (\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z) = \lambda W$ (\cref{eq:PTPerpO}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
M^{*} - \hat{M} + (\mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})Z + E = \lambda \hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*}) + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - (\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z).
\end{align*}
This implies
\begin{align*}
M^{*} + P_{\hat{T}}(E) + (\mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}) P_{\hat{T}}(Z) = \hat{M} + \lambda \hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*})
\end{align*}
Then substituting $\mathrm{\tau}^{*} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$ with \cref{lem:tau-decomposition}, we can obtain the desired decomposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:M-de-bias}
Under the same setup in \cref{thm:main-theorem}, let $M^{d} := \hat{M} + \lambda \hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + P_{\hat{T}}(Z) \cdot \lambda \inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}}\big/\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2.$ We have, for all $i, j \in [n]$,
\begin{align*}
M^{d}_{ij} - M^{*}_{ij} = \inner{P_{T^{*}}(e_ie_j^{\top}) - \frac{(P_{T^{*}}(Z))_{ij}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E+\delta\circ Z} + \tilde{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
\end{align*}
where $e_i$ ($e_j$) corresponds to the i-th (j-th) standard basis.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From \cref{lem:M-decomposition}, we have
\begin{align*}
&M^{d}_{ij} - M^{*}_{ij} \\
&= (P_{T^{*}}(E))_{ij} - \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} (P_{T^{*}}(Z))_{ij} \\
&\quad - \underbrace{(P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*}))_{ij}}_{A_0} + \underbrace{(P_{\hat{T}}(E)-P_{T^{*}}(E))_{ij}}_{A_1}\\
&\quad \underbrace{-\left(\frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} \right) (P_{\hat{T}}(Z))_{ij} + \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} (P_{T^{*}}(Z))_{ij}}_{A_2}.
\end{align*}
Note that $(P_{T^{*}}(E))_{ij} = \inner{P_{T^{*}}(E)}{e_ie_j^{\top}} = \inner{E}{P_{T^{*}}(e_ie_j^{\top})}.$ Hence, $\delta_{ij} = -A_0 + A_1 + A_2$. Then, it is sufficient to control $A_0, A_1$ and $A_2$.
For $A_0$, by \cref{eq:delta-1}, we have $|A_0| \leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}_{\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.$
For $A_1$, by \cref{eq:delta-2}, we have $|A_1| \leq \norm{P_{\hat{T}}(E) - P_{T^{*}}(E)}_{\infty} = \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(E)}_{\infty} \lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.$
In order to control $A_2$, we can further decompose $A_2$:
\begin{align*}
A_2
&= -\underbrace{\left(\frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} - \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right) (P_{\hat{T}}(Z))_{ij}}_{B_0} \\
&\quad + \underbrace{\frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} \left(P_{T^{*}}(Z) - P_{\hat{T}}(Z) \right)_{ij}}_{B_1}.
\end{align*}
Then it boils down to control $B_0$ and $B_1$. For $B_1$, note that we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{\hat{T}}(Z) - P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\infty}
&= \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\infty} \\
&\lesssim \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right)
\end{align*}
by \cref{eq:delta-4}. We also have $\frac{|\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}|}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \log(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
|B_1|
&\lesssim \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma \mu^{1.5} \log^{3.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty}+\norm{Z^{\top}}_{2,\infty}\right) \cdot \frac{\sigma \log(n)}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \\
&\lesssim \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma^2 \mu^{1.5} \log^{4.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
For $B_0$, note that
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}_{\infty} &\leq \norm{U^{*}U^{*T}Z}_{\infty} + \norm{ZV^{*}V^{*T}}_{\infty} + \norm{U^{*}U^{*T}ZV^{*}V^{*T}}_{\infty} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{U^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{Z^{T}}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{*}} + \norm{Z}_{2,\infty}\norm{V^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{V^{*}} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{U^{*}}_{2,\infty}\norm{V^{*}}_{2,\infty} \norm{U^{*}} \norm{V^{*}} \norm{Z} \nonumber\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty} + \norm{Z^{T}}_{2,\infty}\right) + \frac{\mu r}{n} \cdot \norm{Z}. \label{eq:PTstar-Z-infinity}
\end{align}
By the triangle inequality, one can obtain the similar bound for $\norm{P_{\hat{T}}(Z)}_{\infty}.$ Furthermore, let
$$
\delta' = \left(\frac{\inner{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + \frac{\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^{*})}}{\norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} - \frac{\inner{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}{E}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2}\right).
$$
We can also obtain that $|\delta'| \lesssim \left(\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\right)$ by \cref{claim:delta-bound-claim}. This implies that
\begin{align*}
|B_0|
&\leq |\delta'| \norm{P_{\hat{T}}(Z)}_{\infty} \\
&\lesssim \left(\sqrt{\frac{\mu r}{n}} \left(\norm{Z}_{2,\infty} + \norm{Z^{T}}_{2,\infty}\right) + \frac{\mu r}{n} \cdot \norm{Z}\right) \\
&\quad \cdot\left(\frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{r\kappa \sigma^2 \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\right)\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \cdot \mu r + \frac{\mu r^2\kappa \sigma^2 \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \sqrt{\mu r}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^3 r^{7} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Combining the bounds for $A_0, A_1, B_0, B_1$ together, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
|\delta_{ij}|
&\leq |A_0|+|A_1|+|B_0| + |B_1|\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^2 r^{6} \kappa^{3} \log^{7}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{\sigma^2 r^{3.5} \mu^{1.5} \kappa^{1.5} \log^{4}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} + \frac{r^{3.5} \kappa^{1.5} \sigma^2 \mu^{1.5} \log^{4.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
&\quad + \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^3 r^{7} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}\\
&\lesssim \frac{\sigma^2 \mu^3 r^{7} \kappa^{3} \log^{8}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:necessity-of-conditions-tau} and Proposition \ref{prop:necessity-of-conditions}}
In this section, we present the proof of \cref{prop:necessity-of-conditions-tau} and \cref{prop:necessity-of-conditions}.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:necessity-of-conditions-tau}}
To begin, let $M_1, M_2$ be the $n$-by-$n$ matrices depicted below (for $n=3k, k \in \mathbb{Z}$):
\begin{align} \label{eqn:counter-example}
M_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
-3t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{1\times \frac{2n}{3}} \\
\mathbf{1}_{(n-1)\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times \frac{2n}{3}}
\end{bmatrix}&
\quad\quad M_2 =
\begin{bmatrix}
3t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{1\times \frac{2n}{3}} \\
\mathbf{1}_{(n-1)\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times \frac{2n}{3}}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{1}_{a\times b}$ is a $a\times b$ block with all ones (similar for $\mathbf{0}$) and $t \in [0, 1/5]$ is a parameter. Furthermore, let $Z$ be the matrix with all ones in the first row:
\begin{align}
Z &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{1}_{1\times n}\\
\mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times n}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Then let $\delta_{1},\delta_{2}$ be the $n$-by-$n$ matrices below:
\begin{align} \label{eqn:counter-example}
\delta_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
2t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{n}{3}} && -t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{2n}{3}} \\
\mathbf{0}_{(n-1)\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times \frac{2n}{3}}
\end{bmatrix}&
\quad\quad \delta_2 = \begin{bmatrix}
-2t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{n}{3}} && t\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{2n}{3}} \\
\mathbf{0}_{(n-1)\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times \frac{2n}{3}} .
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align}
Let $\mathrm{\tau}_1^{*} = 0$ and $\mathrm{\tau}_2^{*} = -2t.$ Then one can verify that $\langle \delta_{1}, Z \rangle = 0, \langle \delta_{2}, Z \rangle = 0$ and
\begin{align*}
M_1 + \mathrm{\tau}_1^{*}Z + \delta_1 \circ Z = M_2 + \mathrm{\tau}_2^{*} Z + \delta_2 \circ Z,
\end{align*}
i.e., $(M_1, \mathrm{\tau}_1^{*}, \delta_1)$ and $(M_2, \mathrm{\tau}_2^{*}, \delta_2)$ will be indistinguishable given the observation. Therefore, for any estimator $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$, with probability at least $1/2$, either $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}_1^{*}| > t$ holds or $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}_2^{*}| > t$ holds.
Next, we examine the value of $\langle P_{T_1}(\delta_1), P_{T_1}(Z) \rangle$ where $T_1$ is the tangent space of $M_1$. Easy to see that the SVD of $M_1$ is $M_1 = \sigma_1 u_1 v_1^{\top}$ where
\begin{align*}
v_1 := \sqrt{3} \Big[\underbrace{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \dotsc, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}_{\frac{n}{3}}, 0, \dotsc 0\Big]^{\top}, \quad \quad u_1 := \sqrt{\frac{n}{n-1+9t^2}}\left[\frac{-3t}{\sqrt{n}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \dotsc, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right]^{\top}
\end{align*}
Then,
\begin{align*}
P_{T_1}(Z)
&= Z v_1 v_1^{\top} + u_1u_1^{\top} Z (I - v_1 v_1^{\top}) \\
&= \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{1}_{1\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{1\times \frac{2n}{3}} \\
\mathbf{0}_{(n-1)\times \frac{n}{3}} && \mathbf{0}_{(n-1) \times \frac{2n}{3}}
\end{bmatrix}
+ u_1u_1^{\top} Z (I - v_1 v_1^{\top}).
\end{align*}
This implies
\begin{align*}
\langle P_{T_1}(\delta_1), P_{T_1}(Z) \rangle
&= \inner{\delta_1}{P_{T_1}(Z)}\\
&= 2t \frac{n}{3} + \inner{\delta_{1}}{u_1u_1^{\top} Z (I - v_1 v_1^{\top})}\\
&\leq \frac{2t}{3} n + \norm{u_1^{\top}\delta_1}\norm{u_1^{\top}Z} \norm{I - v_1 v_1^{\top}}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} tn.
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $t \leq 1/5.$ Similarly, one can show that $\langle P_{T_2}(\delta_2), P_{T_2}(Z) \rangle \leq tn.$ Note that $\|Z\|_{\F}^2 = n.$ Then, with probability $1/2$, there exists $i \in \{1, 2\}$ such that
\begin{align*}
|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}_i| \geq \frac{\inner{P_{T_i}(\delta_i)}{P_{T_i}(Z)}}{\|Z\|_{\F}^2}
\end{align*}
After introducing the noise $E$ where $E_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma)$, it is also easy to see that $|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \geq C \frac{\sigma}{\|Z\|_{\F}^2}$ even when $M^{*}$ and $\delta$ are known. In addition, it is easy to verify that $r=\kappa=1, \mu=O(1), \sigma_{\min}=\Theta(n)$ for both $M_1$ and $M_2$. Furthermore, $\|\delta_1\|, \|\delta_2\| = O(\sqrt{n})$ and \cref{assum:conditions-Z} hold for both $M_1, M_2$ and $Z$. This then shows that \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} achieves the mini-max lower bound in this scenario.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:necessity-of-conditions}}
Consider the following simple example: fix any even-valued $n$, and let $Z,M_1,M_2$ be the $n$-by-$n$ matrices depicted below:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:counter-example}
Z =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{1} &&& \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} &&& \mathbf{1}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad\quad M_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{-1} && \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} && \mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad\quad M_2 =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} &&& \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} &&& \mathbf{1}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the boldfaced $\mathbf{1}$ represents the $n/2$-by-$n/2$ matrix of all ones (and similarly for $\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{-1}$).
Then, $Z + M_1 = M_2$ immediately follows. It is also easy to see that both $M_1$ and $M_2$ satisfy $r,\kappa=1, \mu=O(1), \sigma_{\min}=\Theta(n)$.
Next, consider the SVD of $M_1$: $M_1 = \sigma_1 u_1 v_1^{\top}$ where
\begin{align*}
v_1 := \sqrt{2} \Big[\underbrace{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \dotsc, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}_{\frac{n}{2}}, 0, \dotsc 0\Big]^{\top}, \quad \quad u_1 := \sqrt{2} \Big[\underbrace{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \dotsc, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}_{\frac{n}{2}}, 0, \dotsc 0\Big]^{\top}
\end{align*}
Then, one can verify that
\begin{align*}
\|Zv_1\|_{\F}^2 + \|Z^{\top} u_1\|_{\F}^2 = \frac{n}{4} + \frac{n}{4} = \norm{Z}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, let $T_1$ be the tangent space of $M_1$. Note that $P_{T_1^{\perp}}(Z) = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} &&& \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} &&& \mathbf{1}
\end{bmatrix}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\left|\inner{Z}{u_1v_1^{\top}}\right| \|P_{T_1^{\perp}}(Z)\| = \frac{n}{2} \cdot \frac{n}{2} = \frac{n^2}{4} = \|P_{T_1^{\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
Similar equalities hold for $M_2$ by symmetry. This completes the proof.
\section{Technical Lemmas}
\begin{lemma}[Direct implication of \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}]\label{lem:condition-non-convex-implication}
Given $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}, U \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}, V \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ where $U^{\top}U = V^{\top}V = I_{r}.$ Suppose
\begin{align}
\norm{ZV}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U}_{\F}^2 &\leq \left(1-\eta\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \label{eq:condition-technical-lemma}
\end{align}
for some $0< \eta \leq 1.$ Let $P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) = (I - UU^{\top})Z(I - VV^{\top}).$ Then
\begin{align*}
\norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F}^2 &\leq \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \eta \norm{Z}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
This also implies $\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 \geq \eta\norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ and $\norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F} \leq \left(1-\frac{\eta}{2}\right)\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F}^2 = {\rm tr}(UU^{\top}ZVV^{\top}Z^{\top}), \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 = {\rm tr}((I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})Z^{\top})$ since $\norm{A}_{\F}^2 = {\rm tr}(AA^{\top})$ and $I-UU^{\top}, I-VV^{\top}$ are projection matrices. Then
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F}^2
&= {\rm tr}((I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})Z^{\top}) - {\rm tr}(UU^{\top}ZVV^{\top}Z^{\top})\\
&= {\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}) - {\rm tr}(UU^{\top}ZZ^{\top}) - {\rm tr}(ZVV^{\top}Z^{\top})\\
&= \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z^{\top}U}_{\F}^2 - \norm{ZV}_{\F}^2\\
&\geq \eta \norm{Z}_{\F}^2
\end{align*}
where the last inequality is by \cref{eq:condition-technical-lemma}. To show $\norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F} \leq \left(1-\frac{\eta}{2}\right)\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}$, note that
\begin{align*}
\left(1-\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^2\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2
&\geq (1 - \eta)\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2\\
&\geq \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \eta \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \\
&\geq \norm{U^{\top}ZV}_{\F}^2.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:singular-values}
Let $X^{*}, Y^{*} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$. Denote the $i$-th largest singular values of $A$ by $\sigma_i(A).$ Suppose $\sigma_1(X^{*}) = \sigma_1(Y^{*}) = \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}$, $\sigma_r(X^{*}) = \sigma_r(Y^{*}) = \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}$ and $\kappa = \sigma_{\max} / \sigma_{\min}.$ Consider $X, Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}.$ Suppose there exists two constant $C_{\F}, C_{2}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y - Y^{*}}_{\F} \leq C_{\F} \left(\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}} \right) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}
\end{align*}
and $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \leq C_2 \frac{1}{\kappa^{0.5} r^{0.5} \log^{3}(n)}.$ Then there exists $N_0$, for $n \geq N_0$, one has for any $i \in [r]$,
\begin{align*}
\sigma_{i}(X) &\in \left[\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}, \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}\right]\\
\sigma_{i}(Y) &\in \left[\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}, \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}\right]\\
\sigma_{i}(XY^\top) &\in \left[\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}, 2\sigma_{\max}\right].
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\norm{X^{*}}_{\F} \leq \norm{X^{*}}\sqrt{r} = \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}$. Similarly, $\norm{Y^{*}}_{\F} \leq \sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r}$. Then one has
\begin{align*}
\norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y - Y^{*}}_{\F}
&\leq C_{\F} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{ \sigma_{\min}} \log^{2.5}(n)\sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \\
&\leq C_{\F} C_2 \frac{1}{\kappa^{0.5} r^{0.5} \log^{3}(n)}\log^{2.5}(n)\sqrt{\sigma_{\max} r} \\
&= C_{\F}C_2 \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}}}{\log^{0.5}(n)}.
\end{align*}
When $n$ goes large enough, $\norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} \leq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{8}}, \norm{Y - Y^{*}}_{\F} \leq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{8}}.$ Then, by Weyl's inequality,
\begin{align}
\sigma_{i}(X) \leq \sigma_{i}(X^{*}) + \norm{X - X^{*}} \leq \sigma_1(X^{*}) + \norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} \leq \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}.
\end{align}
We also have $\sigma_{i}(X) \geq \sigma_{i}(X^{*}) - \norm{X - X^{*}} \geq \sigma_{r}(X^{*}) - \norm{X - X^{*}}_{\F} \geq \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}.$ The similar results hold for $\sigma_{i}(Y):$ $\sigma_i(Y) \in \left[\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}}, \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}\right].$
Then consider the bounds for $\sigma_i(XY^{\top})$ where $i \in [r].$ Note that $\sigma_1(XY^{\top}) = \norm{XY^{\top}} \leq \norm{X}\norm{Y} = \sigma_1(X)\sigma_1(Y) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}.$ Furthermore, by the properties of SVD, for any $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ with rank $r$, we have
\begin{align*}
\sigma_r(A) = \min_{\norm{u}=1, u \in \mathrm{rowspan}(A)}\norm{A u}
\end{align*}
Here, $\mathrm{rowspan}(A)$ is the row space of $A$. This implies
\begin{align*}
\sigma_r(XY^{\top})
&= \min_{\norm{u}=1, u \in \mathrm{rowspan}(XY^{\top})} \norm{XY^Tu}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \min_{\norm{u}=1, u \in \mathrm{rowspan}(XY^{\top})} \norm{Y^{\top}u} \\
&\overset{(ii)}{\geq} \sigma_r(X) \cdot \min_{\norm{u}=1, u \in \mathrm{rowspan}(Y^{\top})} \norm{Y^{\top}u}\\
&\geq \sigma_r(X)\sigma_r(Y)\\
&\geq \frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $Y^{\top}u \in \mathrm{rowspan}(X)$ since $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ has rank-$r$ and (ii) is due to $\mathrm{rowspan}(XY^{\top}) \subset \mathrm{rowspan}(Y^{\top}).$ This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Orthogonal Procrustes Problem, Lemma 35 in \cite{ma2019implicit}]\label{lem:orthogonal-procrustes}
For $F_0, F_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$, $H$ is the minimizer of the following optimization problem if and only if $F_0^{\top}F_1H$ is symmetric and positive semidefinite:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathop{\mathrm{minimize}}\limits}_{A \in \O^{r\times r}} \norm{F_1 A - F_0}_{\F}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:F0-F1-F2}
Let $F_0, F_1, F_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{2n \times r}$ be three matrices. Suppose
\begin{align}
\norm{F_1 - F_0} \norm{F_0} \leq \sigma_{r}^2(F_0) / 2 \text{\quad and \quad} \norm{F_1 - F_2} \norm{F_0} \leq \sigma_{r}^2(F_0) / 4,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\sigma_{i}(F)$ is the $i$-th largest singular value of $F$. Let
\begin{align}
R_1 := \arg\min_{R \in O^{r\times r}} \norm{F_1 R - F_0}_{\F} \text{\quad and \quad} R_{2} := \arg\min_{R \in O^{r\times r}} \norm{F_2 R - F_0}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Then, the followings hold
\begin{align}
\norm{R_1 - R_2}_{\F} &\leq \frac{2}{\sigma_{r}^2(F_0)} \norm{F_2 - F_1}_{\F} \norm{F_0} \label{eq:R1-R2-bound}\\
\norm{F_1 R_1 - F_2 R_2} &\leq 5 \frac{\sigma_{1}^2(F_0)}{\sigma_{r}^2(F_0)} \norm{F_1 - F_2} \nonumber\\
\norm{F_1 R_1 - F_2 R_2}_{\F} &\leq 5 \frac{\sigma_{1}^2(F_0)}{\sigma_{r}^2(F_0)} \norm{F_1 - F_2}_{\F}\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The same as the proof of Lemma 37 in \cite{ma2019implicit}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 20 in \cite{chen2019noisy}]\label{lem:SigmaQ}
Let $U\Sigma V^{\top}$ be the SVD of a rank-$r$ matrix $XY^{\top}$ with $X, Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}.$ Then there exists an invertible matrix $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ such that $X = U\Sigma^{1/2} Q$ and $Y = V\Sigma^{1/2} Q^{-\top}$. In addition, one has
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Sigma_{Q} - \Sigma_{Q}^{-1}}_{\F} \leq \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma)} \norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F},
\end{align*}
where $U_{Q}\Sigma_{Q}V_{Q}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $Q$. In particular, if $X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y = 0$, then $Q$ must be a rotation matrix.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 13 in \cite{CFMY:19}]\label{lem:square-root-bound}
Consider two symmetric matrices obeying $A_1 \succeq \mu_1 I$ and $A_2 \succeq \mu_2 I$ for some $\mu_1, \mu_2 > 0.$ Let $R_1 \succeq 0$ ($R_2 \succeq 0$ respectively) be the (principal) matrix square root of $A_1$ ($A_2$ respectively). Then one has
\begin{align*}
\norm{R_1 - R_2} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_1} + \sqrt{\mu_2}} \norm{A_1 - A_2}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Perturbation on the row space and column space]\label{lem:XY-UV}
Suppose $X_1, X_2, Y_1, Y_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ with singular values in the interval $[\sigma_{a}, \sigma_{b}]$ where $0 < \sigma_a \leq \sigma_{b}.$ Suppose
\begin{align}
\max (\norm{X_1 - X_2}_{\F}, \norm{Y_1 - Y_2}_{\F}) &\leq a\\
\max \left(\norm{X_1^{\top}X_1 - Y_1^{\top}Y_1}_{\F}, \norm{X_2^{\top}X_2 - Y_2^{\top}Y_2}_{\F}\right) &\leq \epsilon. \label{eq:XX-YY-Technical}
\end{align}
Let $U_{1}\Sigma_1 V_1^{\top}$ be the SVD of the matrix $X_1 Y_1^{\top}$, $U_2 \Sigma_2 V_2^{\top}$ be the SVD of the matrix $X_2 Y_2^{\top}$ where $U_1, U_2, V_1, V_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}, \Sigma_1, \Sigma_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}.$ Then, there exists rotation matrices $R_1, R_2 \in \O^{r\times r}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:U-F-V-F}
\max (\norm{U_1R_1 - U_2R_2}_{\F}, \norm{V_1 R_1 - V_2R_2}_{\F}) \leq 2\sqrt{r}\frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} \left(a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}\right) \frac{1}{\sigma_a}.
\end{align}
Furthermore, if one has $\max (\norm{X_1 - X_2}_{2,\infty}, \norm{Y_1 - Y_2}_{2,\infty}) \leq b$, then there exists $R_1, R_2 \in \O^{r\times r}$ such that \cref{eq:U-F-V-F} and the following hold
\begin{align}\label{eq:U1RU2-2-infty}
&\max (\norm{U_1R_1 - U_2R_2}_{2,\infty}, \norm{V_1 R_1 - V_2R_2}_{2,\infty}) \nonumber\\
&\leq \left(b + \norm{U_2}_{2,\infty} a \frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2} (1+\norm{U_2}_{2,\infty}\sigma_b/\sigma_a)\right) \frac{1}{\sigma_a}.
\end{align}
One particular choice of $R_1,R_2$ satisfying above conditions is $R_1 = U_{Q_1}V_{Q_1}^{\top}, R_2 = U_{Q_2}V_{Q_2}^{\top}$ where $U_{Q_1}\Sigma_{Q_1}V_{Q_1}^{\top}$ is the SVD of the matrix $\Sigma_{1}^{-1/2}U_1^{\top}X_1$ and $U_{Q_2}\Sigma_{Q_2}V_{Q_2}^{\top}$ is the SVD of the matrix $\Sigma_{2}^{-1/2}U_2^{\top}X_2.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that we have the following facts.
\begin{align}
\sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1) &= \sigma_{\max}(X_1Y_1^{\top}) \leq \sigma_{\max}(X_1)\sigma_{\max}(Y_1) \leq \sigma_b^2 \label{eq:sigma-max-Sigma1}\\
\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1) &= \sigma_{\min}(X_1Y_1^{\top}) \geq \sigma_{\min}(X_1)\sigma_{\min}(Y_1) \geq \sigma_a^2.
\end{align}
Similarly, $\sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_2) \leq \sigma_b^2, \sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_2) \geq \sigma_a^2.$
We first intend to invoke \cref{lem:SigmaQ} to establish the connection between $X_1, Y_1$ ($X_2, Y_2$) and $U_1, V_1$ ($U_2, V_2$).
By \cref{lem:SigmaQ}, there exists invertible matrix $Q_1$ such that $X_1 = U_1\Sigma_1^{1/2} Q_1, Y_1 = V_1\Sigma_1^{1/2} Q_1^{-\top}$ and
\begin{align}
\norm{\Sigma_{Q_1} - \Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1}}_{\F} \leq \frac{\norm{X_1^{\top}X - Y_1^{\top}Y}_{\F}}{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1)}\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}
\label{eq:SigmaQ1-Q1inverse}
\end{align}
where $U_{Q_1}\Sigma_{Q_1}V_{Q_1}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $Q_1$ and (i) is due to \cref{eq:XX-YY-Technical} and $\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1) \geq \sigma_a^2$.
Similarly, we can also obtain that there exists $Q_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ such that $X_2 = U_2 \Sigma_2^{1/2} Q_2, Y_2 = V_2 \Sigma_2^{1/2} Q_2^{-\top}$ and
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Sigma_{Q_2} - \Sigma_{Q_2}^{-1}}_{\F} \leq \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}
\end{align*}
where $U_{Q_2}\Sigma_{Q_2}V_{Q_2}^{\top}$ is the SVD of $Q_2$.
We next intend to substitute $Q_1, Q_2$ by rotation matrices to simplify the analysis.
Let $R_1 = U_{Q_1}V_{Q_1}^{\top}, R_2 = U_{Q_2}V_{Q_2}^{\top}$. Note that $R_1, R_2 \in O^{r\times r}$ are rotation matrices. Let $X_1' = X_1Q_1^{-1}R_1 = U_1 \Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1.$ In fact
\begin{align*}
X_1' - X_1 &= X_1 (Q_1^{-1}R_1 - I_{r}) \\
&= X_1 (V_{Q_1} \Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} U_{Q_1}^{\top} U_{Q_1} V_{Q_1}^{\top} - I_r)\\
&\overset{(i)}{=} X_1 (V_{Q_1} \Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} V_{Q_1}^{\top} - I_r)\\
&\overset{(ii)}{=} X_1 (V_{Q_1} (\Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} - I_r) V_{Q_1}^{\top})
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $U_{Q_1}^{\top} U_{Q_1} = I_r$ and (ii) is due to $V_{Q_1} V_{Q_1}^{\top} = I_{r}.$ Then,
\begin{align*}
\norm{X_1' - X_1}_{\F}
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{X_1} \norm{V_{Q_1}}\norm{\Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} - I_r}_{\F} \norm{V_{Q_1}^{\top}}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{X_1} \norm{\Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} - I_r}_{\F}\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \sigma_{b} \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to $\norm{ABC}_{\F} \leq \norm{A}\norm{B}_{\F}\norm{C}$, (ii) is due to $\norm{V_{Q_1}} = \norm{V_{Q_1}^{\top}} = 1$, and (iii) is due to $\norm{\Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} - I_r}_{\F} \leq \norm{\Sigma_{Q_1}^{-1} - \Sigma_{Q_1}}_{\F}$ and \cref{eq:SigmaQ1-Q1inverse}.
Let $Y_1' = V_1 \Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1$, $X_2' = U_2 \Sigma_2^{1/2} R_2, Y_2' = V_2 \Sigma_2^{1/2} R_2$. Similarly, one can verify that
\begin{align}
\max\left(\norm{Y_1' - Y_1}_{\F}, \norm{X_2' - X_2}_{\F}, \norm{Y_2' - Y_2}_{\F}\right) \leq \sigma_{b} \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}.
\end{align}
By triangle inequality, this guarantees that
\begin{align}
\max(\norm{X_1' - X_2'}_{\F}, \norm{Y_1' - Y_2'}_{\F}) \leq a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}. \label{eq:X1prime-X2prime}
\end{align}
Note that we have the following decomposition for $X_1', X_2'$.
\begin{align}
X_1' = U_1R_1R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1 \label{eq:X1prime-decomposition}\\
X_2' = U_2R_2R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2} R_2. \label{eq:X2prime-decomposition}
\end{align}
In order to establish a bound for $U_1 R_1 - U_2 R_2$ based on $X_1' - X_2'$, we require an additional bound for $R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2} R_2.$ Notice that the following provides a bound for $R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1 R_1 - R_2^{\top} \Sigma_2 R_2$.
\begin{align}
\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1 R_1 - R_2^{\top} \Sigma_2 R_2}_{\F} \nonumber
&\overset{(i)}{=} \norm{X_1^{'\top}X_1' - X_2^{'\top}X_2'}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{(X_1^{'\top}-X_2^{'\top})X_1'}_{\F} + \norm{X_2^{'\top}(X_1' - X_2')}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \norm{X_1^{'\top}-X_2^{'\top}}_{\F} \norm{X_1'} + \norm{X_2^{'\top}} \norm{X_1' - X_2'}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(iv)}{\leq} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \norm{X_1'} + (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2})\norm{X_2'} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(v)}{\leq} 2(a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \sigma_b.\label{eq:R1Sigma1R1-R2Sigma2R2}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $X_1' = U_1 \Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1, X_2' = U_2 \Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2$, (ii) is due to the triangle inequality, (iii) is due to $\norm{ABC}_{\F} \leq \norm{A}\norm{B}_{\F}\norm{C}$, (iv) is due to \cref{eq:X1prime-X2prime}, and (v) is due to $\norm{X_1'}=\sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1^{1/2}), \norm{X_2'} = \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_2^{1/2})$ and $\sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1) \leq \sigma_b^2, \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_2) \leq \sigma_b^2$ (see \cref{eq:sigma-max-Sigma1}).
By \cref{lem:square-root-bound}, this implies
\begin{align}
\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2} R_1 - R_2^{\top} \Sigma_2^{1/2} R_2} \nonumber
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1)} + \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_2)}} \norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1 R_1 - R_2^{\top} \Sigma_2 R_2} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{1}{2\sigma_a} \norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1 R_1 - R_2^{\top} \Sigma_2 R_2}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} \label{eq:R1sqrtSigma1R1}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1) \geq \sigma_{a}^2, \sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_2) \geq \sigma_a^2$ and $\norm{A} \leq \norm{A}_{\F}$ for any matrix $A$, and (ii) is due to \cref{eq:R1Sigma1R1-R2Sigma2R2}.
Then we can establish the bound for $U_1R_1 - U_2R_2.$ Note that by \cref{eq:X1prime-decomposition,eq:X2prime-decomposition}, we have
\begin{align*}
X_1' - X_2' = (U_1R_1-U_2R_2)(R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1) + U_2R_2(R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2)
\end{align*}
which further implies
\begin{align}\label{eq:U1R1-U2R2}
&U_1R_1-U_2R_2 \nonumber\\
&= (X_1' - X_2') (R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1)+ U_2R_2(R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2)(R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1).
\end{align}
Therefore, we can provide a bound for $\norm{U_1R_1-U_2R_2}_{\F}$ by the following.
\begin{align*}
\norm{U_1R_1-U_2R_2}_{\F}
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{X_1'-X_2'}_{\F} \norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1} \\
&\quad + \norm{U_2R_2}_{\F}\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2}\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1} + \norm{U_2R_2}_{\F} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a}\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1^{-1/2}) + \sqrt{r} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1^{-1/2})\\
&\overset{(iv)}\leq 2\sqrt{r}\frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \frac{1}{\sigma_a}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to the triangle inequality, (ii) is due to \cref{eq:X1prime-X2prime} and \cref{eq:R1sqrtSigma1R1}, (iii) is due to $\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1} = \sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1^{-1/2})$ and $\norm{U_2R_2}_{\F} = \norm{U_2}_{\F} = \sqrt{r}$, (iv) is due to $\sigma_{\max}(\Sigma_1^{-1/2}) = 1/\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}(\Sigma_1)} \leq 1/\sigma_a.$ Similarly, one can obtain that $\norm{V_1R_1 - V_2R_2}_{\F} \leq 2\sqrt{r}\frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} (a + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}) \frac{1}{\sigma_a}.$
Note that $\norm{U_1R_1R_2^{\top} - U_2}_{\F} = \norm{U_1 R_1 - U_2 R_2}_{\F}$ and $\norm{V_1R_1R_2^{\top} - V_2}_{\F} = \norm{V_1 R_1 - V_2 R_2}_{\F}$, this completes the proof for \cref{eq:U-F-V-F}.
In addition, if $\norm{X_1 - X_2}_{2,\infty} \leq b$, we can obtain that
\begin{align*}
\norm{X_1' - X_2'}_{2,\infty}
&\leq \norm{X_1 - X_2}_{2,\infty} + \norm{X_1' - X_1}_{\F} + \norm{X_2' - X_2}_{\F} \\
&\leq b + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2}.
\end{align*}
Then based on \cref{eq:U1R1-U2R2}, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{U_1R_1 - U_2R_2}_{2,\infty}
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{(X_1'-X_2') R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}_{2,\infty} \\
&\quad + \norm{U_2R_2(R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2)R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}_{2,\infty}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \norm{(X_1'-X_2')}_{2,\infty} \norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}\\
&\quad + \norm{U_2}_{2,\infty}\norm{R_2}\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{1/2}R_1 - R_2^{\top}\Sigma_2^{1/2}R_2}\norm{R_1^{\top}\Sigma_1^{-1/2} R_1}\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \left(b + \norm{U_2}_{2,\infty} a \frac{\sigma_b}{\sigma_a} + \frac{2\sigma_b \epsilon}{\sigma_a^2} (1+\norm{U_2}_{2,\infty}\sigma_b/\sigma_a)\right) \frac{1}{\sigma_a}
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to triangle inequality, (ii) is due to $\norm{AB}_{2,\infty} \leq \norm{A}_{2,\infty} \norm{B}$, (iii) follows the same derivation for $\norm{U_1R_1-U_2R_2}_{\F}$. Notice that $\norm{U_1R_1R_2^{\top} - U_2}_{2,\infty} = \norm{U_1R_1 - U_2R_2}_{2,\infty}$. The similar results also can be obtained for $\norm{V_1R_1R_2^{\top} - V_2}_{2,\infty}.$ This completes the proof for \cref{eq:U1RU2-2-infty}.
\end{proof}
The following lemma shows that \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} hold for a small ball around $(X^{*}, Y^{*}).$
\begin{lemma}[Implication of \cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex} and \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex}]\label{lem:general-conditions-small-ball}
Suppose $X^{*}, Y^{*}, X, Y \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}.$ Suppose $X^{*}Y^{*\top} = U^{*}\Sigma^{*}V^{*\top}, XY^{\top} = U\Sigma V^{\top}$ is the SVD of $X^{*}Y^{*\top}, XY^{\top}$ respectively. Suppose $X^{*} = U^{*}\Sigma^{* 1/2}, Y^{*} = V^{*}\Sigma^{* 1/2}$ and $\sigma_1(\Sigma^{*}) = \sigma_{\max}, \sigma_{r}(\Sigma^{*}) = \sigma_{\min}, \kappa = \sigma_{\max} / \sigma_{\min}$. Suppose $\frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \leq C_2 \frac{1}{\kappa^2 r^{2} \log^{5}(n)}$ and
\begin{align*}
\norm{X-X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F} &\leq C_{\F} \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n) \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}r}}{\sigma_{\min}}.
\end{align*}
Let $T^{*}$ be the tangent space of $X^{*}Y^{*\top}$, $T$ be the tangent space of $XY^{\top}.$ If there exists a constant $C_{r_1}$ such that $\norm{ZV^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{\log(n)}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ (\cref{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}), then for large enough $n$,
\begin{align}
\norm{ZV}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U}_{\F}^2 &\leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log(n)}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \label{eq:generalized-condition-1}\\
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 &\geq \frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log(n)} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \label{eq:generalized-PTP-Z-ratio}\\
\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z) - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{*} &\lesssim \frac{1}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)}\norm{Z}_{\F} \label{eq:PTP-PTPstar-Z}.
\end{align}
In addition, if there exists a constant $C_{r_2}$ such that $\left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right| \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{\log n}\right) \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2$ (\cref{cond:Z-condition-convex}), then for large enough $n$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right| \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)} \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log n}\right) \norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2.\label{eq:generalized-condition-2}
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From \cref{lem:singular-values}, we have $\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}} \leq \sigma_i(X) \leq \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}, \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2}} \leq \sigma_i(Y) \leq \sqrt{2\sigma_{\max}}$ and $\frac{\sigma_{\min}}{2} \leq \sigma_i(\Sigma) \leq 2\sigma_{\max}$ for $i \in [r].$
Also note that $X^{*\top}X^{*} = Y^{*\top}Y^{*} = \Sigma^{*}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{X^{\top}X - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} \\
&= \norm{X^{\top}X - X^{*\top}X^{*} + Y^{*\top}Y^{*} - Y^{\top}Y}_{\F} \\
&\leq \norm{X^{\top}X - X^{*\top}X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y^{\top}Y - Y^{*\top}Y^{*}}\\
&\leq \norm{X^{\top}(X - X^{*}) + (X^{\top}-X^{*\top})X^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{Y^{\top}(Y-Y^{*}) + (Y^{\top}-Y^{*\top})Y^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\lesssim \norm{X-X^{*}}_{\F}\sqrt{\sigma_{\max}} + \norm{Y-Y^{*}}_{\F} \sqrt{\sigma_{\max}}.
\end{align*}
Then we can invoke \cref{lem:XY-UV} and obtain that, there exists rotation matrix $R \in \mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$ where
\begin{align}
\norm{UR - U^{*}}_{\F} + \norm{VR - V^{*}}_{\F} \lesssim \frac{\sigma \sqrt{n} \log^{2.5}(n) r \kappa^2}{\sigma_{\min}} \overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}
\end{align}
for some constant $C$. Here, (i) is due to $\frac{\sigma\sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \leq C_2 \frac{1}{\kappa^2 r^{2} \log^{5}(n)}.$
This implies
\begin{align*}
\norm{UU^{\top} - U^{*}U^{*\top}}_{\F}
&= \norm{UR(UR)^{\top} - U^{*}U^{*\top}}_{\F}\\
&\leq \norm{UR - U^{*}}_{\F}\norm{UR} + \norm{U^{*}}\norm{UR - U^{*}}_{\F}\\
&\leq 2\norm{UR - U^{*}}_{\F} \\
&\leq \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we have
\begin{align}
\norm{VV^{\top} - V^{*}V^{*\top}}_{\F} &\leq \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)} \nonumber\\
\norm{UV^{\top} - U^{*}V^{*\top}}_{\F} &\leq \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}. \label{eq:UV-UVstar-bound}
\end{align}
Then, consider the proof of \cref{eq:generalized-condition-1}. We have
\begin{align*}
&\norm{ZV}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U}_{\F}^2\\
&= {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}ZVV^{\top}) + {\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}UU^{\top})\\
&= {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}ZV^{*}V^{*\top}) + {\rm tr}(Z^{\top}Z(VV^{\top} - V^{*}V^{*\top})) \\
&\quad + {\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}U^{*}U^{*\top}) - {\rm tr}(ZZ^{\top}(UU^{\top}-U^{*}U^{*\top}))\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{ZV^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}Z}_{*} \norm{VV^{\top}-V^{*}V^{*\top}} + \norm{ZZ^{\top}}_{*} \norm{UU^{\top} - U^{*}U^{*\top}}\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{\log(n)}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{2C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}\\
&\leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log(n)}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2
\end{align*}
where (i) is due to ${\rm tr}(AB) \leq \norm{A}_{*}\norm{B}$, (ii) is due to $\norm{ZV^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{\log(n)}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ and $\norm{Z^{\top}Z}_{*} = \norm{ZZ^{\top}}_{*} = \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ together with
$$\max(\norm{UU^{\top}-UU^{*}}_{\F},\norm{VV^{\top} - V^{*}V^{*\top}}_{\F}) \leq \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}.
$$ This completes the proof of \cref{eq:generalized-condition-1}.
Next, consider the proof of \cref{eq:generalized-PTP-Z-ratio}. This is in fact the simple implication of \cref{eq:generalized-condition-1}. Note that
\begin{align}
\norm{P_{T}(Z)}_{\F}^2
&= \norm{Z - (I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&= \norm{UU^{\top}Z + (I - UU^{\top})Z(VV^{\top})}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&= {\rm tr}\left(UU^{\top}ZZ^{\top}UU^{\top}\right) + {\rm tr}\left((I - UU^{\top})Z(VV^{\top})(VV^{\top})Z^{\top}(I - UU^{\top})\right)\nonumber\\
&= {\rm tr}\left(UU^{\top}ZZ^{\top}\right) + {\rm tr}\left(Z^{\top}ZVV^{\top}\right) - {\rm tr}\left(UU^{\top}ZVV^{\top}Z^{\top}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{Z^{\top}U}_{\F}^2 + \norm{ZV}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log n}\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2. \label{eq:PTZ-F-bound}
\end{align}
This implies that $\frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log n}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \leq \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 - \norm{P_{T}(Z)}_{\F}^2 $. Note that $\norm{P_{T^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 + \norm{P_{T}(Z)}_{\F}^2 = \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$, which completes the proof of \cref{eq:generalized-PTP-Z-ratio}.
Next, consider the proof of \cref{eq:PTP-PTPstar-Z}. Let $\Delta = \PTp{Z} - P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)$. We have
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta}_{*}
&= \norm{(I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top}) - (I - U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(I - V^{*}V^{*\top})}_{*}\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{(I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top}) - (I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{*} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(I-VV^{\top}) - (I - U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(I - V^{*}V^{*\top})}_{*}\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{*} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{*}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F} \sqrt{\text{rank}(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\F} \sqrt{\text{rank}(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{Z}_{\F}\left(\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})} + \norm{(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}\right) \sqrt{2r}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)}\norm{Z}_{\F}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Here, (i) is due to $\norm{A}_{*} \leq \norm{A}_{\F}\sqrt{\mathrm{rank}(A)}$ and $\mathrm{rank}(AB) \leq \mathrm{rank}(A)$ for any matrices $A$ and $B$. This completes the proof of \cref{eq:PTP-PTPstar-Z}.
Furthermore, we also have
\begin{align}
\norm{\Delta}_{\F}
&\leq \norm{(I-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top}) - (I - U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(I - V^{*}V^{*\top})}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})Z(I-VV^{\top})}_{\F} + \norm{(I-U^{*}U^{*\top})Z(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}_{\F}\nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{Z}_{\F} \left(\norm{(U^{*}U^{*\top}-UU^{\top})} + \norm{(V^{*}V^{*\top}-VV^{\top})}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{2C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)}\norm{Z}_{\F}. \label{eq:Delta-bound}
\end{align}
Finally, consider the proof of \cref{eq:generalized-condition-2}. Recall the \cref{cond:Z-condition-convex} provides the following.
\begin{align}
\frac{C_{r_2}}{\log(n)}\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 \leq \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right| \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} .\label{eq:technical-lemma-condition-2}
\end{align}
Consider substituting $\PTp{Z}$ with $\PTp{Z} = P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z) + \Delta$ in $\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2$, when $\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)} \leq 1$, we have
\begin{align}
&\left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\right)\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2 \nonumber\\
&= \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\right)\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 + \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\right)\norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 + \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\right)2\inner{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}{\Delta} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - 2\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F} \norm{\Delta}_{\F} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\geq} \norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{4C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)} \label{eq:1-Cr2-bound}
\end{align}
where (i) is due to $\norm{\Delta}_{\F}^2 \geq 0$ and $|\inner{A}{B}| \leq \norm{A}_{\F}\norm{B}_{\F}$, (ii) is due to \cref{eq:Delta-bound}.
Next, consider $\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\norm{\PTp{Z}}.$ Let $\Delta' = UV^{\top} - U^{*}V^{*\top}.$ Then, we have
\begin{align}
&\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\norm{\PTp{Z}} \nonumber\\
&= \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}+\Delta'}\right|\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z) + \Delta} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \left|\inner{Z}{\Delta'}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{\Delta} + \left|\inner{Z}{\Delta'}\right|\norm{\Delta} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{\Delta'}_{\F} \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \norm{Z}_{\F} \norm{U^{*}V^{*\top}}_{\F} \norm{\Delta} + \norm{Z}_{\F}\norm{\Delta'}_{\F}\norm{\Delta} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \norm{\Delta'}_{\F} + \norm{Z}_{\F} \sqrt{r} \norm{\Delta}_{\F} + \norm{Z}_{\F}\norm{\Delta'}_{\F}\norm{\Delta} \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \left( \frac{C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)} + \frac{C}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)} + \frac{C^2}{r^2\log^3(n)}\right) \nonumber.
\end{align}
where (i) is due to \cref{eq:Delta-bound} and \cref{eq:UV-UVstar-bound}. This implies
\begin{align}
\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\norm{\PTp{Z}} &\leq \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} + \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{3C^2}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)} \label{eq:ZUVT-bound}
\end{align}
Combining \cref{eq:1-Cr2-bound} and \cref{eq:ZUVT-bound}, we have
\begin{align*}
&\left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}/2}{\log(n)}\right)\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2 - \left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\norm{\PTp{Z}} \nonumber\\
&\geq \norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log(n)}\norm{P_{T^{* \perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{4C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)} \\
&\quad - \left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right|\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} - \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{3C^2}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)}\\
&\overset{(i)}{\geq} \frac{C_{r_2}}{\log n}\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}{Z}}_{\F}^2 - \frac{C_{r_2}}{2\log n}\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}{Z}}_{\F}^2 - \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{4C}{r\log^{2.5}(n)} - \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 \frac{3C^2}{r^{0.5}\log^{2.5}(n)}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\geq} \frac{C_{r_2}C_{r_1}}{4\log^2 n} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2 - \frac{3C^2+4C}{\log^{2.5}(n)}\norm{Z}_{\F}^2\nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\geq} 0\nonumber
\end{align*}
where (i) is by \cref{eq:technical-lemma-condition-2}, (ii) is by $\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 \geq \frac{C_{r_1}}{2\log(n)} \norm{Z}_{\F}^2$ due to the analysis in \cref{eq:PTZ-F-bound}, and (iii) holds for large enough $n$. This implies $\left|\inner{Z}{UV^{\top}}\right|\norm{\PTp{Z}} \leq \left(1-\frac{C_{r_2}/2}{\log(n)}\right)\norm{\PTp{Z}}_{\F}^2$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
\section{Theoretical Guarantees}
Summarizing so far, our estimator is constructed in two steps: solve the convex program in \cref{eq:convex-program} to obtain an initial estimate $(\hat{M},\hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$, then de-bias according to \cref{eq:construct-taud}. While we have presented this estimator in a setting that allows for {\em multiple} treatments (i.e. $k \ge 1$), for the sake simplicity our results here (\cref{thm:error-rate-theorem,thm:main-theorem}) are restricted to the single treatment (i.e. $k=1$) setting. Recall that the work on synthetic control, which we seek to extend, is for a single treatment and a particular form of $Z_1$ (support on a single row); our results in this section are for a single treatment but {\em general} $Z_1$.
To ease notation, we will from here on suppress treatment-specific subscripts ($Z_1$, $\mathrm{\tau}_1$, etc.)
As mentioned earlier, our results require a set of conditions that relate the treatment matrix $Z$ to the tangent space $T^*$ of $M^*$:
\begin{assumption} \label{assum:conditions-Z}There exist positive constants $C_{r_1}, C_{r_2}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[label={(\alph*)}, ref={\theassumption(\alph*)}]
\item \label[assumption]{cond:Z-condition-nonconvex}
$\norm{ZV^{*}}_{\F}^2 + \norm{Z^{\top}U^{*}}_{\F}^2 \leq \left(1-C_{r_1}/\log(n)\right) \norm{Z}_{\F}^2.
\item \label[assumption]{cond:Z-condition-convex}
$
\left|\inner{Z}{U^{*}V^{*\top}}\right| \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)} \leq \left(1-C_{r_2}/\log(n)\right) \norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2.
$
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
\cref{assum:conditions-Z} is nearly necessary for identifying $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ (in a manner made formal by \cref{prop:necessity-of-conditions} below). These conditions are mild enough to allow for various treatment patterns that occur in practice, and broadly expand on the set of patterns possible in the synthetic control literature (as we discuss in \cref{sec:treatment-conditions}).
Let $\delta = \mathcal{T} \circ Z - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z$ be the matrix of treatment effect `residuals.' Our first result establishes a bound on the error rate of $\mathrm{\tau}^d$. Note that $\delta$ is a zero-mean matrix and is zero outside the support of $Z$. Thus the requirement below that $\norm{\delta} \leq C_{\delta} \sigma \sqrt{n}/r$ is mild. It is trivially met in synthetic control settings. It is also easily seen as met when $\delta$ has independent, sub-Gaussian entries. Finally as it turns out, the condition can also admit random sub-gaussian matrices with complex correlation patterns; see \cite{moon2015linear}.
\begin{theorem}[Optimal Error Rate]\label{thm:error-rate-theorem}
Suppose $\frac{\sigma \sqrt{n}}{\sigma_{\min}} \leq C_1\frac{1}{\kappa^2 r^2 \log^{5}(n)}$ and $\norm{\delta} \leq C_{\delta} \sigma \sqrt{n}/r$. Then for any $C_2 > 0$, for sufficiently large $n$, with probability $1-O(n^{-C_2})$, we have
\begin{align*}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \leq C_{e}\log(n)\max\left(\frac{\sigma}{\norm{Z}_{\F}} \frac{\kappa^3 r n \sigma \log^{5}(n)}{\sigma_{\min}}, \frac{|\inner{P_{T^{*}}(\delta)}{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}| }{\norm{Z}_{\F}^2}\right).
\end{align*}
Here, $C_{e}$ is a constant depending (polynomially) on $C_1, C_2, C_{r_1}, C_{r_2}, C_{\delta}$ (where $C_{r_1}$ and $C_{r_2}$ are the constants appearing in \cref{assum:conditions-Z}).
\end{theorem}
To begin parsing this result, consider a `typical' scenario in which $\sigma,\kappa,r,\mu=O(1)$, and $\sigma_{\min}=\Omega(n)$. Then \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem} implies that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simplified-rate}
|\mathrm{\tau}^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| = \tilde{O}\left(\sigma/\|Z\|_{\F} + |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(\delta)}{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}|/\|Z\|_{\F}^2\right).
\end{equation}
This is minimax optimal (up to $\log n$ factors), as shown below:
\begin{proposition}[Minimax Lower Bound]\label{prop:necessity-of-conditions-tau}
For any estimator $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$, there exists an instance with $\sigma,\kappa,r,\mu=\Theta(1)$, and $\sigma_{\min}=\Theta(n)$, on which, with probability at least $1/3$,
\begin{align*}
|\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}| \geq \max\left(\sigma/\norm{Z}_{\F}, |\inner{P_{T^{*}}(\delta)}{P_{T^{*}}(Z)}| / \norm{Z}_{\F}^2\right).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
Finally, it is worth considering some special cases under which \cref{eq:simplified-rate} reduces further to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:super-simplified-rate} |\mathrm{\tau}^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}| = \tilde{O}\left(\sigma/ \|Z\|_{\F} \right), \end{equation}
which is the optimal rate (up to $\log n$) achieviable even when $M^{*}$ and $\delta$ are known.
Any of the following are, alone, sufficient to imply \cref{eq:super-simplified-rate}:
{\em Independent $\delta$: } Independent, sub-gaussian $\delta_{ij}$ with $O(1)$ sub-gaussian norm.
\newline
{\em Synthetic control and block $Z$: } $\|\delta\|_{\max} = O(1)$, $Z$ consists of an $\ell \times c$ block that is sufficiently sparse: $\sqrt{\ell c}(\ell + c) = O(n)$. For comparison, state-of-the-art synthetic control results \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic,agarwal2020synthetic} require the sparser condition $\ell c(\ell + c) = O(n)$ (though that condition enables asymptotic normality results).
\newline
{\em Panel data regression: } The conditions imposed in \cite{moon2018nuclear}, the most notably that $Z$ be sufficiently dense: $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2 = \Theta(n^2)$. This recovers their error guarantee (up to $\log$ factors); see \cref{appendix:panel-data-regerssion}.
Our second main result establishes asymptotic normality for our estimator. This naturally requires some additional control over the variability of $\delta$. We consider the setting in which the $\delta_{ij} = \mathcal{T}_{ij} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ are independent variables.
\begin{theorem}[Asymptotic Normality]\label{thm:main-theorem}
Suppose each $\delta_{ij}$ is a mean-zero, independent random variable with sub-Gaussian norm $\|\delta_{ij}\|_{\psi_2} = O(1)$. Assume $\kappa=r=\mu=\sigma=O(1)$ and $\sigma_{\min}=\Omega(n)$. Then with probability $1-O(1/n^{3})$,
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \frac{\inner{E+ (\delta \circ Z)}{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}}{\norm{P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2} + O\left(\frac{\log^{8}(n)}{n}\right).
\end{align*}
Consequently,
\begin{align*}
(\mathrm{\tau}^{d} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}) / V_{\mathrm{\tau}}^{1/2} \rightarrow \mathcal{N}(0, 1), \quad V_{\mathrm{\tau}} = \sum_{ij} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)_{ij}^2 \mathrm{Var}(E_{ij}+\delta_{ij}Z_{ij}) \Big/ \Big(\sum_{ij} P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)_{ij}^2\Big)^2,
\end{align*}
provided that $V_{\mathrm{\tau}}^{1/2} = \Omega( \log^{9}(n)/n).$
\end{theorem}
Asymptotic normality is of econometric interest, as it enables {\em inference}. Specifically, inference can be performed using a `plug-in' estimator $\hat{V}_{\mathrm{\tau}}$ for $V_{\mathrm{\tau}}$, gotten by substituting $\hat{T}$ for $T^{*}$ and $O-M^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{d}Z$ for $E + (\delta \circ Z) $, where $M^{d}$ is a de-biased estimator for $M^{*}$ (see \cref{section:proof-of-theorem-M}). This is a common procedure in the literature (e.g., see \cite{CFMY:19}), and it is straightforward to show that $\hat{V}_{\mathrm{\tau}} \sim V_{\mathrm{\tau}}.$
\textbf{Proof Technique: }The proofs of \cref{thm:error-rate-theorem,thm:main-theorem} are inspired by recent developments on bridging convex and non-convex formulations for matrix completion \cite{chen2019noisy} and Robust-PCA \cite{chen2020bridging}. Whereas that work assume a random, independent missingness pattern, our proof extends that program to deal with deterministic treatment patterns Z. As such, this analysis is likely of interest, in its own right, as a complement to the matrix completion literature \cite{abbe2017entrywise,ma2019implicit,chen2019noisy,chen2020bridging}. Broadly, we must address the issue that constructing a dual certificate to analyze the quality of our convex estimator directly is hard. Instead \cite{chen2019noisy} show the existence of such a certificate non-constructively by studying a non-convex estimator and showing that a (fictitious) gradient descent algorithm applied to that estimator recovers a suitable dual certificate. We effectively extend that program to deterministic patterns $Z$, and provide entry-wise recovery guarantees on $M^*$ in this setting that are of independent interest.
\subsection{Applicability of Treatment Conditions}\label{sec:treatment-conditions}
Having stated our results, we return to our assumptions on $Z$ (\cref{assum:conditions-Z}) and discuss the extent to which they allow for treatment patterns that occur in practice. First however, we establish that \cref{assum:conditions-Z} is necessary.
Consider the proposition below, which establishes that should either of the condition of \cref{assum:conditions-Z} be violated by an amount that grows negligible with $n$, then identification is rendered impossible so that no estimator can recover $\mathrm{\tau}^*$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:necessity-of-conditions}
Let $n$ be any positive even integer. There exists a matrix $Z \in \{0,1\}^{n \times n}$ and a pair of rank-1 and $\mu=2$ (incoherent) matrices $M_1,M_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ with SVDs denoted by $M_i = U_i\Sigma_iV_i^\top$ and $T_{i}$ being the tangent space of $M_i$, such that all three of the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\norm{ZV_i}_{\F}^2 + \|{Z^TU_i}\|_{\F}^2 = \norm{Z}_{\F}^2, \;\; i=1,2$
\vspace{2pt}
\item $\left| \left\langle Z,U_iV_i^\top \right\rangle \right| \|{P_{T_i^{*\perp}}(Z)}\| = \|P_{T_i^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}^2, \;\; i=1,2 $
\vspace{2pt}
\item $M_1 + Z= M_2 $
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
We next discuss various treatment patterns that are admissible under \cref{assum:conditions-Z}:
\textit{1. Rank grows faster than $r$:} \cref{assum:conditions-Z} holds if $\sum_{i=1}^r \sigma_i(Z)^2 \le \left(1 - C/\log n \right)\|Z\|_{\F}^2/(\sqrt{r}+2).$ Loosely speaking, this requires that the rank of $Z$ be strictly higher than $r$, and that less than $1/\sqrt{r}$ of its `mass' lie in its first $r$ components. Put another way, $Z$ must be sufficiently different from any rank-$r$ approximation. One common setting where this occurs is when there is sufficient randomness in generating $Z$, such as the case where the entries of $Z$ are drawn independently, which is the canonical scenario in the matrix completion literature (e.g., \cite{candes2009exact,abbe2017entrywise,ma2019implicit}).
\textit{2. Maximal number of ones in a row and column:} Let $\ell$ and $c$ denote the maximum number of ones in a row and column, respectively, of $Z$. \cref{assum:conditions-Z} holds if $\ell + c \le \left(1-C/\log n\right) n / (r^2 \mu).$ When $r,\mu=O(1)$, this allows $\ell,c = O(n)$ and generalizes the sparse block patterns studied in the literature (e.g. \cite{xu2017generalized,arkhangelsky2019synthetic}), where $Z$ is a two-by-two block matrix with exactly one block equal to one.
\textit{3. Single row or column (Synthetic Control):} Consider the case when $Z$ is supported on a single row (or column, equivalently), as in synthetic control. \cref{assum:conditions-Z} holds if $\|z^\top V^* \|_{\F}^2 \le \left(1 - C / \log n - \mu r/n \right) \|z\|^2$, where $z^{\top}$ is the non-zero row of $Z$. This will easily hold, if allowing a negligible perturbation to either $z_1$ or the row space of $M^*$. It is also interesting to note that the identification assumption made in the canonical paper \cite{abadie2010synthetic} (i.e., $T_0^{-1}\sigma_{\min}(\sum_{i=1}^{T_0} V^{*}_iV^{*\top}_{i}) > 0$ is bounded away from zero, where $T_0 = \max_{z_i=0} i$), together with $T_0 = \Omega(n/\log(n))$ and $\mu r = O(n/\log(n))$ (also implicitly assumed in \cite{abadie2010synthetic} for an optimal gaurantee), together imply \cref{assum:conditions-Z}.
We end this section by drawing a connection to the literature on panel data regression with interactive fixed effects \cite{bai2009panel,moon2015linear,moon2018nuclear}. That literature studies estimators similar in spirits to ours (e.g., \cite{moon2018nuclear} analyzed the performance of the convex estimator and a heuristic de-biasing approach). However, those approaches are only known to work if $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}=\Theta(n^2)$\footnote{Parenthetically, the assumption $\|P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z)\|_{\F}=\Theta(n^2)$ greatly simplifies analysis in \cite{moon2018nuclear} since a global bound on $\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ can be easily obtained. One of the main technical innovations in our paper, building on recent advances in the matrix completion literature, is to conduct a refined `local' analysis without the assumption on the density of $Z$.}. This is of course a substantially stronger assumption than \cref{assum:conditions-Z} and rules out sparse treatment patterns (as in synthetic control). In summary, our approach also has the potential to broaden the scope of problems addressed via panel data regression.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
We conducted a set of experiments on semi-synthetic datasets (the treatment is introduced artificially and thus ground-truth treatment-effect values are known) and real datasets (the treatment is real and ground-truth treatment-effect values are unknown). The results show that our estimator $\mathrm{\tau}^{d}$ is more accurate than existing algorithms and its performance is robust to various treatment patterns.
The following four benchmarks were implemented: (i) Synthetic Difference-in-Difference (SDID) \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic}; (ii) Matrix-Completion with Nuclear Norm Minimization (MC-NNM) \cite{athey2021matrix} (iii) Robust Synthetic Control (RSC) \cite{amjad2018robust} (iv) Ordinary Least Square (OLS): Selects $a,b \in \mathbb{R}^{n}, \mathrm{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}$ to minimize $\|O-a1^{T} - 1b^{T} - \mathrm{\tau} Z\|_{\F}^2$, where $1 \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the vector of ones. It is worth noting that SDID and RSC one apply to traditional synthetic control patterns ({\em block} and {\em stagger} below).
\textbf{Semi-Synthetic Data (Tobacco).} The first dataset consists of the annual tobacco consumption per capita for 38 states during 1970-2001, collected from the prominent synthetic control study \cite{abadie2010synthetic} (the treated unit California is removed). Similar to \cite{athey2021matrix}, we view the collected data as $M^{*}$ and introduce artificial treatments.
We considered two families of patterns that are common in the economics literature: {\em block} and {\em stagger} \cite{athey2021matrix}. Block patterns model simultaneous adoption of the treatment, while stagger patterns model adoption at different times. In both cases, treatment continues forever once adopted. Specifically, given the parameters $(m_1, m_2)$, a set of $m_1$ rows of $Z$ are selected uniformly at random. On these rows, $Z_{ij} = 1$ if and only if $j \geq t_i$, where for block patterns, $t_i = m_2$, and for stagger patterns, $t_i$ is selected uniformly from values greater than $m_2$.
To model heterogenous treatment effects, let $\mathcal{T}_{ij} = \mathrm{\tau}^{*} + \delta_{i}$ where $\delta_{i}$ is i.i.d and $\delta_{i} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{\delta})$ characterizes the unit-specific effect. Then the observation is $O = M^{*} + \mathcal{T} \circ Z$. We fix $\mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \sigma_{\delta} = \bar{M}^{*}/10$ through all experiments, where $\bar{M}^{*}$ is the mean value of $M^{*}$ \footnote{See \cref{appendix:experiments} for estimating row-specific treatment effects}. The hyperparameters for all algorithms were tuned using rank $r\sim 5$ (estimated via the spectrum of $M^{*}$).
Next, we compare the performances of the various algorithms on an ensemble of 1,000 instances with $m_1 \sim \mathrm{Uni}[1, n_1), m_2 = \mathrm{Uni}[1,n_2)$ for stagger patterns and $m_1 \sim \mathrm{Uni}[1, 5), m_2 = 18$ for block patterns (matching the year 1988, where California passed its law for tobacco control). The results are reported in the first two rows of \cref{tab:synthetic-average-delta-tau} in terms of the average normalized error $|\mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}|/\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$.
Note that the treatment patterns here are `home court' for the SDID and RSC synthetic control methods but our approach nonetheless outperforms these benchmarks. One potential reason is that these methods do not leverage all of the available data for learning counterfactuals: MC-NNM and SDID ignore treated observations. RSC ignores even more: it in addition does not leverage some of the {\em untreated} observations in $M^*$ on treated units (i.e. observations $O_{ij}$ for $j < t_i$ on treated units).
\begin{table}[h!]
\small
\centering
\caption{Comparison of our algorithm (De-biased Convex) to benchmarks on semi-synthetic datasets (Block and Stagger correspond to Tobacco dataset; Adaptive pattern corresponds to Sales dataset). Average normalized error $|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|/\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ is reported.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
\toprule
Pattern & De-biased Convex & SDID & MC-NNM & RSC & OLS\\
\midrule
Block & 0.31 ($\pm 0.27$) &0.46 ($\pm 0.38$) & 0.54 ($\pm 0.47$) & 0.60 ($\pm 0.53$) & 0.75 ($\pm 0.72$)\\
Stagger & 0.20 ($\pm 0.20$) &0.32 ($\pm 0.37$) & 0.30 ($\pm 0.32$) & 0.39 ($\pm$ 0.54) & 0.37 ($\pm$ 0.38) \\
Adaptive & 0.053 ($\pm 0.04$) & - & 0.27 ($\pm 0.19$) & - & 0.40 ($\pm 0.37$)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:synthetic-average-delta-tau}
\end{table}
\textbf{Semi-Synthetic Data (Sales).} The second dataset consists of weekly sales of 167 products over 147 weeks, collected from a Kaggle competition \cite{sales2021}. In this application, treatment corresponds to various `promotions' of a product (e.g. price reductions, advertisements, etc.).
We introduced an artificial promotion $Z$, used the collected data as $M^{*}$ ($\bar{M}^{*} \approx 12170$), and the goal was to estimate the average treatment effect given $O = M^{*}+\mathcal{T} \circ Z$ and $Z$ ($\mathcal{T}$ follows the same generation process as above with $\mathrm{\tau}^{*} = \sigma = {\bar{M}^{*}}/{10}$).
Now the challenge in these settings is that these promotions are often decided based on previous sales. Put another way, the treatment matrix $Z$ is constructed {\em adaptively}.
We considered a simple model for generating adaptive patterns for $Z$: Fix parameters $(a, b)$. If the sale of a product reaches its lowest point among the past $a$ weeks, then we added promotions for the following $b$ weeks (this models a common preference for promoting low-sale products). Across our instances, $(a,b)$ was generated according to $a \in \mathrm{Uni}[5, 25], b \in \mathrm{Uni}[5, 25].$ This represents a treatment pattern where it is unclear how typical synthetic control approaches (SDID, RSC) might even be applied.
The rank of $M^{*}$ is estimated via the spectrum with $r \sim 35$. See \cref{tab:synthetic-average-delta-tau} for the results averaged over 1,000 instances.
The average of ${|\mathrm{\tau}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*}|}/{\mathrm{\tau}^{*}}$ is $\sim 5.3\%$ for our algorithm, versus $27.6\%$ for MC-NNM. We conjecture that the reason for this is that highly structured missing-ness patterns are challenging for matrix-completion algorithms; we overcome this limitation by leveraging the treated data as well. Of course, there is a natural trade-off here: if the heterogeneity in $\delta$ were on the order of the variation in $M^*$ (so that $\|\delta \circ Z\| \gg \sigma_{r}(M^{*})$) then it is unclear that the treated data would help (and it might, in fact, hurt). But for most practical applications, the treatment effects we seek to estimate are typically small relative to the nominal observed values.
\textbf{Real Data.} This dataset consists of daily sales and promotion information of 571 drug stores over 942 days, collected from Rossmann Store Sales dataset \cite{Rossmannsales2021}. The promotion dataset $Z$ is binary (1 indicates a promo is running on that specific day and store). The {\em real} pattern is highly complex (see \cref{fig:rossmann-sales}) and hence synthetic-control type methods (SDID, RSC) again do not apply. Our goal here is to estimate the average increase of sales $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$ brought by the promotion.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\hspace{-20pt}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Figs/rossmann_pattern.png}
\label{fig:rossman-pattern}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}r|rrrr@{}}
\toprule
& $\mathrm{\tau}$ & Test Error\\ \hline
De-biased Convex & 118.2 ($\pm 2.4$) & 0.04 ($\pm 0.002$)\\
MC-NNM & -49.4 ($\pm 0.98$) & 0.07 ($\pm 0.002$) \\
OLS & -45.8 ($\pm 1.24$) & 0.18 ($\pm 0.003$)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{fig:block-synthetic-performance}
\vspace{30pt}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{{\it Left:} The promotion pattern of the real data. {\it Right:} Estimation of $\mathrm{\tau}$ and test errors.}
\label{fig:rossmann-sales}
\end{figure}
The hyperparameters for all algorithms were tuned using rank $r \sim 70$ (estimated via cross validation). A test set $\Omega$ consisting of 20\% of the treated entires is randomly sampled and hidden. The test error is then calculated by $\|P_{\Omega}(M+\mathrm{\tau} Z - O)\|_{\F}^2 / \|P_{\Omega}(O-\bar{O})\|_{\F}^2$ where $\bar{O}$ is the mean-value of $O$. \cref{fig:rossmann-sales} shows the results averaged over 100 instances. Our algorithm provides superior test error. This is potentially a conservative measure since it captures error in approximating both $M^{*}$ and $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$; the variation contributed by $M^*$ to observations is substantially larger that that contributed by $\mathrm{\tau}^*$.
Now whereas the ground-truth for $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ is not known here, the negative treatment effects estimated by MC-NNM and OLS seem less likely since store-wise promotions are typically associated with positive effects on sales.
\textbf{Asymptotic Normality.} The normality of our estimator is also verified, where the prediction from \cref{thm:main-theorem} is precise enough to enable inferential tasks such as constructing confidence intervals (CIs) for $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}$: our 95\% CIs typically had ``true'' coverage rates in the range of 93-96\% for a synthetic set of instances described in Appendix \ref{appendix:experiments}. See \cref{fig:stagger-distribution}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\small
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Figs/stagger_distribution_r10}
\label{fig:stagger-synthetic-performance}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}r|rrrr@{}}
\toprule
& $n_1=50$ & $100$ & $150$ & $200$\\ \hline
$n_2/n_1 = 0.5$ & 0.916 & 0.957 & 0.956 & 0.942 \\
$1$ & 0.953 & 0.946 & 0.954 & 0.939 \\
$2$ & 0.946 & 0.947 & 0.945 & 0.957 \\
$4$ & 0.94 & 0.934 & 0.949 & 0.944\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{fig:block-synthetic-performance}
\vspace{20pt}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ Evaluation of our distributional characterization of $\mathrm{\tau}^d$ on a synthetic ensemble where $\delta$ and $E$ follow i.i.d Gaussian distribution. {\it Left:} Empirical Distribution of $(\mathrm{\tau}^{d}-\mathrm{\tau}^{*})/V_{\mathrm{\tau}}$ with $n=100$, overlaid with the $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ density function as predicted by \cref{thm:main-theorem}. {\it Right:} Coverage rates of $95\%$ confidence intervals (the `correct' coverage rate is 0.95) for different sizes $(n_1, n_2)$ with $r=10$ . See \cref{appendix:experiments} for the data generation processes in details. }
\label{fig:stagger-distribution}
\end{figure}
\section{Extension to Multiple Treatments}
\section{Introduction}
Consider that we are given a sequence of $T$ observations on each of $n$ distinct `units'. In an econometric context, a unit might correspond to a geographic region with the associated sequence of observations corresponding to some economic time series of interest. In e-commerce, a unit may correspond to a customer, with the associated sequence of observations corresponding to site-visits for that customer over time. For each unit, some subset of its observations are potentially impacted by an intervention. This may correspond to a new economic policy in the econometric example, or the application of a new type of promotion in the e-commerce context. The question at hand is to estimate the `average treatment effect' of this intervention. This is a core question in econometrics.
The problem above can be formalized as follows: Let $M^* \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times T}$ be a fixed, unknown matrix and $E$ be a zero-mean random matrix; we refer to $M^*+E$ as the `counterfactual' matrix with each row corresponding to a distinct `unit'. A known `treatment' matrix $Z$ with entries in $\{0,1\}$ encodes observations impacted by an intervention. Specifically, we observe a matrix $O$ with entries $O_{ij} = M^*_{ij} + E_{ij} + \mathcal{T}_{ij} Z_{ij}$ where the $\mathcal{T}_{ij}$ are unknown, heterogenous treatment effects.\footnote{Observable covariates on each unit may also be available; we suppress this aspect here for clarity} Our goal is to recover the average treatment effect $\mathrm{\tau}^* = \sum_{ij} \mathcal{T}_{ij}Z_{ij}/\sum_{ij}Z_{ij}$.
The `synthetic control' paradigm \cite{abadie2003economic, abadie2010synthetic} has been a transformative approach to addressing this problem. That setup addresses the special case of this problem where a single unit (say, the first row) is treated; i.e. $Z$ has support on a portion of the first row. The approach is conceptually simple: find a linear combination of the untreated units (i.e. all rows other than the first) that approximate the first row on its {\em untreated} entries. One then uses the same linear combination to impute counterfactual values i.e. the entires of $M^*$ in the support of $Z$. Under the assumption that $M^*$ is low rank (and other assumptions), one can show that this approach recovers $\mathrm{\tau}^*$.
Applications like the e-commerce setup alluded to earlier require we allow for more general intervention patterns, i.e. allow for {\em general} $Z$ as opposed to the single row (or block) support required in synthetic control. A tantalizing possibility, first raised by \cite{athey2021matrix}, is treating entries of $M^*$ in the support of $Z$ as missing and applying matrix completion techniques to impute these counterfactual values. This viewpoint has the benefit of making no assumptions on the treatment effects and yields algorithms that do not require any special structure for $Z$. However, it is unclear that counterfactual recovery -- which is equivalent to matrix recovery with general missingness patterns -- is actually possible via such a method, so that recovery guarantees are typically unavailable.
\subsection{This Paper}
Succinctly, we develop an estimator that recovers the average treatment effect under provably minimal assumptions on $Z$. This is made possible by a new de-biasing identity and an extension of the entry-wise uncertainty quantification analysis of \cite{chen2019noisy,chen2020bridging} to general non-random missingness patterns that is of independent interest.
In providing context for our contributions, it is worth asking what one can hope for in this problem. In addition to requiring that $M^*$ have low rank (say $r$), it is clear that we {\em cannot} in general expect to recover $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ absent assumptions on the treatment matrix $Z$. For instance, we must rule out the existence of a rank $r$ matrix $M'$, distinct from $M^*$ for which $M' = M^* + \gamma Z$ for some $\gamma \neq 0$, or else identifying $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ is impossible even if $E$ is identically zero (we could rule this out if $Z$ were not in the tangent space of $M^*$). Separately, unlike matrix completion, we actually {\em observe} $M^*_{ij} + \mathcal{T}_{ij} + E_{ij}$ on treated entires. If the heterogeneity in treatment effects is too large, however, it is unclear that these observations are of much value. Thus, in addition to benign assumptions on $M^*$ and $E$, we make a set of assumptions on (A) the projection of $Z$ onto the tangent space of $M^*$ and (B) the heterogeneity in treatment effects.
Against this backdrop, we make the following contributions:
\newline
{\em Rate Optimal Estimator: } We construct an estimator that achieves rate optimal guarantees for the recovery of the average treatment effect $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ (\cref{thm:error-rate-theorem}) with general treatment patterns. We show under additional assumptions that our estimator is asymptotically normal (\cref{thm:main-theorem}).
\newline
{\em Minimality of Assumptions: }Should the conditions we place on the projection of $Z$ onto the tangent space of $M^*$ be violated by an amount that grows small with problem size, we show {\em no algorithm} can recover $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ even with homogeneous treatments (Proposition~\ref{prop:necessity-of-conditions}). Our assumptions on heterogeneity are also shown to be minimal, and satisfied by extant models in the synthetic control literature.
\newline
{\em General Treatment Patterns Work: }We show that our assumptions on $Z$ are satisfied by general treatment patterns, e.g., requiring that at least a constant fraction of entries are {\em not} treated or matrices $Z$ with rank polynomially larger than the rank of $M^*$.
\newline
{\em Empirical Performance: }We show both for synthetic and real data that our estimator provides a material improvement in empirical performance relative to available alternatives, including matrix completion based estimators and, where applicable, state-of-the-art synthetic control estimators.
\subsection{Related Literature}
The synthetic control literature pioneered by \cite{abadie2003economic, abadie2010synthetic} has grown to encompass sophisticated learning and inferential methods; see \cite{abadie2019using} for a review. \cite{doudchenko2016balancing,li2017estimation,ben2021augmented} consider a variety of regularized regression techniques to learn the linear combination of untreated units that yields a synthetic control. \cite{amjad2018robust,amjad2019mrsc,agarwal2021robustness} consider instead the use of principal component regression techniques. \cite{arkhangelsky2019synthetic} propose alternative approaches to imputing counterfactuals by averaging across both untreated units (rows) and time (untreated columns). \cite{li2020statistical,chernozhukov2021exact} address inferential questions that arise in synthetic control with the latter providing a permutation test that is generally applicable.
Matrix completion methods present a means to allow for inference with {\em general} treatment patterns. \cite{athey2021matrix} are among the first to study this, but provide no guarantees on recovering the average treatment effect. Alternatively methods that do provide guarantees on the recovery of treatment effects via matrix completion tend to make strong assumptions: \cite{bai2019matrix} effectively assume that $Z$ has support on a block (so that traditional synthetic control techniques could also apply), \cite{xiong2019large} make stationarity assumptions on $M^*$ and require it to be zero-mean and \cite{CFMY:19} assume that $Z$ has i.i.d. entries (wherein a trivial estimator of the average treatment effect is also applicable).
A distinct (and common) setting for treatment effect estimation presents us with a single observation per unit and a rich set of observed covariates on these units. These observed covariates roughly ensure exchangeability of units across interventions within covariate strata. ML has been broadly used in this setting; eg. \cite{athey2016recursive, wager2018estimation, kunzel2019metalearners}. In contrast for our problem, one could view these covariates as latent.
Our estimation procedure begins with first computing a `rough' estimate of the treatment effect via a natural convex estimator; \cite{xiong2019optimal, gobillon2016regional, gobillon2020local} are empirical studies that have uses this estimator. Crucially, we provide a new de-biasing technique that allows for recovery guarantees and exhibits a significant performance improvement relative to this rough estimate. It is also worth noting that this convex estimator also finds application in the related problem of panel data regression; see \cite{bai2009panel, moon2017dynamic, moon2018nuclear}. State of the art methods there effectively require that $Z$ is dense.
Whereas work on matrix completion with non-standard observation patterns \cite{chatterjee2020deterministic,foucart2019weighted,liu2017new,klopp2017robust} exists this is by and large not obviously useful or applicable to our problem. Instead, we build on a recent program to bridge convex and non-convex formulations for matrix completion \cite{chen2019noisy} and Robust-PCA \cite{chen2020bridging}. That work has provided a pioneering analysis of entry-wise guarantees and uncertainty quantification for convex matrix completion estimators wherein entries remain missing at random. Our work here may be viewed as extending that program to a broad class of non-random missingness patterns, a contribution of important independent interest.
\section{Model and Algorithm}
\label{sec:model}
We begin by formally defining our problem; we in fact present a generalization to the problem described in the previous section, allowing for {\em multiple} treatments.
Let $M^* \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ be a fixed rank-$r$ matrix with singular value decomposition (SVD) denoted by $M^* = U^{*}\Sigma^{*}V^{*\top}$, where $U^{*},V^{*} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ have orthonormal columns, and $\Sigma^* \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r}$ is diagonal with diagonal entries $\sigma_1 \ge \cdots \ge \sigma_r > 0$.\footnote{Note that in contrast to the previous section, we are now assuming {\em square} matrices (i.e. $n=T$ in the notation of the previous section). This is purely to simplify the notation -- for a rectangular $n$-by-$T$ matrix, all of our theoretical guarantees hold if one swaps $n$ with $\min\{n,T\}$.} Let $\sigma_{\max} := \sigma_1, \sigma_{\min} := \sigma_{r}$ and $\kappa := \sigma_{\max} / \sigma_{\min}$ be the condition number of $M^*$.
There are $k$ treatments that can be applied to each entry, and for each treatment $m \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$, we are given a {\em treatment matrix} $Z_m \in \{0, 1\}^{n\times n}$ which encodes the entries which have received the $m^\text{th}$ treatment (0 meaning no treatment, and 1 meaning being treated).\footnote{We allow for multiple treatments to be applied to an entry.} We then observe a single matrix of {\em outcomes}:
\[O := M^{*} + E + \sum_{m=1}^k \mathcal{T}_m\circ Z_m \]
($\circ$ is the Hadamard or `entrywise' product), where each $\mathcal{T}_m \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is an unknown matrix of {\em treatment effects}, and $E\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is a (possibly heterogeneous) random noise matrix. Finally, let $\mathrm{\tau}^{*} \in \mathbb{R}^k$ be the vector of {\em average treatment effects}, whose $m^\text{th}$ value is defined as $\mathrm{\tau}^{*}_m := \langle \mathcal{T}_m, Z_m \rangle / \|Z_m\|_1$ and let $\delta_m = \mathcal{T}_m\circ Z_m - \mathrm{\tau}^*_m Z_m$ be associated `residual' matrices. Our problem is to estimate $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ after having observed $O$ and $Z_1,\ldots,Z_k$.
It is worth noting that the representation above is powerful: for instance, it subsumes the setting where the intervention on any entry is associated with a $\{0,1\}^k$-valued covariate vector, and the treatment effect observed on that entry is some linear function of this covariate vector plus idiosyncratic noise. Recovery of $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ is then equivalent to recovering covariate dependent heterogeneous treatment effects.
Our problem also subsumes the synthetic control setting where $k=1$ and $Z_1$ must place support on a single row; the focus of our later analysis will be the case where $Z_1$ is allowed to be general.
The assumptions that we will need to impose in order to state meaningful results can be divided into two groups. The first are assumptions on $M^*$ and $E$ that are, by this point, canonical in the matrix completion literature:
\begin{assumption}[Random Noise]\label{assum:random-noise}
The entries of $E$ are independent, mean-zero, sub-Gaussian random variables with sub-Gaussian norm bounded by $\sigma$: that is, $\|{E_{ij}}\|_{\psi_2} \leq \sigma$ for every $i,j \in [n]$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}[Incoherence]\label{assum:incoherence}
$M^*$ is $\mu$-incoherent:
\begin{align*}
\norm{U^{*}}_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu r/n} \text{\quad and \quad} \norm{V^{*}}_{2,\infty} \leq \sqrt{\mu r/n},
\end{align*}
where $\|\cdot\|_{2,\infty}$ denotes the maximum $\ell_2$-norm of the rows of a matrix.
\end{assumption}
In addition to these standard conditions on $M^*$ and $E$ which we will assume throughout this paper, we will also need to impose conditions on the relationship between $M^*$ and the $Z_m$'s. Loosely speaking, these conditions preclude treatment matrices $Z_m$ that can be `disguised' within $M^*$, in the sense that their projections onto the tangent spaces of $M^*$ are large. Specifically, the formal statements relate to a particular decomposition of the linear space of $n \times n$ matrices, $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n} = T^* \oplus T^{*\perp}$, where $T^*$ is the tangent space of $M^*$ in the manifold consisting of matrices with rank no larger than $\mathrm{rank}(M^*)$: \[T^* = \{U^*A^\top + BV^{*\top}| \; A,B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times \mathrm{rank}(M^*)}\}.\]
Equivalently, the orthogonal space of $T^*$, denoted $T^{*\perp}$, is the subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ whose columns and rows are orthogonal, respectively, to the spaces $U^*$ and $V^*$. Let $P_{T^{*\perp}}(\cdot)$ denote the projection operator onto $T^{*\perp}$:
\begin{align*}
P_{T^{*\perp}}(A) = (I - U^{*}U^{*\top}) A (I - V^{*}V^{*\top}).
\end{align*}
We will defer the formal statements of the additional conditions to the next section, but suffice to say for now that they assume $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z_m)$ to be sufficiently large (we will show that lower bounds on the size of $P_{T^{*\perp}}(Z_m)$, in the the precise form of our own conditions, are nearly necessary). In the remainder of this section, we will outline the core contribution of this paper, which is an estimator for $\mathrm{\tau}^*$ with a provably rate-optimal guarantee.
\subsection{A De-biased Convex Estimator}
Our estimator is constructed in two steps, stated as \cref{eq:convex-program,eq:construct-taud} below:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:estimator}
\begin{align}
(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}}) \in \underset{M \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}, \mathrm{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}^k}{\mathrm{argmin}} \quad g(M, \mathrm{\tau}) := \frac{1}{2}\norm{O - M - \sum_{m=1}^k\mathrm{\tau}_m Z_m}_{\F}^{2} + \lambda \norm{M}_{*},\label{eq:convex-program}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{\tau}^{d} := \hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - D^{-1}\Delta. \label{eq:construct-taud}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In \cref{eq:construct-taud}, define by $D \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k}$ the Gram matrix with entires $D_{lm} = \langle
P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z_l),P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z_m)
\rangle
$,
and by $\Delta \in \mathbb{R}^k$ the `error' vector with components
$\Delta_l = \lambda
\langle
Z_l,\hat U \hat V^\top
\rangle$, where we have let $\hat{M} = \hat{U}\hat{\Sigma} \hat{V}^{\top}$ be the SVD of $\hat{M}$, and let $\hat{T}$ denote the tangent space of $\hat{M}$.\footnote{Our definition implicitly assumes that $D$ is invertible. We view this as a natural assumption on (the absence of) collinearity in treatments.}
The first step, \cref{eq:convex-program}, is a natural convex optimization formulation that we use to compute a `rough' estimate of the average treatment effects. The objective function's first term penalizes choices of $M$ and $\mathrm{\tau}$ which differ from the observed $O$, and the second term seeks to penalize the rank of $M$ using the nuclear norm as a (convex) proxy. The tuning parameter $\lambda > 0$, which will be specified in our theoretical guarantees, encodes the relative weight of these two objectives.
After the first step, having $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ as a minimizer of \cref{eq:convex-program}, we could simply use $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$ as our estimator for $\mathrm{\tau}^*$. However, a brief analysis of the first-order optimality conditions for \eqref{eq:convex-program} yields a simple, but powerful decomposition of $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}-\mathrm{\tau}^*$ that suggests a first-order improvement to $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}}$ via {\em de-biasing}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tau-decomposition}
Suppose $(\hat{M}, \hat{\mathrm{\tau}})$ is a minimizer of \eqref{eq:convex-program}. Let $\hat{M} = \hat{U}\hat{\Sigma} \hat{V}^{\top}$ be the SVD of $\hat{M}$, and let $\hat{T}$ denote the tangent space of $\hat{M}$. Denote $\hat E = E +\sum_m \delta_m \circ Z_m$. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tau-decomposition}
D(\hat \mathrm{\tau} - \mathrm{\tau}^*)
= \Delta^1 + \Delta^2 + \Delta^3,
\end{equation}
where
$\Delta^1, \Delta^2, \Delta^3 \in \mathbb{R}^k$ are vectors with components
\[
\Delta^1_l = \lambda
\langle
Z_l,
\hat U \hat V^\top
\rangle,
\Delta^2_l =
\langle
P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z_l)
,
\hat E
\rangle,
\Delta^3_l =
\langle
Z_l
,P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(M^*)
\rangle.
\]
\end{lemma}
Consider this error decomposition, i.e. $\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^* = D^{-1}(\Delta^1 + \Delta^2 + \Delta^3)$ by \cref{eq:tau-decomposition}, and note that $D^{-1}\Delta^1$ is entirely a function of observed quantities. Thus, it is known and {\em removable}. The second step of of our algorithm, \cref{eq:construct-taud}, does exactly this. The resulting de-biased estimator, denoted $\mathrm{\tau}^d$, is the subject of this paper. As an aside, it is worth noting that while de-biased estimators for high-dimensional inference have received considerable attention recently, our de-biasing procedure is algorithmically distinct from existing notions of de-biasing, including those for problems closely related to our own (e.g. matrix completion \cite{xia2018confidence,CFMY:19} and panel data regression \cite{moon2018nuclear}).
Our main results characterize the error $\mathrm{\tau}^d - \mathrm{\tau}^*$. The crux of this can be gleaned from the second and third terms of \cref{eq:tau-decomposition}. If $\hat{T}$ is sufficiently `close' to $T^*$, then $\Delta^3$ becomes negligible (because $P_{T^{*\perp}}(M^*)$ = 0). Showing closeness of $\hat{T}$ and $T^{*}$ is the main technical challenge of this work. The remaining error, contributed by $\Delta^2$, can then be characterized as a particular `weighted average' of the (independent) entries of $E$ and the residual matrices $\delta_m$ which we show to be min-max optimal.
To conclude this section, we prove \cref{lem:tau-decomposition} for a single treatment ($k=1$); the complete proof is a straightforward generalization, completed in \cref{sec:proof-of-first-order-lemma}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{lem:tau-decomposition} for $k=1$]
Since $k=1$, we suppress redundant subscripts. Consider the first-order optimality conditions of \eqref{eq:convex-program}:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:convex-conditions}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convex-condition-tau}
\inner{Z}{O - \hat{M} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}} Z} &= 0 \\
O - \hat{M} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}} Z &= \lambda (\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + W), \label{eq:convex-condition-M}\\
\norm{W} &\leq 1 \label{eq:convex-condition-W1} \\
P_{\hat{T}^\perp}(W) &= W \label{eq:convex-condition-W2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
($W$ is called the `dual certificate' in the matrix completion literature \cite{wright2009robust,recht2011simpler,candes2009exact}).
Combining \cref{eq:convex-condition-M} and \cref{eq:convex-condition-tau}, we have
\begin{align}
\inner{Z}{O-\hat{M}-\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} Z} = 0 \implies \inner{Z}{\lambda (\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top} + W)} = 0 \implies \lambda \inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}} = -\inner{Z}{\lambda W}.\label{eq:ZUVT-ZW}
\end{align}
Next, applying $P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(\cdot)$ to both sides of \cref{eq:convex-condition-M} and using \cref{eq:convex-condition-W2}:
\begin{align}
& P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (O - \hat{M} - \hat{\mathrm{\tau}} Z) = \lambda W \nonumber\\
\implies & P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*}) + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E + \delta \circ Z) - (\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z) = \lambda W, \label{eq:PTPerpO}
\end{align}
where the implication is by definition: $O = M^{*} + E + \mathrm{\tau}^{*}Z + \delta \circ Z$.
Finally, substituting $\lambda W$ from \cref{eq:PTPerpO} into \cref{eq:ZUVT-ZW}, we obtain
\begin{align}
& \lambda \inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}} = -\inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*}) + P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E+\delta \circ Z) - (\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*})P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)} \nonumber\\
\implies& (\hat{\mathrm{\tau}} - \mathrm{\tau}^{*}) \norm{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(Z)}_{\F}^2 = \lambda \inner{Z}{\hat{U}\hat{V}^{\top}} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}}(E+\delta \circ Z)} + \inner{Z}{P_{\hat{T}^{\perp}} (M^{*})} \nonumber
\end{align}
This is equivalent to \cref{eq:tau-decomposition}, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\section*{Checklist}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Object detection has been an important computer vision task for over 20 years \cite{zou2019object}. In recent years, with the growing demand for public security, the detection of ships has become an important task in both military and civilian fields \cite{shao2018seaships}, including sea controlling, illegal smuggling monitoring, and automatic driving. The rapid development of artificial intelligence also pushes autonomous ship detection to the spotlight. Ship detection is of great importance, as sea routes are the lifeblood of the global economy \footnote{\url{https://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade}}, given the fact that the international shipping industry is responsible for the carriage of around 90\% of world trade . Nevertheless, manual inspection for identifying abnormal behaviors is a time-consuming and laborious process. With the development of the ship automatic navigation system, the demand for a gigantic amount of data for data-driven models is rising. In addition, despite that automatic object detection methods have achieved great performance, it is still far from maturity, as challenges still remain when those algorithms are being applied in real-world ship detection scenarios.
Inspired by the immense success of machine learning approaches in computer vision tasks \cite{lu2020global, ma2020scscn, ma2019fusiongan,wang2021spatial}, deep learning-based methods have been the mainstream in addressing object detection problems \cite{zou2019object}. However, the performance of deep-learning-based algorithms, given their big-data-driven nature \cite{xia2018dota}, largely depends on the number of high-quality training samples. The first large-scale dataset, i.e., ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet}, has been widely adopted in object detection studies and even other vision tasks \cite{ledig2017photo,wang2021dual}. Following ImageNet, Lin \emph{et al.} \cite{lin2014microsoft} presented the Microsoft common objects in context (MS COCO) dataset with instance-level segmentation masks. In real-world scenarios, ships with different categories play considerably different roles during sea transportation. In these publicly available datasets, however, ships are commonly generalized as ``ship'' or ``boat'' (for example, in VOC2007 \cite{everingham2010pascal}, CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, Caltech-256 \cite{griffin2007caltech}, and COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}). Although, ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} includes six types of ships, i.e., ``fireboat'', ``lifeboat'', ``speedboat'', ``submarine'', ``pirate'', and ``container ship'', most of them are seagoing vessels that are rarely seen in certain situations. Thus, we argue that object models learned from the aforementioned coarse-grained datasets are not suitable for ship identification and the corresponding applications in real-world scenarios. Developing a new large-scale ship database is of great necessity.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{Comparison of ships among GLSD and object detection datasets. Improving from the first ship dataset SeaShips, we add the following categories: ``Sailing boat'', ``Warship'', ``Barge'', ``Speed boat'', ``Canoe'', ``Oil carrier'', and ``Tug''. GLSD have a total of 152,576 images.}
\begin{tabular}{c||ccccc}
\hline
Dataset & main categories & instances & images & image size & Boxes/img\\
\hline \hline
VOC2007 \cite{everingham2010pascal} & 1 & 791 & 363 & random &2.18\\
CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} & 1 & 6,000 & 6,000 & 32 $\times$ 32 &1.00\\
Caltech-256 \cite{griffin2007caltech} & 4 & 418 & 418 & random &1.00\\
ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} & 1 & 613 & 525 & random &1.17\\
COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft} & 1 & 10,759 & 3,025 & random &3.56\\
SeaShips \cite{shao2018seaships} & 6 & 40,077 & 31,455 & 1,920 $\times$ 1,080 &1.37\\
\hline \hline
GLSD & 13 & 212,357 & 152,576 & random & 1.39\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tabl}%
\end{table*}%
Recently, efforts have been made to construct ship datasets. For instance, Shao \emph{et al.} \cite{shao2018seaships} developed a ship dataset, i.e., SeaShips, that consists of 31,455 high-quality images (1,920 $\times$ 1,080 pixels) and covers six common ship types (i.e., ``passenger ship'', ``fishing boat'', ``container ship'', ``general cargo ship'', ``bull cargo carrier'', and ``ore carrier''). Despite the fact that the SeaShip dataset considers the following factors: various scales, viewpoints, backgrounds, illumination, and diverse occlusion conditions, these ship images were derived from cameras that only cover the Zhuhai Hengqin New Area, China, with considerably simple scenes and an unbalance category distribution (e.g., a large number of fishing boats but limited numbers in other types). Another notable effort is by Zheng \emph{et al.} \cite{zheng2020mcships} who presented a new multi-category ship dataset, namely McShips, that aimed at the fine-grained categorization of both civilian ships and warships. In McShips, warships are divided into six sub-categories. However, The McShips dataset is relatively small in size, and the ratio of the number of civilian ships to the number of warships is roughly 1:1, which is not in accordance with the real-world scenario where there are far more civilian ships than warships. As McShips is not yet publicly available, we do not intend to further discuss it in this study.
In this study, we present a novel ship dataset, called the Global Large-Scale Ship Database (GLSD), that consists of 152,576 images and covers 13 ship types. Considering that the routes of ships are well established, we collect internet images and monitoring data according to the routes with port and country information. The developed GLSD covers more than 3,000 ports around the world (more details in Section \ref{s31}). Improving from SeaShips, we add the following categories: ``Sailing boat'', ``Warship'', ``Barge'', ``Speed boat'' ``Canoe'', ``Oil carrier'', and ``Tug''. Labels and bounding boxes of GLSD are manually constructed in an accurate manner using an image annotation tool \cite{russell2008labelme}. We name the route-based version of GLSD as ``GLSD\_port'' (GLSD with geographic information, more details about the ``GLSD\_port'' in \url{https://github.com/jiaming-wang/GLSD/blob/master/Ports\_list.md}). We believe that GLSD\_port provides training models with multi-modal information that potentially benefits certain ship detection applications.
Detailed comparisons of GLSD with existing databases are shown in Table \ref{tabl}. The early database, like CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}, has a very low image resolution (32 $\times$ 32 pixels), which is not suitable for object detection tasks. The maximum number of boxes per image in the PASCAL VOC2007 \cite{everingham2010pascal}, Caltech-256 \cite{griffin2007caltech}, and ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet}, is rather small. Although COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft} includes a great quantity of ``boat'' images, the ``boat'' category has not been sub-categorized. Compared with SeaShips, the proposed GLSD contains more categories (13 vs. 6). In terms of image quantity, the number of images in our GLSD is three times compared to the number of images in SeaShips. In addition, GLSD owns a larger number of boxes per image than the one in SeaShips (1.39 vs. 1.37). Table \ref{tabl} indicates that GLSD is a more challenging ship database that potentially benefits the training of robust ship detection models.
The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item To our best knowledge, the developed GLSD is a very challenging global ship dataset with the largest number of annotates, reaching above 150,000 images, potentially facilitating the development and evaluation of existing object detection algorithms.
\item GLSD is built on global routes, providing multi-modal information (port and country of image acquisition) that better serves certain ship detection tasks. We plan to maintain GLSD in a regular manner when new images are available.
\item We evaluate state-of-the-art object detection algorithms on the proposed GLSD, setting up a baseline for future algorithm development.
\end{enumerate}
This paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{s2} reviews the related work. Sections \ref{s3} and \ref{s4} illustrate the collection and design of the GLSD database. Section \ref{s6} details the experiments and analysis. Section \ref{s7} concludes this study.
\section{Related Work} \label{s2}
In this section, we outline the development of object detection datasets and methods, providing references for future studies.
\subsection{Object Detection Datasets}
In the early days, some small-scale well-labeled datasets (i.e., Caltech10/256 \cite{fei2006one,griffin2007caltech}, MSRC \cite{shotton2006textonboost}, PASCAL \cite{everingham2015pascal}, and CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning}) were widely used in computer vision tasks as benchmarks. These datasets offer a limited number of categories with low-resolution images (such as, 32 $\times 32$ and $300 \times 200$ pixels) \cite{deng2009imagenet}.
It is widely acknowledged that the development of deep learning is inseparable from the support of big data. In general, high-quality training data can lead to the better performance of the deep-learning algorithms. For the first time, Deng \emph{et al.} \cite{deng2009imagenet} built a dataset with worldwide targets following a tree structure organization, pushing object classification and detection fields towards more complex problems. The dataset proposed by Deng \emph{et al.} \cite{deng2009imagenet} now contains 14 million images that cover 22 categories. Later on, pre-training backbone networks \cite{simonyan2014very, he2016deep} based on the ImageNet images gradually became the benchmark in computer vision tasks. From early datasets, like COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}, to the recent benchmarks, like Objects365 \cite{shao2019objects365}, large-scale datasets have always been preferred choices by deep learning algorithm developers, as they play an essential role in evaluating the performance of object classification and detection tasks.
Besides the above general object detection datasets, many datasets have been developed for specific scenarios, e.g., masked face recognition for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia (RMFD \cite{wang2020masked}), music information retrieval (GZTAN \cite{tzanetakis2002musical} and MSD \cite{bertin2011million}), automated detection and classification of fish (labeled fishes \cite{cutter2015automated}), autonomous driving (JAAD \cite{rasouli2017ICCVW} and LISA \cite{sivaraman2010general}), and ship action recognition database \cite{wang2021spatial}. These domain-specific datasets have greatly facilitated the development of the corresponding tasks and applications. In a recent effort, Shao \emph{et al.} \cite{shao2018seaships} constructed the first large-scale dataset for ship detection, i.e., SeaShips. Due to the fixed viewpoint in the deployed video monitoring system in the Zhuhai Hengqin New Area, however, the background information in SeaShips lacks diversity. Another notable effort is by Zheng \emph{et al.} \cite{zheng2020mcships}, who presented a new multi-category ship dataset, i.e., McShips. However, ship targets in McShips are with an unreasonable ratio among different ship categories.
\subsection{Object Detection Algorithms}
An object detection model generally consists of two main components, a backbone pre-trained on a large image dataset (e.g., ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet}) for feature extraction and a head used to predict the label. Common backbone networks include VGG \cite{simonyan2014very}, ResNet \cite{he2016deep}, DenseNet \cite{huang2017densely}, and ResNetXt \cite{xie2017aggregated}. Existing head components can be divided into two categories, i.e., the traditional methods and deep-learning methods \cite{zou2019object}. In the early stages, most object detection methods adopted hand-crafted image features to achieve real-time object detection \cite{viola2001rapid, viola2001robust}. Histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) detector \cite{felzenszwalb2008discriminatively} played a very important role in this task. Felzenszwalb \emph{et al.} \cite{felzenszwalb2008discriminatively} proposed a deformable part-based model (DPM) that can be viewed as an extension of the HOG detector. DPM \cite{felzenszwalb2008discriminatively} gradually became the main theme of pedestrian detection as a pretreatment \cite{zheng2015scalable}.
According to the network structure, deep-learning-based object detection methods can be grouped into two genres: two-stage and one-stage detection \cite{zou2019object}, where the two-stage detectors are the dominant paradigm of the object detection tasks. Girshick \emph{et al.} \cite{girshick2015region} proposed the regions with convolutional neural networks (CNN) feature maps for object detection, establishing a brand new venue for the development of two-stage detection algorithms. To reduce computational complexity, SPP-Net \cite{he2014spatial} largely reduced the computing cost through the spatial pyramid pooling layer. Inspired by SPP-Net, Girshick \emph{et al.} \cite{girshick2015fast} further utilized a more efficient region of interest (ROI) pooling to reduce unnecessary computational overhand. In 2015, Ren \emph{et al.} \cite{ren2015faster} first proposed a framework that introduces a region proposal network to obtain bounding boxes with low complexity. Lin \emph{et al.} \cite{lin2017feature} proposed the feature pyramid network (FPN), which fused multi-scale features to enhance semantic information expression.
Different from the above deep learning-based algorithm, YOLO \cite{redmon2016you} transforms the detection and classification into an end-to-end regression model, sacrificing the localization accuracy for a boost of detection speed. In the following development of the YOLO series \cite{redmon2017yolo9000, redmon2018yolov3, bochkovskiy2020yolov4}, its subsequent versions inherit its advantages, while trying to gradually improve the detection accuracy. Liu \emph{et al.} \cite{liu2016ssd} proposed a multi-reference and multi-resolution framework that can significantly enhance detection accuracy. Further, Lin \emph{et al.} \cite{lin2017focal} introduced the focal loss the prevents the accuracy drop resulting from the imbalance foreground-background classes in one-stage detection methods.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\caption{The definition of main categories in GLSD.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
Categories & Definition \\
\hline \hline
Ore carrier & Ships with small stowage factors \\
Bulk cargo carrier & Ships with large stowage factors \\
General cargo ship & Ships that transport machinery, equipment, building materials, daily necessities, etc. \\
Container ship & Ships that specialize in the transport of containerized goods \\
Fishing boat & Ships that catch and harvest aquatic animals and plants \\
Passenger ship & Vessels used to transport passengers or pedestrians \\
Sailing boat & Boats propelled partly or entirely by sails \\
Barge & Ships for cargo transportation between inland ports \\
Warship & Naval ships that are built and primarily intended for naval warfare \\
Oil carrier & Ships designed for the bulk transport of oil or its products\\
Tug & Tug maneuvers other vessels by pushing or pulling them either by direct contact or by means of a tow line\\
Canoe & Lightweight narrow vessels typically pointed at both ends and open on top \\
Speed boat & Small boats with a powerful engine that travels very fast \\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\label{tab2}%
\end{table*}%
\section{Image Collection} \label{s3}
In this section, we present the details on the collection, main categories, and characteristics of the GLSD.
\subsection{Port-based image collection} \label{s31}
Referring to the United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations (UN/LOCODE)\footnote{\url{http://www.unece.org/cefact/locode/welcome.html}}, global ports are divided into 33 routes, i.e., ``east of South America'', ``Pacific island'', ``West Mediterranean'', ``Middle East'', ``Caribbean'', ``West Africa'', ``Australia'', ``India-Pakistan'', ``European basic port'', ``European inland port'', ``East Mediterranean'', ``Black Sea'', ``Southeast Asia'', ``Canada'', ``west of South America'', ``China'', ``Taiwan-China'', ``East Africa'', ``North Africa'', ``Red Sea'', ``partial port of Japan'', ``Adriatic Sea'', ``Kansai'', ``Kanto'', ``Korea'', ``Mexico'', ``South Africa, ``New Zealand'', ``west of American'', ``Russia Far East'', ``American inland port'', ``east of American'', and ``Central Asia''.
To ensure diverse image sources, we try to collect images from as many ports as possible (the ports involved in the dataset can be found on our website\footnote{\url{https://github.com/jiaming-wang/GLSD/blob/master/Ports\_list.md}}). A certain number of images in GLSD are captured from a deployed video monitoring system in the Zhuhai Hengqin New Area, China, and the rest are collected via search engines with multiple resolutions. As images in certain routes are unavailable, GLSD mainly covers ship images captured in China, America, and Europe.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{routes}
\caption{The distribution of ports covered by GLSD.}
\label{routes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Iconic and non-iconic Image Collection}
Images in the GLSD can be roughly divided into two categories: iconic images \cite{berg2009finding} and non-iconic images \cite{lin2014microsoft}. Iconic images, often with a clear depiction of categories, provide high-quality object instances, which clearly depict objects' categories (see examples in Fig. \ref{iconic}(a)). Iconic images are widely used in object classification and retrieval tasks, and they can be directly retrieved via image search engines. Most images in SeaShips are iconic images. Non-iconic images that provide contextual information and non-canonical viewpoints also play an important role in object detection tasks (see examples in Fig. \ref{iconic}(b)). In the proposed GLSD, we keep both iconic and non-iconic images, aiming to provide diverse image categories that benefit object detection model training. Compared with SeaShips that contain mostly iconic images, GLSD is considerably more challenging and closer to real-world scenes.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{iconic}
\caption{Selected examples of (a) iconic object images and (b) non-iconic object images from the GLSD.}
\label{iconic}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Main Categories}
From collected images, we construct 13 categories that widely exist in international routes. These categories include \textsl{``Sailing boat'', ``Fishing boat'', ``Passenger ship'', ``Warship'', ``General cargo ship'', ``Container ship'', ``Bulk cargo carrier'', ``Barge'', ``Ore carrier, ``Speed boat'', ``Canoe'', ``Oil carrier'', and ``Tug''}. We refer to Wikipedia\footnote{\url{https://www.wikipedia.org}} and the Cambridge International Dictionary of English to define the main categories involved in GLSD, as shown in Table \ref{tab2}. In addition, Table \ref{category} lists the number of images corresponding to each ship category in GLSD. The GLSD consists of a large number of ships that are capable of the oceangoing voyage (with great economic benefits), e.g., ``General cargo ship'', ``Container ship'', ``Fishing boat'', and ``Passenger ship''. Other ship types, e.g., ``Tug'', ``Canoe'', ``Sailing boat'', ``Speed boat '', and ``Barge'', are usually not capable of long-tailed travels, leading to their limited sample sizes in our dataset. Therefore, despite the involvement of additional ship categories with a significantly increased number of samples compared to other ship datasets, the class imbalance issue still exists in the proposed GLSD.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{The number of ships corresponding to each category in GLSD.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
Categories & Instances \\ \hline \hline
Ore carrier & 5,919 \\ \hline
Bulk cargo carrier & 16,244 \\ \hline
General cargo ship & 30,460 \\ \hline
Container ship & 29,544 \\ \hline
Fishing boat & 27,427 \\ \hline
Passenger ship & 54,206 \\ \hline
Sailing boat & 11,525 \\ \hline
Barge & 6,099 \\ \hline
Warship & 13,435 \\ \hline
Oil carrier & 3,046 \\ \hline
Tug & 3,940 \\ \hline
Canoe & 3,404 \\ \hline
Speed boat & 7,108 \\ \hline
Total & 212,357 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{category}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=21cm]{examples}
\caption{Samples of annotated images in the GLSD dataset. Based on the collected images, we propose 13 categories which widely exists in international routes. They are: \textsl{``Sailing boat'', ``Fishing boat'', ``Passenger ship'', ``Warship'', ``General cargo ship'', ``Container ship'', ``Bulk cargo carrier'', ``Barge'', ``Ore carrier, ``Speed boat'', ``Canoe'', ``Oil carrier'', and ``Tug''}.}
\label{examples}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Statistics}
Fig. \ref{resolution} shows the distribution of the image resolution in the GLSD. Different from SeaShips that mainly contain images retrieved from a monitoring system, GLSD also includes high-resolution images from unmanned aerial vehicles and satellite/airborne platforms. Considering that the performances of existing deep-learning-based algorithms are usually limited in detecting small targets, we include a large number of images with small targets (less than 32 $\times$ 32 pixels) and medium targets (between 32 $\times$ 32 to 96 $\times$ 96 pixels). The definition of small and medium targets follows \cite{lin2014microsoft}. The image sizes vary greatly in GLSD, with the smallest image of $90 \times 90$ pixels and the largest of $6,509 \times 6,509$ pixels. From the above description, it can be seen that GLSD contains more diverse images with various resolutions and target sizes than SeaShips.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{resolution}
\caption{The distribution of the image sizes. The smallest image in this dataset has $90 \times 90$ pixels, and the largest has $6,509 \times 6,509$ pixels.}
\label{resolution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Annotation}
In this session, we describe how we annotate images in GLSD. Different from regular objects, ships can contain other features besides their main body, such as mast, elevating equipment, and oar. During the annotation process, all object instances are labeled with object names with bounding boxes that cover the entire ship with additional ship features.
All images are converted to ``.jpg'' format in MATLAB. We annotate images in GLSD by labelme \cite{labelme2016} following the PASCAL VOC2007 format. GLSD images in the dataset are named from ``000001.jpg'' to ``152576.jpg'', with the corresponding label files being named from ``000001.xml'' to ``152576.xml'' (we also provide the MS COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft} version of GLSD). All annotation tasks are done in a manual manner. Objects that are too dense and too small for the human eye to recognize are discarded. Fig.\ref{examples} present selected samples in the GLSD. The GLSD contains 76,189 training, 38,192 validation, and 38,195 testing images (approximately $1/2$ train, $1/4$ val, and $1/4$ test as \cite{lin2014microsoft}). We present details regarding the design of GLSD in the following sections.
\section{Design of the GLSD dataset} \label{s4}
Different from SeaShips dataset that contains images from a site monitoring system, images in GLSD collected from the Internet and searching engines are generally more complex. Eight variations, i.e., viewpoint, state, noise, background, scale, mosaic, style, and weather variations, are considered and implemented to construct the GLSD. Selected examples corresponding to these variations are outlined in Fig. \ref{design}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.3cm]{design}
\caption{Selected images corresponding to different variations considered in GLSD, i.e., viewpoint, state, noise, background, scale, mosaic, style, and weather variations. }
\label{design}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Viewpoint Variation}
Images from different viewpoints have varying characteristics. Multi-viewpoint images have been proved to benefit deep-learning-based models in coping with the complex changes in real-world scenarios. Compared to SeaShips based on surveillance cameras with limited viewpoints, the designed GLSD contains considerably more viewpoints, as shown in Fig. \ref{design}(a), potentially leading to increased model robustness.
\subsection{State Variation}
SeaShips only focuses on underway ships while ignoring the state under abnormal events, such as the shipping disaster (e.g., on fire), towed by a tug, and interaction between barges and large vessels. Datasets with images under different states are beneficial in monitoring abnormal events during shipping. Fig. \ref{design}(b) shows ship images in the designed GLSD under a unique on-fire state: two fishing boats with only skeletons left after burning.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=15cm]{pr.pdf}
\caption{The Precision-Recall curve of methods with 1$\times$ schedule.}
\label{pr}
\end{figure*} \subsection{Noise Variation}
Numerous studies have shown that the accuracy of target detection is often higher in cleaner images. However, noises are unavoidable in many real-world cases. Thus, the introduction of noises in the images helps further improve the robustness of algorithms. Certain images collected from searching engines in GLSD contain watermarks (serving as noises), as shown in Fig. \ref{design}(a), (b), and (c).
\subsection{Background Variation}
Theoretically, backgrounds in a non-iconic image can provide rich contextual information. Therefore, a dataset with a diversity of backgrounds is preferred in many object recognition tasks. In real-world applications, backgrounds of the captured images tend to vary. Thus, it is necessary to collect images from different ports. Fig. \ref{design}(d) presents images with two distinctively different backgrounds: one with a tropical characteristic featured by canoes, the other one with a modern port featured by large-scale ships.
\subsection{Scale Variation}
Deadweight tonnage (DWT) is an indicator of the ship' sizes and transporting capacity. The DWT of ships greatly varies. For example, the maximum gross payload of an oil carrier can reach 500,000 DWT, while some old cargo ships are only with 5,000 DWT. Even for ships of the same class, the scale can considerably vary. An oil carrier can occupy ten times as many pixels as a tug, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{design}(e). Our designed GLSD contains ships with rich variations in scales, potentially increasing algorithms's capability in detecting both large and small objects.
\subsection{Mosaic Variation}
YOLOv4 \cite{bochkovskiy2020yolov4} introduces a new method of data augmentation, named mosaicking, which mixes four different images into one image. Fig. \ref{design}(f) shows some examples of images that consist of three iconic images with different placement strategies after mosaicking. Our GLSD contains a variety of mosaicking images, greatly enriching the background information of ships to be detected.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Object detection results on the GLSD.}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccccc}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & Backbone &Schedule & $AP$ & $AP_{50}$ & $AP_{75}$ & $AP_{S}$ & $AP_{M}$ & $AP_{L}$ & $AR_{1}$ & $AR_{10}$ & $AR_{100}$ & $AR_{S}$ & $AR_{M}$ & $AR_{L}$ \\
\hline
Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &28.0 &44.8 &30.0 &3.4 &14.0 &31.8 &54.1 & 54.1 &54.1 &18.8 &39.2 &58.9 \\
Retinanet \cite{lin2017focal} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$&28.8 &44.4 &31.0 &3.6 &14.5 &32.7 &62.6 &62.6 &62.6 &28.9 & 49.1 & 67.9 \\
FP16 \cite{micikevicius2017mixed} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ & 29.2 &44.9 &31.5 &3.3 &14.7 &33.3 &62.9 &62.9 &62.9 &29.4 &49.4 &68.2 \\
GHM \cite{li2019gradient} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &28.6 &44.3 &30.6 &3.4 &14.4 &32.6 &62.2 &62.2 &62.2 & 27.2 &48.5 &67.7 \\
Libra R-CNN \cite{pang2019libra} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &28.2 &44.6 &30.6 &3.4 &13.9 & 32.3 &54.4 &54.4 &54.4 &21.6 &39.9 &59.0 \\
PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic}& ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &30.9 &45.8 &33.9 &3.9 &15.6 &35.2 &67.2 &67.2 &67.2 &34.3 &53.7 &72.5 \\
ATSS \cite{zhang2020bridging}& ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &30.1 &45.3 &32.7 &3.6 &15.4 &34.2 &65.3 &65.3 &65.3 &32.1 &51.5 &70.7 \\
GFL \cite{li2020generalized} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &30.9 & 45.9 & 33.7 &3.5 &15.6 &35.1 & 65.5 &65.5 & 65.5 &30.3 &51.4 &71.7 \\
Fovea \cite{kong2020foveabox} & ResNet-50 &$1 \times$ &30.1 &46.5 &32.4 &3.7 &15.4 & 34.2 &48.6 & 60.4 &60.9 &27.1 &46.3 &66.2 \\ \hline
Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} & ResNet-50 &$2 \times$&29.3 & 46.1 & 32.0 &3.7 &14.9 & 33.5 &54.5 & 54.5 &54.5 &19.1 &38.7 & 59.7 \\
Retinanet \cite{lin2017focal} & ResNet-50 &$2 \times$ &29.5 &45.3 &31.8 &3.5 &14.6 &33.8 &59.5 &59.5 &59.5 &23.1 & 44.4 & 65.3 \\
PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic}& ResNet-50 &$2 \times$ &31.9 &47.1 &34.9 &3.7 & 16.1 &36.3 &50.2 &65.2 &66.0 &32.0 &51.7 & 71.6 \\
\toprule[1pt]
\end{tabular}%
\label{result1}%
\end{table*}%
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Detection performance evaluated on the GLSD.}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster} & Retinanet \cite{lin2017focal} & FP16 \cite{micikevicius2017mixed} & GHM \cite{li2019gradient} & Libra R-CNN \cite{pang2019libra} & PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic} & ATSS \cite{zhang2020bridging} & GFL \cite{li2020generalized} & Fovea \cite{kong2020foveabox} \\
\hline
Ore carrier &35.8 &32.2 &33.9 &33.4 &36.8 &44.1 &40.9 &42.6 &42.2 \\
Bulk cargo carrier &17.7 &16.4 &16.2 &16.3 &18.2 &21.0 &18.5 &19.9 &18.8 \\
General cargo ship &24.6 &24.9 &25.2 &25.6 &24.8 &28.0 &26.7 &27.7 &26.4 \\
Container ship &57.8 &62.0 &62.4 &62.2 &58.6 &63.1 &63.3 &64.1 &62.9 \\
Fishing boat &24.1 &26.6 &26.7 &26.7 &24.2 &28.0 &26.6 & 27.7 &26.6 \\
Passenger ship&50.3 &52.1 &52.2 &50.9 &50.7 &53.4 &52.8 &53.2 &51.5 \\
Sailing boat&47.0 &48.3 &48.5 &48.2 &47.0 &49.5 &48.5 &48.9 &47.8 \\
Barge &5.0 &3.8 &4.4 &4.2 & 5.3 &5.4 & 4.8 &5.7 &5.2 \\
Warship &42.7 &44.6 &45.2 &44.6 &43.2 & 46.7 & 45.7 &46.7 & 45.0 \\
Oil carrier &17.4 &20.0 &20.5 &16.5 & 17.0 & 20.0 &18.1 &21.2 & 19.9 \\
Tug &19.7 &19.0 &19.8 &19.5 &19.3 & 21.4 &20.5 &19.6 & 20.5 \\
Canoe &12.3 &13.3 &13.3 &13.7 &12.1 &12.8 &14.2 &13.7 &13.6 \\
Speed boat &9.2 &10.8 &11.3 &10.3 &9.2 &11.3 &10.5 &11.0 &10.5 \\ \hline
\toprule[1pt]
\end{tabular}%
\label{cla_ap}%
\end{table*
In addition to multi-viewpoint images, our designed GLSD includes images from various categories: aerial images, remote sensing images, and portraits. Numerous efforts have been made towards style transfer as a data augmentation approach (e.g., domain adaptation between GTA5 and image style transfer on the COCO database). Our GLSD contains abundant image styles that include images captured via cameras and realistic paintings, as shown in Fig. \ref{design}(g).
\subsection{Weather Variation}
It is widely acknowledged that port operations are susceptible to extreme weather conditions, such as high winds, fog, heavy haze, snowstorms, thunderstorms, and typhoons. Such extreme weather conditions greatly affect the arrival and departure of ships and the unloading of cargo in the port. On the sea, the weather tends to change significantly in a relatively short time. Our DLSD includes a variety of weather conditions, expected to benefit models in ship recognition under different weather scenarios, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{design}(h).
In summary, the aforementioned variations make GLSD a rather challenging dataset for ship detection and recognition. The rich variations as well as the effectively widening within-class gap in our GLSD are expected to facilitate models in reaching higher robustness.
\section{Evaluation Results}\label{s6}
\subsection{Baseline Algorithms}
In this section, we conduct a comprehensive comparison of the following state-of-the-art object detection algorithms on GLSD: Faster R-CNN \cite{girshick2015region}, RetinaNet \cite{lin2017focal}, GHM \cite{li2019gradient}, FP16 \cite{micikevicius2017mixed}, Libra R-CNN \cite{pang2019libra}, PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic}, ATSS \cite{zhang2020bridging}, GFL \cite{li2020generalized}, and Fovea \cite{kong2020foveabox}.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
These experiments run at a desktop based on mmdetection-2.12.0 \cite{mmdetection} (a popular open-source object detection toolbox developed by OpenMMLab)\footnote{\url{https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmdetection}} with three NVIDIA GTX TITAN GPUs and 3.60 GHz Intel Core i7-7820X CPU, 32GB memory. We implement these methods using the PyTorch 1.7.0 \cite{paszke2019pytorch} library with Python 3.7.9 under Ubuntu 18.04, CUDA 10.2, and CUDNN 7.6 systems.
For evaluation, we employed average precision ($AP$, $AP_{50}$, $AP_{75}$, $AP_{S}$, $AP_{M}$, and $AP_{L}$) and average recall ($AR_{1}$, $AR_{10}$, $AR_{100}$, $AR_{S}$, $AR_{M}$, and $AR_{L}$), as with \cite{zhang2020object}. Among them, the $AP$, $AP_{S}$, $AP_{M}$, $AP_{L}$, and all average recall are calculated with intersections over union (IOU) values ([0.50 : 0.05 : 0.95]) as IOU thresholds. As for $AP_{50}$ and $AP_{75}$, the corresponding thresholds are 0.5 and 0.75, respectively. Moreover, $ scale = {\left \{ S, M, L\right \} }$ represents the average with different scales (small scale: targets with less than 32 $\times$ 32 pixels; medium scale: targets with between 32 $\times$ 32 to 96 $\times$ 96; large scale: targets with larger than 96 $\times$ 96 pixels \cite{lin2014microsoft}), and $num = {\left \{ 1, 10, 100\right \} }$ denotes the average recall with different number of detections.
\subsection{Results and Analysis}
For a fair comparison, all selected algorithms are trained and tested on images with 1,333 $\times$ 800 pixels. In Table \ref{result1}, we report the performances of all selected models on GLSD. The prediction-recall curves are shown in Fig.\ref{pr}. In scenes that contain small targets, APs from selected algorithms without the focal loss function are lower than 5\%. Even in scenes with medium targets, APs of all selected algorithms with schedule 1$\times$ are about 16\%, proving that small-target recognition is still one of the major challenges in our designed GLSD. Thus, we believe our GLSD creates a valuable venue for future innovative object detectors to compete.
With the introduction of the focal loss, an effective approach to mitigating the issues of long-tailed distribution, the performances of Retinanet \cite{lin2017focal} and GFL \cite{li2020generalized} show significant improvement compared to other two-stage algorithms. We notice that ARs are larger than APs for these algorithms, indicating the existence of error detection due to the small inter-class gap. However, with an increasing number of iterations, Retinanet \cite{lin2017focal} is able to achieve a great performance (up to 1.0\% gains) in large-object detection. Our experiment suggests that solutions that address the long-tailed distribution are the key for models to reach satisfactory performance in GLSD.
The prediction-recall curves of PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic} with different training schedules are shown in Fig.5. We observe notable increases in AP (about 1.0\% gains) and stableness in AR. With the increase of IOU, the impact of the number of iteration on performance becomes notable, especially when $iou \ge 0.8$. It implies that with the increase of iterations leads to improved capability of the model in identifying non-ship objects.
In order to further investigate the performance of different classes on the GLSD, Table \ref{cla_ap} shows the APs of the above state-of-the-art object detection algorithms. As shown in Table \ref{cla_ap}, the APs of ``Barge'' are only about 5\%, presumably due to two reasons: 1) the small number of ``Barge'' images; 2) the similarity between ``Barge'' and ``Ore carrier'' (especially in shape). The same phenomenon is observed in other categories with a small number of images (``Oil carrier'', ``Tug'', ``Canoe'', and ``Speed boat''). However, the tested methods all have a good recognition performance in ``Warship'', given their unique appearances.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{sch.pdf}
\caption{The Precision-Recall curves of PAA with different training schedule.}
\label{sch}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
1) Validation of multi-scale training: In our detection framework, all images are resized to 1,333 $\times$ 800 pixels for training. Considering the poor performance of small target detection on GLSD, we train the state-of-the-art method (PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic}) with default multi-scale configuration (1,333 $\times$ 800 and 1,333 $\times$ 640 pixels) to verify the impact of multi-scale training on GLSD. As shown in Table \ref{ms}, different configurations of the training size lead to trivial performance fluctuations. Such a phenomenon can be explained by the fact that there exist huge differences in terms of image sizes in GLSD (some natural images with 96 $\times$ 96 pixels and satellite images with 6509 $\times$ 6509 pixels), while most images in regular natural image datasets (e.g., PASCAL VOC2007 \cite{everingham2010pascal} and COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}) are no more than 1000 $\times$ 1000 pixels.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies of training image sizes.}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule[1pt]
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multirow{2}{*}{PAA-s1} & \multirow{2}{*}{PAA-s2} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MS PAA} \\
& & & s1 & s2 & MS \\ \hline
$AP$ &30.9 &31.1 &30.5 &30.5 &30.5 \\ \hline
$AP_{50}$ &45.8 &46.1 &45.1 &45.1 &45.1 \\ \hline
$AP_{75}$ &33.9 &34.2 &33.5 &33.6 &33.6 \\ \hline
$AP_{S}$ &3.9 &3.7 &3.7 &3.9 &3.9 \\ \hline
$AP_{M}$ &15.6 &15.5 &14.9 &14.9 &15.6 \\ \hline
$AP_{L}$ &35.2 &35.4 &34.6 &34.7 &34.7 \\ \hline
$AR_{1}$ &67.2 &65.7 &67.2 &67.2 &67.6 \\ \hline
$AR_{10}$ &67.2 &66.1 &67.2 &67.2 &67.6 \\ \hline
$AR_{100}$ &67.2 &66.9 &67.2 &67.2 &67.6 \\ \hline
$AR_{S}$ &34.3 &33.2 &33.3 &33.3 &35.8 \\ \hline
$AR_{M}$ &53.7 &52.9 &53.9 &53.9 &55.2 \\ \hline
$AR_{L}$ &72.5 &72.4 &72.7 &72.7 &72.7 \\ \toprule[1pt]
\end{tabular}
\label{ms}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item s2: 1,333 $\times$ 800 images
\item s1: 1,333 $\times$ 640 images
\item MS PAA : 1,333 $\times$ 640 and 1,333 $\times$ 800 images
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
2) Validation of normalization strategies: The normalization strategy in the detection task can effectively accelerate the convergence speed and alleviate the problem of gradient disappearance. To intuitively reveal the impact of normalization on GLSD, different normalization methods (Batch Normalization (BN) \cite{ioffe2015batch}, Group Normalization (GN) \cite{wu2018group}, and Synchronized Batch Normalization (SyncBN) \cite{zhang2018context}) on PAA \cite{kim2020probabilistic} are tested. The GN layer is proposed to eliminate the influence of batch size for normalization, while the SyncBN layer is distributed version BN layer. As shown in Table \ref{norm}, the AP of PAA with SyncBN is 0.3\% and 3.6\% higher than that with BN and the GN, respectively.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Ablation studies of normalization strategies.}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & PAA w/ BN & PAA w/ GN & PAA w/ SyncBN \\ \hline
$AP$ &30.9 &27.6 & 31.2 \\ \hline
$AP_{50}$ &45.8 &41.4 &46.3 \\ \hline
$AP_{75}$ &33.9 &30.1 & 34.2 \\ \hline
$AP_{S}$ &3.9 &3.2 &3.5 \\ \hline
$AP_{M}$ &15.6 &13.1 &15.9 \\ \hline
$AP_{L}$ &35.2 &31.4 &35.5 \\ \hline
$AR_{1}$ &67.2 &66.0 & 67.0 \\ \hline
$AR_{10}$ &67.2 &66.0 &67.0 \\ \hline
$AR_{100}$ &67.2 &66.0 &67.0 \\ \hline
$AR_{S}$ &34.3 &31.6 &34.0 \\ \hline
$AR_{M}$ &53.7 &52.0 &53.6 \\ \hline
$AR_{L}$ &72.5 &71.6 &72.3 \\ \toprule[1pt]
\end{tabular}
\label{norm}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item w/: with
\item BN: Batch Normalization
\item GN: Group Normalization
\item SyncBN: Synchronized Batch Normalization
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion} \label{s7}
In this paper, we introduce a global large-scale ship database, i.e., GLSD, which is designed for ship detection tasks. The designed GLSD is considerably larger and more challenging than any existing database, to our best knowledge. The main characteristics of the GLSD lie in three aspects: 1) the GLSD contains a total of 152,576 images with a widening inter-class gap from 13 categories, i.e., ``sailing boat'', ``fishing boat'', ``Passenger ship'', ``Warship'', ``General cargo ship'', ``Container ship'', ``Bulk cargo carrier'', ``Barge'', ``Ore carrier, ``Speed boat'', ``Canoe'', ``Oil carrier'', and ``Tug''; 2) the GLSD includes a diversity of variations that include viewpoint, state, noise, background, scale, mosaic, style, and weather variations, which benefit improved model robustness; 3) the route-based version of GLSD, i.e., GLSD\_port, contains geographic information, providing rich multi-modal information that benefits various ship detection and recognition tasks. We also propose evaluation protocols and provide evaluation results on GLSD using numerous state-of-the-art object detection algorithms. As ship images of certain categories are difficult to collect, the current version of GLSD has a notable long-tail issue. We will continue to extend GLSD with more ship images, especially on ship categories of ``Tug'', ``Canoe'', and ``Speed boat''.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We thank Lan Ye, Sihang Zhang, Linze Bai, Gui Cheng, and all the others who were involved in the annotation of GLSD. In addition, we thank the support of the Post-Doctoral Research Center of Zhuhai Da Hengqin Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd, Guangdong Hengqin New Area.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec:Intro}
\subsection{Introduction and background}
\label{SubSec:Background}
\emph{Branching random walk (BRW)} was introduced by Hammersley \cite{Hamm74} in the early '70s. Over the last five decades, it has received a lot of attention from various researchers in probability theory and statistical physics. The model, as such, is very simple to describe.
It starts with one particle at the origin.
After a unit amount of time, the particle dies and gives birth to a number of similar particles, which are placed at possibly different locations on the real line $\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$. These particles at possibly different places on $\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$ forms the so-called first generation of the process and can be described through a point process, say $Z$ on $\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$. After another unit time, each of the particles in the first generation behaves independently and identically as that of the parent, that is it dies, but before that, it produces a bunch of offspring particles which are displaced by independent copies of $Z$. The particles in generation one behave independently but identically of one another. The process then continues in the next unit of time and so on. The dynamics so produced is called a \emph{Branching random walk (BRW)}.
Let $R_n$ denotes the position of the \emph{right-most particle} in the generation
$n$. In the seminal works,
Hammersley \cite{Hamm74},
Kingman \cite{King75}, and Biggins \cite{Bigg76}
proved that under very minimal condition of the displacement point process $Z$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_n}{n} \longrightarrow \gamma \mbox{\ \ a.s.},
\label{Equ:BRW-SLLN}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma > 0$ is a constant associated with the displacement point process
$Z$.
It is worth mentioning here that if we forget about the position of the particles and only keep count of the number of particles, then it forms a Galton-Watson branching process with progeny distribution given by $Z\left(\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}\right)$.
As noted in Aldous and Bandyopadhyay \cite{AlBa05}, the arguments of
Hammersley \cite{Hamm74} can be used to claim that
if $\mbox{median}\left(R_{n+1}\right) - \mbox{median}\left(R_{n}\right)$
remains bounded above, then the sequence of random variables
$\left(R_n - \mbox{median}\left(R_{n}\right)\right)_{n \geq 0}$ remains
tight.
From historical point-of-view, it is interesting to note here that Biggins \cite{Bigg76} wrote:
\begin{quote}
``Of course pride of place in the open problems goes to establishing more detailed results than ~\eqref{Equ:BRW-SLLN} of the kinds that are already available for branching Brownian motion.''
\end{quote}
Indeed, McKean \cite{McKean75}
showed that for similar continuous time version with
\emph{Branching Brownian Motion (BBM)},
the maximum position, when centered by its median, converges weakly to a
traveling wave solution.
Later Bramson \cite{Bram78, Bram83} gave detailed order of the centering
and showed that
an ``extra'' logarithmic term appears, which later was termed as the
\emph{Bramson correction}.
Later Lalley and Sellke \cite{LaSe87} gave a different probabilistic interpretation of the
traveling wave limit through
certain conditional limit theorem and using a new concept called the
\emph{derivative martingales}.
In a series of papers,
Bramson and Zeitouni \cite{BramZei07, BramZei09}
showed that under fairly general
conditions, $\left(R_n - \mbox{median}\left(R_{n}\right)\right)_{n \geq 0}$ remains
tight. And in 2009, two groups of researchers,
Hu and Shi \cite{HuShi09} and Addario-Berry and Reed \cite{AddRee09}
independently proved that $\frac{R_n}{n}$ has a second-order fluctuation
which was identified as $-\frac{3}{2} \log n$ in probability.
Finally, in 2013, Aid\'{e}kon \cite{Aide13} proved the fluctuations converge in law to a randomly shifted Gumbel distribution. Essentially settling the long-standing
open problem of Biggins \cite{Bigg76}.
In this work, we consider a modified version of the classical BRW. The modification is done at the last generation where we add \emph{i.i.d.} displacements of a specific form. Since the modifications have been done only at the last generation, so we call this model
\emph{last progeny modified Branching Random Walk} or abbreviate it as
\emph{LPM-BRW}. The model is described as follows.
\subsection{Model}
\label{SubSec:Model}
Let $Z=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\xi_j}$ be a point process on $\mathbb R$ and $N:=Z(\mathbb R)<\infty$ a.s. At the $0$-th generation, we start with an initial particle at the origin. At time $n\geq1$, each of the particles at generation $(n-1)$ gives birth to a random number of offspring distributed according to $N$. The offsprings are then given random displacements independently and according to a copy of the point process $Z$.
For a particle $v$, in the $n$-th generation, we write $|v|=n$. Let $S(v)$ denote the position of the particle $v$, which is the sum of all the displacements the particle $v$ and its ancestors have received.
The stochastic process
$\left\{S(v) \,\Big\vert\, \left\vert v \right\vert=n \,\right\}_{n \geq 0}$ is typically
referred as the classical \emph{Branching Random Walk (BRW)}. The quantity of
interest is the maximum position, typically denoted by
$R_n := \max_{\left\vert v \right\vert = n} S(v)$, is also the right-most position as
discussed above.
In our model, we introduce two parameters. One is a non-negative real number, which we denote by $\theta > 0$. The other one is a positively supported distribution, which we will denote by $\mu\in \mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)$. The parameter $\theta$ should be thought of as a \emph{scaling parameter} for the extra displacement we give to each individual at the $n$-th generation. This extra displacement is as follows. At a generation $n \geq 1$, we give additional displacements to each of the particles at the generation $n$, which are of the form $\frac{1}{\theta} X_v := \frac{1}{\theta} \left(\log Y_v-\log E_v\right)$, where $\{Y_v\}_{|v|=n}$ are i.i.d. $\mu$, while $\{E_v\}_{|v|=n}$ are i.i.d. $\mbox{Exponential}(1)$ and they are independent of each other and also of the process $\left(S(u)\right)_{\left\vert u \right\vert \leq n}$. We denote by $R_n^*(\theta, \mu)$ the maximum position of this \emph{last progeny modified branching random walk (LPM-BRW)}. If the parameters $\theta$ and $\mu$ are clear from the context, then we will simply write this as $R_n^*$. A schematic of the process is given below.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\label{Fig:LPM-BRW}
\includegraphics[width=0.625\textwidth]{model1}
\caption{Last progeny modified branching random walk (LPM-BRW)}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{Assumptions}
\label{SubSec:Assumptions}
Before we state our assumptions, we introduce the following important quantities.
For a point process $Z = \mathop{\sum}\limits_{j=1}^{N} \delta_{\xi_j}$, we
will write
\[
m\left(\theta\right) : =
\mathbb{E}\left[\int_{{\mathbb R}}\! e^{\theta x} Z\left(dx\right)\right] =
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{j=1}^N e^{\theta \xi_j}\right],
\]
where $\theta \in \mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$, whenever the expectation exists. Naturally, $m$ is the
\emph{moment generating function} of the point process $Z$.
Further, we define $\nu\left(t\right) := \log m\left(t\right)$ for
$t \in \mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$, whenever $m\left(t\right)$ is defined. It is worth noting here that, generally speaking,
$\nu$ is a convex function inside the domain of its
definition. A more precise result is given in the Appendix as
Proposition ~\ref{Prop:Convexity-of-nu}.
We now state our main assumptions. Throughout this paper, we will assume the following three conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\bf (A1)}]
$m\left(\theta\right)<\infty$
for all $\theta \in(-\vartheta,\infty)$ for some $\vartheta>0$.\\
\item[{\bf (A2)}]
The point process $Z$ is \emph{non-trivial},
and the \emph{extinction probability} of
the underlying \emph{branching process} is $0$. In other words,
$\mathbb{P}(N=1)<1$, $\mathbb{P}( Z(\{t\})=N )<1$ for any $t\in\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}$,
and $\mathbb{P}(N\geq1)=1 $.\\
\item[{\bf (A3)}]
$N$ has finite $(1+p)$-th moment for some $p>0$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
{\bf (A1)} implies that $m$ is infinitely differentiable on $(-\vartheta,\infty)$. Together with {\bf (A3)}, it also implies that there exists $q>0$, such that,
for all $\theta\in[0,\infty)$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb E\left[\left(\int_{\mathbb R} e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right)^{1+q}\right]<\infty.\label{asmp_rem}
\end{equation}
Proof of this is given in the appendix (see Proposition ~\ref{Prop:Equ-1.2}).
Notice also that under Assumptions {\bf (A1)} and {\bf (A2)}, $\nu(t)$ is strictly convex in $\left(-\vartheta,\infty \right) $. Though this is a
well-known fact, we are unable to find an exact reference for this. So a proof of this has been given in the appendix.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Motivation}
\label{SubSec:Motivation}
Our main motivations to consider this new LPM-BRW model are
essentially twofold.
As we will see in the sequel that there is a nice \emph{coupling} of $R_n^*$
with a \emph{linear statistics} for which asymptotic can be computed from
the known results. This novel connection is indeed one of the reasons
the model mathematically intrigued us. We believe
(also see Section ~\ref{Sec:Coupling}) that this connection is a novel
mathematical tool that has a scope of more suitable applications.
Our model is one example where this coupling helps.
The other and more straightforward motivation is to use
the results we derived to give a different proof of
A\"{i}d\'{e}kon's result \cite{Aide13}. To this end, we propose the
following program, that is to take an appropriate
$\theta \rightarrow \infty$ limit. Intuitively, the extra displacement
at the last generation will then disappear at the limit.
However, there are two serious hurdles for this to work.
First of all, our result for any $\theta > \theta_0$ is imprecise, as we
so far have not been able to
derive the centered weak asymptotic for that case.
Further, another technical difficulty needs to be tackled, which is to
interchange the limits as $\theta \rightarrow \infty$ and
$n \rightarrow \infty$.
In this context, there is yet another approach one can think of, which is
a little more amenable to make use of our
results. It is to consider a truncation of the displacements due to the point
process $Z$. It is easy to see that for displacements that are bounded,
we necessarily have
$\theta_0 = \infty$. Thus, we can then use our
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case} and take a suitable
sequence $\theta_n \uparrow \infty$ to re-derive A\"{i}d\'{e}kon's
result \cite{Aide13}.
This will need a better understanding of the process
$\left(H^{\infty}_{\theta}\right)_{\theta > 0}$.
Currently, it is a work in progress.
\subsection{Outline}
\label{SubSec:Outline}
In Section ~\ref{Sec:Results}, we state the main results.
Section ~\ref{Sec:Coupling} provides our main tool: the
coupling between the maximum statistics and a linear statistics.
In Section ~\ref{Sec:Auxilliary-Results} we state and prove few
asymptotic results about the associated \emph{linear statistics},
which we later use in the proofs of the main results.
In Section ~\ref{Sec:Proofs}, we give all the details of the proofs.
We end with Section ~\ref{Sec:Discussion}, which contains some
further discussion on the coupling. For sake of
completeness proofs of a few
elementary results are provided in the Appendix.
\section{Main Results}
\label{Sec:Results}
We start by defining a constant related to the underlying driving point process $Z$,
which we denote by $\theta_0$. Let
\[
\theta_0:=\infty\left\{ \theta>0 : \frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}= \nu'(\theta) \right\}.
\]
The fact that $\nu(\theta)$ is strictly convex ensures that the above set is at most singleton. If it is a singleton, then as illustrated in Figure ~\ref{Fig:nu-theta_0}, $\theta_0$ is the unique point in $(0,\infty)$ such that a tangent from the origin to the graph of $\nu(\theta)$ touches the graph at $\theta=\theta_0$. And if it is empty, then by definition $\theta_0$ takes value $\infty$, and there does not exist any tangent from the origin to the graph of $\nu(\theta)$ on the right half-plane. Whether $\theta_0$ is finite or infinite can be characterized by the fact that $\theta_0<\infty$, if and only if,
\[
\lim_{\theta\rightarrow\infty}\nu(\theta)-\theta\left(\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\nu'(x)\right)<0.\\
\]
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[H]
\label{Fig:nu-theta_0}
\includegraphics[width=0.625\textwidth]{nuz}
\caption{Construction of the quantity $\theta_0$}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
We classify our model in three different classes depending on the (scale) parameter
$\theta$ is \emph{below}, \emph{equal} or \emph{above} the quantity
$\theta_0$. We term these as \emph{below the boundary case},
\emph{the boundary case}, and \emph{above the boundary case}, respectively.
\subsection{Almost sure asymptotic limit}
\label{SubSec:SLLN}
Our first result is a \emph{strong law of large number}-type result, which is
similar to ~\eqref{Equ:BRW-SLLN}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:SLLN}
For every non-negatively supported probability $\mu\neq\delta_0$ that admits a
finite mean, almost surely
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{rll}
\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta} & \mbox{if} & \theta < \theta_0 \leq \infty; \\[0.25cm]
\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} & \mbox{if} & \theta_0 \leq \theta < \infty.
\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{Equ:SLLN}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that the almost sure limit remains same as
$\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0}$ for the \emph{boundary case} and also in
\emph{above the boundary case}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Centered asymptotic limits}
\label{SubSec:Centered-Asymptotic-Limits}
The centered asymptotic limits vary in the three different cases depending on
the value of the parameter $\theta$ as described above. We thus state the
results separately for the three cases.
\subsubsection{The Boundary case ($\theta = \theta_0 < \infty$)}
\label{SubSubSec:Boundary-Case-Results}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Boundary-Case}
Assume that $\mu$ admits a finite mean, then
there exists a random variable $H_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$, which
may depend on $\theta_0$, such that,
\begin{equation}
R_n^* - \frac{\nu\left(\theta_0\right)}{\theta_0} n + \frac{1}{2 \theta_0}
\log n
\ \Rightarrow \ H_{\theta_0}^{\infty} + \frac{1}{\theta_0}\log \langle\mu\rangle.
\label{Equ:Boundary-Limit}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Notice that the coefficient for the linear term is exactly the same as
that of the centering
of $R_n$
as proved by A\"{i}d\'{e}kon \cite{Aide13}.
However, the coefficient for the logarithmic term is $1/3$-rd of that of the
centering of $R_n$ as proved by A\"{i}d\'{e}kon \cite{Aide13}.
The limiting distribution is also similar to that obtained by
A\"{i}d\'{e}kon \cite{Aide13}, which
is a randomly shifted \emph{Gumbel distribution}.
\end{remark}
In fact, as we will see in the proof of the above theorem (see Section ~\ref{Sec:Proofs}),
we have a slightly stronger result, which is as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Boundary-Case-Version-II}
Assume that $\mu$ admits a finite mean. Let
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{\theta_0}^{\infty}
=
\frac{1}{\theta_0}
\left[ \log D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}
+ \frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{2}{\pi \sigma^2} \right) \right],
\label{Equ:Def-H-theta0-infty}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{\theta_0}^{\infty} \stackrel{\mbox{a.s.}}{=\joinrel=\joinrel=}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
-\frac{1}{m\left(\theta_0\right)^n}
\sum_{\left\vert v \right\vert = n} \left(\theta_0 S_v -
n \nu \left(\theta_0\right) \right)
e^{\theta_0 S_v},
\label{Equ:Def-D-theta0-infty}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2 :=
\mathbb{E}\left[
\frac{1}{m\left(\theta_0\right)}
\sum_{\left\vert v \right\vert = 1} \left(\theta_0 S_v - \nu\left(\theta_0\right)\right)^2
e^{\theta_0 S_v}
\right].
\label{Equ:Def-sigma}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
R_n^* - \frac{\nu\left(\theta_0\right)}{\theta_0} n + \frac{1}{2 \theta_0}
\log n - \hat{H}_{\theta_0}^{\infty}
\ \Rightarrow \
\frac{1}{\theta_0}\log \langle\mu\rangle -\log E,
\label{Equ:Boundary-Limit-Version-II}
\end{equation}
where $E \sim \mbox{Exponential}\left(1\right)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We note here that the
$H_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$
in Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case} has the same distribution as
$\hat{H}_{\theta_0}^{\infty} - \log E$, where
$E \sim \mbox{Exponential}\left(1\right)$ and is independent of
$\hat{H}_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
One advantage of the above result is that we have been able to
identify the exact constant for the limit,
which turns out to be
$\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{2}{\pi \sigma^2} \right)$, where
$\sigma^2$ is given in the equation ~\eqref{Equ:Def-sigma}.
As far as we know, this was not discovered in any of the earlier works.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
It is worth mentioning here that,
$D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$ is indeed the almost sure
limit of a \emph{derivative martingale} defined by
\[
D_n:= -\sum_{|v|=n}(\theta_0S(v)-\nu(\theta_0)n)e^{\theta_0S(v)-\nu(\theta_0)n}
\]
The same derivative martingale also appears in Biggins and Kiprianou \cite{BigKy2004}.
We will see from the proof that
$D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}>0$ a.s. under our assumptions and is a solution to a
\emph{linear recursive distributional equation (RDE)} given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta\xlongequal{\text{ d }} \sum_{|v|=1}e^{\theta_0S(v)-\nu(\theta_0)} \Delta_v,
\label{Equ:RDE-for-D-theta0-infty}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_v$ are i.i.d. and has same distribution as that of $\Delta$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Below the Boundary case ($\theta < \theta_0 \leq \infty$)}
\label{SubSubSec:Below-Boundary-Case-Results}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case}
Assume that $\mu$ admits finite mean, then
for $ \theta < \theta_0 \leq \infty$, there exists a random variable
$H_{\theta}^{\infty}$, which
may depend on $\theta$, such that,
\begin{equation}
R_n^* - \frac{\nu\left(\theta\right)}{\theta} n
\ \Rightarrow \ H^{\infty}_{\theta} + \frac{1}{\theta}\log \langle\mu\rangle.
\label{Equ:Below-Boundary-Limit}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We note that in this case the \emph{logarithmic correction} disappears.
\end{remark}
Once again, just like in the boundary case, here too
we have a slightly stronger
result, which is as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case-Version-II}
Assume that $\mu$ admits a finite mean. Let
\[
\hat{H}_{\theta}^{\infty} =
\frac{1}{\theta}\log D_{\theta}^{\infty},
\]
where $D_{\theta}^{\infty}$ is a mean $1$ solution of the
following \emph{linear RDE}
\begin{equation}
\Delta\xlongequal{\text{ d }} \sum_{|v|=1}e^{\theta S(v)-\nu(\theta)} \Delta_v,
\label{Equ:RDE-for-D-theta-infty}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_v$ are i.i.d. and has the same distribution as that of $\Delta$; and
$E \sim \mbox{Exponential}\left(1\right)$.
Then
\begin{equation}
R_n^* - \frac{\nu\left(\theta\right)}{\theta} n - \hat{H}^{\infty}_{\theta}
\ \Rightarrow \
\frac{1}{\theta}\log \langle\mu\rangle -\log E.
\label{Equ:Below-Boundary-Limit-Version-II}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
It is to be noted that the random variable $H_{\theta}^{\infty}$ in
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case} has the same distribution as
$\hat{H}_{\theta}^{\infty} - \log E$, where
$E \sim \mbox{Exponential}\left(1\right)$ and is independent of
$\hat{H}_{\theta}^{\infty}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{Rem:RDE}
Biggins and Kiprianou \cite{BigKy2005} showed that under our assumptions,
the solutions to the linear RDE given in ~\eqref{Equ:RDE-for-D-theta-infty}
is unique upto a scale factor whenever they exist.
Therefore $D_{\theta}^{\infty}$ is
indeed the unique solution to the linear RDE
~\eqref{Equ:RDE-for-D-theta-infty} with mean $1$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Above the Boundary case ($\theta_0 < \theta < \infty$)}
\label{SubSubSec:Above-Boundary-Case-Results}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Above-Boundary-Case}
Suppose $\mu = \delta_1$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_n^* - \frac{\nu\left(\theta_0\right)}{\theta_0} n }{\log n}
\ \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} \ - \frac{3}{2 \theta_0}.
\label{Equ:Above-Boundary-Limit}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We would like to point out here that this is not the best result for this case. For technical reasons, which will be clear from the proof, we have only been able to prove it for $\mu = \delta_1$. Also, the result is unsatisfactory as it is not a centered limit as in the other two cases. However, we note that we now capture the right constant for the \emph{logarithmic correction}.
\end{remark}
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
\subsection{Brunet-Derrida type results}
\label{SubSec:Brunet-Derrida-Limits}
In this section, we present results of the type Brunet and Derrida \cite{BrDerr2011},
which are in general very challenging problems. Their conjecture
for the classical BRW was proven by
Madaule \cite{Mada2017}.
Here we present similar results for our LPM-BRW.
For any $\theta<\theta_0\leq \infty$, we define
\begin{equation}
Z_n(\theta)=\sum_{|v|=n}\delta_{\left\{\theta S_v-\log E_v-n\nu(\theta)-\log D_{\theta}^{\infty}\right\}},
\end{equation}
where $D_{\theta}^{\infty}$ is defined in the
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case-Version-II}.
Also for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$, we define
\begin{equation}
Z_n(\theta_0)=\sum_{|v|=n}\delta_{\left\{\theta_0 S_v-\log E_v-n\nu(\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\log n-\log D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}-\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\frac{2}{\pi\sigma^2}\right)\right\}},
\end{equation}
where $D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$ and $\sigma^2$ are as in Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Boundary-Case-Version-II}.
Our first result is the weak convergence of the point processes
$\left(Z_n\left(\theta\right)\right)_{n \geq 0}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Point-Process-Conv}
For $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[Z_n(\theta)\xrightarrow{d} {\cal Y}, \]
where ${\cal Y}$ is a decorated Poisson point process. In particular,
${\cal Y}=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_j},$
where ${\cal N}=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\zeta_j}$ is a homogeneous Poisson point process on $\mathbb R_+$ with intensity $1$.
\end{theorem}
Following is a slightly weaker version of the above theorem, which is essentially
a point process convergence of the appropriately centered LPM-BRW model.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Point-Process-Weak-Conv}
For $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$,
\[
\sum_{|v|=n}\delta_{\left\{\theta S_v-\log E_v-n\nu(\theta)\right\}}\xrightarrow{d} \sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_j+\log D_{\theta}^{\infty}},
\]
and for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[
\sum_{|v|=n}\delta_{\left\{\theta_0 S_v-\log E_v-n\nu(\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\log n \right\}}\xrightarrow{d} \sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_j+\log D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}+\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\frac{2}{\pi\sigma^2}\right)},
\]
where ${\cal N}=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\zeta_j}$ is a homogeneous Poisson point process on $\mathbb R_+$ with intensity $1$, which is independent of the branching random walk.
\end{theorem}
Now, we denote ${\cal Y}_{\max}$ as the right-most position of the point process ${\cal Y}$, and we write $\overline{{\cal Y}}$ as the point process ${\cal Y}$ seen from its right-most position,
that is,
\[ \overline{{\cal Y}} = \sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_j-{\cal Y}_{\max}}. \]
Following result is an immediate corollary of the above theorem, which
confirms that the \emph{Brunet-Derrida Conjecture} holds for our model
when $\theta \leq \theta_0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:BD-Conj}
For $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[\sum_{|v|=n}\delta_{\left\{\theta S_v-\log E_v-\theta R_n^*(\theta,\delta_1) \right\}}\xrightarrow{d} \overline{{\cal Y}}. \]
\end{theorem}
\section{Coupling between a Maximum and a Linear Statistics}
\label{Sec:Coupling}
We start by defining a few operators on the space of probabilities which will help us to state and prove the coupling.
In the sequel, $\mathcal{P}(A)$ will mean the set of all probabilities on a measurable space $(A, \mathcal{A})$.
\begin{definition}[{\bf Maximum Operator}]
\label{Def:Max-Operator}
The operator $M_Z:\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R})\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R})$ defined by
\[
M_Z(\eta) =\mbox{dist}\left(\max_j\{\xi_j+X_j\}\right),
\]
where $\{X_j\}_{j\geq1}$ are i.i.d. $\eta\in\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R})$ and are independent of $Z$, will be called the \emph{Maximum Operator}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Observe that as illustrated in Figure ~\ref{fig1}, $M_Z^n(\eta)$ is the distribution of the maximum of the positions of the
particles after adding i.i.d. displacements from $\eta$ to the particles at $n$-th generation.
\[
M_Z^n(\eta) =\mbox{dist}\left(\max_{|v|=n}\left\{S(v)+X_v\right\}\right).
\]
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{MO}}
\caption{Illustration of the maximum operator}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In particular, $R_n \sim M_Z^n\left(\delta_0\right)$ and
$R_n^* \sim M_Z^n\left(\eta\right)$, where
$\eta$ is the distribution of $\frac{1}{\theta}\log (Y_v/E_v)$ for a particle $v$ at generation $n$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition} [{\bf Linear Operator}]
\label{Def:Linear-Operator}
The operator $L_Z:\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)$ defined by
\[
L_Z(\mu)=\mbox{dist}\left(\sum_{j\geq1}e^{\xi_j} Y_j\right),
\]
where $\{Y_j\}_{j\geq1}$ are i.i.d. $\mu\in\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)$ and are independent of $Z$, will be called the \emph{Linear} or \emph{Smoothing Operator}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Observe that $L_Z^n(\mu)$ is the distribution of $\sum_{|v|=n}e^{S(v)} Y_v$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition} [{\bf Link Operator}]
\label{Def:Link-Operator}
The operator
$\mathcal{E}:\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)\rightarrow\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R})$
defined by
\[
\mathcal{E}(\mu) =\mbox{dist}\left(\log\frac{Y}{E}\right),
\]
where $E\sim \mbox{Exponential}(1)$ and $Y\sim\mu\in\mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)$ and they are independent, will be called the \emph{Link Operator}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For $a\geq0$ and $b\in \mathbb R$, the operator $\Xi_{a,b}$ on the set of all point processes is defined by
\[
\Xi_{a,b}(\mathcal{Z})=\sum_{j\geq1} \delta_{a\zeta_j-b},
\]
where $\mathcal{Z}=\sum_{j\geq1} \delta_{\zeta_j}$. Some times we may denote $\Xi_{a,0}$ by $\Xi_a$ for notational simplicity.
\end{definition}
The following result is one of the most important observations, and it links the operators defined above. As an immediate corollary, we get a very useful coupling between the LPM-BRW and the linear statistics associated with the \emph{linear operator}.
\begin{theorem}[Transforming Relationship]
\label{Thm:Transforming-Relationship}
For all $n \geq 1$,
\[M_Z^n\circ\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}\circ L_Z^n. \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $Z=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\xi_{j}}$, $\{E_j\}_{j\geq1}$ are i.i.d. $\mbox{Exponential}(1)$, $\{Y_j\}_{j\geq1}$ are i.i.d. $\mu$, and they are independent of each other. Now,
\begin{align*}
M_Z\circ\mathcal{E}(\mu)&=\mbox{dist}\left(\max_j\left( \xi_j+\log\frac{Y_j}{E_j}\right)\right)\\
&=\mbox{dist}\left(\max_j\left(\log\frac{e^{\xi_j}Y_j}{E_j}\right)\right)\\
&=\mbox{dist}\left(-\log\left(\min_j\frac{E_j}{e^{\xi_j}Y_j}\right)\right)=\mbox{dist} \left(-\log \frac{E_1}{\sum_{j\geq1}e^{\xi_j}Y_j}\right)=\mathcal{E}\circ L_Z(\mu).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Coupling}
Let $\theta > 0$ and $\mu \in \mathcal{P}(\bar{\mathbb R}_+)$. Then for any $n \geq 1$,
\[
\theta R_n^*\left(\theta, \mu\right) \ \stackrel{d}{=} \ \log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta) - \log E,
\]
where $Y_n^{\mu}(\theta) := \sum_{|v|=n} e^{\theta S(v)} Y_v$, $\{Y_v\}_{|v|=n}$ are i.i.d. $\mu$, and
$E \sim \mbox{Exponential}(1)$
and is independent of $Y_n^{\mu}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
\mbox{dist}\left(\theta R_n^*\left(\theta, \mu\right)\right)
& = M_{\Xi_{\theta}(Z)}^n\circ\mathcal{E}(\mu)\\
& = \mathcal{E}\circ L_{\Xi_{\theta}(Z)}(\mu)
=\mbox{dist} \left(\log Y_n^{\mu} - \log E\right).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
%
%
%
\section{Few Auxiliary Results on the Linear Statistics}
\label{Sec:Auxilliary-Results}
In this section, we provide a few convergence results related to the
\emph{linear operator}, $L_Z^n$, as defined in the previous section and associated
\emph{linear statistics}, which is defined in the sequel
(see equation ~\eqref{Equ:Def-W_n}).
We start by observing that if we
consider the point process $\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)$, then
\[\nu_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)}(\alpha)=\log \mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} e^{\alpha\theta x-\alpha\nu_Z(\theta)}\,Z(dx) \right]
=\nu_Z(\alpha\theta)-\alpha\nu_Z(\theta).\]
Differentiating this with respect to $\alpha$, we get
\[ \nu_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)}'(\alpha)=\theta\nu_Z'(\alpha\theta)-\nu_Z(\theta). \]
Now, taking $\alpha=1$, we have
$\nu_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)}(1)=0$, and
\[
\nu_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)}'(1)=\theta\nu_Z'(\theta)-\nu_Z(\theta)\,
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
>0&\mbox{ if }\theta_0<\theta<\infty;\\
=0&\mbox{ if }\theta=\theta_0<\infty;\\
<0&\mbox{ if }\theta<\theta_0\leq \infty.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Therefore, using Theorem 1.6 of Liu \cite{L98}, we have
\[
L_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)}^n(\mu)\xrightarrow{w} \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\delta_0&\mbox{ if }\theta=\theta_0<\infty;\\
\mu_{\theta}^{\infty}&\mbox{ if }\theta<\theta_0\leq \infty,
\end{array}\right.
\]
where for all $\theta<\theta_0$, $\mu_{\theta}^{\infty}\neq\delta_0$ is a fixed point of $ L_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)} $ and have same mean as $\mu$. Since $\mu_{\theta}^{\infty}\neq \delta_0$ is a fixed point of $ L_{\Xi_{\theta,\nu_Z(\theta)}(Z)} $, we also have $\mu_{\theta}^{\infty}(\{0\})=0$ for all $\theta<\theta_0$.
We now define the \emph{linear statistics} associated with the
linear operator $L_Z^n$.
\begin{equation}
W_n(a,b):=\sum_{|v|=n}e^{aS(v)-nb}.
\label{Equ:Def-W_n}
\end{equation}
To simplify the notations, some times we may write $W_n(a,0)$ as $W_n(a)$.
From the definition of the operator $L$, we get that
\[
L_{\Xi_{a,b}(Z)}^n(\delta_1)=\mbox{dist}\left( W_n(a,b) \right).
\]
Since $\{W_n(\theta,\nu_Z(\theta))\}_{n\geq1}$ is a non-negative martingale, it converges a.s. Therefore the above result implies that almost surely,
\begin{equation}
\label{wnliu}
W_n(\theta,\nu_Z(\theta))\rightarrow
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0&\mbox{ if }\theta=\theta_0<\infty;\\
D_{\theta}^{\infty}&\mbox{ if }\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for some positive random variable $D_{\theta}^{\infty}$ with $\mathbb E[D_{\theta}^{\infty}]=1$,
and the distribution of $D_{\theta}^{\infty}$ is a solution to the linear RDE
~\eqref{Equ:RDE-for-D-theta-infty}.
The following proposition provides convergence results of $W_n(a,b)$ for various values of $a$ and $b$.
\begin{prop}
For any $a>0$ and $b\in\mathbb R$, almost surely
\label{wnprop}
\[
W_n(a,b)
\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
0 & \text{ if } a<\theta_0,\, b>\nu(a);\,\,&(i)\\
D_a^{\infty} & \text{ if } a<\theta_0,\, b=\nu(a);\,\,&(ii)\\
\infty & \text{ if } a<\theta_0,\, b<\nu(a);\,\,&(iii)\\
0 & \text{ if } \theta_0<\infty,\,a\geq\theta_0,\, b\geq a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0;\,\,&(iv)\\
\infty & \text{ if } \theta_0<\infty,\,a\geq\theta_0,\, b<a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0.\,\,&(v)\\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{prop}
To prove this proposition, we use the following elementary result. We provide the proof for sake of completeness.
\begin{lemma}
\label{convx}
Let $f:[0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuously differentiable convex function and $\mathbb{S}$ be a convex subset of $[0,\infty)\times \mathbb R$ satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item $(x,y)\in \mathbb{S}$ for all $0<x< x_0$ and $y> f(x)$ and
\item $(x,y)\notin \mathbb{S}$ for all $0<x< x_0$ and $y< f(x)$,
\end{itemize}
for some $x_0>0$. Then
\[
\mathbb{S}\subseteq\left\{ (x,y): y\geq T_{x_0}(x) \right\},
\]
where $T_{x_0}(\cdot)$ denotes the tangent to $f$ at $x_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We define a function $g:[0,\infty)\rightarrow\bar{\mathbb R}$ as
\[
g(x)=\infty\left\{ y:(x,y)\in\mathbb{S} \right\}.
\]
We first show that $g$ is convex. Take any $x_1$, $x_2$ such that $g(x_1)$, $g(x_2)<\infty$. By definition of $g$, for every $\epsilon>0$, there exist $y_1<g(x_1)+\epsilon$ and $y_2<g(x_2)+\epsilon$ such that $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\in\mathbb{S}$. So for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $(\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)x_2,\alpha y_1+(1-\alpha)y_2)\in\mathbb{S}$. Therefore
\[
g(\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)x_2)\leq \alpha y_1+(1-\alpha)y_2< \alpha g(x_1)+(1-\alpha)g(x_2)+\epsilon.
\]
As $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we have
\[
g(\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)x_2)\leq \alpha g(x_1)+(1-\alpha)g(x_2),
\]
and this is true for all $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Therefore $g$ is convex.
Let $T_x(.)$ be the tangent to $ f $ at $x$. As $f$ is continuously differentiable, $T_x$ converges pointwise to $T_{x_0}$ as $x\rightarrow x_0$. Note that $g=f$ in $(0,x_0)$. Therefore for all $x\in(0,x_0)$, $T_x$ is also tangent to $g$ at $x$. As $g$ is convex, $g\geq T_x$ for all $x\in(0,x_0)$. Hence $g\geq T_{x_0}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition ~\ref{wnprop}]
\textit{Proof of (i),(ii) and (iii)}.
Noting that
\[W_n(a,b)=W_n(a,\nu(a))\cdot e^{n(\nu(a)-b)}\]
(i), (ii) and (iii) follows from equation ~\eqref{wnliu}.
\textit{Proof of (iv)}.
For $a\geq\theta_0$, we have
\begin{align*}
W_n(a,b)= \sum_{|v|=n}e^{aS(v)-nb
&\leq \left(\sum_{|v|=n}e^{\left(aS(v)-nb\right)\theta_0/a}\right)^{a/\theta_0}\\[.25cm]
&=W_n\left(\theta_0,b\theta_0/a\right)^{a/\theta_0}\\[.25cm]
&= \left(W_n\left(\theta_0,\nu(\theta_0)\right)\cdot e ^{n\left(\nu(\theta_0)-b\theta_0/a\right)}\right)^{a/\theta_0}
\end{align*}
Since $W_n(a,b)$ is non-negative, using Equation ~\eqref{wnliu}, we get that for $a\geq\theta_0$ and $b\theta_0/a\geq \nu(\theta_0)$,
\[W_n(a,b)\rightarrow 0 \text{ a.s.} \]
\textit{Proof of (v)}.
Using (i) and (iii), we know that there exists $\mathcal{N}\subset\Omega$ with $\P(\mathcal{N})=0$ such that for all $\omega\notin\mathcal{N}$ and $(a,b)\in [(0,\theta_0)\times\mathbb R] \cap \mathbb Q^2$,
\[
W_n(a,b)(\omega)
\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{ if } b>\nu(a);\\
\infty & \text{ if } b<\nu(a).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
For any $\omega\notin\mathcal{N}$ and any subsequence $\{n_k\}$, we define
\[
\mathbb{S}\left(\{n_k\},\omega\right)=\left\{(c,d):\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}W_{n_k}(c,d)(\omega)<\infty \right\}.
\]
Now, suppose $(c_1,d_1),(c_2,d_2)\in\mathbb{S}\left(\{n_k\},\omega\right)$. Then for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$,
\begin{align*}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty} W_{n_k}\left(\alpha c_1+(1-\alpha)c_2,\alpha d_1+(1-\alpha)d_2\right)(\omega)\\[0.25cm]
=\,\, & \limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{|v|=n_k}\exp\left(\alpha\left[c_1S(v)(\omega)-n_kd_1\right]+(1-\alpha)\left[c_2S(v)(\omega)-n_kd_2\right]\right)\\[0.25cm]
\leq\,\, & \alpha\left[\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{|v|=n_k}\exp\left(c_1S(v)(\omega)-n_kd_1\right)\right]
\\[0.25cm]
&\qquad\qquad +
(1-\alpha)\left[\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{|v|=n_k}\exp\left(c_2S(v)(\omega)-n_kd_2\right)\right]\\[0.25cm]
=\,\, & \alpha\left[\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty} W_{n_k}(c_1,d_1)(\omega)\right]+(1-\alpha)\left[\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty} W_{n_k}(c_2,d_2)(\omega)\right]
<\infty.
\end{align*}
Therefore $\mathbb{S}\left(\{n_k\},\omega\right)$ is convex. As $\mathbb Q^2$ is dense in $\mathbb R^2$, the conditions in Lemma ~\ref{convx} hold for the convex function $\nu$, the convex set $\mathbb{S}\left(\{n_k\},\omega\right)$, and the point $\theta_0$. Thus for any $a\geq\theta_0$ and any $b<a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0$, we have $(a,b)\notin\mathbb{S}\left(\{n_k\},\omega\right)$, which implies
\[
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}W_{n_k}(a,b)(\omega)=\infty.
\]
This holds for all subsequence $\{n_k\}$ and all $\omega\notin\mathcal{N}$. Hence for all $a\geq\theta_0$ and all $b<a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0$, we have
\[ W_n(a,b)\rightarrow \infty \text{ a.s.} \]
\end{proof}
The following corollary is a simple consequence of Proposition ~\ref{wnprop}.
\begin{cor}
\label{wnlim}
Almost surely
\[
\frac{\log W_n(\theta)}{n\theta }
\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta} & \text{ if } \theta<\theta_0\leq \infty;\\ [.25cm]
\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} & \text{ if }\theta_0\leq \theta<\infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{cor}
\section{Proofs of The Main Results}
\label{Sec:Proofs}
In this section we prove the main theorems. We start by proving the
Centered asymptotic limits: proving first
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Above-Boundary-Case} and then
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Boundary-Case} and ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case}.
Proofs of Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Boundary-Case-Version-II}
and ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case-Version-II} are given there after.
We then prove the almost sure asymptotic limit,
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:SLLN}. Finally we end by proving the
Brunet-Derrida type results, Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Point-Process-Conv}
and Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Point-Process-Weak-Conv}.
\subsection{Proof of the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Above-Boundary-Case}}
\begin{proof}
Hu and Shi \cite{HS09} have proved that under the assumptions in Section ~\ref{SubSec:Assumptions}, for $\theta_0<\theta<\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\label{hushi}
\frac{1}{\log n}\left( \log W_n(\theta)- \frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0}\theta n \right) \xrightarrow{p} -\frac{3\theta}{2\theta_0}.
\end{equation}
Since $W_n(\theta)=Y_n^{\delta_1}(\theta)$, using Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Coupling}, we get the required result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Theorems ~\ref{Thm:Boundary-Case} and ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case}}
\begin{proof}
Equation ~\eqref{wnliu} tells that for $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\label{wnliu2}
W_n(\theta,\nu(\theta))\rightarrow D_{\theta}^{\infty} \text{ a.s.}
\end{equation}
For $\theta_0<\infty$, A\"{i}d\'{e}kon and Shi \cite{AS14} have shown that under the assumptions in Section ~\ref{SubSec:Assumptions},
\begin{equation}
\label{aidekonshi}
\sqrt{n}\, W_n(\theta_0,\nu(\theta_0))\xrightarrow{p} \left(\frac{2}{\pi\sigma^2}\right)^{1/2} D_{\theta_0}^{\infty},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^2$ and $D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}$ are as mentioned in Section ~\ref{SubSubSec:Boundary-Case-Results}.
We will show that for any $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ and also for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\label{ynwn}
\frac{Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{W_n(\theta)} \xrightarrow{ p } \langle\mu\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\langle\mu\rangle$ is the mean of $\mu$. Then this, together with Equations ~\eqref{wnliu2} and ~\eqref{aidekonshi} and
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Coupling}, will give us the required results.
Observe that
\[
\frac{Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{W_n(\theta)} - \langle\mu\rangle
= \sum_{|v|=n}\left( \frac{e^{\theta S(v)}}{\sum_{|u|=n}e^{\theta S(u)}} \right)
\left( Y_v- \langle\mu\rangle \right).
\]
We define
\[
M_n(\theta):= \max_{|v|=n} \frac{e^{\theta S(v)}}{\sum_{|u|=n}e^{\theta S(u)}}
=\frac{e^{\theta R_n}}{W_n(\theta)}.
\]
For $\theta\in(0,\theta_0)$, we choose any $\theta_1\in(\theta,\theta_0)$. Then we get
\[
M_n(\theta)
\leq \frac{\left[ W_n(\theta_1) \right]^{\theta/\theta_1}}{W_n(\theta)}
\leq \frac{\left[W_n(\theta_1,\nu(\theta_1))\right]^{\theta/\theta_1}\cdot e^{-n\theta\left(\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}-\frac{\nu(\theta_1)}{\theta_1}\right)}}{W_n(\theta,\nu(\theta))}
\]
Since $\nu$ is strictly convex, $\nu(\theta)/\theta$ is strictly decreasing for $\theta\in(0,\theta_0)$. Therefore using Proposition ~\ref{wnprop}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{mnlim1}
M_n(\theta)\rightarrow 0 \text{ a.s.}
\end{equation}
For $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$, we choose any $\theta_2\in(\theta_0,\infty)$. Observe that
\begin{equation*}
M_n(\theta_0)
\leq \frac{\left[W_n\left( \theta_2\right) \right] ^{\theta_0/\theta_2}} {W_n(\theta_0 )}
= \frac{\left[n^{\theta_2/\theta_0}W_n\left( \theta_2, {\theta_2\nu(\theta_0)}/{\theta_0}\right) \right] ^{\theta_0/\theta_2}} {nW_n(\theta_0, \nu (\theta_0) )}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore using Equations ~\eqref{hushi} and ~\eqref{aidekonshi}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{mnlim2}
M_n(\theta_0)\xrightarrow{p} 0.
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the $\sigma$-field generated by the branching random walk, and $Y\sim\mu$. Then using Lemma 2.1 of Biggins and Kyprianou (1997) \cite{BK97}, which is a particular case of Lemma 2.2 in Kurtz (1972) \cite{K72}, we get that for every $0<\varepsilon<1/2$,
\begin{align*}
&\P\left( \left.\left| \frac{Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{W_n(\theta)} - \langle\mu\rangle \right|>\varepsilon\right| \mathcal{F} \right)\\
&\leq \frac{2}{\varepsilon^2}
\left(
\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{M_n(\theta)}} M_n(\theta)t\cdot\P\left( \left|Y- \langle\mu\rangle\right|>t \right)\,dt+
\int_{\frac{1}{M_n(\theta)}}^{\infty} \P\left( \left|Y- \langle\mu\rangle\right|>t \right)\,dt
\right),
\end{align*}
which by Equations ~\eqref{mnlim1}, ~\eqref{mnlim2} and dominated convergence theorem, converges to $0$ in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Then by taking expectation and using dominated convergence theorem again, we get
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\P\left( \left| \frac{Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{W_n(\theta)} - \langle\mu\rangle \right|>\varepsilon \right)=0.
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Theorems ~\ref{Thm:Boundary-Case-Version-II} and ~\ref{Thm:Below-Boundary-Case-Version-II}}
\begin{proof} Observe that
\begin{align*}
\theta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)-Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)
&=\max_{|v|=n}\left(\theta S(v)+\log Y_v-\log E_v\right)-\log \left(\sum_{|u|=n} e^{\theta S(u)}Y_u\right)\\[.25cm]
&=-\log\left(\min_{|v|=n} E_v\left( \frac{e^{\theta S(v)}Y_v}{ \sum_{|u|=n} e^{\theta S(u)}Y_u } \right)^{-1}\right)\\[.25cm]
&\ \stackrel{d}{=} \ -\log E,
\end{align*}
where $E\sim\mbox{Exponential}\left(1\right)$. This, together with Equations ~\eqref{wnliu2},~\eqref{aidekonshi} and ~\eqref{ynwn}, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:SLLN}}
\begin{proof}
\textit{(Upper bound)}.
Take any $\theta>0$ and let $\beta=\min(\theta,\theta_0)$. Using Markov's inequality, we get that for every $\epsilon>0$,
\[
\P\left( \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}-\frac{\nu(\beta)}{\beta}>\epsilon \right)\leq
e^{-n\left(\beta\epsilon+\nu(\beta)\right)/2}\cdot\mathbb E\left[e^{\beta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)/2}\right].
\]
Now, using Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Coupling}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb E\left[e^{\beta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)/2}\right]
&=\mathbb E\left[ \left(\sum_{|v|=n}e^{\theta S(v)} Y_v\right)^{\beta/(2\theta)} \right]\cdot\mathbb E\left[E^{-\beta/(2\theta)}\right]\\[.25cm]
&\leq \mathbb E\left[ \sqrt{\sum_{|v|=n}e^{\beta S(v)} Y_v^{\beta/\theta}} \right]\cdot\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\beta}{2\theta}\right)\\[.25cm]
&\leq \sqrt{\mathbb E\left[ \sum_{|v|=n}e^{\beta S(v)} Y_v^{\beta/\theta} \right]}\cdot\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\beta}{2\theta}\right)\\[.25cm]
&=\sqrt{e^{n\nu(\beta)}\cdot\langle\mu\rangle_{\beta/\theta}}\cdot\Gamma\left(1-\frac{\beta}{2\theta}\right),
\end{align*}
where $\langle\mu\rangle_{\beta/\theta}$ is the $(\beta/\theta)$-th moment of $\mu$. So for every $\epsilon>0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{bc+}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \P\left( \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}-\frac{\nu(\beta)}{\beta}>\epsilon \right)<\infty.
\end{equation}
Therefore using Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we obtain for all $\theta>0$, almost surely
\begin{equation}
\label{limsuprnn}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}&\text{ if }\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty;\\[.25cm]
\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0}&\text{ if }\theta_0\leq\theta<\infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\noindent\textit{(Lower bound).}
For $u$ such that $|u|=m\leq n$, we define
\[
R_{n-m}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu):=\left(\max_{v>u, |v|=n} S(v)+\frac{1}{\theta}\log (Y_v/E_v)\right)- S(u).
\]
Note that $\{R_{n-m}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\}_{|u|=m}$ are i.i.d. and has same distribution as $R_{n-m}^*(\theta,\mu)$. Now,
\begin{align*}
R_{n}^*(\theta,\mu)
&=\max_{|u|=m}\left(\max_{v>u, |v|=n}S(v)+\frac{1}{\theta}\log (Y_v/E_v)\right)\\
&=\max_{|u|=m}\left( S(u)+R_{n-m}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\right)\\
&\geq S(\tilde{u}_m)+\max_{|u|=m}\left(R_{n-m}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\right),
\end{align*}
where
\[
\tilde{u}_m:=\arg\max_{|u|=m}\left(R_{n-m}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\right).
\]
Now, for any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and for $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\begin{align*}
&\P\left( \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}-\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}<-\epsilon \right)\\
\leq\,\, & \P\left(S(\tilde{u}_{[\sqrt{n}]})+\max_{|u|=[\sqrt{n}]}\left(R_{n-[\sqrt{n}]}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\right)<n\left(\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}-\epsilon\right)\right) \\
\leq \,\,&
\P\left(\max_{|u|=[\sqrt{n}]}\left(R_{n-[\sqrt{n}]}^{*(u)}(\theta,\mu)\right)<n\left(\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)
+
\P\left(S(\tilde{u}_{[\sqrt{n}]})<-\frac{n\epsilon}{2}\right)\\
\leq\,\, &
\mathbb E\left[\P\left(R_{n-[\sqrt{n}]}^*(\theta,\mu)<n\left(\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)^{N_{[\sqrt{n}]}}\right]+
e^{-n\epsilon\vartheta/4}\cdot\mathbb E\left[e^{-\vartheta S(\tilde{u}_{[\sqrt{n}]})/2}\right].
\end{align*}
Now, Corollary ~\ref{wnlim}, together with Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Coupling} and Equation ~\eqref{ynwn}, implies that for $\theta<\theta_0$ and also for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[
\frac{R_{n}^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\xlongrightarrow{p} \frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}.
\]
Therefore for all large enough $n$,
\[
\P\left(R_{n-[\sqrt{n}]}^*(\theta,\mu)<n\left(\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)\right)<\epsilon.
\]
Observe, $N_{[\sqrt{n}]} < n$ implies at least $[\sqrt{n}]-\lceil\log_2n\rceil$ many particles have given birth to only one offspring. Therefore
\[
\P\left(N_{[\sqrt{n}]} < n \right)\leq \left(\P(N=1)\right)^{[\sqrt{n}]-\lceil\log_2n\rceil}.
\]
For the second term, we have
\[
\mathbb E\left[e^{-\vartheta S(\tilde{u}_{[\sqrt{n}]})/2}\right]
\leq \mathbb E\left[ W_{[\sqrt{n}]}(-\vartheta/2)\right]
=e^{[\sqrt{n}]\nu(-\vartheta/2)}.
\]
Therefore we have for all large enough $n$,
\begin{align*}
&\P\left( \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}-\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}<-\epsilon \right)\\
\leq \,& \epsilon^n+\left(\P(N=1)\right)^{[\sqrt{n}]-\lceil\log_2n\rceil}
+e^{-n\epsilon\vartheta/4+[\sqrt{n}]\nu(-\vartheta/2)}.
\end{align*}
Since for every $\epsilon\in(0,1)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{bc-}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \P\left( \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}-\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta}<-\epsilon \right)<\infty,
\end{equation}
using Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we obtain that for $0<\theta<\theta_0$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\begin{equation}
\label{liminfrnn1}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\geq \frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta} \text{ a.s.}
\end{equation}
To get similar lower bound for $\theta_0<\theta<\infty$, we need the
following result, the proof of this is given at the end of this proof.
\begin{prop}
\label{ynlim}
For any positively supported probability $\mu$ with finite mean, almost surely
\[
\frac{\log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{n\theta }
\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta} & \text{ if } \theta<\theta_0\leq\infty;\\ [.25cm]
\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} & \text{ if }\theta_0\leq \theta<\infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{prop}
Now observe that,
\[ \theta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)=\max_{|v|=n}\left( \theta S(v)+\log Y_v-\log E_{v} \right)\geq \max_{|v|=n}\left( \theta S(v)+\log Y_v\right)-\log E_{v_n}, \]
where
\[
v_n=\arg\max_{|v|=n}\left( \theta S(v)+\log Y_v\right).
\]
Observe
\[
Y_n^{\mu}(\theta+\theta_0)=\sum_{|v|=n}e^{(\theta+\theta_0)S(v)}Y_v\leq
W_n(\theta_0)\cdot e^{\max_{|v|=n}\left( \theta S(v)+\log Y_v\right)}.
\]
Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\theta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\geq \frac{\log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta+\theta_0)}{n}-\frac{\log W_n(\theta_0)}{n}-\frac{\log E_{v_n}}{n}.
\end{align*}
Since $\mathbb E[|\log E_{v_n}|]$ is finite, Borel-Cantelli Lemma implies that the last terms on the right hand side converges to $0$ a.s. By Corollary ~\ref{wnlim} and Proposition ~\ref{ynlim}, the first and the second terms a.s. converges to $ (\theta+\theta_0)\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0$ and $\nu(\theta_0)$ respectively. Thus whenever $\theta_0<\infty$, we obtain that for all $\theta>\theta_0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{liminfrnn2}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{R_n^*(\theta,\mu)}{n}\geq \frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} \text{ a.s.}
\end{equation}
Equation ~\eqref{liminfrnn2}, together with Equations ~\eqref{limsuprnn} and ~\eqref{liminfrnn1}, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proof of the Proposition ~\ref{ynlim}}
\begin{proof}
Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Coupling} says that
\[\theta R_n^*(\theta,\mu)\xlongequal{ d } \log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)-\log E .\]
Since $\mathbb E[|\log E|]<\infty$, Equations ~\eqref{bc+} and ~\eqref{bc-}, together with Borel-Cantelli Lemma, imply that for $\theta<\theta_0\leq \infty$ and also for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[
\frac{\log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{n\theta }
\rightarrow
\frac{\nu(\theta)}{\theta} \text{ a.s.}
\]
and for $\theta_0<\theta<\infty$,
\[
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{\log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{n\theta }\leq \frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} \text{ a.s.}
\]
So for any $a>0$ and $b\in\mathbb R$, we have almost surely
\[
Y_n^{\mu}(a,b)
\rightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{ if } a<\theta_0,\, b>\nu(a);\\
\infty & \text{ if } a<\theta_0,\, b<\nu(a);\\
0 & \text{ if } \theta_0<\infty,\,a\geq\theta_0,\, b> a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Now, the exact similar argument as in the proof of Proposition ~\ref{wnprop}{(v)} suggests that
for $\theta_0<\infty$, $a\geq\theta_0$ and $b< a\nu(\theta_0)/\theta_0$,
\[
Y_n^{\mu}(a,b)
\rightarrow \infty \text{ a.s.}
\]
Hence for $\theta_0<\theta<\infty$,
\[
\frac{\log Y_n^{\mu}(\theta)}{n\theta }
\rightarrow
\frac{\nu(\theta_0)}{\theta_0} \text{ a.s.}
\]
This proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Point-Process-Conv}}
\label{SubSec:Proof-of-BD-results}
\begin{proof}
We begin by proving two technical facts.
\begin{lemma}
\label{ExpArray}
Let $\left\{E_{i,n}:1\leq i\leq m_n,n\geq 1\right\}$ be an array of independent random variables with $E_{i,n}\sim\mbox{Exponential}(\lambda_{i,n})$. Suppose for all $n\geq1$,
$\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}=1$, and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\max_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}=0$.
Then as $n\rightarrow\infty$, the point process
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{m_n} \delta_{E_{i,n}}\xrightarrow{d} {\cal N}, \]
where ${\cal N}$ is a homogeneous Poisson point process on $\mathbb R_+$ with intensity $1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}=1$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\max_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}=0$ means $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}m_n=\infty$.
We fix any $k\in\mathbb N$. For $m_n>k$, we denote $E_{(1,n)},E_{(2,n)},\ldots,E_{(k,n)}$ as the first $k$ order statistics of $\{ E_{i,n}:1\leq i \leq m_n \}$. Then for $0\leq x_1\leq x_2\leq\cdots\leq x_k$, the joint density function of $E_{(1,n)},E_{(2,n)},\ldots,E_{(k,n)}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
&f_{E_{(1,n)},E_{(2,n)},\ldots,E_{(k,n)}}(x_1, x_2,\ldots, x_k)\\[.25cm]
=\,\,&\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_{j_i,n}e^{-\lambda_{j_i,n}x_i} \right)\cdot
\left(\mathop{\prod_{l=1}^n} _{ l\neq j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k} e^{-\lambda_{l,n}x_k} \right)\\[.25cm]
=&\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_{j_i,n}x_i \,-\mathop{\sum_{l=1}^n} _{ l\neq j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k} \lambda_{l,n} x_k \right),
\end{align*}
where
\[ {\cal S}(k,n)=\left\{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\in\left\{1,2,\ldots,m_n\right\}^k: j_r\neq j_t\text{ for all }1\leq r<t\leq k\right\}. \]
Now, we use the following transformation.
\[ Y_{1,n}=E_{(1,n)},\quad Y_{2,n}=E_{(2,n)}-E_{(1,n)},\quad \ldots,\quad Y_{k,n}=E_{(k,n)}-E_{(k-1,n)}. \]
The Jacobian of the above transformation is $1$. Therefore for any non-negative real numbers $y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_k$, the joint density function of $Y_{1,n},Y_{2,n},\ldots Y_{k,n}$ is given by
\begin{align}
&f_{Y_{1,n},Y_{2,n},\ldots Y_{k,n}}(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_k)\nonumber\\[.25cm]
=\,\,&
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left( -\sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_{j_i,n}\left(\sum_{r=1}^i y_r\right)-\mathop{\sum_{l=1}^n} _{ l\neq j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k} \lambda_{l,n}\left(\sum_{r=1}^k y_r\right) \right)\nonumber\\[.25cm]
=\,\,&
\exp\left({ -\sum_{r=1}^k y_r }\right)\cdot
\left[
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(\sum_{r=2}^k\left(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right) y_r \right)
\right].
\label{DensityY}
\end{align}
Now, observe that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
&\leq
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}\right)^k\\[.25cm]
&\leq
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
+\binom{k}{2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda^2_{i,n}\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}\right)^{k-2}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}=1$. So, if we write $\lambda^*_n=\max_{i=1}^{m_n}\lambda_{i,n}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
\leq
1
\leq
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
+\binom{k}{2}\lambda^*_n.
\end{align*}
Therefore we have
\begin{equation}
\label{DistinctProdLim}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
=1.
\end{equation}
also, observe that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)
\leq\,\,&
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(\sum_{r=2}^k\left(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right) y_r \right)\\[.25cm]
\leq\,\,&
\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(\sum_{r=2}^k\left(r-1\right) y_r \lambda^*_n \right).
\end{align*}
Thus letting $n\rightarrow\infty$ and using Equation ~\eqref{DistinctProdLim}, we get
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k)\atop\in \mathcal{S}(k,n)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(\sum_{r=2}^k\left(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}\lambda_{j_i,n}\right) y_r \right)
=1
\end{align*}
Applying this to Equation ~\eqref{DensityY}, gives us
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_{Y_{1,n},Y_{2,n},\ldots Y_{k,n}}(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_k)
=\exp\left({ -\sum_{r=1}^k y_r }\right).
\end{equation*}
If we write the $k$-th order statistics of the homogeneous Poisson point process ${\cal N}$ as $Q_{(k)}$, then the joint density function of $Q_{(1)},Q_{(2)}-Q_{(1)},\ldots , Q_{(k)}-Q_{(k-1)} $ is given by
\[ f_{Q_{(1)},Q_{(2)}-Q_{(1)},\ldots , Q_{(k)}-Q_{(k-1)}}(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_k)=\exp\left({ -\sum_{r=1}^k y_r }\right). \]
Therefore by Scheffe's Theorem, we get
\[
\left( Y_{1,n},Y_{2,n},\ldots Y_{k,n}\right)\xrightarrow{d} \left(Q_{(1)},Q_{(2)}-Q_{(1)},\ldots , Q_{(k)}-Q_{(k-1)}\right).
\]
Equivalently, for any $k\in\mathbb N$,
\begin{align}
\left( E_{(1,n)},E_{(2,n)},\ldots,E_{(k,n)}\right)\xrightarrow{d} \left(Q_{(1)},Q_{(2)},\ldots , Q_{(k)}\right).
\label{OrderStatConv}
\end{align}
Now, take any continuous function $f$ that vanishes outside a bounded set, say, $[0,M]$. We fix any $\epsilon>0$, and choose $k_0$ large enough so that
$\P\left({\cal N}\left([0,M]\right)\geq k_0 \right)<\epsilon$.
Observe that for any $x\in\mathbb R$,
\begin{align}
\left|\P\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}f\,d{\cal N}\leq x\right) -\P\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}f\left(Q_{(i)}\right)\leq x\right)\right|
\leq \P\left({\cal N}\left([0,M]\right)\geq k_0 \right)<\epsilon. \label{OrderStat1}
\end{align}
By Equation ~\eqref{OrderStatConv}, we also get
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\left|\P\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}f\,d\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\delta_{E_{i,n}}\right)\leq x\right) -\P\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}f\left(E_{(i,n)}\right)\leq x\right)\right|\nonumber\\[.25cm]
& \qquad\qquad\leq
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\P\left( E_{(k_0,n)}\leq M \right)
= \P\left( Q_{(k_0)}\leq M \right)<\epsilon.
\label{OrderStat2}
\end{align}
Equation ~\eqref{OrderStatConv} also suggests that
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \P\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}f\left(E_{(i,n)}\right)\leq x\right)
= \P\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}f\left(Q_{(i)}\right)\leq x\right).
\label{OrderStat3}
\end{align}
Combining equations ~\eqref{OrderStat1}, ~\eqref{OrderStat2}, and
~\eqref{OrderStat3}, and letting $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we finally get
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{\infty}f\,d\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\delta_{E_{i,n}}\right)
\xrightarrow{d}
\int_{0}^{\infty}f\,d{\cal N}.
\end{align*}
Hence, by using Proposition 11.1.VII of Daley and Vere-Jones \cite{DV08}, we obtain
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{m_n}\delta_{E_{i,n}}\xrightarrow{d} {\cal N}. \]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{PoissonProperty}
If ${\cal N}=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\zeta_j}$ is a homogeneous Poisson point process on $\mathbb R_+$ with intensity $1$, then ${\cal Y}=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_j}$ is a decorated Poisson point process.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that a point process ${\cal Z}$ on $\mathbb R$ is called exponential $1$-stable (see Maillard \cite{M13}) if for every $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb R$ with $e^{\alpha}+e^{\beta}=1$,
\[{\cal Z}\xlongequal{\text{d}} \Xi_{1,-\alpha}({\cal Z}_1)+\Xi_{1,-\beta}({\cal Z}_2), \]
where ${\cal Z}_1$ and ${\cal Z}_2$ are i.i.d. copies of ${\cal Z}$. Since by Corollary 3.2 of Maillard \cite{M13}, every exponential $1$-stable process is a decorated Poisson point process, it suffices to show that ${\cal Y}$ is exponential $1$-stable. Let ${\cal N}_1$ and ${\cal N}_2$ be two i.i.d. copies of
${\cal N}$. By the scaling property of the Poisson point processes, we know that $\Xi_{e^{-\alpha}}({\cal N}_1)$ and $\Xi_{e^{-\beta}}({\cal N}_2)$ are two independent homogeneous Poisson point processes on $\mathbb R_+$ with intensities $e^{\alpha}$ and $e^{\beta}$, respectively. Since $e^{\alpha}+e^{\beta}=1$, by the superposition theorem of the Poisson point processes (see Last and Penrose \cite{LP18}), we obtain
\[{\cal N}\overset{d}{=} \Xi_{e^{-\alpha}}({\cal N}_1) + \Xi_{e^{-\beta}}({\cal N}_2). \]
Let ${\cal Y}_1=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_{1,j}}$ and ${\cal Y}_2=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{-\log \zeta_{2,j}}$, where ${\cal N}_1=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\zeta_{1,j}}$ and ${\cal N}_2=\sum_{j\geq1}\delta_{\zeta_{2,j}}$. By construction, ${\cal Y}_1$ and ${\cal Y}_2$ are i.i.d. copies of ${\cal Y}$. Now, for any Borel set $B$,
\begin{align*}
{\cal Y}(B)&={\cal N}\left(\left\{e^{-b}:b\in B \right\}\right)\\[.25cm]
&\mathop{=}^d\, \Xi_{e^{-\alpha}}({\cal N}_1)\left(\left\{e^{-b}:b\in B \right\}\right)+ \Xi_{e^{-\beta}}({\cal N}_2) \left(\left\{e^{-b}:b\in B \right\}\right) \\[.25cm]
&= {\cal N}_1\left(\left\{e^{\alpha-b}:b\in B \right\}\right)+ {\cal N}_2 \left(\left\{e^{\beta-b}:b\in B \right\}\right) \\[.25cm]
&={\cal Y}_1\left(\left\{ b-\alpha:b\in B \right\}\right)+ {\cal Y}_2\left(\left\{ b-\beta:b\in B \right\}\right)\\[.25cm]
&=\Xi_{1,-\alpha}({\cal Y}_1)(B)+\Xi_{1,-\beta}({\cal Y}_2)(B).
\end{align*}
Hence, we get that ${\cal Y}$ is exponential $1$-stable, and this completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Now, let ${\cal F}$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the branching random walk.
We know that conditioned on ${\cal F}$, $\left\{ E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)} \right\}$ are independent, and
\[\left. E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)} \right| {\cal F}\sim \text{ Exponential }\left(\frac{e^{\theta S(v)}}{W_n(\theta)}\right). \]
Note that
\[ \sum_{|v|=n} \frac{e^{\theta S(v)}}{W_n(\theta)} =1 ,\]
and by Equations ~\eqref{mnlim1} and ~\eqref{mnlim2}, we also have that for $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[ \max_{|v|=n} \frac{e^{\theta S(v)}}{W_n(\theta)}\xrightarrow{P} 0. \]
Therefore by Lemma ~\ref{ExpArray}, for any positive integer $k$, Borel sets $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_k$ and non-negative integers $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_k$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\P\left(\left. \sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)}}(B_1)=t_1,\ldots, \sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)}}(B_k)=t_k \right| {\cal F}\right)\\[.25cm]
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \xrightarrow{P} \P\left({\cal N}(B_1)=t_1,\ldots,{\cal N}(B_k)=t_k\right).
\end{align*}
Then, using the dominated convergence theorem, we get
\begin{align*}
&\P\left( \sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)}}(B_1)=t_1,\ldots, \sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)}}(B_k)=t_k \right)\\[.25cm]
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \rightarrow \P\left({\cal N}(B_1)=t_1,\ldots,{\cal N}(B_k)=t_k\right).
\end{align*}
or equivalently (see Theorem 11.1.VII of Daley and Vere-Jones \cite{DV08}),
\[
\sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{E_vW_n(\theta)e^{-\theta S(v)}}\xrightarrow{d} {\cal N}.
\]
Since $-\log(.)$ is continuous and therefore Borel measurable, the above equation suggests that
\begin{equation}
{\cal U}_n:=\sum_{|v|=n} \delta_{\theta S_v-\log E_v-\log W_n(\theta)}\xrightarrow{d} {\cal Y}. \label{uny}
\end{equation}
To simplify the notations, for all $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$, we denote
\[A_n(\theta)= n\nu(\theta)+\log D_{\theta}^{\infty},\]
and for $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$, we denote
\[A_n(\theta_0)=n\nu(\theta_0)-\frac{1}{2}\log n+\log D_{\theta_0}^{\infty}+\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\frac{2}{\pi\sigma^2}\right).\]
Recall that by Equations ~\eqref{wnliu2} and ~\eqref{aidekonshi}, for $\theta<\theta_0\leq\infty$ or $\theta=\theta_0<\infty$,
\[ A_n(\theta)-\log W_n(\theta)\xrightarrow{P}0. \]
Now, take any positive integer $k$, non-negative integers $\{t_i\}_{i=1}^k$, and extended real numbers $\{a_i\}_{i=1}^k$ and $\{b_i\}_{i=1}^k$ with $a_i<b_i$ for all $i$. We choose $\delta \in \left(0, \min_{i=1}^k (b_i-a_i)/2\right)$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
&\P\left( {\cal U}_n\left((a_1-\delta,b_1+\delta)\right)\leq t_1,\ldots,{\cal U}_n\left((a_k-\delta,b_k+\delta)\right)\leq t_k \right)\\[.25cm] &\qquad-\P\left(\left|A_n(\theta)-\log W_n(\theta)\right|>\delta \right)\\[.25cm]
\leq\,\,& \P\left( Z_n(\theta)\left((a_1,b_1)\right)\leq t_1,\ldots,Z_n(\theta)\left((a_k,b_k)\right)\leq t_k \right)\\[.25cm]
\leq\,\,& \P\left( {\cal U}_n\left((a_1+\delta,b_1-\delta)\right)\leq t_1,\ldots,{\cal U}_n\left((a_k+\delta,b_k-\delta)\right)\leq t_k \right)\\[.25cm]
&\qquad +\P\left(\left|A_n(\theta)-\log W_n(\theta)\right|>\delta \right).
\end{align*}
Now, by Equation ~\eqref{uny}, we have ${\cal U}_n\xrightarrow{d}{\cal Y}$. By Lemma ~\ref{PoissonProperty}, we also have that ${\cal Y}$ is a decorated Poisson point process, and hence it is continuous.
Therefore, allowing $n\rightarrow\infty$ and then letting $\delta\rightarrow0$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\P\left( Z_n(\theta)\left((a_1,b_1)\right)\leq t_1,\ldots,Z_n(\theta)\left((a_k,b_k)\right)\leq t_k \right)\\[.25cm]
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad= \P\left( {\cal Y}\left((a_1,b_1)\right)\leq t_1,\ldots,{\cal Y}\left((a_k,b_k)\right)\leq t_k \right),
\end{align*}
or equivalently,
$Z_n(\theta)\xrightarrow{d}{\cal Y}$.
This, together with Lemma ~\ref{PoissonProperty}, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Point-Process-Weak-Conv}}
\begin{proof}
This is a slightly weaker version. It follows from arguments similar to those of the proof of the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Point-Process-Conv}.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Sec:Discussion}
The \emph{link operator} as defined in ~\ref{Def:Link-Operator} may be
viewed as a ``\emph{measure valued continuous brunch of logarithm}''
on the space of
positively supported probability measures.
The continuity is with respect to the weak convergence
topology on both domain and range spaces of the operator.
Further, the Theorem ~\ref{Thm:Transforming-Relationship} is a formalization
of the intuitive idea that under the link operator $\mathcal{E}$, an
$\left(\mbox{Max}, + \right)$-type algebra on non-negative random variables
gets rightly converted to the usual
$\left(+, \cdot \right)$-type algebra of general random variables.
The results on our new LPM-BRW and the proofs are essentially a formalization in this specific model of the above-mentioned two intuitive ideas. We believe that it is worth exploring these abstract concepts more to know further concrete applicability of such ideas.
\section*{Appendix}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\renewcommand{\thetheorem}{A.\arabic{theorem}}
\begin{prop}
\label{Prop:Equ-1.2}
Under assumptions {\bf (A1)} and {\bf (A3)} there exists $q > 0$, such that,
the equation ~\eqref{asmp_rem} holds.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Observe that
\[ \int_{\mathbb R}e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx)\leq Ne^{\theta\left(\max_{j=1}^N\xi_{j}\right)}, \quad\text{ and }\quad e^{\theta\left(\max_{j=1}^N\xi_{j}\right)}\leq \int_{\mathbb R}e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx).\]
Now, using H\"{o}lder's inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\,\,\mathbb E\left[ \left( \int_{\mathbb R}e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx)\right)^{1+q} \right]
\leq & \,\, \mathbb E\left[ N^{1+q}\cdot e^{\theta (1+q) \left(\max_{j=1}^N\xi_{j}\right)} \right]\\%[.25cm]
\leq & \left(\mathbb E\left[N^{(1+q)^2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{1+q}}\cdot
\left(\mathbb E\left[e^{\theta \left(\frac{(1+q)^2}{q}\right) \left(\max_{j=1}^N\xi_{j}\right)}\right]\right)^{\frac{q}{1+q}}\\%[.25cm]
\leq & \left(\mathbb E\left[N^{(1+q)^2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{1+q}}\cdot
\left(\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R}e^{\theta\left(\frac{(1+q)^2}{q}\right) x}\,Z(dx)\right]\right)^{\frac{q}{1+q}}\\%[.25cm]
= & \left(\mathbb E\left[N^{(1+q)^2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{1+q}}\cdot
\left(m\left(\theta(1+q)^2/q\right)\right)^{\frac{q}{1+q}}.
\end{align*}
Then, by choosing $q$ such that $(1+q)^2\leq1+p$, one gets
Equation ~\eqref{asmp_rem}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{Prop:Convexity-of-nu}
Under assumption {\bf (A1)}, the function $\theta \mapsto \nu(\theta)$
is strictly convex inside the open interval $(-\vartheta,\infty)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
From Assumption {\bf (A1)}, we know that
\[
m(\theta):=\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]<\infty,
\]
for all $\theta\in(-\vartheta,\infty)$. Therefore using dominated convergence theorem, we have for all $\theta\in(-\vartheta,\infty)$,
\[
m'(\theta)=\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} xe^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]<\infty,
\]
and
\[
m''(\theta)=\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} x^2e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]<\infty.
\]
From Assumption {\bf (A2)}, we have that $\P(Z(\{t\})=N)<1$ for all $t\in\mathbb R$. Therefore for all $t\in\mathbb R$,
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} (x-t)^2e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]>0\\[.25cm]
\Rightarrow\,\, & \mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} x^2e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]-2t\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} xe^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]+t^2\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]>0\\[.25cm]
\Rightarrow \,\,& \mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} x^2e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]\cdot\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} e^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]>\left(\mathbb E\left[\int_{\mathbb R} xe^{\theta x}\,Z(dx) \right]\right)^2\\[.25cm]
\Rightarrow \,\,& m''(\theta)m(\theta)>\left(m'(\theta)\right)^2.
\end{align*}
Hence we have for all $\theta\in(-\vartheta,\infty)$,
\[
\nu''(\theta)=\frac{m''(\theta)m(\theta)-\left(m'(\theta)\right)^2}{\left(m(\theta)\right)^2}>0.
\]
This proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Randomized algorithms are designed under the assumption that randomness used within the algorithms is uniformly distributed. However, random sources in nature are often not necessarily uniform (aka weak). Thus, it is important to understand how to extract uniform randomness from weak-sources. Extractors are functions that transform weak-sources to uniform randomness. Extractors have numerous applications including privacy-amplification, pseudo-randomness, derandomization, expanders, combinatorics and cryptography.
A general model of weak-sources is the so-called {\em min-entropy} source (please refer to Section~\ref{sec:prelims} for definitions of information-theoretic quantities).
\suppress{
The min-entropy of a random variable $X$ is given by
\[ \Hmin(X) =\min_{x \in \text{supp}(X) } \log\left(\frac{1}{P_X(x)} \right).\]
}
\begin{definition}\label{weaksource}
An $(n,k)$-source denotes an $n$-bit source $X\in \{ 0,1\}^n$ with the min-entropy bound $k$, i.e. $\Hmin(X) \geq k$.
\end{definition}
It can be argued that no deterministic function can extract even one uniform bit given an (arbitrary) $(n,k)$-source as long as $k \leq n-1$ \cite{CG85}. This lead to designing extractors using an additional uniform source (aka {\em seed}) called {\em seeded-extractors}~\cite{FS04}. Another approach is to consider multiple independent weak-sources.
\suppress{
\begin{definition}[$2$-source]\label{2source}
An $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source denotes two independent $n$-bit sources $X,Y$ with min-entropy bounds $k_1, k_2$ respectively, i.e. $ \Hmin(X) \geq k_1$ and $ \Hmin(Y) \geq k_2.$
\end{definition}
}
\begin{definition}\label{tsource}
An $(n,k_1,k_2, \ldots, k_t)$-source denotes $t$ independent $n$-bit sources $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_t$ with min-entropy bounds $ \Hmin(X_i) \geq k_i$ for every $i \in [t].$
\end{definition}
Multi-source-extractors are functions that transform multiple weak-sources to uniform randomness. Multi-source-extractors have been studied extensively in the classical setting~\cite{Bou05,CG85,KLRZ08,R06,Raz05,KLR09}. With the advent of quantum computers, it is natural to investigate the security of extractors against a quantum adversary with quantum side-information on weak-sources.
\suppress{This leads us to consider
\begin{definition}[Conditional-min-entropy]
For state $\rho_{XE}$, min-entropy of $X$ conditioned on quantum side-information $E$ is defined as
$$ \hmin{X}{E}_\rho = - \inf_{\sigma_{E} \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{E})} \dmax{\rho_{XE}}{\id_X \otimes \sigma_E} .$$
\end{definition}
}
As expected quantum side-information presents many more challenges compared to classical side-information. Gavinsky et al.~\cite{GKKRW07} gave an example of a seeded-extractor secure against a classical adversary but not secure against a quantum adversary (even with a very small side-information). Several definitions of quantum multi-source adversaries have been proposed in the literature. Kasher and Kempe~\cite{KK10} introduced quantum-bounded-storage-adversary ($\textbf{qbs-adv}$), where the adversary has bounded memory. They also introduced quantum-independent-adversary ($\textbf{qi-adv}$) which obtains independent side-information from various sources. Arnon-Friedman, Portmann and Scholz~\cite{APS16} introduced quantum-Markov-adversary ($\textbf{qmar-adv}$), such that $X-E-Y$ forms a {\em Markov-chain} ($\condmutinf{X}{Y}{E}=0$), where $E$ is adversary's side-information. Chung, Li and Wu~\cite{CLW14} introduced general-entangled-adversary ($\textbf{ge-adv}$). A natural question that arises is what is the relationship/hierarchy between these different adversary models. Previous works~\cite{CLW14,KK10,APS16} also ask if there is a model which is stronger than the existing models. To quote~\cite{KK10} \begin{quote}
In light of this, it is not clear if and how entangled guessing entropy sources can be incorporated into the model, and hence we only consider bounded storage adversaries in the entangled case.
\end{quote} A difficulty that they point is that in the quantum setting (unlike the classical-setting), measuring the adversary side-information might break the independence of the sources~\cite{KK10}. Quantum entanglement between various parties, used to generate side-information raises additional issues. Entanglement is of course known to yield several unexpected effects with no classical counterparts, e.g., {\em non-local correlations}~\cite{Bell64} and {\em super-dense coding}~ \cite{CS92} etc.
\subsection*{Our results}
One of the main objectives of this work is to unify all the existing quantum multi-source adversary models. We propose two new models of adversaries: 1) the quantum-measurement-adversary ($\textbf{qm-adv}$, Definition~\ref{qmadv}), which generates side-information using entanglement and on post-measurement and 2) the quantum-communication-adversary ($\textbf{qc-adv}$, Definition~\ref{def:qcadv}), which generates side-information using entanglement and communication between multiple sources. We show that,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\textbf{qm-adv}$ is the strongest adversary among all the known adversaries (Theorem~\ref{thm2-intro1}), in the sense that the side-information of all other adversaries can be generated by $\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\item The (generalized) inner-product function (in fact a general class of two-wise independent functions) continues to work as a good extractor against $\textbf{qm-adv}$ (Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}) with matching parameters as that of Chor and Goldreich~\cite{CG85} against classical-adversaries.
\item A non-malleable extractor proposed by Li~\cite{Li12c} (against classical-adversaries) continues to be secure against quantum side-information (Theorem~\ref{refnmext_new}). A non-malleable extractor ($\mathsf{nmExt}$) for two sources ($X,Y$) is an extractor such that $\mathsf{nmExt} (X,Y)$ is uniform and independent of $\mathsf{nmExt} (X,Y')YY'$, where $Y'\ne Y$ is generated by the adversary using $Y$ and the side-information on $X$.
This result implies a non-malleable extractor result of Aggarwal, Chung, Lin and Vidick~\cite{ACLV18} with uniform $Y$. We strengthen their result via a completely different proof to make the non-malleable extractor of Li ($\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y) = \langle X, Y \vert \vert Y^2 \rangle$) secure against quantum side-information even when $Y$ is not uniform.
\item A modification (working with weak local randomness instead of uniform local randomness) of the Dodis and Wichs \cite{DW09} protocol for privacy-amplification (PA) is secure against active quantum adversaries (those who arbitrarily modify the messages exchanged in the protocol). This strengthens on a recent result due to Aggarwal, Chung, Lin and Vidick~\cite{ACLV18} which uses uniform local randomness.
In the setting where the active adversary is classical, one can consider access to uniform source of randomness without loss of generality. If Alice has access to a weak local source $A$, then Alice can obtain uniform local randomness independent of $X$ by computing $\mathsf{Ext}(X,A)$, where $\mathsf{Ext}$ is a strong $2$-source extractor.\footnote{We are using here that $\mathsf{Ext}(X,A), X \approx U, X$, where $U$ is uniform and independent of $X$.} Similarly, Bob can obtain his own source of uniform randomness. Then Alice and Bob can run an appropriate PA protocol. The above approach does not work against quantum adversaries since the extracted uniform randomness is very short, and the only known quantum secure privacy-amplification protocol~\cite{ACLV18} requires uniform local randomness that is at least half the length of $X$.
\item As a corollary of Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}, we show a tight efficiency lower bound for the (generalized) inner-product function (in fact a general class of two-wise independent functions).
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Two new adversaries}
The $2$-source quantum-measurement-adversary is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[$l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$]\label{qmadv}
Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of the independent sources $X, Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also share an entangled pure state $\tau_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies CPTP map $\Psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N} ) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A})$ and Bob applies CPTP map $\Psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B})$. Registers $A, B$ are single qubit registers. Let $$\rho_{X\hat{X}AN'M'BY\hat{Y}} = (\Psi_A \otimes \Psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \tau_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}).$$
\item Alice and Bob perform a measurement in the computational basis on the registers $A$ and $B$ respectively. Let $$l = \log\left( \frac{1}{ \Pr(A=1, B=1)_{\rho}} \right) \quad ; \quad \Phi_{XN'M'Y} =(\rho_{XAN'M'BY} \vert A=1,B=1).$$
\item Adversary gets access to either one of quantum registers $\Phi_{N'}$ or $\Phi_{M'}$ of its choice.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}The $2$-source quantum-communication-adversary is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[$(k_1,k_2)\mhyphen\textbf{qc-adv}$] \label{def:qcadv}
Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of the independent sources $X,Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also share an entangled pure state $\tau_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice and Bob execute a quantum communication protocol, at the end of which the final state is $\ket{\Phi}_{XY\hat{X}\hat{Y}N'M'}$ (Alice holds $XN'$ and Bob holds $YM'$),
with $\hmin{X}{M'Y\hat{Y}}_{\Phi} \geq k_1$ and
$\hminn{Y}{N'X\hat{X}}_{\Phi} \geq k_2$.
\item Adversary gets access to either one of quantum registers $\Phi_{N'}$ or $\Phi_{M'}$ of its choice.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\subsection*{$\textbf{qm-adv}$ can simulate other adversaries}
We show that the side-information of all the adversaries can be simulated in the framework of $\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2-intro1}
A $(b_1, b_2) $-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on the same source for parameters $l= \min \{b_1,b_2 \}$.
Any of $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qi-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{ge-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qc-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$, $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$, $l= 2n-k'_1-k'_2 $, $l= 2n-k'_1-k'_2 $ respectively.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Inner-product is secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$}
An extractor secure against an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{definition}\label{qma2source}
An $(n,m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-extractor against an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ is a function $\mathsf{Ext} : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m$ such that for an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source $(X,Y)$, we have
$$ \|\mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\Phi_{N'} - U_m \otimes \Phi_{N'} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon \hspace*{2em} \text{and} \hspace*{2em} \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\Phi_{M'} - U_m \otimes \Phi_{M'} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon.$$ The extractor is called $Y$-strong if
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\Phi_{M'Y} - U_m \otimes \Phi_{M'Y} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon, $$
and $X$-strong if
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\Phi_{N'X} - U_m \otimes \Phi_{N'X} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon. $$
\end{definition}
We show that the inner-product extractor of Chor and Goldreich \cite{CG85} continues to be secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$. More generally we show any two-wise independent function (Definition~\ref{def:infoquant}~[\ref{2wisefunction}]) continues to be secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1-intro}
Let $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$ be a two-wise independent function such that $\vert \mathcal{X} \vert = \vert \mathcal{Y} \vert$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\tau = \tau_{XX_1} \otimes \tau_{NM} \otimes \tau_{YY_1}$, where $\tau_{XX_1}$ is the canonical purification of $\tau_{X}$ (maximally mixed in $\mathcal{X}$), $\tau_{YY_1}$ is canonical purification of $\tau_{Y}$ (maximally mixed in $\mathcal{Y}$) and $\tau_{NM}$ is a pure state.
\item Let $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X_1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X_1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A})$ be a CPTP map. Let $\rho = (\psi_A(\tau)~|~A=1).$
\item Let $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B})$ be a CPTP map. Let $\Theta = \psi_B(\rho)$ and $\Phi= (\Theta~|~B=1)$.
\item Let $Z= f(X, Y)\in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\varepsilon \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Delta( \Phi_{Z Y M'} \; ; \; U_Z \otimes \Phi_{YM'} ) $.
\end{enumerate}
Then
$$\hmin{X}{M}_\rho -\log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + \log \left(\Pr(B=1)_\Theta \right) \leq 2 \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.$$
Also,
$$ \log \vert \mathcal{X} \vert - \log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + \log \left(\Pr(A=1, B=1)_{(\psi_A \otimes \psi_B)(\tau)} \right) \leq 2 \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.$$
Symmetric results follow by exchanging $(N,A,X) \leftrightarrow (M,B,Y)$ above.
\end{theorem}
As a corollary, we get a tight efficiency (Definition~\ref{def:eff}) lower bound for two-wise independent function.
\begin{corollary}[Efficiency lower bound for two-wise independent function] \label{refipbound_new} Let function $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$ be a two-wise independent function such that $\vert \mathcal{X} \vert = \vert \mathcal{Y} \vert$. Let $U$ be the uniform distribution on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$.
For any $\gamma > 0$,
$$ \log \left( \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_{\gamma}(f,U) \right) \geq \log \vert \mathcal{X} \vert - \log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + 2 \log \left( 1-\gamma-\frac{1}{ \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert } \right).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let the inputs $X \in \mathcal{X}$ and $Y \in \mathcal{Y}$ be given to Alice and Bob respectively according to distribution $U$. Consider an optimal zero-communication protocol $\Pi$ with error of protocol under $U$ on non-abort being $\gamma$. Let the state shared between Alice and Bob after their local operations be $\tau_{XN'M'YAB}$. Let $\perp$ represent the abort symbol. Let $\Pr(A= \perp \vee B= \perp)_\tau \leq 1- \eta,$ and $$\Phi_{XN'M'YAB} = (\tau_{XN'M'YAB}|A \ne \perp \wedge B \ne \perp)\enspace,$$ where Alices holds $XN'A$ and Bob holds $M'YB$. We have,
\[ \Pr(B \ne f(X,Y))_{\Phi} \le \gamma \hspace*{2em} \implies \hspace*{2em} \Pr(B = f(X,Y))_{\Phi} \ge 1-\gamma . \]
Noting $A \ne \perp$ (here) as $A=1$ (in Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}), $B \ne \perp$ (here) as $B=1$ (in Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}) and
$ \Pr(B = f(X,Y))_{\Phi} $ (here) is related to $\varepsilon$ (in Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}) as
$1-\gamma \leq \Pr(B = f(X,Y))_{\Phi} \leq \frac{1}{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert}+\varepsilon$, we have
$$ \log \left( \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_{\gamma}(f,U) \right) \geq \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A \ne \perp \wedge B \ne \perp)_\tau}\right) \geq \log \vert \mathcal{X} \vert - \log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + 2 \log \left( 1-\gamma-\frac{1}{ \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert } \right)$$
which gives the desired.
\end{proof}
From Fact~\ref{qcclowereff}, and noting that the (generalized) inner-product function is a two-wise independent function, we have,
\begin{corollary}
Let $\mathsf{IP}^n_p: \mathbb{F}^n_p \times\mathbb{F}^n_p \to \mathbb{F}_p$ be defined as,
$$\mathsf{IP}_p^n(x,y) = \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_iy_i \mod p\enspace.$$ We have,
$$ \mathcal{Q}_{\gamma}(\mathsf{IP}_p^n) \geq \frac{(n-1) \log p}{2} + \log \left(1-\gamma - \frac{1}{p}\right)\enspace.$$
\end{corollary}
By choosing $p=2^m$, $\vert \mathcal{X} \vert = p^n$ and $\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert = p$, we have
\begin{corollary}Let $n'= n \log p$. Then $\mathsf{IP}^{n}_p$ is a $Y$-strong $(n',m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-extractor against $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ on an $(n',n',n')$-source, for the following parameters
$$n'-m \leq l+ 2 \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \enspace.$$
\end{corollary}
\subsection*{A quantum-non-malleable-extractor}
We show that the inner-product based non-malleable-extractor proposed by Li \cite{Li12c} continues to be secure against quantum side-information.
\begin{definition}[Map with no fixed points]\label{mapnf}
Let $\mathcal{H}_Y, \mathcal{H}_{Y'}, \mathcal{H}_E, \mathcal{H}_{E'}$ denote finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We say that a CPTP map $\mathcal{E}: \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_E )\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Y'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{E'})$ has no fixed points if for all c-q states $\rho_{YE} \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{YE})$ ($Y$ classical), $\sigma_{YY'E}= \mathcal{E}( \rho_{YE} )$ is such that $Y,Y'$ are classical registers and $Y' \ne Y$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[$k$-$\textbf{qnm-adv}$]
We explain $\textbf{qnm-adv}$ for $2$-sources. Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the purifications of two independent sources $X,Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also hold entangled pure state $\phi_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies CPTP map $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N} ) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'})$ and Bob applies CPTP map $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Y'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'})$ with no fixed points, i.e. $Y \ne Y'.$ Let
$$\rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M} = (\psi_A \otimes \id_{}) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM})$$ and $$\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}Y'} = (\psi_A \otimes \psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}),$$
with $\hmin{X}{M}_{\rho^A} \geq k$.
\item Adversary gets access to $\rho_{M'YY'}$ and $(\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y'))_\rho$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[quantum-non-malleable-extractor]\label{nme}
An $(n_1,n_2,m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-non-malleable-extractor against $k$-$\textbf{qnm-adv}$ is a function $\mathsf{nmExt} : \{0,1\}^{n_1} \times \{0,1\}^{n_2} \to \{0,1\}^m$ such that,
$$ \| \rho_{ \mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y') YY'M'} - U_m \otimes \rho_{ \mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y') YY'M'} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon, $$
where
$$ \rho_{YY'XM'} =(\id_{X} \otimes \psi_B) (Y \otimes \rho^A_{XM}), $$ $ \rho_{ \mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y') YY'M'}$ is $\rho_{YY'XM'}$ appended with $\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)$, $\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y')$ and tracing out register $X$, and $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Y'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'})$ is a map with no fixed points, i.e. $Y \ne Y'.$
\end{definition}
Following is an inner-product based non-malleable-extractor proposed by Li~\cite{Li12c}.
\begin{definition}[\cite{Li12c}]\label{ipnme}
Let $p \ne 2$ be a prime and
$n$ be an integer. Define $\mathsf{nmExt} : \mathbb{F}^n_p \times \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p \to \mathbb{F}_p$ given by $\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \langle X, Y \vert \vert Y^2 \rangle$, where $\vert \vert$ represents concatenation of strings.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{refnmext_new}
Let $p \ne 2$ be a prime, $n$ be an even integer and $\varepsilon > 0$. The function $\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)$ is an $(n \log p,\frac{n }{2}\log p, \log p, \varepsilon)$-$2$-source-non-malleable-extractor against $k'$-$\textbf{qnm-adv}$ acting on $X$ (an $(n \log p,k_1)$-source) and $Y$ (an $(\frac{n}{2} \log p, k)$-source) for parameters $k' + k \leq (n+5) \log p -1+4 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Privacy-amplification with weak-sources}
We study the problem of privacy-amplification~(PA)~\cite{BBR88,Mau92,BBCM95,MW97}. In this problem, two parties, Alice and Bob, share a weak secret $X$ (with $\hmin{X}{E}\geq k$, where $E$ is adversary Eve side-information). Using $X$ and an insecure communication channel, Alice and Bob would like to securely agree on a secret key $R$ that is close to uniformly random to an active adversary Eve who may have full control over their communication channel. In all prior protocols including~\cite{ACLV18}, we assume that Alice and Bob have local access to uniform sources of randomness. In practice, uniform sources are hard to come by, and it is more reasonable to assume that Alice and Bob have only weak-sources of randomness. For this we make use of breakthrough result by Dodis and Wichs \cite{DW09}, who were first to show the existence of a two-round PA protocol with optimal (up to constant factors) entropy loss, for any initial min-entropy. We modify the protocol of \cite{DW09}, to accommodate the non-uniform local randomness at Alice and Bob side. Based on our construction of a quantum-secure non-malleable-extractor (Theorem~\ref{refnmext_new}) we obtain a PA protocol working with weak local sources of randomness and is secure against active quantum adversaries as long as the initial secret $X$ has min-entropy rate of more than half.
\begin{remark}\label{remarknonuniform}
In the setting where the adversary is classical, one can consider access to uniform source of randomness without loss of generality. If Alice has access to a weak local source $A$, then Alice can obtain uniform local randomness independent of $X$ by computing $\mathsf{Ext}(X,A)$, where $\mathsf{Ext}$ is a strong $2$-source extractor.\footnote{We are using here that $\mathsf{Ext}(X,A), X \approx U, X$, where $U$ is uniform and independent of $X$.} Similarly, Bob can obtain his own source of uniform randomness. Then Alice and Bob can run an appropriate PA protocol. The above approach does not work against quantum adversaries since the extracted uniform randomness is very short, and the only known quantum secure privacy-amplification protocol~\cite{ACLV18} requires uniform local randomness that is at least half the length of $X$.
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Other related works}
Seeded-extractors have been studied extensively in the classical setting~\cite{ILM89,FS04}. K\"{o}nig et al. \cite{KT08} showed that any one-bit output extractor is also secure against quantum adversaries, with roughly the same parameters. Ta-Shma \cite{TA09}, De and Vidick \cite{DV10}, and later De et.al. \cite{DPVR09} gave seeded-extractors with short seeds that are secure against quantum side-information and can extract almost all of min-entropy and are based on Trevisan’s extractor \cite{Trevisan01}. The extractor of Impagliazzo et al.~\cite{ILM89} was shown to be secure against quantum side-information by~\cite{KMR05,Renner05,RK05}.
In the multi-source setting, a probabilistic argument shows the existence of $2$-source extractors for min-entropy $k =\log n+ O(1)$. Explicit constructions of multi-source-extractors with access to more than $2$-sources has been considered in the successful line of work~\cite{BIRW06,Li12c,Li11,R09,Li13} leading to a near optimal $3$-source extractor that works for polylogarithmic min-entropy and has negligible error~\cite{li15}. Explicit constructions of $2$-source extractors has been first considered in \cite{CG85} who showed that inner-product is a $2$-source extractor for min-entropy $k \geq n/2$. After nearly two decades, Bourgain \cite{Bou05} broke the “half entropy barrier”, and constructed a $2$-source extractor for min-entropy $(1/2-\delta)n$, for some tiny constant $\delta > 0.$ A long line of research starting with ~\cite{CG85,Bou05,Raz05,CZ19,Li19} leading to a near optimal $2$-source
extractor that works for polylogarithmic min-entropy and has inverse polynomial error \cite{Li19}.
\subsection*{Organization}
In Section~\ref{sec:prelims}, we present our notations, definitions and other information-theoretic preliminaries. In Section~\ref{sec3:ip}, we present the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}. In Section~\ref{sec:prevext}, we present the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm2-intro1}. In Section~\ref{sec:app} we present the proof of Theorem~\ref{refnmext_new}, present a privacy-amplification protocol with weak local sources and show its security against active quantum adversaries.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelims}
\subsection*{Quantum information theory} All the logarithms are evaluated to the base $2$. Consider a finite dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ endowed with an inner-product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ (we only consider finite dimensional Hilbert-spaces). A quantum state (or a density matrix or a state) is a positive semi-definite matrix on $\mathcal{H}$ with trace equal to $1$. It is called {\em pure} if and only if its rank is $1$. Let $\ket{\psi}$ be a unit vector on $\mathcal{H}$, that is $\langle \psi,\psi \rangle=1$. With some abuse of notation, we use $\psi$ to represent the state and also the density matrix $\ketbra{\psi}$, associated with $\ket{\psi}$. Given a quantum state $\rho$ on $\mathcal{H}$, {\em support of $\rho$}, called $\text{supp}(\rho)$ is the subspace of $\mathcal{H}$ spanned by all eigenvectors of $\rho$ with non-zero eigenvalues.
A {\em quantum register} $A$ is associated with some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$. Define $\vert A \vert := \dim(\mathcal{H}_A)$. Let $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ represent the set of all linear operators on $\mathcal{H}_A$. For operators $O, O'\in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$, the notation $O \leq O'$ represents the L\"{o}wner order, that is, $O'-O$ is a positive semi-definite matrix. We denote by $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$, the set of quantum states on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$. State $\rho$ with subscript $A$ indicates $\rho_A \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$. If two registers $A,B$ are associated with the same Hilbert space, we shall represent the relation by $A\equiv B$. For two states $\rho_A, \sigma_B$, we let $\rho_A \equiv \sigma_B$ represent that they are identical as states, just in different registers. Composition of two registers $A$ and $B$, denoted $AB$, is associated with the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B$. For two quantum states $\rho\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ and $\sigma\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B)$, $\rho\otimes\sigma \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AB})$ represents the tensor product ({\em Kronecker} product) of $\rho$ and $\sigma$. The identity operator on $\mathcal{H}_A$ is denoted $\id_A$. Let $U_A$ denote maximally mixed state in $\mathcal{H}_A$. Let $\rho_{AB} \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AB})$. Define
$$ \rho_{B} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \mathrm{Tr}_{A}{\rho_{AB}} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \sum_i (\bra{i} \otimes \id_{B})
\rho_{AB} (\ket{i} \otimes \id_{B}) , $$
where $\{\ket{i}\}_i$ is an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$.
The state $\rho_B\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ is referred to as the marginal state of $\rho_{AB}$. Unless otherwise stated, a missing register from subscript in a state will represent partial trace over that register. Given $\rho_A\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$, a {\em purification} of $\rho_A$ is a pure state $\rho_{AB}\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AB})$ such that $\mathrm{Tr}_{B}{\rho_{AB}}=\rho_A$. Purification of a quantum state is not unique. Suppose $A\equiv B$. Given $\{\ket{i}_A\}$ and $\{\ket{i}_B\}$ as orthonormal bases over $\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$ respectively, the \textit{canonical purification} of a quantum state $\rho_A$ is $\ket{\rho_A} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } (\rho_A^{\frac{1}{2}}\otimes\id_B)\left(\sum_i\ket{i}_A\ket{i}_B\right)$.
A quantum {map} $\mathcal{E}: \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ is a completely positive and trace preserving (CPTP) linear map (mapping states in $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ to states in $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_B)$). A {\em unitary} operator $V_A:\mathcal{H}_A \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_A$ is such that $V_A^{\dagger}V_A = V_A V_A^{\dagger} = \id_A$. The set of all unitary operators on $\mathcal{H}_A$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H}_A)$. An {\em isometry} $V:\mathcal{H}_A \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_B$ is such that $V^{\dagger}V = \id_A$ and $VV^{\dagger} = \id_B$. A {\em POVM} element is an operator $0 \le M \le \id$. We use shorthand $\bar{M} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \id - M$, where $\id$ is clear from the context. We use shorthand $M$ to represent $M \otimes \id$, where $\id$ is clear from the context. A {\em classical-quantum} (c-q) state $\rho_{XE}$ (with $X$ a classical random variable) is of the form \[ \rho_{XE} = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} P_X(x)\ket{x}\bra{x} \otimes \rho^x_E , \] where ${\rho^x_E}$ are states and $P_X(x) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Pr(X=x)$. For an event $E \subseteq \mathcal{X}$, define $$\Pr(E)_\rho = \sum_{x \in E} P_X(x) \quad ; \quad (\rho|E)\ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \frac{1}{\Pr(E)_\rho} \sum_{x \in E} P_X(x)\ket{x}\bra{x} \otimes \rho^x_E.$$
For a function $Z:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Z}$, define \[ \rho_{ZXE} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \sum_{x\in \mathcal{X}} P_{X}(x) \ket{Z(x)}\bra{Z(x)} \otimes \ket{x}\bra{x} \otimes \rho^{x}_E . \]
Let $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{Z}$ be finite sets (we only consider finite sets in this paper). We use $x \leftarrow \mathcal{X}$ to denote $x$ drawn uniformly from $\mathcal{X}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:infoquant}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $p \geq 1$ and matrix $A$, let $\| A \|_p$ denote the {\em Schatten} $p$-norm.
\item Let $\Delta(\rho ; \sigma) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \frac{1}{2} \|\rho - \sigma\|_1$.
We write $\approx_\varepsilon$ to denote $\Delta(\rho, \sigma) \le \varepsilon$.
\item Let $d(X)_\rho \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Delta(\rho_X;U_X)$ and $d(X|Y )_\rho \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Delta(\rho_{XY}; U_X \otimes \rho_Y)$.
\item {\bf Two-wise independent function:}\label{2wisefunction}
We call a function $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$, two-wise independent iff for any two distinct $x_1, x_2 \in \mathcal{X} $
$$ \Pr_{ y \leftarrow \mathcal{Y} }( f(x_1,y) =f(x_2,y)) = \frac{1}{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert}.$$
\item {\bf Fidelity:} For states $\rho,\sigma: ~\mathrm{F}(\rho,\sigma)\ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} }\|\sqrt{\rho}\sqrt{\sigma}\|_1.$
\item {\bf Max-divergence~\cite{Datta09, Jain:2009}:} For states $\rho,\sigma$ such that $\mathrm{supp}(\rho) \subset \mathrm{supp}(\sigma)$, $$ \dmax{\rho}{\sigma} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \min\{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} : \rho \leq 2^{\lambda} \sigma \}.$$
\item {\bf Sandwitched-R{\'e}nyi-divergence:} Let $1 \neq \alpha > 0$. For states $\rho,\sigma$ such that $\text{supp}(\rho) \subset \text{supp}(\sigma)$,
$$\relentalpha{\rho}{\sigma}{\alpha} \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \frac{1}{\alpha -1} \log \mathrm{Tr} \left(\sigma^{\frac{1-\alpha}{2\alpha}}\rho\sigma^{\frac{1-\alpha}{2\alpha}}\right)^\alpha . $$
\item {\bf Collision-probability~\cite{Renner05}:} For state $\rho_{AB}$,
$$ \Gamma (\rho_{AB} |\rho_B) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \mathrm{Tr} \left( \rho_{AB} (\id_A \otimes \rho_B^{-1/2}) \right)^2 = 2^{\relentalpha{\rho_{AB}}{\id_A \otimes \rho_B}{2}} = \|(\id_A \otimes \rho_B^{-1/4})\rho_{AB} (\id_A \otimes \rho_B^{-1/4})\|^2_2.$$
\item {\bf Min-entropy:} For a random variable $X$,
$$\Hmin(X)=\min_{x \in \text{supp}(X) } \log\left(\frac{1}{P_X(x)} \right).$$
\item {\bf Conditional-min-entropy:} For state $\rho_{XE}$, min-entropy of $X$ conditioned on $E$ is defined as,
$$ \hmin{X}{E}_\rho = - \inf_{\sigma_E \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{E}) } \dmax{\rho_{XE}}{\id_X \otimes \sigma_E} .$$
\item {\bf Smooth conditional-min-entropy:} For state $\rho_{XE}$, smooth-min-entropy of $X$ conditioned on $E$ is defined as,
$$ \hmineps{X}{E}{\varepsilon}_\rho = \sup_{\sigma_{XE} : \|\sigma_{XE} -\rho_{XE} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon } \hmin{X}{E}_\sigma .$$
\item {\bf Modified-conditional-min-entropy:} For state $\rho_{XE}$, the modified-min-entropy of $X$ conditioned on $E$ is defined as,
$$ \hminn{X}{E}_\rho = - \dmax{\rho_{XE}}{\id_X \otimes \rho_E} .$$
\item {\bf Markov-chain:}\label{cqcmarkov} A state $\rho_{XEY}$ forms a Markov-chain (denoted $(X-E-Y)_\rho$) iff $\condmutinf{X}{Y}{E}_\rho=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}\label{fact:lp}
For even $p: ~ \| A \|^p_p = \mathrm{Tr}(A^\dagger A)^{p/2}.$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}
\label{rhoablessthanrhoaidentity}
For a quantum state $\rho_{AB}:~ \rho_{AB} \le \rho_{A} \otimes \id_B.$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}
\label{fact101}
For a quantum state $\rho_{XE}:~ \hmin{X}{E}_\rho \geq \hminn{X}{E}_\rho .$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{CLW14}]
\label{fact102}
Let $\psi : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_M ) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{M'} )$ be a CPTP map and let $\sigma_{XM'} =(\id \otimes \psi)(\rho_{XM}) $. Then $$ \hmin{X}{M'}_\sigma \geq \hmin{X}{M}_\rho .$$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{KT08}]
\label{fact2}
$ \hmin{X}{E}_\rho \geq \Hmin(X) - \log(\dim(\mathcal{H}_{E}) ) .$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[]
\label{tracedis}
Let $\rho, \sigma , \tau$ be quantum states. Then
$ \Delta ( \rho ; \sigma) \le \Delta (\rho ; \tau) +\Delta (\sigma ; \tau).$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Data-processing]
\label{data}
Let $\rho, \sigma$ be quantum states and $\Phi$ be a CPTP map. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item $ \Delta ( \Phi(\rho) ; \Phi(\sigma)) \le \Delta (\rho ; \sigma).$
\item $\dmax{ \Phi(\rho) }{ \Phi(\sigma) } \le \dmax{\rho}{ \sigma} .$
\item (\cite{Beigi13}) For all $1 \neq \alpha > 0: ~\relentalpha{ \Phi(\rho) }{ \Phi(\sigma) }{\alpha} \le \relentalpha{\rho}{ \sigma}{\alpha} .$
\end{itemize}
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{H04}]\label{fact:markov}
A Markov-chain $(X-E-Y)_\rho$ can be decomposed as follows: $$\rho_{XEY} = \bigoplus_{t} \Pr(T=t) \left(\rho_{XE_1^t} \otimes \rho_{YE_2^t} \right),$$ where $T$ is some classical register over a finite alphabet.
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Hölder’s inequality]
\label{holders2}
For matrices $A, B$, for any real $p,q >0$ and $\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} =1$ we have $ \vert \mathrm{Tr}(A^\dagger B) \vert \le \| A \|_p \| B\|_q.$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Hölder’s inequality, special case]
\label{holders}
For matrices $A, B: ~ \| BAB^\dagger \|_1 \le \| A \|_2 \| B\|^2_4 .$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Cyclicity of trace]
\label{cyctrace}
For matrices $A, B, C: ~ \mathrm{Tr}(ABC) = \mathrm{Tr}(BCA) = \mathrm{Tr}(CAB) .$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}
\label{measuredmax}
Let $\rho_{AB} \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B)$ be a state and $\Pi \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ be a POVM element. Let $\hat{\rho}= \frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}{\Pi \rho}}( \sqrt{\Pi} \rho \sqrt{\Pi})$. Then,
$$\dmax{\hat{\rho}_A}{\rho_A} \leq \log \left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{Tr}{\Pi \rho}}\right).$$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Corollary 5.5 in \cite{WatrousQI}]
\label{measurediso}
Let $\rho_{AB} \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B)$ be a pure state and $V_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{B}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{C})$ be an isometry such that $\vert C \vert =2$. Let $\sigma_{AB'C} = (\id_A \otimes V_B) \rho_{AB} (\id_A \otimes V_B)^\dagger $ and $\Phi_{AB'} = (\sigma_{AB'C} \vert C=1)$. There exists an operator $M_B$ such that $0 \le M^\dagger_{B}M_{B} \le \id_{B}$ and $$\Phi_{AB'} =\frac{(\id_A \otimes M_{B} ) \rho_{AB} (\id_A \otimes M_{B} )^\dagger }{\mathrm{Tr}(\id_A \otimes M_{B} ) \rho_{AB} (\id_A \otimes M_{B} )^\dagger} \quad ; \quad \Pr[C=1] = \mathrm{Tr} M_B \rho_B M_B^\dagger.$$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Lemma 5.4.3~\cite{Renner05}]
\label{renato2wise}
Let $\rho_{XM}$ be a c-q state ($X$ classical) with $\rho_X\in \mathbb{F}^n_p$. Let $Z =f( X) $, where $f \leftarrow \mathcal{F}$ is drawn from a two-wise independent hash function family $ \mathcal{F}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{f \leftarrow \mathcal{F}} \left[ \mathrm{Tr} \left( (\id_Z \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) (\rho_{f(X)M} - U_Z \otimes \rho_M) \right)^2 \right] \le \mathrm{Tr} \rho_{XM}(\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) \rho_{XM} (\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}).
\end{align*}
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{Renner05}]
\label{renato}
Let $p$ be a prime number and $n$ be a positive integer. Let $\rho_{XMY} = \rho_{XM} \otimes U_Y$ be a c-q state ($XY$ classical) with $\rho_X\in \mathbb{F}^n_p$ and $U_Y\in \mathbb{F}^n_p$ being uniform. Let $Z = \langle X, Y \rangle$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{y \leftarrow U_Y} \left[ \mathrm{Tr} \left( (\id_Z \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) (\rho^y_{ZM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_M) \right)^2 \right] \le 2^{- \hmin{X}{M}_\rho}.
\end{align*}
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
Consider,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}_{y \leftarrow U_Y} \left[ \mathrm{Tr} \left( (\id_Z \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) (\rho^y_{ZM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_M) \right)^2 \right] \\
&\le \mathrm{Tr} \rho_{XM}(\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) \rho_{XM} (\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) & \mbox{(Fact ~\ref{renato2wise})}\\
&\le \|(\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) \rho_{XM} (\id_X \otimes \rho_M^{-1/2}) \|_\infty\\
&= 2^{- \hmin{X}{M}_\rho}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{fact}[Uhlmann's Theorem~\cite{uhlmann76}]
\label{uhlmann}
Let $\rho_A,\sigma_A\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_A)$. Let $\rho_{AB}\in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AB})$ be a purification of $\rho_A$ and $\sigma_{AC}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AC})$ be a purification of $\sigma_A$. There exists an isometry $V: C \rightarrow B$ such that,
$$\mathrm{F}(\ketbra{\theta}_{AB}, \ketbra{\rho}_{AB}) = \mathrm{F}(\rho_A,\sigma_A) ,$$
where $\ket{\theta}_{AB} = (\id_A \otimes V) \ket{\sigma}_{AC}$.
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[Rejection-sampling~\cite{Jain:2009}]
\label{crejectionsampling}
Let $X, Y$ be random variables such that $\dmax{X}{Y} \leq k$. There exits a random variable $Z \in \{0,1\}$, correlated with $Y$ such that $X \approx (Y | Z=1)$ and $\Pr(Z=1) \geq 2^{-k}$.
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{Jain:2009}]
\label{rejectionsampling}
Let $\rho_{A'B}, \sigma_{AB}$ be pure states such that $\dmax{\rho_B}{\sigma_B} \leq k$. Let Alice and Bob share $\sigma_{AB}$. There exists an isometry $V: A \rightarrow A'C$ such that,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(V \otimes \id_B) \sigma_{AB}(V \otimes \id_B)^\dagger = \phi_{A'BC}$, where $C$ is a single qubit register.
\item Let $C$ be the outcome of measuring $\phi_C$ in the standard basis. Then $\Pr(C=1) \geq 2^{-k}$.
\item Conditioned on outcome $C=1$, the state shared between Alice and Bob is $\rho_{A'B}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{fact}
We present a proof here for completeness.
\begin{proof}
Since $\dmax{\rho_B}{\sigma_B} \leq k$, let $\sigma_{B} = 2^{-k} \rho_{B} + (1 - 2^{-k}) \tau_{B}$. Let $\tau_{A'B}$ be a purification of $\tau_B$. Consider,
$$ \phi_{A'BC} = \sqrt{(1 - 2^{-k})} \ket{0}_C \otimes \tau_{A'B} +\sqrt{2^{-k}}\ket{1}_C \otimes \rho_{A'B} .$$
Notice $\phi_{A'BC} $ is purification of $\sigma_{B}$. From Fact~\ref{uhlmann}, there exists an isometry $V: A \rightarrow A'C$ such that $(V \otimes \id_B) \sigma_{AB} (V \otimes \id_B)^\dagger = \phi_{A'BC}.$ The desired properties can be readily verified.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:measure1}
Let $\phi_{XX'AB}$ be a pure state such that $\Hmin({X \vert B})_\phi \geq k$. Let $X$ be a classical register (with copy $X'$). Let $\theta_{X_1X_2}$ be the canonical purification of $\theta_{X_2}$ such that $\theta_{X_2} = U_X$. Let $\theta_{X_1X_2}$ be shared between Reference ($X_1$) and Alice ($X_2$). There exists a pure state $\sigma_{AB}$ such that when shared between Alice ($A$) and Bob ($B$), Alice can perform a measurement which succeeds with probability at least $2^{k- \log (\dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) }$ and on success joint shared state is $\phi_{X_1X'AB}$ between Reference ($X_1$), Alice ($X'A$) and Bob ($B$) such that $\phi_{X_1X'AB} \equiv \phi_{XX'AB}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Hmin({X \vert B})_\phi \geq k$, we have
$$ \inf_{\sigma_{B}} \dmax{\phi_{XB}}{U_{X} \otimes \sigma_{B}} \leq \log( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) -k.$$
Let the infimum above be achieved by $\sigma_{B}$ and let $\sigma_{AB}$ be its purification shared between Alice ($A$) and Bob ($B$). The desired now follows from Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling} by treating Bob (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as Reference and Bob (here), state $\sigma_{AB}$ (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as $\theta_{X_1X_2} \otimes \sigma_{AB}$ (here) and state $\rho_{AB}$ (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as $\phi_{X_1X'AB}$ (here).
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:measure2}
Let $\phi_{XX'AYY'B}$ be a pure state such that
$$\Hmin({X \vert BYY'})_\phi \geq k_1 \quad \text{ and } \quad \hminn{Y}{XX'A}_\phi \geq k_2 .$$ Let $X, Y$ be classical registers (with copy $X'$ and $Y'$ respectively). Let $\theta_{X_1X_2}$ be a canonical purification of $\theta_{X_2}$ such that $\theta_{X_2} = U_X$. Let $\theta_{X_1X_2}$ be shared between Reference ($X_1$) and Alice ($X_2$). Let $\tau_{Y_1Y_2}$ be a canonical purification of $\tau_{Y_2}$ such that $\tau_{Y_2} = U_Y$.
Let $\tau_{Y_1Y_2}$ be shared between Reference ($Y_1$) and Bob ($Y_2$). There exists a pure state $\sigma_{ABYY'}$ such that when shared between Alice ($A$) and Bob ($BYY'$), Alice and Bob can each perform a measurement which jointly succeeds with probability at least $2^{k_1+k_2- \log (\dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) - \log (\dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) }$ and on success the joint shared state is $\phi_{X_1X'AY_1Y'B}$ between Reference ($X_1Y_1$), Alice ($X'A$) and Bob ($Y'B$), such that $\phi_{X_1X'AY_1Y'B} \equiv \phi_{XX'AYY'B}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Hmin({X \vert BYY'})_\phi \geq k_1$, we have
$$ \inf_{\sigma_{BYY'}} \dmax{\phi_{XBYY'}}{U_{X} \otimes \sigma_{BYY'}} \leq \log( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) -k_1.$$ Let the infimum above be achieved by $\sigma_{BYY'}$ and let $\sigma_{ABYY'}$ be its purification shared between Alice ($A$) and Bob ($BYY'$). From Claim~\ref{claim:measure1} Alice can do a measurement such that on success $\phi_{X_1X'AYY'B}$ is shared between Reference ($X_1$), Alice ($X'A$) and Bob ($YY'B$) (such that $\phi_{X_1X'AYY'B} \equiv \phi_{XX'AYY'B}$). Also, since $\hminn{Y}{ AXX'}_\phi \geq k_2$, we have
$$ \dmax{\phi_{YAX_1X'}}{U_{Y} \otimes \phi_{AX_1X'}} \leq \log( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) -k_2.$$
Again from Claim~\ref{claim:measure1} Bob can do a measurement such that on success $\phi_{X_1X'AY_1Y'B}$ is shared between Reference ($X_1Y_1$), Alice ($X'A$) and Bob ($Y'B$) (such that $\phi_{X_1X'AY_1Y'B} \equiv \phi_{XX'AYY'B}$). This completes the proof by noting probability of success in the first and second steps as $2^{k_1- \log (\dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) }$ and $2^{k_2- \log (\dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) }$ respectively.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Extractors}
\begin{definition}
\label{qseeded}
An $(n,d,m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-seeded-extractor is a function $\mathsf{Ext} : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^d \to \{0,1\}^m$ and is said to be $(k,\varepsilon)$-quantum secure if for any $\rho_{XE}$ such that $\Hmin(X|E)_\rho \geq k$, we have
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\rho_{E} - U_m \otimes \rho_{E} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon,$$
where $Y$ is uniformly distributed in $\{0,1\}^d$ and in tensor with $\rho_{XE}$. The extractor is called strong if $$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)Y\rho_{E} - U_m \otimes Y \rho_{E} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon .$$
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}[Lemma 3.5 in \cite{DPVR09}]\label{trevexteps}
If $\mathsf{Ext} : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^d \to \{0,1\}^m$ is $(k,\varepsilon)$-quantum-secure strong $(n,d,m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-seeded-extractor, then for any $\rho_{XE}$ and $\varepsilon' >0$ such that $\hmineps{X}{E}{\varepsilon'}_\rho \geq k$, we have
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)Y\rho_{E} - U_m \otimes Y \rho_{E} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon +2 \varepsilon' .$$
\end{fact}
\begin{fact}[\cite{DPVR09}]
\label{trevext}
There exists an explicit $(k,\varepsilon)$-quantum-secure strong $(n,d,m,\varepsilon)$-2-source-seeded-extractor $\mathsf{Ext} : \{ 0,1\}^n \times \{ 0,1\}^d \to \{ 0,1\}^m$ for parameters $m= k-4 \log(1/\varepsilon) - O(1)$ and $d = O( \log^2(n/\varepsilon) \log m )$.
\end{fact}
\begin{definition}[\cite{KK10}]\label{iadv2source}
An $(n, m, \varepsilon)$-$2$-source-extractor against an adversary is a function $\mathsf{Ext} : \{0,1\}^n \times \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m$ such that for any state $\rho_{XYE}$ (generated appropriately in the adversary model, adversary holds $E$), we have
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\rho_{E} - U_m \otimes \rho_{E} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon. $$
The extractor is called $Y$-strong if $$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\rho_{EY} - U_m \otimes \rho_{EY} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon,$$
and $X$-strong if $$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,Y)\rho_{EX} - U_m \otimes \rho_{EX} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:mac}
A function $\mathsf{MAC}:\{0,1\}^{2m} \times\{0,1\}^m \to \{0,1\}^m$ is an \emph{$\varepsilon$-information-theoretically secure one-time message authentication code} if for any function $\mathcal{A}:\{0,1\}^m \times \{0,1\}^m \to \{0,1\}^m\times \{0,1\}^m$ it holds that for all $\mu \in \{0,1\}^m$
$$\Pr_{k\leftarrow \{0,1\}^{2m}}\big[ (\mathsf{MAC}(k,\mu') = \sigma' ) \, \wedge \, (\mu'\neq \mu) : (\mu',\sigma') \leftarrow \mathcal{A}(\mu,\mathsf{MAC}(k,\mu))\big] \,\leq\,\varepsilon.$$
\end{definition}
Efficient constructions of $\mathsf{MAC}$ satisfying the conditions of Definition~\ref{def:mac} are known. The following fact summarizes some parameters that are achievable using a construction based on polynomial evaluation.
\begin{fact}[Proposition 1 in~\cite{RK05}]\label{prop:mac}
For any integer $m > 0$, there exists an efficient family of $2^{-m}$-information-theoretically secure one-time message authentication codes $$\mathsf{MAC}:\{0,1\}^{2m} \times\{0,1\}^m \to \{0,1\}^m.$$
\end{fact}
\subsection*{Quantum communication-complexity}
\label{sec:comm}
In a quantum communication protocol $\Pi$ for computing a function $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$, the inputs $x\in \mathcal{X}$ and $y\in\mathcal{Y}$ are given to Alice and Bob respectively. They also start with an entangled pure state independent of the inputs. They perform local operations and exchange quantum messages. The goal is to minimize the communication between them. Please refer to preliminaries of~\cite{Yao93, CB97} for details of an entanglement-assisted quantum communication protocol. Let $O(x,y)$ refer to the output of the protocol, on input $(x,y)$. Let $C_i$ (on $c_i$ qubits) refer to the $i$-th message sent in the protocol.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:qcc} Define,
\begin{align*}
\textrm{Worst-case error:} & \quad \mathrm{err}(\Pi) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \max_{(x,y)} \{ \Pr[O(x,y) \ne f(x,y)] \} .\\
\textrm{Communication of a quantum protocol:}&\quad \mathrm{QCC}(\Pi) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \sum_i c_i . \\
\textrm{Entanglement-assisted communication-complexity of $f$:}&\quad \mathcal{Q}_\gamma(f) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \min_{\Pi: \mathrm{err}(\Pi) \leq \gamma} \mathrm{QCC}(\Pi). \\
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\subsubsection*{Protocols with abort and efficiency}
\label{sec:eff}
Consider the following zero-communication protocol with abort for a function $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$. Let the inputs $X \in \mathcal{X}$ and $Y\in\mathcal{Y}$ be given to Alice and Bob respectively according to distribution $\mu$. They also start with an entangled pure state $\tau_{NM}$ independent of the inputs (Alice holds $N$ and Bob holds $M$). They apply local operations and measurements and are allowed to abort with some probability. Let the state shared between Alice and Bob after their local operations be $\tau_{XN'M'YAB}$. Let $\perp$ represent the abort symbol. Let $\Pr(A= \perp \vee B= \perp)_\tau \leq 1- \eta,$ and $$\Phi_{XN'M'YAB} = (\tau_{XN'M'YAB}|A \ne \perp \wedge B \ne \perp)\enspace,$$ where Alices holds $XN'A$ and Bob holds $M'YB$. Let $\gamma >0$. The goal of Alice and Bob is to maximize $\eta$ such that $$ \Pr(B \ne f(X,Y))_{\Phi} \le \gamma.$$
\begin{definition}
\label{def:eff}
Define:
\begin{align*}
\textrm{Error of $\Pi$ under $\mu$ on non-abort:}&\quad \mathrm{err}(\Pi,\mu) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Pr(B \ne f(X,Y))_{\Phi}. \\
\textrm{Efficiency of $\Pi$ under $\mu$:}&\quad \tilde{\textbf{eff}}(\Pi, \mu) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \frac{1}{\eta} \\
\textrm{Efficiency of $f$ under $\mu$:}&\quad \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_\gamma(f,\mu) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \min_{\Pi : \mathrm{err}(\Pi,\mu) \leq \gamma} \tilde{\textbf{eff}}(\Pi,\mu) \\
\textrm{Efficiency of $f$:}&\quad \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_\gamma(f) \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \max_{\mu} \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_\gamma(f,\mu).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{fact}[Theorem 5 in \cite{SVJ12}]
\label{qcclowereff}
For a function $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$ and $\gamma > 0$,
$$ \mathcal{Q}_{\gamma}(f) \geq \frac{1}{2} \log ( \tilde{\textbf{eff}}_{\gamma}(f)) .$$
\end{fact}
\section{Inner-product is secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$}\label{sec3:ip}
We show that the inner-product extractor of Chor and Goldreich~\cite{CG85} is secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$ (with nearly the same parameters as that of classical adversary). More generally we show any two-wise independent function (Definition~\ref{def:infoquant}~[\ref{2wisefunction}]) continues to be secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{modgame} Let $f : \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \to \mathcal{Z}$ be a two-wise independent function such that $\vert \mathcal{X} \vert = \vert \mathcal{Y} \vert$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\tau = \tau_{XX_1} \otimes \tau_{NM} \otimes \tau_{YY_1}$, where $\tau_{XX_1}$ is the canonical purification of $\tau_{X}$ (maximally mixed in $\mathcal{X}$), $\tau_{YY_1}$ is canonical purification of $\tau_{Y}$ (maximally mixed in $\mathcal{Y}$) and $\tau_{NM}$ is a pure state.
\item Let $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X_1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X_1} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A})$ be a CPTP map. Let $\rho = (\psi_A(\tau)~|~A=1).$
\item Let $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B})$ be a CPTP map. Let $\Theta = \psi_B(\rho)$ and $\Phi= (\Theta~|~B=1)$.
\item Let $Z= f(X, Y)\in \mathcal{Z}$ and $\varepsilon \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \Delta( \Phi_{Z Y M'} \; ; \; U_Z \otimes \Phi_{YM'} ) $.
\end{enumerate}
Then
$$\hmin{X}{M}_\rho -\log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + \log \left(\Pr(B=1)_\Theta \right) \leq 2 \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.$$
Also,
$$ \log \vert \mathcal{X} \vert - \log \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert + \log \left(\Pr(A=1, B=1)_{(\psi_A \otimes \psi_B)(\tau)} \right) \leq 2 \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.$$
Symmetric results follow by exchanging $(N,A,X) \leftrightarrow (M,B,Y)$ above.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}For the purpose of this proof, without any loss of generality, we can consider $\psi_A$ and $\psi_B$ to be isometries because tracing out registers after applying an isometry (which amounts to applying a CPTP map) will only weaken the adversary in guessing the function value. \\
From Fact~\ref{measurediso}, there exists operator $C_{YM}$ such that $0 \leq C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \leq \id_{YM}$ and,
\[ \Phi_{ZXYM'} = \frac{C_{YM} \rho_{ZXYM}C_{YM}^{\dagger} }{\mathrm{Tr} C_{YM} \rho_{ZXYM}C_{YM}^{\dagger} } \quad ; \quad \Pr(B=1)_\Theta = \mathrm{Tr} C_{YM} \rho_{YM}C_{YM}^{\dagger}.\]
This implies,
\[ \Phi_{ZYM'} = \frac{ C_{YM} \rho_{ZYM}C_{YM} ^{\dagger} }{\mathrm{Tr} C_{YM} \rho_{ZYM} C_{YM}^{\dagger} }. \]
Define $C \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \id_Z \otimes C_{YM}$ and $D \ensuremath{ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} } \id_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}^{1/4}$.
Consider (below we use cyclicity of trace, Fact~\ref{cyctrace}, several times without mentioning),
\begin{align*}
\| CD \|^4_4 &= \mathrm{Tr} (\id_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}^{1/4} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM}\rho_{YM}^{1/4} )^2 & \mbox{(Fact~\ref{fact:lp})}\\
&= \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \mathrm{Tr} ( \rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM}\rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM}) \\
&\le \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \|\rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \rho_{YM}^{1/2} \|_1 \| C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \|_\infty & \mbox{(Fact~\ref{holders2})} \\
&\le \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \|\rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \rho_{YM}^{1/2} \|_1 & \mbox{($ \| C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \|_\infty \le 1 $)} \\
&= \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \mathrm{Tr}(\rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \rho_{YM}^{1/2}) & \mbox{($\rho_{YM}^{1/2} C^\dagger_{YM}C_{YM} \rho_{YM}^{1/2}\geq 0$)} \\
&= \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \mathrm{Tr}(C_{YM} \rho_{YM} C^\dagger_{YM}) \\
&= \vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \Pr(B=1)_\Theta.
\end{align*}
Consider,\begin{align*}
& \| \Phi_{ZYM'} - U_Z \otimes \Phi_{YM'} \|^2_1 \\
& = \frac{1}{(\Pr(B=1)_\Theta)^2} \| C(\rho_{ZYM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{YM} )C^\dagger \|^2_1 \\
& = \frac{1}{(\Pr(B=1)_\Theta)^2} \| C D D^{-1}(\rho_{ZYM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}) D^{-1}DC^\dagger \|^2_1 & \\
& \le \frac{1}{(\Pr(B=1)_\Theta)^2} \| CD \|^4_4 \ \| D^{-1} (\rho_{ZYM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}) D^{-1} \|^2_2 & \mbox{(Fact~\ref{holders})} \\
& \le \frac{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert \cdot \Pr(B=1)_\Theta}{ (\Pr(B=1)_\Theta)^2} \cdot \| D^{-1} (\rho_{ZYM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}) D^{-1} \|^2_2 \\
& \le \frac{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert }{\Pr(B=1)_\Theta} \cdot \|(\id_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}^{-1/4})(\rho_{ZYM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{YM})(\id_Z \otimes \rho_{YM}^{-1/4}) \|^2_2 \\
& = \frac{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert }{\Pr(B=1)_\Theta} \cdot \mathbb{E}_{y \leftarrow \rho_Y} \left[ \|(\id_Z \otimes \rho_{M}^{-1/4})(\rho^y_{ZM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{M})(\id_Z \otimes \rho_{M}^{-1/4}) \|^2_2 \right] \\
& = \frac{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert }{\Pr(B=1)_\Theta} \cdot \mathbb{E}_{y \leftarrow \rho_Y} \left[ \mathrm{Tr} \left((\id_Z \otimes \rho_{M}^{-1/2})(\rho^y_{ZM} - U_Z \otimes \rho_{M}) \right)^2 \right] & \\
& \le \ \frac{\vert \mathcal{Z} \vert }{\Pr(B=1)_\Theta} \cdot 2^{- \hmin{X}{M}_\rho}. & \mbox{(Fact~\ref{renato})}
\end{align*}
We get the first result by taking $\log$ on both sides and rearranging terms. We get the second result by noting,
$$\hmin{X}{M}_\rho \ge \log \vert \mathcal{X} \vert + \log(\Pr(A=1)_{\psi_A(\tau)}),$$
$$\Pr(A=1)_{\psi_A(\tau)} \cdot \Pr(B=1)_\Theta = \Pr(A=1, B=1)_{(\psi_A \otimes \psi_B)(\tau)}.$$
\end{proof}
\section{$\textbf{qm-adv}$ can simulate other adversaries}\label{sec:prevext}
We show how $\textbf{qm-adv}$ can simulate all adversaries known in the literature and $\textbf{qc-adv}$ as well.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2-intro}
A $(b_1, b_2) $-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{b_1,b_2 \}$.
Any of $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qi-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{ge-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$, $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qc-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$, $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$, $l= 2n-k'_1-k'_2 $, $l= 2n-k'_1-k'_2 $ respectively.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from Claims~\ref{sim1},~\ref{sim2},~\ref{sim3},~\ref{sim4} and~\ref{sim6}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quantum-bounded-storage-adversary \cite{KK10}}\label{qqbsadv}
\begin{definition}[$(b_1, b_2) $-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ \cite{KK10}]\label{qbsadv}
Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of independent sources $X,Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also share an entangled pure state $\phi_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies CPTP map $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'})$ and Bob applies $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'})$. Let $$\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}} = (\psi_A \otimes \psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}).$$
\item Adversary gets access to quantum registers $\rho_{N'M'}$ with $ \log \dim(\mathcal{H}_{N'}) \leq b_1$, $ \log \dim(\mathcal{H}_{M'}) \leq b_2$ respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We show how to simulate a $(b_1, b_2)$-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{claim}
\label{sim1}
A $(b_1, b_2) $-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{b_1,b_2 \}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let,
$$\rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M} = (\psi_A \otimes \id) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM}).$$
From Fact~\ref{rhoablessthanrhoaidentity},
\[ \dmax{\rho^A_{\hat{X}N'M}}{ \rho^A_{\hat{X}M} \otimes U_{N'} } \leq \log ( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{N'})) \leq b_1 .\]
The $(b_1, b_2)$-$\textbf{qbs-adv}$ is simulated in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ on $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. In addition they share the state $\phi_{NM} \otimes \ket{ \sigma_{N_1N'}}$ with $ \sigma_{N'} \equiv U_{N'}$ (Alice holds $NN_1$ and Bob holds $MN'$).
\item Alice applies the map $\psi_A$ to generate the state $$\rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M} = (\psi_A \otimes \id) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM}).$$
\item Alice applies a map and performs a measurement (given by Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) by treating Bob (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as Bob and Reference (here), state $\sigma_{AB}$ (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as $ \rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M} \otimes \ket{ \sigma_{N_1N'}}$ (here) and state $\rho_{AB}$ (in Fact~\ref{rejectionsampling}) as $ \rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M}$ (here) and on success $ \rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'M}$ is shared between Reference ($\hat{X}$), Alice ($X$) and Bob ($N'M$).
\item Bob applies the map $\psi_B$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus in the simulation of $\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}}$ in the framework of $l$-$\textbf{qm-adv}$, we have $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{b_1}) = b_1.$$
A similar argument can be given by exchanging the roles of Alice and Bob. The desired follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quantum-independent-adversary \cite{KK10}}\label{qqiadv}
\begin{definition}[$(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qi-adv}$~\cite{KK10}]\label{qiadv}
Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of independent sources $X,Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also share a product state $\phi_{NM}= \phi_{N} \otimes \phi_{M}$ (Alice holds $N$ and Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies CPTP map $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'})$ and Bob applies CPTP map $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'})$. Let \[ \rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}} = (\psi_A \otimes \psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{N} \otimes \phi_{M} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}) \quad \quad ; \quad \quad \rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}} = \rho_{X\hat{X}N'} \otimes \rho_{M'\hat{Y}Y}, \]
with $\hmin{X}{N'}_\rho \geq k'_1$ and $\hmin{Y}{M'}_\rho \geq k'_2$.
\item Adversary gets access to quantum registers $\rho_{N'M'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We show how to simulate a $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qi-adv}$ in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{claim}
\label{sim2}
A $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qi-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $ \rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}} = \rho_{X\hat{X}N'} \otimes \rho_{M'\hat{Y}Y},$ we have the conditional-min-entropy bound $$\hmin{X}{Y\hat{Y}M'N'}_\rho \geq k'_1$$ and
\[ \dmax{\rho_{YX\hat{X}} }{U_Y \otimes \rho_{X\hat{X}} } \leq \log ( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) -k_2=n-k_2.\]
Thus, $\hminn{Y}{X\hat{X}}_\rho \geq k_2$. Simulation of the $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qi-adv}$ in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on $(n,n,n)$-source now follows from Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}. From Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}, in the simulation of $\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}}$, in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on $(n,n,n)$-source, we have $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{n-k'_1+n-k_2}) = 2n-k'_1-k_2.$$
A similar argument can be given by exchanging the roles of Alice and Bob. The desired follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{General-entangled-adversary \cite{CLW14}} \label{qgeadv}
\begin{definition}[$(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{ge-adv}$~\cite{CLW14}]\label{geadv}
Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of independent sources $X,Y$ respectively (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also hold entangled pure state $\phi_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies CPTP map $\psi_A : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{N'})$ and Bob applies CPTP map $\psi_B : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_Y \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Y} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{M'})$. Let \[ \rho^A_{X\hat{X}N'MY\hat{Y}} = (\psi_A \otimes \id_{}) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}) \quad ; \quad \rho^B_{X\hat{X}NM'Y\hat{Y}} = (\id_{} \otimes \psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}) ;\]
$$\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}} = (\psi_A \otimes \psi_B) (\tau_{X\hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM} \otimes \tau_{Y\hat{Y}}) = (\id_{} \otimes \psi_B) \rho^A_{XN'MY},$$
with $\hmin{X}{N'M}_{\rho^A} \geq k'_1$ and $\hmin{Y}{NM'}_{\rho^B} \geq k'_2$
\item Adversary gets access to quantum registers $\rho_{N'M'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We show how to simulate a $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{ge-adv}$ in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{claim}
\label{sim3}
A $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{ge-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= \min \{2n-k_2-k'_1,2n-k_1-k'_2 \}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
From $\hmin{X}{N'M}_{\rho^A} \geq k'_1$ and
from Fact~\ref{fact102} it follows that $$\hmin{X}{N'M'YY'}_{\rho} \geq k'_1.$$Also, since \[ \dmax{\rho_{YX\hat{X}}}{U_Y \otimes \rho_{X\hat{X}}} \leq \log ( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) -k_2=n-k_2,\] we have $$\hminn{Y}{X\hat{X}}_{\rho} \geq k_2.$$
Simulation of the $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{ge-adv}$ in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source now follows from Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}. From Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}, in the simulation of $\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}}$, in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on $(n,n,n)$-source, we have $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{n-k'_1+n-k_2}) = 2n-k'_1-k_2.$$
A similar argument can be given by exchanging the roles of Alice and Bob. The desired follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quantum-Markov-adversary \cite{APS16}} \label{madv}
\begin{definition}[$(k_1, k_2)$-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$)~\cite{APS16}]\label{madv}
Let $\rho_{XEY}$ be a Markov-chain $(X-E-Y)_\rho$ with $\hminn{X}{E}_{\rho} \geq k_1$ and $\hminn{Y}{E}_{\rho} \geq k_2$\footnote{Definition in~\cite{APS16} uses $\hmin{}{}$.}. Adversary gets access to quantum register $E$.
\end{definition}
We show how to simulate a $(k_1,k_2)$-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$ in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l=2n-k_1-k_2$.
\begin{claim}
\label{sim4}
A $(k_1, k_2) $-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$ acting on $n$-bit sources $X,Y$ can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= 2n-k_1-k_2 $.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
From Fact~\ref{fact:markov},
$$\rho_{XEY} = \bigoplus_{t} \Pr(T=t) \left(\rho_{XE_1^t} \otimes \rho_{YE_2^t} \right),$$ where $T$ is some classical register over finite alphabet. Since $\hminn{X}{E}_{\rho} \geq k_1$, we have
\[ -\dmax{\rho_{XE}}{\id_X \otimes \rho_{E}} \geq k_1. \] Thus,
\[ \dmax{\rho_{XTE_1}}{U_X \otimes \rho_{TE_1}} \leq \dmax{\rho_{XE}}{U_X \otimes \rho_{E}} \leq \log ( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{X}) ) -k_1=n-k_1,\]
where the first inequality follows from Fact~\ref{data}.
Similarly,
\[ \dmax{\rho_{YT}}{U_Y \otimes T} \leq \dmax{\rho_{YE}}{U_Y \otimes \rho_{E}} \leq \log ( \dim(\mathcal{H}_{Y}) ) -k_2=n-k_2,\] where the first inequality follows from Fact~\ref{data}.
$(k_1, k_2) $-$\textbf{qmar-adv}$ is simulated in the framework of $l$-$\textbf{qm-adv}$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob hold $X,Y$ respectively. They also share $ \ket{\rho_{TE_1S}}$ (a purification of $\rho_{TE_1}$) where Alice holds ($S$) and Bob holds ($TE_1$)).
\item Alice applies a map $\Psi_A$ (given by Fact~$\ref{rejectionsampling}$) such that after the map conditioned on outcome $1$, the state between Alice ($X$) and Bob ($E_1T$) is $\rho_{XE_1T}$.
\item Bob performs rejection-sampling on $U_Y \otimes T$ (Fact~$\ref{crejectionsampling}$), such that conditioned on success (which happens with probability at least $2^{-(n-k_2)}$) he gets $\rho_{TY}$.
\item Conditioned on $T=t$, Bob generates $\rho^t_{E_2}$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus in the simulation of $\rho_{XEY}$, in the framework of $l$-$\textbf{qm-adv}$, $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{2n-k_1-k_2}) = 2n-k_1-k_2.$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quantum-communication-adversary}\label{qcadv}
We show how to simulate a $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qc-adv}$ (Definition \ref{def:qcadv}) in the framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$.
\begin{claim}
\label{sim6}
A $(k'_1, k'_2) $-$\textbf{qc-adv}$ acting on an $(n,k_1,k_2)$-source can be simulated by an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source for parameters $l= 2n- k'_1-k'_2$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Simulation of the $(k'_1, k'_2)$-$\textbf{qc-adv}$ in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on $(n,n,n)$-source follows from Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}. From Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}, in the simulation of $\Phi_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}}$, in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source, we have $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{n-k'_1+n-k'_2}) = 2n-k'_1-k'_2.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Quantum-non-malleable-extractor and privacy-amplification}\label{sec:app}
\subsection{Quantum-non-malleable-extractor}\label{qnmadv}
\begin{theorem}
\label{nmext_new}
Let $p \ne 2$ be a prime, $n$ be an even integer and $\varepsilon > 0$. The function $\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)$ is an $(n \log p,\frac{n }{2}\log p, \log p, \varepsilon)$-$2$-source-non-malleable-extractor against $k'$-$\textbf{qnm-adv}$ acting on $X$ (an $(n \log p,k_1)$-source) and $Y$ (an $(\frac{n}{2} \log p, k)$-source) for parameters $k' + k \leq (n+5) \log p -1+4 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right)$.
\begin{proof}
From \cite{ACLV18} (see Theorem~1), to show,
$$ \| \rho_{ \mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y)\mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y') YY'M'} - U_{\log p}\otimes \rho_{ \mathsf{nmExt}(X,Y') YY'M'} \|_1 \leq \varepsilon, $$
it is enough to show,
$$ \| \rho_{ \langle X,g(Y,Y') \rangle YY'M'} - U_{\log p} \otimes \rho_{YY'M'} \|_1 \leq \frac{2\varepsilon^2}{p^2},$$ where $g : \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p \times \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p \to \mathbb{F}^n_p$ is an (appropriately defined) function such that
for any $z \in \mathbb{F}^n_p$ there are at most two possible pairs $(y,y')$ and $y \ne y'$ such that $g(y,y')=z$.
From Lemma~\ref{comm_game}, we have
$$ \Hmin(X|M)_{\rho^A} + \Hmin(Y) \leq (n+1) \log p + 1+2 \log \left(\frac{p^2}{2\varepsilon^2} \right),$$
which implies the desired.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection*{A guessing game \cite{ACLV18}}\label{commgame}
Let $p \ne 2$ be a prime. Let $n$ be an even integer, and $g : \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p \times \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p \to \mathbb{F}^n_p$ be a function such that
for any $z \in \mathbb{F}^n_p$ there are at most two possible pairs $(y,y')$ and $y \ne y'$ such that $g(y,y')=z$. Consider the following game, called $\mathsf{guess}$, between two players Alice and Bob. Let $\tau_{X\hat{X}}$, $\tau_{Y\hat{Y}}$ be the canonical purifications of sources $X\in \mathbb{F}^{n}_p,Y\in \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p$ respectively with $\Hmin(Y) \geq k$ (registers $\hat{X}\hat{Y}$ with Reference).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Alice and Bob receive $X,Y$ respectively. They also share an entangled pure state $\phi_{NM}$ (Alice holds $N$, Bob holds $M$).
\item Alice applies a CPTP map $\psi_A$ such that,
$$\rho^A_{X \hat{X} N'M} =( \psi_A \otimes \id_{}) (\tau_{X \hat{X}} \otimes \phi_{NM}) \quad ; \quad \Hmin(X|M)_{\rho^A} \geq k'.$$
\item Bob applies a CPTP map $\psi_B$ with no fixed points such that, $$\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}Y'} =(\id_{} \otimes \psi_B) (\rho^A_{XN'M} \otimes \tau_{Y \hat{Y}}).$$
\item Bob returns the value $b \in \mathbb{F}_p$ and $y' \in \mathbb{F}^{n/2}_p$ such that $y \ne y'$.
\item Alice and Bob win the game iff $b =\langle x,z \rangle$, where $z=g(y,y')$.
\end{enumerate}
We have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{comm_game}
Let the success probability in $\mathsf{guess}$ be $\frac{1}{p} + \varepsilon$. Then, $$\Hmin(X|M)_{\rho^A} + \Hmin(Y) \leq (n+1) \log p + 1+2 \log \left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Game $\mathsf{guess}$ can be simulated in framework of an $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ as follows. From $\hmin{X}{M}_{\rho^A} \geq k'$ and Fact~\ref{fact102},
$$\hmin{X}{M'YY'\hat{Y}Z}_{\rho} \geq k'.$$
Also,
$$\dmax{ \rho_{YY'N'X\hat{X}}}{\id_{YY'}\otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}}} \leq \dmax{ \rho_{YN'X\hat{X}}}{\id_Y \otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}}} \leq -k.$$
The first inequality follows from Fact~\ref{rhoablessthanrhoaidentity}.
The second inequality follows since $\Hmin(Y)_{\rho} \geq k$ and $\rho_{YN'X\hat{X}} =\rho_{Y} \otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}}$. Thus,
$$ \rho_{YY'N'X\hat{X}} \leq 2^{-k+ n \log p } (U_{YY'}\otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}}),$$
which from Fact~\ref{data} implies
$$ \rho_{ZN'X\hat{X}} \leq 2^{-k+ n \log p } \left(\theta_{Z}\otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}} \right),$$
where $\theta_Z = g(U_{YY'})$.
Since there are at most two possible pairs $(y,y')$ and $y \ne y'$ such that $g(y,y')=z$, we have $\theta_{Z} \le 2 \cdot U_Z$.
Thus,
$$ \dmax{ \rho_{ZN'X\hat{X}}}{U_Z \otimes \rho_{N'X\hat{X}}} \leq n \log p -k+1.$$ This implies, $$\hminn{Z}{N'X\hat{X}}_{\rho} \geq k-1.$$
Now the simulation of $\rho_{X\hat{X}N'M'Y\hat{Y}Y'Z}$, in the framework of $l\mhyphen\textbf{qm-adv}$ acting on an $(n,n,n)$-source follows from Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}. From Claim~\ref{claim:measure2}, we have $$l = \log \left( \frac{1}{\Pr(A=1,B=1)}\right) \leq \log (2^{n \log p-k'} \cdot 2^{n \log p-k+1}) = 2n \log p-k'-k+1.$$
From Theorem~\ref{modgame},
$$(n-1) \log p -2n \log p + k + k'-1 \leq 2 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right),$$ which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Privacy-amplification with local weak-sources}
\suppress{We study the problem of privacy-amplification~(PA)~\cite{BBR88,Mau92,BBCM95,MW97}. In this problem, two parties, Alice and Bob, share a weak secret $X$ (with $\hmin{X}{E}\geq k$, where $E$ is adversary Eve side-information). Using $X$ and an insecure communication channel, Alice and Bob would like to securely agree on a secret key $R$ that is close to uniformly to an active adversary Eve who may have full control over their communication channel. This is a well studied problem with several applications including bio-metric authentication, leakage-resilient cryptography, and quantum cryptography.
We consider the problem of active attacks by quantum adversaries. This question arises naturally when privacy-amplification is used as a sub-protocol, e.g., as a post-processing step in quantum key distribution (QKD), when it may not be safe to assume that the classical communication channel is authenticated.\footnote{QKD relies on an authenticated channel at other stages of the protocol, and here we only address the privacy-amplification part: indeed, PA plays an important role in multiple other cryptographic protocols, and it is a fundamental task that it is useful to address first.} A recent work~\cite{ACLV18} gave a PA protocol secure against active quantum adversaries.
\paragraph{Uniform vs non-uniform local randomness.} In all prior protocols including~\cite{ACLV18}, it is assumed that Alice and Bob have local access to uniform sources of randomness. In practice, uniform sources are hard to come by, and it is more reasonable to assume that Alice and Bob have only weak-sources of randomness. In the setting where the adversary is classical, this is without loss of generality. If Alice has access to a weak local source $A$, then Alice can obtain uniform local randomness independent of $X$ by computing $\mathsf{Ext}(X,A)$, where $\mathsf{Ext}$ is a strong $2$-source extractor.
Similarly, Bob can obtain his own source of uniform randomness. Then Alice and Bob can run an appropriate PA protocol.
\paragraph{Quantum vs non-quantum adversaries.} The above approach does not work against quantum adversaries since the extracted uniform randomness is very short, and the only known quantum resilient PA protocol~\cite{ACLV18} requires uniform local randomness that is at least half the length of $X$.
}
We start with the definition of a quantum-secure privacy-amplification protocol against active adversaries. The following description is from~\cite{ACLV18}.
A privacy-amplification protocol $(P_A, P_B)$ is defined as follows. The protocol is executed by two parties Alice and Bob sharing a
secret $X\in \{0,1\}^n$, whose actions are described by $P_A$, $P_B$ respectively.\footnote{It is not necessary for the definition to specify exactly how the protocols are formulated; informally, each player's actions is described by a sequence of efficient algorithms that compute the player's next message, given the past interaction.} In addition there is an active, computationally
unbounded adversary Eve, who might have some quantum side-information $E$
correlated with $X$ but satisfying $\Hmin(X \vert E)_{\rho} \ge k$, where $\rho_{XE}$ denotes the initial state at beginning of the protocol.
Informally, the goal for the protocol is that
whenever a party (Alice or Bob) does not reject, the key $R$ output by
this party is random and statistically independent of Eve's
view. Moreover, if both parties do not reject, they must output the
same keys $R_A=R_B$ with overwhelming probability.
More formally, we assume that Eve is in full control of the
communication channel between Alice and Bob, and can arbitrarily
insert, delete, reorder or modify messages sent by Alice and Bob to
each other.
At the end of the
protocol, Alice outputs a key $R_A\in
\{0,1\}^l \cup \{\perp\}$, where $\perp$ is a special symbol indicating
rejection. Similarly, Bob outputs a key $R_B \in \{0,1\}^l \cup
\{\perp\}$. The following definition generalizes the classical definition in \cite{DLWZ14}.
\begin{definition}\label{privamp}
Let $k,l$ be integer and $\varepsilon > 0$. A privacy-amplification protocol $(P_A, P_B)$ is
a $(k, l, \varepsilon)$-\emph{privacy-amplification protocol secure against active quantum adversaries} if it satisfies
the following properties for any initial state $\rho_{XE}$ such that $\Hmin(X|E)_\rho \geq k$, and let $\sigma$ be the joint state of Alice, Bob, and Eve at the end of the protocol:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Correctness.} If the adversary does not interfere with the protocol, then $\Pr[R_A=R_B \land~ R_A\neq \perp \land~ R_B\neq \perp]=1$.
\item \emph{Robustness.} This property states that even in the presence of an active adversary, $\Pr[R_A \neq R_B \land~ R_A \neq \perp \land~ R_B \neq \perp]\le \varepsilon$.
\item \emph{Extraction.} Given a string $r\in \{0,1\}^l\cup \{\perp\}$, let $\mathsf{purify}(r)$ be a random variable on $l$-bit strings that is deterministically equal to $\perp$ if $r=\perp$, and is otherwise uniformly distributed. Let $V$ denotes the transcript of an execution of the protocol, and $\sigma_{E'}$ the final quantum state possessed by Eve. The following should hold:
\[(R_A, V, E')_\sigma \approx_{\varepsilon} (\mathsf{purify}(R_A), V, E')_\sigma
~~~~\mbox{and}~~~~
(R_B, V, E')_\sigma \approx_{\varepsilon} (\mathsf{purify}(R_B), V, E')_\sigma\;.\]
In other words, whenever a party does not reject, the party's key is indistinguishable from a fresh random string to the adversary.
%
%
\iffalse
\fi
\end{enumerate}
The quantity $k-l$ is called the \emph{entropy loss}.
\end{definition}
\paragraph{Our protocol.}
\begin{Protocol}[htb]
%
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c l}
Alice: $X$ & Eve: $E$ & ~~~~~~~~~~~~Bob: $X$ \\
\hline\\
Sample local weak-source $A$& &Sample local weak-source $B$\\
& $A \longrightarrow A'$ & \\
&& \\
$S = \mathsf{nmExt}(X;A)$ && $S' = \mathsf{nmExt}(X;A')$\\
&& $W' = \mathsf{Ext}( X, B)$\\
& $W,T \longleftarrow W',T'=\mathsf{MAC}_{S'}(W')$ & \\
{\bf If} $T \neq \mathsf{MAC}_{S}(W)$ {\em reject}&&\\
Set final $R_A = \mathsf{Tre}(X,W)$&& Set final $R_B = \mathsf{Tre}(X,W')$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
{\small {\caption{\label{prot:priv-amp-DW}
New $2$-round privacy-amplification protocol with weak local sources.}}
}
\end{center}
\end{Protocol}
In Protocol~\ref{prot:priv-amp-DW}, we describe a slight modification of the DW protocol~\cite{DW09}, that achieves PA in the setting where Alice and Bob only have weak local randomness $A$ and $B$ respectively, such that $A, B, (X,E)$ are independent. We need the following primitives.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\mathsf{nmExt}:\{0,1\}^n \times\{0,1\}^{n/2} \to \{0,1\}^{2m}$ be a $(n,n/2,2m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-non-malleable-extractor on $(n,k_1)$ source, $(\frac{n}{2},k_2)$ source secure against $k$-$\textbf{qnm-adv}$. Then we have from Theorem~\ref{nmext_new}, $$k +k_2 \leq n+10m-1+4 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right).$$
\item Let $\mathsf{Ext}:\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{n} \to \{0,1\}^m$ be a $(k,\varepsilon)$-quantum-secure $X$-strong $(n,m,\varepsilon)$-$2$-source-extractor on $(n,k_1)$ source, $(n,k_3)$ source, i.e. for any state $\sigma_{XE}$ such that $\hmin{X}{E}_\sigma > k$
$$ \| \mathsf{Ext}(X,B)\sigma_{XE}- U_m \otimes \sigma_{XE} \| \leq \varepsilon . $$
Then we have from Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}, $$k +k_3 \leq n+m+2 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right).$$
\item Let $\mathsf{MAC}:\{0,1\}^{2m} \times \{0,1\}^{m} \to \{0,1\}^m$ be a one-time $\varepsilon' = 2^{-m}$-information-theoretically secure message authentication code.
\item Let $\mathsf{Tre}:\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{m} \to \{0,1\}^\ell$ be a $(k,\varepsilon_t)$-quantum-secure strong $(n,m,l,\varepsilon_t)$-2-source-seeded-extractor for $m = O(\log^3(n/\varepsilon_t))$, $l=k-4\log(1/\varepsilon_t)-O(1).$
\end{itemize}
The security of this protocol follows from the observation that this protocol is nearly identical to that in~\cite{ACLV18}. There are two main differences:
\begin{itemize}
\item The seed $A$ for the non-malleable-extractor is a weak-source. This is secure via Theorem~\ref{nmext_new}.
\item In the protocol from~\cite{ACLV18}, Bob has immediate access to uniform $W'$. Here, we obtain $W'$ via a quantum-secure $X$-strong $2$-source-extractor (Theorem~\ref{thm1-intro}). Since $B$ is independent of $X, A$, we get that $W'$ is independent of $X, A$, and hence independent of $X, S$, which is required in the proof of security in~\cite{ACLV18}.
\end{itemize}
In Protocol~\ref{prot:priv-amp-DW}, there are only two messages exchanged, $A$ from Alice to Bob and $(W',T')$ from Bob to Alice. To each of these messages the adversary may apply an arbitrary transformation, that may depend on its side-information $E$. Let $T_1 : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{A} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{E}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{E'})$ be a CPTP map, and $T_2 : \mathcal{L} (\mathcal{H}_{W'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{T'} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{E'}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{W} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{T} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{E''})$ be another CPTP map.
\begin{theorem}
\label{moddw09}
For any active attack $(\rho_{XE},T_1,T_2)$ such that $\Hmin(X \vert E)_{\rho} \geq k$, Protocol~\ref{prot:priv-amp-DW} is $(k, l, \max\{2 \varepsilon' +3\varepsilon, \varepsilon_t +3\varepsilon\})$-secure as defined in Definition~\ref{privamp} with parameters $l = k -4m- O(\log\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_t}\right))$ and $m = O(\log^3(n/\varepsilon_t))$ as long as Alice has $(\frac{n}{2},k_2)$-source and Bob has $(n,k_3)$-source satisfying
$$k +k_2 \leq n+10m-1+4 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right) \hspace*{2em} \quad ; \quad \hspace*{2em} k +k_3 \leq n+m+2 \log \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \right).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The correctness of Protocol~\ref{prot:priv-amp-DW} is clear, if the adversary doesn't modify the communicated messages. Let us argue the robustness of the protocol. Let an active attack on Protocol~\ref{prot:priv-amp-DW} be specified by CPTP maps $T_1$ and $T_2$. Initially before the start of the protocol, we have $\rho_{XE} \otimes A \otimes B$ such that $\Hmin(X\vert E)_\rho \geq k$, $\Hmin(A) \geq k_2$ and $\Hmin(B) \geq k_3$. Let $\sigma^1_{AA'XE'}$ be the state after the adversary tampers register $A$ using CPTP map $T_1$. Thus, $$\sigma^1_{AA'XE'} = T_1 (\rho_{XE} \otimes A),$$ and from Fact~\ref{fact102}, we have $$ \hmin{X}{AA'E'}_{\sigma^1} \geq \hmin{X}{E}_\rho \geq k.$$From the security of $\mathsf{nmExt}$, if $A \ne A'$ we have that
\[ \sigma^1_{\mathsf{nmExt}(X,A)\mathsf{nmExt}(X,A')AA'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{2m} \otimes \sigma^1_{\mathsf{nmExt}(X,A')AA'E'} \quad \implies \quad \sigma^1_{SS'AA'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{2m} \otimes \sigma^1_{S'AA'E'}. \] From the security of $\mathsf{Ext}$, we have
\[ \sigma^1_{\mathsf{Ext}(X,B)XAA'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{XAA'E'} \quad \implies \quad \sigma^1_{W'XAA'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{XAA'E'}. \] Since $W'$ is independent of $X, A$, and $S$ is a function of $(X,A)$, we have $W'$ is independent of $X, S$, which is required in the proof of security in~\cite{ACLV18}. From Fact~\ref{data}, we have
\[ \sigma^1_{W'SS'AA'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{SS'AA'E'}. \]
If $A \ne A'$, combining with the security of $\mathsf{nmExt}$ and Fact~\ref{tracedis}, we have
\[ \sigma^1_{W'SS'AA'E'} \approx_{2\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes U_{2m} \otimes \sigma^1_{S'AA'E'}. \]
Now following the same steps as \cite{ACLV18}, we have that if $A = A'$ in the first step, then from the security of MAC, we have that probability that Alice accepts is atmost $\varepsilon' + \varepsilon$. Also, if $A \ne A'$ in the first step, then from the security of $\mathsf{nmExt}$ and $\mathsf{Ext}$ $(\sigma^1_{W'SS'AA'E'} \approx_{2\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes U_{2m} \otimes \sigma^1_{S'AA'E'})$, we have the key used by Alice to verify the signature in the protocol is (up to statistical distance $2 \varepsilon$) uniform and independent of the key used by Bob to make the MAC. By the security of MAC, the probability for Alice to reach the accept state in this case is at most $\varepsilon' +2 \varepsilon$.
Adding both parts together, $\Pr(R_A \ne R_B \wedge R_A \ne \perp) \leq 2\varepsilon'+3 \varepsilon.$ Since $R_B$ is never $\perp$, this implies the robustness property in Definition~\ref{privamp}.
For the extraction property, it is sufficient to show that $$\sigma^1_{R_BW'SS'AA'E'} \approx_{ 3\varepsilon + \varepsilon_t} U_\ell \otimes \sigma^1_{W'SS'AA'E'},$$
since the key extraction property follows from the robustness, the fact that $R_B$ is never $\perp$ and adversary map $T_2$ is only on side information (Fact~\ref{fact102}) in state $\sigma^1$. Independence of $W'$ and $X$ given the transcript follows from $$\sigma^1_{W'XAA'SS'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{XAA'SS'E'} ,$$ since $S$ and $S'$ are produced from $(X,A)$ and $(X,A')$ respectively. To show that enough min-entropy is left in $X$ given the transcript,
$$ \hmineps{X}{W'AA'SS'E'}{\varepsilon}_{\sigma^1} \geq \hmin{X}{AA'SS'E'}_{\sigma^1} \geq \hmin{X}{AA'E'}_{\sigma^1} -4m \geq k-4m,$$
where the first inequality follows because $\sigma^1_{W'XAA'SS'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{XAA'SS'E'} $ and second one follows from Fact~\ref{fact2}.
From the properties of $\mathsf{Tre}:\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{m} \to \{0,1\}^\ell$ extractor, and the Fact~\ref{trevexteps}, we can extract $l=k-4m-4\log(1/\varepsilon_t)-O(1)$ bits which are $\varepsilon_t+2 \varepsilon$ close to uniform for a uniform seed of length $m = O(\log^3(n/\varepsilon_t))$. Since $\sigma^1_{W'XAA'SS'E'} \approx_{\varepsilon} U_{m} \otimes \sigma^1_{XAA'SS'E'}$, it follows from Fact~\ref{tracedis}, we can extract $l$ bits which are $\varepsilon_t+3 \varepsilon$ close to uniform which gives the desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Open questions}\label{sec:conclusion}
Some natural questions arise related to our work.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is there a quantum multi-source adversary model which is stronger than $\textbf{qm-adv}$?
\item Is there a multi-source-extractor that is not secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$ but is secure against other quantum multi-source adversaries known in the literature?
\item Is Bourgain's extractor~\cite{Bou05}, which works for $2$-sources with min-entropy $(\frac{1}{2}-\delta)n$ (for constant $\delta$), secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$? What about security of other $2$-source extractors of \cite{Raz05,CZ19,Li19} against $\textbf{qm-adv}$?
\item Are the multi-source-extractor constructions of \cite{BIRW06,Li12c,Li11,Li13,R09} secure against $\textbf{qm-adv}$?
\item Several near optimal non-malleable-extractor constructions are known in the classical setting, for example constructions of \cite{Li12c,Li19}. Are they secure against quantum side-information?
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}\label{sec:acknowledgement}
This work is supported by the NRF RF Award No. NRF-NRFF2013-13; the Prime Minister's Office, Singapore and the Ministry of Education, Singapore, under the Research Centers of Excellence program and by Grant No. MOE2012-T3-1-009; the NRF2017-NRF-ANR004 {\em VanQuTe} Grant and the {\em VAJRA} Grant, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
A transcendental meromorphic map $f:\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ with a single essential singularity is called general meromorphic if it has at least two poles or exactly one pole that is not an omitted value. We choose the essential singularity to be at $\infty$. The Fatou set, denoted by $\mathcal{F}(f)$, is the set of all points in a neighborhood of which $\{f^n \}_{n>0}$ is normal. Its complement in $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ is the Julia set of $f$ and it is denoted by $\mathcal{J}(f)$. For general meromorphic maps, the backward orbit of $\infty$, $\{z: f^n(z)=\infty~\mbox {for~some~natural~number}~n\}$ is an infinite set and its closure turns out to be the Julia set of $ f$. By the dynamics of a function, we mean its Fatou set and the Julia set.
\par
A maximally connected subset of the Fatou set is called a Fatou component.
For a given $n$, $U_n$ denotes the Fatou component containing $f^n(U)$. A Fatou component $U$ is said to be $p$-periodic if $p$ is the smallest natural number such that $U_p = U$. If $p=1$ then $U$ is called invariant. An invariant Fatou component $U$ is called completely invariant if $f^{-1}(U) \subseteq U$. A periodic Fatou component can be an attracting domain, a parabolic domain, a rotational domain (a Herman ring or a Siegel disk) or a Baker domain. For a point $z_0$ if $p$ is the smallest natural number such that $f^p (z_0)=z_0$ then $z_0$ is called a $p-$periodic point of $f$. A $1-$periodic point is called a fixed point. An important number associated to $z_0$ is its multiplier $\alpha_{z_0} =(f^p)'(z_0)$. The $p-$periodic point $z_0$ is called attracting, indifferent or repelling if $|\alpha_{z_0}|<1, =1$ or $>1$ respectively. An indifferent $p-$periodic point is called parabolic if $\alpha_{z_0}=e^{2 \pi i\beta}$ for some rational number $\beta$. A $p-$periodic attracting domain contains an attracting $p-$periodic point whereas a $p$-periodic parabolic domain contains a parabolic $p-$periodic point on its boundary. Similarly, a Siegel disc always contains a non-parabolic indifferent periodic point. A periodic Fatou component $U$ is called a Baker domain if for some $U_k$, $f^{np}(z)\rightarrow \infty$ uniformly on every compact subset of $U_k$.
A Fatou component $W$ is called wandering if $W_m\neq W_n$ for $m\neq n$. Further details can be found in~\cite{milnor}.
\par
The map $i+z +\tan z$ is the Newton method of $exp(-\int_{0}^z \frac{du}{i+\tan u})$ and it is reported in ~\cite{fagella2019,access} that this map has an invariant Baker domain but no wandering domain.
It is proved in ~\cite{access} that the upper half plane is an invariant Baker domain for $z+\tan z$ and the positive imaginary axis is an invariant, but not a strongly invariant access to $\infty$. An access from a simply connected Fatou component $U$ to one of its boundary points $a$ is a homotopic class of curves in $U$ tending to $a$. An access is strongly invariant if it contains the image of each curve in it, in some way (for definition see Section 2). Gillen and Sixsmith have recently shown that for $f(z)=z+\tan z$,
there are infinitely many disjoint simply connected domains $\{U_n\}_{n \geq1}$ such that $f^{-1}(U_n)$ is connected for all $n$~ \cite{vanilla}.
This gives a positive answer to a question raised by Eremenko: Does there exist a non-constant meromorphic function having three disjoint simply-connected regions each with connected
preimage? The above mentioned functions are two particular members of the one parameter family given by
$$f_\lambda(z)=\lambda+z+\tan z~\mbox{for }~ \lambda \in \mathbb{C}.$$
\par This article undertakes a systematic study of the Fatou set and the Julia set of $f_\lambda$ for most of the values of $\lambda$.
\par
A point $z$ is called a critical point of $f$ if $f'(z)=0$ and the image of a critical point is known as a critical value of the function. A point $a\in \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ is called an asymptotic value of $f$ if there exists a curve $\eta:[0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ with $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \eta(t)=\infty$ such that $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} f(\eta(t))=a$. A subtle situation arises when the point at $\infty$ is an asymptotic value. The set of all the singular values of $f$, denoted by $S_f$ consists of all the critical values, asymptotic values and their limit points. It is important to note that at every point of $S_f$, at least one branch of $f^{-1}$ fails to be defined. The postsingular set of $f$, denoted by $P(f)$ is the closure of the set $ \cup_{s \in S_f}\{f^n(s): ~n \geq 0\}.$
\par
Most of the research on the dynamics of general transcendental maps have been focussed on those with a bounded set of singular values; the set of all such functions is well-known as the Eremenko-Lyubich class. A Baker domain $U$ is special in the sense that the essential singularity $\infty$ is always a limit function of $\{f^n\}_{n>0}$ on $U$. Every limit function of $\{f^n\}_{n>0}$ on a wandering domain is always constant and the set of all such limits can be an infinte and unbounded set~\cite{bk2}. The Fatou set of functions having only finitely many singular values cannot contain any Baker domain or any wandering domain. In order to have a Baker domain or a wandering domain, a map in the Eremenko-Lyubich class has to have infinitely many singular values. Several results on the relation of these types of Fatou components with the postsingular set are obtained in ~\cite{fagella2019} though a complete understanding is yet to be arrived at. Some other aspects of dynamics of functions in the Eremenko-Lyubich class have also been investigated and a number of tools are developped. However, the maps outside this class i.e., with an unbounded set of singular values mostly remain unexplored. One of the motivations for taking up $f_\lambda(z)=\lambda+z+\tan z $ is that it is one such map. For suitable values of $\lambda$, the existence of Baker domain and wandering domain for $f_\lambda$ is established in this article.
\par
The study of the dynamics of specific functions have been immensely useful, not only for predicting results for a class of functions containing them but also often provides clues for their proofs.
The first general transcendental meromorphic map subjected to a systematic investigation from a dynamical point of view is probably $z \mapsto \lambda\tan z$ for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$, which has only two singular values (in fact asymptotic values)~ \cite{keen-kot}. Later on, Sajid and Kapoor undertook the study of other maps including some with infinitely many singular values, namely $\lambda \frac{\sinh^2 z}{z^4}$ and $\lambda \frac{\sinh z}{z^2}$ ~\cite{sajid3, sajid4}. However, all these maps are in the Eremenko-Lyubich class. Nayak and Prasad investigated some meromorphic maps with an unbounded set of singular values, namely $z \mapsto \lambda\frac{z^m}{\sinh^mz}$ for real $\lambda$ and the non-existence of Baker domain and wandering domain is established among other results in~\cite{nayakmgp} .
\par
The function
$f_\lambda$ considered in this article has an unbounded set of singular values. This is one of the motivation for studying the dynamics of these functions.
A transcendental meromorphic map $f$ is said to be topologically hyperbolic if $P(f)\cap \mathcal{J}(f)\cap \mathbb{C}=\emptyset$.
This article deals with $f_\lambda$ that are topologically hyperbolic.
\par
For real $\lambda$, the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$ is the union of two completely invariant Baker domains. To see it, note that $\Im(f_\lambda(z))>0$ (or $<0$) if and only if $\Im(z)>0$ (or $<0$ respectively) for all $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. Therefore, the upper half plane and the lower half plane are the two completely invariant Fatou components of $f_\lambda$, by the Fundamental Normality Test (Lemma~\ref{FNT}). Since all the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are real and repelling, none of the Fatou components is either an attracting domain or a parabolic domain. A completely invariant Fatou component cannot be a rotational domain and this gives that both the Fatou components are Baker domains.
Clearly, the extended real line $\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\}$ is the Julia set.
\par
The functions $f_\lambda$ and $f_{-\lambda}$ are conformally conjugate via $z \mapsto -z$, i.e.,$-f_{-\lambda}(-z)=-(-\lambda-z-\tan(z))=f_{\lambda}(z)$. This means that $-f_{-\lambda}^n (-z)=f_{\lambda}^n (z)$ for all $n$ and the dynamical behaviour (the Fatou and the Julia set) of $f_\lambda$ is essentially the same as that of $f_{-\lambda}$.
In view of this, now onwards, we assume $\Im(\lambda) > 0$.
The following is a straight forward observation and forms the basis of subsequent results.
\begin{thm}\label{cifcupperhalf}
For $\Im(\lambda) > 0,$ there is a completely invariant Baker domain $B_\lambda$ of $f_\lambda$ containing the upper half plane.
\end{thm}
We call the completely invariant Baker domain $B_\lambda$ of $f_\lambda,$ as the \textit{ primary Fatou component} and denote it by $B$ whenever $\lambda $ is understood. Let us call a Fatou component \textit{ non-primary} if it is different from $B$. Before looking into the non-primary Fatou components, we make few remarks.
\begin{rem}\label{cifc-basic}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since the Julia set is the boundary of every completely invariant Fatou component, $\mathcal{J}(f_\lambda)=\partial B$.
\item Every Fatou component of $f_\lambda$ different from $B$ is simply connected. In particular, there is no Herman ring in the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$.
\item All the critical points of $f_\lambda$ with positive imaginary part are in $B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
The function $f_\lambda$ has infinitely many fixed points for each $\lambda \neq i$. These are the solutions of $ \tan z=-\lambda$. But the multiplier of each fixed point is $2+\lambda^2$ leading to some amount of advantage.
First we consider $|2+\lambda^2|<1$. The set of all such values of $\lambda$ in the upper half plane is a bounded simply connected domain. The following theorem demonstrates that non-primary Fatou components do exist and it describes all of them.
\begin{thm}\label{attractingdomaincomplete}
Let $\mid2+\lambda^2\mid<1$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item there are infinitely many invariant attracting domains of $f_\lambda$ and each such attracting domain $U$ is unbounded in such a way that $\{\Im(z): z \in U\}$ is unbounded but $\{\Re(z): z \in U\}$ is bounded. Further, there is exactly one invariant access from this attracting domain to $\infty$.
\item $f_\lambda$ does not have any other periodic Fatou component or any wandering domain.
\end{enumerate}
In other words, the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$ is the union of the primary Fatou component, all the invariant attracting domains and their pre-images.
\end{thm}
The attracting domains (in blue) along with the primary Fatou component (in red) of $f_{0.1+i\frac{\pi}{2}}$, $f_{1.5i}$ and $f_{-0.1+i\frac{\pi}{2}}$ are given in Figure \ref{attr-conjulia}(a), Figure \ref{attr-conjulia}(b) and Figure \ref{attr-conjulia}(c) respectively.
\begin{rem}
The boundary of the set $A=\{\lambda:\Im(\lambda)>0~\mbox{and }~ |2+\lambda^2|<1\}$ contains $i$ and $\sqrt{3}i$ and for every $\lambda \in A, 1 < \Im(\lambda) < \sqrt{3}$. In particular, if $0< \Im(\lambda) <1$ or $\Im(\lambda)\geq \sqrt{2}+ \sinh^{-1} 1 > \sqrt{3}$ then all the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are repelling.
\label{lambda}
\end{rem}
It is important to note that for a large set of parameters $\lambda$ (i.e., $|2+\lambda^2|>1$), all the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are repelling and that calls for further effort to determine the dynamics. However, the situation is relatively simple if the imaginary part of such a parameter is either sufficiently large or sufficiently small. The following theorem makes it precise.
\begin{thm}\label{repelling-one}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For $0<\Im(\lambda)<1$, the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$ contains an invariant Baker domiain $\tilde{B}$ different from $B$. Further, if $\Re(\lambda) =\pi k$ for some integer $k$ then $\tilde{B}$ is the only non-primary Fatou component and the Julia set is connected.
\item
For $\Im(\lambda)> \sqrt{2}+ \sinh^{-1}1$, the primary Fatou component is the only Fatou component and the Julia set is not connected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The Julia sets of $f_\lambda$ for $\lambda={\pi+i(\sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1)}$ is given as the complement of the yellow region-it is disconnected and is given in Figure~\ref{Fatouset-4}(a). The connected Julia set of $f_\lambda$ for $\lambda =\pi+ 0.99i$ is shown as the boundary of the yellow and the green region in Figure~\ref{Fatouset-4}(b).
\par
Every limit function of $\{f^n\}_{n>0}$ on each wandering domain of $f$ is always constant \cite{zheng}, one of which can be $\infty$.
For a wandering domain $W$, let $L_{W}$ denote the set of all limits of $\{f^n\}_{n>0}$ on $W$. A wandering domain $W$ is called escaping if $L_W =\{\infty \}$. It is called oscillating if $ L_W$ contains $\infty$ and at least one other point. If $\infty \notin L_W$ then $W$ is called dynamically bounded. Though the escaping and the oscillating wandering domains appear in the literature \cite{bishop, pete-shishi}, the existence of dynamically bounded wandering domain is not known.
The following theorem proves the existence of escaping wandering domains for some values of $\lambda$ with $ \Im(\lambda)=\frac{\pi}{2}$. We say a Fatou component $U$ lands on a Fatou component $V$ if $U_n=V$ for some natural number $n$. The grand orbit of a wandering domain $W$ is the set of all wandering domains landing on $W$ or on one of its iterated forward images. Note that the grand orbit of two Fatou components are either identical or disjoint.
\begin{thm}\label{wandeing domain}
For every natural number $k$, there is a $\lambda$ such that $f_\lambda$ has $k$ many wandering domains with distinct grand orbits. If $W$ is such a wandering domain then it has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each $W$ is escaping.
\item There is a two sided sequence of unbounded wandering domains
$\{W_n \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$ in the grand orbit of $W$ such that $f_\lambda: W_{n} \to W_{n+1}$
is a proper map with degree $2$.
\item If $W'$ is a wandering domain in the grand orbit of $W$ and different from all $W_n$s then $f_{\lambda}$ is one-one on $ W' $.
\end{enumerate}
The Fatou set is the union of the primary Fatou component and these $k$ many grand orbits of wandering domains.
\end{thm}
For a complex number $z$, $\Im(z)$ and $\Re(z)$ denote the imaginary and real part of $z$ respectively.
Let $H^+=\{z \in \mathbb{C}~:~\Im(z)>0\}$ and $H^-=\{z \in \mathbb{C}~:~\Im(z)<0\}$ be the upper and the lower half plane respectively . For any set $A\subset \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$, the boundary of $A$ is denoted by $\partial A$. For a complex number $w$, let $A+w=\{z+w:z \in A\}$. Let $D(a,r)$ denote the disc centered at $a$ and with radius $r$ and $\mathbb{D}$ denotes the unit disc.
The set of integers is denoted by $\mathbb{Z}$.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Some useful results}
We start with a useful result known as the Fundamental Normality Test.
\begin{lem}\label{FNT}(Fundamental Normality Test) If $f: \mathbb{C} \to \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ is a meromorphic function and $D$ is a domain such that $\cup_{n>0} \{f^n(z): z \in D\}$ does not contain at least three points of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ then $\{f^n\}_{n>0}$ is normal in $D$.
\end{lem}
%
A point $a$ on the boundary of a simply connected domain $U$ is called accessible from $U$ if there exists a curve $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\gamma([0,1)) \subset U$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 1^-}\gamma(t)=a$. We say that $\gamma$ lands at $a$.
There are simply connected domains such that a point on its boundary is not accessible. In particular, $\lim_{t_n \to 1-} \gamma(t)$ may be different for different sequences $t_n$ converging to $1$ from the left hand side. Some such examples can be found in ~\cite{milnor}. For an accessible point, there are uncountably many curves landing on it. What is important is the set of homotopically equivalent classes of such curves.
\begin{defn}{ {(Access)}}
For a simply connected domain $U$, let $z_0 \in U$ and $a\in \partial U$ be an accessible point. An access $\mathcal{A}$ from $U$ to $a$ is the class of all curves $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ homotopic to each other such that $\gamma([0,1)) \subset U$, $\gamma(0)=z_0$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 1^-}\gamma(t)=a$.
\end{defn}
This article is concerned with simply connected domains which are in fact Fatou components of a meromorphic function.
\begin{defn}{ {(Invariant and strongly invariant access)}} Let $U$ be a simply connected and invariant Fatou component of a meromorphic function $f$. An access
$\mathcal{A}$ from $U$ to one of its boundary points $a$ is called invariant if there exists $\gamma \in \mathcal{A}$ such that $f(\gamma) \cup \gamma_1 \in \mathcal{A}$, where $\gamma_1: [0,1] \to U$ is a curve contained in $ U$ such that $\gamma_1(0)=z_0$ and $\gamma_1(1)=f(z_0)$. If $f(\gamma) \cup \gamma_1 \in \mathcal{A}$ for every $\gamma \in \mathcal{A}$ then $\mathcal{A}$ is called a strongly invariant access.
\end{defn}
For an invariant simply connected Fatou component $U$ of $f$, if $\phi :\mathbb{D}\rightarrow U$ is the Riemann map then the inner function $g:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow \mathbb{D}$ associated with $f$ is defined as $g=\phi^{-1}\circ f\circ \phi$.
We need the following result (Theorem B,~\cite{access}) relating the behaviour of $g$ on the unit circle to that of $f$ on the boundary of $U$. A fixed of $f$ is called weakly repelling if it is either repelling or is parabolic with multiplier equal to $1$.
\begin{thm}\label{accesstoinfty}
Let $U$ be a simply connected and invariant Fatou component of $f$ and $g=\phi^{-1}\circ f\circ \phi$ be the inner function associated with $f|_U$. If the degree $d$ of $f$ on $U$ is finite and $d_1$ is the number of fixed points of $g$ in $\partial\mathbb{D}$ then $f$ has exactly $d_1$ invariant accesses, and $d-1 \leq d_1\leq d+1$. Moreover, every invariant access of $f$ from $U$ either lands at $\infty$ or at a weakly repelling fixed point of $f$.
\end{thm}
Recall that $S_f$ is the set of singular values of $f$. The post singular set of $f$, denoted by $P(f)$ is the closure of the set $$ \cup_{s \in S_f}\{f^n(s): ~n \geq 0\}.$$ Here is a well-known result.
\begin{lem}\label{singularvalues}
Every attracting domain and parabolic domain of a meromorphic function intersects the set $S_f$. If $U$ is a rotational domain then $\partial U \subset P(f)$. In particular, the Fatou set of a topologically hyperbolic map can not contain any rotational domain.
\end{lem}
The following lemma proved in \cite{fagella2019} reveals the connection of the singular values with the Fatou components. In particular, this is more relevant for Baker and wandering domains for topologically hyperbolic meromorphic maps.
\begin{lem}
\label{wandeingarbitrarylagredisc}
Let $U$ be a Fatou component of a topologically hyperbolic meromorphic map $f$ such that $U_n \cap P(f)=\emptyset$ for all $n >0$. Then for every compact set $K \subset U$ and every $r>0$, there exists $n_0$ such that for every $z \in K$ and every $n \geq n_0$, $D(f^n(z),r) \subset U_n$.
\end{lem}
We end this subsection by stating a very important result. For a continuous map $f: V \rightarrow U$ between two open connected subsets of $\mathbb{C}$ if the pre-image of each compact subset of $U$ is compact in $V$ then $f$ is called proper. Further, if $f$ is analytic then there is a $d$ such that every element of $U$ has $d$ preimages counting multiplicity. Here, the multiplicity of a point $z$ is the local degree of $f$ at $z$. This number $d$ is known as the degree of $f: V \to U$.
The following lemma proved in \cite{bolsch} is to be applied repeatedly.
\begin{lem}\label{RH}{ {(Riemann-Hurwitz formula)}}
Let $f:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{C}}$ be a transcendental meromorphic function. If $V$ is a component of the pre-image of an open connected set $U$ and $f : V \rightarrow U$ is a proper map of degree $d$, then $c(V)-2=d(c(U)-2)+n$, where $n$ is the number of critical points of $f$ in $V$ counting multiplicity and $n \leq 2d-2$. Here, the multiplicity of a critical point is one less than the local degree of $f$ at the critical point.
\end{lem}
\subsection{Some basic properties of $f_\lambda$}
We make few preliminary observations on $f_{\lambda}(z)=\lambda+z+\tan z$ for $\Im(\lambda)>0$.
First note that $\tan (z+\pi)=\tan z$ for all $z$ and for $z=x+iy$, $$\Re(\tan z) = \frac{\sin 2x}{\cos 2x+\cosh 2y}~~~\mbox{and} ~~~\Im(\tan z) = \frac{\sinh 2y}{\cos 2x+\cosh 2y}.$$
\begin{lem}\label{symmetry}
The Fatou set $\mathcal{F}(f_\lambda)$ is invariant under $z \mapsto z+\pi$ i.e., $z \in \mathcal{F}(f_\lambda)$ if and only if $z+\pi \in \mathcal{F}(f_\lambda)$. If a Fatou component $U$ contains a point $z$ and its $k\pi-$translate $z+k \pi$ for some non-zero $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ then $\{\Re(z): z \in U\}=\mathbb{R}$. In particular, this is true if $U$ contains a horizontal line segment of length bigger than $\pi$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $f_{\lambda}(z+\pi)=f_{\lambda}(z)+\pi $ which gives $f^n_{\lambda}(z+\pi)=f^n_{\lambda}(z)+\pi $ for all $n$. Hence $z\in\mathcal{F}(f_{\lambda})$ if and only if $z+\pi \in\mathcal{F}(f_{\lambda})$.
If a Fatou component $U$ contains $z$ as well as $z+k \pi$ for some non-zero integer $k$ then for a curve $\gamma \subset U$ joining and containing these two points, we have $\cup_{n \in \mathbb{Z} } \gamma+ n \pi \subset U$. Thus $\{\Re(z): z \in \cup_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \gamma+ n \pi\}=\mathbb{R}$.
\end{proof}
The following describes the behaviour of $f_\lambda$ on some vertical lines. For a vertical line $l$ and a real number $r$, let $l+r=\{z+r: z\in l\}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lines} Let $m $ be an integer and $l_{m \pi} =\{z: \Re(z)=m \pi\}$ .
\begin{enumerate}
\item The function $f_\lambda$ maps the line $l_{m \pi} $ bijectively onto $l_{m \pi +\Re(\lambda)}$.
\item If $\lambda=k \pi+i \lambda_2$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\lambda_2 >1$ then $\lim_{n \to \infty} \Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z))=+\infty$ for all $z \in l_{m \pi}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} For $z=m \pi +iy, f_{\lambda}(z)=\lambda+ m \pi +iy+i \tanh y $. Define $\phi: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $\phi(y)=\Im(\lambda)+ y+\tanh y$. This is a strictly increasing function satisfying $\lim_{y \to -\infty} \phi(y)=-\infty$ and $\lim_{y \to \infty} \phi(y)=\infty$. In particular, this is a bijection.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since $\phi(y)$ is a bijection of the real line onto itself, $f_\lambda$ maps $l_{m \pi}$ bijectively onto $l_{ m\pi +\Re(\lambda)}$.
\item For $\lambda=k \pi+i \lambda_2,~ k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\lambda_2 >1$, $\phi(y)=\lambda_2+ y+\tanh y>y$ for all $y$. This (non-existence of any fixed point) along with the strict increasingness of $\phi$ implies that $\lim_{n \to \infty}\phi^n (y) =+\infty$. Since $\Im(f_{\lambda}(m \pi+iy))=\phi(y), \Im(f_{\lambda}^2(m \pi+iy))=\phi^2(y)$ and in general, $\Im(f_{\lambda}^n(m \pi+iy))=\phi^n(y)$ for all $n>0$, $\lim_{n \to \infty} \Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z))=+\infty$ for all $z \in l_{m \pi}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
To determine all the singular values of $f_\lambda$, let $\overline{C}$ denote the set $\{\overline{z}: z \in C\}$ whenever $C $ is a set of complex numbers. Recall that we have assumed $\Im(\lambda)>0$.
\begin{lem}\label{criticalpoint}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set of all critical points of $f_\lambda$ is $C \cup \overline{C}$ where $C=\{\frac{\pi}{2}+n \pi +i \sinh^{-1}1 : n \in \mathbb{Z}\}$. The critical values are $ \lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi\pm i(\sinh^{-1}1+\sqrt{2})$ where $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\item The point at infinity is the only asymptotic value of $f_\lambda$ and there is only one transcendental singularity lying over it.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The solutions of $f'_{\lambda}(z)=0$ are precisely those satisfying $\cos z=i\ \mbox{or}\ -i$. Since $\overline{\cos z}=\cos \overline{z}$ for all $z \in \mathbb{C}$, we have $\cos z=i$ if and only if $\cos \overline{z}=-i$.
\par
Let $\cos z=i$. Then
$
\cos x \cosh y- i \sin x\sinh y=i.$
As $\cosh y$ is never zero, $\cos x=0$ and $\sin x\sinh y=-1$. The first equation gives that $x=x_n=\frac{\pi}{2}+n \pi $ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. If $n$ is odd then $\sin x_{n}=-1$ and $ \sinh y=1$ and, the solution is $\frac{\pi}{2} +n \pi+ i \sinh^{-1}1$. Similarly for even $n$, $\sin x_{n}=1,\ \sinh y=-1$
and we have $ \frac{\pi}{2} +n \pi+i \sinh^{-1}(-1)$ as the solution of $\cos z=i$. Taking the complex conjugate of these solutions, the set of all critical points of $f_\lambda$ is now found to be $C \cup \overline{C}$ where $C=\{c_n =\frac{\pi}{2}+n \pi +i \sinh^{-1}1 : n \in \mathbb{Z}\}$. Since $\tan c_n =i \coth(\sinh^{-1} 1)=i \sqrt{2}$, $f_{\lambda}(c_n)= \lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi+i \sinh^{-1} 1+\tan (c_n)= \lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi+i(\sinh^{-1}1+\sqrt{2})$. Similarly $f_{\lambda}(\overline{c_n})= \lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi-i(\sinh^{-1}1+\sqrt{2})$.
\item
For every unbounded curve $\gamma:[0,1)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ with $\lim_{t \to 1^-}\gamma(t)=\infty$, it is not difficult to see that $\lim_{t \to 1^-}f_\lambda(\gamma(t))=\infty$. This gives that $\infty$ is the only asymptotic value of $f_\lambda$. We are to show that there is only one singularity lying over it.
\par Let $D$ be a disc centered at $\infty$ with respect to the spherical metric. Then there exists a $\delta>0$ such that the
half planes $H_{\delta} =\{z: \Im(z)> \delta\}$ and $\overline{H_{\delta}}=\{\overline{z}: z \in H_{\delta}\}$ are contained in $D$. Since $H_{\delta}$ is invariant under $f_\lambda$ (as $\Im(\lambda)>0$), $f_{\lambda}^{-1}(D)$ contains
$H_{\delta}$. Note that if $\Im(z) <-\delta-\Im(\lambda)$ then $\Im(f_\lambda) <-\delta +\Im(\tan z) < -\delta$. In other words, the half plane $H_{-\delta-\Im(\lambda)}=\{z: \Im(z) < -\delta-\Im(\lambda)\}$ is mapped into $\overline{H_\delta} \subset D$ giving that $H_{-\delta-\Im(\lambda)} \subset f_{\lambda}^{-1}(D)$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{halfplanes}
H_\delta \cup H_{ -\delta-\Im(\lambda)} \subset f^{-1}_{\lambda}(D).\end{equation}
The disc $D$ contains the left half plane $H_\alpha=\{z: \Re(z)< \alpha\}$ and $-H_{\alpha}=\{-z: z\in H_{\alpha}\}$ for some $\alpha>0$. There is a natural number $m_0$ (depending on $\alpha$ and $\lambda$) such that the line $l_{m \pi +\Re(\lambda)}=\{z: \Re(z)=m\pi +\Re(\lambda)\}$ is contained in $D$ for all integers $m$ with $|m|>m_0$. By Lemma~\ref{lines}(1), we have
\begin{equation}\label{line}
l_{m \pi} =\{z: \Re(z)=m \pi\} \subset f^{-1}_{\lambda}(D) ~\mbox{ for infinitely many values of}~m.
\end{equation}
Now it follows from Equation(\ref{halfplanes}) and Equation(\ref{line}) that there is a unique unbounded component of $f_{\lambda}^{-1}(D)$. In other words, there is a only one essential singularity lying over $\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{criticalpoints-rem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item All the critical points are simple, i.e., the local degree of $f_\lambda$ is two at every critical point.
\item Note that $C \subset H^+$ and $\overline{C} \subset H^-$. The critical values corresponding to the critical points belonging to $C$ are in $H^+$ whenever $\Im(\lambda)>0$. The other critical values are on the same horizontal line but may not be in $H^+$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
Now we determine some properties of the fixed points of $f_\lambda$.
\begin{lem}\label{multiplierofthefixedpoints}
For each $\lambda \neq i$ with $\Im(\lambda) > 0$, $f_\lambda$ has infinitely many fixed points. Moreover, the following are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The multiplier of each fixed point is $2+\lambda^2$. In other words, all the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are attracting, repelling or indifferent together.
\item A point $z$ is a fixed point of $f_\lambda$ if and only if $z+n \pi$ is so for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\item All the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are in $H^{-}$ whenever $\Im(\lambda)>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are the solutions of $\tan z=-\lambda$. Since $\lambda \neq i$ and $\Im(\lambda)> 0$, there are infinitely many fixed points. The multiplier of each fixed point is $f'_{\lambda}(z)=1+\sec^2 z =2+\lambda^2$. It depends on the value of $\lambda$ but not on any fixed point.
All the fixed points are attracting, repelling or indifferent if and only if $|2+\lambda^2|<1,~>1~\mbox{or}~=1$ respectively.
\item This follows from the fact that $\tan z$ is $\pi-$periodic.
\item The is so because all the solutions of $\tan z=-\lambda, \Im(\lambda)>0$ are in $H^{-}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are real if and only if $\lambda$ is real.
\end{rem}
\section{The proofs}
Here is the proof of Theorem~\ref{cifcupperhalf}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{cifcupperhalf}]
Note that for all $z \in H^+$, $\Im(f_\lambda(z))>\Im(\lambda)+\Im(z)>0$. The family $\{f^n\}_{n \geq 0}$ is normal in $H^+$ by the Fundamental Normality Test. Since $\Im(f^{n}_\lambda(z))>n \Im(\lambda)+\Im(z)$ for all $n$, $f^n_\lambda(z)\rightarrow \infty$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ for all $z \in H^+$. Thus $f_\lambda$ has an invariant Baker domain containing the upper half plane. This is the primary Fatou component and we denote it by $B$.
\par In order to show that $B$ is backward invariant, let
$B_{-1}$ be a component of $f_{\lambda}^{-1}(B)$. It is known that if $U$ and $V$ are two Fatou components of a meromorphic function $f$ such that $f: U \to V$ then $V \setminus f(U)$ contains at most two points~(Theorem 1, \cite{herring}). Therefore, $B \setminus f_{\lambda}(B_{-1})$ contains at most two points.
Consider $ \epsilon_1 < \epsilon_2 $ and the horizontal line segment $l=\{w: \epsilon_1 \leq \Re(w) \leq \epsilon_2 ~\mbox{and}~ \Im(w)=\Im(\lambda)\} \subset f_{\lambda}(B_{-1})$. Note that $ l \subset H^+ \subset B$. For $w \in l$, let $z$ be such that $\lambda +z+\tan z=w$. Since $\Im(w)=\Im(\lambda)$, $\Im(z)+\Im(\tan z)=0$ and it gives that $z$ is a real number. Each real number except the poles of $f_\lambda$ is mapped into $H^+$ by $f_\lambda$ and therefore $B$ contains the real line except the poles. Thus the full pre-image $f_\lambda^{-1}(l)$ of $l$ is contained in $B$. On the other hand the set $B_{-1}$ intersects $f_\lambda^{-1}(l)$ which gives that $B_{-1}$ intersects $B$. Thus $B$ is backward invariant. Therefore $B$ is a completely invariant Baker domain.
\end{proof}
The following lemma states that the set of all pre-images of every point in the lower half plane is spread horizontally.
\begin{lem}\label{nopre-image}
For $\Im(\lambda)>0$ and $w \in H^-$, if $f_{\lambda}(z) =w$ then $\Im(z) > \Im(w)-\Im(\lambda)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $f_{\lambda}(z)=w$ then $z \in H^{-}$ (because $f_{\lambda}(H^+) \subset H^+$) and $\Im(\tan z) <0$. Now,
$\Im(w)= \Im(\lambda)+\Im(z)+\Im(\tan z)<\Im(\lambda)+\Im(z)$. This is what is claimed.
\end{proof}
Every point in a non-primary Fatou component has negative imaginary part. Note that a Fatou component containing the image or any pre-image of a non-primary Fatou component is also non-primary. A non-primary Fatou component is called \textit{horizontally spread} if there is a $\delta < 0$ such that $\{\Re(z): z \in U~\mbox{and }~\Im(z)>\delta\}$ is unbounded. Horizontally spread Fatou components are unbounded in a special way. The existence of a sequence of points $z_n$ in $U$ with $\Im(z_n) \to -\infty$ as $n \to \infty$ is not ruled out and $U$ is allowed to contain even a half plane of the form $\{z: \Im(z) < \delta'\}$ for some $\delta' <0$. The following describes some useful properties of horizontally spread Fatou components that are to be used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{attractingdomaincomplete}.
\begin{lem}\label{proper}
For $\Im(\lambda)>0$, let $U$ be a non-primary Fatou component of $f_\lambda$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $U$ is horizontally spread and is not invariant under $z \mapsto z+\pi$ then $f_\lambda$ has an invariant Baker domain.
\item If $U$ is not horizontally spread then
$f_\lambda:U \rightarrow U_1$ is a proper map with degree $ 1$ or $2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $U$ is horizontally spread then all its $k \pi$-translates $U+k\pi =\{z+ \pi k: z \in U\}$ are also horizontally spread. Since $U$ is not invariant under $z \mapsto z+\pi$, $U+k \pi \cap U+k' \pi =\emptyset$ for all $k \neq k'$ (by Lemma~\ref{symmetry}). Now, if $\{\Im(z): z \in U\}$ is unbounded then we can find an unbounded Jordan curve $\gamma \subset U$ which separates the primary Fatou component $B$ from $U'$ where $U'=U+\pi$ or $U -\pi$, i.e., one component of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus \gamma$, say $B'$ contains $B$ whereas the other contains $U'$. This means that $\mathcal{J}(f_\lambda)=\partial B $ which is contained in the closure of $B'$ which contradicts the fact that the other component of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus \gamma$ contains some points of the Julia set, namely those on the boundary of $U'$. Thus, the set $\{\Im(z): z \in U\}$ and therefore $\{\Im(z): z \in U+k \pi\}$ for all $k$ is bounded. Using the same argument, it can be seen that $\{\Re(z): z \in U\} =\mathbb{R}$ is not possible and there is a $\delta$ such that $\Re(z)>\delta $ or $\Re(z)< \delta $ for all $z \in U$. Without loss of generality we assume that $\Re(z)>\delta $ for all $z \in U$. This is clearly true for all $U+k\pi$.
\par Let $\partial_k$ be the boundary of $U+k \pi$ and $\alpha$ be the set of all the limit points of $\partial_k$, i.e., $\alpha=\{z: ~\mbox{there is a sequence}~ z_{k_n} \in \partial_k~\mbox{such that}~\lim_{n \to \infty}z_{k_n}=z\}$. This $\alpha$ is an unbounded connected subset of the Julia set. Further, $\{\Re(z): z\in \alpha\}=\mathbb{R}$ and $\{\Im(z): z\in \alpha\}$ is bounded. Now one component of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus \alpha$ contains the primary Fatou component $B$ and the other component must be a Fatou component, say $\tilde{B}$. This $\tilde{B}$ contains a lower half plane $H_\beta=\{z: \Im(z)< \beta\}$ for some $\beta<0$. Since $\Im(f_{\lambda}(z))=\Im(\lambda)+\Im(z)+\Im(\tan z)$, we can choose a $z \in \tilde{B}$ (depending on $\lambda$) with imaginary part sufficiently near to $-\infty$ such that its image is in $\tilde{B}$. For example, take $\beta_1 < \beta - \lambda$ such that $\Im(\tan z) \in (-1.1,-0.9)$ for $\Im(z)< \beta_1$. This shows that $\tilde{B}$ is invariant. If $\lim_{n \to \infty}f^n _{\lambda}(z) $ is a fixed point $z_0$ for
some $z \in H_{\beta_1} \subset \tilde{B}$ then $z+\pi \in H_{\beta_1}$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty}f^n _{\lambda}(z+\pi) $ is $z_0 +\pi$, which is also a fixed point. This cannot be true if $\tilde{B}$ is either an attracting domain or a parabolic domain. Similarly, it can be seen that it is also not a Siegel disc. Therefore $\tilde{B}$ is a Baker domain.
\item If $U$ is not horizontally spread then it follows from Lemma~\ref{nopre-image} that every point of $U_1$, the Fatou component containing $f_{\lambda}(U)$, has finitely many pre-images in $U$. Hence $f_\lambda:U \rightarrow U_1$ is proper ( by Theorem 1, \cite{bolsch}).
Since $U$ and $U_1$ are simply connected (by Remark \ref{cifc-basic}(2)), it follows from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula (Lemma \ref{RH}) that deg $(f_\lambda)|_U =N+1$ where $N$ is the number of critical points of $f_\lambda$ in $U$ counting multiplicity. Since all the critical points of $f_\lambda$ are simple (Remark \ref{criticalpoints-rem}), the number $N$ here is in fact the number of distinct critical points.
\par
If $U$ contains two critical points then it contains all the critical points (as the Fatou set is $\pi$-invariant and any two consecutive critical points are with the same imaginary part but with real parts differring by $\pi$ (See Lemma~\ref{criticalpoint})) and becomes horizontally spread. Therefore $N=0$ or $1$, and the degree $d$ of $f_\lambda: U \to U_1$ is $1$ or $2$ respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{horizontally-bounded}
If an unbounded Fatou component $U$ is not horizontally spread then $\{\Im(z): z \in U\}$ is unbounded but $\{\Re(z): z \in U\}$ is bounded.
\end{rem}
For proving Theorem~\ref{attractingdomaincomplete}, we also need the following.
\begin{lem}\label{nowanderingTHM}
Let $f_\lambda$ be a topologically hyperbolic map for some $\lambda$. Then for every wandering domain $W$ there is an $n \geq 0$ such that $W_n\cap P(f_\lambda) \neq \emptyset$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose on the contrary that $W$ is a wandering domain of $f_\lambda$ such that $W_n\cap P(f_\lambda)=\emptyset$ for all $n \geq 0$. Since $f_\lambda$ is topologically hyperbolic, it follows from Lemma \ref{wandeingarbitrarylagredisc} that there exists an $n_0$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$, $W_n$ contains a disc of radius $ \pi$. In particular, $W_n$ contains a horizontal line segment including its end point with length $\pi$. Since the Fatou set $\mathcal{F}(f_\lambda)$ is $\pi-$invariant (Lemma \ref{symmetry}), $W_{n}$ contains a horizontal line unbounded in both the directions for all $n \geq n_0$. The horizontal strip bounded by two such lines $l_{n_0} \subset W_{n_0}$ and $l_{n_{0} +1} \subset W_{n_0 +1}$ contains a point of the Julia set, namely a point on the boundary of $W_{n_0}$.
It follows from the fact $\mathcal{J}(f_\lambda)=\partial B$ (by Remark~\ref{cifc-basic}(1)) that this strip contains a point of $B$. Now $l_{n_0} \bigcup l_{n_{{0} +1}} \bigcup \{\infty\}$ is a closed curve in $\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus B$ separating $B$. However, this is not posssible as $B$ is connected.\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{attractingdomaincomplete}]
It follows from Lemma \ref{multiplierofthefixedpoints} that for $|2+\lambda^2|<1$, $f_\lambda$ has infinitely many attracting fixed points. The attracting domains corresponding to these attracting fixed points are distinct.
\par The point at $\infty$ is the only asymptotic value of $f_\lambda$ and is in the Julia set.
It follows from Lemma~\ref{symmetry} that if $c$ is a critical point such that $f_\lambda^n(c)$ converges to an attracting fixed point $z_0$ then $\lim_{n \to \infty}f_\lambda^n(c+k\pi)= z_0+k\pi$ for each $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Recall that $z_0 +\pi k $ is an attracting fixed point if and only if $z_0$ is so. Note that every critical point of $f_\lambda$ in the lower half plane is of the form $ c+k\pi$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Since each invariant attracting domain contains a critical point, each critical point in the lower half plane is in an invariant attracting domain. Also each critical point in the upper half plane is in the primary Fatou component. Thus $f_\lambda$ is a topologically hyperbolic map for $|2+\lambda^2|<1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $U$ be an invariant attracting domain. If $U$ is horizontally spread then $f_\lambda$ has an invariant Baker domain $\tilde{B}$ containing a lower half plane by Lemma~\ref{proper}.
If there is a $\delta<0$ such that $ \Im(f_{\lambda}^{n_k}(z)) > \delta$ for some subsequence $n_k$ and some $z \in \tilde{B}$ then the topologically hyperbolicity of $f_\lambda$ gives that $\tilde{B}$ contains the disc $D(z_{n_k}, |\delta|) $ for a sufficiently large $k$ (by Lemma~\ref{wandeingarbitrarylagredisc}). However $D(z_{n_k}, |\delta|) $ contains a real number and that is either a pole or belongs to $B$. None of this can be true. Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{top}
~\mbox{for each}~\delta<0~\mbox{ there is an }~n_\delta~\mbox{ such that }~\Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z)) < \delta~\mbox{ for all }~n >n_\delta.
\end{equation}
Now,
choose a suitable $\delta_0 <0$ such that $\Im(\tan z ) > -\Im(\lambda)$ for all $z$ with $\Im(z) < \delta_0$. This is possible because $\tan z \to -i$ as $\Im(z) \to -\infty$ and $-\sqrt{3}< -\Im(\lambda) <-1$. For such a $z$, let $z_n=f_{\lambda}^n(z)$ and observe that $\Im(z_1) >\Im(z)$. If $n_0$ is such that $\Im(z_n)<\delta_0$ for all $n >n_0$ then $\{\Im(z_n)\}_{n>n_0} $ is strictly increasing and bounded above by $\delta_0$. This sequence converges to some number less than or equal to $\delta_0$, which is a contradiction to Equation(\ref{top}) for a $\delta< \delta_0$. Thus, the attracting domain $U$ is not horizontally spread.
\par By Lemma~\ref{proper}(2), $f_\lambda: U \to U$ is a proper map of degree $1$ or $2$. Since $U$ contains exactly one critical point of $f_\lambda$ by Lemma~\ref{singularvalues}, it follows from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula that the degree of $f_\lambda: U \to U$ is $2$.
\par
It follows from Theorem~\ref{accesstoinfty} that the number of invariant accesses from $U$ to its boundary points is $1,2$ or $3$. Further, each of these boundary points is either a weakly repelling fixed point or $\infty$. Since $f_\lambda$ has no weakly repelling fixed point, all these accesses are to $\infty$. Now, if there are more than one access to $\infty$ then for two curves $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ in $U$ with a common starting point and landing at $\infty$, each component of $\widehat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus (\gamma_1 \cup \gamma_2)$ would intersect the boundary of $U$. This is not possible as $\partial U \subset \partial B$. Thus there is exactly one invariant access from $U$ to $\infty$. In particular, $U$ is unbounded.
\par As $U$ is unbounded but not horizontally spread, it follows from Remark~\ref{horizontally-bounded} that $\{\Im(z): z \in U\}$ is unbounded but $\{\Re(z): z \in U\}$ is bounded.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat[The attracting domains of $f_{0.1+i\frac{\pi}{2}}$ seen in blue.]
{\includegraphics[width=1.86in,height=1.5in]{pos2}}
\hspace{0.01in}
\subfloat[The attracting domains of $f_{1.5 i}$ seen in blue.]
{\includegraphics[width=1.86in,height=1.5in]{julia3}}
\hspace{0.01in}
\subfloat[The attracting domains of $f_{-0.1+i\frac{\pi}{2}}$ seen in blue.]
{\includegraphics[width=1.86in,height=1.5in]{pos1}}
\caption{Julia sets} \label{attr-conjulia}\end{figure}
\item
The existence of any attracting domain with period more than $1$ or any parabolic domain is therefore ruled out by Lemma~\ref{singularvalues}. Also by the same lemma, $f_\lambda$ has neither any Siegel disc nor any Herman ring. The non-existence of any Baker domain (other than $B$) or any wandering domain remains to be looked into.
\par
Let $V$ be a $p$-periodic Baker domain of $f_\lambda$ such that $\lim_{n \to \infty}f^{np}_\lambda(z) = \infty$ uniformly on $ V$. Since $f_\lambda$ is topologically hyperbolic, it follows from Lemma \ref{wandeingarbitrarylagredisc} that $V$ contains a disc of radius more that $\pi$. Since $\mathcal{F}(f_\lambda)$ is $\pi$-invariant (Lemma \ref{symmetry}), $V$ contains a horizontal line which is unbounded in both the directions. This line separates $\mathbb{C} \cap \partial B$ from the boundary of each invariant attracting domain since $\{\Im(z): z\in U\}$ is unbounded. Again $\partial V \subset \partial B$ implies that $V$ contains a half plane of the form $\{z: \Im(z) < M<0\}$. But this is not true as there is a sequence of points in the invariant attracting domain whose imaginary parts tends to $-\infty$. Thus $f_\lambda$ does not have any Baker domain.
\par
There cannot be any wandering domain of $f_\lambda$ by Lemma \ref{nowanderingTHM}.
\par
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Now the proof of Theorem~\ref{repelling-one} is presented.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{repelling-one}]
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $0< \Im(\lambda)<1$.
Since $\lim_{\Im(z) \to -\infty} \Im(\tan z)=-1$, choose $\delta<0$ such that the image of $H_\delta= \{z: \Im(z)< \delta\}$ under $\tan z$ is contained in the half plane $\{z: \Im(z) <\Im(-\lambda) \}$. This is also true for all smaller values of $\delta$. Then the image of $H_\delta$ under $z +\tan z$ is contained in $\{z: \Im(z) < \Im(-\lambda)+\delta\}$ and consequently, $f_{\lambda} (H_\delta) \subset H_{\delta}$. By the Fundamental Normality Test, the half plane $H_\delta$ is contained in the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$. The Fatou component containing $H_\delta$, call it $\tilde{B}$, is invariant. This Fatou component $\tilde{B}$ is simply connected by Remark~\ref{cifc-basic}(1). In particular, it is not a Herman ring. If an invariant Fatou component is a Siegel disc, an attracting domain or a parabolic domain then its closure contains a non-repelling fixed point.
Since all the fixed points of $f_\lambda$ are repelling by Remark~\ref{lambda}, $\tilde{B}$ can neither be a Siegel disc, an attracting domain nor a parabolic domain. Thus, $\tilde{B}$ is an invariant Baker domain.
Note that each critical point with positive imaginary part is contained in $B$.
Let $\lambda=k \pi +i \lambda_2$ for some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\lambda_2 >0$. If $m$ is an integer then
\begin{equation}\label{verticalline-2}
f_{\lambda} ( m \pi +\frac{\pi}{2} +iy ) =k\pi + m \pi +\frac{\pi}{2}+i(\lambda_2+y+\coth y).
\end{equation}
Here $0< \lambda_2 <1$.
Let $L_{m \pi} =\{m\pi+ \frac{\pi}{2}+iy: y<0\}$ and $L_{(m+k)\pi}=k \pi +L_{m \pi}$. Then $f_\lambda (L_{m \pi}) \subset L_{(m+k)\pi}$ and $f^n _{\lambda}(L_{m\pi}) \subseteq L_{(m+kn)\pi}$ for all $n \geq 1$. For every $m$ and $z \in L_{m\pi}$, the sequence of real parts of $f_{\lambda}^n(z)$ tends to $\infty$ (or $-\infty$) as $n \to \infty$ when $k>0$ (or $k<0$ respectively). We are to show that, \begin{equation}\label{claim}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z)) = -\infty ~\mbox{ for~ every}~ z \in L_{m\pi}. \end{equation}
For this, consider $\phi: (-\infty, 0) \to (-\infty, 0)$ defined by $\phi(y) =\lambda_2 +y +\coth y$ where $0<\lambda_2<1$. It is clear that for $z \in L_{m \pi}$, $\Im(f_{\lambda} ^2 (z))=\phi^2 y$ and in general $\Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z)) = \phi^n(y) $ for all $n>0$. Our claim (\ref{claim}) will be proved by showing that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \phi^n (y)=-\infty$ for all $y<0$. Since $\phi'(y) =1- \text{cosech}^2 (y)$ , $\phi$ has a unique critical point and that is $y_0=-\sinh^{-1}1$. Further, it increases in $(-\infty, y_0)$, attains its maximum at $y_0$ and then decreases. Note that
$\lim_{y \to 0^-} \phi(y)=-\infty=\lim_{y \to -\infty} \phi(y)$. The image of $(-\infty, 0)$ under $\phi$ is strictly contained in $(-\infty, \phi(y_0))$. Since $\lambda_2 +\coth y_0<0, ~\phi(y_0)=\lambda_2+y_0+\coth y_0< y_0$ and $\phi$ is strictly increasing in $(-\infty, y_0)$, we have $\phi^{n}(y_0) \to -\infty$ as $n \to \infty$. This gives that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \phi^{n}(y) =-\infty$ for all $y<y_0$. Thus $\lim_{n \to \infty} \phi^{n}(y)=-\infty$ for all $y<0$.
\par
Since each critical point $c$ in the lower half plane belongs to $L_{m \pi}$ for some integer $m$, it follows from (\ref{claim}) that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \Im(f_{\lambda}^{n}(c))=-\infty$. Note that $L_{m \pi} \subset \tilde{B}$ for all $m$ and in particular, $\tilde{B}$ contains all the critical points (with negative imaginary part) and their forward orbits. This proves that $f_\lambda$ is topologically hyperbolic.
\par By the similar argument as used in Theorem \ref{attractingdomaincomplete}(2) and Lemma \ref{nowanderingTHM} we conclude that $f_\lambda$ does not have any non-primary periodic Fatou component other than $\tilde{B}$ or any wandering domain.
Every pole is of the form $m \pi +\frac{\pi}{2}$ and is an end point of $L_{m\pi}$ for some $m$. This gives that the boundary of $\tilde{B}$ contains a pole. As $\tilde{B}$ is simply connected, the Julia component (i.e., a maximally connected subset of the Julia set) containing a pole is unbounded. If there is a multiply connected Fatou component $V$ of a general meromorphic function then consider a Jordan curve which is not contractible in $V$. Arguing as in Lemma~1(\cite{tk-zheng}), one finds that some iterated (forward) image of this curve surrounds a pole. This means that there is a bounded Julia component containing a pole, which is not possible. Thus the primary Fatou component $B$ and hence all the Fatou components are simply connected. Therefore, the Julia set of $f_\lambda$ is connected whenever $\lambda =k \pi +i \lambda_2$ for $0< \lambda_2 <1$.
\item
By Lemma~\ref{criticalpoint}, the critical values of $f_\lambda$ corresponding to the critical points in the lower half plane are $\lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi -i(\sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1)$ where $n$ is an integer.
For $\Im(\lambda) > \sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1} 1 \approx 2.295$, the imaginary part of each such critical value is non-negative. Hence all these critical values are in the primary component $B$. Thus $B$ contains all the critical values of the function. Consequently, there is no attracting domain, parabolic domain, Siegel disc or Herman ring in the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$ by Lemma~\ref{singularvalues}.
\par
Clearly, $f_\lambda$ is topologically hyperbolic. By Lemma~\ref{nowanderingTHM}, $f_\lambda$ has no wandering domain.
Let $f_\lambda$ have a non-primary $p-$periodic Baker domain and $z$ be a point in it. Without loss of generality assume that $\lim_{n \to \infty} z_n =\infty$ where $z_n =f_{\lambda}^{np} (z)$. If there is a $\delta<0$ such that $ \Im(z_{n_k}) > \delta$ for some subsequence $n_k$ then the topologically hyperbolicity of $f_\lambda$ gives that the assumed Baker domain contains the disc $D(z_{n_k}, |\delta|) $ for a sufficiently large $k$ (by Lemma~\ref{wandeingarbitrarylagredisc}). However $D(z_{n_k}, |\delta|) $ contains a real number and that is either a pole or belongs to $B$. None of this can be true. Therefore, for each $\delta<0$ there is an $n_0$ such that $\Im(z_n) < \delta$ for all $n >n_0$. In other words, \begin{equation}\label{limit}
\Im(z_{n}) \to -\infty ~\mbox{as}~n \to \infty.
\end{equation}
Now, choose a sufficiently large $n_0$ such that $\Im(\tan z_n) > -2$ for all $n >n_0$. This is because $\tan z \to -i$ as $\Im(z) \to -\infty$. Since $\Im(\lambda)>2$, we have $\Im(z_{n+1})=\Im(\lambda)+\Im(z_n)+\Im(\tan z_n) >\Im(z_n)$ for all $n>n_0$. This is a contradiction to (\ref{limit}).
Thus $f_\lambda$ does not have any Baker domain.
Therefore $B$ is the only Fatou component of $f_\lambda$ for $\Im(\lambda) >\sqrt{2}+ \sinh^{-1} 1 $.
\par
That the Julia set is disconnected will be established by proving the existence of a bounded component of the Julia set. This is because $\infty \in \mathcal{J}(f_\lambda)$.
This desired Julia component is going to be the one containing a pole of the fuction.
\par
Since the Fatou set is connected, no Julia component separates the plane, i.e., its complement is connected.
Let $J$ be a connected subset of $\mathcal{J}(f_\lambda) \cap \mathbb{C}$ containing a pole. If $J$ contains another pole then by Lemma~\ref{symmetry}, it contains all the poles of $f_\lambda$ and then it separates the plane. However this is not possible implying that $J$ contains exactly one pole, say $z_0$. Let $J_0 $ be a connected subset of $J \setminus \{z_0\}$. Then $f_\lambda (J_0) \subset H^-$ and all the critical values of $f_\lambda$ are in $H^+$. Take a point $z' \in J_0$ and consider a branch $g$ of $f_{\lambda}^{-1}$ defined in a neighborhood of $f_{\lambda}(z')$ such that $g(f_\lambda (z'))=z'$ . This $g$ can be analytically continued to the whole of $H^{-}$ by the Monodromy theorem. In particular, $g$ is analytically defined in a simply connected domain in $H^-$ containing $f_{\lambda}(J_0)$. In other words, the function $f_\lambda$ is one-one on $J_0$.
\par Now assuming that $J_0$ is unbounded, consider two connected subsets $J_{z_0}$ and $J_\infty$ of $J_0$ containing $z_0$ and $\infty$ in their closures respectively. Observe that $f_{\lambda} (J_{z_0}) $ and $ f_{\lambda} (J_\infty) $ are both unbounded and connected. Further $f_{\lambda} (J_{z_0})\cap f_{\lambda} (J_\infty) =\emptyset$. Now $f_{\lambda}(J_0)$ is a conected subset of $\mathcal{J}(f_\lambda) \cap \mathbb{C}$ containing two disjoint and connected subsets, each of which is unbounded. Thus $f_{\lambda}(J_0)$ and hence the Julia component containing it, separates the plane. This is a contradiction. This proves that every connected subset of $J \setminus \{z_0\}$ is bounded. Therefore $J$ is bounded and the proof completes.
Here is a remark on $f_\lambda$ for $\lambda$ with real part different from any integral multiple of $\pi$.
\begin{rem}
For $0<\Im(\lambda)<1$, consider the critical point $c_0=\frac{\pi}{2}-i \sinh^{-1}1 \in \overline{C}$ of $f_\lambda$. Now $f_\lambda(c)=\lambda +c+\tan(\frac{\pi}{2}-i \sinh^{-1}1)=\lambda +c+\cot(i \sinh^{-1}1)=\lambda +c-i\coth(\sinh^{-1}1)$. This gives that $\Im(f_{\lambda}(c_0)) =\Im(\lambda)-\Im(c_0)-\coth(\sinh^{-1}1)$. Since $\coth(x)>1$ for all $x>0$, $\Im(\lambda)-\coth(\sinh^{-1}1)<0$ giving that $\Im(f_\lambda(c_0)) < \Im(c_0)$. It now follows from Lemma~\ref{criticalpoint} and Lemma~\ref{symmetry} that $\Im(f_\lambda(c)) < \Im(c)$ for all $c \in \overline{C}$. However, this argument seems to fail to conclude anything about the iterated images of the critical values.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfloat[ $ \lambda=\pi+i(\sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1)$]
{\includegraphics[width=2.85in,height=2.8in]{onefc}}
\vspace{.2cm}
\subfloat[$\lambda =\pi+0.99i$] {\includegraphics[width=2.75in,height=2.8in]{connected}}
\caption{The Julia sets of $f_\lambda$}
\label{Fatouset-4}
\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem \ref{wandeing domain} we need two lemmas.
\begin{lem}
\begin{enumerate}\label{invariantlines}
If $\lambda= k\pi+i\frac{\pi}{2}$ for a non-zero integer $k$ then the following are true.
\item
The vertical line $l_{m\pi}=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi\}$ is contained in $B$ for all integers $m$.
\item
The vertical half line $l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2} ~\mbox{and}~ -\infty < \Im(z)\leq -\sinh^{-1}1\}$ is mapped into the half line $l^{-}_{(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}=\{z:\Re(z)=(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2} ~\mbox{and}~ \Im(z)<0\}$ for all integers $m$.
\item
None of the critical points in the lower half plane is contained in $B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lines}(2) that for all $z \in l_{m \pi}$, $\lim_{n \to \infty} \Im(f_{\lambda}^n (z))=+\infty$. We are done since $l_{m\pi} \cap B \neq \emptyset$ for all integers $m$.
\item
For $z \in l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$, $f_\lambda(z)=k\pi+i\frac{\pi}{2}+m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+i\Im(z)+\tan(m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+i\Im(z))=(k+m)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+i\{\Im(z)+\frac{\pi}{2}+\coth\Im(z)\}$. Note that $-\infty<\coth\Im(z)<-1$ for all $z$ with $\Im(z)<0$.
Therefore, $\Im(f_\lambda (z))<-\sinh^{-1}1 + \frac{\pi}{2}-1 <0$ for all $z \in l_{m \pi + \frac{\pi}{2}}$.
Thus $f_\lambda$ maps $l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$ into $l^{-}_{(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$.
\item
The critical points of $f_\lambda$ in the lower half plane are $m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-i\sinh^{-1}1$ for $m \in \mathbb{Z}$. For each $z \in l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2} ~\mbox{and}~\Im(z)\leq -\sinh^{-1}1\}$, $\Re(f_\lambda(z))=(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}$
and $\Im(f_\lambda(z))=\frac{\pi}{2}+\Im(z)+\coth(\Im(z))$.
\par
Consider the function $g(y)=\frac{\pi}{2}+y+\coth y$, $y<0$ and $h(y)=g(y)-y$. Note that $\lim_{y \to -\infty}h(y)=\frac{\pi}{2}+\lim_{y \to -\infty}\coth y=\frac{\pi}{2}-1>0$ and $\lim_{y \to 0^-}h(y)=-\infty$. By the Intermediate Value Theorem, there is a negative real number $y_0$ such that $h(y_0)=0$. This $y_0$ is a fixed point of $g(y)$. Since $h'(y)=-\text{cosech}^2 y<0$ for all $y<0$, $y_0$ is unique. Note that $y_0=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{\pi-2}{\pi+2}\approx -0.7524$. Note that $g'(y)=2-\coth^2y$. The multiplier of $y_0$, $g'(y_0)= 2-\coth^2 y_0=2-\frac{\pi^2}{4} \in (-1,0)$ which means that $y_0$ is an attracting. Now $g''(y)=2\coth y ~\text{cosech}^2y<0$ for all $y<0$. Then $g'$ has a unique root and,
\begin{gather}{\label{derivative}}
g'(y)
\begin{cases}
>0~~~~~~~~ for~ all ~ y< -\sinh^{-1}1\approx -0.8814,\\
=0~~~~~~~~ for~~ ~y= -\sinh^{-1}1,\\
<0 ~~~~~~~~ for~ all ~ -\sinh^{-1}1< y<0.\\
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
Note that $g([-0.8814,y_0])=[y_0,-0.7248]$ and $g(-0.7248)> -0.8814$. Since $g$ is decreasing in $(-0.8814,0)$, $g([y_0,-0.7248])\subsetneq [-0.8814,y_0]$ and it follows that $g^{n+1}([-0.8814,-0.7248])\subsetneq g^{n}([-0.8814,-0.7248])$ for all $n$. Thus $g^n(y) \rightarrow y_0$ for all $y\in [-0.8814,-0.7248]$.
\par
Since the image of $l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$ is $l^{-}_{(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$ under $f_\lambda$, $\Im(f_\lambda^n(z))=g^n(\Im(z))$ for all $z\in l_{m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}}$ and all $n$. Let $c_0=\frac{\pi}{2}-i\sinh^{-1}1$. Note that $f_\lambda(c_0)=k\pi+i\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{2}-i\sinh^{-1}1+\tan(\frac{\pi}{2}-i\sinh^{-1}1)=k\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+i\{\frac{\pi}{2}-\sinh^{-1}1-\coth(\sinh^{-1}1)\}=k\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-0.7248i$. As $\Im(f_\lambda(c_0))\in [-0.8814,-0.7248]$ then $\Im(f_\lambda^n(c_0))\rightarrow y_0\approx -0.7524$ and henec $c_0$ is not contained in $B$. It follows from Lemma~\ref{symmetry} that none of the critical points in the lower half plane is contained in $B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Here are some estimates of three functions in suitable intervals.
\begin{lem}\label{estimates}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{realhx}
If $x\leq -0.6658$ then $ 0< \frac{\sin\frac{\pi}{8}}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh2x} <\frac{\pi}{8}$.
\item \label{hxmaximum}
For all $x\leq -0.6658$, $ \frac{\pi}{2}+x+\frac{\sinh 2x}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2x} \leq-0.6658$.
\item \label{lastlemma}
If $m$ is an integer and $|x-(m\pi +\frac{\pi}{2})| \leq \frac{\pi}{16}$ then $\frac{\pi}{2}-0.6658-\frac{\sinh1.3316}{\cos2x+\cosh1.3316} <-0.6658$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $h(x)=\frac{\sin\frac{\pi}{8}}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh2x}$, $h'(x)=-2\sin\frac{\pi}{8}\frac{\sinh2x}{(-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh2x)^2} >0$ for all $x<0$. The function $h$ is strictly increasing. Further, $\lim_{x \to -\infty}h(x)=0$ and $h(-0.6658)\approx0.3473$. This gives that $0<h(x)\leq 0.3473<\frac{\pi}{8}$ for $x\leq -0.6658$.
\item
Let $h(x)=\frac{\pi}{2}+x+\frac{\sinh 2x}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2x} $. Then
$h'(x)=1+2\frac{1-\cosh 2x\cos\frac{\pi}{8}}{(-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2x)^2}$ and $h''(x)=4\sinh 2x\frac{\cos^2\frac{\pi}{8}+\cos\frac{\pi}{8}\cosh2x-2}{(-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2x)^3}$. The function $\cos^2\frac{\pi}{8}+\cos\frac{\pi}{8}\cosh2x-2 $ is a strictly decreasing function with its minimum value approximately equal to $0.7249$ achieved at $-0.6658$. Thus $h''(x)<0$ for all $x \leq -0.6658$ giving that $h'$ is a strictly decreasing function. As
$\lim_{x \to -\infty}h'(x)=1$ and $h'(-0.6658)\approx -0.4359$, there exists a unique $x_0 \leq -0.6658$ such that $h'(x_0)=0$. Computationally, it is found that $x_0\approx -0.804$. This proves that $h$ attains maximum at $x_0$ and the maximum value is $\approx -0.6658$. Thus $h(x)\leq -0.6658$ for all $x \leq -0.6658$.
\item
Let $h(x)=\frac{\pi}{2}-0.6658-\frac{\sinh1.3316}{\cos2x+\cosh1.3316}$ for $x \in I_m=\{x:|x-(m\pi +\frac{\pi}{2})| \leq \frac{\pi}{16}\}$. Then $h'(x)=-2\sinh1.3316\frac{\sin2x}{(\cosh1.3316+\cos2x)^2}$ is $0$ only when $x=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}$.
Further, $h'(x)<0$ for $x< m\pi +\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $h'(x)>0$ for $x> m\pi +\frac{\pi}{2}$ giving that $h$ attains its minimum at $m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}$. As $h(m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{16}) =h(m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{16})\approx-0.6939$, we have $h(x)<0.6939 < -0.6658$ for all $x\in I_m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{wandeing domain}]
Let $\lambda=\pi k+ i \frac{\pi}{2}$ for a natural number $k$.
Firstly, we show that certain regions outside the primary Fatou component are in the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$. Consider the region $R_m=\{z: |\Re(z)-(m\pi +\frac{\pi}{2})|<\frac{\pi}{16} ~~\text{and}~\Im(z)\leq -0.6658\}$. Note that $R_m$ does not contain any pole of $f_\lambda$. Our intention is to show that $f_\lambda(R_m)\subset R_{m+k}$. Let $$l_1=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{16}~\text{and}~\Im(z)\leq -0.6658\},$$ $$l_2=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{16}~\text{and}~\Im(z)\leq -0.6658\}$$ and $$l_3=\{z:| \Re(z)-(m \pi+\frac{\pi}{2})| \leq \frac{\pi}{16}~\text{and}~\Im(z)=-0.6658\}.$$
The boundary of $R_m$ is $l_1 \cup l_2 \cup l_3 \cup \{\infty\}$.
For $z \in l_1$, $\Re (f_\lambda(z))=(k+m)\pi +\frac{\pi}{2} -\frac{\pi}{16} +\Re(\tan z)=(k+m)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{16}+\frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{8}}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2\Im(z)}$ and $\Im (f_\lambda(z))=\frac{\pi}{2}+\Im(z)+\frac{\sinh 2\Im(z)}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2\Im(z)}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{estimates}(\ref{realhx}) that $(m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{16}\leq \Re(f_\lambda(z))\leq (k+m)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{16}$. Similarly, Lemma \ref{estimates}(\ref{hxmaximum}) gives that $\Im(f_\lambda(z))\leq-0.6658$ for all $z \in l_1$.
Now, for $z \in l_2$, $\Re (f_\lambda(z))=(k+m)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{16}-\frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{8}}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2\Im(z)}$ and $\Im (f_\lambda(z))=\frac{\pi}{2}+\Im(z)+\frac{\sinh 2\Im(z)}{-\cos\frac{\pi}{8}+\cosh 2\Im(z)}$.
By Lemma \ref{estimates}( \ref{realhx}), $(k+m)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{\pi}{16}\leq \Re(f_\lambda(z))\leq (m+k)\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\pi}{16}$. Similarly, Lemma \ref{estimates}(\ref{hxmaximum}) gives that $\Im(f_\lambda(z))\leq-0.6658$ for all $z \in l_2$ .
If $z \in l_3$ then $\Im(f_\lambda(z))=\frac{\pi}{2}+\Im(z)+\Im(\tan z)=\frac{\pi}{2}-0.6658-\frac{\sinh1.3316}{\cos2x+\cosh1.3316}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{estimates}(\ref{lastlemma}) that $\Im(f_\lambda(z))<-0.6658$ for all $z \in l_3$.
Thus $f_\lambda(R_m)\subset R_{m+k}$ and $\cup_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} R_{m+nk} $ is invariant under $f_\lambda$ giving that $R_m$ is in the Fatou set of $f_\lambda$ for every integer $m$ by the Fundamental Normality Test.
For each integer $m$, the line $L_{m}=\{z:\Re(z)=m\pi+\frac{\pi}{2} ~\mbox{and}~ \Im(z)\leq -0.6658\}$ is contained in $R_m$. Between any two such consecutive lines $L_m$ and $L_{m+1}$, there is a vertical line $l_{(m+1) \pi}$ which is in the primary Fatou component (by Lemma~\ref{invariantlines}(1)). In other words, for $m \neq m'$, the Fatou components containing $R_m$ is different from that containing $R_{m'}$.
Let $W$ be the Fatou component containing $R_0$. Then all the $W_n$s are distinct giving that $W$ is a wandering domain.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Note that $R_{nk}$ is in the Fatou set and is contained in $W_n$ for each $n$. Further, $f_{\lambda}^n \to \infty$ on $W$. Thus, $W$ is escaping.
\item Since each $R_{nk}$ contains a critical point of $f_\lambda$, each $W_n$ contains a critical point. It cannot contain more than one critical point as each two critical point are separated by a vertical line contained in $B$. For the same reason, no $W_n$ is horizontally spread. By Lemma~\ref{proper}(2), $f_\lambda: W_n \to W_{n+1}$ is proper. Its degree is $2$ by the Riemann Hurwitz formula. Let, for a natural number $n$, $W_{-n}$ be the wandering domain containing $R_{-kn}$ such that $f^{n}_\lambda (W_{-n})=W$. The above argument gives that $f_\lambda: W_m \to W_{m+1}$ is proper map with degree $2$ for all negative integer $m$.
\item If $W'$ is a wandering domain in the grand orbit and is different from all $W_n$ then there is no critical point in $W'$ and the map $f_\lambda$ is one-one on $W'$ by the Riemann Hurwitz formula.
\end{enumerate}
It can be seen that, for $i\in \{1,2,\cdots k-1\}$, the Fatou component containing $R_i$ is also a wandering domain $\mathcal{W}^i$ and their forward orbits are disjoint from each other and also from $W$. Thus, there are $k$ wandering domains with distinct forward orbits. Clearly, their grand orbits are also different.
\par
Note that $f_\lambda$ is topologically hyperbolic. Using similar argument as described in Theorem \ref{attractingdomaincomplete}(2), it can be shown that $f_\lambda$ does not have any periodic Fatou component except $B$ or any other wandering domain.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm,height=6cm,angle=0]{wan1}
\caption{Wandering domains of $f_\lambda$ for $\lambda=\pi+i\frac{\pi}{2}$ in green.}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
For $k<0$, there are wandering domains $W$ with the same properties except that $\Re(f_{\lambda}^n) \to -\infty$ on $W$ as mentioned in Theorem~\ref{wandeing domain}.
\end{rem}
\section{Concluding remarks}
We first summarize the dynamics of $f_\lambda$ in terms of the parameter $\lambda$ for $\Im(\lambda)>0$ (Figure~\ref{parameterplane}). Since $f_\lambda$ has a completely invariant Baker domain, the primary Fatou component for every $\lambda$, we describe the other Fatou components only. An archetype of the parameter plane is described below. The parameters in the strip $\{\lambda: 0<\Im(\lambda)<1\}$ (seen in yellow) correspond to $f_\lambda$ with an invariant Baker domain as mentioned in Theorem~\ref{repelling-one}. This is the only non-primary Fatou component if $\Re(\lambda)=k \pi$ whenever $k \in \mathbb{Z}$.
The parameters in the yellow region $\{\lambda: |2+\lambda^2|<1\}$, we call this the attracting lobe, correspond to the existence of infinitely many invariant attracting domains as described in Theorem~\ref{attractingdomaincomplete}.
For a fixed integer $k$, $f_{\lambda+k \pi}^n(z)=n k \pi+f_{\lambda}^n (z)$ for every natural number $n$ and $z \in \mathbb{C} $. If $|2+\lambda^2|<1 $ and $A_\lambda$ is an attracting domain of $f_\lambda$ then $f^n_{k \pi+\lambda} \to \infty$ uniformly on $A_\lambda$. In other words, all the attracting domains of $f_\lambda$ are contained in the Fatou set of $f_{\lambda +k \pi}$. For $k \neq 0$, with some extra effort these attracting domains of $f_\lambda$ have been shown to be wandering domains for $f_{i \frac{\pi}{2}+k \pi}$ in Therem~\ref{wandeing domain}. Further, since all the critical points in $H^-$ of $f_\lambda$ are in the invariant attracting domains, the function $f_{\lambda+k \pi}$ is topologically hyperbolic. Other details of its dynamics is to be taken up later.
The primary Fatou component is the only Fatou component of $f_\lambda$ and the Julia set is disconnected whenever $\lambda$ is in the yellow strip $\{\lambda: \Im(\lambda)> \sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1\}$ above the attracting lobe. This is given in Theorem~\ref{repelling-one}. It is important to note that the attracting lobe does not touch this strip. The situation for $f_\lambda$ is the same when $\Im(\lambda)= \sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1$ but $\Re(\lambda) \neq k \pi+\frac{\pi}{2}, k \in \mathbb{Z}$. For $\lambda=k \pi+\frac{\pi}{2}+i(\sqrt{2}+\sinh^{-1}1 )$, the poles become the critical values and the function is no longer topologically hyperbolic. But the dynamics seems to be tractable!
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=4.0in,height=2.5in]{parameter}}
\caption{The parameter plane}
\label{parameterplane}
\end{figure}
Some of the dynamically crucial properties of $f_\lambda$ are due to $\tan z$. In place of $\tan z$, one may consider a periodic meromorphic function $h$ such that $1+h'(z)=g(h)$ for an entire function $g$. If $F_\lambda (z)=\lambda+z+h(z)$ is such a function then the following are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The function $F_\lambda$ has infinitely many fixed points for all except possibly two values of $\lambda$ and the multiplier of every fixed point is $g(-\lambda)$. To see it, note that every fixed point $z_0$ of $F_\lambda$ satisfies $h(z_0)=-\lambda$ and since $h$ is meromorphic, for all but atmost two values of $\lambda$, $h(z_0)=-\lambda$ has infinitely many solutions.
The multiplier of $z_0$ is $F_\lambda'(z_0)=1+h'(z_0)=g (h(z_0))=g (-\lambda)$.
\item The Fatou set (and therefore the Julia set) of $F_\lambda$ is $w$-invariant where $w$ is the period of $h$. This follows from the fact that $F^n_{\lambda}(z+w )=w+F^n_{\lambda}(z)$ for all $n$ and $z \in \mathbb{C}$.
\item The set of all the singular values of $F_\lambda$ is unbounded whenever $g$ has at least three distinct roots. To see it, first note that the critical points of $F_\lambda$ are the solutions of $g(h(z))=0$. Since $g$ has at least three distinct roots, there is a solution of $g(h(z))=0$. If $g(h(c))=0$ for some $c$ then
for each $n \geq 0$, $g(h(c+nw))=g(h(c))=0$ and $c+nw$ is a critical point of $F_\lambda$. The critical values are $F_\lambda (c+n w)=\lambda+c+nw+h(c)$. We are done as the set $\{\lambda+c+nw+h(c): n \geq 0\}$ of critical values of $F_\lambda$ is unbounded.
\end{enumerate}
The dynamics of $F_{\lambda}$ can be studied possibly under some additional conditions on $h$.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{}References}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{U}{ltrasound} Computed Tomography (USCT) is an imaging technique that utilizes tomographic principles to obtain quantitative estimates of acoustic properties such as speed-of-sound (SOS), density, and acoustic attenuation (AA) \cite{pratt2007sound,wang2015waveform,schreiman1984ultrasound,li2009vivo,duric2007detection}.
Because it can produce high resolution and high contrast images of tissue properties, the development of USCT as a breast imaging modality has recieved significant attention \cite{duric2018breast,nam2013quantitative,greenleaf1977quantitative,duric2007detection,sandhu2015frequency,malik2016objective}.
It has several advantages over other breast imaging modalities, such as mammography, including low cost and being radiation- and breast-compression-free\cite{ruiter20123d,duric2013breast}.
While commercial systems for breast USCT are being actively developed, USCT remains an emerging technology and a
topic of active research \cite{taskin20203d,duric2020using,wiskin2020full,javaherian2020refraction}.
When developing new breast USCT technologies, it is important to assess their clinical utility by use of objective measures of image quality (IQ).
Given the large number of system parameters that can impact image quality and variability in the cohort of subjects to-be-imaged, a comprehensive assessment and refinement of modern imaging technologies such as breast USCT via clinical trials often is impossible. Furthermore, obvious ethical concerns preclude certain experimental designs that otherwise would be of great benefit toward optimizing imaging systems for diagnostic tasks, such as tumor detection and characterization. As a surrogate for clinical trials, computer-simulation studies of medical imaging technologies, also known as \emph{virtual imaging trials} (VITs), have been advocated for assessing and optimizing system and algorithm designs\cite{badano2018evaluation,badano2021silico,abadi2020virtual,park2020realistic}. VITs provide a convenient, safe and cost-effective way to explore system and algorithm designs in the early stages of technology development \cite{samei2020virtual,maidment2014virtual}.
For use in computing objective, or task-based, measures of IQ that serve as figures-of-merit (FOM) for breast USCT designs, it is critical that VITs employ numerical breast phantoms (NBPs) that accurately convey the anatomical and acoustic properties of the female breast.
Moreover, it is known that object variability (i.e., patient-to-patient differences in the breast anatomy and properties) can be viewed as a source of randomness present in image data that limits the performance of human or numerical observers on detection or estimation tasks \cite{park2005efficiency,rolland1992effect,barrett2013foundations}.
It is therefore important to have the capability of producing ensembles of NBPs that possess prescribed statistical properties associated with a specified to-be-imaged subject cohort; these NBPs can each be virtually imaged and, subsequently, ensemble-averaged objective IQ measures can be computed for use in assessing and refining USCT imaging technologies.
However, existing NBPs do not satisfy these requirements and are limited
by factors that include oversimplified anatomical structures\cite{wang2015waveform,huthwaite2011high,matthews2017regularized,li2009methodology,bakic2011development} or are representative of healthy subjects only \cite{lou2017generation, ali2019open}. NBPs derived from clinical magnetic resonance images are available \cite{lou2017generation} but are severely limited in number; as such, they do not accurately depict variability in breast anatomy or acoustic properties that will be present in a prescribed patient cohort.
Other tools for generating NBPs\cite{li2009methodology,bakic2011development} rely on digital templates or segmented clinical images with simplified anatomical structures and consider only a limited number of tissue types. In summary, there remains an important need for developing NBPs for use in VITs of breast USCT that 1) comprise realistic structures and acoustic properties; 2) include lesions and/or other pathologies; and 3) are representative of the stochastic variability in breast size, shape, composition, anatomy, and tissue properties observed in a specified cohort of to-be-imaged subjects.
\if 0
In addition, deep learning approaches for solving inverse problems have recently become popular in medical imaging and have demonstrated competitive image quality\cite{wang2020deep,kelkar2020compressible,kelly2017deep} for several imaging modalities, including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.
However, few deep learning approaches have been applied to USCT due to the lack of large-scale high-quality datasets. Thus, the ability to generate large ensembles of realistic numerical phantoms is critically needed to develop learning-based reconstruction methods in USCT.
\fi
Recently, the Virtual Imaging Clinical Trials for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) project~\cite{badano2018evaluation,badano2021silico} of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has validated and released software tools to generate realistic NBPs, as part of an end-to-end simulation framework for virtual mammography imaging studies. The breast size, shape, location, density, and extent of different tissues are tunable parameters, based on which stochastic and physically realistic three-dimensional (3D) numerical phantoms of tissue structures can be generated. The tool also allows to embed a variety of lesions (e.g., circumscribed or spiculated) at physiologically plausible locations.
In this work, a methodology for producing realistic 3D numerical acoustic breast phantoms for enabling clinically-relevant VITs of USCT breast imaging is presented.
This will be accomplished by extending the VICTRE NBPs for use in USCT, which will permit virtually imaging of ensembles of NBPs whose physical and statistical properties are representative of clinical cohorts.
Modifications to the VICTRE NBPs include: the determination of breast shape parameters consistent with a prone imaging position \cite{ruiter2016analysis, duric2014clinical},
the stochastic assignment of tissue specific acoustic properties (density, SOS, and AA), as well as the modeling of acoustic heterogeneity within fatty and glandular tissues.
To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed computational framework, two case studies are presented. Case study 1 assesses the reconstructed SOS image quality using different compensation techniques to account for unknown AA. Case study 2 demonstrates the utility of the proposed framework for generating large-scale ensembles of NBPs for the training of deep learning-based USCT reconstruction methods.
To accompany this work, two datasets have been publicly released under CC-0: The first consists of 52 2D breast phantom slices and corresponding USCT measurement data\cite{li2021NBPs2D}; The second contains 4 3D realizations of numerical breast phantoms\cite{li2021NBPs3D}.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:background}, background on USCT breast imaging and the FDA VICTRE project are provided. The stochastic generation of 3D anatomically and physiologically realistic numerical breast phantoms for USCT virtual imaging trials is introduced in Section \ref{sec:methods}. Several examples of NBPs generated with the proposed tool is presented in Section \ref{sec:examples}. Section \ref{sec:case_studies} contains the case studies that illustrate possible applications of the proposed phantoms to inform image reconstruction development. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}, a discussion of the wide range of applications enabled by the proposed framework is provided.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\subsection{USCT breast imaging}
In recent decades, a number of research groups have been developing USCT imaging technologies for breast imaging applications \cite{schreiman1984ultrasound,carson1981breast,andre1997high,duric2007detection}. In a typical breast USCT system, the patient lies prone on the imaging table and the breast to be imaged is submerged in water. An array of ultrasound transducers surrounds the breast. Each transducer emits an acoustic pulse one by one until the breast is insonified from all directions. During each shot, all other transducers act as receivers, recording the transmitted, scattered, and reflected wavefield data.
Three types of USCT images are conventionally produced: reflectivity, SOS, and acoustic attenuation (AA) \cite{duric2018breast}.
Reflectivity images can be reconstructed by use of integral geometry-based approaches that are similar to the delay-and-sum methods widely employed in conventional B-mode imaging.
The majority of the SOS and AA reconstruction methods investigated to date are generally based on two categories: approximated wave equation methods \cite{simonetti2009diffraction,javaherian2020refraction,huthwaite2011high}, and full-waveform inversion (FWI) methods \cite{pratt2007sound,wiskin2020full,matthews2017regularized,wang2015waveform}.
\if 0
AA images are tomographic reconstructions based on acoustic wave amplitude changes.
These methods are computationally effective but ignore the high-order acoustic diffraction. As a result, they can only provide images with a limited resolution that are undesirable for fine breast structures imaging. Another class of approximated methods is based on Born approximations\cite{huthwaite2011high}, such as diffraction tomography. It can reveal complex boundaries\cite{simonetti2009diffraction} but only suitable for low contrast medium\cite{oristaglio1985accuracy}.
FWI takes high-order refraction and diffraction into account and therefore higher spatial resolution images can be produced\cite{wiskin2012non,wang2015waveform,pratt2007sound}.
However, FWI is computationally expensive and memory burdensome, especially for 3D reconstruction, which can be undesirable for certain clinical applications. Moreover, FWI suffers of the so-called \emph{cycle skipping phenomenon}\cite{witte2018full}, thus requiring an accurate initial estimate of the SOS map to ensure convergence to the correct solution.
\fi
Because FWI methods take high-order refraction and diffraction effects into account, they can produce images that possess higher spatial resolution images than those produced by use of linearized or approximate methods\cite{wiskin2012non,wang2015waveform,pratt2007sound}.
However, FWI is computationally expensive and memory burdensome, especially for 3D problems, thus hampering the widespread application of FWI to USCT breast imaging. Moreover, FWI suffers of the so-called \emph{cycle skipping phenomenon}\cite{witte2018full}, thus requiring an accurate initial estimate of the SOS map to ensure convergence to a useful solution.
As a result, there is still an imperative need to systematically investigate and optimize USCT reconstruction methods by means of computer-simulation studies.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/victre_ill.png}
\caption{ (a) Volume rendering of fatty breast phantom: partial transparencies are used to highlight anatomical structures, and cross-section view of this 3D breast phantom. (b) Volume rendering of spiculated lesion phantom. and cross-section view of this 3D lesion phantom.}\label{victre_ex}
\end{figure}%
\subsection{Description of VICTRE}
The Virtual Imaging Clinical Trials for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) project of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently released a series of software tools to provide a complete simulated imaging chain for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis \cite{badano2018evaluation}.
The VICTRE software includes open source tools to generate three-dimensional (3D) random anthropomorphic voxelized phantoms of the human female breast \cite{graff2016new}. Using this tool, large ensembles of anthropomorphic numerical breast phantoms (NBPs) with realistic anatomical structures can be generated by specifying different virtual-patient characteristics that include breast type, shape, granularity, density, and size. By appropriate selection of physical attributes and material coefficients, the VICTRE NBPs can be customized for particular imaging tasks.
The VICTRE software generates NBPs corresponding to the four different levels of breast density defined according to the American College of Radiology's (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) \cite{american2013acr}: A) Breast is almost entirely fat, B) Breast has scattered areas of fibroglandular density, C) Breast is heterogeneously dense, and D) Breast is extremely dense. Each NBP is a 3D voxelized map consisting of ten tissue types: fat, skin, glandular, nipple, ligament, muscle, terminal duct lobular unit, duct, artery, and vein. Large ensembles of stochastic NBPs with realistic variability in breast volume, shape, fraction of glandular tissue, ligament orientation, tissue anatomy, can be generated by controlling input parameters and selecting the random seed number.
In addition, the VICTRE projects include tools to generate 3D numerical lesions phantoms (NLPs), which can be inserted into the NBPs at clinically plausible locations \cite{de2015computational}. Two types of lesions, microcalcification clusters and spiculated masses, can be generated. The size and shape of the lesions can be customized. An example of anatomically realistic NBP and NLP generated using the VICTRE tools is shown in Fig. \ref{victre_ex}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{figures/size_a1t.png}
\caption{Overview of size parameters: a1t, a1b, a2l, a2r, a3.}
\label{sizep}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/layer3.png}
\caption{Overview of deformation parameters. Red breast: hemispherical breast phantoms without deformation, yellow breast: deformed breast phantoms. \textbf{Left}: the effect of superquadric exponent deformation ($\epsilon_1$) in sagittal plane. \textbf{Center}: the effect of ptosis deformation ($B_0$, $B_1$) in sagittal plane. \textbf{Right}: the effect of turn top deformation ($H_0$, $H_1$) in coronal plane.}
\label{deformation}
\end{figure}
There exist several challenges that must be addressed
in order to extend the VICTRE project to produce NBPs for use in VITs of USCT technologies. These include determination of breast shape parameters consistent with a prone imaging position, the stochastic assignment of tissue specific acoustic properties (density, SOS, and acoustic attenuation), and the modeling of acoustic heterogeneity within fatty and glandular tissues.
\if 0
Methods that address these issues will be developed. When coupled with the open source VICTRE software, these methods will permit the generation of large
ensembles of realistic 3D NBPs for use in developing and evaluating USCT imaging technologies via VITs.
\fi
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
Several adaptations and customizations of the VICTRE tools were developed that
will enable the generation of large ensembles of acoustic NBPs that display clinically relevant variability in both anatomical structures and acoustic properties.
The specific procedures for accomplishing this are described below.
\begin{table}[bth]
\centering
\caption{Shape and size parameters.}
\tabcolsep=0.12cm
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| }
\hline
Parameters& Types A-C &Type D \\
\hline
$a_{1t}$ (cm)& $\mathcal{TN}$(5.85, 2.3275, 3.85, 7.70) & $\mathcal{TN}$(4.20,1.225,2.80,5.25)\\
\hline
$a_{1b}/a_{1t}$ & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.02) & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.02) \\
\hline
$a_{2r}/a_{1t}$ & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.05) & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.05) \\
\hline
$a_{2l}/a_{2r}$ & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.05) & $\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.05) \\
\hline
$a_{3}/a_{1t}$ & $\mathcal{N}$(1.48, 0.18, 1, 1.6) & $\mathcal{N}$(1.22,0.1,0.75.1.5)\\
\hline
$\epsilon_1$ & \multicolumn{2}{ c |}{$\mathcal{N}$(1, 0.1)}\\
\hline
$B_0$ & \multicolumn{2}{ c |}{$\mathcal{TN}$(1, 0.1, -0.18, 0.18)}\\
\hline
$B_1$ & \multicolumn{2}{ c |}{$\mathcal{TN}$(1, 0.1, -0.18, 0.18)}\\
\hline
$H_0$ & \multicolumn{2}{ c |}{$\mathcal{TN}$(1, 0.15, -0.11, 0.11)}\\
\hline
$H_1$ & \multicolumn{2}{ c |}{$\mathcal{TN}$(1, 0.25, -0.3, 0.3)}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{shape_dist}
\begin{flushleft}
$\mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$: Gaussian distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$.\\
$\mathcal{TN}(\mu, \sigma^2, a, b)$: Truncated Gaussian distribution in interval $(a,b)$.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\subsection{Generation of anatomically realistic realizations of NBPs and lesion(s) insertion}
\label{sec:GenerationAnatomy}
The goal of this step is to generate large ensembles of anatomically realistic NBPs representing four different types of breast (extremely dense, heterogeneously dense, scattered fibroglandular and fatty). Section \ref{sec:breast_shape_def} describes how shape and deformation parameters in the VICTRE NBPs can be set to generate virtual patients with variable breast sizes that are representative of a clinical population and shapes that are consistent with USCT imaging protocols. Section \ref{sec:relabeling} describes adaptations to the internal anatomical structures of the NBP to exclude tissues that are not relevant for USCT applications. Finally, Section \ref{sec:lesion_insertion} describes how one or more lesions are optionally inserted into the NBPs.
\subsubsection{Breast shape and deformation parameters}
\label{sec:breast_shape_def}
Appropriate distributions of breast size parameters were determined for each breast type based on clinical data \cite{huang2011characterization}.
In the VICTRE software, the shape of the breast is created by applying a series of transformations to a base superquadratic surface. A detailed description of the breast shape model was presented in \cite{chen2000modeling}. Here, the main parameters affecting size and shape of the breast are discussed. As shown in Fig. \ref{sizep}, the parameters $a_{1b}$, $a_{1t}$, $a_{2r}$, $a_{2l}$ adjust the breast volume in the top, bottom, left, right hemispheres, respectively. The parameter $a_3$ adjusts the length of the breast. Figure \ref{deformation} illustrates how other parameters affect the final shape of the breast. The parameter $\epsilon_1$ is the quadric shape exponent along the polar angle. The ptosis deformation parameters $B_0$, $B_1$ model the sagging that affects a breast as a subject ages. Finally, the turn-pop deformation parameters $H_0$, $H_1$ change the shape of the top half of the breast laterally. This deformation allows the top part of the virtual breast to point towards the shoulder.
The probability distributions assigned to these parameters are summarized in Table \ref{shape_dist} and were set to be consistent with the patient lying prone on the examination table.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/tissue_rm.png}
\caption{Illustration of relabeling of tissues type invisible to USCT. (a): An anatomical phantom (tissue labels) generated by VICTRE. (b): A phantom after tissue relabeling. The different colors represent distinct tissue types.} \label{label_rm}
\end{figure}%
\begin{table*}[bp]
\centering
\caption{Acoustic property values of different tissue types.}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | }
\hline
Medium & SOS $[m/s]$ & AA $[Np/m/MHz^y]$ & Density $[kg/m^3]$ \\
\hline
Water & 1500 @ $26^\circ$C \cite{greenspan1959tables} &0.025328436023 \cite{hasgall2018it} & 994 ~\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Skin & $\mathcal{TN}$(1555.0, 10.0, 1530, 1580) \cite{malik2016objective} & $\mathcal{N}$(21.158, 2.16)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1109, 14, 1100, 1125) \cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Fat & $\mathcal{TN}$(1440.2, 20.9, 1412, 1485)~\cite{malik2016objective,klock2016anatomy} & $\mathcal{N}$(4.3578, 0.436)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(911, 53, 812, 961) \cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Glandular & $\mathcal{TN}$(1520.0, 10.0, 1505, 1540 )~\cite{malik2016objective, klock2016anatomy}& $\mathcal{N}$(8.635, 0.86)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1041, 45.3, 812, 961)\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Ligament & $\mathcal{TN}$(1457, 18.5, 1422, 1496)\cite{malik2016objective, klock2016anatomy} & $\mathcal{N}$(14.506, 1.45)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1142, 45, 1110, 1174)\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Tumor & $\mathcal{TN}$(1548, 10.3, 1531, 1565) \cite{li2009vivo}& $\mathcal{N}$(31, 2.3)\cite{andre2013clinical} & $\mathcal{TN}$(945, 20, 911, 999)\cite{sanchez2017estimating}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Relabeling of tissue types invisible to USCT}
\label{sec:relabeling}
The generated NBPs are high-resolution volumes with a voxel size as small as $50\mu{\rm m}$. Each voxel is assigned a label corresponding to one of the ten tissue types (fat, skin, glandular, nipple, ligament, muscle, terminal duct lobular unit, duct, artery, and vein). Of these tissues, only four are typically visible in USCT imaging: fatty, glandular, skin, and ligament. Voxels corresponding to tissue types that are not resolved in USCT are relabeled as fatty or glandular based on the type of the neighboring voxels. An ad-hoc inpainting algorithm was designed to ensure consistent anatomical structures when relabeling voxels. The first step in the algorithm marks all voxels to be relabeled. Marked voxels are assigned to regions based on connectivity (two voxels are connected if they share a face) and process each connected region independently. For each region, the algorithm selects voxels near the boundary of the region (i.e. all voxels that share at least one face with unmarked voxels), reassigns their labels to the most occurring label among those of neighboring (unmarked) voxels, and unmarks them. This step is repeated until all voxels in all regions have been relabeled.
An example of the result of replacement of USCT-invisible tissues is shown in Fig. \ref{label_rm}.
\subsubsection{Lesion insertion}
\label{sec:lesion_insertion}
To generate NBPs that contain tumors, synthetic lesions can be inserted in the healthy NBPs as follows. First, an ensemble of numerical tumor phantoms (NTPs) with various sizes and irregular (spiculated) shapes can be generated by the use of the VICTRE tool. One or more NTPs can then be inserted in each NBP at locations among those suggested by the VICTRE phantom tools as candidate tumor locations. Additional location constraints are included to ensure tumors do not overlap each other or skin layer and are not inserted too close to the chest or nipple.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/addtexture.png}
\caption{ Illustration of texture generation on SOS phantoms. (a): A piecewise constant SOS phantom. (b): SOS phantom after texture generation.}\label{textuew}
\end{figure}%
\subsection{Assignment of acoustic properties}
\label{sec:acoustic_prop_maps}
By use of the anatomical breast maps generated in Section \ref{sec:GenerationAnatomy}, 3D acoustic NBPs can be established via stochastic assignment of acoustic properties. The acoustic properties considered are the SOS $c$ ($m/s$), density $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ ($kg/m^3$), and AA coefficient $\alpha_0$ ($Np/m/MHz^y$) with power law exponent $y$. The 3D acoustic property maps are constructed as follows.
First, acoustic properties values are stochastically assigned to each phantom voxel based on the tissue type label as described in Section \ref{sec:assigment_by_tissue_type}. Next, to model variations in the acoustic properties across voxels of the same tissue type, SOS and density maps are perturbed by additive coloured noise with a prescribed correlation structure as described in Section \ref{sec:sos_density_texture}. Finally, the choice of the power law exponent $y$ is presented in Section \ref{sec:att_exp}.
\subsubsection{Stochastic assignment of acoustic properties to each tissue type}
\label{sec:assigment_by_tissue_type}
Acoustic properties (SOS, AA, and density) are assigned to each voxel of the anatomical NBPs generated in Section \ref{sec:GenerationAnatomy} as follows. For each tissue type, values of SOS, AA, and density are sampled from a predefined probability distribution and assigned to all voxels of that tissue type.
Table \ref{tab1} shows the probability distributions of the acoustic parameters assigned to each tissue type. These were chosen based on an comprehensive literature survey
to represent anatomically realistic values. The
SOS values of healthy breast tissues were based on the clinical studies reported in references \cite{klock2016anatomy,malik2016objective}. The distributions of density and AA in healthy breast tissues were set according to reference \cite{hasgall2018it}, a database providing comprehensive estimates of material properties of several human tissues, as well as statistical information about the spread of those properties. This information was based on a meta-analysis of over 150 references. The variance of AA values for each tissue type was set to 10\% of the respective mean values. Finally, tumor acoustic properties were also chosen from clinical literature of breast pathology \cite{andre2013clinical,sanchez2017estimating,li2009vivo}.
Upon completion of this step, piecewise constant acoustic maps are constructed that present variability both in their values, which are randomly sampled, and spatial distribution, which is dictated by the NBP stochastic anatomical structure.
Figure \ref{textuew}(a) shows an example of a slice through a piecewise constant 3D SOS phantom generated by the described procedure.
\if 0
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Acoustic property values of different tissue types.}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | }
\hline
Medium & SOS $[m/s]$ & AA $[Np/m/MHz^y]$ & Density $[kg/m^3]$ \\
\hline
Water & 1500 @ $26^\circ$C \cite{greenspan1959tables} \cite{} &0.025328436023 \cite{hasgall2018it} & 994 ~\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Skin & $\mathcal{TN}$(1555.0, 10.0, 1530, 1580) \cite{malik2016objective} & $\mathcal{N}$(21.158, 2.16)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1109, 14, 1100, 1125) \cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Fat & $\mathcal{TN}$(1440.2, 20.9, 1412, 1485)~\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{N}$(4.3578, 0.436)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(911, 53, 812, 961) \cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Glandular & $\mathcal{TN}$(1540.0, 15.0, 1517, 1567 )~\cite{klock2016anatomy}& $\mathcal{N}$(8.635, 0.86)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1041, 45.3, 812, 961)\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Ligament & $\mathcal{TN}$(1457, 18.5, 1422, 1496)\cite{klock2016anatomy} & $\mathcal{N}$(14.506, 1.45)\cite{hasgall2018it} & $\mathcal{TN}$(1142, 45, 1110, 1174)\cite{hasgall2018it}\\
\hline
Tumor & $\mathcal{TN}$(1548, 10.3, 1531, 1565) \cite{li2009vivo} & $\mathcal{N}$(31, 2.3)\cite{andre2013clinical} & $\mathcal{TN}$(945, 20, 911, 999)\cite{sanchez2017estimating}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table*}
\fi
\begin{figure*}[hb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/3drender.jpg}
\caption{3D rendering of acoustic phantoms from four breast types: From up to bottom: (A) almost entirely fatty, (B) scattered areas of fibroglandular density, (C) heterogeneously dense, and (D) extremely dense. From left to right: the SOS $(m/s)$, AA $(Np/m/Mhz^y)$, and density $(kg/m^3)$ volumes.}\label{3dp}
\end{figure*}%
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.92\linewidth]{figures/2dslice.png}
\caption{A realization of a cross-sectional slice from four types breast. From left to right: the SOS $(mm/\mu s)$ image, AA $(Np/m/Mhz^y)$ image and density $(kg/m^3)$ image. Tumor region is zoomed in. From up to bottom: (A) almost entirely fatty, (B) scattered areas of fibroglandular density, (C) heterogeneously dense, and (D) extremely dense. }\label{dataset1}
\end{figure}%
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Pointwise standard deviations and correlation lengths uses to model texture in fatty and glandular tissues.}
\label{tab:texture_properties}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Property} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SOS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Density} \\ \cline{2-5}
& $\sigma (m/s)$& $\ell (mm)$ & $\sigma (kg/m^3)$ & $\ell (mm)$ \\ \hline
Fatty tissue & 28.8 & 0.21 & 18.22 & 0.21 \\
Glandular tissue & 30.4 & 0.21 & 20.82 & 0.21 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Modeling spatial heterogeneity within fatty and glandular tissues}
\label{sec:sos_density_texture}
Acoustic scattering in breast tissues arises not only from jumps in acoustic impedance across tissue types, but also from spatial heterogeneity within each tissue \cite{insana1990describing}. The latter is a predominant effect in fatty and glandular tissues. To account for the spatial heterogeneity within these tissues, random textures are introduced into the SOS and density maps. SOS and density textures in glandular tissue are modeled as a spatially correlated Gaussian random field with zero mean and Gaussian covariance function. SOS and density textures in fatty tissue are modeled as truncated (plus or minus 0.9 standard deviations) spatially correlated Gaussian random field with zero mean and Gaussian covariance function account for the lower acoustic scattering observed in fatty tissues\cite{franceschini20062}. The pointwise standard deviations $\sigma$ and correlation lengths $\ell$ are shown in Table \ref{tab:texture_properties} and are based on reflectivity tomography studies~\cite{franceschini20062}. SOS and density textures are sampled independently one from the other. Each voxel in the generated textures maps is added to the corresponding voxel in the piecewise constant property maps described in the preceding paragraph; this results in NBPs that display random heterogeneity with the glandular and fatty tissues.
Figure \ref{textuew}(b) shows an example of a slice through a 3D SOS phantom that contains tissue texture generated by the described procedure.
Note how acoustic heterogeneity is stronger in glandular tissue (gray regions) than in fatty tissue (black regions).
\subsubsection{Power law attenuation model}\label{sec:att_exp}
To model frequency dependence in AA, a fractional power law model \cite{szabo1995causal} is assumed. Specifically, frequency dependent AA $\alpha$ ($Np/m$) is defined as
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \alpha_0 f^y,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_0$ ($Np/m/MHz^{-1}$) is the AA coefficient, $y$ is the fractional power law exponent, and $f$ ($MHz$) is the acoustic wave frequency. In general, the exponent $y$ varies for different tissue types and estimates for several breast tissues can be found in the IT’IS database~\cite{hasgall2018it}. However, several widely employed time-domain wave propagation solvers\cite{treeby2012modeling,komatitsch2018specfem} assume a spatially homogeneous exponent $y$.
To address this, a homogenization technique based on the solution of a nonlinear least squares problem is proposed. The proposed technique considers wave propagation in one spatial dimension for which an analytical model of AA can be constructed. Specifically, for a monochromatic wave with frequency $f$ propagating through a heterogeneous medium with thickness $L$, the log amplitude ratio $\ell(f)$ between the transmitted $A_t$ and incident $A_i$ wave is
$$\frac{A_t}{A_i} = e^{ -\ell(f) }\quad {\rm with} \quad \mu(f)=\int_L \alpha_0(x) f^{\tilde{y}(x)}dx, $$
where $\tilde{y}(x)$ is the tissue-dependent fractional power law exponent.
Since attenuation in water is negligible and the volume of skin, tumor, and ligament tissues is small compared to the whole breast, a medium consisting of only fatty and glandular tissues is considered. Under this simplifying assumption, $\ell(f)$ is determined as a function of the fatty tissue volume fraction only.
The spatially homogeneous fractional power law exponent $y$ is then defined as
\begin{equation}
y = \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_y \sum_k \left(\ell(f_k) - \overline{\alpha_0} f_k^{y}\right)^2,
\label{eq:homo_exp}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\alpha_0}$ is the average value of $\alpha_0(x)$ and the frequencies $f_k$ ($k=1,\ldots, K$) are uniformly distributed over the range of frequencies typically employed in USCT imaging.
Table \ref{y_estimate_breast_type} reports the estimated power law exponent $y$ as a function of the fatty tissue volume fraction $v_{\rm fat}$, when $K= 22$ frequencies evenly spaced between 0.2 MHz and 2.3MHz are used to evaluate Eq.\ \eqref{eq:homo_exp}.
\begin{table}[htp!]
\centering
\caption{Homogeneous power law exponent $y$ as a function of the fatty tissue volume fraction $v_{\rm fat}$.}
\begin{tabular}{| c | cccc |}
\hline
Breast type & A&B&C&D \\
\hline
$v_{\rm fat}$ & $\sim 95\%$ & $\sim 85\%$ & $\sim 66\%$& $\sim 40$\% \\
\hline
$y$ &1.1151 &1.1642 &1.2563 & 1.3635 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{y_estimate_breast_type}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/hist_compare.jpg}
\caption{Breast size distribution comparison. a): The breast diameter distribution. b): The depth distributions. Blue: distributions of the generated NBPs. Orange: distributions estimated from clinical data~\cite{huang2011characterization}.}
\label{sizedist}
\end{figure}
\section{Examples of generated NBPs}
\label{sec:examples}
Figure \ref{3dp} shows four 3D visualization examples, one for each breast type, of 3D acoustic NBPs produced by the proposed framework. Paraview\cite{ahrens2005paraview} was used for volume rendering to highlight internal structures. Note the variability in size, shape, internal structures, and values of acoustic properties among the four NBPs. Figure \ref{dataset1} shows examples of 2D cross-sectional slices extracted from the phantoms, one for each breast type. Yellow rectangles indicate the location of the inset zoom region where a lesion was inserted.
Fig. \ref{sizedist} compares the distributions of the breast diameter and depth in a virtual population of 1,000 NBPs to that observed in a sample of 219 women with age ranging between 35 and 82 years and median age of 54 years \cite{huang2011characterization}. The proportion for each breast type in the virtual population was set to 10\% for breast types A and D, and 40\% for breast types B and C\cite{american2013acr}. The figure shows good qualitative agreement in the diameter and depth distributions between the virtual population and the clinical sample. It is worth noting that the distributions of the virtual population are skewed towards slightly larger breast sizes compared to those of the clinical sample. This is intentional and aims to address a limitation of the sample in \cite{huang2011characterization}, which is biased towards denser---and therefore smaller---breast types (23\% type A, 40\% type B, 28\% type C, and 9\% type D).
\section{Case studies}
\label{sec:case_studies}
Two case studies were conducted to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework for generating acoustic NBPs.
Case study 1 (Section \ref{sec:cs_cs1}) assesses reconstructed SOS image quality when heuristic procedures for compensating for unknown AA are employed. Case study 2 (Section \ref{sec:cs_cs2}) demonstrates the utility of the proposed framework for the training and assessment of deep learning-based USCT reconstruction methods. In both studies, 2D cross-sectional slices extracted from the 3D NBPs are (virtually) imaged using the stylized 2D imaging system described in Section \ref{sec:2DvirtualImagingSystem}.
\subsection{Virtual imaging system}
\label{sec:2DvirtualImagingSystem}
A stylized 2D virtual imaging system was modeled to generate USCT measurement data. It comprised 1024 idealized, point-like, transducers that were evenly arranged in a circular array with a radius of 110 mm. The excitation pulse employed in this study was assumed to be spatially localized at the emitter location. The central frequency and duration of the pulse were set to 1 MHz and 10$\mu$s, respectively. The pulse profile $s(t)$ was defined as the sum of three sinusoidal functions tapered by a Gaussian kernel as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
s(t) = &\exp\left(-\frac{(t-t_s)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)\\
{}&\times\left(\frac{1}{8}\sin\pi f_c t+\sin 2\pi f_c t+ \frac{1}{8}\sin 4\pi f_c t\right),
\label{masource}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma=1.6\mu s$ is the standard deviation of the Gaussian kernel, $t_s = 3.2 \mu s$ is a constant time shift, and $f_c = 1MHz$ is the central frequency.
\if 0
The temporal profile and the amplitude frequency spectrum of the excitation pulse are plotted in Fig. \ref{Sources}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/source2.png}
\caption{Temporal profile (left) and amplitude spectrum (right) of the excitation pulse
employed in the computer-simulation studies.
}
\label{Sources}
\end{figure}
\fi
Cross-sectional slices were extracted from the 3D NBPs and centered within the field of view of the imaging system.
Bilinear interpolation was employed to downsample the maps of acoustic properties to a computational grid comprised of 0.1 mm isotropic pixels.
To emulate the imaging process, the propagation of the pressure waves through the object was modeled by solving the lossy acoustic wave equation with power law frequency-dependent AA \cite{treeby2010modeling} by use of a time-explicit pseudo-spectral k-space method \cite{tabei2002k,huang2013full,matthews2018parameterized}. Further details regarding the wave solver and its implementation are presented in Appendix \ref{app:k-space-solver}.
The simulated measurement data were corrupted with Gaussian i.i.d. noise that had zero mean and a standard deviation of 0.02\% of the maximum pressure amplitude at the emitting transducer.
\begin{table}[htp!]
\caption{Reference SOS reconstructions: mean square error (MSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM)}
\label{tab:ref_recon}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Breast type & MSE (std) & SSIM (std) \\
\hline
A & 1.786e-04 (3.923e-5) & 0.9835 (0.0056) \\
B & 2.571e-04 (1.087e-4) & 0.9788 (0.0069) \\
C & 2.459e-04 (1.797e-4) & 0.9732 (0.0102) \\
D & 2.258e-04 (1.301e-4) & 0.9835 (0.0066) \\
\hline
all types &2.269e-04 (1.210e-04) & 0.9799 (0.0083)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Case study 1: MSE and SSIM of SOS images using the TRAM and DDAC approaches to compensate for unknown AA.}
\label{tab:recon}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{A} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{B} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{C} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{D} & All types \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{MSE (std)}
& TRAM & \textbf{1.825e-4} (3.863e-5) & \textbf{2.853e-4} (1.199e-4)&2.686e-4 (1.449e-4) & \textbf{2.300e-4} (2.006e-4) & 2.433e-4 (1.414e-4) \\ \cline{2-7}
& DDAC & 3.132e-04 (7.309e-5) & 3.521e-4 (1.210e-4) & 2.668e-4 (1.666e-4) & 2.720e-4 (2.059e-4) & 3.006e-4 (1.513e-4) \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SSIM (std)}
& TRAM & \textbf{0.9819} (0.0080) & \textbf{0.9766} (0.0083) & 0.9700 (0.0126) & \textbf{0.9843} (0.0066) & 0.9785 (0.0103)\\ \cline{2-7}
& DDAC & 0.9777 (0.0058) &0.9732 (0.0073) & 0.9709 (0.0094) & 0.9818 (0.0071) & 0.9761 (0.0085)\\ \hline
\end{tabular}\\
Values in bold denote that there is a statically significant difference between the two approaches.
\end{table*}
\subsection{SOS images reconstructed under favorable conditions}\label{sec:cs_references}
By use of the procedures described above, 2D slices from 52 NBPs (13 for each of the 4 breast types) were extracted and virtually imaged to produced USCT measurement data. From these data, SOS images were reconstructed
on a grid with a pixel size of 0.2 mm by use of a previously published waveform inversion with source encoding (WISE) method\cite{wang2015waveform}. The reconstruction was initialized by use of a blurred version (Gaussian blur with 8 mm correlation length) of the true SOS.
Notably, the true values of the (constant) density
and AA coefficient were employed. Because these quantities were known and did not require estimation, the reconstructed SOS estimates are expected to generally be of higher quality than would be obtained if the density and attenuation properties had to be concurrently estimated with the SOS, or if incorrect fixed values of the density and attenuation properties were employed.
In this sense, it will be useful to compare these reconstructed SOS estimates
against the images reconstructed in the two case studies below.
Figure \ref{fig:ref_recon_examples} presents examples, one for each breast type, of the ground truth and reconstructed SOS images assuming the AA distribution and density are known. Table \ref{tab:ref_recon} reports the average MSE (in the breast region) and SSIM for each breast type.
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/recon_sos_ake_gt.jpg}
\caption{Reference images: Ground truth (top row) and reconstructed (bottom row) SOS maps. From left to right: breast type A-D. The unit is ($mm/\mu s)$.}
\label{fig:ref_recon_examples}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Case study 1: Heuristic compensation of AA in SOS reconstruction}\label{sec:cs_cs1}
In this study, two heuristic approaches to compensating for AA when reconstruction SOS estimates were compared:
a two-region attenuation model (TRAM) and a data domain attenuation compensation (DDAC).
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/recon_sos_tram_ddac.jpg}
\caption{Case study 1: Reconstructed SOS images corresponding to the same phantoms shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_recon_examples} using TRAM (top row) and DDAC (bottom row). From left to right: breast type A-D. The unit is ($mm/\mu s)$.} \label{fig:cs1_recon}
\end{figure}
The TRAM assumes that the breast boundary is known (reflectivity imaging could be possibly used to estimate it) and assigns one constant AA value to the water bath ($\alpha_0=0$) and another to the breast region. The attenuation coefficient of the breast region was set to 5.20$[Np/m/MHz^y]$, which corresponds to a weighted average (80\%-20\% split) of the mean values of AA in fatty and glandular tissues as reported in Table \ref{tab1}.
The heuristic DDAC procedure seeks to compensate for AA by modifying the amplitudes of the recorded pressure data, rather than explicitly modeling attenuation in the wave propagation forward model. Specifically, for each pair of emitting/receiving transducers, the maximum amplitude of the recorded signal was re-scaled to match that of the corresponding measurement when only the water bath was present\cite{matthews2017image}.
The generation of synthetic data and reconstruction method used in this case study are the same as described in Section \ref{sec:cs_references}.
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/box_recon.png}
\caption{Case study 1: Boxplots of MSE and SSIM value with respect to TRAM and DDAC. From left to right: breast types A-D and all breast types together.}
\label{fig:box_recon}
\end{figure}%
Figure \ref{fig:cs1_recon} shows examples of reconstructed images of four breast types using the proposed techniques (TRAM and DDAC) to compensate for unknown AA properties. The corresponding ground truth images and reference reconstructions are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_recon_examples}. Table \ref{tab:recon} shows quantitative evaluations of all reconstructed images on each breast type from A-D. Fig. \ref{fig:box_recon} shows the variation with respect to MSE and SSIM in all image samples and breast types A-D.
To compare the results, the paired sample T-Test was performed on image samples regarding to MSE values.
Results showed that TRAM is better than DDAC with statistical significance on breast type A, B, D (p-value=2.37e-6, 0.0034, 0.0037). There is no statistically significant between DDAC and TRAM on breast type C (p-value=0.9453). Further more TRAM achieves MSE not significantly different from those of the reference reconstruction reported in Table \ref{tab:ref_recon} for breast types A-D (p-value=0.398, 0.017, 0.945, 0.897), thus suggesting that TRAM is effective approach to compensate for unknown AA in FWI reconstruction of SOS maps.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\bfseries\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/dlframework.png}
\caption{Case study 2: The supervised deep learning framework for SOS reconstruction.}\label{dlframe}
\end{figure}%
\subsection{Case study 2: Deep learning reconstruction method}\label{sec:cs_cs2}
There remains an important need to lessen the computational burden of FWI. A supervised learning-based method is proposed to reduce the number of FWI iterations and drastically lessen the computational burden. Figure \ref{dlframe} illustrates the proposed learning framework, in which a deep neural network (a 5-level U-Net \cite{ronneberger2015u}) is trained to minimize the mean square error of the reconstructed SOS images. The input to the network is an intermediate SOS estimate obtained by early stopping of the WISE method after 35 iterations. The rationale of this method is that early-stopped reconstructed images capture structural information of the SOS map but lack quantitative accuracy. The network was trained for 220 epochs on a dataset consisting of 622 2D slices, of which 312 extracted from type B NBPs and 310 from type C NBPs. The Adam optimizer was used with a batch size equal to 32 and the initial learning rate 0.001. The learning rate was reduced by a factor of 0.9 after each epoch. Several models corresponding to different architecture hyper-parameters (e.g., number of layers at each level) were trained. The selected model was that achieving the highest mean MSE on the validation set consisting of 100 slices (equally split between types B and C).
The testing set consisted of the 52 2D phantoms described in Section \ref{sec:cs_references}, thus allowing us to evaluate the accuracy of the network for both in-distribution (types B, C) and out-of-distribution data (types A, D).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/recon_dl.jpg}
\caption{Case study 2: Reconstructed SOS images of the phantoms shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_recon_examples} using a machine learning-based method. Top row : input to the neural network; Bottom row: the corresponding estimated image. From left to right: breast type A-D. The units are ($mm/\mu s)$.}\label{mapping1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{mapping1} reports examples of learned reconstructed images of four breast types. The top row corresponds to the early stopped WISE reconstruction after 35 iterations, and the bottom row shows the output of the neural network. The corresponding ground truth images and reference reconstructions are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ref_recon_examples}. The proposed learning approach improved the visual quality of the images, leading to sharper tissue interfaces.
Table \ref{tab:dl} and Fig. \ref{fig:box_dl} show quantitative evaluations on the test dataset
The reported MSE and SSIM values are stratified by breast types: breast types A and D (out of distribution) have a larger median MSE and smaller median SSIM than types B and C (in distribution). While the reported MSE and SSIM are comparable (or sometimes even better) than those reported for the reference reconstructions in Table \ref{tab:ref_recon}, the learned reconstruction method may mistakenly introduce some fine structures (\emph{hallucinations}) that are not existing in the ground truth image \cite{bhadra2020hallucinations}. An example is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:hallu}. This case study demonstrates that, while deep learning methods can be used to enhance perceived and quantitative image quality, their results must be interpreted with particular care due to the possibility of introducing \emph{hallucinated} features in the image.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/box_dl.png}
\caption{Case study 2: Boxplot of MSE and SSIM value of learned reconstructed results for breast type A-D. The subscript $^*$ denotes out of distribution breast types.}\label{fig:box_dl}
\end{figure}%
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Case study 2: mean square error (MSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM).}
\label{tab:dl}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Breast type & MSE (std) & SSIM (std) \\
\hline
A & 2.165e-04 (8.413e-5) & 0.9675 (0.0081) \\
B & 1.973e-04 (7.9898e-5) & 0.9707 (0.0079) \\
C & 2.160e-04 (1.149e-4) & 0.9788 (0.0069) \\
D & 2.887e-04 (2.009e-4) & 0.9651 (0.0073) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/haull.png}
\caption{Case study 2: False structures
in the reconstructed image. a): The ground truth image. b): The neural network-based reconstructed image that contains small hallucinated features.}\label{fig:hallu}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this work, procedures were established by which 3D NBPs can be computed for use in large-scale virtual imaging trials of 2D or 3D breast USCT.
This will, for the first time, permit 3D realistic NBPs to be computed that possess varying shape, acoustic properties, tissue texture, and tumors.
This was accomplished by adapting VICTRE tools to USCT imaging. The generated NBPs improve the authenticity of USCT virtual imaging studies and can be employed widely for the investigation of advanced image reconstruction methods, objective evaluation of the USCT breast imaging systems, and the development of machine learning-based methods.
\appendices
\section{Publicly released datasets}
Two datsets have been publicly released on the Harvard Dataverse.
The first dataset \cite{li2021NBPs2D} consists of the 52 slices and corresponding simulated USCT data described in Section \ref{sec:cs_references}. For each slice, the dataset includes tissue label, SOS, AA, and density maps. The image size is 2560-by-2560 with pixel size at a 0.1mm resolution. The measurement data has a sampling frequency of 25MHz and have been perturbed with additive Gaussian white noise as described in \ref{sec:cs_references}.
The second dataset \cite{li2021NBPs3D} consists of four high-resolution 3D NBPs, one for each breast type.
Each NBP contains 3D maps of tissue label, SOS, AA, and density with a resolution of 0.1 mm. Fig. \ref{3dp} shows 3D rendering of the four public NBPs.
\section{Supplementary multi-media material}
A video presenting cross-sectional slices of 3D SOS maps (one for each breast type) is included in the supplementary materials.
\section{Computer-simulation of the data acquisition process}
\label{app:k-space-solver}
Pressure wave propagation in the breast tissue was modeled by solving the lossy acoustic wave equation with power law frequency-dependent AA. Specifically, a first-order formulation of the linear acoustic wave equations in heterogeneous media is considered, which is described by the following three coupled differential equations\cite{treeby2010modeling}
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \textbf{u}_i =& -\frac{1}{\rho_0} \nabla p_i \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho_i =& -\rho_0 \nabla \cdot \textbf{u}_i +\int_0^t f_i dt \\
p =&c_0^2 \left(1-\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(-\nabla^2)^{\frac{y}{2}-1} - \eta(-\nabla^2)^\frac{y-1}{2}\right)\rho_i,
\end{array}
\right.\label{eqn:lossy_wave_eq}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{u}_i=\textbf{u}_i(\textbf{r}, t), p_i=p_i(\textbf{r}, t), \rho_i = \rho_i(\textbf{r},t)$ denote the fluctuations of particle velocity, acoustic pressure, and density, respectively, corresponding to the excitation of the $i$-th transducer. The source term $f_i$ has the form $f_i(\textbf{r}, t) = \delta_{\textbf{r}_i}(\textbf{r})s(t)$, where $\delta_{\textbf{r}_i}$ is the Dirach delta function centered a the location $\textbf{r}_i$ of the $i$-th transducer and $s(t)$ is the pulse profile in \eqref{masource}. The quantities $\rho_0=\rho_0(\textbf{r})$ and $c_0 = c_0(\textbf{r})$ denote the density and SOS of the medium. The quantities $\mu$ and $\eta$ are defined as
\begin{align}
\mu(\textbf{r}) &= -2\alpha_0(\textbf{r})c_0(\textbf{r})^{y-1}, \\
\eta(\textbf{r}) &= 2\alpha_0(\textbf{r})c_0(\textbf{r})^y \tan \left(\frac{\pi y}{2}\right),
\end{align}
where $\alpha_0(\textbf{r})$ is the AA coefficient and $y$ is the AA exponent. As explained in Section \ref{sec:att_exp}, $y$ was assumed to be spatially homogeneous and its numerical value was determined for each phantom as a function of the fatty and glandular volume fraction. Equations \eqref{eqn:lossy_wave_eq} were discretized on a uniform Cartesian grid and solved using a time explicit pseudospectral k-space method \cite{tabei2002k}. Acoustic transducer locations were approximated by using the center of the pixel to which they belong to. Discretization parameters are reported in Table \ref{tabsystems}. A high-performance GPU-accelerated implementation of the psuedospectral k-space wave solver, developed by the authors\cite{huang2013full,matthews2018parameterized} was employed to perform the simulations. The amplitude of pressure at all transducer locations was recorded as a function of time.
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Imaging system discretization parameters}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
Computational grid & 2560 by 2560 pixels\\
{} &(0.1 mm pixel size) \\
\hline
Time step size & 1/50 $\mu$s ,CFL number =0.3 \\
\hline
Simulation time & 170 $\mu$s, 8500 time steps \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tabsystems}
\end{table}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported in part by NIH awards R01EB028652 and R01NS102213 and NSF award DMS1614305. Computational resources for this work were granted to the authors by the Blue Waters sustained-petascale computing project, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (awards OCI-0725070 and ACI-1238993) the State of Illinois, and as of December, 2019, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Blue Waters is a joint effort of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and its National Center for Supercomputing Applications.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.19]{ft_and_pt_distil.png}
\caption{Previous works (left) typically focus on combining \emph{fine-tuned} models derived from a single pre-trained model using distillation. We propose \textsc{MergeDistill}{} to combine \emph{pre-trained} teacher LMs from multiple monolingual/multilingual LMs into a single \emph{multilingual task-agnostic} student LM.
}
\label{fig:distil_types}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{architecture.png}
\caption{\textit{Overview of \textsc{MergeDistill}{}}: The input to \textsc{MergeDistill}{} is a set of pre-trained teacher LMs and pre-training transfer corpora for all the languages we wish to train our student LM on. Here, we combine four teacher LMs comprising of three monolingual (trained on English, Spanish and Korean respectively) and one multilingual LM (trained on English and Hindi). The student LM is trained on English, Spanish, Hindi and Korean. Pre-training transfer corpora for each language is tokenized and masked using their respective teacher LMs vocabulary. We then obtain predictions for each masked word in each language, by evaluating \emph{all} of their respective teacher LMs. For example, we evaluate English masked examples on both the monolingual and multilingual LM as shown. The student's vocabulary is a union of \emph{all} teacher vocabularies. Hence, the \emph{input, prediction and label indices} obtained from teacher evaluation are now mapped to the student vocabulary, and input to the student LM for training. Please refer to \refsec{workflow} for details.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
While current state-of-the-art multilingual language models (LMs) \cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert, conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised} aim to represent 100+ languages in a single model, efforts towards building monolingual \cite{martin2019camembert, kuratov2019adaptation} or language-family based \cite{khanuja2021muril} models are only increasing with time \cite{rust2020good}. A single model is often incapable of effectively representing a diverse set of languages, evidence of which has been provided by works highlighting the importance of vocabulary curation and size \cite{chung-etal-2020-improving, artetxe-etal-2020-cross}, pre-training data volume \cite{liu-etal-2019-robust, conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised}, and the curse of multilinguality \cite{conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised}. Language specific models alleviate these issues with a custom vocabulary which captures language subtleties\footnote{For example, in Arabic, \cite{antoun-etal-2020-arabert} argue that while the definite article “Al”, which is equivalent to “the” in English, is always prefixed to other words, it is not an intrinsic part of that word. While with a BERT-compatible tokenization tokens will appear twice, once with “Al-” and
once without it, AraBERT first segments the words using Farasa \cite{abdelali2016farasa} and then learns the vocabulary, thereby alleviating the problem.} and large magnitudes of pre-training data scraped from several domains \cite{virtanen2019multilingual, antoun-etal-2020-arabert}. However, building language specific LMs brings us back to where we started, preventing us from leveraging the benefits of multilinguality like zero-shot task transfer \cite{hu2020xtreme}, positive transfer between related languages \cite{pires-etal-2019-multilingual,lauscher-etal-2020-zero} and an ability to handle code-mixed text \cite{pires-etal-2019-multilingual, tsai2019small}. We need an approach that encompasses the best of both worlds, i.e., leverage the capabilities of the powerful language-specific LMs while still being multilingual and enabling positive language transfer.
In this paper, we use knowledge distillation (KD) \cite{hinton2015distilling} to achieve this. In the context of language modeling, KD methods can be broadly classified into two categories: task-specific and task-agnostic. In task-specific distillation, the teacher LM is first fine-tuned for a specific task and is then distilled into a student model which can solve that task. Task-agnostic methods perform distillation on the pre-training objective like masked language modeling (MLM) in order to obtain a task-agnostic student model. Prior work has either used task-agnostic distillation to compress \emph{single}-language teachers \cite{sanh2019distilbert, sun-etal-2020-mobilebert} or used \emph{task-specific} distillation to combine multiple fine-tuned teachers into a multi-task student \cite{liu-etal-2019-multi-task, clark-etal-2019-bam}. The former prevents positive language transfer while the latter restricts the student's capabilities to the tasks and languages in the fine-tuned teacher LMs (as shown in Figure \ref{fig:distil_types}).
We focus on the problem of merging \emph{multiple} pre-trained LMs into a single multilingual student LM in the \emph{task-agnostic} setting. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort of its kind, and makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose \textsc{MergeDistill}{}, a task-agnostic distillation approach to merge \emph{multiple} teacher LMs at the \textit{pre-training} stage, to train a strong multilingual student LM that can then be fine-tuned for \textit{any} task on all languages in the student LM. Our approach is more maintainable (fewer models), compute efficient and teacher-architecture agnostic (since we obtain offline predictions).
\item We use \textsc{MergeDistill}{} to \textbf{i)} combine \emph{monolingual} teacher LMs into a single \emph{multilingual} student LM that is competitive with or outperforms individual teachers, \textbf{ii)} combine \emph{multilingual} teacher LMs, such that the overlapping languages can learn from \emph{multiple} teachers.
\item
Through extensive experiments and analysis, we study the importance of typological similarity in building multilingual models, and the impact of strong teacher LM vocabularies and predictions in our framework.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Language Model pre-training} has evolved from learning pre-trained word embeddings \cite{mikolov2013distributed} to contextualized word representations \cite{mccann2017learned, peters2018deep, eriguchi2018zero} and to the most recent Transformer-based \cite{vaswani2017attention} LMs \cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert,liu-etal-2019-robust} with state-of-the-art results on various downstream NLP tasks. Most commonly, these LMs are pre-trained with the MLM objective \cite{taylor1953cloze} on large unsupervised corpora and then fine-tuned on labeled data for the task at hand. Concurrently, multilingual LMs \cite{Lample2019xlm, Siddhant2019evaluating, conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised, chung2021rethinking}, trained on massive amounts of multilingual data, have surpassed cross-lingual word embedding spaces \cite{glavavs2019properly, Ruder_2019} to achieve state-of-the-art in cross-lingual transfer. While \citet{pires-etal-2019-multilingual, wu2019beto} highlight their cross-lingual ability, several limitations have been studied. \citet{conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised} highlight the curse of multilinguality. \citet{hu2020xtreme} highlight that even the best multilingual models do not yield satisfactory transfer performance on the XTREME bechmark covering 9 tasks and 40 languages. Importantly, \citet{wu2020all} and \citet{lauscher-etal-2020-zero} observe that these models significantly under-perform for low-resource languages as representation of these languages in the vocabulary and pre-training corpora are severely limited. \\
\noindent \textbf{Language-specific LMs} are becoming increasingly popular as issues with multilingual language models persist. As language identification systems are extended to 1000+ languages \cite{caswell-etal-2020-language}, increasing capacity for a single model to uniformly represent all languages is prohibitive. Often, practitioners prefer to have a model performing well on a subset of languages that their application calls for. To address this, the community continues its efforts in building strong multi-domain language models using linguistic expertise. A few examples of these are AraBERT \cite{antoun-etal-2020-arabert}, CamemBERT \cite{martin-etal-2020-camembert}, and FinBERT \cite{virtanen2019multilingual}.\footnote{\cite{nozza2020mask} maintain an ever-growing list of BERT models \href{https://bertlang.unibocconi.it/}{here}}\\
\noindent \textbf{Knowledge Distillation} in pre-trained LMs has most commonly been used for task-specific model compression of a teacher into a single-task student \cite{tang2019distilling, kaliamoorthi2021distilling}. This has been extended to perform task-specific distillation of multiple single-task teachers into one multi-task student \cite{clark-etal-2019-bam, liu2020mkd, turc2019well}. In the task-agnostic scenario, prior work has focused on distilling a single large teacher model into a student model leveraging teacher predictions \cite{sanh2019distilbert} or internal teacher representations \cite{sun-etal-2020-mobilebert, sun2019patient, wang2020minilm} with the goal of model compression. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to perform task-agnostic distillation from \emph{multiple teachers} into a \emph{single task-agnostic student}. In the context of neural machine translation, \citet{tan2019multilingual} come close to our work where they attempt to combine multiple single language-pair teacher models to train a multilingual student. However, our work differs from theirs in three key aspects: 1) our students are task-agnostic while theirs are task-specific, 2) we can leverage pre-existing teachers while they cannot, and 3) we support teachers with overlapping sets of languages while they only consider single language-pairs teachers.
\section{\textsc{MergeDistill}{}}
\label{method}
\textbf{Notations}: Let $\mathrm{K}$ denote the set of languages we train our student LM on and $\mathrm{T}$ denote the set of teacher LMs input to \textsc{MergeDistill}{}\footnote{Note that $\mathrm{T}$ can comprise of monolingual or multilingual models}. Consequently, $\mathrm{T_k}$ denotes the set of teacher LMs trained on language $\mathrm{k}$, where \( \mathrm{|T_{k}|\geq1} \) $\forall$ $\mathrm{k \in K}$.
\subsection{Workflow}
\label{workflow}
An overview of \textsc{MergeDistill}{} is presented in \reffig{fig:architecture}. Here we detail each step involved in training the student LM from multiple teacher LMs.\\ \\
\textbf{Step 1: Input}\\The input to \textsc{MergeDistill}{} is a set of pre-trained teacher LMs and pre-training transfer corpora for all the languages we wish to train our student LM on. With reference to \reffig{fig:architecture}, the student LM is trained on $\mathrm{K=}$\{English (en), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Korean (ko)\}. We combine four teacher LMs comprising of three monolingual and one multilingual LM. The monolingual LMs are trained on English ($\mathrm{M_{en}}$), Spanish ($\mathrm{M_{es}}$), and Korean ($\mathrm{M_{ko}}$) while the multilingual LM is trained on English and Hindi ($\mathrm{M_{en,hi}}$). Therefore, for each language, the corresponding set of teacher LMs ($\mathrm{T_k}$) can be defined as: [$\mathrm{T_{en}=\{M_{en}, M_{en,hi}\}, T_{es}=\{M_{es}\},}$\\ $\mathrm{T_{hi}=\{M_{en,hi}\}, T_{ko}=\{M_{ko}\}}$]. First, the pre-training transfer corpora is tokenized and masked for each language using their respective teacher LM's tokenizer. For the language with two teachers, English, we tokenize each example using both the teacher LMs. \\
\noindent \textbf{Step 2: Offline Teacher LM Evaluation}\\We now obtain predictions and logits for each masked, tokenized example in each language, by evaluating their respective teacher LMs. For English, we obtain predictions from both $\mathrm{M_{en}}$ and $\mathrm{M_{en,hi}}$ on their respective copies of each training example. In an ideal situation, we believe that multiple strong teachers can present a multi-view generalisation to the student as each teacher learns different features in training. Let $\mathrm{x}$ denote a sequence of tokens where \( \mathrm{x_m} = \{\mathrm{x_1, x_2, x_3 ... x_n} \} \) denote the masked tokens, and $\mathrm{x_{-m}}$ denote the non-masked tokens. Let $\mathrm{v}$ be the vocabulary of student LM $\mathrm{\theta_s}$. In the conventional case of learning from gold labels, we minimize the cross-entropy of student logit distribution for a masked word $\mathrm{x_{m_i}}$, with the \emph{one-hot label} $\mathrm{v_{j}}$, given by:
\vspace{-0.5mm}
\begin{align}
\label{gold_eqn}
\mathrm{P(x_{m_i},v_j)\!=\!\textbf{1}(x_{m_i}\!=\!v_j) \times log\:p(x_{m_i}\!=\!v_j | x_{-m}; \theta_s)}
\end{align}
With the teacher evaluations, we obtain predictions (and corresponding logits) of the teacher for the masked tokens. Let us denote the teacher output probability distribution (softmax over logits) for token $\mathrm{x_{m_i}}$ by $\mathrm{Q(x_{m_i} | x_{-m}; \theta_t)}$. Therefore, in addition to the loss from gold labels, we minimize the entropy between the student logits and the \emph{teacher distribution}, given by :
\vspace{-0.3mm}
\begin{align}
\mathrm {\hat{P}(x_{m_i},v_j)\!=\!Q(x_{m_i}\!=\!v_j|x_{-m};\theta_{t})} \times \nonumber \\
\mathrm{log\:p(x_{m_i}\!=\!v_j|x_{-m};\theta_s)}
\label{kd_eqn}
\end{align}
\noindent It is extremely burdensome (both memory and time) to load multiple teacher LMs and obtain predictions during training. Hence, we first store the \emph{top-k} logits for each masked word offline, loading and normalizing them during student LM training, similar to \cite{tan2019multilingual}. Additionally, obtaining offline predictions gives one the freedom to use expensive teacher LMs without increasing the student model training costs and makes our framework teacher-architecture agnostic.\\
\noindent \textbf{Step 3: Vocab Mapping}\\A deterrent in attempting to distill from multiple pre-trained teacher LMs is that each LM has its own vocabulary. This makes it non-trivial to uniformly process an input example for consumption by both the teacher and student LMs. Our student model's vocabulary is the union of \emph{all} teacher LM vocabularies. In the vocab mapping step, the \textit{input indices}, \textit{prediction indices}, and the \textit{gold label indices}, obtained after evaluation from each teacher LM are processed using a teacher$\rightarrow$student vocab map. This converts each teacher token index to its corresponding student token index, ready for consumption by the student model. For simplicity, each teacher and student LM uses WordPiece tokenization~\cite{schuster2012japanese,wu2016googles} in all our experiments. \\
\noindent \textbf{Step 4: Student LM Training}\\The processed \textit{input indices}, \textit{prediction indices}, and \textit{gold label indices} can now be used to train the multilingual student LM. In training, examples from different languages are shuffled together, even within a batch. We train the student LM with the MLM objective. Let $\mathrm{L_{MLM}}$ denote the MLM loss from gold labels. Therefore, with reference to \refeqn{gold_eqn} : \[ \mathrm{L_{MLM} (x_m|x_{-m})= - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{|v|} P(x_{m_i},v_j)} \] In addition to learning from gold labels, we use teacher predictions as soft labels and minimize the cross entropy between student and teacher distributions. Let $\mathrm{L_{KD}}$ denote the KD loss from a single teacher LM. With reference to \refeqn{kd_eqn}: \[\mathrm{L_{KD} (x_m|x_{-m})= - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{|v|}\hat{P}(x_{m_i},v_j)} ;\]
The total loss across all languages is minimized, as shown below: \[\mathrm{L_{ALL}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\lambda(L_{KD}^{T_k}) + (1-\lambda)L_{MLM}^{k}}\]
In the case of multiple teacher LMs, we have $\mathrm{n}$ tokenized instances for a given example (where $\mathrm{n}$ denotes the number of teachers for a particular language). In this case, each example in English has two copies -- one tokenized using $\mathrm{M_{en}}$ and another using $\mathrm{M_{en,hi}}$. Thus, we explore two possibilities of training in this multi-teacher scenario :
\begin{itemize}
\item Include all the copies in training. Here the model is exposed to $\mathrm{n}$ different teacher LM predictions, each presenting a multi-view generalisation to the student LM.
\item Include the best copy in training. The best copy is the one having minimum teacher LM loss for a given example. Here the model is only exposed to the best teacher LM predictions for each example.
\end{itemize}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we aim to answer the following questions : \\
\noindent \textbf{1)} How effective is \textsc{MergeDistill}{} in combining \emph{monolingual} teacher LMs, to train a \emph{multilingual} student LM that leverages the benefits of multilinguality while performing competitively with individual teacher LMs? (\refsec{exp1}) \\
\noindent \textbf{2)} How effective is \textsc{MergeDistill}{} in combining \emph{multilingual} teacher LMs, trained on an overlapping set of languages, such that each language can benefit from \emph{multiple} teachers? (\refsec{exp2}) \\
\noindent \textbf{3)} How important are the teacher LM vocabulary and predictions in \textsc{MergeDistill}{}? Further, can \textsc{MergeDistill}{} enable pre-trained zero-shot transfer? (\refsec{analysis}) \\
\subsection{Setup}
\textbf{Data}: For all our experiments, we use Wikipedia data as pre-training transfer corpora to train the student model, irrespective of the data used in training individual teacher LMs. We use $\mathrm{\alpha=0.7}$ for exponential smoothing of data across languages, similar to mBERT \cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}.\\
\noindent \textbf{Model Size}: Since transformer-based models perform better as capacity increases \cite{conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised, arivazhagan2019massively}, we keep the number of parameters close to mBERT ($\sim$178M) by appropriately modifying the vocabulary embedding size (like \citet{lan2019albert}) to isolate the positive effects of learning from teacher LMs.\\
\noindent \textbf{Distillation Parameters}: We have two hyper-parameter choices here: 1) k in top-k logits - as it increases, we observe that while performances remain similar, storing k$>$8 number of predictions for each masked word offline significantly increases resource requirements\footnote{More details in \refapp{top_k}}. Hence, we set k=8 in all our experiments. 2) the value of \( \lambda \) in the loss function, which decides the proportion of teacher loss, is annealed through training similar to \citet{clark-etal-2019-bam}.\\
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation Metrics}: We report F1 scores for structured prediction tasks (NER, POS), accuracy (Acc.) scores for sentence classification tasks (XNLI, PAWS-X), and F1/Exact Match (F1/EM) scores for question answering tasks (XQuAD, MLQA, TyDiQA). We also report a task-specific \emph{relative deviation from teachers} (\textbf{RDT}) (in \%) averaged across all languages ($\mathrm{n}$). For each task, \textbf{RDT} is calculated as:
\begin{align}
\label{rdt_eqn}
\mathrm{RDT(S, \{T_1, ..., T_n\}) = \frac{100}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{(P_{T_i} - P_{S})}{P_{T_i}}}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\mathrm{P_{T_i}}$ and $\mathrm{P_{S}}$ are performances of the $\mathrm{i^{th}}$ teacher and student LMs, respectively.
\begin{table}[t]
\label{monolingual_models}
\scalebox{0.55}{
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c | c }
\hline {Student} & {Language} & {Language Family} & {Model} \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$\mathrm{Student_{similar}}$} & {English} & {Indo-European} & {BERT\cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}} \\
& German & {Indo-European} & {DeepSet\cite{chan2020germans}} \\
& {Italian} & {Indo-European} & {ItalianBERT\cite{stefan_schweter_2020_4263142}}\\
& {Spanish} & {Indo-European} & {BETO\cite{CaneteCFP2020}}\\ \hdashline
\multirow{5}{*}{$\mathrm{Student_{dissimilar}}$} & {Arabic} & {Afroasiatic} & {AraBERT\cite{antoun-etal-2020-arabert}} \\
& {English} & {Indo-European} & {BERT\cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}} \\
& {Finnish} & {Uralic} & {FinBERT\cite{virtanen2019multilingual}} \\
& {Turkish} & {Turkic} & {BERTurk\cite{stefan_schweter_2020_3770924}}\\
& {Chinese} & {Sino-Tibetan} & {ChineseBERT\cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{table:mono_models} \emph{Monolingual BERT Models} used as teacher LMs. Please refer to \refsec{exp1} for details.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c c c c c c c c }
\hline \multirow{2}{*}{Language} & \multirow{2}{*}{Model} & {NER} & {UDPOS} & {QA} \\
& & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{F1/EM} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{English} & BERT & 89.5 & 96.6 & 87.1/78.6 \\
& ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ & 89.8 & 96.3 & 89.8/82.1 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{German} & DeepsetBERT & 93.0 & 98.3 & - \\
& ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ & 93.9 & 98.3 & - \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Italian} & ItalianBERT & 94.5 & 98.6 & 73.5/61.6 \\
& ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ & 95.2 & 98.6 & 75.8/63.8 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Spanish} & BETO & 94.2 & 99.0 & 74.9/56.6 \\
& ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ & 94.7 & 98.9 & 76.5/58.4 \\
\hdashline
& \multirow{2}{*}{{RDT(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+0.6}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-0.1}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+2.8/+3.7}} \\
& & & & & \\
\hdashline
\multirow{2}{*}{Arabic} & AraBERT & {94.3} & 96.3 & {83.1/68.6} \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ & 93.7 & {96.4} & 81.3/66.6 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Chinese} & ChineseBERT & {83.0} & {96.9} & {81.8/81.8} \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ & 82.6 & 96.8 & 80.8/80.8 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{English} & BERT & {89.5} & {96.6} & 87.1/78.6 \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ & {89.5} & 96.3 & {88.6/80.7} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Finnish} & FinBERT & {94.4} & 97.9 & {81.0/68.8} \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ & {94.4} & 95.5 & 77.7/65.9 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Turkish} & BERTurk & 95.2 & {95.6} & {76.7/59.8} \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ & {95.4} & 92.9 & 76.2/59.1 \\
\hdashline
& \multirow{2}{*}{{RDT(\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-0.2}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-1.1}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-1.3/-1.4}} \\
& & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{monolingual_result} Results for \emph{monolingual teacher LMs and multilingual students} on downstream tasks as described in \refsec{exp1}. Relative deviations of 5\% or less from teacher (i.e., $\mathrm{RDT} \ge -5\%$) are marked in bold. We find that ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ outperforms individual teacher LMs, with a maximum gain of upto {+2.8/+3.7\%} for QA, while ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ is competitive with teacher LMs, with a maximum drop of {-1.3/-1.4\%} for QA. Please refer to \refsec{exp1} for details.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Monolingual Teacher LMs}
\label{exp1}
\textbf{Pre-training}: In this experiment, we use pre-existing monolingual teacher LMs, as shown in Table \ref{table:mono_models}, to train a multilingual student LM on the union of all teacher languages. In this setup, \( \mathrm{|T_{k}|=1} \) $\forall$ $\mathrm{k \in K}$, i.e., each language can learn from its respective monolingual teacher LM only.
Our teacher selection and setup follows a two-step process. First, we aim to select languages having pre-trained monolingual LMs available, and evaluation sets across a number of downstream tasks. This makes us choose teacher LMs for : Arabic (\emph{ar}), Chinese (\emph{zh}), English (\emph{en}), Finnish (\emph{fi}), German (\emph{de}), Italian (\emph{it}), Spanish (\emph{es}), and Turkish (\emph{tr}). Second, as previous work has evidenced positive transfer between related languages in a multilingual setup \cite{pires-etal-2019-multilingual, wu2020all}, we further group the chosen teacher LMs based on language families as shown in \reftbl{table:mono_models}, where: \\
\textbf{i) $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student_{similar}}}$} is trained on four closely related languages from the Indo-European family -- \emph{de}, \emph{en}, \emph{es} and \emph{it}. \\
\textbf{ii) $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$} is trained on languages from different language families -- \emph{ar}, \emph{en}, \emph{fi}, \emph{tr} and \emph{zh}. \\
\noindent Both student LMs have a BERT-base architecture. ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ has a vocabulary size of 99,112 with a total of 162M parameters, while ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ has a vocabulary size of 180,996 with a total of 225M parameters. We keep a batch size of 4096 and train for 250,000 steps with a maximum sequence length of 512. \\ \\
\textbf{Fine-tuning}: We evaluate both the teacher and student LMs on three downstream tasks with in-language fine-tuning for each task\footnote{More details in \refapp{finetuning_details}} : \\
\noindent \textbf{i) }\textbf{Named Entity Recognition} \emph{(NER)}: We use the WikiAnn \cite{pan2017cross, rahimi2019massively} dataset for all languages. \\
\textbf{ii) }\textbf{Part-of-Speech Tagging} \emph{(UDPOS)}: We use the Universal Dependencies v2.6 \cite{11234/1-3226} dataset for all languages. \\
\textbf{iii) }\textbf{Question Answering} \emph{(QA)}: We use DRCD for \emph{zh} \cite{shao2018drcd}, TQuAD\footnote{\href{https://tquad.github.io/turkish-nlp-qa-dataset}{https://tquad.github.io/turkish-nlp-qa-dataset}} for \emph{tr}, SQuADv1.1 \cite{rajpurkar2016squad} for \emph{en}, SQuADv1.1-translated for \emph{it} \cite{10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_29} and \emph{es} \cite{carrino-etal-2020-automatic} and the TyDiQA-GoldP dataset \cite{clark-etal-2020-tydi} for \emph{ar} and \emph{fi}. \\
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\scalebox{0.65}{
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c | c | c }
\hline \multirow{2}{*}{Student} & \multirow{2}{*}{Language} & {Teacher LM} & {Student LM} & \multirow{2}{*}{\% of Data} \\
& & Tokens & Tokens & \\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{$\mathrm{Student_{similar}}$} & {English} & 3300M & 2285M & 69.25\% \\
& German & 23723M & 847M & 3.57\% \\
& Italian & 13139M & 506M & 3.85\% \\
& Spanish & 3000M & 639M & 21.31\% \\
\hdashline
& \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Total}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{43162M}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{4277M}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{9.9\%}} \\
& & & & \\
\hdashline
\multirow{5}{*}{$\mathrm{Student_{dissimilar}}$} & {Arabic} & 8600M & 135M & 1.58\% \\
& {English} & 3300M & 2285M & 69.25\% \\
& {Finnish} & 3000M & 83M & 2.77\% \\
& {Turkish} & 4405M & 60M & 1.36\% \\
& {Chinese} & 71M & 71M & 100.00\% \\
\hdashline
& \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Total}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{19376M}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{2634M}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{13.6\%}} \\
& & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{data_exp1} \emph{Number of Tokens (in Millions)} in the teacher (\reftbl{table:mono_models}) and student LMs as described in \refsec{exp1}}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\scalebox{0.65}{
\begin{tabular}{c | l | l | c c c c c c c c }
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Languages} & \multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \multirow{2}{*}{Teacher} & {PANX} & {UDPOS} & {PAWSX} & {XNLI} & {XQUAD} & {MLQA} & {TyDiQA} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Avg.}}\\
& & & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{F1} & \textbf{Acc.} &\textbf{Acc.} & \textbf{F1/EM} & \textbf{F1/EM} & \textbf{F1/EM} \\
\hline
\multirow{7}{*}{MuRIL Languages} & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & - & 58.8 & 68.5 & 93.4 & 66.2 & 70.3/57.5 & 65.0/50.8 & 62.5/52. & 69.2 \\
& $\mathrm{MuRIL}$ & - & {76.9} & {74.5} & 95.0 & {74.4} & {77.7/64.2} & {73.6/58.6} & {76.1/60.2} & {78.3} \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ & $\mathrm{MuRIL}$ & 69.3 & 72.3 & {95.4} & 71.9 & 75.7/62.1 & 72.0/56.3 & 70.7/59.2 & 75.3\\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{mBERT}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & 38.1 & 52.1 & 93.5 & 64.8 & 56.9/44.8 & 51.1/39.7 & 41.6/33.9 & 56.9\\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_all}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ + $\mathrm{MuRIL}$ & 67.9 & 72.3 & 94.5 & 71.1 & 76.1/62.9 & 70.4/55.5 & 70.8/55.3 & 74.7 \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_best}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ + $\mathrm{MuRIL}$ & 68.5 & 71.5 & 93.9 & 70.7 & 77.7/64.3 & 70.8/55.6 & 70.6/58.4 & 74.8 \\
\cdashline{2-11}
\vspace{0.2mm}
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$\mathrm{RDT}(\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}, \mathrm{mBERT})$ (\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+17.9}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+5.6}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+2.1}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+8.6}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+7.7/+8}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+10.8/+10.8}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+13.1/+12.3}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+8.8}}\\
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} & & & & & & & & \\
\cdashline{2-11}
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$\mathrm{RDT}(\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}, \mathrm{MuRIL})$ (\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{-9.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-3}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+0.4}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-3.4}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-2.6/-3.3}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-2.2/-3.9}} & \multirow{2}{*}{-7.1/\textbf{-1.7}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{-3.8}} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{Non MuRIL Languages} & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & - & 63.5 & 71.1 & 80.2 & 65.9 & 62.2/47.1 & 59.7/41.4 & 60.4/46.1 & 66.1\\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & 63.9 & 72.8 & 83.3 & 68.7 & {66.5/51.2} & {63.1/44.4} & {61.7/45.0} & {68.6}\\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{mBERT}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & {64.6} & 72.1 & {84.0} & {68.8} & 64.5/49.0 & 61.1/42.7 & 58.9/44.1 & 67.7 \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_all}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & 64.1 & 72.6 & 83.9 & 68.1 & 61.3/47.1 & 60.5/42.2 & 59.7/44.0 & 67.2 \\
& $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_best}}$ & $\mathrm{mBERT}$ & 63.3 & 72.6 & 83.2 & 67.2 & 66.0/50.6 & 61.4/43.2 & 62.4/46.5 & 68.0 \\
\cdashline{2-11}
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{$\mathrm{RDT}(\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}, \mathrm{mBERT})$ (\%)}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+0.6}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+2.4}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+3.9}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+4.3}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+6.9/+8.7}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+5.7/+7.2}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+2.2/-2.4}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{+3.8}}\\
& \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{} & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{table_exp2} \emph{Results for multilingual teacher and student LMs} on the XTREME benchmark. We compare performances of three student LM variants as described in \refsec{exp2} to the two teachers mBERT and MuRIL. Relative deviations of 5\% or less from teacher (i.e., $\mathrm{RDT} \ge -5\%$) are marked in bold. Overall, we find that $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ performs the best among all student variants and report its $\mathrm{RDT}$ (in \%) (\refeqn{rdt_eqn}) from the two teachers. Please refer to \refsec{exp2} for a detailed analysis.}
\end{table*}
\noindent \textbf{Results}: We report results of our teacher and student LMs in \reftbl{monolingual_result}. Overall, we find that ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ outperforms individual teacher models on NER (+0.6\%) and QA (+2.8/3.7\%) while performing competitively on UDPOS (-0.1\%). ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ is competitive with the teacher LMs with only small differences of up to 1.3/1.4\% (QA), as shown in \reftbl{monolingual_result}. For each language, we find ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ is either competitive or outperforms its respective teacher LM. Our results provide evidence for positive transfer across languages in two ways. First, we observe that ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ outperforms ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ for the common language - English. Given that the English teacher (BERT) and the pre-training transfer corpora\footnote{In fact, we can hypothesize that $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ sees more English tokens as compared to ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ because the Non-English languages in ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ are relatively low resourced (a sum total of 349M unique tokens) in comparison to ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ (a sum total of 1992M unique tokens) as shown in \reftbl{data_exp1}} is common for both student LMs, we can attribute this gain to the fact that English is trained with linguistically and typologically similar languages in ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$. Second, ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ outperforms its teacher LMs while $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}$ is competitive for \emph{all} languages. These two results across \emph{all} languages point towards ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ benefiting from a positive transfer across similar languages. In \reftbl{data_exp1}, we observe that ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{similar}}}$ is trained on 9.9\% of the total unique tokens seen by its respective teacher LMs and ${\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{dissimilar}}}$ lies close with 13.6\%.
Despite this huge disparity in pre-training corpora, student LMs are competitive with their teachers. This encouraging result proves that even with very limited data, \textsc{MergeDistill}{} enables one to combine strong monolingual teacher LMs to train competitive student LMs that can leverage the benefits of multilinguality.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c | c c c c c c c c }
\hline {Model} & {Vocabulary} & {Labels} & {PANX} & {UDPOS} & {PAWSX} & {XNLI} & {XQUAD} & {MLQA} & {TyDiQA} & {Avg.}\\
\hline
$\mathrm{SM1}$ & mBERT & Gold & 63.2 & 73.0 & 94.8 & 71.2 & 70.2/57.9 & 65.1/51.3 & 60.8/48.7 & 71.2\\
$\mathrm{SM2}$ & mBERT$\cup$MuRIL & Gold & \textbf{69.3} & \textbf{73.9} & 95.3 & 71.2 & \textbf{76.2/63.1} & 71.1/56.0 & 70.9/56.0 & \textbf{75.4} \\
{$\mathrm{SM3}$} & mBERT$\cup$MuRIL & Gold+Teacher & \textbf{69.3} & 72.3 & \textbf{95.4} & \textbf{71.9} & 75.7/62.1 & \textbf{72.0/56.3} & \textbf{70.7/59.2} & 75.3 \\
\cdashline{1-11}
$\mathrm{SM2\_100k}$ & mBERT$\cup$MuRIL & Gold & 65.5 & 72.3 & 94.3 & 67.5 & 72.3/58.2 & 66.9/51.5 & 62.5/51.9 & 71.6 \\
{$\mathrm{SM3\_100k}$} & mBERT$\cup$MuRIL & Gold+Teacher & 71.2 & 73.5 & 93.1 & 69.6 & 76.4/62.9 & 69.1/53.9 & 68.6/54.9 & 74.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{vocab_results} \emph{Importance of teacher vocabulary and predictions in \textsc{MergeDistill}{}}. We observe maximum performance gains, by changing the vocabulary from mBERT in $\mathrm{SM1}$ to (mBERT$\cup$MuRIL) vocabulary in $\mathrm{SM2}$. Here, SM3 is the standard $\mathrm{Student}_\mathrm{MuRIL}$. We also observe that $\mathrm{SM3\_100k}$, trained for 20\% of the total training steps, is competitive to $\mathrm{SM3}$ and significantly outperforms $\mathrm{SM2\_100k}$, highlighting the importance of teacher LM predictions in a limited data scenario. Please see \refsec{analysis} for details. }
\end{table*}
\subsection{Multilingual Teacher LMs}
\label{exp2}
\textbf{Pre-training}: In this experiment, we make use of pre-existing multilingual models: mBERT and MuRIL. mBERT is trained on 104 languages and MuRIL covers 12 of these (11 Indian languages + English): Bengali (\emph{bn}), English (\emph{en}), Gujarati (\emph{gu}), Hindi (\emph{hi}), Kannada (\emph{kn}), Malayalam (\emph{ml}), Marathi (\emph{mr}), Nepali (\emph{ne}), Punjabi (\emph{pa}), Tamil (\emph{ta}), Telugu (\emph{te}), and Urdu (\emph{ur}), with higher performance for these languages on the XTREME benchmark. We train the student model on all 104 languages. In this case, the \emph{MuRIL Languages} (MuL) have two teachers (mBERT and MuRIL) and the \emph{Non-MuRIL Languages} (Non-MuL) can learn from mBERT only. Therefore, while we only use mBERT as the teacher LM for Non-MuL across all experiments, we consider three possibilities for MuL : \\ \\
\textbf{i)} $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}}$: We only use MuRIL as the teacher LM and each input training example is tokenized using MuRIL. \\
\textbf{ii)} $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{mBERT}}}$: We only use mBERT as the teacher LM and each input training example is tokenized using mBERT. \\
\textbf{iii)} $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both}}}$: As highlighted in \refsec{method}, we consider two possibilities to incorporate both teacher LM predictions in training:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_all}}}$: Tokenize each input example using mBERT and MuRIL separately and include both copies in training.
\item $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_best}}}$: Tokenize each input example using mBERT and MuRIL separately and include only the best copy in training. The best copy is the one having minimum teacher LM loss for the example.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Note, it is non-trivial to tokenize each example in a way that is compatible with all teacher LMs. One must resort to tokenization using an intersection of vocabularies which is sub-optimal. \\
\noindent All the student LMs use a BERT-base architecture and have a vocabulary size of 288,973. We reduce our embedding dimension to 256 as opposed to 768 to bring down the model size to be around 160M, comparable to mBERT (178M). We keep a batch size of 4096 and train for 500,000 steps with a maximum sequence length of 512. \\
\noindent \textbf{Finetuning}: We report zero-shot performance for all languages in the XTREME \cite{hu2020xtreme} benchmark\footnote{More details in \refapp{finetuning_details}}. \\
\noindent \textbf{Results}: We report results of our teacher and student LMs in \reftbl{table_exp2}. Overall, we find that $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ performs the best among all student variants. For Non-MuL, $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ beats the teacher (mBERT) by an average relative score of 3.8\%. For MuL, $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ beats one teacher (mBERT) by 8.8\%, but underperforms the other teacher (MuRIL) by 3.8\%. There can be two factors at play here. MuRIL is trained on monolingual and parallel data \footnote{More details in \refapp{pretraining_details}} while the student LMs only see $\sim$22\% of unique tokens in comparison. MuRIL also has different language sampling strategies ($\mathrm{\alpha=0.3}$ as opposed to $\mathrm{0.7}$ in our setting, where a lower $\mathrm{\alpha}$ value upsamples more rigorously from the tail languages), which have a significant role to play in multilingual model performances \cite{conneau-etal-2020-unsupervised}. We also observe a significant drop in $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{mBERT}}$'s performance for MuL when compared to the other student LM variants. This might be because the input is tokenized using the mBERT tokenizer which prevents learning from MuRIL tokens in the student vocabulary.
For $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both}}$, we do not observe much of a difference between $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_all}}$ and $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{Both\_best}}$. This observation may differ with one's choice of teacher LMs depending on how well it performs for a particular language. In our case, we don't observe much of a difference in incorporating mBERT predictions for MuL.
\subsection{Further Analysis}
\label{analysis}
\textbf{The importance of vocabulary and teacher LM preditions}: In \reftbl{table_exp2}, we see that $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ significantly outperforms mBERT for MuL, despite both being trained on Wikipedia corpora, and having comparable model sizes. With regard to MuL, $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ differs from mBERT in two main aspects -- \textbf{i)} $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$'s vocabulary is a union of mBERT and MuRIL vocabularies. \textbf{ii)} $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ is trained with additional MuRIL predictions as soft labels. To disentangle the role both these factors play in $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$'s improved performance, we train two models : \\
\noindent \textbf{i)} $\mathrm{SM1}$ is trained exactly like $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$, but with mBERT vocabulary and on gold labels. \\
\textbf{ii)} $\mathrm{SM2}$ is trained using $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$'s vocabulary (mBERT $\cup$ MuRIL) but on gold labels only, without teacher predictions. \\
\noindent The results are summarized in \reftbl{vocab_results}. Note, we refer to $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ as $\mathrm{SM3}$. Overall, we observe a \textbf{$\sim$4.2\%} gain in average performance for $\mathrm{SM2}$ over $\mathrm{SM1}$. This clearly highlights that given fixed data and model capacity, LM training significantly benefits by incorporating a strong teacher's vocabulary. \\
\noindent Furthermore, we also observe that $\mathrm{SM2}$ and $\mathrm{SM3}$ achieve competitive performances despite $\mathrm{SM3}$ being additionally trained on teacher LM labels. To motivate the need for teacher predictions, \citet{hinton2015distilling} argue that when soft targets have high entropy, they provide much more information per training case than hard targets and can be trained on \emph{much less data} than the original cumbersome model. In our case, we hypothesize that training on 500,000 steps exposes the model to sufficient data for it to generalize well enough and mask the benefits of teacher LM predictions. To validate this, we evaluate the performances of $\mathrm{SM2}$ and $\mathrm{SM3}$, $\mathrm{20\%}$ into training (i.e. 100,000 steps / 500,000 total steps) as shown in \reftbl{vocab_results}. We observe a \textbf{$\sim$2.9\%} gain in average performance for $\mathrm{SM3}$ over $\mathrm{SM2}$, clearly highlighting the importance of teacher LM predictions in a limited data scenario. This is especially important when one has access to very limited monolingual data and a strong teacher LM for a particular language. \\
\noindent \textbf{Pre-trained zero-shot transfer: }Interestingly, $\mathrm{Student}_{\mathrm{MuRIL}}$ performs the best on almost all tasks for \emph{Non-MuL}. This hints at positive transfer from strong teachers to languages that the teacher does not cover at all, due to the shared multilingual representations.\footnote{For example, if you want to train a multilingual model covering English and a closely related low-resource language for which there exists no strong teacher, it may be possible to improve performance for the low resource language using teacher predictions for English only, due to a shared embedding space and possibly shared sub-words.} This would mean that learning from strong teachers can improve the student model's performance in a zero-shot manner on related languages not covered by the teacher. This would make \textsc{MergeDistill}{} highly beneficial for low-resource languages that do not have a strong teacher or limited gold data. We leave this exploration to future work.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we address the problem of merging multiple pre-trained teacher LMs into a single multilingual student LM by proposing \textsc{MergeDistill}{}, a task-agnostic distillation method. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt of its kind. The student LM learned by \textsc{MergeDistill}{} may be further fine-tuned for any task across all of the languages covered by the teacher LMs. Our approach results in better maintainability (fewer models) and is compute efficient (due to offline predictions). We use \textsc{MergeDistill}{} to \textbf{i)} combine \emph{monolingual} teacher LMs into one student multilingual LM which is competitive with the teachers, thereby demonstrating positive cross-lingual transfer, and \textbf{ii)} combine multilingual LMs to train student LMs that learn from \emph{multiple} teachers. Through experiments on multiple benchmark datasets, we show that student LMs learned by \textsc{MergeDistill}{} perform competitively or even outperform teacher LMs trained on orders of magnitude more data. We disentangle the positive impact of incorporating strong teacher LM vocabularies and learning from teacher LM predictions, highlighting the importance of the latter in a limited data scenario. We also find that \textsc{MergeDistill}{} enables positive transfer from strong teachers to languages not covered by them (i.e. zero-shot transfer). Our work bridges the gap between the universe of language-specific models and massively multilingual LMs, incorporating benefits of both into one framework.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. We thank Iulia Turc, Ming-Wei Chang, and Slav Petrov for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
The live streaming industry has been burgeoning around the world in recent years. This includes live streaming games which, in turn, encompasses content like esports (e.g., League of Legends, Dota2, CS:GO, Apex Legends), sports games (e.g., football, tennis), and other games like chess, poker, and virtual casinos. Esports and its related brands occupy 24.2\% of the hours watched on Twitch.tv.\footnote{https://www.pwc.de/en/technology-media-and-telecommunication/digital-trend-outlook-esport-2020/media-broadcasts.html}
About 609 million people spent over 5 billion hours watching video game streams in 2016.\footnote{Based on Nate Nead's report \url{ https://investmentbank.com/esports-gaming-video-content/}}
Despite the popularity of these live shows, their quality varies significantly. We hypothesize an audience's perceived quality for such live streamed content is, in part, derived from the surprise in the content. One way to capture the effect of surprise is to solicit information flow delivered from the show. Before the game commences, the audience might have an imperfect idea of who will win. As the live game unfolds, the audience learns better about who the winner is likely to be. In particular, the winner is clear by the time the game ends. Information flow measures, over the duration of a game the audience’s belief of who will win. Intuitively, the surprise, measures how much information flow fluctuates over time.
A key challenge is to quantify the relationship between the audiences' information flow and audiences' perceived quality. Prior studies either assume such relationship theoretically \cite{ely2015suspense} or use a statistical model to generate the theoretic information flow and indirectly measure audiences' perceived quality (e.g., by audience size) \cite{bizzozero2016importance,scarf2019outcome,buraimo2020unscripted}. We instead elicit data directly from the audience to quantify the relationship and provide new insights for the development of such perceived quality models. Specifically, we elicit audiences' real-time beliefs to compute the amount of surprise in a game. We then study the relationship both between the amount of surprise and perceived quality and also the relationship between when the surprise occurs and perceived quality.
We design the Information Flow Elicitation Platform to collect the audiences' continuous beliefs and afterward ratings. Specifically, subjects watch live streaming games and update their beliefs for the games' outcomes as many times as they want. The platform monetarily rewards agents for their information flow reports in such a way that more accurate reports lead to higher payments. Subjects also rate the game quality afterwards.
We use our platform to conduct a study targeting LOL S10.\footnote{The 2020 League of Legends World Championship is the tenth world championship for League of Legends, an esports tournament for the video game developed by Riot Games. It was held from 25 September to 31 October in Shanghai, China. There were 74 rounds of games in total and each game lasts for 30 to 40 minutes.}
\paragraph{Summary of our results.}
We find that the second half of the game has a larger amount of surprise compared to the first half and the amount of surprise at the end of the game has the strongest impact on the subjects' average ratings. Moreover, subjects' average ratings are significantly positively correlated with the games' surprise amount. Interestingly, the surprise amount in the first half of the game is negatively correlated with the average ratings, while this correlation in the second half is positive. One conjecture is that subjects overweight their watching experience in later time periods, which is not captured in prior studies. In other words, our results suggest that the perceived quality model should consider the time factor and the designers can use a better information revelation strategy such that the game is more likely to have a twist near the end. Additionally, we conduct robustness checks by considering alternative causes of perceived quality fluctuations, e.g., the favorite (home) team wins, and the results are consistent.
\section{Belief Curves, Median Curves, and Surprise}
In this section, we formally define the belief curve for each agent, and the aggregation of agent's beliefs into the information flow and median curve to compute the amount of surprise in a game.
We focus on the two-team competition setting.
\paragraph{Belief curves and information flow.}
In game $g$, subject $s$ has a sequence of belief updates (the blue dots in Figure~\ref{fig:workflow}) chronologically $\{(t_0,p_0),(t_1,p_1),...,(t_n,p_n)\}$, where $n$ is the number of times that subject $s$ updates her belief in game $g$. Furthermore, $t_0=start_g$ shows that she reports her prior belief $p_0$ at the start of the game. Then she updates her belief from $p_0$ to $p_1$ at time $t_1$ and keeps updating her belief to the end. For convenience, let $t_{n+1}=end_g$. For all $0\leq i\leq n$, during period $[t_i,t_{i+1})$, subject $s$'s belief remains to be $p_i$.
A subject $s$'s belief curve $p_g^s:[start_g,end_g)\mapsto [0,1]$ for a game $g$ represents her continuous belief throughout the game, where $p_g^s(t)$ is her belief for the winning probability of the blue team at time $t$ (Figure~\ref{fig:workflow}). The belief curve can be generated from her belief updates. Formally,
\begin{definition}[Belief curve]
Subject $s$'s belief curve is $p_g^s:[start_g,end_g)\mapsto [0,1]$ where \[
p_g^s(t):=p_i ~~ \text{ if } t\in [t_i,t_{i+1}) \text{ for all $0\leq i \leq n$ }
\]
\end{definition}
The \emph{information flow} is the collection of all the belief curves.
\paragraph{Median curve.} To reduce the bias caused by irrational agents who always report extreme beliefs (e.g., 0\%, or 100\%), we use the median curve to compute the surprise amount. See Figure~\ref{fig:surpdef} for illustration of median curve and surprise amount.
\begin{definition}[Median curve]
For a game $g$ which is watched by a set $S$ of subjects, we define median curve $a_g^S: [start_g,end_g] \mapsto [0,1]$ as the median of the belief curve of all subjects in $S$ for game $g$, namely
\[
\forall t\in [start_g,end_g], a_g^S(t)=median(\{p_g^s(t)|s\in S\})
\]
\end{definition}
Figure~\ref{result:threeExamples} shows the median curves of three different games from our data set.
\paragraph{Surprise.} Intuitively, if the median curve fluctuates severely, it suggests that this game has a high degree of surprise. Following \citet{ely2015suspense}, we define the amount of surprise as the sum of the change in the median curve.\footnote{This is seeming unrelated to the ``surprisal score'' sometimes used in Machine Learning.} Formally,
\begin{definition}[Surprise amount]
Given a curve which is a step function in $[x_0,x_{m+1}]$
\[
f(t)=\alpha_i ~~ \text{ if } t\in [x_i,x_{i+1}) \text{ for all $0\leq i \leq m$ }
\]
We define the surprise amount of this curve as
\[ Surp(f):=\sum_{i=0}^m \left| \alpha_{i+1}-\alpha_{i}\right|\]
\end{definition}
$Surp_g^{S}:=Surp(a_g^S)$ is the amount of surprise in game $g$, which is the sum of absolute value of changes of the median curve $a_g^S$.\footnote{Since for all $s\in S$, $p_g^s(t)$ is a step function in $[start_g, end_g]$ of finite intervals, $a_g^{S}(t)$ is also a step function in $[start_g, end_g]$ of finite intervals.} We define $a_{g_1}^S$ as $a_g^S$ restricted to $[start_g,mid_g]$ and $a_{g_2}^S$ as $a_g^S$ restricted to $[mid_g,end_g]$ where $mid_g=\frac{start_g+end_g}{2}$. $Surp_{g_1}^{S}:=Surp\left(a_{g_1}^S\right)$ is the amount of surprise in the first half of game $g$ and $Surp_{g_2}^{S}:=Surp\left(a_{g_2}^S\right)$ is the amount of surprise in the second half of game $g$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/surprise6.eps}
\caption{Surprise amount: we have three subjects $s_1,s_2,s_3$ whose belief curves are green, yellow and blue respectively. We aggregate their curves to a median curve which is the median of subjects' belief point wisely. The surprise amount is defined as the sum of changes, which is $|\Delta_1|+|\Delta_2|$. }
\label{fig:surpdef}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Perceived quality vs. surprise.} We estimate $g$'s perceived quality by its average rating $r_g^S$ over all subjects $S$ who watch game $g$. To quantify the relationship both between the amount of surprise and perceived quality and also study the relationship between when the surprise occurs and perceived quality, we test the relationship between 1) game $g$'s surprise amount $Surp_g^S$ and its average rating $r_g^S$; 2) game $g$'s surprise amount in the first half $Surp_{g_1}^S$ and $r_{g}^S$; 3) game $g$'s surprise amount in the second half $Surp_{g_2}^S$ and $r_{g}^S$.
\section{Data Collection Methods}
We first describe our Information Flow Elicitation Platform which was used to collect that data. Second, we describe the data we collected.
\subsection{Information Flow Elicitation Platform}
A game is a competition between two teams, e.g., the red team vs. the blue team. For each game, the study aims to collect three types of information from each subject: their team preference, their real-time belief of the blue team's winning probability, and their quality rating for the game. Specifically, there are three stages for each game: before, during, and after. Before the game, subjects report their preferences for the team. They also report their prior belief for the blue team's winning probability. During the game, subjects update their real-time belief of the winning probability whenever they want. After the game, they report their ratings for the game on a Likert scale, i.e., from 1 to 9, how much did you like the game?
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/workflow4.eps}
\caption{Workflow overview: we use a game in LOL S10 to illustrate the workflow. The game is between two teams, blue and red. We ask subjects their team preference before the game. Subjects view the game live and update their belief according to the game.\protect\footnotemark After the game, subjects rate the game.}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\centering
\subfigure[Before]{\includegraphics[height=.5\linewidth]{figures/SubjectUI1.eps}\label{platfrom:fig1:a}}
\subfigure[During]{\includegraphics[height=.42\linewidth]{figures/SubjectUI2.eps}\label{platfrom:fig1:b}}
\subfigure[After]{\includegraphics[height=.42\linewidth]{figures/SubjectUI3.eps}\label{platfrom:fig1:c}}
\caption{Screenshots of our platform: the above figures are subjects' interface of our platform.}
\label{platfrom:fig1}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Incentives.} For each game, subjects receive a monetary reward which depends on their overall prediction accuracy. To measure the overall prediction accuracy, we use the quadratic scoring rule \cite{Brier1950VERIFICATIONOF,properscoringrule2007} to measure the prediction accuracy at every $t$ and integrate the quadratic score over $[start_g,end_g]$.
\footnotetext{The screenshots of the game is from LOL S10's live streaming platform, https://www.bilibili.com/ }
Formally, each subject receives a score which depends on her belief curve. When the game ends, the outcome $o_g$ for the blue team is either $0$ or $1$. Subject $s$'s quadratic score at time $t$ is $1-(p_g^s(t)-o_g)^2$. The overall quadratic score of subject $s$ is:
\[
Score(p_g^s)=\frac1{end_g-start_g}\int_{start_g}^{end_g}(1-(p_g^s(t)-o_g)^2) \text{dt}
\]
For example, we consider a game where the starting time is 00:00, the ending time is 00:50, and the red team wins in the end. A subject reports her prior belief 40\% for the winning probability of the blue team at the beginning. Then she updates her belief to 80\% at 00:25, 50\% at 00:30, and 0\% at 00:40. Her score will be $[(1-0.4^2)\times(25-0)-(1-0.8^2)\times(30-25)-(1-0.5^2)\times(40-30)-(1-0^2)\times(50-40)]\times (1/50)=0.86$.
For subject $s$, at every time $t$, the expected quadratic score is maximized when $p_g^s(t)$ is her true belief at time $t$. The expected score is maximized when $\forall$ $t$, $p_g^s(t)$ is her true belief at time $t$. Thus, our score is incentive-compatible. However, this leads to non-fixed cost. To fix the budget, following \citet{LAMBERT2015389}, we calculate the average score over all subjects in game $g$, $\overline{Score}_g$. Subject $s$'s reward is then \[(1+Score(p_g^s)-\overline{Score}_g)\frac{B}{M_g}\] where $M_g$ denotes the number of subjects in game $g$. With the aforementioned reward, the total reward for the game is fixed to $B$. Moreover, the reward is always non-negative and has the same incentive properties as the original score.
\subsection{Datasets}\label{sec:ourdata}
\paragraph{League of Legends.}
\begin{figure}[!ht]\centering
\subfigure[Likelihood that G2 beats SN]{\includegraphics[height=.30\linewidth]{figures/10_4_G2_vs_SN.eps}\label{result:threeExamples:a}}
\subfigure[Likelihood that DWG beats PSG]{\includegraphics[height=.30\linewidth]{figures/10_5_DWG_vs_PSG.eps}\label{result:threeExamples:b}}
\subfigure[Likelihood that UOL beats DRX]{\includegraphics[height=.30\linewidth]{figures/10_3_UOL_vs_DRX.eps}\label{result:threeExamples:c}}
\caption{Median curves of three games in LOL S10: the figures above shows the median curves of three games with different ratings. The game in (a) has a very high rating: rank 12 among all 76 games. This game is between two well matched teams. There are several reversals in the game. The game in (b) has a low rating (rank 61/76); DWG is the champion team, and PSG is a weak team. The subjects are confident that DWG will win in the beginning, and the outcome fulfills their expectation. The game in (c) also has a low rating (rank 64/76), UOL is slightly weaker than DRX. By the middle of the game, DRX has taken control and the second half has no big surprises.}
\label{result:threeExamples}
\end{figure}
League of Legends is a free 5v5 online MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena) game created and published by Riot Games.
The goal of the teams is to destroy the enemy team's base. The match ends immediately after one teams' base is destroyed.
\paragraph{Data Properties.}
We use our platform to conduct a study for LOL S10 which consisted of 76 individual games. We recruited 107 subjects from top Chinese universities.
For each game, a link to participate was sent out to all the participants. Subjects could participate in as many or as few games as they like. Additionally, we did not restrict the number of agents that signed up for each game.
We obtained 4,566 observations in total, where an observation consisted of one particular subject participating in one particular game. 5 subjects participated in all 76 games. 3 subjects of them only participate once. The average number of games that a subject participated in was 42.67.
\paragraph{Exploratory Data Analysis.}
The average score for our subjects in each game was 0.817. The average payment for our subjects in each game was 10.26 CNY (about \$1.58 USD), yielding a total payment of 46,850 CNY (about \$7,230 USD).
Moreover, the median frequency for belief updating is 5 and the average is 5.87. 68\% subjects are majoring in STEM. All subjects report that they have experience watching LOL Live.
For each game, we can measure the number of subjects, the average rating, the duration, the peak time, the surprise in the first half and the second half, the peak surprise, the end surprise and the overall surprise. The \emph{peak time} measures the most surprising time in the game which we define as the middle of the time interval of 2.5 minutes that has the maximum amount of surprise. The \emph{peak surprise} is defined as the surprise amount generated in the peak time. The \emph{end surprise} is defined as the surprise amount generated in the last 2.5 minutes.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|p{3cm}<{\centering}|p{1.2cm}<{\centering}|p{1.2cm}<{\centering}|p{1.2cm}<{\centering}|}
\hline
& average & min & max\\
\hline
number of subjects & 59.974 & 28 & 83\\
\hline
average rating & 5.709 & 3.600 & 8.235\\
\hline
duration (min) & 32.039 & 18.817 & 45.317\\
\hline
peak time (min) & 23.950 & 2.600 & 44.042\\
\hline
1st half surprise & 0.262 & 0.040 & 0.675\\
\hline
2nd half surprise & 0.531 & 0.010 & 1.445\\
\hline
peak surprise & 0.278 & 0.090 & 0.790\\
\hline
end surprise & 0.162 & 0 & 0.725\\
\hline
overall surprise & 0.793 & 0.150 & 1.750 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary statistics of our data}
\label{table:basic}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table:basic} displays the average, minimum, and maximum of each of these quantities. Note that on average, the surprise in the second half is twice the surprise in the first half.
\begin{figure}[!ht]\centering
\subfigure[The number of subjects in games]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/subjects.eps}\label{result:subjects}}
\subfigure[Average game rating]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/rating.eps}\label{result:average rating}}
\subfigure[Length of the game]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/time.eps}\label{result:length}}
\subfigure[Time that peak occurs]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/peak_min.eps}\label{result:peak time}}
\caption{Histogram of multiple statistics over all games: a) number of participating subjects; b) the average ratings; c) duration d) the peak times (when surprise is the highest). We also draw the kernel density estimation curve of these histograms.}
\label{result:data}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{result:data} shows a histogram of the first four of these quantities. Observe that the most frequent peak times are between 20 to 30 minutes. This corresponds to a key part of the matches, killing the first dragon (Baron Nashor), which appears exactly at the 20th minute of the match, and is tyfiguresally killed between the 20 and 30 minute mark and grants the successful team a lasting advantage.
\begin{figure}[!ht]\centering
\subfigure[First half vs. second half]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/1st_half_surprise_2nd_half_surprise_rating.eps}\label{result:1halfvs2half}}
\subfigure[Peak vs. end]{\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{figures/peak_surprise_end_surprise_rating.eps}\label{result:peakvsend}}
\caption{Relationship between surprise in different time: Each point represents a game and is colored by the game's average rating. The figures also show the linear regression lines. }
\label{result:twopartvs}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{result:1halfvs2half} shows a scatter plot of the surprise in the first half and second half of each match. The points are colored by how exciting the match was, measured by the match's average rating. We can see that these values are negatively correlated. Figure~\ref{result:peakvsend} is a scatter plot of the surprise in the peak time and end time of each match. These values are positively correlated. We also find that peak is end for 19.7\% games.
Figure~\ref{result:surpDensity} displays the amount of surprise over time. Short games, tend not to have too much surprise, perhaps, because the teams are unevenly matched. Long games tend to start off with less surprise, likely as the teams remain evenly matched, but have a substantial amount of surprise toward the end.
\begin{figure}[!ht]\centering
\includegraphics[width=.96\linewidth]{figures/surprise_per_5min.eps}
\caption{Amount of surprise over time: We discretize time and, at each time, calculate the surprise amount in the time interval of 2.5 minutes centered at that time. Each dot in the figure represents the surprise amount in a certain game and a certain time interval. The color of a dot shows the duration of the corresponding game. There are three colors in total, red means the corresponding game lasts less than 25 minutes, green means it lasts 25 to 35 minutes, and blue means it lasts more than 35 minutes. The colored lines represent the average surprise amount in games with the same color at a certain time. }
\label{result:surpDensity}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
First, we analyze the relationship between the subjects' ratings and the amount of surprise in the game. We find that the average rating is significantly positively correlated with the amount of surprise (Figure~\ref{result:fig1:a}, Table~\ref{table:firstandsecond}, Column (1)). We further divide the game into two halves and observe opposite effects between the two time windows. There is a significantly positive correlation between the ratings and the surprise amount in the second half (Figure~\ref{result:fig1:c}, Table~\ref{table:firstandsecond}, Column (3)), while this correlation is negative in the first half (Figure~\ref{result:fig1:b}, Table~\ref{table:firstandsecond}, Column (2)). This result remains when we regress on both the first half surprise and the second half surprise together (Figure~\ref{result:fig1:b}, Table~\ref{table:firstandsecond}, Column (4)).
\begin{table}[!ht]
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
{
\def\sym#1{\ifmmode^{#1}\else\(^{#1}\)\fi}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabularx}{1\linewidth}{l*{5}{X}}
\hline\hline
&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(1)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(2)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(3)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(4)}\\
\hline
Surprise & 1.214\sym{***}& & & \\
& (0.399) & & & \\
1st half & & -2.921\sym{***}& & -2.100\sym{**} \\
surprise & & (0.911) & & (0.846) \\
2nd half & & & 1.743\sym{***}& 1.533\sym{***}\\
surprise & & & (0.368) & (0.366) \\
Constant & 4.746\sym{***}& 6.473\sym{***}& 4.783\sym{***}& 5.444\sym{***}\\
& (0.340) & (0.269) & (0.227) & (0.345) \\
\hline
\(N\) & 76 & 76 & 76 & 76 \\
adj. \(R^{2}\) & 0.099 & 0.110 & 0.222 & 0.273 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabularx}
\footnotesize
\end{threeparttable}
}
\caption{OLS regression of surprise and rating in different time periods. The dependent variable is rating score. The independent variable in Columns (1), (2), (3) is surprise, 1st half surprise, 2nd half surprise respectively, and the independent variable in Columns (4) are the 1st half surprise and 2nd half surprise, together. The 1st and 2nd half surprise indicates that the amount of surprise of the 1st and 2nd half of the game. The surprise represents overall amount of surprise in the whole game. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1\%, 5\%, and 10\% levels, respectively. }
\label{table:firstandsecond}
\end{table}
Importantly, the second half surprise better predicts the average rating than the overall surprise: the coefficient value is 1.743 for second half surprise while it is 1.214 for the overall surprise. Moreover, the adjusted $R^2$ value is also greater when using second half surprise than when using the overall surprise. One possibility is that subjects may overweight their watching experiences in the second half of the game. Our result suggests that to optimize the information revelation strategy, the optimization goal should consider time factors and emphasize the later surprise more.
A possible explanation for this result is the peak-end-effect \cite{kahneman1993more,baddeley1993recency}. That is, people judge an experience mostly based on how they felt at its peak, the most intense point, and at its end, rather than based on the sum of their feeling at all moments of the experience. Thus, we further analyze the effect of the peak surprise and the end surprise in our data (see definition in Section~\ref{sec:ourdata}). Our results show that both of them are highly correlated with the average rating, while the end surprise has the highest correlation (see Table~\ref{table:peakend}). Note that the end surprise explains even more than the second half surprise (the end surprise's adjusted $R^2$ value is $0.232$ which is greater than the second half surprise's adjusted $R^2$ value $0.222$).
\begin{table}[!ht]
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
{
\def\sym#1{\ifmmode^{#1}\else\(^{#1}\)\fi}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabularx}{1\linewidth}{l*{3}{X}}
\hline\hline
&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(1)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(2)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(3)}\\
\hline
Peak surprise & 3.459\sym{***} & & -0.582 \\
& (0.947) & & (1.637) \\
End surprise & & 3.146\sym{***} & 3.497\sym{***} \\
& & (0.647) & (1.183) \\
Constant & 4.746\sym{***}& 5.200\sym{***}& 5.304\sym{***} \\
& (0.290) & (0.156) & (0.335) \\
\hline
\(N\) & 76 & 76 & 76 \\
adj. \(R^{2}\) & 0.141 & 0.232 & 0.223 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{threeparttable}
}
\caption{OLS regression of peak-end surprise and rating. The dependent variable is rating score. The independent variable in Columns (1), (2) is peak surprise, end surprise, respectively. The independent variables in Column (3) are peak surprise, end surprise, together. The peak surprise indicates the amount of surprise in peak time. The end surprise indicates the amount of surprise generated in the last 2.5 minutes. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the 1\%, 5\%, and 10\% levels, respectively. }
\label{table:peakend}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
{
\def\sym#1{\ifmmode^{#1}\else\(^{#1}\)\fi}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabularx}{1\linewidth}{l*{4}{X}}
\hline\hline
&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(1)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(2)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(3)}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{(4)}\\
&\multicolumn{1}{X}{all}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{win game }&\multicolumn{1}{X}{lose game}&\multicolumn{1}{X}{neutral game}\\
\hline
Surprise & 1.692\sym{***}& 1.211\sym{***}& 2.088\sym{***}& 1.760\sym{***}\\
& (0.293) & (0.489) & (0.557) & (0.507) \\
Win & 1.498\sym{***}& & & \\
& (0.198) & & & \\
Lose & -0.376& & & \\
& (0.232) & & & \\
Constant &3.928\sym{***} & 5.783\sym{***}& 3.162\sym{***}& 3.879\sym{***} \\
& (0.251)& (0.389) & (0.585) & (0.385)\\
\hline
$N$ &76 & 27 & 19 & 30 \\
adj. $R^{2}$ & 0.575 & 0.165 & 0.420 & 0.276 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabularx}
\footnotesize
\end{threeparttable}
}
\caption{OLS regression of surprise and rating in different games. Column (1) is the pooling result. Column (2) refers to games where the majority preferred team wins. Column (3) refers to games where the majority preferred team loses, and Column (4) is for games where no team is preferred by the majority. The dependent variable is the rating score. The independent variable in Column (1) is the amount of surprise, a dummy for winning (losing), i.e., whether the game is won (lost) by the majority preferred team. The independent variable in Columns (2), (3), (4) is the amount of surprise, respectively. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate statistical significance at the $1\%$, $5\%$, and $10\%$ levels, respectively.}
\label{result:table2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!ht]\centering
\begin{minipage}{1\linewidth}
\caption*{\textbf{Uncategorized}}
\vspace{-.03\linewidth}
\subfigure[whole game]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/surprise_rating_None.eps}\label{result:fig1:a}}
\subfigure[1st half]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/1st_half_surprise_rating_None.eps}\label{result:fig1:b}}
\subfigure[2nd half]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/2nd_half_surprise_rating_None.eps}\label{result:fig1:c}}
\subfigure[peak time]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/peak_surprise_rating_None.eps}\label{result:fig1:d}}
\subfigure[end time]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/end_surprise_rating_None.eps}\label{result:fig1:e}}
\end{minipage}%
\\
\vspace{.02\linewidth}
\begin{minipage}{1\linewidth}
\caption*{\textbf{Categorized}}
\vspace{-.03\linewidth}
\subfigure[whole game]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/surprise_rating_prefer.eps}\label{result:fig1:f}}
\subfigure[1st half]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/1st_half_surprise_rating_prefer.eps}\label{result:fig1:g}}
\subfigure[2nd half]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/2nd_half_surprise_rating_prefer.eps}\label{result:fig1:h}}
\subfigure[peak time]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/peak_surprise_rating_prefer.eps}\label{result:fig1:i}}
\subfigure[end time]{\includegraphics[width=.192\linewidth]{figures/end_surprise_rating_prefer.eps}\label{result:fig1:j}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Relationship between surprise amount and rating: In the figures above, each point represents a game and the y-axis is the average rating of the subjects. The x-axis is the surprise amount of the whole game (a,f), the first half (b,g), the second half (c,h), the peak time (d,i), and the end time (e,j) correspondingly. In the second row, the games are classified into three categories. The red points represent the game won by the majority preferred team, the blue dots is the game where the majority preferred team failed, and the gray dots represent the game where no team is preferred by the majority (most of them are neutral.). The second row analyses the relationship between surprise amount and rating using data of only one category. The results are similar to the above row which suggests the robustness of the conclusion. }
\label{fig:mediancurve}
\end{figure}
Second, we observe a salient increase (decrease) in ratings for subjects whose preferred team wins (loses). In a game with audiences whose preferences are homogeneous, e.g., a popular team vs. an unpopular team, such individual rating biases lead to an unfairly high (low) average rating for a game depending on the outcome of the game. Therefore, we separate games into three categories: win, lose and neutral. The win (lose) category includes games where the winning (losing) team was preferred by a majority of subjects. The neutral category consists of games where neither team was preferred by the majority (recall that subjects can also be neutral in their team preference). The results are in Figure~\ref{result:fig1:f} to \ref{result:fig1:j} and Table~\ref{result:table2}. Again, we observe similar results across all three categories of games.
In addition to the amount of surprise, we also explore other factors that may affect the audience's average rating. \begin{description}
\item[\textbf{Comeback size.}] It is defined as one minus the minimum winning probability of the winner during the game. This feature characterizes how big the surprise of the outcome is. The coefficient value is $1.737$ and the adjusted $R^2$ value is $0.029$.
\item[\textbf{Number of leader changes.}] It is defined as the number of times when the team with more than 50\% winning probability changes. This feature characterizes the team with advantage changes. The coefficient value is $-0.677$ and the adjusted $R^2$ value is $0.017$.
\item[\textbf{Rubbish time.}] Given a threshold $p$, the rubbish time is defined as the proportion of time period between the last time that the winner's winning probability $\geq p$ and the end of the match. $p$ is a parameter from $0.5$ to $1$. This feature characterizes the unsurprising time before the end. Intuitively, rubbish time is correlated with the end surprise and negatively correlated with the rating. Our results show that $p=0.7$ has the best performance which has the coefficient value as $-1.524$ and the adjusted $R^2$ value as $0.175$.
\end{description} Among the above three factors, the rubbish time is the most relevant factor but is still less effective than the end surprise.
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Surprise vs. perceived quality.} Starting from \citet{ely2015suspense}, a growing literature examines the relationship between the surprise and the perceived quality in different games, such as tennis games \cite{bizzozero2016importance}, soccer games \cite{buraimo2020unscripted} and rugby games \cite{scarf2019outcome}.
However, instead of eliciting belief curves, this literature tyfiguresally constructs them from existing data.
For example, \citet{bizzozero2016importance} model the probability of a certain side winning by explicitly using tennis's scoring systems. Similarly, \citet{buraimo2020unscripted} use an in-play model which additionally exploits the information on team strength which is embedded in the pre-match odds. \citet{buraimo2020unscripted} and \citet{scarf2019outcome} both use the Poisson model to estimate the number of goals scored by the participating teams in order to calculate the probability of the final outcome of the game. \citet{LUCAS201758} analyze the tweets during the World Cup and use the emotional changes to measure the surprise. In contrast to these studies which estimate surprise using statistical models, our study measures the perceived surprise amount by dynamically eliciting subjects' beliefs.
These works also use different proxies for perceived quality. \citet{buraimo2020unscripted} analyze the relationship between surprise and the real-time audience size for both halves of soccer games. Instead, we focus on the relationship between surprise and the overall rating.
Thus, prior studies do not observe how the timing effects of surprise affect perceived quality.
In addition to surprise, massive literature also studies suspense, which is defined as how much the belief curve is expected to move in the very near future. Since measuring suspense requires the ability to predict what might happen in the near future, the analysis for suspense is beyond the scope of the paper. In the future, it might be possible to learn a model from the data which enables the analysis of suspense.
\paragraph{Prediction markets and polls.} Prediction markets are designed to elicit continuously updated forecasts about uncertain events. Prior studies have proved that prediction market can outperform internal sales projections~\cite{plott2002information}, journalists’ forecasts of Oscar winners~\cite{pennock2001extracting}, and expert economic forecasters~\cite{gurkaynak2006macroeconomic}.
In prediction polls, forecasters express their beliefs by answering questions like "how likely is this event?".
In both prediction markets and polls, forecasters can update their predictions whenever they wish. In contrast to prediction markets, in prediction polls, forecasters update their predictions individually. \citet{rothschild2011forecasting}'s work shows that using prediction polls in elections can achieve better accuracy than opinion polls.
A few studies have compared the performance of prediction markets and polls, though there is no conclusive answer \cite{goel2010prediction,rieg2010forecasting,atanasov2017distilling}.
Both \citet{goel2010prediction} and \citet{rieg2010forecasting} find no significant differences between these two methods. \citet{atanasov2017distilling} find that the aggregation rules in prediction polls affect its accuracy level. For example, simply averaging all polls performs worse than a prediction market, while weighting the polls properly leads to a better performance than a prediction market. Our elicitation method is more similar to prediction polls.
\section{Conclusion}
We study the relationship between a game's surprise amount and its perceived quality. We develop a platform that collects audiences' real-time beliefs and ratings of the LOL S10. Our empirical analysis suggests that the level of surprise in the later time of a game has a stronger impact on subjects' ratings. This indicates that the audience would prefer surprise to occur in the end of a game. A future direction is to define a new perceived quality model that considers time factors and theoretically analyze the optimal way to reveal information over time in this model. Future work could similarly optimize suspense.
Moreover, we expect that belief polls could be embedded in live streaming games as an entertainment feature. Last but not least, we can collect other information such as the text in bullet comments to better construct the information flow.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions which substantially improved the paper. We also thank Kening Ren, Jialun Yang, Xinlun Zhang, Fan Yan and Zheng Zhong for their help and useful discussions. Finally, we thank our participants in our LOL S10 study for their time, attention and effort. Some of the figures are generated with Python Matplotlib~\cite{Hunter:2007}.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Demand for superior predictions of scientific and engineering problems is ever increasing. Improvement of available computational resources and both development and application of numerical methodologies work synergistically to meet the aforementioned demand. In particular, numerical schemes are devised to improve model accuracy (e.g., via inclusion of additional physics), replicate additional properties of the continuous problem (e.g., long-time stability), incorporate uncertainty quantification via statistical techniques, etc. The focus of this manuscript is on improving the efficiency of ensemble simulations, which facilitate uncertainty quantification, applied to heat conduction dynamics with increased model physics.
The crisis of predictability in numerical weather prediction, led to the discovery of chaos and the use of ensemble simulations to produce predictive results with uncertainty quantified. Some key figures include, Charney \cite{Charney}, Philips \cite{Philips}, Thompson \cite{Thompson}, Lorenz \cite{Lorenz,Lorenz2,Lorenz3}; see, e.g., \cite{Kalnay,Lewis} and references therein for a historical perspective. Ensemble calculations typically involve $J$ solves of a set of equations with slightly perturbed initial data. Calculations are performed as either $J$ sequential, fine mesh runs or $J$ parallel, coarse mesh runs of a given code. The ensemble average tends to perform better as a prediction than any of the individual realizations; see, e.g., Chapter 6 Section 5 of \cite{Kalnay} or \cite{Atger,Fritsch,Kalnay2}. Evidently, increased computational resources are needed over a single realization run. Moreover, since both increased ensemble size $J$ and mesh density $h$ yield superior results, there is an inherent competition for available computational resources.
The last six years have seen increased focus in improving efficiency of ensemble calculations \cite{Jiang, Jiang2, Jiang3, Jiang4, Mohebujjaman, Takhirov, Gunzburger, Gunzburger2, Gunzburger3, Gunzburger4, Fiordilino, Fiordilino2, Fiordilino3, Fiordilino4, Li, Chen, Ju, Luo, Luo2,Sakthivel} and references therein. The driver for much of this work is owed to a breakthrough work by Jiang and Layton \cite{Jiang}, as applied to non-isothermal fluid flow. Therein, they recognized that a consistent modification of the convective term, utilizing the ensemble mean and fluctuation of the viscosity together with lagging of the fluctuation term, would yield a shared coefficient matrix independent of the ensemble member $j$. The result was a reduction in both storage requirements and solution turnover time.
Recent years have seen increased focus towards problems with uncertain parameters and considerations of alternative physics. Of particular interest here, first- and second-order ensemble algorithms for iso-thermal fluid flow with constant viscosity were developed in \cite{Gunzburger, Gunzburger2}. Further, first-order methods were presented for the heat equation with constant thermal conductivity under mixed boundary conditions in \cite{Sakthivel} and both space and time dependent thermal conductivity under Dirichlet boundary conditions in \cite{Luo}. Moreover, first and second-order methods were developed for spatially dependent thermal conductivities in \cite{Fiordilino4}. Notably, stochastics were incorporated in \cite{Luo,Luo2} via the Monte Carlo method and in \cite{Li} for the convection-diffusion equation via stochastic collocation.
In each of the above works, both stability and convergence were conditionally dependent on the ratio between the fluctuating and mean values of the relevant parameter. In contrast, the ensemble methods presented herein are unconditionally, nonlinearly, energy stable and first-order accurate, with $\Delta t = \mathcal{O}(h)$. Moreover, we consider the heat equation with uncertain temperature-dependent thermal conductivity due to uncertain initial conditions. Physically, this is more realistic as most materials' thermal conductivity exhibit non-trivial temperature-dependence. Mathematically, the resulting equation becomes nonlinear, in the diffusive term, presenting new challenges over the analogous linear problem.
\ \ \ \ Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$ be an open, bounded, Lipschitz domain. Given initial temperature $T^0(x)=T(x,0)$, thermal conductivity $\kappa$ and heat source $f$, find $T(x,t): \Omega \times (0,t^*]\rightarrow R$ satisfying
\begin{align}\label{1.01}
T_t-\nabla \cdot(\kappa\nabla T)=f\ in \ \Omega.
\end{align}
We consider two boundary configurations: mixed and Robin. Throughout, $\kappa$ is the thermal conductivity of the solid medium which depends on the temperature profile; that is, $\kappa \equiv \kappa(T)$. For the mixed boundary condition, the boundary $\partial \Omega$ is partitioned such that $\partial\Omega=\overline{\Gamma_D}\bigcup\overline{\Gamma_N}$ with $\Gamma_D\bigcap\Gamma_N=0$ ($\Gamma_D$ for Dirichlet condition and $\Gamma_N$ for Neumann condition). Let $n$ denote the outward normal, then
\begin{align}\label{1.02}
T=0\ on\ \Gamma_D,\ \nabla T\cdot n=0\ on \ \Gamma_N.
\end{align}
Moreover, the Robin condition is prescribed via
\begin{align}\label{1.03}
\alpha T+\kappa \nabla T\cdot n=\beta\ on\ \partial \Omega,
\end{align}
where $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is the emissivity, and $\beta$ a prescribed function on the boundary.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce mathematical preliminaries required in the analysis, including semi-discrete numerical schemes and finite element preliminaries. The fully discrete schemes are introduced in Section 3. Sections 4 and 5 are devoted to the stability and error analysis of the fully discrete algorithms. Results from a battery of numerical tests are provided in Section 6. These serve to illustrate the validity of the proven theory and value of the algorithms. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 7.
\section{Mathematical preliminaries}
Herein, we introduce notation and preliminaries that are necessary for presentation and analysis. $H^{s}(\Omega)$ denotes the Hilbert space of $L^{2}(\Omega)$ functions with distributional derivatives of order $s\geq 0$ in $L^{2}(\Omega)$. The corresponding norms and seminorms are $\| \cdot \|_{s}$ and $\vert \cdot \vert_{s}$. In the special case $s = 0$, $H^{0}(\Omega) = L^{2} (\Omega)$ and the associated inner product and induced norm are $(\cdot , \cdot)$ and $\| \cdot \|$. Moreover, $(.,.)_{\partial \Omega}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{\partial\Omega}$ denote the $L^2(\partial \Omega)$ inner product and induced norm on the boundary.
Define the Hilbert spaces,
$$
X:=H^1(\Omega),\ Y:=\{S\in H^1(\Omega): S=0\ on \; \Gamma_D\},
$$
with dual norm $\|\cdot\|_{-1}$ understood to correspond to either $X$ or $Y$.
The following Poincar\'{e}-like inequalities are critical in the analysis.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_poincare}
Let $\gamma$ be a linear form on $H^1(\Omega)$ whose restriction to constant functions is nonzero. Then, $\exists \; C_P > 0$ such that $\forall S \in X$
\begin{align}\label{lemma1_2.1}
C_P\|S\|_1\leq \|\nabla S\|+|\gamma(S)|.
\end{align}
Moreover, if $S \in Y$ then $\exists \; C_{PF} > 0$ satisfying
\begin{align}\label{lemma1_2.2}
\|S\| \leq C_{PF} \|\nabla S\|.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Lemma B.63 pp. 490, for the former, and Lemma B.66 pp. 491, for the latter, in \cite{Ern}.
\end{proof}
\noindent The Poincar\'{e}-Friedrichs inequality, inequality (\ref{lemma1_2.2}), guarantees that $\vert \cdot \vert_{1}$ is an equivalent norm to $\| \cdot \|_{1}$ in $Y$. Recall, Young's inequality is given by
\begin{align}
a b \leq \frac{\epsilon}{q} a^q + \frac{\epsilon^{-r/q}}{r} b^r, \ \ \ 1<q,r<\infty, \ \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}, \ a,b\geq 0.
\end{align}
The special case $q=r=2$ will be used throughout.
Let $\{T(x,t;\omega_j)\}^J_{j=1}$ denote the ensemble set of solution variables to equation (\ref{1.01}), with corresponding boundary conditions; $\omega_j$ parametrizes each ensemble member $j\in[1,J]$. Then, the weak formulation of system $(\ref{1.01})$ and $(\ref{1.02})$ is: Find $T:[0,t^{*}]\rightarrow Y$ for a.e. $t\in (0,t^{*}]$ satisfying for $j=1,2,...,J$:
\begin{align}\label{weak1}
(T_t,S)+(\kappa\nabla T, \nabla S)=(f,S) \ \forall S\in Y.
\end{align}
Furthermore, the weak formulation of system $(\ref{1.01})$ and $(\ref{1.03})$ is : Find $T:[0,t^{*}]\rightarrow X$ for a.e. $t\in (0,t^{*}]$ satisfying for $j=1,2,...,J$:
\begin{align}\label{weak2}
(T_t,S)+(\kappa\nabla T, \nabla S)+(\alpha T,S)_{\partial\Omega}=(f,S)+(\beta, S)_{\partial\Omega} \ \forall S\in X.
\end{align}
Throughout, the thermal conductivity is assumed bounded and continuously differentiable such that:
\begin{align}
\label{xingzhiT}
|\kappa(T)-\kappa(S)|\leq C_{\kappa}|T-S| \ \forall S,T,
\\ 0< \kappa_{min}\leq \kappa(S) \leq \kappa_{max}<\infty \ \forall S.\label{xingzhiTb}
\end{align}
\textbf{Remark:} Practically, $\kappa_{max}$ can be estimated a priori knowing that equation (\ref{1.01}) is elliptic satisfying a maximum principle \cite{Evans}.
A discrete Gronwall inequality will be critical in the subsequent stability and error analysis. Let $N$ be a positive integer and set both $\Delta t = \frac{t^{\ast}}{N}$ and $t^{n} = n\Delta t$ for $0\leq n \leq N$. Then, $[0,t^{\ast}] = \bigcup\limits^{N-1}_{n=0} [t^{n},t^{n+1}]$ is a partition of the time interval.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma_gronwall}
(Discrete Gronwall Lemma). Let $\Delta t$, H, $a_{n}$, $b_{n}$, $c_{n}$, and $d_{n}$ be finite nonnegative numbers for n $\geq$ 0 such that for N $\geq$ 1
\begin{align*}
a_{N} + \Delta t \sum^{N}_{0}b_{n} &\leq \Delta t \sum^{N-1}_{0} d_{n}a_{n} + \Delta t \sum^{N}_{0} c_{n} + H,
\end{align*}
then for all $\Delta t > 0$ and N $\geq$ 1
\begin{align*}
a_{N} + \Delta t \sum^{N}_{0}b_{n} &\leq exp\big(\Delta t \sum^{N-1}_{0} d_{n}\big)\big(\Delta t \sum^{N}_{0} c_{n} + H\big).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Lemma 5.1 on pp. 369 of \cite{Heywood}.
\end{proof}
\noindent Lastly, the following norms are utilized in the error analysis: $\forall \; -1 \leq k < \infty$,
\begin{align*}
\vertiii{v}_{\infty,k} &:= \max_{0\leq n \leq N} \| v^{n} \|_{k}, \;
\vertiii{v}_{p,k} := \big(\Delta t \sum^{N}_{n = 0} \| v^{n} \|^{p}_{k}\big)^{1/p}.
\end{align*}
We are now in a place to discuss the key idea of the numerical methods. Let $\kappa^{n} \equiv \kappa(T^{n})$ and $\kappa^{\prime n} \equiv \kappa_{max}-\kappa^{n}$. Suppress the spatial discretization, apply an implicit-explicit time-discretization to the system $(\ref{1.01})$ with $(\ref{1.02})$:
\\\textbf{Algorithm 1 (a):}
\begin{align}
\frac{T^{n+1}-T^{n}}{\Delta t}-\kappa_{max}\triangle T^{n+1} + \nabla\cdot(\kappa^{\prime n}\nabla T^n)=f^{n+1},
\end{align}
\textbf{Remark:} For the Robin boundary condition $(\ref{1.03})$, the form of the above scheme is modified such that $(\alpha T^{n+1}, S)_{\partial \Omega}$ and $(\beta, S)_{\partial \Omega}$ appear on the left- and right-hand sides, respectively.
Applying a standard FEM discretization in space for the above system, we arrive at the following block linear system for each ensemble member $j$:
\begin{align}
\big(\frac{1}{\Delta t}M + \kappa_{max}D\big)T^{n+1} = \big(f^{n+1} + \frac{1}{\Delta t}M + N_{\kappa}(T^n)\big)T^n,
\end{align}
where $M$ is the mass matrix, $D$ is the diffusion matrix, and $N_{\kappa}(T^n)$ is the matrix associated with conductivity fluctuations. The above linear system is equivalent to the following: Let A be the resulting coefficient matrix (independent of $j$). Then, the following set of $J$ linear systems must be solved at each timestep:
\begin{gather}\label{keymatrixequation}
\begin{bmatrix}
A
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
x_{1} \vert x_{2} \vert ... \vert x_{J}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
b_{1} \vert b_{2} \vert ... \vert b_{J}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{gather}
The matrix $A$ is symmetric positive definite (SPD) since both $\frac{1}{\Delta t} M$ and $\kappa_{max} D$ are SPD. The system (\ref{keymatrixequation}) can be solved with efficient block solvers \cite{Feng,Gutknecht}. Further, since only one coefficient matrix is required for computation per timestep, the storage requirement is thereby reduced.
\subsection{Finite Element Preliminaries}
Let $\{\mathcal{T}_{h}\}_{0<h<1}$ be a family of quasi-uniform meshes with maximum element length $h = \max\limits_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}} h_{K}$. We define the geometric interpolation of $\Omega$ as $\Omega_{h} = \bigcup_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}} K$. Throughout, $\Omega$ is assumed to be a convex polytope so that $\Omega = \Omega_{h}$. Let $X_{h} \subset X$ and $Y_{h} \subset Y$ be conforming finite element spaces defined as
\begin{align*}
X_{h} &:= \{S_{h} \in C^{0}(\overline{\Omega}_{h}) : \forall \; K \in \mathcal{T}_{h}, \; S_{h}\vert_{K} \in \mathbb{P}_{l}(K) \} \cap X,
\\ Y_{h} &:= \{S_{h} \in C^{0}(\overline{\Omega}_{h}) : \forall \; K \in \mathcal{T}_{h}, \; S_{h}\vert_{K} \in \mathbb{P}_{l}(K) \} \cap Y.
\end{align*}
The spaces above satisfy the following approximation properties: $\forall 1 \leq l \leq k$,
\begin{align}
\inf_{S_{h} \in Z} \Big\{ \| T - S_{h} \| + h\| \nabla (T - S_{h}) \| \Big\} &\leq Ch^{k+1} \lvert T \rvert_{k+1} \qquad T \in Z \cap H^{k+1}(\Omega), \label{bijin1}
\end{align}
and $Z = X$ or $Y$.
Throughout, $C$ denotes a generic positive constant independent of $h$ or $\Delta t$.
\section{Numerical Scheme}
Let $T^n_h$ be the fully discrete approximate solution at time level $t^n$, $\kappa^n_h=\kappa(T_h^n)$, and $\kappa^{\prime n}_h = \kappa_{max}-\kappa^n_h$. Then, the fully discrete schemes are:
\\\textbf{Algorithm 1:}
\\ \textbf{(a)} Given $T_{h}^{n}\in Y_{h}$, find $T_{h}^{n+1}\in Y_{h}$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{quan1}
(\frac{T_{h}^{n+1}-T_{h}^{n}}{\Delta t},S_h)+(\kappa_{max}\nabla T_{h}^{n+1},\nabla S_h) -(\kappa_{h}^{\prime n}\nabla T_{h}^n,\nabla S_h) = (f^{n+1},S_h)\ \forall S_{h} \in Y_{h}.
\end{align}
\textbf{(b)} Given $T_{h}^{n}\in X_{h}$, find $T_{h}^{n+1}\in X_{h}$ satisfying the fully discrete scheme as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{quan2}
(\frac{T_{h}^{n+1}-T_{h}^{n}}{\Delta t},S_h)+(\kappa_{max}\nabla T_{h}^{n+1},\nabla S_h) -(\kappa_{h}^{\prime n}\nabla T_{h}^n,\nabla S_h)+(\alpha T_{h}^{n+1}, S_h)_{\partial \Omega}
\\ = (f^{n+1},S_h)+(\beta, S_h)_{\partial \Omega}\ \ \forall S_{h} \in X_{h}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\textbf{Remark:} If the thermal conductivity is provided with explicit dependence on space and time, e.g., $\kappa\equiv\kappa(x,t)$, then
$$(\kappa_{max}\nabla T_{h}^{n+1},\nabla S_h) - (\kappa_{h}^{\prime n}\nabla T_{h}^n,\nabla S_h) \leftarrow (\kappa^n_{max}\nabla T_{h}^{n+1},\nabla S_h) - (\kappa^{\prime n}\nabla T_{h}^n,\nabla S_h)$$
with $\kappa^n_{max} = \max_{1\leq j\leq J}\sup_{x\in\Omega}\kappa(x,t^n)$ and $\kappa^{\prime n } = \kappa^n_{max} - \kappa(x,t^n)$, in the above, yield unconditionally stable and first-order accurate methods. The analysis is novel but analogous to that presented below. Advantageously, $\kappa_{max}$ need not be estimated a priori. Moreover, the consistency error is tighter with more relaxed requirements on solution regularity.
\section{Stability Analysis}
In Theorem \ref{theorem1}, stability of the temperature approximation is proven for Algorithm 1, both (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}). Later, first-order convergence is proven in Theorem \ref{theorem 2}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem1}
Consider Algorithm 1(a) and suppose $f\in L^2(0,t^{*};H^{-1}(\Omega))$ and $\beta \in H^{-1}(\partial \Omega)$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\|T_h^N\|^2+\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{N}_h\|^2+\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\Big(\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^n\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2\Big)\\
+\frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2 \leq \|T_h^0\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{0}_h\|^2 + \frac{2\Delta t}{\kappa_{min}}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for Algorithm 1(b),
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\|T_h^N\|^2+\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{N}_h\|^2+\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\Big(\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^n\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2\Big)\\
+\frac{C_P^2\Delta t}{8}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1 \leq \|T_h^0\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{0}_h\|^2
\\ + \frac{4\Delta t}{C_P^2\kappa_{min}}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \Big(\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}.
+2\|\beta\|^2_{-1,\partial \Omega}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Setting $S_{h}=2\Delta t T_{h}^{n+1}$ in (\ref{quan1}) and using the polarization identity on the first term, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.1}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^{n}\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^{n}\|^2+2\Delta t \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - 2\Delta t(\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T_h^n,\nabla T^{n+1}_h) = (f^{n+1}, 2\Delta tT^{n+1}_{h}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Now,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{key1}
2\Delta t \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - 2\Delta t(\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T_h^n,\nabla T^{n+1}_h) = 2\Delta t(\kappa_{max}\nabla T_h^{n+1},\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_{h})) + 2\Delta t(\kappa^{n}_{h}\nabla T_h^n,\nabla T^{n+1}_{h}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the polarization identity twice and rearranging terms in equation (\ref{1.1}) yields,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{key2}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^{n}\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^{n}\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2
\\ + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 = 2\Delta t(f^{n+1}, T^{n+1}_{h}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Application of Cauchy-Schwarz and Young's inequalities on the forcing term leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.3}
&2\Delta t(f^{n+1}, T^{n+1}_h)
\leq \frac{\Delta t}{\epsilon_1\kappa_{min}}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1} + {\epsilon_1\Delta t}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Drop $\Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2$, use estimate (\ref{1.3}) with $\epsilon_1=1/2$, and rearrange terms. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.4}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^n\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^n\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2
\\ + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^{ n}_h}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2 \leq \frac{2\Delta t}{\kappa_{min}}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Summing from $n=0$ to $n=N-1$, we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.6}
\|T_h^N\|^2+\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{N}_h\|^2+\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\Big(\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^n\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2\Big) + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2
\\ \leq \|T_h^0\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{0}_h\|^2 + \frac{2\Delta t}{\kappa_{min}}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, setting $S_{h}=2\Delta t T_{h}^{n+1}$ in equation (\ref{quan2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.7}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^{n}\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^{n}\|^2 + 2\Delta t \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2
+2\Delta t\|\sqrt{\alpha} T_{h}^{n+1}\|^2_{\partial \Omega}
\\ - 2\Delta t(\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T_h^n,\nabla T^{n+1}_h) = (f^{n+1}, 2\Delta tT^{n+1}_{h})+2\Delta t(\beta, T^{n+1}_{h})_{\partial \Omega}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Following the analysis above and rearranging leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.8}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^{n}\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^{n}\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2
\\ + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 + 2\Delta t\|\sqrt{\alpha} T_{h}^{n+1}\|^2_{\partial \Omega} = 2\Delta t(f^{n+1}, T^{n+1}_{h}) + 2\Delta t(\beta, T^{n+1}_{h})_{\partial \Omega}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Apply Cauchy-Schwarz and Young's inequalities on the two terms on the right hand side of (\ref{1.8}). Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.9}
&2\Delta t(f^{n+1},T^{n+1}_h)
\leq \frac{\Delta t}{\epsilon_2\kappa_{min}}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1} + \epsilon_2\Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}} T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.10}
2\Delta t(\beta, T^{n+1}_{h})_{\partial \Omega}
\leq \frac{\Delta t}{\epsilon_3\kappa_{min}}\|\beta\|^2_{-1,\partial \Omega} + \epsilon_3\Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n} T^{n+1}_{h}\|^2_1.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
From Lemma 1, we have $\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\alpha}T^{n+1}_h\|^2 \geq \frac{C_P^2}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1$ and thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{C_P^2\Delta t}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1 \leq \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\alpha}T^{n+1}_h\|^2
\\ \leq \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Big(\Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2 + 2\Delta t\|\sqrt{\alpha}T^{n+1}_h\|^2\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Combine estimates (\ref{1.9})-(\ref{1.10}) with $\epsilon_2 = 2\epsilon_3 =\frac{C_P^2}{4}$, the above estimate in equation (\ref{1.8}), and rearrange. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.11}
\|T_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|T_h^{n}\|^2+\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^{n}\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{n}_h\|^2
\\ + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2 +\frac{C_P^2\Delta t }{8}\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1 \leq \frac{4\Delta t}{C_P^2\kappa_{min}}\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}
+\frac{8\Delta t}{C_P^2\kappa_{min}}\|\beta\|^2_{-1,\partial \Omega}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Summing from $n=0$ to $n=N-1$ leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{1.12}
\|T_h^N\|^2+\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{N}_h\|^2+\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\Big(\|T_h^{n+1}-T_h^n\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2\Big)\\
+\frac{C_P^2\Delta t}{8}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla T_h^{n+1}\|^2_1 \leq \|T_h^0\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla T^{0}_h\|^2 + \frac{4\Delta t}{C_P^2\kappa_{min}}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \Big(\|f^{n+1}\|^2_{-1}
+2\|\beta\|^2_{-1,\partial \Omega}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
The stability result above shows that we have control over the temperature approximation in both $L^{\infty}(0,t^{\ast};L^2(\Omega))$ and $L^{2}(0,t^{\ast};H^1(\Omega))$, unconditionally. Moreover, we see that the numerical dissipation is enhanced, compared to standard Backward Euler, with the additional term $\Delta t\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (T^{n+1}_h-T^{n}_h)\|^2$.
\section{Convergence analysis}
In this section, we first analyze the consistency errors for each numerical scheme. Convergence is then proven at the anticipated, optimal rates. Recall, the true solution satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{zhen1}
(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^{n}}{\Delta t} ,S)+(\kappa^{n+1}\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S) = (f^{n+1},S)+(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^{n}}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S)\ \ \forall S \in Y,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
under mixed boundary conditions. For the Robin boundary condition, the true solution satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{zhen2}
(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^{n}}{\Delta t} ,S)+(\kappa^{n+1}\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S)
+(\alpha T^{n+1},S)_{\partial\Omega} = (f^{n+1},S) + (\frac{T^{n+1}-T^{n}}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S)
\\ + (\beta, S)_{\partial \Omega}\ \ \forall S \in X.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Denote $e^n=(T^n-I_hT^n)-(T_h^n-I_hT^n)=\phi^n-\psi_h^n,$ where $I_hT^{n}$ is an arbitrary interpolate of $T^n$ and $e^n$ is the error at the time $t=t_n$; e.g., the Lagrange interpolate \cite{Ern} is common and applicable. Letting $S = S_h \in X_h$ or $Y_h$ and subtracting (\ref{zhen1}) and (\ref{zhen2}) from (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}), respectively, yields the error equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{ef1}
(\frac{e^{n+1}-e^n}{\Delta t},S_h)+(\kappa_{max}\nabla e^{n+1},\nabla S_h)
-(\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla e^n,\nabla S_h) =\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h) \ \ \forall S_h \in Y_h,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{ef2}
(\frac{e^{n+1}-e^n}{\Delta t},S_h)+(\kappa_{max}\nabla e^{n+1},\nabla S_h)
-(\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla e^n,\nabla S_h)
+(\alpha e^{n+1},S_h) =\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h) \ \ \forall S_h \in X_h,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h)$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ly5}
\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h):\ =(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^n}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S_h)+((\kappa_{max}-\kappa^{n+1})\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) - (\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T^n,\nabla S_{h}).
\end{eqnarray}
The following regularity assumptions are needed:
\begin{align}\label{jiashe1}
T\in L^{\infty}(0,t^{*};Y\cap H^{k+1}(\Omega)), \nabla T \in L^{\infty}(0,t^{*};L^{\infty}(\Omega)),
\\ T_{t} \in L^2(0,t^{*};X), T_{tt} \in L^2(0,t^{*};L^{2}(\Omega)), \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{jiashe2}
T\in L^{\infty}(0,t^{*};X\cap H^{k+1}(\Omega)), \nabla T \in L^{\infty}(0,t^{*};L^{\infty}(\Omega)),
\\ T_{t} \in L^2(0,t^{*};X), T_{tt} \in L^2(0,t^{*};H^{-1}(\Omega)). \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma2}
For T satisfying the system (\ref{1.01}) and (\ref{1.02}) and regularity assumptions (\ref{jiashe1}), the consistency error satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma2.1}
\|\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h)\|^{2} \leq
\frac{C_P^2\Delta t^2}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_4}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))} + \frac{C^2_{\kappa}}{2\kappa_{min} \epsilon_6}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|e^n\|^2
\\ + \frac{C^2_{\kappa}\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min} \epsilon_5}\|\nabla T^{n+1}\|^2_{\infty}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))} + (\epsilon_7^{-1} + \epsilon_8^{-1})\Delta t\frac{\kappa_{max}^2}{2\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}
\\ + \big(\sum^{8}_{i=4}\epsilon_i\big)\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, suppose T satisfies the system (\ref{1.01}) and (\ref{1.03}) and regularity assumption (\ref{jiashe2}). Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma2.2}
\|\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h)\|^{2}\leq
\frac{\Delta t^2}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_9}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};H^{-1}(\Omega))} + \frac{C^2_{\kappa}}{2\kappa_{min} \epsilon_6}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|e^n\|^2
\\ + \frac{C^2_{\kappa}\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min} \epsilon_5}\|\nabla T^{n+1}\|^2_{\infty}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))} + (\epsilon_7^{-1} + \epsilon_8^{-1})\Delta t\frac{\kappa_{max}^2}{2\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}
\\ + \big(\sum^{9}_{i=5}\epsilon_i\big)\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2_1.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall, $\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h)$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lemma1.1}
\xi_1(T^{n+1},S_h):\ =(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^n}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S_h)+((\kappa_{max}-\kappa^{n+1})\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) - (\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T^n,\nabla S_{h}).
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Taylor's Theorem with integral remainder, Lemma \ref{lemma_poincare}, and both Cauchy-Schwarz and Young's inequalities, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma1.2}
&(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^n}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S_h)\leq \frac{C_{PF}^2\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_4}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^{2}(\Omega))}+\frac{\epsilon_4}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla S_h\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
The last two terms in (\ref{lemma1.1}) can be reorganized as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
(\kappa^{\prime n+1}\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) - (\kappa^{\prime n}_h\nabla T^n,\nabla S_{h}) = (\kappa_{max}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h}) + (\kappa^{n}_h\nabla T^{n},\nabla S_{h})
\\ - (\kappa^{n+1}\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Adding and subtracting $(\kappa^n \nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h})$ to the right-hand side of the above and rearranging yields,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma1.3}
(\kappa_{max}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h}) + (\kappa^{n}_h\nabla T^{n},\nabla S_{h}) - (\kappa^{n+1}\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) = (\kappa_{max}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h})
\\ - ((\kappa^{n+1}-\kappa^{n})\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) - (\kappa^{n}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h}) - ((\kappa^n-\kappa^{n}_h)\nabla T^{n},\nabla S_{h}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Using properties (\ref{xingzhiT})-(\ref{xingzhiTb}), Taylor's Theorem with integral remainder in the first term, and both Cauchy-Schwarz and Young's inequalities, leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{lemma1.4}
- ((\kappa^{n+1}-\kappa^{n})\nabla T^{n+1},\nabla S_{h}) \leq C_{\kappa} \|T^{n+1}-T^n\| \|\nabla T^{n+1}\|_{\infty} \|\nabla S_{h}\| \leq \frac{C^2_{\kappa}\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_5}\|\nabla T^{n+1}\|^2_{\infty}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}
\\+ \frac{\epsilon_5}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{lemma1.5}
- ((\kappa^n-\kappa^{n}_h)\nabla T^{n},\nabla S_{h}) \leq \frac{C^2_{\kappa}}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_6}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|e^n\|^2 + \frac{\epsilon_6}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
The other two estimates follow from Taylor's Theorem with integral remainder, Cauchy-Schwarz, and Young's inequality,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{lemma1.6}
(\kappa_{max}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h})
\leq \frac{\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_7}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))} + \frac{\epsilon_7}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{lemma1.7}
- (\kappa^{n}\nabla (T^{n+1}-T^{n}),\nabla S_{h})\leq \frac{\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_8}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))} + \frac{\epsilon_8}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} \nabla S_{h}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining the above estimates (\ref{lemma1.1})-(\ref{lemma1.7}) yields the result (\ref{lemma2.1}).
For Robin boundary conditions, the first term of $\xi_1(T^{n+1}, S_h)$ is estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma1.8}
&(\frac{T^{n+1}-T^n}{\Delta t}-T_t^{n+1},S_h)\leq \frac{\Delta t^2}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_9 }\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};H^{-1}(\Omega))}+\frac{\epsilon_9 }{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h} S_h\|_1^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining the above estimates (\ref{lemma1.3})-(\ref{lemma1.8}) and using $\|\nabla S_h\|\leq \|S_h\|_1$ yields the result (\ref{lemma2.2}).
\end{proof}
With the consistency error now analyzed, we can now prove the major convergence result.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 2}
Suppose T satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \ref{lemma2}. Moreover, suppose $T^{0}_{h} \in Y_h$ is an approximation of $T^0$ to within the accuracy of the interpolant. Then, $\exists \ C_{\dagger}$ such that scheme (\ref{quan1}) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{dingli2.0}
\|e^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla e^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|e^{n+1}-e^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (e^{n+1}-e^{n})\|^2\big)
\\ + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla e^{n+1}\|^2 \leq C\exp(C_{\dagger})\Big\{\big(\kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}^2\kappa_{min}^{-1} + 1 + \Delta t\big)h^{2k+2}
\\ + \big(\kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}(1+\Delta t + \Delta t^2)\big)h^{2k} + \big(1 + \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}^2 \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}\big)\Delta t^2 \Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, scheme (\ref{quan2}) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.01}
\|e^N\|^2+\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla e^{N}\|^2+\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\Big(\|e^{n+1}-e^n\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (e^{n+1}-e^{n})\|^2\Big)\\
+\frac{C_P^2\Delta t}{8}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_{h}}\nabla e^{n+1}\|^2_1 \leq C\exp(C_{\dagger})\Big\{\big(\kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}^2\kappa_{min}^{-1} + 1 + \Delta t\big)h^{2k+2}
\\ + \big(\kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}(1+\Delta t + \Delta t^2)\big)h^{2k} + \big(1 + \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}^2 \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}\big)\Delta t^2 \Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using $e^{n}=\phi^n-\psi^n_h$, rearrange the error equation (\ref{ef1}) with $S_{h}=2\Delta t \psi_h^{n+1}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.4}
\|\psi^{n+1}_h\|^2-\|\psi_h^n\|^2+\|\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi_h^n\|^2+2\Delta t \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2 - 2\Delta t(\kappa_h^{\prime n}\nabla \psi_h^n,\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h)\\
=
2\Delta t (\frac{\phi^{n+1}-\phi^n}{\Delta t},\psi_h^{n+1}) + 2\Delta t (\kappa_{max}\nabla \phi^{n+1},\psi^{n+1}_h) - 2\Delta t(\kappa_h^{\prime n}\nabla \phi_h^n,\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h)
\\- \xi_1(T^{n+1},2\Delta t \psi_h^{n+1}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Recall equations (\ref{key1}) and (\ref{key2}) from Theorem \ref{theorem1}, we proceed in similar fashion so that after applications of the polarization identity we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}\label{dingli2.3}
\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|\psi_h^{n}\|^2+\|\psi_h^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n}\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla \psi^{n}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi^{n}_h)\|^2
\\+ \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n}_h\|^2 = 2\Delta t (\frac{\phi^{n+1}-\phi^n}{\Delta t},\psi_h^{n+1}) + 2\Delta t (\kappa_{max}\nabla \phi^{n+1},\psi^{n+1}_h)
\\- 2\Delta t(\kappa_h^{\prime n}\nabla \phi_h^n,\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h) - 2\Delta t \xi_1(T^{n+1},\psi_h^{n+1}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, application of Taylor's Theorem with integral remainder, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, Lemma \ref{lemma_poincare}, and Young's inequality on the first term on the right-hand-side of (\ref{dingli2.4}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.5}
2\Delta t (\frac{\phi^{n+1}-\phi^n}{\Delta t},\psi_h^{n+1})
\leq \frac{C_{PF}^2}{\epsilon_{10}\kappa_{min}}\|\phi_t\|^2_{L^2(t^n,t^{n+1},L^2(\Omega))} + \epsilon_{10} \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities to the second and third terms yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.6}
2\Delta t (\kappa_{max}\nabla \phi^{n+1}, \nabla \psi_h^{n+1}) \leq \frac{\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t}{\epsilon_{11}\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla\phi^{n+1}\|^2 + \epsilon_{11} \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2,
\\ 2\Delta t (\kappa^{\prime n}\nabla \phi^{n}, \nabla \psi_h^{n+1}) \leq \frac{\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t}{\epsilon_{12}\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla\phi^{n}\|^2 + \epsilon_{12} \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the above and Lemma \ref{lemma2} in equation (\ref{dingli2.3}), with $\epsilon_i = 1/20$ for $i=4,5,6,7,8$ and $\epsilon_{i} = 1/12$ for $i=10,11,12$, yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.7}
\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2-\|\psi_h^{n}\|^2+\|\psi_h^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n}\|^2 + \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2 - \|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla \psi^{n}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi^{n}_h)\|^2
\\ + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n}_h\|^2 \leq \frac{12C_{PF}^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|\phi_t\|^2_{L^2(t^n,t^{n+1},L^2(\Omega))} + \frac{12\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t}{\kappa_{min}}\big(\|\nabla\phi^{n+1}\|^2 + \|\nabla\phi^{n}\|^2\big)
\\ + \frac{10C_{PF}^2\Delta t^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^{2}(\Omega))} + \frac{10C^2_{\kappa}\Delta t}{\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|e^n\|^2 + \frac{10C^2_{\kappa} \Delta t^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T^{n+1}\|^2_{\infty}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}
\\+ \frac{5\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(t^{n},t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, note that $\|e^n\|^2 \leq 2\|\psi^n\|^2 + 2\|\psi_h^n\|^2$, drop $\Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n}_h\|^2$, sum from $n=0$ to $n=N-1$, and rearrange terms to arrive at
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.8}
\|\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|\psi_h^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi^{n}_h)\|^2\big)
\\ + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2
\leq \frac{20C^2_{\kappa}}{\kappa_{min}}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|\psi^n_h\|^2 + \frac{12C_{PF}^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|\phi_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast},L^2(\Omega))} + \frac{24\kappa_{max}^2}{\kappa_{min}} \vertiii{\nabla\phi}^2_{2,0}
\\ + \frac{10C_{PF}^2\Delta t^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^{2}(\Omega))} + \frac{10C^2_{\kappa}}{\kappa_{min}}\max_{0\leq n \leq N}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\big(2\vertiii{\phi}^2_{2,0} + \Delta t^{2}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^2(\Omega))}\big)
\\+ \frac{5\kappa_{max}^2\Delta t^2}{\kappa_{min}}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^2(\Omega))} + \|\psi_h^{0}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla\psi_h^{0}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Collecting constants, application of Lemma \ref{lemma_gronwall}, and a rearrangement yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.9}
\|\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|\psi_h^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi^{n}_h)\|^2\big)+ \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2
\\ \leq C\exp\Big(\frac{20C^2_{\kappa}}{\kappa_{min}}\Delta t\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\Big)\Big\{\kappa_{min}^{-1}\Big(\|\phi_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast},L^2(\Omega))} + \kappa_{max}^2 \vertiii{\phi}^2_{2,0} + \max_{0\leq n \leq N}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\vertiii{\nabla\phi}^2_{2,0}\Big)
\\ + \Delta t^2\Big(\kappa_{min}^{-1}\|T_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^{2}(\Omega))} + \kappa_{min}^{-1}\max_{0\leq n \leq N}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}\|T_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^2(\Omega))} + \kappa_{max}^2\kappa_{min}^{-1}\|\nabla T_t\|^2_{L^2(0,t^{\ast};L^2(\Omega))}\Big)
\\ + \|\psi_h^{0}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla\psi_h^{0}\|^2\Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Denote $C_{\dagger}=\frac{20C^2_{\kappa}}{\kappa_{min}}\Delta t\sum^{N-1}_{n=0}\|\nabla T^{n}\|^2_{\infty}$, take an infimum over $Y_{h}$, apply approximation property (\ref{bijin1}), and collect constants. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.10}
\|\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla\psi_h^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|\psi_h^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (\psi^{n+1}_h-\psi^{n}_h)\|^2\big) + \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla \psi^{n+1}_h\|^2
\\\leq C\exp(C_{\dagger})\Big\{\kappa_{min}^{-1}\big(1 + \kappa_{max}^2 + \kappa_{min}\big)h^{2k+2} + \kappa_{min}^{-1} h^{2k} + \big(1 + \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}^2 \kappa_{min}^{-1} + \kappa_{max}\Big)\Delta t^2 \big\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Application of the triangle inequality yields the result, estimate (\ref{dingli2.0}). For the latter result (\ref{dingli2.01}) pertaining to Robin boundary conditions, we have the following estimate for the boundary term:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{dingli2.17}
&2\Delta t (\alpha\phi^{n+1},\psi^{n+1}_h)_{\partial\Omega}\leq \frac{\|\alpha\|_{L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)}^2\Delta t}{2\kappa_{min}\epsilon_0}\|\phi_h^{n+1}\|^2_{-1,\partial \Omega} + \frac{\epsilon_0\Delta t}{2}\| \sqrt{\kappa^n_h}\psi_h^{n+1}\|^2_1.
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the above estimate, noting that $\|\nabla S\| \leq \|S\|_1$ and selecting $\epsilon_i = C_P^2/40$ for $i=5,6,7,8,9$ and $\epsilon_{i} = C_P^2/16$ for $i=0,10,11,12$, leads to the result.
\end{proof}
The above Theorem allows for Lagrange elements of arbitrary polynomial order to be used. However, if $P1$ is used, the optimal, first-order accuracy is achieved with $h = \mathcal{O}(\Delta t)$.
\begin{corollary}
Suppose the finite element space $Z = Y_h$ or $X_h$ is given by $P1$. Then, under the assumptions of Theorem $\ref{theorem 2}$, the error for Algorithms 1(a) and (b) satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{last1}
\|e^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla e^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|e^{n+1}-e^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (e^{n+1}-e^{n})\|^2\big)+ \frac{\Delta t}{2}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla e^{n+1}\|^2
\\ \leq C(h^2 + \Delta t^2)
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
\label{last2}
\|e^{N}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa_{max}}\nabla e^{N}\|^2 + \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \big(\|e^{n+1}-e^{n}\|^2 + \Delta t\|\sqrt{\kappa^{\prime n}_h}\nabla (e^{n+1}-e^{n})\|^2\big) + \frac{C_P^2\Delta t}{8}\sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \|\sqrt{\kappa_h^n}\nabla e^{n+1}\|^2
\\ \leq C(h^2 + \Delta t^2).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{corollary}
\section{Numerical Experiments}
In this section, we illustrate the stability and convergence of the numerical schemes (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}) using P1 Lagrange elements to approximate temperature distributions. The first numerical experiment tests for convergence and considers the effects of ensemble and perturbation sizes, where an analytical solution is constructed via the method of manufactured solutions. From this test it is shown that the numerical methods (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}) are first-order accurate in the appropriate norms. Moreover, the ensemble and perturbation sizes have little effect on the accuracy in this setting. The next numerical experiment is a 3D printing application in the spirit of the work by Vora and Dahotre \cite{Vora} using a temperature-dependent thermal conductivity that resembles data from \cite{kolev2015}. A simple application to uncertainty quantification, calculation of error envelopes, is illustrated using temperature-dependent thermal conductivity. The final validation experiment is the steady-state solution of a nonlinear heat transfer problem from \cite{singh2006numerical} which is compared to a given analytical solution. The software used for all tests is \textsc{FreeFem}$++$ \cite{Hecht}.
\begin{table}\centering
\caption{Errors and rates for algorithm (\ref{quan1})}.
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
\hline
$m$ & $\vertiii{ <e> }_{\infty,0}$ & Rate & $\vertiii{ \nabla <e> }_{2,0}$ & Rate \\
\hline
4& 1.81E-02& -& 2.55E-01&- \\
8& 4.37E-03& 2.06& 1.27E-01& 1.00 \\
16& 1.11E-03& 1.98& 6.04E-02& 1.08 \\
32& 3.13E-04& 1.83& 3.04E-02& 0.99 \\
64& 9.07E-05& 1.79& 1.55E-02& 0.98 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Table=first}
\end{table}
\begin{table}\centering
\caption{Errors and rates for algorithm (\ref{quan2})}.
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
\hline
$m$ & $\vertiii{ <e> }_{\infty,0}$ & Rate & $\vertiii{ \nabla <e> }_{2,0}$ & Rate \\
\hline
4& 1.85E-02&-& 2.50E-01&- \\
8& 4.17E-03& 2.16& 1.29E-01& 0.96 \\
16& 1.19E-03& 1.82& 6.07E-02& 1.09 \\
32& 4.47E-04& 1.42& 3.05E-02& 1.00 \\
64& 1.94E-04& 1.20 &1.55E-02 &0.98 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Table=second}
\end{table}
\subsection{Numerical convergence study}
For the first numerical experiment we will illustrate the convergence rates for the proposed algorithms (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}). Let the domain $\Omega$ be the unit square $[0,1]^{2}$ and final time $t^{*} = 1$; see Figure \ref{Figure=domain} for the domain and boundary conditions. Let $c = -0.1$, with $J = 4$ and $T(x,y,t,\omega_{j}) = (1 + \epsilon_{j})T(x,y,t)$, where $\epsilon_{j} = \mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ for $1\leq j \leq 4$. The manufactured solution and thermal conductivity are
\begin{align*}
T(x,y,t) &= 20\cos(t)\left(\cos(x(x-1))\sin(y(y-1)) - y(y-1)\right)
\\ \kappa(T) &= \exp(c T),
\end{align*}
where both the heat source and boundary terms are adjusted appropriately. For algorithm (\ref{quan2}), the Robin boundary condition is used with $\alpha=1/2$ and appropriate $\beta$.\\
\textbf{Remark:} The perturbations are randomly generated. For the first test, they are 0.9578666373, 0.9721124752, 0.35623152985, and 0.4332194024.\\
The finite element mesh $\Omega_{h}$ is a Delaunay triangulation generated from $m$ points on each side of $\Omega$. P1 Lagrange elements are used. We calculate the error in the approximations of the average temperature with the $L^{\infty}(0,t^{\ast};L^{2}(\Omega))$ and $L^{2}(0,t^{\ast};H^{1}(\Omega))$ norms. Rates are calculated from the errors at two $\Delta t_{1,2}$ via
\begin{align*}
\frac{\log_{2}(e(\Delta t_{1})/e(\Delta t_{2}))}{\log_{2}(\Delta t_{1}/\Delta t_{2})}.
\end{align*}
We set $\Delta t = 0.5/m$ and vary $m$ between 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64. Results are presented in Tables \ref{Table=first} and \ref{Table=second}. We see first-order convergence in the $L^{\infty}(0,t^{\ast};L^{2}(\Omega))$ norm and first-order convergence in the $L^{2}(0,t^{\ast};H^{1}(\Omega))$ norm for each algorithm. These results are as expected based on the convergence analysis, Theorem \ref{theorem 2}.
For the second test, we study the effect of the size of the perturbation on convergence. We repeat the above convergence test, changing only the perturbation size. For $1\leq j \leq 4$, let $\epsilon_{j} = \mathcal{O}(10^{-l})$ for $l = 0, 1, 2, 3$, and 4. The errors of the average solution in $L^{\infty}(0,t^{\ast};L^{2}(\Omega))$ are presented in Tables \ref{Table=perturb1} and \ref{Table=perturb2} for methods (\ref{quan1}) and (\ref{quan2}), respectively. We see that as the perturbation size is reduced, the results increasingly agree with one another. Notably, the algorithm remains stable irrespective of the perturbation size, consistent with Theorem \ref{theorem1}.
Finally, we investigate the effect of the ensemble size J. We fix $m=16$, $\Delta{t}=0.5/m$, $\epsilon_j = \mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$, and then let $J$ vary from 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64. The associated average errors are calculated and plotted, Figure \ref{Figure=Jerror}. Once again, results are consistent with the theory.
\begin{table}\centering
\caption{Comparison of $\vertiii{<e>}_{\infty,0}$ with algorithm (\ref{quan1}), varying perturbation size, $\epsilon$.}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c} {Mesh} & \multicolumn{5}{c} {Perturbation Size} \\
$m$ & $\mathcal{O}(1)$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$ \\
\hline
4& 8.16E-02& 1.81E-02& 1.20E-02& 1.14E-02& 1.13E-02 \\
8& 1.94E-02& 4.37E-03& 2.89E-03& 2.74E-03& 2.73E-03 \\
16& 4.92E-03& 1.11E-03& 7.35E-04& 6.97E-04& 6.94E-04 \\
32& 1.37E-03& 3.13E-04& 2.08E-04& 1.97E-04& 1.96E-04 \\
64& 3.83E-04& 9.07E-05& 6.05E-05& 5.75E-05& 5.71E-05 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Table=perturb1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}\centering
\caption{Comparison of $\vertiii{<e>}_{\infty,0}$ with algorithm (\ref{quan2}), varying perturbation size, $\epsilon$.}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c c c}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c} {Mesh} & \multicolumn{5}{c} {Perturbation Size} \\
$m$ & $\mathcal{O}(1)$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ & $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$ \\
\hline
4& 8.27E-02& 1.85E-02& 1.23E-02& 1.16E-02& 1.16E-02 \\
8& 1.85E-02& 4.17E-03& 2.76E-03& 2.62E-03& 2.61E-03 \\
16& 4.93E-03& 1.19E-03& 7.92E-04& 7.52E-04& 7.48E-04 \\
32& 1.76E-03& 4.47E-04& 2.99E-04& 2.84E-04& 2.83E-04 \\
64& 7.63E-04& 1.94E-04& 1.30E-04& 1.24E-04& 1.23E-04 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{Table=perturb2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}\centering
\caption{Comparison of steady-state solutions with exact solution.}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{l} {Position} & & \multicolumn{2}{c} {$m=8$} & \multicolumn{2}{c} {$m=16$} \\
$x$ & $y$ & & $T$ & \% Error & $T$ & \% Error & Analytical \\\hline
0.25 & 0.50 & &161.939 & 0.022 & 161.919 & 0.009 & 161.904 \\
0.375 & 0.630 & &143.281 & 0.020 & 143.259 & 0.004 & 143.253 \\
0.50 & 0.50 & &132.309 & 0.016 & 132.293 & 0.004 & 132.288 \\
0.50 & 0.75 & &124.361 & 0.015 & 124.342 & 0.000 & 124.342 \\
0.625 & 0.625 & &120.343 & 0.013 & 120.332 & 0.003 & 120.328 \\
0.75 & 0.50 & &113.423 & 0.009 & 113.415 & 0.002 & 113.413 \\
0.75 & 0.75 & &109.731 & 0.007 & 109.725 & 0.002 & 109.723 \\
0.25 & 0.75 & &151.584 & 0.043 & 151.541 & 0.015 & 151.519 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Table=stdystate}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, every node/.style={scale=0.5}]
\draw[->,thick] (0,0) -- (0,8);
\draw[->,thick] (0,0) -- (8,0);
\draw[black,thick] (0,0) rectangle (7,7);
\node at (3.5,3.5) {$\Omega$};
\node at (-0.3,7.5) {$y$};
\node at (7.5,-0.3) {$x$};
\node at (3.5,8.0) {$T = 0$};
\node at (3.5,7.5) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = e^{cT}20cos(t)(cos(x^2-x) - 1)$};
\node at (3.5,-0.5) {$T = 0$};
\node at (3.5,-1.0) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = e^{cT}20cos(t)(cos(x^2-x) - 1)$};
\node at (10.0,3.75) {$T = 20sin(t)(sin(y^2-y) - (y^2-y))$};
\node at (10.0,3.25) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = 0$};
\node at (-3,3.75) {$T = 20sin(t)(sin(y^2-y) - (y^2-y))$};
\node at (-3,3.25) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = 0$};
\draw[->,thick] (17,0) -- (17,8);
\draw[->,thick] (17,0) -- (25,0);
\draw[black,thick] (17,0) rectangle (24,7);
\node at (20.5,3.5) {$\Omega$};
\node at (16.7,7.5) {$y$};
\node at (24.5,-0.3) {$x$};
\node at (20.5,7.5) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = 1$};
\node at (20.5,-0.5) {$T = 1$};
\node at (25.3,3.5) {$\kappa\nabla{T}\cdot{n} = 1$};
\node at (16,3.5) {$T = 1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, every node/.style={scale=0.5}]
\draw[->,thick] (0,0) -- (0,8);
\draw[->,thick] (0,0) -- (8,0);
\draw[black,thick] (0,0) rectangle (7,7);
\node at (3.5,3.5) {$\Omega$};
\node at (-0.3,7.5) {$y$};
\node at (7.5,-0.3) {$x$};
\node at (3.5,7.5) {$T = 100$};
\node at (3.5,-0.5) {$T = 100$};
\node at (8.0,3.5) {$T = 100$};
\node at (-1,3.5) {$T = 200$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Domain and boundary conditions for (left) convergence test manufactured solution, (right) 3D printing problem, and (bottom) steady-state solution.}
\label{Figure=domain}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.55]{l2andlinfv2.eps}
\caption{Errors versus ensemble size J.}
\label{Figure=Jerror}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.75]{3dprntv8.eps}
\caption{Variation of $||T||$ with time.}
\label{Figure=printingex}
\end{figure}
\subsection{3D printing application}
We now consider an application problem in the spirit of \cite{Vora} to illustrate the use of ensembles. The problem is the two-dimensional heat transfer of a solid medium subject to laser heating from above by a single pulse. Emulating the thermal conductivity found in \cite{kolev2015} we let $\kappa(T) = 100(T-2.0)^2\mathcal{H}(2.0-T) + 50$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is the Heaviside step function. Moreover, we set $J = 3$ whereby the initial conditions $T(x,y,0;\omega_{j}) = T_{0,j} = 1.0, 1.25$, and $1.5$ for $1\leq{j}\leq{3}$.
The lower left corner walls are maintained at temperature $T(1,y,t;\omega_{j}) = T(x,0,t;\omega_{j}) = 1.0$ and upper right corner walls allow for heat flow out of the element via $\kappa \nabla T \cdot n = 1$; see Figure \ref{Figure=domain}.
Moreover, the heat source, $f(x,y,t;\omega_{j})$, is given by
\[ f(x,y,t;\omega_{j}) =
\begin{cases}
4000 \exp(-8((x-0.5)^2 + (y-0.5)^2)) & 0 \leq t \leq 0.0005, \\
0 & 0.0005 < t,
\end{cases}
\]
representing a pulse laser with Gaussian beam profile.
\\ \indent The finite element mesh is a division of $(0,1)^{2}$ into $64^{2}$ squares with diagonals connected with a line within each square in the same direction. We use algorithm (\ref{quan1}) with timestep $\Delta t = 0.00025$ and final time $t^{\ast} = 0.01$.
The values for each computed approximate temperature distributions and mean distribution in the $L^{2}(\Omega)$ norm are computed and presented in Figure \ref{Figure=printingex}. We see that the temperature approximation generated by the unperturbed thermal conductivity and the mean are close as expected. Moreover, the temperature approximations generated by perturbed thermal conductivities envelop the mean, evidently useful in quantifying uncertainty.
\subsection{Steady State Experiment}
The final numerical experiment is the solution of a two-dimensional steady-state nonlinear heat transfer problem with temperature dependent thermal conductivity as performed in \cite{singh2006numerical}. We use a single ensemble with $J=1$ and initial condition $T(x,y,0) = 100$. The left wall is set at $T(0,y,t) = 200$ and the remaining boundaries are $T(1,y,t)=T(x,0,t)=T(x,1,t)=100$. We use the heat source $f(x,y,t)=0$, and set $\kappa(T) = \frac{\kappa_0}{c\rho}T$ where $\kappa_0=400$ is the reference thermal conductivity, and the specific heat and density are set to be $c=400$ and $\rho = 9000$ respectively. These boundary conditions can be seen in Figure \ref{Figure=domain}.
Q
The finite element mesh is a uniform division of the domain $(0,1)^2$ into $8^2$ and $16^2$ squares whose diagonals are connected with a line in the same direction for each square. Values of the steady-state solution at each mesh size are approximated and presented with a comparison to the analytical solution given from \cite{singh2006numerical} in Table \ref{Table=stdystate}; from this we can see Algorithm (\ref{quan1}) reproduces the steady-state solution with high accuracy.
\section{Conclusion}
We presented two algorithms for calculating an ensemble of solutions to heat conduction problems with uncertain temperature-dependent thermal conductivity. In particular, these algorithms required the solution of a linear system, involving a shared coefficient matrix, for multiple right-hand sides at each timestep. Unconditional stability and convergence of the algorithms were proven. Moreover, numerical experiments were performed to illustrate the use of ensembles and the proven properties. Important next steps include allowing for phase changes in the solid material (e.g., liquid phase) and incorporating more physics in the boundary conditions (e.g., surface-to-ambient radiation).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
J. A. Fiordilino and M. Winger are supported by NISE/Section 219.
\section*{Public Release}
Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. (NSWC Corona Public Release Control Number 21-012).
\section*{References}
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}{-3.5ex plus -1ex minus
-.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\large\bf}}
\makeatother
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def\displaystyle{\displaystyle}
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\title[Qualitative properties for $1-D$ impulsive wave equation]{Qualitative properties for the $1-D$ impulsive wave equation: controllability and observability}
\author{Akram BEN AISSA$^{*}$}
\author{Walid Zouhair$^{**}$}
\begin{abstract}
In this paper, we establish some important results for the impulsive wave equation. We begin by proving the existence of a solution. Then, we study the impulse approximate controllability where the control function acts on a subdomain $ \omega $ and at one instant of time $ \tau \in (0, T)$. Afterward, we study impulse observability.
\end{abstract}
\subjclass[2010]{35L05, 93B05, 93B07, 35R12}
\keywords{impulsive wave equation, impulse control, impulse observability, impulse approximate controllability. \\
*: UR Analysis and Control of PDE's, UR 13ES64, Higher Institute of transport and Logistics of Sousse, University of Sousse, Tunisia\\
[email protected]\\
**: Cadi Ayyad University, Faculty of Sciences Semlalia, LMDP, UMMISCO (IRD-UPMC), B.P. 2390, Marrakesh, Morocco,\\ <EMAIL>}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
Impulsive dynamic systems are a type of hybrid systems for which the trajectory admits discontinuities at certain instants due to sudden jumps of the state called pulses ( see more in \cite{BMJ}). Dynamical behavior of many systems in real life can be characterized by abrupt changes that appear suddenly, such as heartbeats, drug flows, the value of stocks, impulse vaccination, and bonds on the stock market. This class of hybrid systems is presented as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{S1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\xi^{\prime}(t) &=& f(t,\xi(t)),\quad t \in (0,T],\,\, t \neq t_{k},\\[3mm]
\bigtriangleup \xi(t_{k})&=& \nu_{k}(\xi(t_{k})),\quad k \in \theta_{m}^{n},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{m}^{n} = \lbrace m,m+1,...,n \rbrace ,$ \, $\bigtriangleup \xi(t_{k}) = \xi (t_{k}^{+})- \xi (t_{k}^{-}),$ with $\xi (t_{k}^{+})$ $(\text{respectively}\, \xi (t_{k}^{-}))$ denotes the limit to the right (respectively to the left) of $t$ and $\xi^{\prime}(t)= f(t,\xi(t)),$ is a differential equation.\\
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{1}
\textbf{Explanatory diagram for the behavior of the solution }\par\medskip
\end{center}
The theory of impulsive differential equations was initiated by V. D. Mil'man and A. Mishkis in 1960 \cite{MVDM}. Afterward, many scientists contributed to the enrichment of this theory, they launched different studies on this discipline and a large number of results were established, we invite the interested reader to see \cite{liu,farzana,yao}. \\
Unlike the interior controllability for impulsive systems that have been extensively studied in the literature, see for instance \cite{CDJUHLOC,ACCDGHL,GL,CDGHL,LHWZME} and the references therein, the problem of controllability with impulse controls has attracted less attention and not as many works are available in this area. We mention A. Khapalov \cite{KAY} who proved the exact controllability of a class of second-order hyperbolic boundary problems with impulse controls using the Huygens' principle. S. Qin and G. Wang \cite{SQG} presented a necessary and sufficient condition for the approximate controllability in finite dimension, which is exactly Kalman's controllability rank condition. Recently K. D. Phung, G. Wang, and Y. Xu \cite{KDP} considered the following impulsive functional differential systems
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t} \psi-\Delta \psi=0, & \text { in } \Omega \times(0, T) \backslash\{\tau\} \\
\psi=0, & \text { on } \partial \Omega \times(0, T) \\
\psi(\cdot, 0)=\psi^{0}, & \text { in } \Omega \\
\psi(\cdot, \tau)=\psi\left(\cdot, \tau^{-}\right)+R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{1}_{\omega} h, & \text { in } \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
They proved that the above system is null approximate impulse controllable at any time $T > 0$.
Motivated by the above works, we study in this paper the following $1-D$ impulsive wave equation:
\begin{equation}\label{s2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial^{2}\kappa(x,t)}{\partial{t}^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}\kappa(x,t)}{\partial{x}^{2}} = 0, &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega\, \times(0, T) \backslash\left\{t_{k}\right\}_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}},& \\
\kappa(x,t_{k}^{+}) - \kappa(x,t_{k}^{-}) = 0, &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega, \,\,\,\,k \in \theta_{1}^{n},&\\
\frac{\partial \kappa(x,t_{k}^{+})}{\partial{t}} -\frac{\partial \kappa(x,t_{k}^{-})}{\partial{t}} = \Upsilon_{k}(x), &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega, \,\,\,\,k \in \theta_{1}^{n},&\\
\kappa(0,t) = \kappa(1,t)= 0, & \text{ on }\,\,\,\,(0, T),&\\
\kappa(x,0) = \kappa^{0}(x) , \frac{\partial \kappa(x,0)}{\partial{t}}=\kappa^{1}(x), &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega,& \;\;\;\;
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\Omega = (0,1),$ $\displaystyle\lbrace t_{k}\rbrace_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}}\,$ are instantaneous pulses such that $t_{0}=0<t_{1}<\dots<t_{n}<T$ and $\Upsilon_{k}$ is an impulse control that satisfies a suitable assumptions, $(\kappa^{0},\kappa^{1})$ are the initial conditions in an appropriate Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}.$\\
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we briefly present the problem formulation and the well-posedness result. In section 3 we discuss the impulse approximate controllability and we present some related definitions and propositions. The last section is devoted to studying impulse observability.
\section{Well-posedness}
In order to use the theory of semigroup to establish the well-posedness of problem \eqref{s2}, we start by putting the previous equation to the first order in time $\psi = \left(
\kappa,\frac{\partial \kappa}{\partial{t}}\right)^\top$. Then, the problem \eqref{s2} turns into a Cauchy problem as
\begin{equation}\label{s3}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial \Psi(.,t)}{\partial{t}} =\mathcal{A}\Psi(.,t) \quad & \text{ in }\,\,\,\,(0, T) \backslash\left\{t_{k}\right\}_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}},&\\
\Psi(t_{k}^{+})=\Psi(t_{k}^{-})+\Upsilon_{k}(.)B \quad & k \in \theta_{1}^{n},&\\
\Psi(0) = \Psi_{0}. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
First we introduce the Hilbert space as follows:
$$\mathcal{H}= H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)\times L^{2}(\Omega),$$ endowed with the following inner product
\begin{equation}\label{classicinnerproduct}
\left( \left(u, v \right)^\top,\,\left( \tilde{u},\tilde{v}\right)^\top\right)_{\mathcal{H}}=
\int_\Omega \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \frac{\overline{\tilde{u}}}{\partial x}dx+\int_\Omega v\overline{\tilde{v}}dx.
\end{equation}
Then, we define $B$ and the operator $\mathcal{A}$ on $\mathcal{H}$ by
$$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}) = H^{2}(\Omega)\cap H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)\times H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)$$
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}\left(
u,v \right)^\top&=&\left(
v, \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}
\right)^\top, \forall (u,\,v)^\top\in D(\mathcal{A})\label{fi}\\
B &=&\left(0,1 \right)^\top. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
One can easily check that $\mathcal{A}$ is an unbounded skew-adjoint operator on $\mathcal{H}$, then it generates a group of isometries $(S(t))_{t\in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{R}}\,$( Stone's theorem\cite{pazy} ).\\
For further purposes and with the notations $\mathcal{I}:=[0,T],$ and $\mathcal{I}^{\prime}:=[0,T]\backslash\left\{t_{k}\right\}_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}},$ we set the following Banach space which is natural framework space for evolution equations with pulses:
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle \mathcal{P C}(\mathcal{I} ; \mathcal{H})=\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
y:\mathcal{I} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}: y \in C(\mathcal{I}^{\prime};\mathcal{H}):\forall k\quad y\left(t_{k}^{-}\right), y\left(t_{k}^{+}\right)\text {exists}\\ \mbox{ and }y\left(t_{k}\right)= y\left(t_{k}^{-}\right)
\end{array}\right\},
\end{equation}
endowed with the norm
\begin{equation}
\|y\| = \sup_{t \in [0,T]} \|y(t)\|.
\end{equation}
We define the classical solution for the impulsive wave equation \eqref{s3} as follows:
\begin{defi}
Classical solution $\Psi$ for \eqref{s3}is an absolutely continuous piecewise continuous mapping with discontinuities at points $t = t_{k}$ which, for almost all $t$ satisfies the system \eqref{s3}, and for $t=t_{k}$ satisfies the jump conditions. In other words, a classical solution for (\ref{s3}) is a function
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Psi \in \mathcal{P} \mathcal{C}([0, T] ; \mathcal{H}) \,\cap\, C^{1}\left((0, T) \backslash\left\{t_{k}\right\}_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}}, \mathcal{H}\right),\\
\Psi(t) \in D(A), \text { for } t \in(0, T) \backslash\left\{t_{k}\right\}_{k \in \theta_{1}^{n}}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
such that $\Psi$ satisfies \eqref{s3} in $[0,T).$
\end{defi}
\begin{prop}[Well-posedness]
Assume that\, $\Psi_{0}= (\kappa^{0},\kappa^{1}) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})\, ,$ and $\Upsilon_{k} \in H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)$ $ k \in \theta_{1}^{n}.$ Then, the impulsive system \eqref{s3} has a unique classical solution $\Psi$ which, for $t \in [0,T),$ satisfies
$$\Psi(t) = S(t) \Psi_{0}+\displaystyle{\sum_{0<t_{k}<t}} S(t-t_{k})\Upsilon_{k} B .$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, in the interval $J_1 = [0, t_{1}),$ we consider the equation
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial \Psi(.,t)}{\partial{t}} = \mathcal{A}\Psi(.,t), \quad \, 0<t<t_{1},\\[2mm]
\Psi(0) = \Psi_{0}. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
\\
Note that the classical solutions for evolution equations without pulses are defined in an obvious way, see Pazy \cite{pazy}. Then it is clear that the unique classical solution of this system is given by\\
$$ \Psi_{1}(t) = S(t)\Psi_{0}.$$
Next, we define
$$ \Psi_{1}(t_{1}) = S(t_{1})\Psi_{0},$$
furthermore, we can check that $\Psi_{1}(.) $ is left continuous at $t_{1},$ and $\Psi_{1}(t_{1}) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}). $\\
On the other hand in $J_2 = [t_{1}, t_{2})$, we consider the following equation
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial \Psi(x,t)}{\partial{t}} = \mathcal{A}\Psi(x,t), \quad \, t_{1}<t<t_{2},\\[2mm]
\Psi(t_{1}) = S(t_{1})\Psi_{0} + \Upsilon_{1}B. \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Since $ S(t_{1})\Psi_{0} + \Upsilon_{1}B \in \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}),$ Once again the unique classical solution of the previous equation is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\Psi_{2}(t) = S(t)\Psi_{0}+S(t-t_{1})\Upsilon_{1}B,
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
furthermore, we have $\Psi_{2}(.)$ is left continuous at $t_{2}$ and $\Psi_{2}(t_{2}) \in D(\mathcal{A}).$ If we continue in the same manner then at the k-th step, in the interval $J_{k} = [t_{k-1}, t_{k}),$ $k \in \theta_{1}^{n+1}$ we get the following unique classical solution
$$\Psi_{k}(t) = S(t) \Psi_{0}+\displaystyle{\sum_{m=1}^{k-1}} S(t-t_{m})\Upsilon_{m}B .$$
Now, we define the function $\Psi$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\Psi(t) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Psi_{1}(t) & t_{0}< t <t_{1},&\\[2mm]
& \vdots & \\
\Psi_{k}(t) & t_{k-1}< t <t_{k},& \\
& \vdots & \\
\Psi_{n+1} & t_{n}< t <T,&\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
\\
it is clear that $\Psi(.)$ is the unique classical solution of \eqref{s3}.
\end{proof}
Note that if $\Psi_{0} \in \mathcal{H},$ the existence of a solution for the system \eqref{s3} can be proved in a similar way by assuming that $\Upsilon_{k} \in L^{2}(\Omega).$
\section{Impulse Controllability of the System \eqref{s3.1}}
Control theory deals with how an arbitrary initial state can be directed exactly or approximately close to a given final state using a set of admissible controls. In this section, we study the impulse approximate controllability for the system below with one pulse $\tau \in (0,T)$. Here, the control function acts on a subdomain $\omega$ and at one point of time $\tau \in (0,T)$ (see more in \cite{MBER}).\\
We consider the following wave equation with one pulse:\\
\begin{equation}\label{s3.1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial^{2}\kappa(x,t)}{\partial{t}^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}\kappa(x,t)}{\partial{x}^{2}} = 0, &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega\, \times(0, T) \backslash\left\{\tau \right\},& \\
\kappa(x,\tau^{+}) = \kappa(x,\tau^{-}), &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega, &\\
\frac{\partial \kappa(x,\tau^{+})}{\partial{t}} -\frac{\partial \kappa(x,\tau^{-})}{\partial{t}} = \mathbf{1}_{\omega} \Upsilon_{\tau}(x), &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega,&\\
\kappa(0,t) = \kappa(1,t)= 0, &\text{ on }\,\,\,\, (0,T),&\\
\kappa(x,0) = \kappa^{0}(x) , \frac{\partial \kappa(x,0)}{\partial{t}}=\kappa^{1}(x), & \text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega.& \;\;\;\;\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Let us first remark that \eqref{s3.1} is equivalent to the following system:
\begin{equation}\label{3.2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\partial^{2} \kappa(x, t)}{\partial t^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2} \kappa(x, t)}{\partial x^{2}}=\mathbf{1}_{\omega} \Upsilon_{\tau}\left(x\right)\delta_{\tau}(t), & \text{ in } \Omega\times (0,T), \\
\kappa(0, t)=\kappa(1, t)=0, &\text{ on } (0,T), \\
\kappa(x, 0)=\kappa^{0}(x), \frac{\partial \kappa(x, 0)}{\partial t}=\kappa^{1}(x), & \text{ in }\Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{\tau}$ is the Dirac measure at time $t = \tau$, which in turn is equivalent to the following abstract control problem
\begin{equation}\label{3.3}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\psi^{'}(t)= \mathcal{A} \psi(t) + B_{\omega} \Upsilon_{\tau}\delta_{\tau}(t), \quad &\text{ on }\,\,\,\, (0,T),&\\[2mm]
\psi(0) = \psi_{0},\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
$\psi(0)=\left(\kappa^{0}, \kappa^{1}\right)^\top,\;
B_{\omega}=
\left(0, \mathbf{1}_{\omega}\right)^\top$ and
$\mathcal{A} $ is an unbounded linear operator defined on $\mathcal{H}$ as in \eqref{fi}.\\
Next, we introduce a lemma that will be frequently used in what follows:
\begin{lem} \cite{Tu}
The eigenfunctions of $\mathcal{A}$ are given by
$$\Phi^{n}=\left(\sin(n\pi x), \lambda_n\sin(n\pi x)\right)^\top,\quad \lambda_{n} = in\pi,\; n\in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z}^{*},$$
they forms an orthonormal basis in $\mathcal{H}$. Moreover, the group $(S(t))_{t\in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{R}}$ and its generator can be represented as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{A}x &=& \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \lambda_{n} \langle x, \phi_{n} \rangle \phi_{n}, \; x \in \mathcal{H}\\
S(t)x &=& \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} e^{- n^2 t}\langle x, \phi_{n} \rangle \phi_{n}, \; x \in \mathcal{H}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lem}
\begin{defi}[Impulse approximate Controllability]
System \eqref{3.3} is said to be impulse approximately controllable on $[0,T],$ if for all desired state $\psi^{1} \in \mathcal{H},$ and initial condition $\psi_{0} \in \mathcal{H},$ and for all $\varepsilon > 0 $ there exists $\Upsilon_{\tau} \in L^2(\omega)$ such that the mild solution $\psi(t,\Upsilon_{\tau},\psi_0)$ of \eqref{3.3} verifies:
\begin{equation*}
\left\|\psi(T,\Upsilon_{\tau},\psi_0) - \psi^{1}\right\|_{\mathcal{H}} <\varepsilon.
\end{equation*}
\end{defi}
The following lemma will be used to establish the main result of this section. We consider $G : W \longrightarrow Z $ a linear bounded operator between Hilbert spaces $W$ and $Z$.
\begin{lem}(see \cite{RFCAJP,RFCHJZ,HLNMJS})\label{exl}
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ \quad \overline{\operatorname{Rang}\left(G\right)}=Z ,$\\[1.5mm]
\item $ \quad \ker\left(G^*\right) = \{0\}$\\[1.5mm]
\item $\left\langle G G^* v , v\right\rangle>0,\quad v \neq 0 \quad\text{in}\,\, Z,$\\[1.5mm]
\item $\lim _{\alpha \rightarrow 0^{+}} \alpha\left(\alpha I+G G^*\right)^{-1} v =0.$\,\, $\forall v \in Z.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
where $G^* $ is the adjoint operator of $G$. Now, we are in a position to state the main result of this section.
\begin{thm}
If $\omega = \Omega$, the system \eqref{s3.1} is approximate impulse controllable at any time $T > 0.$\\
If $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega$ and $\{\Phi^1,\Phi^2,\ldots,\Phi^{N}\},\,N\in \N,$ forms a finite basis of $ \mathcal{H}$, the system \eqref{s3.1} is approximate impulse controllable at any time $T > 0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma \ref{exl}, see also \cite[Theorem 2.43, p.56]{cor}, the approximate impulse controllability of the system \eqref{3.3} at $T>\tau,$ returns to the following uniqueness result for the adjoint problem:
\begin{equation}\label{3.12}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\vartheta_{t}=-\mathcal{A} \vartheta \\
B_{\omega}^{*} \vartheta(x,\tau)=0 \quad \text{ a.e}\quad \text{in}\quad \Omega \quad
\end{array}\right\} \Longrightarrow \vartheta \equiv 0.
\end{equation}
\\
Indeed, we shall distinguish two cases: $\omega = \Omega ;$ $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega .$ \\
$\blacktriangleright$\textbf{Case 1:} For $\omega = \Omega ,$
the solution of the adjoint problem with the following initial condition
$$\vartheta_{0}=\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z}^{*}} a_{k} \lambda_{k} \Phi^{k} \in L^{2}(\Omega) \times H^{-1}(\Omega),$$
is given by
$$\vartheta(x,t)=\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}}} a_{k} e^{-\lambda_{k} t} \lambda_{k} \Phi^{k}(x).$$
We assume that
$$B_{\omega}^{*} \vartheta(x,\tau)=0, \quad \text{ a.e}\quad \text{in}\quad \Omega $$
that is
\begin{equation}\label{3.13}
\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}}} a_{k} e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau}\lambda_{k} \Phi^{k}(x) = 0, \quad \text{a.e} \quad \text{in}\quad \omega.
\end{equation}
then
$$ \left\|\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}}} a_{k} e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau} \lambda_{k} \Phi^{k}(.)\right\|_{L^{2}(\Omega) \times H^{-1}(\Omega)} = 0, $$
since $(\lambda_{k} \Phi^{k})_{k\in \Z^{*}}$ is an orthonormal basis in $L^{2}(\Omega) \times H^{-1}(\Omega)$, we get
$$\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}}} \left|a_k\right|^2 \left|e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau}\right|^{2} = 0 ,$$
thus
$$\sum_{k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}}} \left|a_k\right|^2 = 0 ,$$
therefore, we obtain $a_{k} = 0$, for all $k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{Z^{*}},$
which prove that
$$ \vartheta \equiv 0.$$
$\blacktriangleright$\textbf{Case 2:} For $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega ,$ and $\{\Phi^1,\Phi^2,\ldots,\Phi^{N}\}$, form a finite basis of $H$, the solution of the adjoint problem with the following initial condition:
$$\vartheta_{0}=\sum_{k =1}^{N} a_{k}\lambda_{k} \Phi^{k} ,$$
is given by
$$\vartheta(x,t)=\sum_{k =1}^{N} a_{k} e^{-\lambda_{k} t}\lambda_{k} \Phi^{k}(x).$$
We assume that
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle B_{\omega}^{*}\,\vartheta(x,\tau)=0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \Omega,
\end{equation*}
that is
\begin{equation}\label{3.4}
\sum_{k=1}^{N} a_{k}\lambda_{k}^2\, e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau} \sin(k\pi x) =0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega.
\end{equation}
We recall that the classic Chebychev polynomials of second species are given by the following relation:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
U_0=1,\;U_1=2X,\\
\\
U_{n+1}=2 X U_{n}-U_{n-1}, \quad \forall n \geq 1 .\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Polynomials $(U_{n})$ can be defined alternatively by trigonometric forms of their associated polynomial functions on $\omega.$ Indeed, for every $n\in \N^{*}$ we have
$$\sin(n\pi x) = \sin(\pi x) U_{n-1}(\cos(\pi x)), \quad \forall x \in \omega.$$
Therefore the assumption $\eqref{3.4}$, becomes
\begin{equation}\label{3.5}
\sum_{k=1}^{N} a_{k}\lambda_{k}^2\, e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau} \sin(\pi x) U_{k-1}(\cos(\pi x)) =0, \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega.
\end{equation}
Hence, it is enough to prove the following implication:
\begin{equation}\label{3.16}
\sum_{k=1}^{N} a_{k}\lambda_{k}^2 e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau} \sin(\pi x) U_{k-1}(\cos(\pi x)) =0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega \Longrightarrow a_{k} = 0 \quad k=1,2,...,N .
\end{equation}
For $N=1$ the implication \eqref{3.16} is clearly verified. Now, we assume that it is true for $n < N,$ and we prove it for $n+1$. By taking
\begin{equation}\label{3.6}
\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} a_{k}\lambda_{k}^2 e^{-\lambda_{k} \tau} \sin(\pi x) U_{k-1}(\cos(\pi x)) =0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega.
\end{equation}
since $\sin(\pi x) \neq 0$, for all $x \in \omega$, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{tsou}
a_{1}\lambda_{1}^2 e^{-\lambda_{1} \tau}+...+a_{n+1}\lambda_{n+1}^2 e^{-\lambda_{n+1} \tau} U_{n}(\cos(\pi x))=0, \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega.
\end{equation}
we compute the derivative of (\ref{tsou}), we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{3.19}
a_{2}\lambda_{2}^2 e^{-\lambda_{2} \tau} \pi U_{1}^{(1)}(\cos(\pi x))+\ldots+a_{n+1}\lambda_{n+1}^2 e^{-\lambda_{n+1} \tau} \pi U_{n}^{(1)}(\cos(\pi x))=0, \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega,
\end{equation}
again, if we compute the derivative of the previous formula \eqref{3.19}, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
a_{3}\lambda_{3}^2 e^{-\lambda_{3} \tau} \pi^{2} U_{2}^{(2)}(\cos(\pi x))+...+a_{n+1}\lambda_{n+1}^2 e^{-\lambda_{n+1} \tau} \pi^{2} U_{n}^{(1)}(\cos(\pi x))=0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega,
\end{equation*}
we continue in the same manner. Finally, at the n-$\mathrm{th}$ step, we get
$$a_{n+1}\lambda_{n+1}^2 e^{-\lambda_{n+1} \tau} \pi^{n} U_{n}^{(n)}(\cos(\pi x))=0 \quad \text{a.e} \quad \omega, $$
since $U_{n}^{(n)}(\cos(\pi x)) \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{R}^{*},$ then $a_{n+1} = 0.$\\
This ends to the desired implication.
\end{proof}
\section{Impulse Observability Inequality for \eqref{s3.1}}
In this section we make use of the strategy presented by Lions \cite{lions} to obtain an observation estimate at one instant of time $\tau=2,$\,( $0< \tau <T)$ for the impulsive wave equation \eqref{s3.1}. \\
For $(\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1})\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega)\times C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega),$ the homogeneous problem associated to \eqref{s3.1} is as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{4.1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi(x,t)}{\partial{t}^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi(x,t)}{\partial{x}^{2}} = 0, &\text{in}\,\,\,\, \Omega\, \times(0, T), \\
\Phi(0,t) = \Phi(1,t)= 0, &\text{on}\,\,\, (0,T),\\
\Phi(x,0) = \Phi^{0}(x) , \frac{\partial \Phi(x,0)}{\partial{t}}=\Phi^{1}(x), & \text{in}\,\,\, \Omega, \;\;\;\;
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
System \eqref{4.1} admits a unique solution expressed in Fourier series as
$$ \Phi(x,t)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(a_{n} \cos (n \pi t)+\frac{b_{n}}{n \pi} \sin (n \pi t)\right) \sin (n \pi x) ,$$
where
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{0}(x) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{n}\sin( n \pi x)\quad\text{and}\quad
\Phi^{1}(x) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} b_{n}\sin( n \pi x),
\end{equation*}
$(a_{n})$ and $(b_{n})$ are the coefficients of Fourier in the orthogonal basis of $L^{2}(\Omega)$
$$ \theta_{n}(x) = \sin(n\pi x),\quad n=1,2,\ldots.$$
Next, we consider the following backward problem
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}\label{4.2}
\frac{\partial^{2} \Psi(x,t)}{\partial{t}^{2}} -\frac{\partial^{2} \Psi(x,t)}{\partial{x}^{2}} = 0, &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega\, \times(0, T) \backslash\left\{\tau\right\},\\
\Psi(x,\tau^{-}) = \Psi(x,\tau^{+}), &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega, &\\
\frac{\partial \Psi(x,\tau^{+})}{\partial{t}} -\frac{\partial \Psi(x,\tau^{-})}{\partial{t}} = -\mathbf{1}_{\omega}\Phi_{t}(x,\tau)\delta_{\tau}, &\text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega ,\\
\Psi(0,t)= \Psi(1,t)= 0, &\text{ on }\,\,\,\, (0,T),\\
\Psi(T) = \Psi^{'}(T) =0, & \text{ in }\,\,\,\, \Omega. \;\;\;\;\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
We can easily check that this system is well-posed, by a simple calculation we obtain
$$\int\int_{Q} \frac{\partial^{2} \Psi(x,t)}{\partial{t}^{2}}\Phi(x,t) dxdt-\int\int_{Q}\frac{\partial^{2} \Psi(x,t)}{\partial{x}^{2}}\Phi(x,t) dxdt = - \int\int_{Q}\mathbf{1}_{\omega} \Phi_{t}^{2}(x,\tau)dxdt, $$
with $Q= \Omega\times (0.T).$\\
A double integration by parts yields
$$T \int_{\omega}\Phi_{t}^{2}(x,\tau)dx = \int_{\Omega} \Phi^{0}\Psi^{'}(0)-\Psi(0)\Phi^{1}dx ,$$
we define the operator $\Lambda$ as follows:
$$\Lambda(\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1}) = (\Psi^{'}(0),-\Psi(0)) \quad \forall (\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1})\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega)\times C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega),$$
then, $$ T \int_{\omega}( \Phi_{t}(x,\tau)^{2} dx = <\Lambda(\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1}),(\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1})>_{L^{2}\times L^{2}} .$$
For $(\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1}) \in C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega)\times C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega),$ we define the semi-norm
$$\left\| \lbrace\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1} \rbrace\right\|_{F} := T^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\int_{\omega}\mid\Phi_{t}(x,\tau)\mid^{2}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. $$
In what follows, we will prove the impulse observability inequality (see \cite{Tu,ABGDMCDSM,ETGWYX}), which consist of the existence of a constant $c>0$ such that for all $\left( \Phi^{0},\Phi^{1} \right) \in L^{2}(\Omega)\times H^{-1}(\Omega)$ the mild solution $\Phi$ of the problem \eqref{4.1} satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{4.3}
\int_{\omega}\mid \Phi_{t}(x,\tau)\mid^{2}dx \geq c\, \| \lbrace\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1} \rbrace\|^{2}_{ L^{2}(\Omega)\times H^{-1}(\Omega)} .
\end{equation}
Indeed, we shall distinguish two cases: $\omega = \Omega ;$ $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega .$ \\
$\blacktriangleright$\textbf{case 1:} For $\omega = \Omega,$
we may express $\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}\mid \Phi_{t}(x,\tau)\mid^{2}dx $ in terms of the Fourier coefficients $(a_{n})$ and $(b_{n})$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
\int_{\Omega}\mid\Phi_{t}(x,\tau)\mid^{2}dx &=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left( n\pi \,a_{n}\cos(n\pi \tau)+ b_{n}\sin(n\pi \tau) \right)^{2}\\[5mm]
&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left((n\pi a_{n})^{2} +b_{n}^{2}\right)\sin^{2}(n\pi \tau +y_{n}),
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
with $y_{n}$ satisfied $$\sin(y_{n})= \frac{b_{n}}{\sqrt{(n\pi a_{n})^{2} +b_{n}^{2}}} \quad \text{and} \quad \cos(y_{n})= \frac{n\pi a_{n}}{\sqrt{(n\pi a_{n})^{2} +b_{n}^{2}}}.$$
On the other hand
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
\left\|\phi_{0}\right\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}+\left\|\phi_{1}\right\|_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}^{2} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(a_{n}^{2}+\frac{b_{n}^{2}}{n^{2}
\pi^{2}} \right).
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
So, it's enough to prove the existence of a positive constant $c$ such that
$$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left((n\pi a_{n})^{2} +b_{n}^{2}\right)\sin^{2}(n\pi \tau +y_{n})\geq c \displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(a_{n}^{2}+\frac{b_{n}^{2}}{n^{2}
\pi^{2}} \right),$$
this inequality would require a lower bound of the form
\begin{equation}\label{4.23}
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
\vert\sin(n\pi \tau +y_{n})\vert \geq c \quad \forall n \in \N^{*},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
since $\tau = 2,$ the inequality \eqref{4.23} is equivalent to the following:
\begin{equation}\label{4.25}
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
\vert\sin(y_{n})\vert \geq c \quad \forall n \in \N^{*},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
this inequality is false for all $y_{n}.$ Indeed, if $y_{n},$ is
expressed as
$$y_{n} = n \pi \quad n \in \N^{*}, $$
then, foll $n$ peer
$$\sin(y_{n}) = \sin( n \pi)= 0 .$$
In this case, $\sin(y_{n})= 0,$ for an infinite number of values of $n.$ Thus, inequality \eqref{4.25} cannot be true. But, for certain values of $y_{n}$ this inequalities may be obtained. For instance, if $ b_{n} = a_{n}$ for all $n \in \N,$
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle
\vert\sin(y_{n})\vert = \frac{\vert b_{n}\vert}{n\pi\sqrt{b_{n}^{2} +\frac{b_{n}^{2}}{(n\pi)^{2}}}},
\end{equation*}
therefore
\begin{equation*}
\vert\sin(y_{n})\vert \geq \frac{1}{n\pi \sqrt{2}},
\end{equation*}
and this is the best lower bound one may expect, this implies that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle
\displaystyle\sum_{n>0}^{\infty}\left((n\pi a_{n})^{2} +b_{n}^{2}\right)\sin^{2}(n\pi \tau +y_{n})\geq \frac{1}{2} \displaystyle\sum_{n>0}^{\infty}\left( a_{n}^{2} + \frac{b_{n}^{2}}{n^{2}\pi^{2}} \right),
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Omega}\mid \Phi_{t}(x,\tau )\mid^{2}dx \geq \frac{1}{2}\, \| \lbrace\Phi^{0},\Phi^{1} \rbrace\|^{2}_{ L^{2}(\Omega)\times H^{-1}(\Omega)} .
\end{equation*}
$\blacktriangleright$\textbf{case 2:} For $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega ,$ in this case, we'll do a numerical check for the class of initial conditions $ a_n = b_n ,$ for which we had proved the observability inequality \eqref{4.3} in case $\omega = \Omega$. In other words, let's take $\omega = ]0,\frac{1}{2}[ \varsubsetneq \Omega,$ and we put the following initial conditions:
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{0}_{N}(x) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} a_n \sin( n \pi x)\quad\text{and}\quad
\Phi^{1}_{N}(x) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} b_n \sin( n \pi x),
\end{equation*}
we note $\Phi^{N}$ the solution of \eqref{4.1} corresponding to the above initial conditions.
The figures below shows the variation of the quantity $\eqref{4.5}$ vis-a-vis $N,$ for the following particular initiales conditions: $a_n = b_n = k \in R}{{\rm I~\hspace{-1.15ex}{R}; $ $a_n= b_n = n;$ and $a_n = b_n = n \pi.$
\begin{equation}\label{4.5}
\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\omega}\mid \Phi^{N}_{t}(x,t_{1})\mid^{2}dx}{\displaystyle \| \lbrace\Phi^{0}_{N},\Phi^{1}_{N} \rbrace\|^{2}_{ L^{2}\times H^{-1}}} .
\end{equation}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{0} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{00} \\
\end{tabular}
In these figures, we notice that \eqref{4.5} is always bigger than $c \simeq 0,227$ and it's strictly increasing, which validates the inequality of observability \eqref{4.3} for these particular cases.
\section{Conclusion and Open problems}
Impulse control is a very weak control function, it acts only at one instant of time, and the problem of the wave equation with impulse control on a subdomain $\omega$, without any geometrical conditions on the space $\Omega$ is very challenging. In this paper, we made an analysis of this problem from different angles and we obtained some interesting results. But there are still several open questions that we have not been able to answer like the problem of controllability of the system \eqref{s3.1}, in a case $\omega \varsubsetneq \Omega ,$ in infinite dimension. The novelty in this work is that the literature on impulse control systems is very small, there are very few numbers of works on systems with impulse control, to our knowledge wave equation with impulse control have not been studied yet.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most distinctive aspects of human communication is that it goes beyond vocal production --- humans have devised many ways to make their ideas both visible and durable.
From etchings on cave walls to modern digital displays, some of the most significant inventions in human history include technologies that externalize our thoughts in visual form.
Despite the importance of such technologies, little is known about how the human mind is capable of using them in such varied ways. Perhaps the most basic and versatile of these technologies is drawing.
Drawing predates the invention of writing \citep{clottes2008cave} and is pervasive across many cultures \citep{gombrich1989story}.
It has long inspired scientists to investigate the mental representation of concepts in children \citep{minsky1972artificial,KarmiloffSmith:1990ty} and clinical populations \citep{Bozeat:2003hk,chen2012clock}.
Despite drawing's importance as a technology for expressing human knowledge, the underlying cognitive mechanisms underpinning our ability to produce such varied drawings are relatively unknown.
In particular, prior work has seldom addressed the question of how drawing enables the flexible expression of meanings across different levels of visual abstraction, ranging from detailed drawings of specific objects to sparse drawings that communicate information about basic-level categories (Fig.~\ref{visual_abstraction}).
As a consequence, theories of how visual images convey information at different levels of abstraction are comparatively impoverished, by contrast with theories of how such semantic hierarchies are encoded in natural language \citep{miller1995wordnet,xu2007word,rosch1976basic}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{figures/car.pdf}
\caption{Humans use drawings to communicate meanings spanning many levels of abstraction.}
\label{visual_abstraction}
\end{figure}
Here we investigate the cognitive and task constraints that enable such flexible expression of visual knowledge.
Specifically, we explore the hypothesis that the ability to draw objects at different levels of abstraction is jointly dependent on sensory information and representational goals (i.e., the subject of the drawing), such that drawings intended to portray a specific exemplar contain different semantic information than drawings intended to represent a category.
To test this hypothesis, we conducted a systematic investigation of the semantic information contained in drawings of a wide variety of visual objects using a combination of crowdsourcing and model-based analyses.
Our approach builds on a growing body of literature using drawing paradigms to investigate various aspects of cognition, including learning \citep{FanYaminsTurkBrowne2018,fiorella2018drawing}, communication \cite{hawkins2019disentangling,fan2020pragmatic}, memory \citep{bainbridge2019drawings,roberts2020drawing}, and development \citep{dillon2020rooms,Long2019}.
A key limitation of this prior work is that it has generally restricted their focus to drawings produced at a specific level of abstraction by using either category labels \textit{or} natural images as cues, potentially restricting the dynamic range over which drawings can vary.
To address this limitation, here we directly manipulate sensory information and representational goals within the same paradigm, allowing us to disentangle their contributions to the semantic content of the resulting drawing.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/photodraw_task.pdf}
\caption{Study 1 Task Procedure. A: On photo-cue trials, participants aimed to produce a drawing of the photographed exemplar. B: On label-cue trials, participants aimed to produce a drawing of the labeled category.}
\label{photodraw_task}
\end{figure}
\section{Study 1: How do drawings cued by prototypical exemplars differ from drawings cued by category labels?}
The goal of our first study was to explore the extent to which drawings of objects produced in the presence of a typical exemplar differed from drawings based solely on prior semantic knowledge of that category.
Towards this end, we manipulated whether participants were cued with a photo of a highly prototypical exemplar or with a category label before producing their drawing (Fig.~\ref{photodraw_task}).
Insofar as the photo provided a visual reminder to participants of the diagnostic properties of each object, we predicted that photo-cued drawings would be easier to recognize at the category level than label-cued ones.
Alternatively, insofar as category labels more strongly activate information that is diagnostic of basic-level category membership than even photos of typical exemplars, we predicted that \textit{label}-cued drawings would be more recognizable at the category level \citep{lupyan2012evocative}.
\subsection{Methods}
\subsubsection{Participants}
57 English-speaking adults recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) completed the study (29 male, 36.8 years).
Each participant received \$2.00 for their participation (approx. \$12/hr) and provided informed consent as per our institution's IRB.
Data from 4 participants who met our pre-registered criteria were excluded from further analyses.\footnote{Data from an entire session were excluded if it contained at least three blank drawings, at least three `incomplete' drawings consisting of a single stroke, or at least three invalid drawings (containing text, surrounding context, or other inappropriate content).}
\subsubsection{Stimuli} We obtained 3 color photographs of prototypical exemplars from each of 12 familiar object categories: \textit{airplane, bike, bird, car, cat, chair, cup, hat, house, rabbit, tree, and watch}
\subsubsection{Task Procedure}
Each participant produced a total of 12 drawings, one for each object category.
Six of these drawings were cued using a category label and the other six using a photo of one of 3 typical exemplars from that category (Fig.~\ref{photodraw_task}).
On label-cue trials, participants were instructed to ``\textit{make a drawing that would help someone else looking only at your drawing guess which word you were prompted with}'' corresponding to a category goal.
On photo-cue trials, participants were instructed to ``\textit{make a drawing that would help someone else looking only at your drawing guess which image you were prompted with, out of a lineup containing other similar images}'' corresponding to a basic-level goal.
Participants used their cursor to draw in black ink on a digital canvas (canvas: $300\times300$px; stroke width: 5px).
Each stroke was rendered in real-time on the participant’s screen as they drew and could not be deleted once drawn.
Both the label and photo cues were onscreen throughout the entire trial and participants could take as long as they wished to complete their drawing (Fig.~\ref{photodraw_data}A).
The assignment of cue type to object category was randomized across participants, as was the order in which the object categories were displayed.
At the end of the session, participants were prompted to complete a survey in which they were asked to optionally provide the following information: sex, age, drawing device, and self-reported drawing skill.
\subsubsection{Measuring semantic information in drawings}
This study sought to evaluate potential differences in the \textit{semantic} information conveyed by photo-cue and label-cue drawings, which can in principle be dissociable from their low-level image properties \citep{FanYaminsTurkBrowne2018}.
Measuring the semantic content in a drawing that determines its recognizability, however, requires a principled approach for encoding its high-level visual properties.
Here we leverage prior work validating the use of deep convolutional neural network (CNN) models to encode such properties in drawings \citep{FanYaminsTurkBrowne2018}.
Specifically, we used VGG-19 \citep{simonyan2014very} trained to categorize objects in photos from the Imagenet database \citep{simonyan2014very} to extract high-level feature-vector representations of each sketch.
Each 4096-dimensional feature vector reflected VGG-19 activations to drawings in the second fully-connected layer of the network (i.e., \texttt{fc6}).
To extract the degree to which each drawing expressed the target concept, we applied a 12-way logistic classifier with L2 regularization, using 5-fold cross-validation, to predict the category label for each drawn concept.
Because this type of classifier assigns a probability value to each object, it can be used to evaluate the strength of evidence for each category contained in each drawing.
We then used these probabilities to derive a measure that quantifies the relative evidence for the cued category compared to the others.
Specifically, we define \textit{category evidence} to be the logodds ratio between the cued category and all other categories (Fig.~\ref{photodraw_data}C).
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.97\linewidth]{figures/photodraw_data_2.pdf}
\caption{Study 1 Results. A: Example drawings. B: Number of strokes per drawing in the photo-cue and label-cue conditions. C: Category evidence assigned to the target category by classifier. Error bars represent 95\% bootstrap confidence intervals.}
\label{photodraw_data}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Results}
\subsubsection{Drawings cued by typical exemplars are more recognizable than those cued by category labels alone}
To analyze differences in category evidence between conditions, we fit a linear mixed-effects model that included condition (i.e. photo vs. text) as a predictor, as well as random intercepts for participants and item.
In this and subsequent statistical analyses, the best-performing linear mixed-effects model was identified using nested model comparison.
We found that photo-cue drawings contained more category evidence than label-cue drawings (photo: 1.86, label: 0.978, $b = -0.875$, $t = -2.86$, $p = 7.08$e$-03$), suggesting that the availability of a photo of a typical exemplar may have improved participants' ability to include category-diagnostic features in their drawing.
\subsubsection{Drawings cued by typical exemplars contain similar amounts of detail to those cued by category labels alone}
On photo-cue trials, participants had persistent access to a visual reminder of how a typical exemplar in the cued category looked.
One potential explanation for their greater recognizability is that participants leveraged this additional information to spend more time on each trial producing drawings of greater detail.
To test this possibility, we analyzed the number of strokes and the amount of time participants used to produce each drawing by fitting a linear mixed-effects model that included condition as a predictor (i.e., photo-cue vs. label-cue), as well as random slopes and intercepts for participants, and random intercepts for each item (i.e., the photo or the label).
Neither analysis revealed reliable differences between conditions: participants used a similar number of strokes (photo: 10.2 strokes, label: 10.8 strokes, $b = -0.675$, $t = -0.502$, $p = 0.618$) and spent a similar amount of time (photo: 31500 ms, label: 25600 ms, $b = -5960$, $t = -1.75$, $p = 0.0876$; Fig.~\ref{photodraw_data}B) on each drawing.
These results suggest that despite having additional visual information available on photo-cue trials, participants expended similar amounts of effort producing drawings in both conditions.
\section{Study 2: Disentangling the contributions of sensory information, goals, and typicality}
In Study 1, we found that drawings produced while viewing a typical exemplar contained more semantically relevant information about the cued category.
These results seem to suggest that photos generally provide useful reminders to participants of the category-diagnostic properties of objects.
However, two confounds complicate this interpretation: \textit{First}, participants cued with a photo were also instructed to produce drawings that would be discriminable at the \textit{exemplar} level, while participants cued with a label were instructed to produce drawings that would be recognizable at the \textit{category} level.
Thus it is not clear whether the differences we observed are primarily due to the availability of sensory information (i.e., photo vs. label) or to the representational goals (i.e., to draw a category or exemplar) participants had.
\textit{Second}, the 36 photo-cues in Study 1 were all highly prototypical and perceptually similar to one another.
Thus it is not clear whether participants were more successful in producing more easily classifiable drawings on photo-cue trials due to the availability of sensory information \textit{per se}, or to low image variation, reflecting the prototypicality of these exemplars.
To address these methodological limitations, the goal of Study 2 was to independently manipulate sensory information and representational goals, as well as
test an expanded set of categories, each containing a larger and more heterogeneous set of exemplar images.
\subsection{Drawing Task}
\subsubsection{Participants}
We recruited 384 participants (128 female, 25.9 years) to participate in our study via Prolific.
Each participant received \$6.00 for their participation (approx. \$12/hr).
We did not exclude data from any participant, as none met our pre-registered exclusion criteria.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.84\linewidth]{figures/photodraw_2x2_task.pdf}
\caption{Study 2 Task Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two goal conditions (i.e., exemplar, category) and one of two cue-type conditions (i.e., photo, label).}
\label{photodraw2x2_task}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Stimuli}
We included 32 basic-level categories: \textit{airplane, ape, axe, blimp, bread, butterfly, car (sedan), castle, cat, cup, elephant, fish, flower, hat, hotdog, jack-o-lantern, jellyfish, kangaroo, lion, motorcycle, mushroom, piano, raccoon, ray, saw, scorpion, skyscraper, snake, squirrel, tree, windmill, and window}.
Each category contained 32 exemplars selected from the photographs included in the Sketchy dataset \citep{sangkloy2016sketchy}.
These categories were selected to span a wide range of familiar concepts and were balanced with respect to animacy, size, familiarity, and artificiality.
Moreover, the images \textit{within} each category were selected to vary with respect to both category-orthogonal properties (e.g., pose, viewpoint) as well as category-relevant properties (e.g., typicality).
\subsubsection{Task Procedure}
We independently manipulated sensory information and representational goals across participants, such that each participant was pseudorandomly assigned to a cue type (i.e., photo, label) $\times$ goal (i.e., exemplar, category) condition (Fig.~\ref{photodraw2x2_task}; N=96 participants per condition).
In the photo-cue $\times$ exemplar-goal condition, participants were instructed to: ``make a drawing that would help someone else looking only at your drawing guess which image you were prompted with, out of a lineup containing other similar images.'' \footnote{These were the same instructions that photo-cue participants received in Study 1.}
In the label-cue $\times$ category-goal condition, participants were instructed to: ``make a drawing that would help someone else looking only at your drawing guess which word you were prompted with.'' \footnote{These were the same instructions that label-cue participants received in Study 1.}
In the photo-cue $\times$ category-goal condition, participants were instructed to: ``make a drawing that is recognizable, but not one that could be matched to the image I was shown.''
In the label-cue $\times$ exemplar-goal condition, participants were instructed to visualize and ``draw a \textit{specific} object, rather than a general object category.''
Each participant in Study 2 made drawings of 32 objects, with one drawing per category.
To equate the total amount of preparation time participants in all four groups had before beginning their drawing, the cue was always presented for 8 seconds and then removed before participants could begin their drawing.
\footnote{As a consequence, Study 2 participants who were cued with a photo \textit{did not} have persistent visual access to this image while producing their drawing, while Study 1 participants did.}
The sequence in which categories appeared across trials was randomized across participants, but the number of times a given photo was presented was balanced, such that each photo served as the cue 3 times in Study 2.
The resulting dataset contained 12,288 sketches.
\subsection{Measuring image typicality}
Given the greater variability between exemplars within each category, we sought to investigate potential relationships between the semantic properties of each photo --- namely, how prototypical it was --- and the properties of the resulting drawing.
Towards this end, we crowdsourced typicality ratings for each photo.
\subsubsection{Participants}
88 participants (42 male, 29.2 years) were recruited via Prolific.
Each participant received \$3.00 for their participation in the ~15-minute study (approx. \$12/hr).
Data from 8 participants who did not meet our exclusion criteria\footnote{Data from an entire session were excluded if at least 4 of 8 catch trials were failed, the same option was chosen 8 times in a row, twice in the session, or trials were rated at random (defined by abnormally low correlation with other raters).} were excluded from further analyses.
\subsubsection{Task procedure}
Each participant was presented with the prompt (\textit{"How well does this picture fit your idea or image of the category?"}), a series of 128 images, and was asked to provide typicality judgments on a 5-point Likert scale: "Not at all", "Somewhat", "Moderately", "Very", and "Extremely".
In each session, there were 4 images from each of the 32 categories.
This study yielded 10,240 ratings, such that each photo was rated 10 times.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{figures/photodraw_2x2_results.pdf}
\caption{Study 2 Results. A: Example drawings from each condition. B: Number of strokes per drawing for each condition. C: Category-level evidence across conditions. D: Variance of feature vectors for drawings within-category, for each condition. E: Relationship between category evidence and typicality among photo-cue drawings. Error bars represent 95\% bootstrap confidence intervals.}
\label{photodraw2x2_results}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Differences in the amount of detail and effort between groups}
Given the results of Study 1, we did not strongly expect groups would differ in the amount of detail and effort participants would expend during drawing production in Study 2.
Nevertheless, to evaluate any potential differences revealed by this larger dataset, we again analyzed how much time and how many strokes participants used to make each drawing.
To test this possibility, we analyzed the number of strokes and the amount of time participants used to produce each drawing using a series of nested model comparisons among linear mixed-effects models varying in complexity.
We found that the best-performing statistical model contained fixed effects for cue type and goal (but no interaction between them), as well as random intercepts for participant and category.
Using this model to predict the number of strokes participants used, we found a reliable main effect of representational goal (exemplar: 13.6 strokes, category: 9.83 strokes, $b = 3.48$, $t = 9.32$, $p<2$e$-16$), such that participants intending to draw specific exemplars produced more detailed drawings than those intending to draw the basic-level category, regardless of cue type (Fig.~\ref{photodraw2x2_results}B).
The same model also revealed a main effect of cue type (photo: 12.5 strokes, label: 10.9 strokes, $b = -1.33$, $t = -3.55$, $p = 4.31$e$-04$), such that participants who were cued with a photo used more strokes than those cued with a label, regardless of their representational goal.
When analyzing the amount of time participants spent drawing, we found a reliable main effect of representational goal (exemplar: 15.3s, category: 18.7s, $b = 3.38$, $t = 4.96$, $p = 1.09$e$-06$) but not of cue type (photo: 17.0s, label: 17.1s, $b = -0.0750$, $t = -0.112$, $p=0.911$).
Taken together, these results provide converging evidence for contributions of representational goal and cue type on the amount of effort and detail participants invest when producing their drawings.
\subsubsection{Differences in category evidence between groups}
Based on Study 1, we predicted that there would be some differences in the amount of category evidence contained by drawings from each condition, but it was not yet clear whether differences would be primarily driven by cue type, goal, or both.
As in the previous section, we used nested model comparisons to identify the best-performing model specification, which included fixed effects for cue type, goal, their interaction, as well as self-reported drawing skill, with random intercepts for participants and category.
Using this model, we found a main effect of cue type (photo: 1.72, label: 2.90; $b = 0.554$, $t = 2.24$, $p = 0.0256$), such that label-cued drawings were actually \textit{more classifiable} than those cued by a photo, diverging from the results we obtained in Study 1 (Fig.~\ref{photodraw2x2_results}C).
Moreover, we found a main effect of representational goal (exemplar: 1.72, category: 2.89, $b = -1.84$, $t = -7.43$, $p = 7.64$e$-13$), such that drawings intended to convey a category were more recognizable than those intended to portray a specific exemplar.
The interaction between cue type and goal was also reliable ($b = 1.27$, $t = 3.63$, $p = 3.24$e$-04$), reflecting a larger effect of goal within the photo-cue condition.
Finally, we observed that self-reported drawing skill had a small positive effect on drawing recognizability ($b = 0.153$, $t = 2.46$, $p = 0.0145$).
Together, these findings provide support for the hypothesis that drawings intended to portray a specific exemplar, especially one that was recently seen, do not contain the same semantic information as drawings intended to communicate about a basic-level category.
Specifically, the additional detail that these exemplar drawings contain not only fails to enhance their recognizability but if anything, reduces their ability to evoke the cued category.
\subsubsection{Effect of photo typicality on category evidence}
How might these results be reconciled with those obtained in Study 1?
One of the most salient differences between the photos used in each study was how prototypical they were judged to be: while the 36 photos used in Study 1 were all maximally prototypical, the 1024 photos used in this experiment exhibited substantial and realistic variability in their visual properties (e.g., viewpoint, lighting, clutter, occlusion, size), such that none of these photos were nearly as canonical in appearance as the cues used in Study 1.
Thus one plausible hypothesis is that the typicality of the photo cue may modulate how much category-diagnostic information participants include in their drawings, such that being cued with a less typical exemplar leads to \textit{less} recognizable drawings while being cued with a more typical exemplar leads to \textit{more} recognizable drawings, at least at the basic level.
To evaluate this hypothesis, we fit a linear mixed-effects model predicting category evidence for photo-cue drawings only, including fixed effects for typicality, goal, their interaction, and subjective skill, as well as random intercepts for participants, category, and item (i.e., the specific photo).
In support of this hypothesis, we found that the photo-cue typicality was positively related to the amount of category evidence contained in participants' drawings ($b = 0.624$, $t = 3.45$, $p = 5.81$e$-04$; Fig.~\ref{photodraw2x2_results}E).
Moreover, we found an interaction between the photo-cue typicality and representational goals ($b = 0.747$, $t = 3.55$, $p = 3.94$e$-04$), indicating that the positive relationship between photo-cue typicality and category evidence was stronger when participants intended to draw that particular exemplar.
\begin{comment}
MODEL SELECTION ANOVA: CATEGORY DV
Data: sketch_data
Models:
model1: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
model2: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition + (1 | gameID) + (1 |
model2: category)
model3: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition + goal + (1 | gameID) +
model3: (1 | category)
model4: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + (1 | gameID) +
model4: (1 | category)
model5: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill +
model5: (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
model6: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill +
model6: numStrokes + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
model7: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill +
model7: numStrokes + totalInk + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
model8: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill +
model8: numStrokes + totalInk + activeSketchTime + (1 | gameID) +
model8: (1 | category)
npar AIC BIC logLik deviance Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
model1 4 72413 72443 -36203 72405
model2 5 72375 72412 -36182 72365 40.2323 1 2.255e-10 ***
model3 6 72335 72380 -36162 72323 41.6230 1 1.107e-10 ***
model4 7 72323 72375 -36155 72309 14.2656 1 0.0001587 ***
model5 8 72319 72378 -36152 72303 6.0506 1 0.0139013 *
model6 9 72320 72386 -36151 72302 0.9399 1 0.3323162
model7 10 72322 72396 -36151 72302 0.0036 1 0.9522686
model8 11 72321 72403 -36150 72299 2.6154 1 0.1058320
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
We found that subjective drawing skill resulted in a small effect in classification accuracy (b = 0.01215, t = 2.737, p = 0.00649)
We found that subjective drawing skill resulted in a small effect in the logodds probability of classification (b = 0.15316, t = 2.457, p = 0.014464)
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
OPTIMAL MODEL -- fc6 logodd probabilities
Linear mixed model fit by REML. t-tests use Satterthwaite's method ['lmerModLmerTest']
Formula: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
Data: sketch_data
REML criterion at convergence: 72310.1
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-4.8469 -0.6140 0.0168 0.6405 4.4966
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
gameID (Intercept) 2.125 1.458
category (Intercept) 5.863 2.421
Residual 24.836 4.984
Number of obs: 11846, groups: gameID, 384; category, 32
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 2.26587 0.48507 49.62218 4.671 2.32e-05 ***
conditiontext 0.55403 0.24725 375.23012 2.241 0.025624 *
goalinstancedraw -1.83661 0.24735 375.30628 -7.425 7.64e-13 ***
subjectiveSkill 0.15316 0.06234 376.41303 2.457 0.014464 *
conditiontext:goalinstancedraw 1.27261 0.35066 375.19192 3.629 0.000324 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) cndtnt glnstn sbjctS
conditintxt -0.252
golnstncdrw -0.263 0.499
subjctvSkll -0.302 -0.011 0.028
cndtntxt:gl 0.203 -0.704 -0.707 -0.076
OPTIMAL MODEL -- classifier accuracy
Linear mixed model fit by REML. t-tests use Satterthwaite's method ['lmerModLmerTest']
Formula: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ condition * goal + subjectiveSkill + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category)
Data: sketch_data
REML criterion at convergence: 72310.1
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-4.8469 -0.6140 0.0168 0.6405 4.4966
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
gameID (Intercept) 2.125 1.458
category (Intercept) 5.863 2.421
Residual 24.836 4.984
Number of obs: 11846, groups: gameID, 384; category, 32
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 2.26587 0.48507 49.62218 4.671 2.32e-05 ***
conditiontext 0.55403 0.24725 375.23012 2.241 0.025624 *
goalinstancedraw -1.83661 0.24735 375.30628 -7.425 7.64e-13 ***
subjectiveSkill 0.15316 0.06234 376.41303 2.457 0.014464 *
conditiontext:goalinstancedraw 1.27261 0.35066 375.19192 3.629 0.000324 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) cndtnt glnstn sbjctS
conditintxt -0.252
golnstncdrw -0.263 0.499
subjctvSkll -0.302 -0.011 0.028
cndtntxt:gl 0.203 -0.704 -0.707 -0.076
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Estimating variability between drawings}
The fact that the additional detail participants had included in photo-cue exemplar drawings did not make them more recognizable at the category level raises the question: what are the consequences of including this extra information on the semantic properties of these drawings?
Perhaps these drawings are characterized by a greater degree of exemplar-level discriminability, such that they are easier to tell apart from one another, even if they are not as easy to identify at the basic level as their label-cued category drawing counterparts.
To explore this possibility, we conducted an exploratory analysis of how distinguishable drawings within a given category were, for each condition.
Insofar as drawings that are intended to communicate about a concrete, specific exemplar are indeed more discriminable, we would predict the visual variability among drawings to be larger for photo-cued exemplar drawings than for category drawings.
To test this prediction, we used Euclidean distance between feature vectors to compute the \textit{variance} over the set of feature vectors from each category, separately for each condition.
We found that indeed feature variability was greater overall for photo-cued drawings than for label-cued drawings (photo: 885, label: 819, $b = 65.8$, $t = -3.98$, $p = 1.17$e$-04$; Fig.~\ref{photodraw2x2_results}D).
Moreover, feature variability was also greater for exemplar drawings than category drawings (exemplar: 893, category: 810, $b = 83.3$, $t = 9.15$, $p = 1.43$e$-15$).
Finally, we also found a reliable interaction between cue type and goal, such that the gap in feature variability for exemplar vs. category drawings was larger for the photo-cue condition than in the label-cue condition ($b = 41.3$, $t = -2.57$, $p = 0.0114$).
Taken together, these results provide support for the notion that drawings that are intended to convey specific, concrete meanings are also more discriminable from one another than drawings intended to convey more abstract, categorical meanings.
\begin{comment}
photo 884.687366
text 818.868914
categorydraw 810.139306
instancedraw 893.416974
within-category variances for each condition/goal 2x2:
Call:
lm(formula = fc6_variance ~ condition * goal, data = var_data)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-136.086 -29.310 3.194 31.889 84.787
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 832.74 8.03 103.705 < 2e-16 ***
conditiontext -45.19 11.36 -3.980 0.000117 ***
goalinstancedraw 103.90 11.36 9.150 1.43e-15 ***
conditiontext:goalinstancedraw -41.25 16.06 -2.569 0.011392 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 45.42 on 124 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.5939, Adjusted R-squared: 0.5841
F-statistic: 60.45 on 3 and 124 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Typicality effects
MODEL SELECTION: fc6 logodd DV, only photo cue for typicality. note: should we make typicality the DV so we don't need to fit new models for e.g. numStrokes?
Data: filter(sketch_data, condition == "photo")
Models:
model1: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ (1 | gameID) + (1 | category) +
model1: (1 | imageURL)
model2: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category) +
model2: (1 | imageURL)
model3: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal + inst_typicality + (1 |
model3: gameID) + (1 | category) + (1 | imageURL)
model4: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal * inst_typicality + (1 |
model4: gameID) + (1 | category) + (1 | imageURL)
model5: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal * inst_typicality + subjectiveSkill +
model5: (1 | gameID) + (1 | category) + (1 | imageURL)
model6: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal * inst_typicality + subjectiveSkill +
model6: numStrokes + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category) + (1 | imageURL)
model7: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal * inst_typicality + subjectiveSkill +
model7: numStrokes + totalInk + (1 | gameID) + (1 | category) + (1 |
model7: imageURL)
model8: prob_true_predict_fc6_logodds ~ goal * inst_typicality + subjectiveSkill +
model8: numStrokes + totalInk + activeSketchTime + (1 | gameID) +
model8: (1 | category) + (1 | imageURL)
npar AIC BIC logLik deviance Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
model1 5 36266 36299 -18128 36256
model2 6 36211 36251 -18100 36199 56.6163 1 5.297e-14 ***
model3 7 36169 36216 -18078 36155 44.3262 1 2.780e-11 ***
model4 8 36158 36212 -18071 36142 12.6620 1 0.0003732 ***
model5 9 36150 36210 -18066 36132 10.2441 1 0.0013712 **
model6 10 36151 36218 -18066 36131 0.6281 1 0.4280682
model7 11 36153 36227 -18066 36131 0.1904 1 0.6626140
model8 12 36148 36228 -18062 36124 7.2179 1 0.0072179 **
Each image was rated by 10 individuals for their typicality. We examine the effect of typicality on category-level recognizability and low-level features.
We fit a linear mixed-effects regression predicting logodd prediction probabilities of each sketch cued using a photo, with fixed effects for typicality, drawing goal, their interaction, and subjective skill, and random intercepts for participants, category, and image id.
We found that the typicality of the cued image resulted in a statistically significant effect in the logodds probability of classification (b = 0.74950, t = 3.719, p = 0.000205) (isTypical)
We found that the typicality of the cued image resulted in a statistically significant effect in classification accuracy (b = .04805, t = 2.771, p = 0.005624) (isTypical)
(when using the actual values, there are significant effects)
Issue: \\
We found a small interaction between the drawing goal and typicality of the cued image on the logodds probability of classification (????????; b = 0.56551, t = 2.223, p = 0.026238)\\
We did not find any significant interaction between the drawing goal and typicality of the cued image on classification accuracy (????????; b = 0.03107, t = 1.372, p = 0.170001)
\end{comment}
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we investigated the cognitive and task constraints that underlie our ability to produce drawings of object concepts at different levels of abstraction.
This paper reports the results of both a smaller-scale exploratory study and a larger-scale follow-up study that evaluated the impact of immediate sensory inputs and representational goals on people's ability to include semantically relevant information about category membership in the drawings they produced.
Data from Study 1 initially suggested that concurrent visual access to a photograph of an object helped people include more category-diagnostic information in their drawing than they otherwise would.
However, data from Study 2, which was both more highly-powered and better-controlled, provided a more nuanced picture of how sensory information influences the semantic information contained in the resulting drawing: more typical photos tend to elicit more recognizable drawings than less typical ones.
Moreover, we found that photo-cued drawings that were intended to depict that exemplar were among the least recognizable (at the category level), suggesting a dissociation between how drawings communicate more abstract vs. more specific meanings.
Here our analyses assume that using features extracted by a convolutional neural network provides a good approximation to human sketch recognition, consistent with prior work \citep{FanYaminsTurkBrowne2018}.
However, in ongoing work, we intend to directly validate this assumption in the current dataset by also obtaining human sketch recognition judgments.
Another limitation of our current model-based analyses is that the architecture we used is optimized for capturing category-level information but not as well suited to representing fine-grained visual differences between exemplars.
Thus future work seeking to more fully characterize semantic information in drawings may benefit from using architectures trained to resolve such fine-grained distinctions via techniques such as instance discrimination \citep{Wu2018,zhuang2021unsupervised}.
In this work, our study asks participants to draw real-world objects, which we assume to be strongly dependent on pre-existing knowledge.
Another promising direction for future research is to use novel objects without pre-existing associations to gain further insight into how people draw what they perceive even in the absence of verbalizable, semantic knowledge.
More broadly, our findings highlight the value of using such open-ended production tasks to gain insight into the content and structure of conceptual knowledge.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Bria Long, Mike Frank, Xuanchen Lu, and members of the Cognitive Tools Lab at UC San Diego for helpful discussion.
This work was supported by a Halıcıoğlu Data Science Undergraduate Scholarship and the UCSD Chancellor's Research Scholarship awarded to J.Y., as well as by NSF CAREER Award \#2047191 to J.E.F.
\vspace{2em}
\fbox{\parbox[b][][c]{7.3cm}{\centering {All code and materials available at: \\
\href{https://github.com/cogtoolslab/photodraw}{\url{https://github.com/cogtoolslab/photodraw_cogsci2021}}
}}}
\vspace{2em} \noindent
\setlength{\bibleftmargin}{.125in}
\setlength{\bibindent}{-\bibleftmargin}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)~\cite{Ref:LeCunBDHHHJ89,Ref:Krizhevsky12,Ref:SimonyanZ14a} have become the dominant models for vision recognition tasks, such as image classification, thanks to their powerful representation learning ability and outstanding performance. However, they are criticized for the lack of interpretability~\cite{Ref:YuilleL21}. This drawback inevitably increases unpredictable risks when applying CNNs to real-world computer vision applications concerned with model reliability, such as medical image diagnosis and autonomous driving. The reason why CNNs are known as black box models is it is difficult for humans to understand their principle to make a prediction. For example, humans can naturally perform hierarchical classification with semantically-plausible sequential decisions, e.g., canine? $\rightarrow$ blue eyes? $\rightarrow$ Huskie, but CNNs only perform flat classification, impeding understanding their decisions.
On the contrary, decision trees~\cite{Ref:BreimanFOS84}, which make sequential decisions during inference, were among the most popular machine learning models for various vision recognition tasks, given their simplicity and interpretability~\cite{Ref:Gareth15,Ref:WuKQGYMMNLYZSHS08}. In light of the complementary properties of decision trees to CNNs, a large amount of efforts have been made to combine these two worlds, with the purpose to build a better model which is able to provide both high performance and good interpretability. However, these attempts barely live up to expectation. They suffer from 1) sacrifice of interpretability due to pursuing high performance~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15,Ref:ShenGWZWY21}; 2) performance degradation due to imposing interpretability~\cite{Ref:TannoAACN19,Ref:AlanizA19}; 3) lack of generalizability, \emph{i.e.}, they are only designed for customized CNNs~\cite{Ref:ZhangYMW19}.
To address these issues, we propose a novel scheme to combine CNNs and decision trees, which is a generic model transfer scheme, with the ability to make any CNNs interpretable while maintaining their high classification accuracy. Given a pre-trained CNN, we transfer it to an interpretable model by building a differentiable decision forest (tree ensemble)~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15} on top of it: Each tree split node is connected to a neuron of the last fully-connected layer of the CNN, and thus the decision made at each split node is determined by the output of its corresponding neuron. Intuitively, this model transfer scheme can guarantee high model accuracy, thanks to joint tree ensemble learning and representation learning of the CNN. To make the transferred model interpretable, we design two mechanisms for forest building: 1) A top-down hierarchy learning mechanism, which imposes interpretable semantics to the sequential decisions along the tree paths from the root to leaf nodes. Concretely, we design a criterion to form the correspondence between the split nodes and the neurons under the guidance from the category semantics embedded in the pre-trained weights of the CNN~\cite{Ref:QiaoLSY18,Ref:QiBL18}. This criterion leads to a hierarchy which implicitly clusters semantically-similar categories in a top-down manner, so that they can share the same decision path, from which some semantically-plausible attributes can be extracted to explain each decisions. 2) A dynamic tree ensemble thinning mechanism, which selects one single most representative tree for each input sample during inference, so that the ensemble can be interpreted~\cite{Ref:Hernandez-LobatoMS09,Ref:VidalS20}. We name the transferred model deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest (dDSDF), as it dynamically queries a single tree predictor from the forest and makes sequential semantically-plausible decisions on top of deep networks. We further propose a decision-tree-based Class Activation Map (CAM)~\cite{Ref:ZhouKLOT16,Ref:SelvarajuCDVPB20} approach (as only one tree is selected for an input sample during inference), and show that dDSDF can generate more precise saliency maps than its conuterpart, \emph{i.e.}, the original CNN, to explian its prediction.
Experimental results on several benchmark datasets, such as Cifar~\cite{Ref:Krizhevsky09}, tinyImageNet~\cite{Ref:Tiny} and ImageNet~\cite{Ref:Russakovsky15}, verify the benefits of dDSDF: 1) it can achieve higher classification accuracy than its conuterpart, \emph{i.e.}, the original CNN; 2) it has much better interpretability, since qualitatively it has a semantically-plausible hierarchy and quantitatively it leads to more precise saliency maps.
\section{Related Work}
In recent years, a large amount of efforts have been made to combine deep networks and decision trees for either higher performance or better interpretability.
\subsection{Combination for Higher Performance}
\paragraph{Building deep networks with tree-like architectures.} By this strategy, a data sample only visit a fraction of neurons in networks. Ioannou~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:Ioannou16} proposed Conditional Networks, in which data routers are introduced, represented as perceptrons, to send incoming data to a selected sub-branch. Tanno~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:TannoAACN19} proposed Adaptive Neural Trees, which additionally learns tree topologies by greedily searching three tree growing choices: splitting, keeping and deepening. Roy~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:RoyPR20} proposed a CNN with tree structure, which is built by growing the CNN in a tree-like fashion, to deal with data with unseen classes. Murthy~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:MurthySCMC16} presented a tree-like structured network model driven by the data. Starting from the root network node, this tree-like structured network model automatically builds a network that splits the hard examples into disjoint clusters of classes which would be handled by the subsequent expert networks. Xiong~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:Xiong15} proposed a conditional Convolutional Neural Network (c-CNN) to handle multimodal face recognition. In c-CNN, face samples of different modalities were passed along with modality-specific routes, gradually separated layer by layer and finally passed into different leaf nodes. This combination strategy suffers from enormous additional parameters compared to normal neural networks, since the data routers are often represented as another deep routing network. Besides, such models always require elaborate network designs for specific tasks, making them difficult to reuse and transfer.
\paragraph{Building decision trees on top of deep networks.} This strategy defines the split functions of the tree according to the output of networks or neurons, which can be directly benefited from existing sophisticated deep networks~\cite{Ref:SimonyanZ14a,Ref:HeZRS16}. Bul\`{o} and Kontschieder~\cite{Ref:BuloK14} presented randomized Multi-Layer Perceptrons (rMLP) as new split functions which are capable of learning non-linear, data-specific representations and taking advantage of them by finding optimal predictions for the emerging child nodes. By introducing rMLP, data representation and discriminative learning within randomized decision trees can be jointly tackled. However, representations were learned only locally at split node level and independently among split nodes. Kontschieder~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15} proposed deep Neural Decision Forests (dNDFs), which connect each split node to a neuron in a fully-connected (FC) layer of a deep network. A probabilistic split function is defined at each split node according to the output value of the corresponding neuron and a global loss function is defined on a tree. This ensures that the split node parameters and leaf node predictions can be learned jointly with the deep network. This combination strategy has a good property: It can jointly optimize network parameters, data space partition at split nodes and data distribution abstraction at leaf nodes. Thereby, a lot of works followed this line. Roy and Todorovic~\cite{Ref:Roy16} represented each split function by a small CNN, and used this tree-based CNN for depth estimation. Chen~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:ChenHTWC16} extend dNDFs to deal with domain adaptation problems. Zhu~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:ZhuSMYRZ17} proposed Deep Embedding Forest on the basis of dNDFs for deep text feature mining. Shen~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:Shen17,Ref:Shen18,Ref:ShenGWZWY21} extended dNDFs to perform label distribution learning and regression by proposing Label Distribution Learning Forest (LDLF) and deep Regression Forest (dRF), respectively, and verified the effectiveness of LDLF and dRF on age estimation. Pan~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:PanA0X20} further introduced self-paced learning into dRF. Although these dNDF-based models achieved excellent prediction performance, the interpretability of decision trees was sacrificed. The reason is two-fold: 1) The correspondences between split nodes and neurons in dNDFs are randomly assigned, resulting in tree hierarchies without category semantics and unexplainable decisions during inference; 2) The forest sacrifices the intrinsic interpretability present in decision trees, since following the decision paths of the ensemble of trees becomes intractable. The proposed dDSDF addressed the first issue by explicitly learn the correspondence between split nodes and neurons, leading to sequential decisions corresponding to the attributes shared by semantically-similar categories; And it addressed the second issue by introducing the dynamic tree ensemble thinning mechanism, which selects one single most representative decision tree during inference for each input sample.
\subsection{Combination for Better Interpretability}
As a well-recognized interpretable model, leveraging decision trees to explain neural networks is intuitive. Frosst and Hinton~\cite{Ref:FrosstH17} achieved this by distilling the knowledge acquired by a deep network into a soft decision tree. Hehn~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:HehnKH20} introduced a greedy tree structure construction scheme to build unbalance DNDFs with data-specific structures for better interpretability. However, the model obtained by this scheme only works on small-scale datasets, such as MNIST~\cite{Ref:Lecun98}. The scalability of the scheme is questionable, due to some GPU-unfriendly operations in tree structure construction. Zhang~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:ZhangYMW19} enforced a locality constraint onto CNN filters, so that each channel of the CNN is endowed with a specific part of an image. They then constructed a decision tree on top of the CNN and explained the principle of the CNN's decision making by traversing the decision tree from top to bottom, forming a path from common parts of general categories to unique parts of a small number of samples. However, this model transfer scheme is only applicable to the customized CNN they designed, which limits its usage on general CNNs. Wan~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Ref:Wan21} proposed Neural-Backed Decision Tree (NBDT), which transfers a CNN to a interpretable model by building a decision tree on top of the CNN. The decision tree is formed by performing agglomerative hierarchical clustering based on the category similarities embedded in pre-trained CNN weights, and can be fine-tuned with the CNN to enjoy the benefit of high performance. However, this clustering-based bottom-up tree construction scheme solely relies on pre-trained CNN weights, thus might not lead to human-understood hierarchy on a large dataset, \emph{e.g.}, ImageNet~\cite{Ref:Russakovsky15}, without the pre-defined WordNet~\cite{Ref:Miller95}. Unlike NBDT, the each tree in the proposed dDSDF is constructed in a top-down manner, enable us to consider the consistency between the category similarities and category-level statistical routing similarities from top to down in the constructed hierarchy.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Problem Statement}
Given a CNN model $\mathscr{C}$ with pre-trained weights $\bm{\Theta}$, whose input is an image $\mathbf{x}\in \mathcal{X}$ and output is its category label $y\in\mathcal{Y}=\{1,2,\ldots,C\}$, where $\mathcal{X}$ is image space and $C$ is the number of image categories, our goal is to transfer $\mathscr{C}$ to a interpretable model $\mathscr{I}$, without classification performance degradation. There is no agreement in the literature about the clear definition of model interpretability, but we can simply follow the description from~\cite{Ref:Gareth15} - interpretable models are \emph{desirable to have information providing qualitative understanding of the relationship between joint values of the input variables and the resulting predicted response value}. Decision trees are commonly-accepted interpretable models, since 1) the final decision made by a decision tree can be followed by a decision path, \emph{i.e.}, a sequential decision process; 2) each decision along the path is determined by interpreable feature selection, which is related to a semantically-plausible attribute. The transferred model $\mathscr{F}$ is desired to have these two properties. Next, we introduce how to achieve this by the proposal of deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest (dDSDF).
\subsection{Model Overview}
We transfer the CNN model $\mathscr{C}$ to an interpretable model $\mathscr{F}$ by building a differentiable decision forest~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15} (an ensemble of differentiable decision trees) on top of it, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DSDF}: Each tree split node is connected to a neuron of the last fully-connected (FC) layer of the CNN, and thus its decision function is determined by the output of the neuron. With the help of joint CNN and tree ensemble training, the transferred model $\mathscr{F}$ can achieve a high performance. However, the differentiable decision forest sacrifice the intrinsic interpretability present in decision trees, since 1) each tree in the differentiable decision forest is not interpretable, due to random feature selection during tree building; 2) the concurrent use of multiple trees in the ensemble reduces the interpretability~\cite{Ref:VidalS20,Ref:Benard21a}. To respectively address these two issues, we propose 1) a top-down hierarchy learning mechanism, which guides feature selection for each tree split node by the category semantics embedded in the pre-trained CNN weights $\bm{\Theta}$, forming a semantically-plausible sequential decision process for each tree; 2) a dynamic tree selection module (TSM), following the spirit of dynamic tree ensemble thinning~\cite{Ref:Hernandez-LobatoMS09,Ref:VidalS20}, to select one single decision tree for each input sample, so that the ensemble can be interpreted. Next, we first introduce how to make a differentiable decision tree interpretable by top-down hierarchy learning, then describe the scheme to build the Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest $\mathscr{F}$ on top of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true, width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/overview7w11.pdf}
\caption{Deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest.}
\label{fig:DSDF}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Building Interpretable Differentiable Decision Tree} \label{sec:tree_building}
\subsubsection{Preliminary} A differentiable decision tree is a full binary tree, thus such a tree with depth $d$ has $N=2^{d-1}-1$ split nodes. To build such a tree on top of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$, we desire a one-to-one correspondence between the split nodes in the tree and the the neurons in the last FC layer of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$, since we expect that the tree structure can represent a plausible category hierarchy. Towards this end, we replace the last FC layer (the layer for $C$-way classification) of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$ by a new one whose dimension is $N$, parameterized by $\mathbf{w}$. Let $\mathcal{M}=\{m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_N\}$ denote the set of neurons in this new FC layer. Then, we build the differentiable decision tree with depth $d$ on the new FC layer: The tree consists of a set of split nodes $\mathcal{N}=\{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_N\}$ and a set of leaf nodes $\mathcal{L}=\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,\ell_N\}$. Each leaf node $\ell \in \mathcal{L}$ holds a distribution $\bm{\pi}_\ell=(\pi_{\ell_1},\pi_{\ell_2},\ldots,\pi_{\ell_C})$ over $\mathcal{Y}$. Each split node $n \in \mathcal{N} $ defines a soft decision function $s_n(\mathbf{x}; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}) : \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ to determine the probability that a sample $\mathbf{x}$ is routed to the left or right sub-tree. Then, the probability of sample $\mathbf{x}$ reaching an arbitrary node $n$ is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:leaf_node_prob}
\mu(n|\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})=\prod_{n \in \mathcal{N}} s_{n}(\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})^{\mathbf{1}\left(\ell \in \mathcal{N}_{n_{l}}\right)}\left(1-s_{n}(\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})\right)^{\mathbf{1}\left(\ell \in \mathcal{N}_{n_{r}}\right)},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{1}(\cdot)$ is an indicator function and $\mathcal{N}_{n_{l}}$ and $\mathcal{N}_{n_{r}}$ denote the sets of nodes (including both split nodes and leaf nodes) held by the sub-trees rooted at the left and right children $n_\texttt{l}$ and $n_\texttt{r}$ of node $n$, respectively. Finally, the output of the tree, \emph{i.e.}, the probability that the category label of $\mathbf{x}$ is y is obtained by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{T}}[y|\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{\Theta}, \mathbf{w}, \bm{\pi}]=\sum_{\ell \in \mathcal{L}} \pi_{\ell y} \mu(\ell|\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}),
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\pi}$ are the distributions hold by all the leaves.
We can observe that the decision function $ s_{n}(\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})$ plays an important role in tree building. It is given by
\begin{equation}
s_{n}(\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})=\sigma\left(f_{\mathcal{\varphi}(n)}(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})\right),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(\cdot)$ is a sigmoid function, $f_m(\cdot;\cdot)$ is the output function of neuron $m$ in the new FC layer, and $\varphi(\cdot): \{n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_N\} \rightarrow \{m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_N\}$ is an function to specify the correspondence between the split nodes and the neurons in the new FC layer, \emph{i.e.}, if split node $n$ corresponds to neuron $m$, then $\varphi(n)=m$. In~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15,Ref:ShenGWZWY21}, $\varphi(\cdot)$ is randomly assigned before tree building, and thus results in tree hierarchies without category semantics and unexplainable decisions during inference. Consequently, the key to building a interpretable differentiable decision tree is to learn the correspondence function $\varphi(\cdot)$ to form a tree hierarchy which implicitly clusters semantically-similar categories, so that the sequential decision functions at split nodes along tree paths can correspond to the attributes shared by semantically-similar categories.
\subsubsection{Top-down Hierarchy Learning}
In this section, we describe how to learn the correspondence function $\varphi(\cdot)$ to form a semantically-meaningful tree hierarchy in a top-down manner. Since our strategy is top-down, we first design a criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;o)$ to measure how well neuron $m$ can capture category semantics to perform semantically-plausible splitting at the root node $o\in\mathcal{N}$, then we generalize it to any split node $n\in\mathcal{N}$. Intuitively, for a neuron $m$, if its output feature $f_m(\cdot;\cdot)$ is selected for the decision of the root node $o$, \emph{i.e.}, $\varphi(o)=m$, then we expect it can produce similar predictions for samples from semantically-similar categories, \emph{i.e.}, samples from semantically-similar categories are routed to the same sub-tree. Thus, we can define the criterion based on the consistency between category similarities and category-level statistical routing similarities.
Given two categories $c_i,c_j\in\mathcal{Y}$, the category similarity $\mathbb{S}(c_i,c_j)$ between these two can be measured by the similarity between the pre-trained weights $\bm{\omega}_{c_i},\bm{\omega}_{c_j}$ corresponding to these two categories in the original last FC layer (the layer for $C$-way classification) of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$~\cite{Ref:QiaoLSY18,Ref:QiBL18}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{S}(c_i,c_j) = \phi(\bm{\omega}_{c_i},\bm{\omega}_{c_j}),
\end{equation}
where $\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Cosine similarity measure function.
Then, we define the consistency for the two categories $c_i,c_j$ according to the feature selection $\varphi(o)=m$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:consistency}
q_{i,j}(m)=\max(\mathbb{S}(c_i,c_j),0)\prod_{c\in\{c_i,c_j\}}\Big(\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c\}}\left[\sigma(f_m(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]-\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}}\left[\sigma(f_m(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]\Big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ is the mathematical expectation, to compute the statistical routing probability for a set of samples. Note that, we apply a Ramp function to the category similarity $\mathbb{S}(c_i,c_j)$, since negative similarity means $c_i$ and $c_j$ are not semantically-similar, and thus we do not consider them. When the category similarity $\mathbb{S}(c_i,c_j)$ is large, we encourage that the statistical routing probabilities for these two categories, \emph{i.e.}, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c_i\}}\left[\sigma(f_m(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c_j\}}\left[\sigma(f_m(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]$, are either both larger or both less than the averaged statistical routing probabilities for all categories, \emph{i.e.}, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}}\left[\sigma(f_m(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]$
\footnote{Although the parameter $\mathbf{w}$ of the new FC layer is randomly initialized and has not been optimized yet, the statistical routing probability computed based on $\mathbf{w}$ can still provide sufficient raw discrimination between categories, since the input CNN features of the new FC layer encodes category semantics. This is also coincident to what is found in~\cite{Ref:Frankle21} - \emph{ random features available at initialization provide sufficient raw material to represent high-accuracy functions for image classification.} We will give an evidence later.}.
Otherwise, $q_{i,j}(m)$ becomes negative, which indicates that the output feature $f_m(\cdot;\cdot)$ of neuron $m$ is unable to cluster these two semantically-similar categories into the same sub-tree, and thus the neuron $m$ should not be selected for the decision at the root node $o$. Finally, the criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;o)$ for the root node $o$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{Q}(m;o)=\sum_{c_i,c_j\in\mathcal{Y},c_i \neq c_j}q_{i,j}(m).
\end{equation}
The corresponding neuron $\varphi(o)$ for the root node $o$ is determined by
\begin{equation}
\varphi(o) = \arg\max_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\mathbb{Q}(m;o).
\end{equation}
Now, we generalize the criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;n)$ for any split node $n$. Since the tree hierarchy performs soft data space splitting, the category distribution at a split node $n$ at a deep level of the tree hierarchy is no longer uniform, \emph{i.e.}, the samples of some categories are routed into $n$ with higher probabilities than those of others. Hence, these categories with higher probabilities should be taken into account more in the criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;n)$. Towards this end, we calculate a category significance distribution $\bm{\lambda}_n=(\lambda^{(1)}_n,\lambda^{(2)}_n,\ldots,\lambda^{(C)}_n)$ to represent the significance of each category at each split node $n$. This calculation is performed recursively from top to down: At the root node $o$, $\bm{\lambda}_o$ is uniform, \emph{i.e.}, $\lambda^{(c)}_o=\frac{1}{C}$. Then, at its left child $o_\texttt{l}$ and the right child $o_\texttt{r}$,
the category significance distributions $\bm{\lambda}_{o_\texttt{l}}$ and $\bm{\lambda}_{o_\texttt{r}}$ are calculated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:significance}
{\lambda}_{o_\texttt{l}}^{(c)}=\frac{1}{Z_{o_\texttt{l}}} \gamma^{\beta_o^{(c)}}\lambda^{(c)}_o, {\lambda}_{o_\texttt{r}}^{(c)}=\frac{1}{Z_{o_\texttt{r}}} \gamma^{-\beta_o^{(c)}}\lambda^{(c)}_o,
\end{equation}
where $\beta_o^{(c)}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c\}}\left[\sigma(f_{\varphi(o)}(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]-\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}}\left[\sigma(f_{\varphi(o)}(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]$ is the bias between the statistical routing probability for category $c$ and the averaged statistical routing probabilities for all categories, $\gamma$ is a control parameter, and $Z_{o_\texttt{l}}$ and $Z_{o_\texttt{r}}$ are normalization factors, to ensure the summation of a category significance distribution is 1. Here we use control parameter $\gamma$ powered with the bias $\beta_o^{(c)}$ to adjust the significance of different categories. In this way, the categories with routing probabilities significantly deviating from the average prediction can obtain higher attention. Then, the categories with routing probabilities close to the average are paid less attention to during feature selection at $o_\texttt{l}$ and $o_\texttt{r}$. This help prevent some categories being routing to an improper path at the beginning.
The category significance distribution $\bm{\lambda}_n$ of each split node $n$ can be obtained by calculating Eq.~\ref{eq:significance} recursively. Then, we can adjust the criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;n)$ for a split node $n$ by considering the category significance distribution at the split node $n$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{Q}(m;n)=\sum_{c_i,c_j\in\mathcal{Y},c_i \neq c_j}\lambda^{(c_i)}_n\lambda^{(c_j)}_nq_{i,j}(m).
\end{equation}
The corresponding neuron $\varphi(n)$ for each split node $n\in\mathcal{N}$ is determined based on this criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(m;n)$ recursively from top to down. The algorithm of this top-down tree hierarchy learning process is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg:construction}.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Top Down Tree Hierarchy Learning}
\label{alg:construction}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Input}: The set of neurons $\mathcal{M}$ in the new FC layer, the set of split nodes $\mathcal{N}$ in the tree
\State \textbf{Output}: The correspondence $\varphi(\cdot)$ between $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$
\State{Set an empty queue $\mathcal{Q}$, $\mathcal{Q}$.\texttt{push}($o$).} \algorithmiccomment{$o\in\mathcal{N}$ is the root node.}
\While { $\mathcal{Q}$ not empty}
\State $n$=$\mathcal{Q}$.\texttt{pop}(), $\varphi(n)=\arg\max_{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathbb{Q}(m;n)$, $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M} \backslash \{m\}$.
\If{$n$ has left and right children $n_\texttt{l}$ and $n_\texttt{r}$}
\State Calculate $\bm{\lambda}_{n_\texttt{l}}$ and $\bm{\lambda}_{n_\texttt{r}}$ by Eq.~\ref{eq:significance}, $\mathcal{Q}$.\texttt{push}($n_\texttt{l}$), $\mathcal{Q}$.\texttt{push}($n_\texttt{r}$).
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Raw discrimination Provided by Statistical Routing Probabilities}
As we described above, although the parameter $\mathbf{w}$ of the new FC layer is randomly initialized and has not been optimized yet, the statistical routing probability obtained based on $\mathbf{w}$ can still provide raw discrimination between categories~\cite{Ref:Frankle21}. This is because the well pre-trained CNN provides linearly-separable features, so that images from similar categories are distributed closely in high dimensional feature space.
For a randomly initialized $\mathbf{w}$, it is a random hyper-plane in feature space. Each hyper-plane divides categories into left and right sides. The categories distributed closely are more likely to be divided into the same side by a random hyper-plane, so randomly initialized $\mathbf{w}$ can also extract the semantic affinity between categories. The criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(\cdot;\cdot)$ for a random hyper-plane (that is, a neuron), which essentially selects an optimal hyper-plane to split categories to both sides according to the semantic affinity, thus meet the requirements of interpretability. Through subsequent optimization, the hyper-plane is gradually adjusted to increase its confidence in splitting.
To demonstrate this, we visualize the statistical routing probability of each category given by the root node $o$ of a tree in our dDSDF built on ImageNet in Fig.~\ref{fig:categoryP}. Fig.~\ref{fig:categoryP} left and right show the statistical routing probabilities over categories computed by a randomly initialized $\mathbf{w}$ and a optimized $\mathbf{w}$, respectively. In Fig.~\ref{fig:categoryP}, each blue point $\left(i,P_{c_i}\right)$, where $P_{c_i}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c_i\}}\left[\sigma(f_o(\mathbf{x} ;\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}))\right]$, represents the statistical routing probability of category $c_i$ given by the root node $o$.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{figures/categoryP.png}
\caption{Statistical routing probabilities over categories computed by a randomly initialized $\mathbf{w}$ (left) and a optimized $\mathbf{w}$ (right), respectively.}
\label{fig:categoryP}
\end{figure}
In ImageNet, categories with adjacent indexes often have similar semantics. For example, the first 398 categories are animals, the last 60 categories are plants, and the rest categories are artifacts. Since a good neuron should be able to assign similar statistical routing probabilities to similar categories, the blue points on the plane should distributed like a 1D blob structure, where the boundaries occurs at the significant change between category semantics, \emph{i.e.}, animals $\rightarrow$ artifacts and artifacts $\rightarrow$ plants.
We visualize this 1D blob structure by a orange curve, which is calculated by averaging the statistical routing probabilities of 20 categories with adjacent indexes. It can be observed that the root node can split natural creations and artifacts well even with a randomly initialized $\mathbf{w}$, \emph{i.e.}, the significant changes along the curve only between animals and artifacts and between artifacts and plants. After optimization, the confidence of the statistical routing probabilities become higher, closing to $1$ or $0$. The majority of the categories maintained their pre-optimization routing probabilities, except for a small number of dogs that are split into the artifact side because they often appeared together with the artifacts. This evidences that the discrimination of a randomly initialized neuron can be maintained and improved by optimization.
\subsection{Deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest}
A deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest (dDSDF) $\mathscr{I}$ is an ensemble of interpretable differentiable decision trees (introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:tree_building}) built on top of the CNN $\mathscr{C}$ with a dynamic tree selection module (TSM). The dynamic tree selection module is realized by a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) followed by a Softmax layer with $T$ output units, where $T$ is the number of the decision trees in the dDSDF. Thus, each output unit of the TSM provide the probability to select one tree in the forest.
During training, the output of the dDSDF, \emph{i.e.}, the probability that the category label of $\mathbf{x}$ is $y$ is obtained by a weighted average of tree outputs:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{F}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta},\bm{\Pi}]= \sum_{t=1}^{T} \alpha_t\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{T}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}^{(t)},\bm{\pi}^{(t)}],
\label{trainEq}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_t$ (s.t. $\sum_{t=1}^T\alpha_t=1$) is the probability to select $t$-th tree provided by the TSM, $\bm{\theta}$ is the parameter of the TSM, $\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{T}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}^{(t)},\bm{\pi}^{(t)}]$ is the output of the $t$-th tree, $\mathbf{W}=(\mathbf{w}^{(t)};t=1,\ldots,T)$ and $\bm{\Pi}=(\bm{\pi}^{(t)};t=1,\ldots,T)$.
The loss function for the dDSDF is defined as the negative log-likelihood:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{L}(\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta},\bm{\Pi};\mathbf{x},y)=-\log\big(\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{F}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta},\bm{\Pi}]\big).
\end{equation}
All the parameters, $\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta},\bm{\Pi}$, are jointly optimized by minimizing the above loss function. Following~\cite{Ref:Shen17,Ref:Shen18,Ref:ShenGWZWY21}, we adopt an alternated optimization strategy: Fix $\bm{\Pi}$, optimize $\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta}$ by Stochastic Gradient Descent; Fix $\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta}$, optimize $\bm{\Pi}$ by Variational Bounding~\cite{Ref:Jordan99,Ref:Yuille03}.
During inference, we only select one tree with the highest probability given by the DTSM, \emph{i.e.}, $t\ast=\arg\max_t\alpha_t$, then the output of the dDSDF is
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{F}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta},\bm{\Pi}]=\mathbb{P}_{\texttt{T}}[y|\mathbf{x},\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}^{(t\ast)},\bm{\pi}^{(t\ast)}].
\label{valEq}
\end{equation}
\section{Experimental Results}
We verify our method in terms of classification performance and interpretability on several benchmark datasets, including both small-scale datasets, such as Cifar10~\cite{Ref:Krizhevsky09}, Cifar100~\cite{Ref:Krizhevsky09} and TinyImageNet~\cite{Ref:Tiny}, and a large-scale dataset, \emph{i.e.}, ImageNet~\cite{Ref:Russakovsky15}. Since different datasets contain different numbers of categories and image samples, we build dDSDF with different tree numbers ($T$) and depths ($d$) for different datasets: $T=5,d=10$ for Cifar10 and Cifar100, $T=10,d=12$ for TinyImageNet and $T=10,d=14$ for ImageNet. The control parameter $\gamma=10.0$ is set for all the experiments.
\subsection{Implementation Detail}
All the models, including our dDSDF and other competitors, used in the experiments are fine-tuned $200$ epochs based on the pre-trained backbones. The starting learning rate is set as 0.1, and decay by 90\% every 75 epochs. SGD with 0.9 momentum and 5e-4 weight decay is used as the optimizer. We use batch size of 256 on RTX3090 for all experiments.
The dynamic tree selection module (TSM) is a MLP composed of 3 fully connected layers. The first two fully connected layers with ReLU as the activation function reduce the dimension of input feature to $\frac{1}{4}$, and the third fully connected layer with sigmoid as the activation function outputs the routing probabilites to $T$ trees.
\begin{table}[!htp]
\centering
\caption{Classification performance on various datasets based on several backbones. R18, R50 and WR28x10 are short for ResNet18, ResNet50 and WideResnet28x10, respectively. We compare our dDSDF with the original neural network (NN) and two deep-decision-tree based methods, deep Neural Decision Forest (dNDF)~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15} and Neural-Backed Decision Tree (NBDT)~\cite{Ref:Wan21}.}
\label{performance}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{Classification on small-scale datasets} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Classification on ImageNet} \\ \cline{1-5} \cline{7-9}
Model & Backbone & Cifar10 & Cifar100 & TinyImagenet & & Model & Backbone & Top1 \\ \cline{1-5} \cline{7-9}
NN & R18 & 94.95 & 75.92 & 64.13 & & NN & R50 & 76.13 \\
dNDF & R18 & 94.96 & 76.02 & 63.96 & & dNDF & R50 & 76.298 \\
NBDT & R18 & 94.76 & 74.92 & 62.74 & & dDSDF & R50 & \textbf{76.49} \\ \cline{7-9}
dDSDF & R18 & \textbf{95.21} & \textbf{76.37} & \textbf{64.20} & & Model & Backbone & Top5 \\ \cline{1-5} \cline{7-9}
NN & WR28x10 & 97.62 & 82.09 & 67.65 & & NN & R50 & 92.862 \\
NBDT & WR28x10 & 97.57 & 82.87 & 66.66 & & dNDF & R50 & 92.77 \\
dDSDF & WR28x10 & \textbf{97.87} & \textbf{83.11} & \textbf{67.76} & & dDSDF & R50 & \textbf{93.316} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Classification}
We report classification results based on various CNN backbones, including ResNet18~\cite{Ref:HeZRS16}, ResNet50~\cite{Ref:HeZRS16} and WideResNet28x10~\cite{Ref:ZagoruykoK16}. As the comparison shown in Table.~\ref{performance}, dDSDF outperforms the original neural network (NN), based on all backbones. We also compare dDSDF with state-of-the-art deep-decision-tree based models, including dNDF~\cite{Ref:KontschiederFCB15} and NBDT~\cite{Ref:Wan21}. dNDF is a forest-based model, which scarifies interpretability, while NDBT is a tree-based model, which retains interpretable properties, such as sequential decision, non-ensemble. We set the same tree number and tree depth as dDSDF for dNDF. The tree depth of NDBT is automatically determined by the number of categories. dDSDF achieves better classification performances than both of these two models based on all backbones, and it also enjoys interpretable properties as NDBT.
\subsection{Interpretability}
\subsubsection{Qualitative Interpretability - Sequential Decision Explanation} \label{sec:Qual-Inter}
To show the interpretability of dDSDF, we investigate whether it can provide interpretable sequential decisions during inference. Since trees in dDSDF perform soft decisions, we define a deterministic decision path during inference for each category $c$ to interpret decisions. Let $\mathcal{P}(n)$ denote the tree path from the root node to split node $n$, then the deterministic decision path for category $c$ is $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c)})$, where $l^{(c)}=\arg\max_{\ell \in \mathcal{L}}\bar{\mu}(\ell|c ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})$, and $\bar{\mu}(\ell|c ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})=\prod_{n \in \mathcal{N}} (\bar{s}_n^{(c)})^{\mathbf{1}\left(\ell \in \mathcal{N}_{n_{l}}\right)}\left(1-\bar{s}_n^{(c)})\right)^{\mathbf{1}\left(\ell \in \mathcal{N}_{n_{r}}\right)}$. $\bar{s}_n^{(c)}$ is the statistical routing probability at split node $n$ for samples from category $c$: $\bar{s}_n^{(c)}= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}\in\{\mathbf{x}|y=c\}}\left[s_{n}(\mathbf{x};\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})\right]$. For two semantically-similar categories $c_i,c_j$, since they are clustered in the same sub-tree in a tree of a trained dDSDF, their deterministic decision paths $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c_i)})$ and $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c_j)})$ share some common split nodes. These split nodes should correspond to some common attributes of the two categories $c_i,c_j$, leading to this sequential decision process. We can specify a semantically-plausible attribute to each shared split node by taking the method proposed in NBDT~\cite{Ref:Wan21}, which makes hypothesise for attributes and verify them by out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. Following NBDT~\cite{Ref:Wan21}, we train a dDSDF with tree number ($T=1$) and depth number ($d=4$) on Cifar10 and take 10 OOD categories from Cifar100. The tree hierarchy and the semantically-plausible attribute of each node are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cifarinter} (left). The deterministic decision path $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c)})$ for each OOD category $c$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cifarinter} (right). Note that, we truncate some deterministic decision paths at split nodes, if the statistical routing probability is close to $0.5$. Specifically, for a deterministic decision path $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c)})$, check each split node along it from the root node, if split node $e$ is the first one which satisfies $|\bar{s}_{e}^{(c)}-0.5|<\tau$, then define $e$ as the end-decision node of this deterministic decision path $\mathcal{P}(l^{(c)})$ and truncate it to $\mathcal{P}(e)$. Based on this hierarchy, we interpret the decision of our model for an input sample by a sequential decision process. Fig.\ref{fig:path} shows the sequential decision processes for an elephant and a rocket given by our method.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\begin{minipage}{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{figures/cifarinter.png}
\caption{A Cifar10 hierarchy constructed by dDSDF.}
\label{fig:cifarinter}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.38\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm]{figures/path.png}
\caption{The sequential decision processes provided by dDSDF for OOD samples in Cifar100.}
\label{fig:path}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Quantitative Interpretability - Weakly Supervised Localization}
The weakly supervised localization task, \emph{i.e.}, localizing objects in images using image-level category labels only, is commonly used to explain model predictions. The Class Activation Mapping (CAM) approaches~\cite{Ref:ZhouKLOT16,Ref:SelvarajuCDVPB20} are the \emph{de facto} to perform this task, which generate saliency maps by identifying which pixels mostly affected a model's prediction. Here, we propose a decision-tree-based CAM approach, as only one tree is selected in the dDSDF for an input sample during inference.
\paragraph{Decision-tree-based CAM}
First, we define the deterministic decision path $\mathcal{P}(\ell^{(\mathbf{x})})$ for sample $\mathbf{x}$, where $\ell^{(\mathbf{x})}=\arg\max_{\ell \in \mathcal{L}}\mu(\ell|\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})$.
Similarly, we define the end-decision node $e$ for this define the deterministic decision path based on the criterion $ | s_{e}(\mathbf{x};\bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w}) - 0.5|<\tau$. Then use Grad-CAM~\cite{Ref:SelvarajuCDVPB20} to compute the saliency map in terms of end-decision node $e$ as the saliency map $H$ generated by our dDSDF:
\begin{equation}
g_{k}=\frac{1}{Z} \sum_{i} \sum_{j} \frac{\partial \mu(e |\mathbf{x} ; \bm{\Theta},\mathbf{w})}{\partial A_{i j}^{k}},H=\operatorname{ReLU} \left(\sum_{k} g_{k} A^{k}\right),
\label{Eq13}
\end{equation}
where $A_{i j}^{k}$ is the activation value at location $(i,j)$ on the $k$-th feature map of the last convolution layer of the CNN and $Z$ is the normalization factor.
\paragraph{Localization results}
In this experiment, we set $\tau=0.1$ and used the same experimental setting as the classification experiment to conduct weakly supervised localization on ImageNet. We use the same setup as Grad-CAM, which sets $15 \% $ of the max intensity as the threshold to get a bounding box on $H$. We report top-1 and top-5 localization accuracies in Table~\ref{tab:local} and compared our result with ResNet50 and dNDF. The saliency maps for ResNet50 and dNDF are generated by their category prediction $y^{c}$, \emph{i.e.}, $g_{k}^{c}=\frac{1}{Z} \sum_{i} \sum_{j} \frac{\partial y^{c}}{\partial A_{i j}^{k}}$. Fig.~\ref{fig:cam} shows the saliency maps obtained by dDSDF and ResNet50, and it shows dDSDF delivers more precise saliency maps.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.6\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{figures/cam.png}
\caption{Saliency maps of dDSDT and ResNet50.}
\label{fig:cam}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Weakly supervised localization results on ImageNet.}
\label{tab:local}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\toprule
model & top1 & top5 \\ \midrule
ResNet50 & 38.388 & 47.098 \\
dNDF & 38.396 & 47.834 \\
dDSDF & \textbf{40.236} & \textbf{50.506} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hyper-partemter Analysis}
In this section, we analyze the hyper-parameters involved in our approach, to see how performance changes by varying them, including tree number ($T$), tree depth ($d$), the control parameter ($\gamma$) to compute category significance distributions, and the threshold ($\tau$) to select the end-decision node for CAM computation. We also discuss the importance of the category similarity $\mathbb{S(\cdot,\cdot)}$. All experiments for hyper-parameter analysis use ResNet18 as the CNN backbone and are conducted on Cifar100, expect for $\tau$, which is discussed on ImageNet using ResNet50. Following the same experimental setting used for classification and localization, we use a dDSDF with $T=5$ and $d=10$ on Cifar100 and a dDSDF with $T=10$ and $d=14$ on ImageNet.
\paragraph{Tree Number and Tree Depth}
We evaluate the performance change by varying tree number ($T$) and tree depth ($d$). The results are shown in Table.~\ref{tab:layertree}. It can be observed that the performance of dDSDF improves significantly with the increase of tree depth. When the tree depth is small, ensemble of more trees can significantly improve the performance, while when the tree depth is large, the benefit of increasing the tree number is weakened.
\begin{table}[!htp]
\centering
\caption{Performance change of dDSDF by varying tree number ($T$) and tree depth ($d$) on Cifar100.}
\label{tab:layertree}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline
$d$ & $T=10$ & $T=5$ & $T=3$ & $T=1$ \\ \hline
10 & 76.41 & 76.37 & 76.13 & 75.94 \\
8 & 63.51 & 63.27 & 62.99 & 62.68 \\
6 & 50.83 & 50.67 & 50.14 & 49.74 \\
4 & 17.69 & 16.84 & 15.37 & 14.42 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Category Similarity}
To show the importance of the category similarity $\mathbb{S(\cdot,\cdot)}$ in building tree hierarchies, we build a dDSDF by setting $\mathbb{S(\cdot,\cdot)}\equiv1.0$, \emph{i.e,}, tree building does not rely on the category similarity. This leads to a significant performance drop, from 76.37\% to 63.81\% accuracy. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation}, ``cosine'' means using the cosine similarity as $\mathbb{S(\cdot,\cdot)}$ and ``constant'' means setting $\mathbb{S(\cdot,\cdot)}\equiv1.0$.
\paragraph{Control Parameter}
The control parameter $\gamma$ adjusts the significance of each category contributing to the criterion function $\mathbb{Q}(\cdot;\cdot)$. To analyze how $\gamma$ influences classification performance, we train and evaluate a dDSDF on Cifar100. The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation}. $\gamma=1$ means the category significance distributions are always uniform, which leads to performance degradation. A very large $\gamma$ forces the criterion function to only take a small number of categories in account, which also leads to a performance drop. Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation} shows the classification accuracy under different $\gamma$.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{figures/ablation.pdf}
\caption{Performance change of dDSDF by varying hyper-parameters on Cifar100.}
\label{fig:ablation}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Threshold for End-decision Node Selection}
Finally, we investigate how the localization performance changes on ImageNet by varying the threshold $\tau$. By decreasing $\tau$, the position of the end-decision node is changed from a shallow level of the tree to a deep level, and thus leads to different sailency maps. We report the localization results with different values of $\tau$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ablation}, which shows the results are not very sensitive to $\tau$ in a certain range.
\section{Limitation}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{figures/ImageNet-tree.pdf}
\caption{An ImageNet hierarchy constructed by dDSDF.}
\label{fig:INT}
\end{figure}
We build tree hierarchies based on the semantics embedded in the pre-trained weights of the CNN, but such semantics might not consistent with the concepts of categories, especially on large-scale datasets containing a large number of categories. Fig.~\ref{fig:INT} shows the first 5 levels of the hierarchy constructed by dDSDF on ImageNet, according to the deterministic-decision-path based method (Sec.~\ref{sec:Qual-Inter} ). Most of nodes can be specified with a semantically-plausible attribute, like node-$1$, which predicts if an object is an artifact, and node-$3$, which predicts if an object is a wild animal. So it is interesting to validate the semantics of these attributes. We achieve this by generating the saliency map of each corresponding split node by Eq.~\ref{Eq13}.
According to Fig.~\ref{fig:INT}, the attributes assigned to node-31, node-4 and node-14 are "dog or not", "has strip structures or not" and "short or long foot", respectively. As shown in Fig.~\ref{deep}, the saliency maps generated at these three split nodes can roughly explain their corresponding attributes. From the top row to the bottom row of Fig.~\ref{deep}, we observe the saliency maps generated at node-31, node-4 and node-14 focus on faces of different varieties of dogs, zebra-like stripes and animal foot.
However, some nodes do not have such a clear attribute consistent with the concepts of categories. For example, cats are branched into the sub-tree of indoor objects by node-$2$ because cats usually show up indoors, and cabinets and buses are grouped together by node-$9$ because they both have columnar structures. There is still large room to improve for building a model with both high performance and good interpretability on large-scale datasets, which is worth exploring in the future.
\begin{figure}[!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figures/deep.png}
\caption{Attribute visualization for split nodes.}
\label{deep}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We proposed a generic mode transfer scheme to make CNNs interpretable, while maintaining their high classification performance. We achieved this by the proposal of deep Dynamic Sequential Decision Forest. This forest enjoy two properties: 1) Each tree hierarchy in this forest is learned in a top-down manner under the guidance from the category semantics embedded in the pre-trained CNN weights; 2) A dynamical tree selection mechanism is introduced to select one single tree from the forest for each input sample during inference. These two properties enable the forest to make interpreable sequential decisions. Experimental results validated that dDSDF not only achieved higher classification accuracy than the original CNN, but had much better interpretability, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Reinforcement learning (RL) has achieved tremendous successes recently in a wide range of applications, including playing the game of Go \citep{silver2017mastering2}, playing video games (e.g., Atari \citep{mnih2015human} and Starcraft \citep{vinyals2019grandmaster}), robotics \citep{lillicrap2015continuous,kober2013reinforcement}, and autonomous driving \citep{shalev2016safe,sallab2017deep}. Most of these applications involve \emph{multiple} decision-makers, where the agents' rewards and the evolution of the system are affected by the joint behaviors of all agents. This setting naturally leads to the problem of multi-agent RL (MARL). In fact, MARL is arguably one key ingredient of large-scale and reliable autonomy, and is significantly more challenging to analyze than single-agent RL. There has been a surging interest recently in both a deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of MARL; see comprehensive overviews on this topic in \cite{busoniu2008comprehensive,zhang2019multi,hernandez2018multiagent}.
The pioneering work that initiated the sub-area of MARL, where the model of {Markov/stochastic games} \citep{ref:Shapley53} has been considered as a framework, is \cite{littman1994markov}. Since then, there has been a plethora of works on MARL in Markov games; see a detailed literature review in the supplementary material.
These algorithms can be broadly categorized into two types: \emph{centralized/coordinated} and \emph{decentralized/independent} ones. For the former type, it is assumed that there exists a central controller for the agents, who can access the agents joint actions and local observations. With full {awareness} of the game setup, the central controller coordinates the agents to optimize their own policies, and aims to compute an equilibrium.
This centralized paradigm is typically suitable for the scenarios when a simulator of the game is accessible \citep{silver2017mastering2,vinyals2017starcraft}.
Most existing MARL algorithms in Markov games have focused on this paradigm.
Nevertheless, in many practical multi-agent learning scenarios, e.g., multi-robot control \citep{wang2008machine}, urban traffic control \citep{kuyer2008multiagent}, as well as economics with rational decision-makers \citep{fudenberg1998theory}, agents make decentralized decisions \emph{without} a coordinator. Specifically, agents make updates independently with only \emph{local} observations of their own payoff and action histories, usually in a {myopic} fashion. Besides its ubiquity in practice, this decentralized paradigm also has the advantage of being \emph{scalable}, as each agent only cares about her own policy and/or value functions, and the algorithms complexity do not suffer from the exponential dependence on the number of agents.
Unfortunately, establishing provably convergent decentralized MARL algorithms is well-known to be challenging; see the non-convergent cases (even in the fully cooperative setting) in \cite{tan1993multi,boutilier1996planning,claus1998dynamics}, and see \cite{matignon2012independent} for more empirical evidences. The key challenge is the \emph{non-stationarity} of the environment from each agent's perspective since all agents are adapting their policies simultaneously and independently. In other words, the opponent is not playing according to a stationary strategy. This non-stationarity issue is in fact one of the core issues in (decentralized) MARL \citep{busoniu2008comprehensive,hernandez2017survey}.
Studying when self-interested players can converge to an equilibrium through non-equilibrium adaptation is core question in the related literature of learning in games \citep{fudenberg1998theory,ref:Fudenberg09}. For example, simple and stylized learning dynamics, such as fictitious play, are shown to converge to an equilibrium in certain but important classes of games, e.g., zero-sum \citep{ref:Robinson51,ref:Harris98} and common-interest \citep{ref:Shapley96}, in repeated play of the same game.
However, we cannot generalize these results to decentralized MARL {in \emph{Markov} games} (also known as stochastic games, introduced by \cite{ref:Shapley53}), because agents strategies affect not only the immediate reward, as in the repeated play of the same strategic-form game, but also the rewards that will be received in the future. Therefore, the configuration of the induced \emph{stage games} are not necessarily stationary in Markov games.
\noindent\textbf{Contributions.} In this paper, we present a provably convergent decentralized MARL learning dynamics\footnote{To emphasize the difference from many existing MARL algorithms that focus on the \emph{computation} of Nash equilibrium, we refer to our update rule as \emph{learning dynamics}, following the literature of learning in games.} for zero-sum discounted Markov games over an infinite horizon with minimal information available to agents. Particularly, each agent only has access to her immediate reward and the current state with perfect recall. They do not have access to the immediate reward the opponent receives. They do not know a model of their reward functions and the underlying state transitions probabilities. They are oblivious to the zero-sum structure of the underlying game. They also do not observe the opponent's actions. Indeed, they may even be oblivious to the presence of other agents. Learning dynamics with such minimal information is also referred to as being \emph{radically uncoupled} or \emph{value-based} in the literature of learning in games \citep{ref:Foster06,ref:Leslie05}.
To address the non-stationarity issue, we advocate a two-timescale adaptation of the individual $Q$-learning, introduced by \cite{ref:Leslie05} and originating in \cite{fudenberg1998theory}. Particularly, each agent infers the opponent's strategy indirectly through an estimate of the local $Q$-function (a function of the opponent's strategy) and simultaneously forms an estimate of the value function to infer the continuation payoff. The slow update of the value function estimate is natural since agents tend to change their strategies faster than their estimates (as observed in the evolutionary game theory literature, e.g., \cite{ref:Ely01,ref:Sandholm01}), but this also helps weakening the dependence between the configuration of the stage games (specifically the global $Q$-functions) and the strategies. We show the almost sure convergence of the learning dynamics to the Nash equilibrium using the stochastic approximation theory, by developing a novel Lyapunov function and identifying the sufficient conditions precisely later in \S\ref{sec:main}. Our techniques toward addressing these challenges might be of independent interest. We also verify the convergence of the learning dynamics via numerical examples.
To the best of our knowledge, our learning dynamics appears to be one of the first provably convergent decentralized MARL learning dynamics for Markov games that enjoy all the appealing properties below, addressing an important open question in the literature \citep{perolat2018actor,daskalakis2020independent}. In particular, our learning dynamics --
\begin{itemize} [noitemsep,topsep=0pt,parsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt,leftmargin=25pt]
\item requires only minimal information available to the agents, i.e., it is a radically uncoupled learning dynamic, unlike many other MARL algorithm, e.g., \cite{perolat2015approximate,sidford2019solving,ref:Leslie20,ref:Sayin20,bai2020provable,xie2020learning,zhang2020model,liu2020sharp,shah2020reinforcement};
\item requires no coordination or communication between agents during learning. For example, agents always play the (smoothed) best response consistent with their self-interested decision-making, contrary to being coordinated to keep playing the same strategy within certain time intervals as in \cite{ref:Arslan17} and \cite{wei2021last};
\item requires no \emph{asymmetric} update rules and/or stepsizes for the agents unlike existing literature \citep{ref:Vrieze82}, \citep{ref:Bowling02}, \citep{ref:Leslie03}, \citep{daskalakis2020independent}, \citep{zhao2021provably,guo2021decentralized}. Such an asymmetry implies implicit coordination between agents to decide who follows which update rule or who chooses which stepsize (and correspondingly who reacts fast or slow). \cite{daskalakis2020independent} refers to each agent playing a symmetric role in learning as \emph{strongly independent} learning.
\item is both \emph{rational} and \emph{convergent}, a desired property for MARL (independent of whether it is centralized or decentralized), e.g., see \cite{bowling2001rational,busoniu2008comprehensive}. A MARL algorithm is rational if each agent can converge to best-response, when the opponent plays an (asymptotically) stationary strategy; and it can converge only to an equilibrium when all agents adopt it.
\end{itemize}
A detailed literature review is deferred to the supplementary material due to space limitations. Of particular relevance are two recent works \cite{tian2020provably} and \cite{wei2021last} studied decentralized setting similar to ours. \cite{tian2020provably} focused on the exploration aspect for finite-horizon settings, and focused on minimizing a weak notion of regret without providing convergence guarantees under self-play.\footnote{Note that the same update rule with different stepsize and bonus choices and a certified policy technique, however, can return a non-Markovian approximate Nash equilibrium policy pair in the self-play setting; see \cite{bai2020near} for more details.} \cite{wei2021last} presented an optimistic variant of the gradient descent-ascent method that shares similar desired properties with our learning dynamics, with a strong guarantee of last-iterate convergence rates. However, the algorithm is delicately designed and different from the common value/policy-based RL update rules, e.g., $Q$-learning, as in our work. Moreover, to characterize finite-time convergence, in the model-free setting, the agents need to coordinate to interact multiple steps at each iteration of the algorithm, while our learning dynamics is coordination-free with natural update rules. These two works can thus be viewed as orthogonal to ours. After submitting our paper, we became aware of a concurrent and independent work \cite{guo2021decentralized}, which also developed a decentralized algorithm for zero-sum Markov games with function approximation and finite-sample guarantees. In contrast to our learning dynamics, the algorithm requires a double-loop update rule, and thus is asymmetric and requires coordination between agents. The assumptions and technical novelties in both works are also fundamentally different. See \S\ref{sec:dec_MARL_related_work} for a detailed comparison.
\noindent\textbf{Organization.} The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We describe Markov games and our decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics in \S\ref{sec:algorithm}. In \S\ref{sec:main}, we present the assumptions and the convergence results. In \S\ref{sec:simulation}, we provide numerical examples. We conclude the paper with some remarks in \S\ref{sec:conclusion}. The supplementary material includes a detailed literature review and the proofs of technical results.
\noindent\textbf{Notations.} Superscript denotes player identity. We represent the entries of vectors $q$ (or matrices $Q$) via $q[i]$ (or $Q[i,j]$). For two vectors $x$ and $y$, the inner product is denoted by $\inner{x}{y}=x^Ty$. For a finite set $A$, we denote the probability simplex over $A$ by $\Delta(A)$.
\section{Decentralized $Q$-learning in Zero-sum Markov Games} \label{sec:algorithm}
This section presents a decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics that does not need access to the opponent's actions and \emph{does not} need to know the zero-sum structure of the underlying Markov game. To this end, we first start by providing a formal description of Markov games.
Consider two players interacting with each other in a common dynamic environment, with totally conflicting objectives. The setting can be described by a two-player zero-sum Markov game, characterized by a tuple $\langle {S},\{{A}_s^i\}_{(i,s)\in\{1,2\}\times S},\{r_s^i\}_{(i,s)\in\{1,2\}\times S},p, \gamma \rangle$, where $S$ denotes the set of states, $A_s^i$ denotes the action set of player $i$ at state $s\in S$, and $\gamma\in[0,1)$ denotes the discount factor. At each interaction round, player $i$ receives a reward according to the function $r_s^i:A_s^1\times A_s^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Since it is a zero-sum game, we have $r_s^1(a^1,a^2)+r_s^2(a^1,a^2) = 0$ for each joint action pair $(a^1,a^2)\in A_s^1\times A_s^2$. We denote the transition probability from state $s$ to state $s'$ given a joint action profile $(a^1_s,a^2_s)$ by $p(s'|s,a^1_s,a^2_s)$.
Let us denote the stationary (Markov) strategy of player $i$ by $\pi^i := \{\pi_s^i \in \Delta(A_s^i)\}_{s\in S}$. We define the expected utility of player $i$ under the strategy profile $(\pi^1,\pi^2)$ as the expected discounted sum of the reward he collects over an infinite horizon
\begin{equation}
U^i(\pi^1,\pi^2) = \mathbb{E}_{\{a_k^j\sim \pi_{s_k}^j\}_{j\in\{1,2\}}}\left\{\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\gamma^k r_{s_k}^i(a_k^1,a_k^2)\right\},
\end{equation}
where $\{s_0\sim p_o,s_{k+1}\sim p(\cdot|s_k,a_k^1,a_k^2),k\geq 0\}$ is a stochastic process describing the evolution of the state over time and $p_o\in\Delta(S)$ is the initial state distribution. The expectation is taken with respect to the {initial state}, randomness induced by state transitions and mixed strategies.
A strategy profile $(\pi_*^1,\pi_*^2)$ is an $\varepsilon$-Nash equilibrium of the Markov game with $\varepsilon\geq 0$ provided that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&U^1(\pi_*^1,\pi_*^2) \geq U^1(\pi^1,\pi_*^2)-\varepsilon,\;\forall \pi^1\\
&U^2(\pi_*^1,\pi_*^2) \geq U^2(\pi_*^1,\pi^2)-\varepsilon,\;\forall \pi^2.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
{A Nash equilibrium is an $\varepsilon$-Nash equilibrium with $\varepsilon=0$.} It is known that such a Nash equilibrium exists for discounted Markov games \citep{ref:Fink64,filar2012competitive}.
Given a strategy profile $\pi:=(\pi^1,\pi^2)$, we define the value function of player $i$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:vpi}
v_{\pi}^i(s) = \mathbb{E}_{\{a_k^j\sim \pi_{s_k}^j\}_{j\in\{1,2\}}}\left\{r_s^i(a^1,a^2)+\gamma\sum_{s'\in S} v_{\pi}^i(s')p(s'|s,a^1,a^2)\right\}, \quad \forall s.
\end{align}
Note that $U^i(\pi^1,\pi^2)=\E{v_{\pi}^i(s_0)\,|\,s_0\sim p_o}$. We also define the $Q$-function that represents the value obtained for a given state and joint action pair as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Qpi}
Q_{\pi}^i(s,a^1,a^2) =\, &r_{s}^i(a^1,a^2)+ \gamma \sum_{s'\in S} v_{\pi}^i(s')p(s'|s,a^1,a^2), \quad \forall (s,a^1,a^2),
\end{align}
as well as the \emph{local} $Q$-function for player $i$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_def}
q^{i}_{\pi}(s,a^i) := \mathbb{E}_{a^{-i}\sim\pi_s^{-i}}\left\{Q_{\pi}^i(s,a^1,a^2)\right\},\quad \forall (s,a^i),
\end{equation}
where $-i$ denotes the opponent of player $i$.
{By the one-stage deviation principle, we can interpret the interaction between the players at each stage as they are playing an auxiliary stage game, in which the payoff functions are equal to the $Q$-functions, e.g., see \cite{ref:Shapley53}. However, the $Q$-functions, and correspondingly the payoff functions in these auxiliary stage games, change with evolving strategies of the players. Therefore, the plethora of existing results for repeated play of the same strategic-form game (e.g., see the review \cite{ref:Fudenberg09}) do not generalize here. To address this challenge, we next introduce our decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.73\textwidth]{model.pdf}
\caption{A figurative illustration of the dependence between local $Q$-function, global $Q$-function, opponent's mixed strategy and the value function. From an agents' perspective, the local $Q$-function gives the expected values associated with local actions. Here, agents will infer the opponent's strategy over the local $Q$-function and estimate the value function at a slower timescale to ensure that the {\em implicit} global $Q$-function is relatively \emph{stationary} compared to the opponent's strategy.} \label{fig:model}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Decentralized $Q$-learning Dynamics}
In our decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics, minimal information is available to players. In other words, they only have access to the immediate reward received and current state visited with perfect recall. They do not observe the actions taken by the opponent.
Correspondingly, they cannot form a belief about the opponent's strategy based on the empirical play as in fictitious play \citep{fudenberg1998theory} or its variant for stochastic games \citep{ref:Sayin20}. Instead, the players can look for inferring the opponent's strategy, e.g., by estimating the local $Q$-function since the local $Q$-function contains information about the opponent's strategy, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:model}. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:model}, however, the local $Q$-function also depends on the global $Q$-function while the global $Q$-function is not necessarily stationary since it depends on the value function, and therefore, depends on the players' evolving strategies. An estimate of the global $Q$ function which is slowly evolving would make it relatively stationary compared to the strategies. However, the players cannot estimate the global $Q$-function directly since they do not have access to the opponent's actions. Instead, they estimate the value function while updating it at a slower timescale. The slow update of the value function estimate makes the implicit global $Q$-function relatively stationary compared to the strategies. Therefore, the players can use the local $Q$-function estimate to infer the opponent's strategy.
Note that the local $Q$-function estimate for different actions would get updated asynchronously via the classical $Q$-learning algorithm since they would be updated only when the associated action is taken, however, the actions are likely to be taken at different frequencies. Instead, here the players update the local $Q$-function estimate via a learning dynamics inspired from the individual $Q$-learning. The individual $Q$-learning, presented by \cite{ref:Leslie05} and originating in \cite{fudenberg1998theory}, is based on the $Q$-learning with soft-max exploration while the step sizes are normalized with the probability of the actions taken. This normalization ensures that the estimates for every action get updated at the same learning rate in the expectation. We elaborate further on this after we introduce the precise update of the local $Q$-function estimate later in this section.
Each player $i$ keeps track of $\{\hat{q}_{s,k}^i\}_{s\in S}$ and $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^i\}_{s\in S}$ estimating, respectively, the local $Q$-function and the value function. Player $i$ updates $\{\hat{q}_{s,k}^i\}_{s\in S}$ at a faster timescale than $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^i\}_{s\in S}$. Players also count the number of times each state $s$ is visited (until the current stage), denoted by $\# s$.
We assume players know that the reward function takes values in $[-R,R]$ for some $R\in (0,\infty)$, i.e., $|r_s^i(a^1,a^2)|\leq R$ for all $(i,s,a^1,a^2)$. Therefore, player $i$ knows that his local $Q$-function $\|q_{\pi}^i(s,\cdot)\|_{\infty}\leq R/(1-\gamma)=: D$ and the value function $|v_{\pi}^i(s)|\leq D$ for any strategy profile $\pi$ and $s\in S$. Correspondingly, the players initiate these estimates arbitrarily such that $\|\hat{q}_{s,0}^i\|_{\infty} \leq D$ and $|\hat{v}_{s,0}^i|\leq D$, for all $s$.
Let $s_k$ denote the current state at stage $k$. Player $i$ takes his action $a_{k}^i\in A^i_{s_k}$, drawn from the smoothed best response $\overline{\mathrm{Br}}_{s_k}^i(\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i,\tau_{\#s_k})\in \Delta(A_s^i)$, which depends on a temperature parameter $\tau_{\#s}>0$ associated with $\#s$. We define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_smooth_br}
\overline{\mathrm{Br}}_s^i(q,\tau):=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\mu\in\Delta(A_{s}^i)}~~\Big\{\inner{\mu}{q}+ \tau \nu_{s}^i(\mu)\Big\},
\end{equation}
{where $\nu^i_s$ is a smooth and strictly concave function whose gradient is unbounded at the boundary of the simplex $\Delta(A^i_s)$ \citep{fudenberg1998theory}.} The temperature parameter $\tau>0$ controls the amount of perturbation on the smoothed best response. The smooth perturbation ensures that there exists a unique maximizer $\overline{\pi}_{k}^i:=\overline{\mathrm{Br}}_{s_k}^i(\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i,\tau_{\#s_k})$. {Choosing $\nu^i_s(\mu):= -\sum_{a^i\in A_s^i}\mu[a^i] \log \mu[a^i]$ results in} the explicit characterization:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_smooth_br_2}
\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a^i]=\frac{\exp\left(\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[a^i]/\tau_{\#s_k}\right)}{\sum_{\tilde{a}^i}\exp\left(\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[\tilde{a}^i]/\tau_{\#s_k}\right)}>0.
\end{equation}
We let player $i$ update his local $Q$-function estimate's entry associated with the current state and local action pair $(s_k,a_{k}^i)$ towards the reward received plus the discounted continuation payoff estimate. To this end, we include $\hat{v}_{s_{k+1},k}^i$ as an unbiased estimate of the continuation payoff obtained by looking one stage ahead, as in the classical $Q$-learning introduced by \cite{ref:Watkins92}. Due to the one-stage look ahead, the update for the current state and local action can take place just after the game visits the next state. The update of $\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q}
\hat{q}_{s_k,k+1}^i[a_{k}^i] = \hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[a_{k}^i] + \bar{\alpha}_k^i\left(r_{k}^i + \gamma \hat{v}_{s_{k+1},k}^i - \hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[a_{k}^i]\right),
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\alpha}_k^i\in(0,1]$ is defined by $\bar{\alpha}_k^i := \min\left\{1,\frac{\alpha_{\#s_k}}{\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a_{k}^i]}\right\}$, with $\{\alpha_{c}\}_{c>0}$ {a step size sequence}, and $r_{k}^i\in[-R,R]$ denotes the immediate reward of player $i$ at stage $k$. There is no update on others, i.e., $\hat{q}_{s,k+1}^i[a^i]=\hat{q}_{s,k}^i[a^i]$ for all $(s,a^i)\neq (s_k,a_k^i)$. {Inspired by the approach in \cite{ref:Leslie05}, the normalization addresses the asynchronous update of the entries of the local $Q$-function estimate and ensures that every entry of the local $Q$-function estimate is updated at the same rate in expectation.} We will show this explicitly in the proof of main theorem in the supplementary material.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics in Markov games}
\label{algo}
\hrule
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Keep track of $\{\hat{q}_{s,k}^i, \hat{v}_{s,k}^i,\#s\}_{s\in S}$.
\State {\bf Observe the current state} $s_k$.
\State {\bf Update} the entry of {\bf the local $Q$-function estimate} for the previous state $s_{k-1}$ and local action $a_{k-1}^i$ according to
$$ \hat{q}_{s_{k-1},k}^i[a_{k-1}^i] = \hat{q}_{s_{k-1},k-1}^i[a_{k-1}^i] + \bar{\alpha}_{k-1}^i\left(r_{k-1}^i + \gamma \hat{v}_{s_{k},k-1}^i - \hat{q}_{s_{k-1},k-1}^i[a_{k-1}^i]\right), $$
where $\bar{\alpha}_{k-1}^i = \min\left\{1,\frac{\alpha_{\#s_{k-1}}}{\overline{\pi}_{k-1}^i[a_{k-1}^i]}\right\}$, and $\hat{q}_{s,k}^i[a^i] = \hat{q}_{s,k-1}^i[a^i]$ for all $(s,a^i)\neq (s_{k-1},a_{k-1}^i)$.
\State {\bf Increment} the counter only for the current state by one.
\State {\bf Take action} $a_{k}^i\sim \overline{\pi}_k^i$ where
$$\overline{\pi}_{k}^i=\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{\mu\in\Delta(A_{s_k}^i)}~~\Big\{\inner{\mu}{\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i}+ \tau_{\#s_k} \nu_{s_k}^i(\mu)\Big\}.$$
\State {\bf Collect the local reward} $r_{k}^i$ and {\bf update the value function estimate} for the current state according to
$$\hat{v}_{s_k,k+1}^i = \hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i + \beta_{\#s_k}\left[\inner{\overline{\pi}_{k}^i}{\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i} - \hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i\right]. $$
On the other hand, $\hat{v}_{s,k+1}^i = \hat{v}_{s,k}^i$ for all $s\neq s_{k}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\hrule
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{table}
Simultaneous to updating the local $Q$-function estimate, player $i$ updates his value function estimate $\hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i$ towards $\inner{\overline{\pi}_{k}^i}{\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i}$ corresponding to the expected value of the current state. However, the player uses a different step size $\{\beta_{c}\}_{c>0}$ and updates $\hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i$ according to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:v}
\hat{v}_{s_k,k+1}^i = \hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i + \beta_{\#s_k}\left[\inner{\overline{\pi}_{k}^i}{\hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i} - \hat{v}_{s_k,k}^i\right].
\end{equation}
For other states $s\neq s_k$, there is no update on the value function estimate, i.e., $\hat{v}_{s,k+1}^i = \hat{v}_{s,k}^i$. To sum up, player $i$ follows the learning dynamics in Table \ref{algo}. {We emphasize that this dynamic is radically uncoupled since each player's update rule does not depend on the opponent's payoffs or actions.} In the next section, we study its convergence properties.
\section{Convergence Results}\label{sec:main}
We study whether the value function estimates in the learning dynamics, described in Table \ref{algo}, converge to an equilibrium value of the zero-sum Markov game. The answer is affirmative under certain conditions provided below precisely. {The first assumption (with two parts) is related to the step sizes and the temperature parameter, and not to the properties of the Markov game model.}
\begin{assumptions}\label{assume:common}
\begin{subAssumption}\label{assume:common1}
The sequences $\{\alpha_c\in(0,1)\}_{c> 0}$ and $\{\beta_c\in(0,1)\}_{c> 0}$ are non-increasing and satisfy
$\sum_{c=1}^{\infty}\alpha_c = \infty$, $\sum_{c=1}^{\infty}\beta_c = \infty$, and $\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}\alpha_c=\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}\beta_c = 0$.
\end{subAssumption}
\begin{subAssumption}\label{assume:common2}
Given any $M\in(0,1)$, there exists a non-decreasing polynomial function $C(\cdot)$ (which may depend on $M$) such that for any $\lambda\in(0,1)$ if $\left\{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}_+\,|\, \ell \leq c\mbox{ and }\frac{\beta_{\ell}}{\alpha_c} > \lambda\right\}\neq\varnothing$, then
\begin{equation}
\max\left\{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}_+\,|\, \ell \leq c\quad\mbox{and}\quad\frac{\beta_{\ell}}{\alpha_c} > \lambda\right\} \leq Mc,\quad \forall c\geq C\left(\lambda^{-1}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{subAssumption}
\end{assumptions}
Assumption \ref{assume:common1} is a common assumption used in stochastic approximation theory, e.g., see \cite{ref:Benaim99, ref:Borkar08}. On the other hand, Assumption \ref{assume:common2} imposes further condition on the step sizes than the usual two-timescale learning assumption, e.g., $\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty} \frac{\beta_c}{\alpha_c} = 0$, to address the asynchronous update of the iterates. Particularly, the iterates evolving at fast timescale can lag behind even the iterates evolving at slow timescale due to their asynchronous update. Assumption \ref{assume:common2} ensures that this can be tolerated when states are visited at comparable frequencies.
For example, $\alpha_c = c^{-\rho_{\alpha}}$ and $\beta_{c} = c^{-\rho_{\beta}}$, where $0.5 < \rho_{\alpha} < \rho_{\beta} \leq 1$, satisfy Assumption \ref{assume:common} since it can be shown that there exists a non-decreasing polynomial, e.g., $C(x)= M_ox^{m}$, for all $x\geq 1$, where $M_o:=M^{-\rho_{\beta}/(\rho_{\beta}-\rho_{\alpha})}>0$ and $m\in\{m'\in\mathbb{Z}_+: m'\geq 1/(\rho_{\beta}-\rho_{\alpha})\}$. We provide the relevant technical details in the supplementary material.
Such learning dynamics is not guaranteed to converge to an equilibrium in every class of zero-sum Markov games. For example, the underlying Markov chain may have an absorbing state such that once the game reaches that state, it stays there forever. Then, the players will not have a chance to improve their estimates for other states. Therefore, in the following, we identify two sets of assumptions (in addition to Assumption \ref{assume:common}) imposing increasingly stronger conditions on the underlying game while resulting in different convergence guarantees.
\begin{assumptions}\label{assume:first}
\begin{subAssumption}\label{assume:firstIO}
Given any pair of states $(s,s')$, there exists at least one sequence of actions such that $s'$ is reachable from $s$ with some positive probability within a finite number, $n$, of stages.
\end{subAssumption}
\begin{subAssumption}\label{assume:first2}
The sequence $\{\tau_c\}_{c> 0}$ is non-increasing and satisfies $\lim_{c\rightarrow \infty} (\tau_{c+1}-\tau_c)/\alpha_c = 0$ and $\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}\tau_c = \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$. The step size $\{\alpha_c\}_{c>0}$ satisfies $\sum_{c=1}^{\infty} \alpha_c^{2}<\infty$.
\end{subAssumption}
\end{assumptions}
In Assumption $\ref{assume:first}$, we do not let the temperature parameter go to zero. Next we let $\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty}\tau_c= 0$ but make the following assumption, imposing further condition on the underlying game {and $\{\alpha_c\}_{c>0}$} compared to Assumption \ref{assume:first} to ensure that each state gets visited infinitely often at comparable frequencies {and the normalization in the update of the local $Q$-function estimate does not cause an issue since it can be arbitrarily small when $\tau_c\rightarrow 0$}.
\begin{assumptions*}\label{assume:second}
\begin{subAssumption*}\label{assume:secondIO}
Given any pair of states $(s,s')$ and any infinite sequence of actions, $s'$ is reachable from $s$ with some positive probability within a finite number, $n$, of stages.
\end{subAssumption*}
\begin{subAssumption*}\label{assume:second2}
The sequence $\{\tau_c\}_{c> 0}$ is non-increasing and satisfies $\lim_{c\rightarrow \infty} (\tau_{c+1}-\tau_c)/\alpha_c = 0$ and $\lim_{c\rightarrow\infty} \tau_c = 0$. The step size $\{\alpha_c\}_{c>0}$ satisfies
$\sum_{c=1}^{\infty} \alpha_c^{2-\rho}<\infty$, for some $\rho\in (0,1)$. There exists $C,C'\in(0,\infty)$ such that $\alpha_c^{\rho}\exp\left(4D/\tau_c\right)\leq C'$ for all $c\geq C$.
\end{subAssumption*}
\end{assumptions*}
While being stronger than Assumption \ref{assume:firstIO}, Assumption \ref{assume:secondIO} is still weaker than those used in \cite{ref:Leslie20}. In \cite{ref:Leslie20}, it is assumed that there is a positive probability of reaching from any state to any other state in \emph{one} stage for any joint action taken by the players. {On the other hand, we say that a Markov game is {\em irreducible} if given any {\em pure} stationary strategy profile, the states visited form an irreducible Markov chain \citep{ref:Hoffman66,ref:Brafman02}. Assumption \ref{assume:secondIO} is akin to the {\em irreducibility assumption} for Markov games because the irreducibility assumption implies that there is a positive probability that any state is visited from any state within $|S|$ stages.} Furthermore, it reduces to the ergodicity property of Markov decision problems, e.g., see \cite{ref:Kearns02}, if one of the players has only one action at every state.
As an example, $\alpha_c = c^{-\rho_{\alpha}}$ and $\beta_{c} = c^{-\rho_{\beta}}$, where $0.5 < \rho_{\alpha} < \rho_{\beta} \leq 1$ satisfies Assumptions \ref{assume:first2} and \ref{assume:second2}. There exists $\rho\in(0,2-1/\rho_{\alpha})$ for the latter since $\rho_{\alpha}\in(0.5,1)$. To satisfy Assumption \ref{assume:first2}, the players can choose the temperature parameter $\{\tau_c\}_{c>0}$
as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:tau_to_epsilon}
\tau_c = \frac{1}{c}\bar{\tau}+\left(1-\frac{1}{c}\right)\epsilon, \quad\forall c>0
\end{equation}
with some $\bar{\tau}>0$.
On the other hand, to satisfy Assumption \ref{assume:second2}, they can choose the temperature parameter $\{\tau_c'\}_{c>0}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:tau_to_zero}
\tau_c' = \bar{\tau}\left(1+\bar{\tau}\frac{\rho_{\alpha}\rho}{4D}\log(c)\right)^{-1}, \quad \forall c>0.
\end{equation}
Alternative to \eqref{equ:tau_to_epsilon}, $\tau_c=\max\{\epsilon,\tau_c'\}$ also satisfies Assumption \ref{assume:first2} while having similar nature with \eqref{equ:tau_to_zero}. We provide the relevant technical details in the supplementary material.
We have the following key properties for the estimate sequence generated by our learning dynamics.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:bound}
Since $\bar{\alpha}_{k}^i\in(0,1]$ for all $k\geq 0$, $\beta_c\in(0,1)$ for all $c>0$, $\|\hat{q}_{s,0}^i\|_{\infty}\leq D$ and $|\hat{v}_{s,0}^i|\leq D$ for all $(i,s)$, the iterates are bounded, i.e., $\|\hat{q}_{s,k}^i\|_{\infty}\leq D$ and $|\hat{v}_{s,k}^i|\leq D$ for all $(i,s)$ and $k\geq 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:reduce}
Suppose that Assumption \ref{assume:common1} and either Assumption \ref{assume:first2} or \ref{assume:second2} hold. Then, there exists $C_s\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ for each $s\in S$ such that $\alpha_c\exp\left(2D/\tau_c\right)< \min_{i=1,2}\{|A_s^i|^{-1}\}$, for all $c\geq C_s$. Correspondingly, the update of the local $Q$-function estimate \eqref{eq:q} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_sim}
\hat{q}_{s_k,k+1}^i[a_{k}^i] = \hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[a_{k}^i] + \frac{\alpha_{\#s_k}}{\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a_{k}^i]}\left(r_{k}^i + \gamma \hat{v}_{s_{k+1},k}^i - \hat{q}_{s_k,k}^i[a_{k}^i]\right),
\end{equation}
for all $\#s_k \geq C_{s_k}$ since $\alpha_{\#s_k}/\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a_{k}^i]\leq |A_{s_k}^i|\alpha_{\#s_k}\exp\left(2D/\tau_{\#s_k}\right)\leq 1$ by \eqref{eq:def_smooth_br_2}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:io}
Suppose that either Assumption \ref{assume:first} or Assumption \ref{assume:second} holds. Then, at any stage $k$, there is a fixed positive probability, e.g., $\underline{p}>0$, that the game visits any state $s$ at least once within $n$-stages independent of how players play. Therefore, $\#s\rightarrow \infty$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$ with probability $1$.
\end{proposition}
{Proposition \ref{prop:bound} says that defining $\bar{\alpha}_k^i= \min\{1,\alpha_{\#s_k}/\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a_{k}^i]\}$ ensures that the iterates remain bounded. On the other hand, Propositions \ref{prop:reduce} and \ref{prop:io} say that the update of the local $Q$-function estimates reduces to \eqref{eq:q_sim} where $\bar{\alpha}_k^i =\alpha_{\#s_k}/\overline{\pi}_{k}^i[a_{k}^i]$ after a finite number of stages, almost surely.} The following theorem characterizes the convergence properties of the $Q$-learning dynamics presented.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Suppose that both players follow the learning dynamics described in Table \ref{algo} and Assumption \ref{assume:common} holds. Let $v_{\pi_*}^i$ and $Q_{\pi_*}^i$, as described resp. in \eqref{eq:vpi} and \eqref{eq:Qpi}, be the unique values associated with some equilibrium profile $\pi_*=(\pi_*^1,\pi_*^2)$ of the underlying zero-sum Markov game. Then, the asymptotic behavior of the value function estimates $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^i\}_{k\geq 0}$ is given by
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:result}
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}|\hat{v}_{s,k}^i - v_{\pi_*}^i(s)| \leq \epsilon \xi g(\gamma),\quad \mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:first}},\label{equ:result_to_eps}\\
&\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}|\hat{v}_{s,k}^i - v_{\pi_*}^i(s)| = 0,\hspace{0.6in}\mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:second}},\label{equ:result_to_zero}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all $(i,s)\in\{1,2\}\times S$, with probability (w.p.) $1$, where $\xi:= \max_{s'\in S}\left\{\log(|A_{s'}^1||A_{s'}^2|)\right\}$, and $g(\gamma)=\frac{2+\lambda-\lambda\gamma}{(1-\lambda\gamma)(1-\gamma)}$ with some $\lambda\in(1,1/\gamma)$.
Furthermore, let $\hat{\pi}_{s,k}^i$ be the weighted time-average of the smoothed best response updated as
$$
\hat{\pi}_{s,k+1}^i=\hat{\pi}_{s,k}^i + \mathbf{1}_{\{s=s_k\}}\alpha_{\#s}\left(\overline{\pi}_k^i - \hat{\pi}_{s,k}^i\right).
$$
Then, the asymptotic behavior of these weighted averages $\{\hat{\pi}_{k}^i\}_{k\geq 0}$ is given by
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:result2}
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\hat{\pi}_{k}^{-i}}^i(s) - v_{\hat{\pi}_{k}^{i},\hat{\pi}_{k}^{-i}}^i(s) \Big)\leq \epsilon \xi h(\gamma),\quad \mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:first}},\\
&\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\hat{\pi}_{k}^{-i}}^i(s) - v_{\hat{\pi}_{k}^{i},\hat{\pi}_{k}^{-i}}^i(s) \Big) = 0,\hspace{.6in}\mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:second}},\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all $(i,s)\in\{1,2\}\times S$, w.p. $1$, where $h(\gamma) = \big[4\gamma\cdot g(\gamma)+2(1+\lambda)/(1-\lambda\gamma)\big]/(1-\gamma)$, i.e., these weighted-average strategies converge to near or exact equilibrium depending on whether Assumption \ref{assume:first} or \ref{assume:second} hold.
\end{theorem}
A brief sketch of the proof is as follows: We decouple the dynamics specific to a single state from others by addressing the asynchronous update of the local $Q$-function estimate and the diminishing temperature parameter. We then approximate the dynamics specific to a single state via its limiting ordinary differential equation (o.d.e.) as if the iterates evolving at the slow timescale are time-invariant. We present a novel Lyapunov function for the limiting o.d.e. to characterize the limit set of the discrete-time update. This Lyapunov function shows that the game perceived by the agents become zero-sum asymptotically and the local $Q$-function estimates are asymptotically belief-based. Finally, we use this limit set characterization to show the convergence of the dynamics across every state by using asynchronous stochastic approximation methods, e.g., see \cite{ref:Tsitsiklis94}.
The following corollary to Theorem \ref{thm:main} highlights the {\em rationality} property of our learning dynamics.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:rational}
Suppose that player $-i$ follows an (asymptotically) stationary strategy
$\{\tilde{\pi}_s^{-i}\in \mathrm{int}\Delta(A_s^i)\}_{s\in S}$ while player $i$ adopts the learning dynamics described in Table \ref{algo}, and Assumption \ref{assume:common} holds.
Then, the asymptotic behavior of the value function estimate $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^i\}_{k\geq 0}$ is given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\left|\hat{v}_{s,k}^i - \max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s)
\right| \leq \epsilon \xi^i g(\gamma),\quad \mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:first}},\\
&\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \left|\hat{v}_{s,k}^i - \max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s)
\right| = 0,\hspace{.5in}\quad \mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:second}}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all $s\in S$, w.p. $1$, where $\xi^i:= \max_{s'\in S}\left\{\log(|A_{s'}^i|)\right\}$ and $g(\cdot)$ is as described in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
Furthermore, the asymptotic behavior of the weighted averages $\{\hat{\pi}_{k}^i\}_{k\geq 0}$, described in Theorem \ref{thm:main}, is given by
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:result2}
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s) - v_{\hat{\pi}_{k}^{i},\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s)
\Big)
\leq \epsilon \xi^i h(\gamma),\quad\hspace{-.05in} \mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:first}},\\
&\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\max_{\pi^i}~v_{\pi^i,\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s) - v_{\hat{\pi}_{k}^{i},\tilde{\pi}^{-i}}^i(s)\Big)
= 0,\hspace{.58in}\mbox{under Assumption \ref{assume:second}},\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all $s\in S$, w.p. $1$, where $h(\gamma)$ is as described in Theorem \ref{thm:main}, i.e., these weighted-average strategies converge to near or exact best-response strategy, depending on whether Assumption \ref{assume:first} or \ref{assume:second} hold.
\end{corollary}
\section{Simulation Results} \label{sec:simulation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-20pt}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1_n5_m3.pdf}
\centering{\small(a) Convergence under Assumption \ref{assume:first}}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-19pt}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2_n5_m3.pdf}
\centering{\small (b) Convergence under Assumption \ref{assume:second}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Convergence of the value function estimates after $20$ runs of the decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics. The \textbf{\textcolor{red}{red}} and \textbf{\textcolor{blue}{blue}} curves represent the quantities for players $1$ and $2$, respectively. The solid \textbf{\textcolor{red}{red}}/\textbf{\textcolor{blue}{blue}} lines and the bar-areas around them denote the average value function estimates $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^i\}_{k\geq 0}$ at all states $s\in S$ and the standard deviations, after the $20$ runs, respectively. The solid \textbf{black} lines denote the summation of the estimates $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^1+\hat{v}_{s,k}^2\}_{k\geq 0}$ at each $s$ (which should converge to (almost) zero asymptotically). The dotted lines {\color{red}\dotted}/{\color{blue}\dotted} denote the actual Nash equilibrium values; the dashed-dotted lines {\color{red}\chain}/{\color{blue}\chain} denote the boundaries of the neighborhoods around the Nash equilibrium given in Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
(a) Convergence to the neighborhood of the Nash equilibrium value, under Assumption \ref{assume:first}. (b) Convergence to the Nash equilibrium value, under Assumption \ref{assume:second}.}
\label{fig:simulation_results}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\hspace{-20pt}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3_n20_m10.pdf}
\centering{\small(a) Convergence under Assumption \ref{assume:first}}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-19pt}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4_n20_m10.pdf}
\centering{\small (b) Convergence under Assumption \ref{assume:second}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Convergence of the value function estimates of the decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics. The \textbf{\textcolor{blue}{blue}} curves represents the quantities for player $2$. The solid \textbf{\textcolor{blue}{blue}} lines denote the value function estimates $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^2\}_{k\geq 0}$ at all states $s\in S$. The solid \textbf{black} lines denote the summation of the estimates $\{\hat{v}_{s,k}^1+\hat{v}_{s,k}^2\}_{k\geq 0}$ at each $s$ (which should converge to (almost) zero asymptotically). The dotted lines {\color{blue}\dotted} denote the actual Nash equilibrium values.
(a) Convergence to the neighborhood of the Nash equilibrium value, under Assumption \ref{assume:first}. (b) Convergence to the Nash equilibrium value, under Assumption \ref{assume:second}.}
\label{fig:simulation_results_2}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{figure*}
All the simulations are executed on a desktop computer equipped with a 3.7 GHz Hexa-Core Intel Core i7-8700K processor with Matlab R2019b. The device also has two 8GB 3000MHz DDR4 memories and a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X graphic card. For illustration, we consider a zero-sum Markov game with $5$ states and $3$ actions at each state, i.e., $S=\{1,2,\cdots,5\}$ and $A_s^i=\{1,2,3\}$. The discount factor $\gamma=0.6$. The reward functions are chosen randomly in a way that $r^1_s(a^1,a^2)\propto \bar{r}_{s,a^1,a^2}\cdot\exp{(s^2)}$ for $s\in S$, where $\bar{r}_{s,a^1,a^2}$ is uniformly drawn from $[-1,1]$. $r^1_s(a^1,a^2)$ is then normalized by $\max_{s,a^1,a^2}\{r^1_s(a^1,a^2)\}$ so that $|r_s^i(a^1,a^2)|\leq R=1$ for all $(i,s,a^1,a^2)$. For the state transition dynamics $p$, we construct two cases, \textbf{Case 1} and \textbf{Case 2} by randomly generating transition probabilities, so that they satisfy Assumptions \ref{assume:firstIO} and \ref{assume:secondIO}, respectively. For both cases, we choose $\alpha_c=1/c^{0.9}$ and $\beta_c=1/c$ with $\rho_\alpha=0.9$, $\rho_\beta=1$, and $\rho=0.7$, and set $\tau_c$ in accordance with \eqref{equ:tau_to_epsilon} and \eqref{equ:tau_to_zero}, respectively. For \textbf{Case 1}, we choose $\epsilon=2\times 10^{-4}$ and $\bar{\tau}=4.5\times 10^4$; for \textbf{Case 2}, we choose $\bar{\tau}=0.07$. Note that the different choices of $\bar{\tau}$ are due to the different decreasing rates of $\tau_c$ in \eqref{equ:tau_to_epsilon} and \eqref{equ:tau_to_zero}, and are chosen to generate aesthetic plots. The simulation results are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:simulation_results}, which are generated after $20$ runs of our learning dynamics.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:simulation_results} (a), for \textbf{Case 1}, the value function estimates successfully converge to the neighborhood of the Nash equilibrium values, where the size of the neighborhood is indeed controlled by \eqref{equ:result_to_eps}. For \textbf{Case 2}, it is shown in Figure \ref{fig:simulation_results} (b) that the value function estimates converge to the Nash equilibrium, as $\tau\to 0$. These observations have corroborated our theory established in \S\ref{sec:main}. Moreover, it is observed that the variance of the iterates decreases as they converge to the (neighborhood of) Nash equilibrium, implying the almost-sure convergence guarantees we have established.
Besides the illustrative example, we have also tested our learning dynamics on larger scale games, and validated our theory for this case (see Figure \ref{fig:simulation_results_2}). See \S\ref{sec:add_sim} for more details of the example.
\section{Concluding Remarks} \label{sec:conclusion}
This paper has studied decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning in zero-sum Markov games. We have developed a decentralized $Q$-learning dynamics with provable convergence guarantees to the (neighborhoods of the) Nash equilibrium value of the game. Unlike many existing MARL algorithms, our learning dynamics is both rational and convergent, and only based on the payoffs received and the local actions executed by each agent. It also requires neither asymmetric stepsizes/update rules or any coordination for the agents, nor even being aware of the existence of the opponent.
\begin{ack}
M. O. Sayin was with the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT when this paper was submitted. K. Zhang and A. Ozdaglar were supported by DSTA grant 031017-00016. T. Ba\c{s}ar was supported in part by ONR MURI Grant N00014-16-1-2710 and in part by AFOSR Grant FA9550-19-1-0353.
\end{ack}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
An intuitive definition of the discrete Frechet metric between closed curves involves two frogs connected with a string.
Suppose that there are two cycles of $m$ and $n$ stones respectively.
The frogs may pick a starting stone (each frog from its respective cycle of stones).
Then, at each moment in time a frog can either stay put or jump to the next stone in the cycle.
The frogs can't skip stones and can't go back.
The question is whether the frogs can complete exactly one cycle each and end up at their starting stones
without tearing the string.
The shortest length of the string that allows this is called the discrete Frechet distance between two cycles.
The Frechet metric as a tool to measure curve similarities has been introduced by Alt and Godau \cite{frechet}.
They have also provided a variation of the metric for closed curves,
which is more appropriate for comparing image contours for example,
and proposed an algorithm that solves a decision problem of determining whether the Frechet
distance between two closed polygonal curves is bigger than a given number in $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ time.
This result has been later improved by Schlesinger et al. \cite{schles2016} with
an $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time algorithm.
Computing the exact value of the Frechet distance between polygonal curves is known to
be a difficult problem even though Alt and Godau did provide an $\mathcal{O}(mn\log mn)$ algorithm
for open curves and an $\mathcal{O}(mn\log^2 mn)$ algorithm for closed curves \cite{frechet}.
This difficulty has led to the introduction of an approximation called the discrete Frechet distance \cite{eiter1994},
which can be computed for open curves in $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time using dynamic programming.
This result has been later improved for the case of two dimensions by Pankaj K. Agarwal et al.
with a subquadratic algorithm \cite{agarwal2013}.
This paper introduces a variant of discrete Frechet distance between closed curves and proposes an
algorithm to compute it in $\mathcal{O}(mn \log^* mn)$ time, where $\log^*$ is the iterated logarithm.
$$
\log^*(n) =
\begin{cases}
0, & n \leq 1, \\
1 + \log^*(\log n), & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
$$
\section{Problem formulation}
Consider a metric space $M$ with a metric $d:M \times M \to \mathbb{R}$.
Let $U = (u_1, u_2, u_3, \dots, u_m), u_i \in M$ and $V = (v_1, v_2, v_3, \dots, v_n), v_j \in M$ be
two sequences of $m$ and $n$ points respectively from the metric space $M$.
A coupling of these two sequences is a sequence
$$
L = \big((u_{a_1}, v_{b_1}), (u_{a_1}, v_{b_1}), (u_{a_2}, v_{b_2}), \dots, (u_{a_l}, v_{b_l}) \big)
$$
of distinct pairs such that $a_1 = 1, b_1 = 1, a_l = m, b_l = n$ and
either $a_{t+1} = a_t$ or $a_{t+1} = a_t+1$ and either $b_{t+1} = b_t$ or $b_{t+1} = b_t+1$ for all $t=\overline{1, l-1}$.
The length $||L||$ of coupling $L$ is the largest distance between pairs of points in the sequence:
$$
||L|| = \max_{t \in \{1, \dots, l\}} d(u_{a_l}, v_{b_l}).
$$
Denote the set of all couplings $C(U, V)$.
\begin{definition} \cite{eiter1994}
Discrete Frechet distance between two sequences $U$ and $V$ is the minimal length of all couplings between $U$ and $V$
$$
\delta_{dF}(U, V) = \min_{L \in C(U, V)} ||L||.
$$
\end{definition}
Naturally, a sequence of points $(u_1, u_2, u_3, \dots, u_m)$ has a starting point $u_1$ and an ending point $u_m$.
One can say that for all integers $i, 2 \leq i \leq m-1,$ any point $u_i$ has
a previous point $u_{i-1}$ and a next point $u_{i+1}$,
but the point $u_1$ does not have a previous point and the point $u_m$ does not have a next point.
If, however, we define $u_m$ to be the previous point of $u_1$ and $u_1$ to be the next point of $u_m$,
we get a closed sequence.
\begin{definition}
\sloppy A cyclic shift $S(U, s)$ of a sequence $U = (u_1, u_2, u_3, \dots, u_m)$ by an integer number $s \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}$ is
a sequence $U' = S(U, s) = (u'_1, u'_2, u'_3, \dots, u'_m)$ such
that $u'_i = u_{i+s}$ for $i + s \leq m$ and $u'_i = u_{i+s-m}$ for $i+s > m$.
\end{definition}
For a closed sequence any cyclic shift produces essentially the same sequence,
only the vertices are renumbered.
Discrete Frechet distance for closed sequences differs in that one does not know
the starting points in both sequences (since there are no starting points).
\begin{definition}
\sloppy Discrete Frechet distance between closed sequences
$U = (u_1, u_2, u_3, \dots, u_m)$ and $V = (v_1, v_2, v_3, \dots, v_n)$ is
$$
\delta_{dcF}(U, V) = \min_{s_U \in \{0, \dots, m\}} \min_{s_V \in \{0, \dots, n\}}\delta_{dF}\big(S(U, s_U), S(V, s_V)\big).
$$
\end{definition}
\section{An $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ algorithm}
This section provides general concepts and ideas for computing the closed Frechet distance between sequences
that are used in Section~\ref{optimalSection} where the main result of the paper is given.
To better illustrate the introduced concepts, this section ends with an algorithm
that computes the closed Frechet distance in $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ time,
while the next section improves this result.
\emph{For closed sequences $U = (u_1, u_2, u_3, \dots, u_m)$ and $V = (v_1, v_2, v_3, \dots, v_n)$
the set of pairs of indices $D = \{1, \dots, m, m{+}1, \dots, 2m\} \times \{1, 2, \dots, n\}$ is
called the space \cite{frechet} of $U$ and $V$}. Notice that the points from $U$ are indexed twice.
Define $d:D \to \mathbb{R}$ the distance between a corresponding pair of points
$$
d(i, j) =
\begin{cases}
d(u_i, v_j), & i \leq m, \\
d(u_{i-m}, v_j), & i > m.
\end{cases}
$$
A point is allowed to move on the diagram in three directions: $\north$, $\east$ and $\northeast$ defined as follows:
$$
\north(i, j) =
\begin{cases}
(i, j+1), & j < n, \\
(i-m, 1), & j = n, i > m,
\end{cases}
$$
$$
\east(i, j) =
(i+1, j), \quad i < 2m,
$$
$$
\northeast(i, j) =
\begin{cases}
(i+1, j+1), & i < 2m, j < n, \\
(i-m+1, 1), & i \geq m, j = n.
\end{cases}
$$
For most of the points on the diagram the definition of $\north$, $\east$ and $\northeast$ is straightforward.
The first exception is that sometimes the point on the edges can't move in one or more directions.
Whenever this happens, the corresponding value $\north(i, j)$, $\east(i, j)$ or $\northeast(i, j)$
is undefined.
The other exception is that whenever the point could end up at $(i, n+1), m+1 \leq i \leq 2m$ it is immediately moved
to the bottom of the diagram to $(i-m, 1)$.
Even though points $(i, n+1), m+1 \leq i \leq 2m$ do not belong to the diagram,
we will sometimes draw them on the diagram (see Figure~\ref{freespaceFig}) and consider $(i, n+1)$ to be identical to $(i-m, 1) \in D$.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\input{pictures/freespaceFigure.tex}
\caption{ The free space is the Cartesian product $\{1, \dots, 2m\} \times \{1, \dots, n\}$ of indices.
Any coupling between two cyclic sequences results in a monotone path from some point $(i^*, 1)$
on the bottom of the free space that goes to $(m+i^*, n+1)$, which is virtually the same point $(i^*, 1)$. }
\label{freespaceFig}
\end{figure*}
Consider a coupling between shifted sequence $U$ and shifted sequence $V$.
For any such coupling there is a corresponding monotone path on the diagram $D$ that starts
at some point $(i^*, 1), 1 \leq i^* \leq m,$ on the bottom of the diagram and goes to the top
to the point $(i^* + m, n+1) = (i^*, 1)$ completing a single full cycle on both sequences $U$ and $V$ (see Figure~\ref{freespaceFig}).
The length of a coupling is the maximal value $d(i, j)$ on the corresponding path.
Now, instead of finding a coupling with minimal length we can look for a monotone path that
minimizes the maximal value $d(i, j)$ along its way.
The main idea of the presented algorithm is that it sorts all points on the diagram $D$ by value $d(i, j)$
in descending order. Then the algorithm goes through the sorted array making points from it forbidden and
checks whether there exists a monotone path that does not go through forbidden points.
We will show that this can be done efficiently.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\input{pictures/testFigure.tex}
\caption{ When points $(i{+}1, j),\; (i, j{+}1),\; (i{+}1,j{+1})$ are forbidden,
function ``test$(i, j)$'' (see Algorithm~\ref{algTestDelete}) makes $(i, j)$ forbidden as well
since no monotone path can go through $(i, j)$.}
\label{testFigure}
\end{figure*}
The algorithm starts with an array $q:D \to \{0, 1\}$ initialized to $q(i, j) = 1$ for all $(i, j) \in D$.
Value $q(i, j) = 0$ means that the point $(i, j)$ is forbidden and $q(i, j) = 1$ means that $(i, j)$ is allowed.
A counter $c$ initialized to $c=2mn$ is decreased by $1$ every time a point is made forbidden.
This allows us to efficiently check whether there are any allowed points left by checking the condition $c>0$.
The algorithm constantly keeps track that there are no dead ends on the diagram.
That is from any allowed point one can continue some monotone path to another allowed point.
When this is not possible, any point that is a dead end is also considered forbidden (see Figure~\ref{testFigure}).
This is done by calling ``test'' for the points in question.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\input{pictures/deleteFigure.tex}
\caption{ Function ``delete$(i, j)$'' makes the point $(i, j)$ forbidden and
calls ``test'' (see Algorithm~\ref{algTestDelete}) for
$(i{-}1, j),\; (i, j{-}1),\; (i{-}1,j{-1})$. Since $(i, j)$ became forbidden,
it may be that there are no more monotone paths through some of these three points.
}
\label{deleteFigure}
\end{figure*}
If some point $(i, j)$ is a part of a monotone path it can be reached from one of three directions:
$\west(i, j) = \east^{-1}(i, j)$, $\south(i, j) = \north^{-1}(i, j)$ and $\southwest(i, j) = \northeast^{-1}(i, j)$.
So to make sure that there are no dead ends whenever a point is made forbidden the three points that
are to the left, down or down-left are checked (see Figure~\ref{deleteFigure}).
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwFunction{\FDelete$(i, j)$}{
$q(i, j) \assign 0$ \;
$c \assign c - 1$\;
\FTest$\big(\west(i, j) \big)$\;
\FTest$\big(\south(i, j) \big)$\;
\FTest$\big(\southwest(i, j) \big)$\;
}
\KwFunction{\FTest$(i, j)$}{
\If{$($\;$\quad\quad\begin{aligned}
q\big(i, j\big)=1 \; &\AndOp \; q\big(\north(i,j)\big)=0 \\
\,&\AndOp\;q \big(\east(i,j)\big)=0 \\
\,&\AndOp\;q\big(\northeast(i,j)\big)=0
\end{aligned}$\;$)$
}{
\FDelete$(i, j)$\;
}
}
\caption{Function ``delete''}\label{algTestDelete}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{algTestDelete} provides function ``delete'',
which allows one to start with a diagram where all points are allowed $q(i, j) = 1$,
then sequentially delete (make them forbidden) some points on the diagram and test whether there still is a monotone path.
Whenever a point is deleted, its neighbors to the left, down and down-left are checked with function ``test''.
This ensures that after an arbitrary number of calls to ``delete'' from any allowed point $(i, j)$ one can move
either up, right or up-right to another allowed point.
Obviously, when all points on the diagram are forbidden there are no monotone paths on the diagram.
Less obvious, but no less true is that when there are still points that are not forbidden,
a monotone path does exist as the following lemma states.
\begin{lemma}\label{pathExistsLemma}
Let some algorithm initialize $q(i, j) = 1$ for all $(i, j) \in D$ and $c = 2mn$.
If after a number of calls to function ``delete'' there are some allowed points ($c>0$)
then there exists a monotone path from a point $(i, 1)$ for some $i$
to a point $(i+m, n+1)$ that does not go through forbidden points.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\input{pictures/pathsIntersectFigure.tex}
\caption{ Eventually two consecutive paths will intersect.
Here the path from $(i_1, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_2, n+1)$ intersects the path from $(i_2, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_3, n+1)$.
Which means that there is a path from $(i_2, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_2, n+1)$.}
\label{pathsIntersectFig}
\end{figure*}
Indeed, since not all points are forbidden, there must be at least one allowed point $(i_0, 1), 1 \leq i_0 \leq m,$
on the bottom of the diagram. Otherwise, this would eventually lead to all points from $D$ to be forbidden.
Since $(i_0, 1)$ is allowed, one can sequentially move from it to another allowed point $(m{+}i_1, n{+}1) = (i_1, 1)$,
which goes back to the bottom of the diagram and so on (see Figure~\ref{pathsIntersectFig}).
This means that there is an infinite sequence of paths that start from
$$(i_0, 1), (i_1, 1), (i_2, 1), \dots$$
and go to
$$(m{+}i_1, n{+}1), (m{+}i_2, n{+}1), (m{+}i_3, n{+}1), \dots.$$
The sequence $i_0, i_1, i_2, \dots$ can not be strictly monotone,
i.e. neither $i_0 < i_1 < i_2 < \dots$ nor $i_0 > i_1 > i_2 > \dots$ is possible.
This means that eventually some path from $(i_t, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_{t+1}, n{+}1)$ will intersect
a path from $(i_{t+1}, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_{t+2}, n{+}1)$.
Therefore, there is a monotone path from $(i_{t+1}, 1)$ to $(m{+}i_{t+1}, n{+}1)$.
\end{proof}
We now can formulate the algorithm to compute the discrete Frechet distance.
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
$c \assign 2mn$ \;
\For{$(i, j) \in D$}{
$q(i, j) \assign 1$\;
}
$A \assign \big\{\big(d(i, j), i, j\big) | (i, j) \in D \big\}$\;
\FSort{$A$} {\it // sort A in descending order by first component}\;
\For{$(d, i, j) \in A$}{
\If{$(q(i, j) = 1)$}{
\FDelete{$i, j$}\;
}
\If{$(c = 0)$}{
\KwRet{$d$}\;
}
}
\caption{Straightforward discrete Frechet distance}\label{mnlogmnAlg}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{mnlogmnTheorem}
Algorithm~\ref{mnlogmnAlg} takes $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The most time-consuming part of the algorithm is sorting the array $A$,
which takes $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ time.
Indeed, function ``delete'' is called exactly $2mn$ times (including calls from ``test'').
And each call to ``delete'' results in no more than $3$ calls to ``test''.
Therefore, the rest of the algorithm after sorting takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time and
the whole algorithm takes $\mathcal{O}(mn \log mn)$ time.
\end{proof}
\section{Improving asymptotic time}\label{optimalSection}
One can see that the most expensive part of Algorithm~\ref{mnlogmnAlg} is sorting the array.
The array, however, does not have to be fully sorted.
Suppose that after sequentially calling ``delete'' the algorithm has made all points of $D$ forbidden
by eventually calling delete$(i, j)$ for element $a_t = (d, i, j)$ from $A$.
If the array is such that $a_t \leq a_i$ for $i<t$ and $a_t \geq a_i$ for $i>t$,
then $d$ is the discrete Frechet distance even though the array $A$ may not have been fully sorted.
This is an immediate consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{LRLemma}
Let some permutation of the array $A = \big\{\big(d(i, j), i, j\big) | (i, j) \in D \big\}$
be divided into two subarrays $L \geq R$ such that all elements from $L$ are not less than any element from $R$.
Let some algorithm initialize $q(i, j) = 1$ for all $(i, j) \in D$ and $c = 2mn$,
and then call function ``delete'' for all elements from $L$.
\[
\underbrace{ {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} \dots {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} }_{L} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ} }_{R}.
\]
Then the following statements are true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If not all points from $D$ are forbidden ($c>0$) then
the subarray $R$ contains the value of closed discrete Frechet distance.
\item
If all points from $D$ are forbidden ($c=0$) then
the subarray $L$ contains the value of closed discrete Frechet distance.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
According to Lemma~\ref{pathExistsLemma} if $c>0$ then there exists a monotone path
that goes through allowed points, which are points from $R$.
The discrete Frechet distance is one of the values on a monotone path.
Therefore, the maximum value along any path, where all points belong to $R$,
is not greater than the maximum value along any path that passes through points from $L$.
Therefore, the distance is one of the values from $R$.
\item
Suppose that the Frechet distance is not one of the values from $L$.
This means that there exists a monotone path
with all values $d(i, j)$ along its way that are strictly less than any value from $L$.
Such a path can only go through points from $R$.
However, since $c=0$, there is no monotone path in $R$.
Therefore, the Frechet distance is one of the values from $L$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We exploit this fact for the asymptotically better algorithm.
\begin{definition} \label{kChunkSortDef}
For an array $A =a_1a_2a_3\dots a_n$ of $n$ elements
a $k$-chunk-sort is such a division of the array into $m$ arrays
$A_1=a^1_1a^1_2a^1_3\dots a^1_{n_1},\; A_2=a^2_1a^2_2a^2_3\dots a^2_{n_2}, \; \dots, \; A_m=a^m_1a^m_2a^m_3\dots a^1_{n_m}$ that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The concatenation of the arrays $A_1A_2\dots A_m$ is a permutation of the original array $A$.
\item For any two arrays $A_i$ and $A_j$ such that $i<j$ any element from $A_i$ is not less than any element from $A_j$:
$$i<j, a \in A_i, b \in A_j \Rightarrow a \geq b.$$
\item The size $n_i$ of each array $A_i, i=\overline{1,m},$ does not exceed $\lceil n/k \rceil$:
$$n_i = |A_i| \leq \lceil n/k \rceil.$$
\end{itemize}
The ordering of elements inside each array $A_i$ is irrelevant.
\end{definition}
The $k$-chunk-sorted array can be illustrated as follows:
$$
\underbrace{a^1_1a^1_2 \dots a^1_{n_1}}_{|A_1| \leq \lceil n/k \rceil} \geq
\underbrace{a^2_1a^2_2 \dots a^2_{n_2}}_{|A_2| \leq \lceil n/k \rceil} \geq
\underbrace{a^3_1a^3_2 \dots a^3_{n_3}}_{|A_3| \leq \lceil n/k \rceil} \geq \dots \geq
\underbrace{a^m_1a^m_2 \dots a^m_{n_m}}_{|A_m| \leq \lceil n/k \rceil},
$$
where the $\geq$ symbol denotes that all elements to the left of $\geq$ are not less than the ones to the right of $\geq$.
Ideally, a $k$-chunk-sort would divide an array of $n$ elements into $k$ equal arrays of $n/k$ elements each.
This is not necessary though.
Also note that an $n$-chunk-sort of $n$ elements is just a regular descending sort
and a $1$-chunk-sort of an array is any permutation of the array.
A straightforward practically efficient way to implement $k$-chunk-sort would be to use quicksort \cite{hoare1961} that stops
sorting when it reaches subarrays of size not greater than $\lceil n/k \rceil$.
For the sake of simplifying the analysis, however,
the proof of the following theorem provides a less efficient and somewhat redundant yet
asymptotically optimal algorithm.
\begin{theorem}
A $k$-chunk-sort of an array of $n$ elements can be done in $\mathcal{O}(n \log k)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the theorem by doing a divide and conquer approach to the problem.
Given an array $A$ divide it into two arrays $A_1$ and $A_2$ with almost equal lengths $|A_1| = |A_2| \pm 1$
using a median $\mu$ of array $A$ as a pivot point.
That is if $\mu$ is the median element of $A$, then $a_1 \geq \mu, a_1 \in A_1$ and $a_2 \leq \mu, a_2 \in A_2$.
This performs $2$-chunk-sort of $A$.
To obtain $k$-chunk-sort we recursively call $\lceil k/2 \rceil$-chunk-sort on both $A_1$ and $A_2$
($\lceil\cdot\rceil$ denotes rounding the fraction up).
The median $\mu$ can be found in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time \cite{blum1973} and therefore the $2$-chunk-sort
can be done in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time.
With each recursion depth the number of chunks doubles and the sizes of the subarrays halve.
Therefore, each depth of recursion takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time in total for all subarrays
and the maximal depth of recursion is $\mathcal{O}(\log k)$.
This gives an $\mathcal{O}(n \log k)$ algorithm.
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
$k \assign 2$\;
$L \assign \{\}$\;
$R \assign \{\}$\;
$B \assign \big\{\big(d(i, j), i, j\big) | (i, j) \in D \big\}$\;
\While{$(k<2mn)$}{
$c \assign 2mn$ \;
\For{$(i, j) \in D$}{
\nl $q(i, j) \assign 1$\; \label{initQLine}
}
\nl $B_1,B_2,\dots,B_l \assign $ \FChunkSort{$k, B$} \; \label{kChunkSortLine}
$B_0 \assign L$\;
\For{$s \assign 0$ \KwTo $l$}{
\For{$(d, i, j) \in B_s$}{
\If{$(q(i, j) = 1)$}{
\nl \FDelete{$i, j$}\; \label{deleteLine}
}
\nl \If{$(c = 0)$}{ \label{emptyDiagramLine}
\If{$(|B_s| = 1)$}{
\KwRet $d$ \;
}
\nl $L \assign LB_1B_2\dots B_{s-1}$\; \label{newLLine}
\nl $R \assign B_{s+1}\dots B_l$\; \label{newRLine}
\nl $B \assign B_s$\; \label{newBLine}
\KwGoto nextEpoch\;
}
}
}
nextEpoch:\;
\nl $k \assign 2^k$\; \label{kGrowthLine}
}
\caption{Computing discrete Frechet distance}\label{logstarAlg}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed Algorithm~\ref{logstarAlg} runs in several epochs numbered $t$.
Each epoch starts with some permutation of the array $A = \big\{\big(d(i, j), i, j\big) | (i, j) \in D \big\}$
divided into three subarrays $L$, $B$ and $R$ such that elements from $L$ are not less than elements from $B$
and elements from $B$ are not less than elements from $R$
$$
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} }_{L} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ} }_{R},
$$
where ${\circ}$ denotes one element from an array.
Moreover, it is known that one of the elements from $B$ contains the value of closed discrete Frechet distance.
The algorithm performs a $k_t$-chunk-sort of the subarray $B$ for some $k_t$ defined later,
which divides elements from $B$ into $l$ arrays $B_1, B_2, \dots, B_l$ (line~\ref{kChunkSortLine}).
\[
\rlap{$
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} }_{L} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_1} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_2} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_3} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_4} \geq \dots \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_l} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ} }_{R}.
$}
\phantom{{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} \geq}
\overbrace{
\phantom{
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq \dots \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq }}^{k_t\text{-chunk-sort of } B}
\phantom{{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ}.}
\]
Each epoch starts with all of the diagram $D$ initialized as allowed (line~ \ref{initQLine}).
Then, the algorithm sequentially calls ``delete'' (line~\ref{deleteLine}) for the elements starting with $L$, $B_1$, $B_2$ and so on
until one of the calls to ``delete'' on an element of some subarray $B_s$ makes all of diagram $D$ forbidden
($c=0$, line~\ref{emptyDiagramLine})
\[
\rlap{$
\underbrace{ {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} \dots {\xcancel{\circ}} }_{L} \geq
\underbrace{ {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} }_{B_1} \geq
\underbrace{ {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} }_{B_2} \geq
\dots \geq
\underbrace{ {\xcancel{\circ}} {\xcancel{\circ}} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_s} \geq \dots \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} }_{B_l} \geq
\underbrace{ {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ} }_{R},
$}
\phantom{{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} \geq}
\overbrace{
\phantom{
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq
\dots \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq \dots \geq
{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \geq }}^{k_t\text{-chunk-sort of } B}
\phantom{{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ} {\circ},}
\]
where ${\xcancel{\circ}}$ denotes elements on which the function ``delete'' has been called.
We can guarantee that $B_s$ contains the value of closed discrete Frechet distance (as a consequence of Lemma~\ref{LRLemma}) and
go to the next epoch $t+1$ with
$L^{t+1} = LB_1B_2\dots B_{s-1},\;$
$B^{t+1} = B_s$ and
$R^{t+1} = B_{s+1}B_{s+2}\dots B_lR$ (lines~\ref{newLLine},~\ref{newRLine},~\ref{newBLine})
\[
\overunderbraces{
&\br{7}{L^{t+1}}
& &\br{1}{B^{t+1}}
& &\br{6}{R^{t+1}}
}{
&{\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ}& \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq \dots \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq \dots \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ}& \geq
&{\circ} {\circ} {\circ} \dots {\circ}& \; &.
}{
&\br{1}{L} & &\br{1}{B_1} & &\br{1}{B_2} & & \br{1}{B_{s-1}}
& & \br{1}{B_s}& & \br{1}{B_{s+1}}& & \br{1}{B_l} & & \br{2}{R}
}
\]
The algorithm ends when the size of $B$ reaches $1$.
The number $k_t$ for $k_t$-chunk-sort increases rather fast according to $k_{t+1} = 2^{k_t}$ (line \ref{kGrowthLine})
starting with $k_1 = 2$. On the first epoch $L$ and $R$ are empty.
\begin{lemma}\label{mnEpochLemma}
Each epoch of Algorithm~\ref{logstarAlg} takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, calls to ``delete'' take $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time in total for the reasons
discussed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{mnlogmnTheorem}.
At each epoch $t$ a $k_t$-chunk-sort of a subarray of length $l_t$ is performed,
which takes $\mathcal{O}(l_t \log k_t)$ time.
The next epoch $t+1$ deals with a subarray of size $l_{t+1} = l_t/k_t$ and
performs a $k_{t+1}$-chunk-sort, where $k_{t+1} = 2^{k_t}$ and therefore,
takes $\mathcal{O}(l_{t+1} \log k_{t+1}) = \mathcal{O}(\frac{l_t}{k_t} \log 2^{k_t}) = \mathcal{O}(l_t)$ time.
Since $l_t \leq 2mn$ for all $t$, $k_t$-chunk-sort for $t \geq 2$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time.
And since $k_1 = 2$, $k_1$-chunk-sort also takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Algorithm~\ref{logstarAlg} takes $\mathcal{O}(mn \log^* mn)$ time.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Each epoch takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ time according to Lemma~\ref{mnEpochLemma}
and performs a $k_t$-chunk-sort of an array of size no more than $2mn$.
When $k_t$ becomes larger than $2mn$, the algorithm obviously stops.
Since $k_{t+1} = 2^{k_t}$, and $k_t \leq 2mn$, it takes $\mathcal{O}(\log^* mn)$ epochs to complete the algorithm.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented an algorithm that finds the closed discrete Frechet distance in $\mathcal{O}(mn \log^* mn)$ time,
where $\log^*$ is the iterated logarithm.
Iterated logarithm is an extremely slow-growing function.
For practical values of $m$ and $n$ the presented algorithm may not be the fastest.
In this case one could easily modify the algorithm to work only in two epochs.
The first epoch would perform a $(\log mn)$-chunk-sort and the second epoch an {$(mn/\log mn)$-chunk-sort}.
This approach would take $\mathcal{O}(mn\log \log mn)$ time but may be faster in practice.
We would like to note that the technique could be applied to other problems that are solved with binary search
and is not limited to Frechet distance in particular or to computational geometry in general.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The COVID-19 pandemic sparked a proliferation of “exposure notification” or “contact tracing” smartphone apps designed to alert users if they came within close proximity of an individual infected with COVID-19 \cite{NHS-App-Impact-Paper, TraceTogether-App-Site, CA-Notify-App-Site, COVID-Watch-Arizona-App-Site}. Many were backed by public health authorities, and were used to help automate the traditional manual contact tracing process. Most of these apps continuously track, in an oblique and privacy-preserving manner, which other devices a specific smartphone has been near. When an individual tests positive for COVID-19, these apps can send a notification to every device to which that individual’s smartphone had recently been in close proximity. Those contacts can self-quarantine until they confirm that they are not carrying the virus, thus limiting the disease’s spread.
Authors in \cite{NHS-App-Impact-Paper}, studying the effects of the NHS COVID-19 app for England and Wales, estimated that “for every percentage point increase in app users, the number of cases can be reduced by [between] 0.8 … [and] 2.3 per cent … These findings provide evidence for continued development and deployment of such apps in populations that are awaiting full protection from vaccines.” COVID-19 has been shown to be much more transmissible indoors than outdoors \cite{Outdoor-COVID-Transmission-Paper, Indoor-COVID-Transmission-Paper}, and most people spend roughly 80\% of their waking hours in indoor environments. Since many public indoor environments contain a substantial number of Wi-Fi Access Points, Wi-Fi data has the potential to become a key method for exposure notification and contact tracing apps to accurately measure proximity indoors.
Currently, the majority of existing exposure notification and contact tracing apps use Bluetooth Low Energy (\textit{BLE}) to determine whether two users are in close proximity. Specifically, a device running an exposure notification app periodically broadcasts, via BLE, a token that can be picked up by other nearby devices running the same app. The distance from which a transmitted BLE token similar to those broadcast by the apps can be received varies based on the radio configuration and the characteristics of the surrounding environment, but can be over 20 meters.
An active research area over the past 20 years has been the development of systems for localizing Wi-Fi–enabled devices in indoor environments using a Wi-Fi RSSI fingerprint, which is a list of the Wi-Fi Access Points (\textit{APs}) detected by a particular device, and the received signal strength indicator (\textit{RSSI}) value for each of those APs \cite{Indoor-Positioning-Survey-Paper}. Existing Wi-Fi localization systems can determine a device’s position within a building with an average error of several meters.
In this paper, we present a new class of methods for detecting whether or not two Wi-Fi–enabled devices are in immediate physical proximity, i.e. 2 or fewer meters apart, as established by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Each classifier takes as input two Wi-Fi RSSI fingerprints — two sets of MAC addresses of \textit{APs} and their respective received signal strengths — and predicts whether or not the two fingerprints were captured within roughly two meters of each other. These methods can work across a wide range of Wi-Fi–enabled device types, and are designed to be more robust than earlier Wi-Fi–based methods in dealing with a wide range of physical environments as well as heterogeneous devices. Methods such as the ones we describe could supplant or augment existing Bluetooth-based proximity detection methods employed by exposure notification apps. They could improve the accuracy of smartphone-based contact tracing by determining which individuals were actually in extremely close physical proximity to an infected individual.
The outline of this paper is as follows: In Section \ref{related-work-section}, we discuss how our methods differ from previous work. In Section \ref{data-sources-section}, we outline where the RSSI fingerprint data used in our experiments was sourced. In Section \ref{proximity-classes-section}, we describe how our training and evaluation sets were created from the RSSI fingerprint data. In Section \ref{feature-extraction-section}, we discuss each of the fingerprint similarity measurements that are passed to our classifiers as input features. In Section \ref{mitigating-device-heterogeneity-section}, we detail the additions and adjustments we made to the input features to ensure that our classifiers work across a heterogeneous array of devices. In Section \ref{experiment-setup-section}, we describe the algorithms, software, and settings used for training the classifiers. In Section \ref{generic-classifier-section}, we present empirical evidence indicating that a single machine learning classifier cannot generalize well to a range of different environments with vastly different numbers of detectable APs. In \ref{specialized-classifiers-section}, we present a set of three binary machine learning classifiers, each tailored for a situation where the number of APs detected by the user falls into a given range, and quantify their performance. Finally, in Section \ref{conclusions-future-work-section}, we conclude the paper.
\section{Related Work}
\label{related-work-section}
The construction of indoor localization systems based on RSSI fingerprints for use within a specific building has been an active research area for over a decade \cite{Indoor-Positioning-Survey-Paper}. These systems typically require the creation of a database containing at least one RSSI fingerprint from every single location or position within the building. Wi-Fi–enabled devices within the building can submit a fingerprint to a central server, which employs an algorithm such as $k$-nearest neighbors to find the location in the database whose fingerprint is most similar to the one submitted by the device. The classifiers we present are concerned with determining whether or not two users are in close physical proximity, rather than estimating a user’s location on a map, but they make use of established techniques designed to increase the accuracy of RSSI fingerprint–based localization systems. Crucially, too, the proximity detection methods explored in this paper do not require the \textit{a priori} collection of a database of fingerprints from every possible reference point.
Similar to this paper, \cite{Inferring-WiFi-Paper} presents a number of binary machine learning classifiers that use various features extracted from a pair of Wi-Fi fingerprints to determine whether or not they were recorded in “close physical proximity” to each other. However, the sole criterion used in \cite{Inferring-WiFi-Paper} to determine whether two fingerprints were classified as within close physical proximity was whether the two smartphones recording the fingerprints were both able to detect each other via Bluetooth around the time the two fingerprints were recorded; this, it was noted, generally happens when the two phones are 10 or fewer meters away from each other. In contrast, because the data used in our training and evaluation sets includes precise, meter-level ground truth position information, we assign a label of “Close” only to samples recorded within 2.25 meters of each other — the goal of our classifiers is to determine whether two devices are not just nearby but in \textit{immediate} physical proximity to each other, i.e. less than the safe social distance defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, our systems expand upon the set of similarity measurements evaluated in \cite{Inferring-WiFi-Paper}, making use of additional features and pre-processing steps to further enhance accuracy.
\section{Data Sources}
\label{data-sources-section}
A variety of Wi-Fi fingerprint datasets used to develop and evaluate Wi-Fi localization systems are publicly available online, as shown in Table \ref{wifi-fingerprint-datasets}; we used Wi-Fi fingerprints from several of these datasets to create training and evaluation data for our classifiers.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{Wi-Fi Fingerprint Datasets}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Name} & $\textbf{Median APs}^\mathrm{a}$ & \textbf{Source} \\
\midrule
Miskolc & $10$ & UCI ML Repository \cite{Miskolc-Dataset-Paper} \\
$\text{JUIndoorLoc}^\mathrm{b}$ & $15$ & JUIndoorLoc Paper \cite{JUIndoorLoc-Dataset-Paper} \\
UJIndoorLoc & $17$ & UJI IndoorLoc Platform \cite{IndoorLoc-Platform-Site} \\
IPIN 2016 Tutorial & $32$ & UJI IndoorLoc Platform \cite{IndoorLoc-Platform-Site} \\
TampereU & $38$ & UJI IndoorLoc Platform \cite{IndoorLoc-Platform-Site} \\
Alcalá Tutorial & $40$ & UJI IndoorLoc Platform \cite{IndoorLoc-Platform-Site} \\
Suburban Home & $8$ & Collected by Us \\
Cory Hall & $66$ & Collected by Us \\
\bottomrule \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$ The median number of APs detected in a given fingerprint} \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{from the dataset.} \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^{\mathrm{b}}$ Only the test data from this dataset was used.}
\end{tabular}
\label{wifi-fingerprint-datasets}
\end{center}
\end{table}
To the extent possible, given state and local COVID-19 restrictions and shelter-in-place orders, we also collected our own training and evaluation data, optimized for training proximity detection classifiers. We developed an Android app for data collection, which uses Android’s \texttt{WifiManager} API to perform scans of nearby APs on-demand and save the fingerprints to the device for later use.
Once certain buildings on the UC Berkeley campus re-opened for limited research activity, we were able to collect our own RSSI fingerprint data in Cory Hall, a five-story academic building on the UC Berkeley campus that houses classrooms, labs, common work spaces, and offices for the EECS department. We collected a total of $738$, $1521$, and $603$ fingerprints from the first, third, and fourth floors of the building, respectively, over the course of three days in late November and early December 2020. Fingerprints were collected with the following devices: (a) a Google Pixel 3 running Android 10: \textit{$225$, $576$, and $198$ fingerprints}; (b) a Nokia 2.2 \footnote[1]{Model TA-1179, in the 3 GB RAM configuration}, running Android 10: \textit{$225$, $576$, and $198$ fingerprints}; (c) a first-generation Google Pixel XL running Android 10: \textit{$225$, $342$, and $198$ fingerprints}; (d) an Oppo RX17 Pro running Android 8.1: \textit{$63$, $27$, and $9$ fingerprints}.
For each of the devices listed above, the three numbers reflect the number of fingerprints recorded with the device on the first, third and fourth floors of Cory Hall, respectively. At each position where a set of fingerprints were recorded, a Leica DISTO E7100i laser distance measurement device was used to measure the distance from each point to two reference walls on the current floor, which were later used to calculate the distance between samples from the same floor. Each device captured data in “bursts,” recording $9$ fingerprints at a time in rapid succession. The median number of APs observed in a given fingerprint from the first, third, and fourth floors are $76$, $69$, and $52$, respectively. The median number of APs observed in a given fingerprint from the entire set of collected data is $66$.
Data was also collected from a single-story suburban home in San Diego, California, over an area spanning roughly 1,800 square feet, also using our Android data collection app. Fingerprints were recorded with a Google Pixel 3 and a Nokia 2.2 \footnotemark[1], both running Android 10. At $63$ different locations within the home, each device recorded a “burst” of $9$ fingerprints, for a total of $1,134$ unique fingerprints. Within the home itself are two APs, one located roughly in the northwest corner of the floorplan, and the other roughly in the southeast corner of the floorplan. However, at any given location within the home, APs from several nearby homes are also detectable; across all of the samples collected, the median number of APs observed in a given fingerprint is $8$.
\section{Proximity Classes}
\label{proximity-classes-section}
Our classifiers evaluate two RSSI fingerprints at a time, determining whether or not they were recorded in immediate physical proximity to each other. To prepare training and evaluation sets from a given pool of fingerprints, we isolate fingerprints into different subsets, one for each floor of each building of each dataset. Within each subset, we enumerate every possible pairing of two distinct fingerprints from the subset, and calculate the two-dimensional distance $d$ between the locations where the two fingerprints were recorded, using the meter-level coordinates that are either provided in the dataset or recorded by our team. We assigned each pairing of fingerprints a “proximity class” according to the value of $d$ for that pairing. If $0 \hspace{0.1cm}\text{meters} \le d \le 2.25 \hspace{0.1cm}\text{meters}$, the fingerprint pairing’s proximity class is set to “Close.” If $3.25 \hspace{0.1cm}\text{meters} \le d \le 20 \hspace{0.1cm}\text{meters}$, it is set to “Far.”
Fingerprint pairings are dropped from the training or evaluation sets if the two fingerprints were recorded more than 20 meters apart, in an effort to focus the training process on the fine-grained differentiation between pairings recorded in immediate physical proximity and those recorded in somewhat close physical proximity, i.e. Bluetooth range. This is in contrast to an approach which would optimize our classifiers for the coarse-grained differentiation of pairings recorded in immediate physical proximity and those recorded very far away from each other. Fingerprint pairings are also dropped from the training or evaluation data if the two fingerprints were recorded between $2.25$ and $3.25$ meters apart, in an effort to focus the training process on differentiating between pairings recorded in immediate physical proximity and those recorded in somewhat close physical proximity, rather than on border cases that are nearly at the distance cutoff for the “Close” label.
\section{Classifier Input Features}
\label{feature-extraction-section}
For each fingerprint pairing, we calculate an expansive set of features, which are the inputs passed directly to the classifiers described in Sections \ref{generic-classifier-section} and \ref{specialized-classifiers-section}. The majority of these input features were selected because we hypothesized that they could potentially serve as similarity measurements — quantities that numerically express the level of quantitative similarity between the two fingerprints in a pairing, which can be a rough proxy for how close together the fingerprints were recorded. In this section, we describe our chosen features in detail. Consider a pair of RSSI fingerprints, $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Define the set of \textit{shared APs} $\{S_1$, $S_2$, …, $S_N\}$ as the APs that are detected in both $F_X$ and $F_Y$. Furthermore, define $\text{RSSI}(a, F_X)$ and $\text{RSSI}(a, F_Y)$ as the RSSI of the AP $a$ in fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$, respectively.
\subsection{AP Detection–Based Features}
The classifiers are provided with the following input features derived from the number of APs detected in $F_X$, the number detected in $F_Y$, and the number of shared APs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textit{shared AP count}: $N$, the number of shared APs from above.
\item The \textit{union AP count}: the total number of APs detected in at least one of the fingerprints.
\item The \textit{non-shared AP count}: the total number of APs detected in exactly one of the two fingerprints, but not both.
\item The \textit{detected AP count difference}: the absolute value of the difference between the number of the APs detected in $F_X$ and the number of APs detected in $F_Y$.
\item The \textit{Jaccard similarity} of the sets of APs detected in the two fingerprints: the shared AP count divided by the union AP count.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Basic RSSI Value–Based Features}
The \textit{Manhattan distance} and the \textit{Euclidean distance} between two fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$, calcualted exactly as in \cite{Inferring-WiFi-Paper}, are both input to the classifiers.
Define the \textit{top AP(s)} of a fingerprint as the AP(s) whose measured RSSI value(s) in that fingerprint are the highest among all APs detected in that fingerprint. We define a number of feature types related to the difference in dBm between the shared APs’ measured RSSI values in $F_X$ and in $F_Y$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The feature \textit{Has shared top AP within $Z$ dBm} for fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$ is equal to $1$ if there exists at least one shared AP $S_i$ such that (a) the measured RSSI value of $S_i$ in $F_X$ is at most $Z$ dBm below the maximum RSSI of any AP in $F_X$, and (b) the measured RSSI value of $S_i$ in $F_Y$ is at most $Z$ dBm below the maximum RSSI of any AP in $F_Y$. Otherwise, the feature is equal to $0$. Features of the type \textit{Has shared top AP within Z dBm} for $Z = 1$, $2$, …, $15$ were provided to the classifiers. This feature type is similar to the “top AP $\pm$ 6 dB” feature described in \cite{Inferring-WiFi-Paper}. It is designed to allow a classifier to determine whether there is an AP that both fingerprints were likely closer to than most other APs, while accounting for differences in RSSI measurement scales or minor RSSI fluctuations that could change which specific AP has the highest RSSI.
\item The feature \textit{RSSIs within $Z$ dBm percentage} for fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$ is equal to the percentage of shared APs whose RSSI values in $F_X$ are within $Z$ dBm of their RSSI values in $F_Y$. Features of the type \textit{RSSIs within $Z$ dBm percentage} were provided to the classifiers for $Z = 1$, $2$, …, $15$.
\item The feature \textit{Has shared top $K$ APs} for fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$ is equal to $1$ if and only if the $K$ highest-RSSI APs in $F_X$ are the same as the $K$ highest-RSSI APs in $F_Y$, regardless of ordering differences between the two fingerprints. Features of the type \textit{Has shared top $K$ APs} were provided to the classifiers for $K = 1$, $2$, …, $8$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Redpin Score–Based Features}
Two input features based on the Redpin score are also provided to the classifiers. The Redpin score is a measurement of fingerprint similarity that was developed for and used in the Redpin crowdsourced Wi-Fi localization system \cite{Redpin-Paper}, with a reference implementation available at \cite{Redpin-Code-Repository}. The Redpin score calculation is not a commutative operation, so we provide two Redpin scores to the classifiers: $\texttt{RedpinScore}(\max(F_X, F_Y), \min(F_X, F_Y))$ and $\texttt{RedpinScore}(\min(F_X, F_Y), \max(F_X, F_Y))$, where $\min$ and $\max$ select the fingerprint with the lower and higher number of detected APs, respectively.
\subsection{Correlation–Based Features}
\label{correlation-features-subsection}
In addition, we define the following pairs of vectors:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textit{shared AP RSSI value vectors} are a pair of vectors containing the measured RSSI of each shared AP in $F_X$ and in $F_Y$:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_1, F_X), \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_2, F_X), \hspace{0.1cm} \ldots \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_N, F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_1, F_X), \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_2, F_X), \hspace{0.1cm} \ldots \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_N, F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\item The \textit{shared AP pair difference vectors} are a pair of vectors containing the absolute value of the difference between the RSSI values within each fingerprint for every possible pairing of two distinct shared APs:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \lvert \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_i, F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} - \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_j, F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} \rvert \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall (i \neq j) \le N \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \lvert \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_i, F_Y) \hspace{0.1cm} - \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_j, F_Y) \hspace{0.1cm} \rvert \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall (i \neq j) \le N \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\item The \textit{shared AP pair ratio vectors} are a pair of vectors containing the ratios of the RSSI values within each fingerprint of every possible pairing of two distinct shared APs. They are similar to the modified type of RSSI fingerprints used in Hyperbolic Location Fingerprinting \cite{HLF-Pair-Ratio-Paper}:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{\text{RSSI}(S_i, F_X)}{ \text{RSSI}(S_j, F_X)} \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall (i, j) \le N, \hspace{0.1cm} i \neq j \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \frac{\text{RSSI}(S_i, F_Y)}{ \text{RSSI}(S_j, F_Y)} \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall (i, j) \le N, \hspace{0.1cm} i \neq j \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\item Define the \textit{rank} of a shared AP $S_i$ within a particular fingerprint as the number of shared APs, including $S_i$ itself, in the fingerprint whose measured RSSI values are at least as weak as $S_i$’s. The \textit{normalized ordered shared AP rank vectors} are a pair of vectors that are both normalized to unit vectors. One is always the normalized form of:
$$ R_X = \big[ \hspace{0.1cm} N, \hspace{0.1cm} N - 1, \hspace{0.1cm} N - 2, \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \hspace{0.1cm} 2, \hspace{0.1cm} 1 \hspace{0.1cm} \big] $$.
The other is the normalized form of:
$$ R_Y = \big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \text{Rank}_Y(N), \hspace{0.1cm} \text{Rank}_Y(N - 1), \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \hspace{0.1cm} \text{Rank}_Y(1) \hspace{0.1cm} \big] $$
$\text{Rank}_Y(i)$, as used above, is the rank within fingerprint $F_Y$ of the shared AP with rank $i$ in fingerprint $F_X$. Thus, any index $i$ represents some shared AP, and $R_X[i]$ and $R_Y[i]$ are the ranks of that shared AP in the two different fingerprints. The correlation coefficient of $R_X$ and $R_Y$ therefore measures how similar the signal strength rankings of the shared APs are across the two fingerprints.
\end{enumerate}
For each of the pairs of vectors above, namely, the shared AP RSSI vectors, the shared AP pair difference vectors, the shared AP pair ratio vectors, and the normalized shared AP rank vectors, the following measurements of similarity between the two vectors are passed as input features to the classifiers: (a) Cosine similarity, (b) Pearson coefficient, (c) Spearman coefficient, and (d) Kendall coefficient.
\subsection{Difference-Based Features}
Lastly, we define a second set of individual vectors as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textit{shared AP RSSI difference vector} is a vector containing the absolute value of the difference between the measured RSSI in $F_X$ and in $F_Y$ of each shared AP:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \lvert \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_i, \hspace{0.05cm} F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} - \hspace{0.1cm} \text{RSSI}(S_i, \hspace{0.05cm} F_Y) \hspace{0.1cm} \rvert \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall \hspace{0.1cm} i \le N \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\item Define $\text{PD}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_X)$ and $\text{PD}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_Y)$ as the shared AP pair difference, as defined in Section \ref{correlation-features-subsection}, of shared APs $S_i$ and $S_j$ in fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$ respectively. The \textit{shared AP pair difference comparison vector} contains the absolute value of the difference between the pair difference in $F_X$ and the pair difference in $F_Y$ of every possible pairing of two distinct shared APs:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \big\lvert \hspace{0.1cm} \text{PD}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} - \hspace{0.1cm} \text{PD}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_Y) \hspace{0.1cm} \big\rvert \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall \hspace{0.1cm} i \le N \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\item Similarly, define $\text{PR}(S_i, S_j, F_X)$ and $\text{PR}(S_i, S_j, F_Y)$ as the shared AP pair ratio, as defined above, of shared APs $S_i$ and $S_j$ in fingerprints $F_X$ and $F_Y$ respectively, and define the \textit{shared AP pair ratio comparison vector} as follows:
$$ \Big[ \hspace{0.1cm} \big\lvert \hspace{0.1cm} \text{PR}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_X) \hspace{0.1cm} - \hspace{0.1cm} \text{PR}(S_i, \hspace{0.1cm} S_j, \hspace{0.1cm} F_Y) \hspace{0.1cm} \big\rvert \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots \hspace{0.2cm} \forall \hspace{0.1cm} i \le N \hspace{0.1cm} \Big] $$
\end{enumerate}
For each of the individual vectors above, namely, the shared AP RSSI difference vector, the shared AP pair difference comparison vector, and the shared AP pair ratio comparison vector, the following similarity measurements are passed as input features to the classifiers: (a) the smallest element of the vector; (b) the largest element of the vector; (c) the mean of all of the vector’s elements; (d) the median of all of the vector’s elements; (e) the harmonic mean of all of the vector’s elements; (f) the standard deviation of all of the vector’s elements; and (g) the population standard deviation of all of the vector’s elements.
\section{Mitigating the Effects of Device Heterogeneity}
\label{mitigating-device-heterogeneity-section}
A common challenge in creating indoor positioning systems that use RSSI fingerprints is dealing with the effects of device heterogeneity. Since different devices and different Wi-Fi chips have different levels of sensitivity and different signal strength measurement scales, two RSSI fingerprints recorded in the same place with different devices can generally have (a) less of an overlap in the set of APs detected, and (b) a larger difference between the two fingerprints’ measured RSSI values for shared APs than a pair of RSSI fingerprints recorded with the same device model. We employ several measures to compensate for device heterogeneity, including several additional features input to the classifier:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In both publicly available datasets and in our own collected data, among the metadata stored with each fingerprint is the model of the device that recorded it. Therefore, an additional feature passed into all of our classifiers is \textit{Identical recording devices}, which is $1$ if the two fingerprints were recorded by the same device model and $0$ otherwise. This additional feature allows a classifier to select different decision sequences or feature weights and cutoff values for device-heterogeneous fingerprint pairings than for device-homogeneous ones.
\item An additional similarity measurement, designed to be more robust in the face of inputs from heterogeneous devices, is the Refined Relative RSSI Relationship (\textit{RE3}), as proposed for use in Wi-Fi localization systems in \cite{RE3-Paper}. Since it is calculated using the ranks of the APs detected in a fingerprint — namely, the AP with the highest RSSI has the top rank and the one with the lowest RSSI has the lowest — rather than their explicit RSSI values, it is more likely to remain the same across different devices that have different RSSI measurement scales. In addition to all of the classifier input features described above, the RE3 of the two fingerprints is calculated and passed as an input feature to the classifier.
\item It is established that in many cases, given two fingerprints recorded in the same location with different devices, the measured RSSI values in both fingerprints are roughly linearly dependent. Applying a linear transformation to the RSSI values from one of the fingerprints can bring the two fingerprints in line and compensate for differences in the two devices’ sensitivities and signal strength measurement scales. So, in actuality, for each of the 80 classifier input features described above that depends on the APs’ RSSI values themselves, four separate input features are passed into the classifiers:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{No transformation}: The feature value as calculated with the raw, original RSSI values from $F_X$ and $F_Y$.
\item \textit{Single-fingerprint least squares}: The feature value as calculated after every RSSI value $r_X$ in the fingerprint $F_X$ has been replaced with $Ar_X + B$, with the values of the constants $A$ and $B$ determined by using the method of least squares to fit the RSSI values from $F_X$ to the RSSI values from $F_Y$.
\item \textit{Single-fingerprint 50\% least squares}: The feature value as calculated after every RSSI value $r_X$ in the fingerprint $F_X$ has been replaced with $\frac{A}{2}r_X + \frac{B}{2}$, where $A$ and $B$ are computed as in (b) above.
\item \textit{Double-fingerprint least squares}: The feature value as calculated after every RSSI value $r_X$ in the fingerprint $F_X$ has been replaced with $Ar_X + B$ and every RSSI value $r_Y$ in the fingerprint $F_Y$ has been replaced with $Cr_Y + D$, where $A$ and $B$ are the same as in (b) and (c) above, and $C$ and $D$ are similarly determined by using the method of least squares to fit the original, raw RSSI values from $F_Y$ to the original, raw RSSI values from $F_X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Experimental Setup}
\label{experiment-setup-section}
We now present a series of binary machine learning classifiers whose aim is to predict, based on the extensive set of input features they are provided, the proximity class — “Close” or “Far” — of input fingerprint pairings.
The high number of input features provided to the classifiers has the potential to make our data subject to overfitting and the “curse of dimensionality,” summarized in \cite{Ensemble-Survey-Paper} as the phenomenon where “increasing the number of features fed into a machine learning model usually exponentially increases the search space and hence, the probability of fitting models that cannot be generalized.” To mitigate this, while preserving the ability to take advantage of a large set of available features, we trained classifiers using the attribute bagging method, introduced in \cite{Attribute-Bagging-Paper}. Attribute bagging is “a wrapper method that can be used with any learning algorithm,” in which many different subsets of features, usually small ones, are randomly selected and used to train a set of smaller base estimators, usually decision trees. Base estimators with the highest possible performance are combined into an ensemble classifier. When a sample is input to an attribute bagging classifier for prediction, the base estimators each individually predict, or “vote,” based on their particular set of input features, which class a sample belongs to. The class predicted by the most base estimators, after optionally factoring in weights assigned to each base estimator’s vote, is chosen as the final predicted class. Scikit-learn \cite{Scikit-learn-Paper}, a popular Python machine learning library, provides a flexible \texttt{BaggingClassifier} class that can be configured to perform attribute bagging. All of the classifiers outlined below were trained with instances of the \texttt{BaggingClassifier} class from scikit-learn 0.22.1, with \texttt{DecisionTreeClassifier} instances as the base estimators. Through manual tuning across a number of experiments, we empirically found a set of hyperparameters that generally work well for this problem: at most $3$ features per base estimator, and $300$ individual voting base estimators, i.e. \texttt{max\_features = 3} and \texttt{n\_estimators = 300}.
To further reduce the dimensionality of the data, and reduce both the probability of overfitting and the time it takes to train a classifier, when necessary, we used the minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (\textit{mRMR}) feature selection algorithm presented in \cite{mRMR-Paper}. The mRMR algorithm analyzes a dataset and aims to identify a set of features that are both “maximally relevant,” i.e. that “have the largest mutual information…with the target class,” and “minimally redundant,” i.e. that have the smallest amount of mutual information amongst each other. We used version 0.1.11 of the pymRMR Python package provided by the authors of \cite{mRMR-Paper}, with the “mutual information difference” (\textit{MID}) feature selection method, to select the top features.
For every experiment, we began by training on a perfectly class-balanced training set, where exactly 50\% of the samples in the training set belong to the “Close” class and the remaining 50\% belong to the “Far” class. However, in some cases, training on a perfectly class-balanced training set produced a classifier that was overly biased towards one particular class. In the experiments discussed below, when applicable, we adjusted the class balance of the training set through manual iteration to compensate for any biases and produce a classifier with better overall performance.
We began by training and evaluating a single classifier on data from a wide variety of different environments. After verifying that the generic classifier approach was infeasible, we developed specialized classifiers for use with fingerprints containing different numbers of detected APs.
\section{Generic Classifier Experiments}
\label{generic-classifier-section}
Initially, we trained a single generic classifier on a combination of data from all of the publicly available Wi-Fi localization datasets listed in Table \ref{wifi-fingerprint-datasets}. Table \ref{number-of-samples-in-datasets} shows the number of usable samples yielded by the training set generation process described in Sections \ref{proximity-classes-section} and \ref{feature-extraction-section} for each dataset.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{Number of Fingerprint Pairings Generated from Individual Datasets}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset Name} & \textbf{“Far” Samples} & \textbf{“Close” Samples} \\
\midrule
Miskolc & $227,716$ & $11,630$ \\
JUIndoorLoc & $554,011$ & $335,002$ \\
UJIndoorLoc & $2,644,089$ & $387,186$ \\
IPIN 2016 Tutorial & $90,964$ & $30,845$ \\
TampereU & $374,556$ & $17,193$ \\
Alcalá Tutorial & $826,009$ & $110,442$ \\
Suburban Home & $491,832$ & $97,443$ \\
Cory Hall, Floor 1 & $107,892$ & $24,336$ \\
Cory Hall, Floor 3 & $314,847$ & $34,029$ \\
Cory Hall, Floor 4 & $65,124$ & $16,263$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{number-of-samples-in-datasets}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We created a training set with samples evenly distributed among the datasets listed in Table \ref{wifi-fingerprint-datasets} by randomly selecting $9,000$ “Close” and $8,000$ “Far” fingerprint pairings from each of the datasets. We trained a \texttt{BaggingClassifier} on this training set, and individually evaluated the classifier on the remaining samples, i.e. those not selected for use in the training set, from each dataset. The percentage of true negative samples correctly identified, the percentage of true positive samples correctly identified, and the balanced accuracy of the classifier for these “evaluation” portions of all of the datasets are shown in Table \ref{generic-classifier-experiment-results}. The generic classifier’s performance is not only low but inconsistent, varying across different environments even when data from each of those environments is present in the training set.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{Experiment Results for Generic Classifier on Individual Datasets}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset Name} & \textbf{True Positives} & \textbf{True Negatives} & \textbf{Balanced Accuracy} \\
\midrule
Miskolc & $75.76\%$ & $42.47\%$ & $59.11\%$ \\
JUIndoorLoc & $36.00\%$ & $68.69\%$ & $52.34\%$ \\
UJIndoorLoc & $64.30\%$ & $57.82\%$ & $61.06\%$ \\
IPIN 2016 Tutorial & $71.71\%$ & $39.21\%$ & $55.46\%$ \\
TampereU & $75.92\%$ & $42.14\%$ & $59.03\%$ \\
Alcalá Tutorial & $84.48\%$ & $44.59\%$ & $64.53\%$ \\
Suburban Home & $42.75\%$ & $72.74\%$ & $57.74\%$ \\
Cory Hall & $59.06\%$ & $70.09\%$ & $63.57\%$ \\
\midrule
\textcolor{darkgray}{Average} & $63.75\%$ & $54.72\%$ & $59.27\%$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{generic-classifier-experiment-results}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The results of the the generic classifier experiment indicate that a single, one-size-fits all classifier is insufficient for providing consistent performance across a wide range of environments with different average numbers of APs per fingerprint.
\section{Specialized-Classifier Experiments}
\label{specialized-classifiers-section}
To pursue solid performance across different environments, we developed an ensemble of three classifiers, each tailored specifically for environments with a particular “AP density,” or number of APs typically detected per fingerprint. We developed specialized classifiers for three different types of target environments: (a) locations with a low AP density — $5$ to $15$ APs detected per fingerprint on average; (b) locations with a moderate to high AP density — $30$ to $70$ APs detected per fingerprint on average; and (c) locations with a very high AP density — $70$ to $90$ APs detected per fingerprint on average.
Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results} shows the percentage of true negative samples correctly identified, the percentage of true positive samples correctly identified, and the balanced accuracy for all of the experiments ran with the specialized classifiers. Figure \ref{generic-vs-specialized-classifier-precision-recall-curves} shows the precision–recall curves of the specialized classifiers on perfectly class-balanced subsets of each evaluation set, along with the analogous precision–recall curves of the generic classifier on perfectly class-balanced subsets of the evaluation sets described in Section \ref{generic-classifier-section}.
In what follows, we describe the details of the specialized classifiers developed for each of the three types of target environments above.
\begin{table}[bt]
\caption{Experiment Results for Specialized Classifiers}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
\textbf{\#} & \textbf{Dataset Name (Features)} & \textbf{Classifier} & \textbf{True Negatives} & \textbf{True Positives} & \textbf{Balanced Accuracy} \\
\midrule
1 & Miskolc (All) & Low AP & $71.66\%$ & $84.12\%$ & $77.89\%$ \\
2 & Suburban H. (All) & Low AP & $63.45\%$ & $70.25\%$ & $66.85\%$ \\
3 & Miskolc (Top 7) & Low AP & $71.31\%$ & $78.53\%$ & $74.92\%$ \\
\midrule
4 & TampereU (All) & Medium AP & $70.77\%$ & $68.06\%$ & $69.41\%$ \\
5 & IPIN 2016 (All) & Medium AP & $69.62\%$ & $66.02\%$ & $67.82\%$ \\
\midrule
6 & Cory Hall, Floor 3 (All) & High AP & $69.26\%$ & $70.43\%$ & $69.84\%$ \\
7 & Cory Hall, Floors 1 and 4 (All) & High AP & $70.38\%$ & $73.47\%$ & $71.92\%$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[bt]
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{Figure1.png}}
\caption{
Precision–recall curves of the specialized classifiers on perfectly class-balanced subsets of each evaluation dataset from \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}, along with the analogous precision–recall curves of the generic classifier. \\
$S$ = specialized classifier, $G$ = generic classifier
}
\label{generic-vs-specialized-classifier-precision-recall-curves}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Low AP Density Classifier}
The median number of APs detected in a fingerprint from the data collected from the suburban home and in a fingerprint from the publicly available Miskolc dataset is $8$ and $10$, respectively, making them both low AP density environments. Using the process described in Section \ref{experiment-setup-section}, we created a training set from the suburban home data containing all $97,443$ “Close” and $97,443$ randomly chosen “Far” fingerprint pairings, and used it to train a \texttt{BaggingClassifier}. We then evaluated the performance of the classifier on the entire set of fingerprint pairings extracted from the publicly available Miskolc dataset. The results of this evaluation, shown in row 1 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}, indicate that a model trained on data from a single location can achieve fairly high recall on data from a completely different location with a similar AP density.
For comparison, we swapped the training and evaluation datasets, creating a class-imbalanced training set with all $11,630$ “Close” and $8,000$ randomly selected “Far” fingerprint pairings from the Miskolc dataset. This classifier performed worse than the previous one, as detailed in row 2 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}. We believe that the main cause of this performance disparity is that the data we collected from the suburban home is specially tailored to allow learning algorithms to determine the signifiers of close proximity. Because fingerprints were recorded in “bursts” of $9$ at a time, our collected data yields many more pairs of fingerprints that were recorded in the exact same location, allowing learning algorithms to more easily establish a starker contrast between “Close” and “Far” samples. The Miskolc dataset’s lack of extremely close fingerprint pairings may also be the reason why shifting the class balance slightly in favor of “Close” samples yielded better performance when using it as a training set. A secondary cause of the performance disparity may be the relative size of the training sets; the training set created from the suburban home data is more than $9$ times larger than the Miskolc dataset’s.
We also trained a second \texttt{BaggingClassifer} on the same suburban home training set, with the input feature set reduced to only the top 7 features identified by the mRMR algorithm when run on the same class-balanced data from the suburban home. Reducing the input feature set substantially reduced the time it took to train and evaluate the classifier, but reduced the classifier’s recall by $5\%$ to $6\%$, as shown in row 3 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}.
\subsection{Medium AP Density Classifier}
The median number of APs detected in a fingerprint from the TampereU and IPIN 2016 Tutorial RSSI fingerprint datasets is $38$ and $32$, respectively; thus, both datasets are of medium AP density. We created a class-balanced training set from the fingerprint pairings from the IPIN 2016 Tutorial dataset, consisting of all $30,845$ “Close” and $30,845$ randomly selected “Far” fingerprint pairings, and used it to train a \texttt{BaggingClassifier}. We evaluated the performance of that classifier on the entire set of fingerprint pairings extracted from the TampereU dataset; the results are shown in row 4 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}. We then trained an identical classifier on a training set derived from the TampereU dataset, containing all $17,193$ “Close” and $15,000$ randomly selected “Far” fingerprint pairings, and evaluated it on the full set of fingerprint pairings extracted from the IPIN 2016 Tutorial dataset. The results of this evaluation are shown in row 5 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}.
\subsection{High AP Density Classifier}
\label{high-ap-density-classifier-subsection}
The median number of APs detected in a fingerprint from the data collected from Cory Hall is between $52$ and $76$, depending on the floor, making it a high AP density environment. As detailed in Section \ref{data-sources-section}, the data from Cory Hall can be organized into a set of 9-scan “bursts,” each associated with a single physical position. A burst of fingerprints can yield data about significantly more APs than a single fingerprint; across all of the data collected from Cory Hall, the median number of APs detected in the first fingerprint of a burst is $65$, while the median number of APs detected in at least one of the first four fingerprints of a burst is $86$.
To take advantage of the additional data provided by bursts, without substantially reducing the size of the eventual training set, we divided each burst into two smaller “sub-bursts” — one comprised of the first $4$ fingerprints recorded, and the other comprised of the next $4$ fingerprints recorded. The final, ninth fingerprints were not used. For the Cory Hall datasets, the fingerprints paired up during the feature extraction process described in Section \ref{proximity-classes-section} were “pseudo-fingerprints,” one for each of the aforementioned sub-bursts. The pseudo-fingerprint for a given sub-burst contains entries for every access point detected in at least one of the sub-burst’s fingerprints. The RSSI value for a given AP in the pseudo-fingerprint is the median of all of the observed RSSI values for that AP from all of the fingerprints within the sub-burst.
We created a training set containing all $1,889$ “Close” and $300$ randomly chosen “Far” pseudo-fingerprint pairings from the first and fourth floors of Cory Hall, and used it to train a \texttt{BaggingClassifier}. We evaluated the performance of the classifier on the entire set of pseudo-fingerprint pairings from the third floor of Cory Hall. The results of this evaluation are shown in row 6 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}. The reason for choosing this particular class imbalance is that, unlike other datasets, the vast majority of the “Close” fingerprint pairings from these particular floors were recorded in the exact same place, making a classifier trained on this dataset more likely to misclassify samples recorded 1 or 2 meters apart as “Far.” As such, when a perfectly class-balanced training set is used, over $50\%$ of “Close” samples in the evaluation set are misclassified as “Far.”
For comparison, we inverted the training and evaluation process; We trained another \texttt{BaggingClassifier} on a training set derived from the pseudo-fingerprint pairings from the third floor. This training set contained all $1,549$ “Close” and $2,500$ randomly selected “Far” pseudo-fingerprint pairings. We evaluated this classifier on the full set of pseudo-fingerprint pairings from the first and fourth floors; it performed slightly better than the previous classifier, as indicated in row 7 of Table \ref{specialized-classifiers-experiment-results}. In contrast, a \texttt{BaggingClassifier} trained and evaluated on versions of the same training and evaluation sets that only used the first fingerprint of each sub-burst only achieved balanced accuracy of $65.90\%$.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{conclusions-future-work-section}
Our experimental results show that, while a generic classifier is unable to generalize well to a wide variety of environments, an ensemble of specialized classifiers for environments with different AP densities can detect immediate physical proximity more accurately, with roughly 70\% balanced accuracy on average. Future work could explore the use of additional classifier input features, pre-processing steps, or learning algorithms to increase the classifiers’ accuracy. In addition, throughout this paper, we have manually and empirically adjusted the class balance of training sets to compensate for biases and achieve the best performance on evaluation datasets. Future work could focus on automated ways of finding the optimal class balance for training sets.
In an actual contract tracing system, participating devices would need to continuously record and save RSSI fingerprints to later periodically compare with fingerprints recorded by infected individuals. Those infected individuals’ RSSI fingerprints would need to be distributed to participating devices by centralized servers. Another practical consideration is that even if two devices are physically close to each other, their two users are not necessarily in the same room; they could be separated by a wall or door. As such, our proposed methods are merely the basic building blocks of any practical contact tracing system, and require additional enhancements before they can be deployed.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Oleksii Volkovskyi and Jerome Quenum for collecting data in Cory Hall, Anderson Hansen for helping determine the design of this project, Richard Huang for implementing the RE3 algorithm from \cite{RE3-Paper}, and Willis Wang for evaluating the suitability of several RSSI fingerprint datasets for this project. Computational resources for this work, on the Microsoft Azure platform, were generously provided by Microsoft as an AI for Health grant.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are envisioned to account for 50 percent (14.7 billion) of the global connected devices by 2023, among which nearly one third is expected to be wireless IoT devices \cite{Cisco2023}. In order to accommodate spectrum utilization for such ubiquitous but massive IoT devices, spectrum sharing is expected to be a promising solution\cite{ZLX19}.
However, since IoT communications are dominated by uplink (UL) transmissions of short packets, directly applying a grant-based radio access, which is common in cellular networks, can introduce excessive signaling overhead for short packets, especially in the presence of massive connections\cite{MAYC18}.
Fortunately, it was reported that Grant-Free (GF) UL transmissions \cite{JABPMKM17} can provide IoT devices with energy-efficient communications \cite{MAYC18}.
Although GF scheduling can assign a certain UE dedicated or shared resources\cite{3GPP_R11705654}, recent studies\cite{MAYC18, KSP20} focused on contention-based transmission schemes with shared resources.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 2.8in]{GFtimeDomainStruct.eps}
\caption{The time-frequency resources for GF uplink transmissions. The rectangles in blue mean that the corresponding frequencies and mini-slots are occupied by interference from other wireless devices. Frequency-domain resources in mini-slot 6 of every timeslot are totally occupied by interference.}
\label{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}
\end{figure}
On the contrary, following legacy protocols especially specifications related to industrial IoT\cite{3GPP_TR21916}, this paper considers GF scheduling with dedicated resources and develops a Dynamic Resource Configuration (DRC) scheme, rather than always pre-allocating \emph{periodic} radio resources as in semi-persistent scheduling\cite{JABPMKM17}, to improve spectrum usage.
Specifically, in the studied scenario, an Access Point (AP) configures low-power IoT devices (i.e. UEs) with time-frequency resources (as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}) by RRC (or with L1) signaling \cite{3GPP_TR21916} prior to each GF UL transmission timeslot, without the knowledge of interference pattern (i.e. the time-frequency distribution of interference from other wireless devices). Moreover, due to the limited energy supply and signal-processing capability at the UEs\cite{ZLX19}, the AP cannot acquire exact channel state information.
Therefore, intuitively, in order to optimize the resource configuration policy and therefore guarantee energy-efficient transmission, the network or AP has to perform sequential decision-making with uncertain interference pattern and channel responses, according to immediate rewards of the amount of successfully received data (i.e. normalized throughput) and the observed spectrum utilization state.
Such a problem boils down to a Markov Decision Process (MDP) \cite{Powell07}, which is reminiscent of anti-jamming communications with Single-Objective (SO) Reinforcement Learning (RL)\cite{LXJWA18}. However, this approach is unable to guarantee energy efficiency in the scenario where frequency resources in certain mini-slots are totally occupied by interference. Intrinsically, regardless of transmitting in such mini-slots or not, the action values obtained by SORL for different actions remain unchanged.
Therefore, in order to maximize the long-term average normalized throughput and simultaneously minimize the long-term average energy consumption (i.e. the number of utilized resource blocks), an approach based on Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning (MORL) is necessary. Recently, RL has been exploited to optimize radio parameters\cite{Ferreira16} or beam selection\cite{HZLLWG20}, so as to maximize/minimize multiple goals. However, the method in \cite{Ferreira16} can cause ambiguity in selecting the best action due to the utilization of a synthetic value function, while the MORL framework \cite{LXH15} utilized in \cite{HZLLWG20} is inapplicable to an MDP with average cost\cite{SB98}. Therefore, we propose a novel MORL-based DRC scheme, by integrating the weighted-sum framework for MORL \cite{LXH15,NT05} with R-learning\cite{SB98}. Meanwhile, a series of techniques are developed to tackle the high-dimensional state/action space, reduce the space complexity of algorithm and avoid the strictly suboptimal solution resulting from the standard $\epsilon$-greedy strategy.
Numerical results reveal that thanks to the multi-objective framework, the proposed scheme can significantly outperform the conventional RL, achieving much lower decision error rates, especially in the scenario where all the frequency-domain channels are occupied. \emph{Notations}: Matrices and vectors are in bold capital and bold lower cases, respectively; {\small$(\cdot)^T$}, {\small$(\cdot)^\star$}, {\small$\|\cdot\|$}, {\small$|\cdot|$}, {\small$\mathcal{E}\{\cdot\}$} and {\small$\text{Card}\left(\mathcal{A}\right)$} represent the transpose, optimal solution, 2-norm, absolute value, expectation and the cardinality of the set {\small$\mathcal{A}$}, respectively; {\small$\lfloor a \rfloor$} (or {\small$\lceil a \rceil$}) rounds $a$ to the nearest integer less (or greater) than or equal to $a$; {\small$\text{cat}(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B})$} concatenates {\small$\mathbf{B}$} vertically to the end of {\small$\mathbf{A}$}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{SecPreliminaries}
\subsubsection{Signal Model}
\label{SecSignalModel}
The studied UL transmission system consists of an AP and $K_U$ UEs. In each time interval $l$, a certain UE $i \in \{1, \dots, K_U\}$ can deliver an information signal $x_{U,i,l}$ (for $\mathcal{E}\{|x_{U,i,l}|^2\} = p_{U,i}$) to the AP at a frequency of $f_m$ for $m \in \{1,\ldots M\}$. Therefore, let $\alpha_{i, m, l} = 1$ (or $0$) indicate frequency $m$ being (or not) utilized by UE $i$ in time interval $l$, given $i$ and $l$, $\alpha_{i, m, l}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{EqFreqOccupInd_SU}
\textstyle{\sum_{m=1}^{M}}\alpha_{i, m, l} \leq 1\,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, frequency $f_m$ can be exclusively occupied by the transmission of UE $i$ and $K_U < M$. Namely, signals transmitted by the $K_U$ UEs do not interfere with each other. Hence, given $m$ and $l$, $\alpha_{i, m, l}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{EqFreqOccupInd_MU}
\textstyle{\sum_{i=1}^{K_U}}\alpha_{i, m, l} \leq 1\,.
\end{equation}
In the meanwhile, by designating the interference signal emitted by interferer $j$ as $x_{I,j,l}$ for $j \in \{1,\ldots K_I\}$ and $\mathcal{E}\{|x_{I,j,l}|^2\} = p_{I,j}$, the baseband signal $y_{m,l}$ received by the AP at frequency $m$ in time interval $l$ can be expressed as
$y_{m,l}\! =\! \sum_{i = 1}^{K_U} \alpha_{i, m, l} h_{i, m, l} x_{U,i,l} \! + \! \sum_{j = 1}^{K_I} \beta_{j, m, l} g_{j, m, l} x_{I,j,l} \! + \! n_{\text{AP}}$,
where $h_{i, m, l}$ and $g_{j, m, l}$ respectively represent the channel gain between the AP and UE $i$ and that between the AP and interferer $j$ at frequency $m$ in time interval $l$; the random variable $n_\text{AP}\sim \mathcal{CN}(0, \sigma_n^2)$ stands for the noise at frequency $m$ in time interval $l$. Similarly to $\alpha_{i, m, l}$, $\beta_{j, m, l} \in \{0,1\}$ in the above equation indicates whether frequency $m$ is exploited by interferer $j$ for transmission in time interval $l$.
\subsubsection{Grant-Free UL Transmissions}
\label{SecGFtransmission}
As shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}, a timeslot spans several time intervals, such that a UE can be configured to transmit in multiple time intervals. Then, in the subsequent timeslot, the UEs deliver information through the configured time-frequency channels. For generality, we consider that each timeslot consists of $N$ mini-slots, where the duration of each mini-slot is identical to that of a time interval. Let $n \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$ and $t$ respectively denote the index of a mini-slot in a timeslot and the index of a timeslot, $n$ and $t$ satisfy $n = l - N\cdot \lfloor l/N \rfloor$ and $t = \lceil l/N \rceil$, which indicates the relation between time intervals and the timeslot for GF transmission.
Therefore, with GF transmission, the signal at frequency $m$ received by the AP in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$ is formulated by recasting $y_{m,l}$ as $y_{m,n,t} = \sum_{i = 1}^{K_U} \alpha_{i, m, n, t} h_{i, m, n, t} x_{U, i, n, t} + \sum_{j = 1}^{K_I} \beta_{j, m, n, t} g_{j, m, n, t} x_{I, j, n, t} + n_\text{AP}$, where $\alpha_{i, m, n, t}$, satisfying (\ref{EqFreqOccupInd_SU}) and (\ref{EqFreqOccupInd_MU}), indicates the time-frequency resource configuration for UE $i$ and is determined by the AP (or the network). In contrast, $\beta_{j, m, n, t}$ depends on the time-frequency interference distribution, which is unknown to the AP. When frequency resources in a mini-slot (for given $n$ and $t$) are totally occupied by interferers, $\beta_{j, m, n, t} = 1 \quad \forall m$.
The average power of the signal at frequency $m$ measured at the AP in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$ can be obtained as $\rho_{m,n,t} = \mathcal{E}\{y_{m,n,t}\} = \textstyle{\sum_{i = 1}^{K_U}} \alpha_{i, m, n, t} |h_{i, m, n, t}|^2 p_{U,i} + \textstyle{\sum_{j = 1}^{K_I}} \beta_{j, m, n, t} |g_{j, m, n, t}|^2 p_{I,j} + \sigma_n^2.$
We assume that the AP cannot acquire exact channel state information on $h_{i, m, n, t}$ \cite{ZLX19} and has no knowledge of the dynamic interference.
The receive Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) with respect to (w.r.t.) the transmission of UE $i$ in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$ can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\label{EqSINR}
\gamma_{i,n,t} = \frac{ \textstyle{\sum_{m=1}^M} \alpha_{i, m, n, t} |h_{i, m, n, t}|^2 p_{U,i}}{ \textstyle{\sum_{m=1}^M} \textstyle{\sum_{j = 1}^{K_I}} \beta_{j, m, n, t} |g_{j, m, n, t}|^2 p_{I,j} + \sigma_n^2 }\,.
\end{equation}
Given an SINR threshold $\gamma_0$, if $\gamma_{i,n,t} \geq \gamma_0$, the transmitted signal can be decoded. Thus, the normalized throughput for UE $i$ in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$ can be defined as
$u_{i,n,t} \triangleq \delta(\gamma_{i,n,t} - \gamma_0)$,
where $\delta(\gamma_{i,n,t} - \gamma_0)= 1$, if $\gamma_{i,n,t} \geq \gamma_0$; otherwise, $\delta(\gamma_{i,n,t} - \gamma_0)= 0$.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{SecProblemForm}
This paper addresses the problem of dynamic resource configuration. It can be inferred from (\ref{EqSINR}) that the key is to dynamically adjust the resource configuration $\alpha_{i, m, n, t}$ $\forall n,t$ but avoid the co-channel interference.
However, according to Section \ref{SecGFtransmission}, in a certain time interval $l$ (which corresponds to a mini-slot in the GF transmission), the AP has no knowledge of the average power $\sum_{m=1}^M \sum_{j = 1}^{K_I} \beta_{j, m, l+1} |g_{j, m, l+1}|^2 p_{I,j}$ or the frequency occupation $\beta_{j, m, l+1}$ of the interference in the next time interval $l+1$.
Intuitively, in order to determine the resource configuration $\alpha_{i, m, n, t+1}$ $\forall n$ for UEs' transmission in timeslot $t+1$, the AP has to rely on the observed spectrum utilization state i.e. $\rho_{m,n,t}$ $\forall m,n$ and the normalized throughput $u_{i,n,t}$ $\forall i,n$ in timeslot $t$.
Therefore, the design problem boils down to an MDP.
In order to formulate the MDP, we designate the state space $\mathcal{S}$ as a set that collects states of the spectrum environment in a timeslot, while the action space $\mathcal{A}$ is a set that collects all possible time-frequency resource configuration in a timeslot.
Specifically, in timeslot $t$, the observed spectrum utilization state $\mathbf{s}_t \in \mathcal{S}$ can be expressed as $\mathbf{s}_t = [\mathbf{s}^T_{t,1}, \ldots, \mathbf{s}^T_{t,n}, \ldots \mathbf{s}^T_{t,N}]^T$, where $\mathbf{s}_{t,n} = [\rho_{1,n,t},\ldots,\rho_{M,n,t}]^T$ collects the spectrum utilization situations in mini-slot $n$.
The resource configuration action $\mathbf{a}_t \in \mathcal{A}$ can be written as $\mathbf{a}_t = [\mathbf{a}^T_{t,1}, \ldots, \mathbf{a}^T_{t,n}, \ldots \mathbf{a}^T_{t,N}]^T$, where $\mathbf{a}_{t,n}$ collects the frequency resource configurations for the $K_U$ users in mini-slot $n$; we define that $\mathbf{a}_{t,n} \triangleq \text{vec}(\mathbf{A}_{t,n})$, and $\mathbf{A}_{t,n}$ is an $M$-by-$K_U$ matrix, where each entry $[\mathbf{A}_{t,n}]_{m,i} = \alpha_{i, m, n, t}$. The dynamics is nothing else than the transition probability $P(\mathbf{s}_{t+1} = s^\prime | \mathbf{s}_t = s, \mathbf{a}_t= a)$ for $s \in \mathcal{S}$ and $a \in \mathcal{A}$, which is however unknown to the AP, as well as the UEs. Due to this, intuitively, the formulated MDP needs to be solved by RL.
Frequency-domain resources in certain mini-slots can be totally occupied by interference signals, In order to reduce energy consumption, the UEs should not be configured to transmit during such mini-slots.
Unfortunately, such an issue cannot be handled by SORL which involves a scalar immediate reward\cite{LXJWA18}.
Therefore, we formulate the immediate reward as a vector which is given by $\mathbf{r}_t = [R_t, - P_t]^T$, where
$R_t = \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^{K_U} u_{i,n,t}$ and $P_t = \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^{K_U} \sum_{m=1}^M \alpha_{i, m, n, t}$
respectively evaluate the overall normalized throughput and the energy consumption in a timeslot.
In order to improve the expected long-term average throughput as well as the energy efficiency, the average reward w.r.t. $R_t$ and $-P_t$ can be respectively obtained as
{\small$\bar{R} = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \sup \frac{1}{T}\mathcal{E}\left\{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}R_t\right\}$} and {\small$\bar{P} = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \sup \frac{1}{T}\mathcal{E}\left\{-\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}P_t\right\}$},
which can be further collected in $\bar{\mathbf{r}} \triangleq [\bar{R}, \bar{P}]^T$.
Hence, by defining a weight vector $\mathbf{w} = [w_R, w_P]^T$ which indicates the network or the AP's preferences between different objectives, the optimization of the configuration policy $\pi$, which is a deterministic policy given by $\pi: \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$, can be formulated as
\begin{equation}
\label{EqProbOptimPi}
\pi = \arg \max_\pi \left\{ \mathbf{w}^T \bar{\mathbf{r} }\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
\section{MORL-Based Dynamic Resource Configuration}
\label{SecDynamicRscConfigMORL}
As depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}, both the observation of the spectrum utilization states and the decision of actions span several mini-slots. This contributes to high-dimensional state space $\mathcal{S}$ and action space $\mathcal{A}$, which make solving the MDP problem (\ref{EqProbOptimPi}) suffer from curses of dimensionality \cite{Powell07}.
Fortunately, due to the fact that the events of spectrum utilization and resource configuration in different mini-slots are statistically independent, the MDP formulated in Section \ref{SecProblemForm} can be decomposed into $N$ MDPs.
In the MDP for mini-slot $n$, the state space and the action space can be respectively recast as $\mathcal{S}_n$ and $\mathcal{A}_n$ for $\mathcal{S} = \cup_{n=1}^N \mathcal{S}_n$ and $\mathcal{A} = \cup_{n=1}^N \mathcal{A}_n$; the immediate reward vector is $\mathbf{r}_{t,n} = [R_{t,n}, - P_{t,n}]^T$, where $R_{t,n} = \sum_{i=1}^{K_U} u_{i,n,t}$ and $P_{t,n} = \sum_{i=1}^{K_U} \sum_{m=1}^M \alpha_{i, m, n, t}$ represent the reward scalars w.r.t. the normalized throughput and energy consumption, respectively. Hence, by defining {\small$\bar{R}_n = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \sup \frac{1}{T} \mathcal{E} \left\{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \! R_{t,n}\right\}$}, {\small$\bar{P}_n = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \sup \frac{1}{T} \mathcal{E}\left\{-\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}P_{t,n}\right\}$} and $\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n = [\bar{R}_n, \bar{P}_n]^T$, the $n$\,th subproblem of problem (\ref{EqProbOptimPi}) can be cast as
\begin{equation}
\label{EqSubProbOptimPi_n}
\pi_n = \arg \max_{\pi_n} \left\{ \mathbf{w}^T \bar{\mathbf{r}}_n \right\}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_n: \mathcal{S}_n \rightarrow \mathcal{A}_n$.
\begin{algorithm}
{\small
\caption{MORL-Based Dynamic Resource Configuration}\label{AlgMORL}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Statex \textbf{Initialization:} Set $t=0$. Initialize $\mathbf{s}_{0,n}$ (and the corresponding quantized version $\mathbf{s}_{0,n}^\prime$). Set $\mathcal{S}_n = \mathbf{s}_{0,n}^\prime$, $\mathcal{M}_{R,n} = q_{0,R} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{P,n} = q_{0,P} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}$, $\forall n\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$.
\Repeat
\For{$n = 1,\ldots,N$}\! \Comment{Resource configuration at the AP}
\State Generate a random number $\epsilon_x \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$;
\If{$\epsilon_x \geq \epsilon$}
\State Given $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$, compute $\mathbf{a}_n^\star$ by solving (\ref{EqOptimAction});
\Else
\State Given $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$, obtain $\mathbf{a}_n^\star$ by randomly picking an action $\mathbf{a}_n \! \in \! \{\mathbf{a}_n | \mathbf{w}^T \mathbf{q}_n (\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n) \! = \! w_R \! \cdot \! q_{0,R} \! + \! w_P \! \cdot \! q_{0,P} , \forall \mathbf{a}_n \! \in \! \mathcal{A}_n \}$;
\EndIf
\State For mini-slot $n$, the configuration is $\mathbf{a}_{t,n} = \mathbf{a}_n^\star$;
\EndFor
\State The UEs perform UL transmission with the resource configuration $\mathbf{a}_t$; the AP achieves the immediate reward $\mathbf{r}_{t,n} \, \forall t$ and observes the spectrum utilization state $\mathbf{s}_{t+1}$;
\For{$n = 1,\ldots,N$} \Comment{Check if $\mathbf{s}_{t+1}$ is a new state}
\State Quantize $\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}$, yielding $\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}^\prime$;
\If{$\|\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}^\prime - \mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime\|/\|\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime\| > \eta \quad \forall \mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime \in \mathcal{S}_n$}
\State Update $\mathcal{S}_n$ by performing (\ref{EqStateSpaceComb}) for $t^\prime = t+1$;
\State Update $\mathcal{M}_{R,n}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{P,n}$ by performing (\ref{EqLookupTableCombIniVec});
\EndIf
\EndFor
\For{$n = 1,\ldots,N$}
\State Update $\mathbf{q}_n^{(t+1)}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$ by performing (\ref{EqActValUpdate});
\If{$\epsilon_x \geq \epsilon$}
\State Update $\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t+1)}$ by performing (\ref{EqAvgRewardUpdate});
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $t = t+1$;
\Until{\text{Stopping criteria}}
\end{algorithmic}
}
\end{algorithm}
We now solve problem (\ref{EqSubProbOptimPi_n}) and propose a DRC scheme based on MORL \cite{NT05} and the R-learning algorithm for MDP with average cost\cite{Mahadevan96, SB98}.
Once observing the spectrum utilization state in mini-slot $n$ at the AP, each entry in the spectrum utilization state vector $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}$ is quantized, and the quantized spectrum utilization state vector is designated as $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$.
We define that in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$, the action values (w.r.t. the normalized throughput and the energy consumption) achieved by taking action $\mathbf{a}_{t,n}$ in state $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$ can be obtained from action value functions $\mathcal{Q}_{R,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{P,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$, respectively.
Basically, in this paper, given $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$, we obtain action values from $\mathcal{Q}_{R,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{P,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$ for $\mathbf{a}_{t,n}$ by searching lookup tables $\mathcal{M}_{R,n}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{P,n}$, respectively \cite{Powell07}. Although the lookup tables can be approximated as kernel functions or neural networks\cite{SB98} to accelerate convergence, this is not the focus of this paper.
Each entry in a lookup table (which can be regarded as a matrix) denotes an action value of executing an action $\mathbf{a}_{t,n}$ in a state $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$.
In order to reduce the space complexity of the proposed algorithm, at the beginning (where $t=0$ and the AP has not received any signal, such that all the $M$ elements in $\mathbf{s}_{0,n}$ are equal to $\sigma_n^2$), the lookup tables are initialized as row vectors, i.e. $\mathcal{M}_{R,n} = q_{0,R} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{P,n} = q_{0,P} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}$, where each element (which is nothing else than an action value) corresponds to the initial state vector $\mathbf{s}_{0,n}^\prime$ and a potential action.
Moreover, the state space $\mathcal{S}_n$ for mini-slot $n$ in the GF transmission is initialized as $\mathcal{S}_n = \mathbf{s}_{0,n}^\prime$.
In any arbitrary following timeslot $t^\prime$, if a new state is observed i.e. $\|\mathbf{s}_{t^\prime,n}^\prime - \mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime\|/\|\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime\| > \eta \quad \forall \mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime \in \mathcal{S}_n$, the new state $\mathbf{s}_{t^\prime,n}^\prime$ is added into the state space i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{EqStateSpaceComb}
\mathcal{S}_n = \mathcal{S}_n \cup \mathbf{s}_{t^\prime,n}^\prime \,.
\end{equation}
In the meanwhile,
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{c}\label{EqLookupTableCombIniVec}
\mathcal{M}_{R,n} = \text{cat}\big(\mathcal{M}_{R,n}, q_{0,R} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}\big), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{M}_{P,n} = \text{cat}\big(\mathcal{M}_{P,n}, q_{0,P} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{1\times \text{card}(\mathcal{A}_n)}\big)\,.
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
In order to optimize the resource configuration action $\mathbf{a}_n^\star$ for multiple objectives, we define a vector-valued function $\mathbf{q}_n(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n}) = [\mathcal{Q}_{R,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n}), \mathcal{Q}_{P,n}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})]^T$, so as to form a synthetic objective function. Given a quantized spectrum utilization state $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$, in order to maximize the weighted-sum objective, we can obtain the optimized action $\mathbf{a}_n^\star$ by maximizing a synthetic objective function \cite{NT05}
\begin{equation}
\label{EqOptimAction}
\mathbf{a}_n^\star = \arg \max_{\mathbf{a}_n \in \mathcal{A}_n} \left\{ \mathbf{w}^T \mathbf{q}_n(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n) \right\}\,.
\end{equation}
Motivated by the standard $\epsilon$-greedy method\cite{SB98}, to avoid always achieving the local optimum, (\ref{EqOptimAction}) is performed with a probability of $1-\epsilon$ for $\epsilon \in (0,1)$.
That is, given a random number $\epsilon_x \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, if $\epsilon_x \geq \epsilon$, perform (\ref{EqOptimAction}).
Nevertheless, the standard $\epsilon$-greedy method can make the dynamic resource configuration strictly suboptimal. This due to that even if $\pi_n$ can converge over iterations, randomly selecting an action $\mathbf{a}_n \in \mathcal{A}_n$ can make UEs transmit at frequencies occupied by the interferers with a certain probability.
In order to handle this issue, we propose a novel exploration strategy: for $\epsilon_x < \epsilon$, $\mathbf{a}_n^\star$ is achieved by randomly selecting an action $\mathbf{a}_n$ from the set $\{\mathbf{a}_n | \mathbf{w}^T \mathbf{q}_n (\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n) = w_R \cdot q_{0,R} + w_P \cdot q_{0,P} , \forall \mathbf{a}_n \in \mathcal{A}_n\}$, for a given $\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime \in \mathcal{S}_n$.
At timeslot $t$, this $\mathbf{s}_{n}^\prime$ means $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime$ which is a quantized version of $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}$. The aforementioned set essentially collects the actions that have not been explored in state $\mathbf{s}_{t,n}$.
The action executed in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$ is $\mathbf{a}_{t,n} = \mathbf{a}_n^\star$. In the meanwhile, the immediate reward can be achieved as $\mathbf{r}_{t,n}$. Thereby, in mini-slot $n$ of timeslot $t$, a spectrum utilization state vector $\mathbf{s}_{t+1, n}$ can be observed, and the quantized state can be achieved as $\mathbf{s}_{t+1, n}^\prime$.
Then, by respectively defining $\kappa_q$ and $\kappa_r$ as the learning rates for updating the estimated action values $\mathbf{q}_n^{(t+1)}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n})$ and the estimated average reward $\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t+1)}$, the update can be obtained as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}\label{EqActValUpdate}
\mathbf{q}_n^{(t+1)}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n}) ={} & \mathbf{q}_n^{(t)}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n}) (1 - \kappa_q) + \nonumber \\
& \kappa_q ( \mathbf{r}_{t,n} \! - \! \bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t)} \! + \! \mathbf{q}_n^{(t)}\!(\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n^\star ) )
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
and
\begin{IEEEeqnarray}{rl}\label{EqAvgRewardUpdate}
\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t+1)} {} = {} & \bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t)} (1 - \kappa_r) + \kappa_r ( \mathbf{r}_{t,n} \! + \! \mathbf{q}_n^{(t)}(\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n^\star ) \nonumber\\
& {} - {} \mathbf{q}_n^{(t)}(\mathbf{s}_{t,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_{t,n}) ),
\end{IEEEeqnarray}
where $\mathbf{a}_n^\star = \arg \max_{\mathbf{a}_n} \left\{ \mathbf{w}^T \mathbf{q}_n(\mathbf{s}_{t+1,n}^\prime, \mathbf{a}_n) \right\}$. It is noteworthy that only in the case where $\mathbf{a}_{t,n}$ is \emph{not} generated by the exploration strategy, can the estimated average reward $\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n^{(t+1)}$ be updated\cite{Mahadevan96}.
The proposed MORL-based DRC scheme is summarized in Algorithm \ref{AlgMORL}, where the processes in the for-loops can be performed in parallel at each iteration. Additionally, in the presence of $w_P$ equal to zero, Algorithm \ref{AlgMORL} amounts to a scheme based on the conventional R-learning\cite{SB98}.
\section{Performance Evaluation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3.2in]{AvgRewards_ChanPL.eps}
\caption{Estimated average reward as a function of timeslots with LoS channels. (a) $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.5$. (b) $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.93$.}
\label{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanPL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3.2in]{AvgRewards_ChanRayleigh.eps}
\caption{Estimated average reward as a function of timeslots with Rayleigh fading channels. (a) $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.5$. (b) $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.93$.}
\label{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanRayleigh}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3.2in]{NumErrorPerTimeslot_MORLvsR_learn.eps}
\caption{Number of decision errors per timeslot (as a function of timeslots) yielded by various schemes with LoS channels. (a) The MORL-based DRC. (b) The R-learning\cite{SB98}.}
\label{Fig_NumErrorPerTimeslot}
\end{figure}
In the simulations, a conventional R-learning-based DRC scheme, designated as R-learning, is exploited as a baseline,
where the R-learning\cite{SB98} features a single objective and is capable of solving an MDP with an average cost.
The R-learning aims at maximizing $\bar{R}_n\, \forall n$, and the corresponding immediate reward is $R_{t,n}$ (where for fairness we assume that for an arbitrary $i$, $\alpha_{i, m, n, t}$ can be equal to 0 $\forall m$. Hence, it is possible that all UEs do not transmit at a certain time interval).
In the simulations, $K_U = 2$, $K_I = 1$, $N = 6$, $M = 6$, $p_{U,i} = 0.1\,W$ and $p_{I,i} = 0.2\,W$. The weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ is set as $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.5$, unless otherwise stated. Moreover, the spectrum utilization (which is observed by the AP and used as the input of the MORL-based DRC) of the interferer is periodic, and the time-frequency channels occupied by the interferer are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}. It can be seen from Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct} that for $K_U = 2$ the maximum achievable normalized throughput per timeslot is equal to 10. The frequency-domain channels are supposed to be i.i.d., and the average signal-power attenuation w.r.t. large-scale fading is normalized as 1. We consider two types of wireless channels: Rayleigh fading channels (where $h_{i, m, l} \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ and $g_{j, m, l} \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,1)$), and Line-of-Sight (LoS) channels (where $h_{i, m, l}$ and $g_{j, m, l}$ are normalized as 1). The former is related to terrestrial communications, while the latter is related to air-ground communications.
Fig. \ref{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanPL} depicts the estimated average reward (achieved by the MORL-based DRC) as a function of timeslots in the presence of LoS channels. It is shown that for $w_R = 1$ and $w_P=0.5$, the average reward $\bar{R}$ w.r.t. normalized throughput converges to 9.5, slightly less than the maximum achievable value 10. The slight difference comes from the weight $w_P$ for the objective of energy saving. As $w_P$ increases to 0.93, when the average rewards converge, $\bar{R}$ reduces to 5, while the average reward $\bar{P}$ w.r.t. energy consumption (or energy saving) increases to -5.
Similarly, Fig. \ref{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanRayleigh} studies the convergence of the average rewards $\bar{R}$ and $\bar{P}$ in the presence of Rayleigh fading channels. The comparison of Figs. \ref{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanPL} and \ref{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanRayleigh} indicates that $\bar{R}$ and $\bar{P}$ saturate much earlier with LoS channels than Rayleigh fading channels. Furthermore, the effect of an increasing $w_P$ on $\bar{R}$ with LoS channels is more significant than that with Rayleigh channels, due to the absence of channel fluctuations.
Moreover, it can be drawn from Fig. \ref{Fig_AvgRewards_ChanRayleigh} that the convergence time of $\bar{R}$ and $\bar{P}$ scales with the weight $w_P$, although this relation is not that significant in the presence of LoS channels.
Fig. \ref{Fig_NumErrorPerTimeslot} investigates the number of decision errors per timeslot achieved by the MORL-based DRC and R-learning, where a decision error means that the time-frequency channel (related to a certain pair of $n$ and $m$) through which a certain UE transmits data is simultaneously occupied by interference. It can be seen from Fig. \ref{Fig_NumErrorPerTimeslot} that both of the number of errors achieved by the MORL-based DRC and that achieved by R-learning become steady after 1000 timeslots, as the two algorithms converges. Thus, the MORL-based DRC and the conventional R-learning achieve similar convergence time. Fig. \ref{Fig_NumErrorPerTimeslot}(b) illustrates that compared to the MORL-based DRC, the R-learning suffers from more decision errors, even if the algorithm converges.
Intrinsically, the reason lies in that no matter whether the UEs are configured to transmit in mini-slot $6$ (in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}) of each timeslot, the normalized throughput (i.e. the only immediate reward $R_{t,n}$ involved in the R-learning) always remains zero. This leads to the potential for configuring UEs to transmit even if frequency-domain resources in a mini-slot are totally occupied.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3.2in]{MiniSlot_Timeslot_DER_ChanPL.eps}
\caption{Average Decision Error Rate (DER) achieved in the presence of LoS channels. (a) Mini-slot-level average DER. (b) Timeslot-level average DER.}
\label{Fig_DER_ChanPL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3.2in]{MiniSlot_Timeslot_DER_ChanRayleigh.eps}
\caption{DER achieved in the presence of Rayleigh fading channels. (a) Mini-slot-level average DER. (b) Timeslot-level average DER.}
\label{Fig_DER_ChanRayleigh}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Fig_DER_ChanPL} presents average Decision Error Rate (DER) as a function of timeslots in the presence of LoS channels. The mini-slot-level/timeslot-level average DER is computed by averaging the number of mini-slots/timeslots, during which decision errors occur, over the number of elapsed mini-slots/timeslots. It is shown that the mini-slot-level and the timeslot-level average DERs achieved by the R-learning finally reach values around 0.025 and 0.15, respectively. This huge gap illustrates that although the R-learning does not always configure the UEs to transmit in mini-slot $6$ (in Fig. \ref{Fig_GFtimeDomainStruct}), the average DER performance can still be heavily degraded. On the contrary, the mini-slot-level and the timeslot-level average DERs yielded by the MORL-based DRC are less than 22\% (around 0.0055) and 13\% (around 0.0195) of those yielded by the R-learning, respectively.
Fig. \ref{Fig_DER_ChanRayleigh} illustrates the average DER performance with Rayleigh fading channels, where the mini-slot-level and the timeslot-level average DER achieved by the R-learning finally reaches values around 0.17 and 0.95, respectively. This observation implies that in this simulation with channel fluctuations, the R-learning configures the UEs to transmit in mini-slot $6$ in most timeslots. The comparison of Figs. \ref{Fig_DER_ChanPL} and \ref{Fig_DER_ChanRayleigh} reveals that although the average DER performance achieved by the MORL-based DRC can be degraded due to channel fluctuations, the mini-slot-level and the timeslot-level average DER with Rayleigh fading channels can be less than $0.02$ and $0.1$ (which are less than $12\%$ of those achieved by the R-learning), respectively (while most of the decision errors occur before reaching convergent solutions).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{SecConclu}
In this paper, we have proposed a DRC scheme based on MORL for GF uplink transmissions in IoT networks. Thanks to the multi-objective framework, the proposed scheme is able to not only pre-allocate time-frequency resources for UEs without the knowledge of interference pattern, but also guarantee energy-efficient transmission.
It is shown that in the presence of Rayleigh fading channels, the average DER achieved by the MORL-based DRC can be even less than $12\%$ of that yielded by the R-learning-based method, especially when frequency-domain channels are totally interfered in a time interval.
Integrating kernel/neural network-based function approximations with the framework can be studied in the future to accelerate the convergence of the algorithm.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we consider following two Cauchy problems for massless honeycomb lattice power type Dirac equations($\ell=1$) and Hartree type Dirac equations$(\ell=2)$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{maineq}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
(\partial_t + \al\cdot D ) \psi = -i\kappa \mathcal N_\ell(\psi,\psi)\psi \\
\psi(0)=\psi_0
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi:\mathbb{R}^{1+2} \to \mathbb{C}^2$ is the spinor field represented by a column vector, $\ka$ is constant, $D = -i\nabla$, and $\al = (P_\#\al^1,P_\#\al^2)$ are the Dirac matrices defined by
\begin{align*}
\alpha^1 &= \left(\begin{array}{ll} 0 & \;\;1 \\ 1 & \;\;0 \end{array} \right), \qquad \alpha^2 = \left(\begin{array}{ll} 0 & -i \\ i & \;\;0 \end{array} \right),
\end{align*}
with $P_\# = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \overline{\lams} & 0 \\ 0 & \lams \end{array} \right)$ for honeycomb lattice constant $\lams\neq 0$ arising from nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations(NLS) with honeycomb lattice potentials(see the Section II in \cite{phymod}). The nonlinearities $N_\ell$ are defined by
$$
\mathcal N_1(\psi_1, \psi_2)= \left( \begin{array}{cc} b_1 \psi_{11} \overline{\psi_{21}} + 2b_2 \psi_{12}\overline{\psi_{22}} & 0 \\ 0 & b_1\psi_{12} \overline{\psi_{22}} + 2b_2 \psi_{11} \overline{\psi_{21}} \end{array} \right),
\quad \mathcal N_2(\psi_1, \psi_2)=\left(|x|^{-1}*(\psi_1^\dagger \psi_2)\right)
$$
where $\psi_{j1},\psi_{j2}$ are components of $\psi_j$ and the coefficients $b_1,b_2 >0$ which are an amplitude of Bloch waves. The symbol $*$ denotes convolution operator in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and the $\psi^\dagger$ is the complex conjugate transpose of $\psi$.
Our main equations with the nonlinearity $\mathcal{N}_\ell$ are derived from two dimensional Schr\"odinger equations with honeycomb lattice potential. Its rigorous derivation appears in \cite{phymod}. The honeycomb lattice structure has appeared in the fabrication of graphene, a mono-crystalline graphitic film in which electrons behave like massless Dirac fermions(see \cite{castro}). Also, the nonlinear optics which model laser beam propagator in particular types of photonic crystals, have the honeycomb structure(see \cite{bapese, hame}).
The equation \eqref{maineq} for $\ell=1$ has the scaling invariance structure in $\dot{H}^{\frac{1}2}$. That is, for $\psi_1$ the solution to \eqref{maineq} with $\ell=1$, the function $\psi_{1,\lam}$ defined by $\psi_{1,\lam}(t,x) = \lam^\frac{1}{2} \psi_1 (\lam t,\lam x)$ is also the solution to the equation \eqref{maineq} with $\ell=1$ and satisfies that $\|\psi_{1,\lam}(0,\cdot)\|_{\dot{H}^{\frac12}}= \|\psi_1(0,\cdot)\|_{\dot{H}^{\frac12}} $. By this reason, the \eqref{maineq} for $\ell=1$ is said to be mass-supercritical case. Also, since $\|\psi_{2,\lam}(0,\cdot)\|_{L_x^2}= \|\psi_2(0,\cdot)\|_{L_x^2} $ for $\psi_{2,\lam}(t,x) = \lam\psi_2 (\lam t,\lam x)$ where $\psi_2$ is solution to \eqref{maineq} with $\ell=2$, the equation \eqref{maineq} with $\ell=2$ has the scaling invariance structure in $L_x^2$. The \eqref{maineq} for $\ell=2$ is called to be mass-critical case.
Now we state the main theorem of this paper. For simplicity of representation, we set an index $s(\ell)$ by
\begin{align*}
s(\ell) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\frac12 & \;\mbox{ if } \ell=1, \\
0 & \;\,\mbox{ if } \ell=2.
\end{array} \right.
\end{align*}
\begin{thm}[Local well-posedness for $H^s$ data]\label{mainthm1}
Let $s > s(\ell) + \frac38$ for $\ell=1,2$. Then \eqref{maineq} is locally well-posed for initial data in $H^s(\rtwo)$.
\end{thm}
Here a definition of the fractional Sobolev space $H^s(\mathbb R^2)$ is placed in \textbf{Notations} below. In particular, LWP result of Dirac equations which have same nonlinearity $\mathcal{N}_\ell$ has been studied in \cite{phymod} for $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $s>1$.
We can prove Theorem 1 for massive cases ($m>0$) in the same way as proof of Theorem 1. Since the Physical model comes from massless Dirac Fermions, we only consider the massless case($m=0$) in this paper.
Lemma \ref{bies} is deduced from Selberg's estimates and we get a coefficient $\mu^{\frac38-s}$ in the result (3) of Lemma \ref{bies}. Then the condition $s> s(\ell) + \frac38$ is necessary in process of proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm1} and the coefficient $\mu^{\frac38-s}$ makes the gap between scaling critical index $s(\ell)$ and our well-posedness index $s(\ell)+\frac38$.
In this paper, we consider Dirac equations with some nonlinearity. Related equations to \eqref{maineq} are well known as semi-relativistic equations as follows:
\begin{align}
iu_t + \sqrt{m^2 - \Delta} u &= \lam |u|^2u, \label{cubic}\\
iu_t + \sqrt{m^2 - \Delta} u &= \lam (|x|^{-1}*|u|^2)u. \label{hartree}
\end{align}
The Cauchy problem for semi-relativistic equations with power type nonlinearity \eqref{cubic} has been investigated in \cite{ din, fugeooz}. In \cite{din, fugeooz}, Dinh(\cite{din}) showed local well-posedness(LWP) of \eqref{cubic} with massless case($m=0$) for $H^s(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $s>\frac34$ and Fujiwara, Georgiev, and Ozawa extended LWP to global well-posedness(GWP) for $H^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$. The Cauchy problem for 3 dimensional Hartree type semi-relativistic equations \eqref{hartree} has been investigated in \cite{len,hele}. First the result of well-posedness was obtained by \cite{len} in $H^s(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $s \ge \frac12$. In \cite{len}, global well-posedness holds in $H^{\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for small data in $L_x^2$. Later this was improved to $s>\frac14$ in \cite{hele}. Also they(\cite{hele}) showed ill-posedness result for $H^s(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $s<\frac14$. For \eqref{hartree} with $d$-dimensions($d\ge2$), Cho and Ozawa(\cite{choz}) have revealed the Global well-posedness result for $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $s \ge \frac12$. Further results for semi-relativistic equations, we refer to \cite{chozsashim}.
The difficulty stems from the absence of null-structure of $\mathcal{N}_\ell$. We describe the difference between $\psi^\dagger \beta \psi$ and $|\psi|^2$ where $\beta = \left(\begin{array}{ll} 1 & \;\,\,\,0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right)$. The quadratic term $\psi^\dagger \beta \psi$ has a null-structure which represents like $|\psi_1|^2 - |\psi_2|^2$. On the other hand, another term $|\psi|^2 = |\psi_1|^2 + |\psi_2|^2$ does not have the null-structure. Since this structure induces delicate bilinear estimates, Dirac equations with null-structure lead to better results than the case without null-structure. However, we do not use this structure, because our nonlinearities $\mathcal N_1$ are essentially the same as $|\psi|^2$. For this reason, it is picky to control the nonlinear term $\mathcal N_\ell$. Hence we describe the Lemma \ref{bies} which used crucially in the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm1}.
Also we consider the Dirac equation with Coulomb type nonlinearity which has null-structure:
\begin{align}
(i\partial_t + \al \cdot D)\psi &= \lam \left(\psi^\dagger \beta \psi \right) \psi,\label{powertype}\\
(i\partial_t + \al \cdot D)\psi &= \lam \Big(|x|^{-\gam}*\left(\psi^\dagger \beta \psi \right) \Big)\psi.\label{coulomb}
\end{align}
As known result for the equation \eqref{powertype}, Bejenaru and Herr(\cite{behe}) showed the GWP in $H^{\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^2)$. And the known results for the equation \eqref{coulomb} are in \cite{choleeoz, lee}. In \cite{lee}, An author of this paper revealed the LWP in $H^s(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $s>{\frac{\gam-1}2}$ and $1 \le \gam <2$. It was studied in \cite{choleeoz} that global well-posedness and small data scattering holds in $H^s(\mathbb{R}^2)$ for $s>{{\gam-1}}$ and $1 < \gam <2$. As related to \eqref{coulomb}, there is a Dirac equation with Yukawa potential. One may find many results of the Dirac equation which has Yukawa potential nonlinearity in \cite{cholee, tes2d, tes3d, yang}.
In view of scaling we expect that LWP results for \eqref{maineq} is optimal in $H^{s(\ell)}$. For this expectation we introduce the following theorem which denotes the smooth failure of our main equation \eqref{maineq} for $s< s(\ell)$.
\begin{thm}\label{mainthm2}
Let $s < s(\ell)$ and $T>0$. If the flow map $\phi \mapsto u$ in \eqref{maineq} exists as a map from $H^s(\rtwo)$ to $C([-T,T];H^s(\rtwo)),$ it fails to be $C^3$ at the origin.
\end{thm}
If the equation \eqref{maineq} has well-posedness in $[-T,T]$ for some $T>0$, the flows of \eqref{maineq} have the smoothness in $[-T,T]$. Since Theorem \ref{mainthm2} implies that the smoothness of flows of \eqref{maineq} fails, This yields the ill-posedness of \eqref{maineq} for $H^s$ with $s< s(\ell)$.
The smoothness failure of some equations was studied for many authors in \cite{mst, beta, hele, lee}. Molinet, Saut, and Tzvetkov(\cite{mst}), Bejenaru and Tao(\cite{beta}), and Herr and Lenzmann(\cite{hele}) have proved the ill-posedness results similar to Theorem \eqref{mainthm2} for Benjamin-Ono equations, 1-d Schr\"odinger equations and semi-relativistic equations, respectively. For Dirac equation, ill-posedness results have been shown in \cite{ lee}.
It is still opened the well-posedness of \eqref{maineq} in $H^s(\mathbb{R}^2)$ for $s(\ell) \le s \le s(\ell)+\frac38$. For filling up this gap, we have to obtain better bilinear estimates than Lemma \ref{bies}. For this purpose we should find some structure of nonlinearity of \eqref{maineq} like null-structure. Then we may improve LWP in $H^s$ with sobolev index $s$ below $s(\ell)+\frac38$.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we discuss projection operators. In Section 3, we introduce the function spaces and the bilinear estimates the most useful on proof of main theorem. Section 4, we prove Theorem \ref{mainthm1} via the standard contraction method. In section 5, we establish the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-contract} arising in Section 4. In the last section, we discuss Theorem \ref{mainthm2} by contradiction argument.
\noindent\textbf{Notations.}\\
\noindent$\bullet$ Space and space-time Fourier transform: $\widehat{f} = \mathcal F_x( f)$ denotes the space variable Fourier transform of $f$ and $\mathcal F_{\xi}^{-1}(g)$ the inverse Fourier transform of $g$ such that
$$
\mathcal{F}_x(f)(\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{- ix\cdot \xi} f(x)\,dx,\quad \mathcal F_{\xi}^{-1} (g)(x) = (2\pi)^{-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{ix\cdot \xi} g(\xi)\,d\xi.
$$
$\widetilde{f} = \mathcal F_{t,x}(f)$ denotes the space-time variables Fourier transform of $f$ such that
$$
\mathcal{F}_{t,x}(f)(\tau,\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{1+2}} e^{-it\cdot\tau- ix\cdot \xi} f(t,x)\,dtdx.
$$
\noindent$\bullet$ Fractional derivatives and Sobolev spaces: $D^s = (-\Delta)^\frac{s}2 = \mathcal F_x^{-1}|\xi|^s\mathcal F_x$, $\Lambda^s = (1- \Delta)^\frac{s}2 = \mathcal F_x^{-1}(1+|\xi|^2)^\frac s2\mathcal F_x$ for $s > 0$. Let us denote $ \dot{H}^s = D^{s}L^2 $ and $H^s = \Lambda^{s}L^2 $ for $s\in \mathbb{R}$.
\noindent$\bullet$ Mixed-normed spaces: For a Banach space $X$ and an interval $I$, $u \in L_I^q X \cap \mathbb{C}$ iff $u(t) \in X$ for a.e.$t \in I$ and $\|u\|_{L_I^qX} := \|\|u(t)\|_X\|_{L_I^q} < \infty$. Especially, we denote $L_I^qL_x^r = L_t^q(I; L_x^r(\rtwo))$, $L_{I, x}^q = L_I^qL_x^q$, $L_t^qL_x^r = L_{\mathbb R}^qL_x^r$. For vector-valued function $\psi \in L_I^q X \cap \mathbb{C}^2$, we also denote that $\|\psi \|_{L_I^qX} := \| |\psi| \|_{L_I^qX}$.
\noindent$\bullet$ Littlewood-Paley operators: Let us define $\beta_1 \in C^\infty_0(-2,2)$ such that $\beta_1(s) =1$ if $|s|\le 1$ and $\beta_{\lam}(s):= \beta(\frac s\lam) - \beta(\frac{2s}\lam)$ for $\lam >1$. Then we define the frequency projection $\mathcal{F}(\plam f)(\xi) = \beta_{\lam}(\xi)\widehat{f}(\xi)$, $P_{\le \lam} = \sum_{\mu =1}^{\lam}\pmu$ and $P_{\ge \lam} = I- P_{\le \frac{\lam}2}$. Also, for measurable set $S \subset \rtwo, R \subset \mathbb{R}^{1+2}$, we denote that $\mathcal{F}_x(P_{S} f)(\xi) = \chi_{S}(\xi)\widehat{f}(\xi)$ and $\mathcal{F}_{t,x}(P_{R} f)(\tau,\xi) = \chi_{R}(\tau,\xi)\widetilde{f}(\tau,\xi)$.
\noindent$\bullet$ As usual different positive constants depending only on $\al, \ka$ are denoted by the same letter $C$, if not specified. $A \lesssim B$ and $A \gtrsim B$ means that $A \le CB$ and
$A \ge C^{-1}B$, respectively for some $C>0$. $A \sim B$ means that $A \lesssim B$ and $A \gtrsim B$.
\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, for simplicity of the Cauchy problem, we define the projection operators and rewrite the equations \eqref{maineq} to integral equations.
\subsection{Projection operator}
We first define the projections about \eqref{maineq} as following:
\begin{align*}
\Pi^{\pm}(D) := \frac12 \left(I\pm \frac{\al\cdot D}{ |\lams| |\nabla|} \right).
\end{align*}
Then we get
$$
\al \cdot D = |\lams||\nabla| \left(\Pi^{+}(D) - \Pi^{-}(D) \right).
$$
Using these projection operators, we decompose
$$
\psi = \psip + \psim
$$
where $\psipm :=\pipm\psi$. Also, these projection operators satisfy that
$$
\pipm\pipm=\pipm, \qquad \pipm\Pi^{\mp}(D)=0.
$$
Applying these operator to \eqref{maineq} we see that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{releq}
( \partial_t \pm |\lams||\nabla|) \psipm = -i \kappa \Pi^{\pm}(D) \mathcal N_\ell(\psi,\psi)\psi
\end{eqnarray}
for $\ell=1,2$ with initial data
$$
\psipm(0) =: \psi_{0,\pm} \in H^s.
$$
To simplify the representation of \eqref{releq}, we set the spinner $\phi_\pm(t,x)= \psipm \left(\frac{t}{|\lams|},x \right)$. Hence $\phi$ satisfies that
$$
(i \partial_t \pm |\nabla|) \phi_\pm = \frac{1}{|\lams|}(i \partial_t \pm |\lams||\nabla|) \psi_\pm = -\frac{i\kappa}{|\lams|}\Pi^{\pm}(D) \mathcal N_\ell(\phi,\phi)\phi
$$
for $\ell=1,2$. We still call the spinner to $\psi$. Then we finally get the second main equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{releq2}
(i \partial_t \pm |\nabla|) \psipm = -i\kaps \Pi^{\pm}(D) \mathcal N_\ell (\psi,\psi)\psi.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kaps = \frac{\kappa}{|\lams|}$.
By Duhamel's formula, we can represent the equations \eqref{releq2} written as an integral equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{duhamel}
\psipm(t) &=& S_\pm (t)\psizpm + \kaps\int_{0}^{t}S_\pm(t-t')\pipm \left[\mathcal N_\ell \Big(\psi(t'),\psi(t')\Big)\psi(t')\right] dt'
\end{eqnarray}
for $\ell=1,2$. Here we define the linear propagator $S_\pm( t)$ as following:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{propa}
S_\pm (t)f = e^{\mp it|\nabla|}f.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Fractional Leibniz rule}
The following lemma which is called fractional Leibniz rule is useful in the proof of LWP.
\begin{lem}[\cite{kapo,kpv2,kgo}]\label{leib}
Let $0 < s < 1,\; 1<p<\infty$. Then
$$
\|D^s(fg)-fD^sg-gD^sf\|_{L^p} \les \|D^{s_1}f\|_{L^{p_1}}\|D^{s_2}g\|_{L^{p_2}}
$$
provided $ s= s_1 + s_2 $ with $0 \le s_1,s_2 \le 1$ and $\frac1p= \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}$.
\end{lem}
The proof of Lemma \ref{leib} is in \cite{kapo,kpv2,kgo}.
\section{Function spaces and Bilinear estimates}
\subsection{Functions spaces: $X^{s,b}$-space}
We first introduce $\xsb$ space which will be useful in local theories. (See e.g. \cite{bourgain, kpv, tao}.)
Let us define the norm for $s,b \in \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
$$
X_{\pm}^{s,b}(T) := \Big\{ \psi : \Big\|\chi_{[-T,T]} \psi \Big\|_{X_{\pm}^{s,b}} < \infty \Big\}
$$
with a norm
$$
\|\psi\|_{X_{\pm}^{s,b}}:= \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{1+2}} \left|\left<\xi\right>^s \left<\tau \mp |\xi|\right>^b \widetilde{\psi}(\tau,\xi) \right|^2d\tau d\xi \right)^{\frac12}.
$$
In particular, we denote that $X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}$ is $X_{+}^{s,b}$ for $\pm_j =+$ and $X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}$ is $X_{-}^{s,b}$ for $\pm_j =-$.
These function spaces satisfy the embedding for $b>\frac12$
$$
X_{\pm}^{s,b}(T) \hookrightarrow C([-T,T]; H^s).
$$
\subsection{Bilinear estimates}
\begin{lem}[Theorem 2.1 of \cite{sel}]\label{selb}
Let $\lam>0$ and $L\ge1$. Let us define the thickened cones
\begin{align*}
K_{\lam,L}^{\pm}= \Big\{ (\tau,\xi) : |\xi| \les \lam,\; \tau \mp |\xi| = O(L) \Big\}
\end{align*}
Then
$$
\|P_{K_{\lam,L}^{\pm} \cap (\mathbb{R} \times B_{\mu})}u\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \les \mu^\frac14 \lam^\frac18 L^\frac38 \|P_{K_{\lam,L}^{\pm} \cap (\mathbb{R} \times B_{\mu})}u\|_{\ltwo}
$$
for $u:\rot \to \mathbb{C}$ and any ball $B_{\mu} \subset \rtwo$ with radius $\mu>0$.
\end{lem}
The following lemma is readily obtained by Lemma \ref{selb}.
\begin{lem}\label{bies}\label{bilinear} Let $s > \frac38$, $b>\frac12$, and $u:\rot \to \mathbb{C}$. Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] $\|P_{B_{\mu}}u\|_{\lfou} \les \mu^{\frac14}\|P_{B_\mu} u\|_{X_{\pm}^{\frac18,b}}$ for $u \in X_{\pm}^{\frac18,b}$ and any ball $B_\mu$ with radius $\mu>0$,
\item[$(2)$] $\|u\|_{\lfou} \les \|u\|_{X_{\pm}^{\frac38,b}}$ for $u \in X_{\pm}^{\frac38,b}$,
\item[$(3)$] $\|\pmu(u_1\overline {u_2})\|_{\ltwo} \les \mu^{\frac38-s}\|u_1\|_{ X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|u_2\|_{ X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}$ for $\mu>0$, $u_j \in X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We first prove (1). Lemma \ref{selb} yields that, for $\lam \ge 1$,
\begin{align*}
&\|P_{B_\mu}\plam u\|_{\lfou} \\
& \les \sum_{L\ge1} \mu^\frac14 \lam^{\frac18}L^{\frac38}\|P_{K_{\lam,L}^{\pm} \cap (\mathbb{R} \times B_\mu)} u\|_{\ltwo} \\
&\les \sum_{L\ge1} \mu^\frac14\lam^{\frac18}L^{\frac38}\|P_{K_{\lam,L}^{\pm} \cap (\mathbb{R} \times B_\mu)} u\|_{\ltwo} \les \sum_{L\ge1} \mu^\frac14\lam^{\frac18}L^{\frac38-b}\|L^b \chi_{K_{\lam,L}^{\pm} \cap (\mathbb{R} \times B_\mu)}\widetilde{u}\|_{L_{\tau,\xi}^2}\\
&\les \sum_{L\ge1} \mu^\frac14\lam^{\frac18}L^{\frac38-b}\|\left<\tau \mp |\xi|\right>^b P_{B_\mu} \widetilde{u}\|_{L_{\tau,\xi}^2} \les \mu^{\frac14}\lam^{\frac18}\|P_{B_\mu} u\|_{\xob}.
\end{align*}
Then we have
$$
\|P_{B_{\mu}}u\|_{\lfou} \les \sum_{\lam \ge 1} \|P_{B_\mu}\plam u\|_{\lfou} \les \sum_{\lam \ge 1} \mu^{\frac14}\lam^\frac18 \|P_{B_\mu} P_{\lam}u\|_{\xob} \les \mu^{\frac14}\|P_{B_\mu}u\|_{X^{\frac18,b}_\pm}.
$$
For (2), by (1) we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \les \left( \sum_{\mu\ge1} \|P_{\mu}u\|_{L_{t,x}^4}^2\right)^{\frac12} \les \left( \sum_{\mu\ge1} \mu^{\frac14}\|P_{\mu}u\|_{X_{\pm}^{\frac18,b}}^2\right)^{\frac12} \les \|u\|_{X_{\pm}^{\frac38,b}}.
\end{align*}
Let us now prove (3). Using frequency localization and (2), we see that
\begin{align*}
\left\| \pmu (u_1 \overline{u_2}) \right\|_{L_{t,x}^2} &\les \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \mu \les \lam_1 \sim \lam_2\end{subarray}} \left\| \pmu (u_{1,\lam_1} \overline{u_{2,\lam_2}}) \right\|_{L_{t,x}^2} + \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \;\;\;\lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \lam_{\min} \les \lam_{\max} \sim \mu \end{subarray}} \left\| \pmu (u_{1,\lam_1} \overline{u_{2,\lam_2}}) \right\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\\
& \les \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \mu \les \lam_1 \sim \lam_2\end{subarray}} \|u_{1,\lam_1}\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \|u_{2,\lam_2} \|_{L_{t,x}^4} + \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \;\;\;\lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \lam_{\min} \les \lam_{\max} \sim \mu \end{subarray}} \|u_{1,\lam_1}\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \|u_{2,\lam_2} \|_{L_{t,x}^4}\\
& \les \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \mu \les \lam_1 \sim \lam_2\end{subarray}} \lam_1^{\frac38-s}\lam_2^{\frac38-s}\|u_{1,\lam_1}\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}} \|u_{2,\lam_2} \|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}} + \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l} \;\;\;\lam_1,\lam_2 \ge 1 \\ \lam_{\min} \les \lam_{\max} \sim \mu \end{subarray}} \lam_{\max}^{\frac38-s}\|u_{1,\lam_1}\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}} \|u_{2,\lam_2} \|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}\\
&\les \mu^{\frac38 -s} \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}.
\end{align*}
Here we used $\lam_{\max}= \max(\lam_1, \lam_2)$, $\lam_{\min}= \min(\lam_1, \lam_2)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Local Well-posedness: Proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm1}}
Let us define a complete Banach metric space $(\mathcal M^{s,b}(T,\de),d)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^{s,b}(T,\de) &= \left\{ \psi \in C\left( [-T,T]: L_x^2\right) \cap X_{\pm}^{s,b}(T) : \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} : = \|\psi_+\|_{X_{+}^{s,b}} + \|\psi_-\|_{X_{+}^{s,b}} <\de \right\},\\
d(\psi, \phi) &= \|\psi - \phi\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}}.
\end{align*}
We now consider a map $\mathcal{D}$ on $\mathcal{M}^{s,b}(T,\de)$ by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}(\psi) = \sum_{\pm_0 \in \{\pm \}} S_{\pm_0}( t) \psi_{0,\pm_0} + \sum_{\begin{subarray}{l}
\pm_j \in \{ \pm\}\\j=0,1,2,3 \end{subarray}} \kappa_{\#} \int_0^t S_{\pm_0}(t-t') \Pi^{\pm_0}(D) \left[\mathcal N_\ell(\psi_{\pm_1},\psi_{\pm_2})\psi_{\pm_3} \right] dt'.
\end{align*}
where $\sum_{\pm_0 \in \{\pm\}}F_{\pm_0} = F_{+} + F_-$. Then we first show the map $\mathcal{D}$ is self-mapping on $\mathcal{M}^{s,b}(T, \de)$. By Lemma 2.1 of \cite{gtv} we see that
$$
\Big\|\chi_{[-T,T]}S_{\pm}( t)\psi_{0,\pm} \Big\|_{\xsb} \les T^{\frac12 -b}\|\psi_0\|_{H^s}
$$
and
$$
\left\|\chi_{[-T,T]}\int_0^t S_{\pm}(t-t')f(t')dt' \right\|_{\xsb} \les T^{1-b+b'}\|f\|_{X^{s,b'}}
$$
for $-\frac12 < b' < 0 <\frac12 < b \le b'+ 1$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop-contract}
Let $s>s(\ell) + \frac38$ for $\ell=1,2$. Then there exists $-\frac12 < b' < -\frac14 <\frac12 < b \le b'+ 1$ and $\ve >0$, such that
$$
\Big\| \mathcal N_\ell(\psi_1, \psi_2) \psi_3\Big\|_{X_\pm^{s,b'}}\le T^{\ve}\prod_{j=1}^{3} \|\psi_j\|_{\xsbj}
$$
for all $\psi:\rot \to \mathbb{C}^2$ and $\psi_j \in \xsbj$ with ${\it supp}(\psi_j) \subset \{(t,x) : |t| \le T\}.$
\end{prop}
Proposition \ref{prop-contract} will be proved in the next section. We now assume the validity of Proposition \ref{prop-contract}. Then we estimate
\begin{align*}
\| \mathcal{D} (\psi)\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} \le C_1\|\psi_0\|_{H^s} + C_2 T^\ve \sum_{\pm} \|\psi_{\pm}\|_{X_{\pm}^{s,b}}^3 \le C_1 \|\psi_0\|_{H^s} + C_2 T^\ve \de^3.
\end{align*}
Set $ C_1\|\psi_0\|_{H^s} < \frac \de2$ and choose the time $T$ that satisfies $C_2 T^{\ve} \de^3 < \frac \de 2$. Hence we see that $\| \mathcal{D} (\psi)\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} < \de$. Therefore $\mathcal{D}$ is self-mapping on $\mathcal{M}^{s,b}(T,\de)$. We now describe the fact that $\mathcal{D}$ is contraction mapping on $\mathcal{M}^{s,b}(T,\de)$:
\begin{align*}
d(\mathcal{D}(\psi), \mathcal{D}(\phi)) &= \|\mathcal{D}(\psi) - \mathcal{D}(\phi)\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} \le C \left( \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}}^2 + \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}}^2 \right) \|\psi - \phi \|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} \\
&\le 2C\de^2 \|\psi - \phi \|_{\mathcal{M}^{s,b}} < \frac12 d(\mathcal{D}(\psi), \mathcal{D}(\phi))
\end{align*}
for $\de$ satisfying that $4C\de^2 < \frac12$.
Therefore this completes the proof of the local existence and uniqueness of a solution to \eqref{maineq}.
\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop-contract}}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop-contract}}
By duality, it suffices to prove that
$$
I_\ell := \left|\small\iint \mathcal N_\ell(\psi_1, \psi_2) \psi_3 \brd^s \psi_4^\dagger dtdx\right| \les T^{\ve} \prod_{j=1}^{3} \|\psi_j\|_{\xsbj} \|\psi_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}
$$
for $\psi_4 \in X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}$ and $\ell=1,2$. We set $\psi_j = \left(\begin{array}{c}\psi_{j1}\\\psi_{j2} \end{array} \right)$ for $j=1,2,3,4$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
I_1 &=\left|\small\iint \left( \begin{array}{c} \left(b_1 \psi_{11} \overline{\psi_{21}} + 2b_2 \psi_{12}\overline{\psi_{22}} \right)\psi_{31} \\ - \left( b_1\psi_{12} \overline{\psi_{22}} + 2b_2 \psi_{11} \overline{\psi_{21}}\right)\psi_{32} \end{array} \right) \Big( \begin{array}{cc} \brd^s \overline{\psi_{41}} &\;\;\brd^s \overline{\psi_{42}} \end{array}\Big) dtdx\right|\\
&= C \sum_{j,k,l\in\{1,2\}} \left|\small\iint \psi_{1j} \overline{\psi_{2j}} \psi_{3k}\brd^s \overline{\psi_{4l}} dtdx\right|
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
I_2 = \left|\small\iint |\nabla|^{-1}(\psi_1^\dagger \psi_2)\psi_3\brd^s \psi_4^\dagger dtdx\right| = C \sum_{j,k \in \{1,2\}} \left|\small\iint |\nabla|^{-1} \left(\overline{\psi_{1j}} \psi_{2j} \right) \psi_{3k}\brd^s \overline{\psi_{4k}} dtdx\right|.
\end{align*}
To compute the terms above, we introduce $\mathbb{C}$-valued version estimates below which will be proved Section \ref{prooflem}.
\begin{lem}\label{scal-cub}
The following two estimates hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(i)$] Let $s>s(1)+ \frac38$. Then there exists $-\frac12 < b' < -\frac14 <\frac12 < b \le b'+ 1$ and $\ve >0$, such that
\begin{align}\label{nonlinear-cubic}
\left|\small\iint (u_1 \overline{ u_2} )u_3\brd^s \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| \les T^{\ve} \prod_{j=1}^{3} \|u_j\|_{X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}} \|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}
\end{align}
for all $u_j:\rot \to \mathbb{C}$ and $u_j \in \xsbj$ with ${\it supp}(u_j) \subset \{(t,x) : |t| \le T\}.$
\item[$(ii)$] Let $s>s(2)+ \frac38$. Then there exists $-\frac12 < b' < -\frac14 <\frac12 < b \le b'+ 1$ and $\ve >0$, such that
\begin{align}\label{nonlinear-hartree}
\left|\small\iint \left[|x|^{-1}*( \overline{u_1} u_2) \right] u_3\brd^s \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| \les T^{\ve}\prod_{j=1}^{3} \|u_j\|_{X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}} \|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
for all $u_j:\rot \to \mathbb{C}$ and $u_j \in \xsbj$ with ${\it supp}(u_\ell) \subset \{(t,x) : |t| \le T\}.$
\end{lem}
By Lemma \ref{scal-cub}, we get
$$
I_\ell \les T^{\ve}\sum_{j,k=1,2}\|\psi_{1j}\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|\psi_{2j}\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}\|\psi_{3k}\|_{X_{\pm_3}^{s,b}}\|\psi_{4k}\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}} \les T^{\ve} \prod_{j=1}^{3} \|\psi_j\|_{\xsbj} \|\psi_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}.
$$
for $\ell=1,2$. It completes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-contract}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{scal-cub}}\label{prooflem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of $(i)$ of Lemma \ref{scal-cub}]
We first set $\frac78 < s \le 1 $. By H\"older inequality and Lemma \ref{leib}, we can split the left-hand side of \eqref{nonlinear-cubic} as follows:
\begin{align*}
\left|\small\iint (u_1 \overline{ u_2} )u_3\brd^s \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| &\le \left| \iint \brd^s ( \overline{ u_1} u_2 u_3) \overline{u_4} dtdx - \iint \brd^s(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )u_3\overline{ u_4 } dtdx -\iint \overline{ u_1} u_2 \left(\brd^su_3 \right)\overline{ u_4 }dtdx \right|\\
&\qquad\qquad +\left|\iint \brd^s (\overline{ u_1} u_2 ) u_3 \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| +\left|\iint \overline {u_1} u_2 \left(\brd^su_3 \right) \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| \\
& =: J_1^1 + J_1^2 + J_1^3.
\end{align*}
We first treat the $J_1^1$. By Lemma \ref{leib}, we estimate
\begin{align*}
J_1^1 & \les \left\|\brd^s ( \overline{ u_1} u_2 u_3) - \brd^s(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )u_3 - \overline{ u_1} u_2 \left(\brd^su_3 \right) \right\|_{L_t^\frac43L_x^2}\|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\\
&\les \| \brd^s (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\|u_3\|_{L_t^4L_{x}^\infty} \|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}
\end{align*}
Let us consider $\| \brd^s (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_{t,x}^2}$. Like above estimates, Lemma \ref{leib} yields that
\begin{align*}
\| \brd^s (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_{t,x}^2} & \les \Big\| \brd^s(u_1 \overline{ u_2}) - (\brd^su_1) \overline{ u_2} -u_1 (\brd^s\overline{ u_2})\Big\|_{L_{t,x}^2} + \Big\| (\brd^su_1) \overline{ u_2} \Big\|_{L_{t,x}^2} + \Big\| u_1 (\brd^s\overline{ u_2})\Big\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\\
& \les \Big\| \brd^su_1\Big\|_{L_t^4L_x^2} \|u_2 \|_{L_{t}^4L_x^\infty} + \|u_1 \|_{L_{t}^4L_x^\infty}\Big\| \brd^su_2\Big\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}.
\end{align*}
By Sobolev embedding and Lemma \ref{bilinear} we get
\begin{align}\label{uj-esti}
\Big\| u_j \Big\|_{L_t^4L_x^\infty} \les \Big\| \brd^{s-\frac38} u_j\Big\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \les \| u_j\|_{X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}}
\end{align}
for $s>\frac78,\; b>\frac12$, and $j=1,2$. By embedding $X^{0,\frac14} \hookrightarrow L_t^4L_x^2$, the estimate \eqref{uj-esti} leads us that
\begin{align}\label{u12-esti}
\| \brd^s (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_{t,x}^2} \les \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}.
\end{align}
In particular, by \eqref{uj-esti}, we have
\begin{align}\label{u3-esti}
\|u_3\|_{L_{t}^4L_x^\infty}\les \|u_3\|_{X_{\pm_3}^{s,b}}.
\end{align}
Using the estimates \eqref{u12-esti}, \eqref{u3-esti}, and embedding $X^{0,\frac14} \hookrightarrow L_t^4L_x^2$ , we see taht
\begin{align*}
J_1^1 &\les \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}\|u_3\|_{X_{\pm_3}^{s,\frac14}}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,\frac14}}\\
&\les T^{\de} \prod_{j=1}^3{\|u_{j}\|_{X_{\pm_j}^{s,b}}}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, for $J_1^2,J_1^3$, we obtain
\begin{align}
J_1^2 &\les \| \brd^s (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{\ltwo}\|u_3\|_{L_t^4L_x^\infty} \|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2},\label{j12}\\
J_1^3 &\les \|u_1\|_{L_t^4L_x^\infty}\|u_2\|_{L_t^4L_x^\infty} \|\brd^s u_3\|_{L_t^4L_x^2} \|u_4\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2}. \label{j13}
\end{align}
The estimates for \eqref{j12} are obtained in a similar way to estimates of $J_1^1$. Hence we consider the \eqref{j13}. Using (2) of Lemma \ref{bies} and Sobolev embedding, we estimate
\begin{align}\label{second}
\begin{aligned}
\|u_j\|_{L_t^4L_x^\infty} &\les \|\brd^{s-\frac38}u_j\|_{\lfou} \les \|u_j\|_{\xsbj}, \;\; \mbox{for}\;\; j=1,2,\\
\|\brd^s u_3\|_{L_t^4L_x^2} &\les \|u_3\|_{X^{s,\frac14}} \les \|u_3\|_{X_{\pm_3}^{s,b}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Then the estimate \eqref{second} yields that
$$
J_1^3 \les T^{\de} \prod_{j=1}^3\|u_j\|_{\xsbj}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}.
$$
Therefore this completes the proof of \eqref{nonlinear-cubic}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of $(ii)$ of Lemma \ref{scal-cub}]
The LHS of \eqref{nonlinear-hartree} is bounded by
\begin{align*}
&\left|\small\iint \left[|x|^{-1}*( \overline{u_1} u_2) \right] u_3\brd^s \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| \\
&\le \left| \iint \brd^s (\na^{-1}( \overline{ u_1} u_2 ) u_3) \overline{u_4} dtdx - \iint \brd^s\na^{-1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )u_3\overline{ u_4 } dtdx -\iint \na^{-1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2 ) (\brd^su_3)\overline{ u_4 }dtdx \right|\\
&\qquad\qquad +\left|\iint \brd^s \na^{-1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2 ) u_3 \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| +\left|\iint \na^{-1}( \overline {u_1} u_2 ) (\brd^su_3) \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| \\
&=: J_2^1 + J_2^2 + J_2^3.
\end{align*}
We first consider the $J_2^1$. Lemma \ref{leib} yields that
\begin{align*}
J_2^1 & \les \left\|\brd^s \left[\na^{-1}( \overline{ u_1} u_2 ) u_3 \right] - \brd^s\na^{-1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )u_3 - \na^{-1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2) \left(\brd^su_3 \right) \right\|_{L_t^\frac43L_x^2}\|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\\
&\les \| \brd^s \na^{-1} (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2 L_x^4}\|u_3\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\\
&\les \sum_{\mu} \| P_{\mu} \brd^s\na^{-1}(u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2 L_x^4}\|u_3\|_{L_{t,x}^4} \|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}.
\end{align*}
Using Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev and Young's convolution inequality we see that
\begin{align*}
\| P_{\le1} \brd^s\na^{-1}(u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2 L_x^4} & \les \|P_{\le1}(u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2L_x^{\frac43}} = \|\check{\beta_1} * (u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2L_x^{\frac43}} \les \|\check{\beta_1}\|_{L_x^\frac43} \|u_1\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|u_2\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\\
&\les \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{0,\frac14}} \|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{0,\frac14}},
\end{align*}
In third inequality, we used the $\|\check{\beta_1}\|_{L_x^p}\les 1$ for $p>1$. And, by Lemma \ref{bilinear}, we estimate
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\mu\ge2}\| P_{\mu} \brd^s\na^{-1}(u_1 \overline{ u_2})\|_{L_t^2 L_x^4} & \les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\mu^{s-1}\|\pmu(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )\|_{L_t^2L_x^4} \les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\mu^{s-\frac12}\|\pmu(\overline{ u_1} u_2 )\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\\
& \les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\mu^{-\frac18}\|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\| u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}} \les \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{s,b}}\|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}}.
\end{align*}
Also, by second estimate of \eqref{second}, we get
$$
J_2^1 \les \prod_{j=1}^3\|u_j\|_{\xsbj}\|u_4\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2} \les T^\de \prod_{j=1}^3\|u_j\|_{\xsbj}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}.
$$
Estimates for $J_2^2$ are obtained in almost the same way as estimates for $J_2^1$. Hence it is left to deal with $J_2^3$. By Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev and Young's convolution inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\iint \na^{-1} P_{\le2}\left(\overline{ u_1} u_2 \right) \left(\brd^{s}u_3 \right)\overline{ u_4} dtdx\right| &\les \|\na^{-1}P_{\le2}( \overline{ u_1} u_2 )\|_{L_t^2L_x^4} \left\|P_{\le 2}\left[(\brd^{s}u_3)\overline{ u_4} \right]\right\|_{L_t^2L_x^{\frac43}}\\
&\les \|P_{\le 2}( \overline{ u_1} u_2)\|_{L_t^2L_x^\frac43}\|(\brd^{s}u_3)\overline{ u_4} \|_{L_t^2L_x^1}\\
&\les \|u_1\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|u_2\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|\brd^{s}u_3\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|u_4\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\\
&\les \|u_1\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{0,\frac14}}\|u_2\|_{X_{\pm_2}^{0,\frac14}}\|u_3\|_{X_{\pm_3}^{s,\frac14}}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,\frac14}}.
\end{align*}
Since there is no contribution of $P_{\le1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2)$, we assume that $P_{\le1}(\overline{ u_1} u_2)=0$. Let us consider the high-frequency part of $J_2^3$. By Lemma \ref{bies} and Bernstein's inequality we estimate
\begin{align*}
J_2^3 &\les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\left|\iint \na^{-1}P_{\mu}( \overline {u_1} u_2 ) (\brd^su_3) \overline{ u_4} dtdx\right|\\
&\les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\mu^{-1}\Big\|\pmu( \overline{ u_{\lam_1}} u_{\lam_2} )\Big\|_{L_t^2L_x^\infty} \Big\| (\brd^su_3) \overline{ u_4} \Big\|_{L_t^2 L_x^1}\\
&\les \sum_{\mu \ge 2}\Big\|\pmu( \overline{ u_{\lam_1}} u_{\lam_2} )\Big\|_{L_{t,x}^2} \Big\| \brd^su_3 \Big\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2} \Big\| u_4 \Big\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2}\\
&\les \sum_{\mu \ge 2} \mu^{\frac38 -s}\| u_{1}\|_{X_{\pm_1}^{x,b}} \|u_{\lam_2} \|_{X_{\pm_2}^{s,b}} \Big\| \brd^su_3 \Big\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2} \Big\| u_4 \Big\|_{L_t^4 L_x^2}\\
& \les T^{\delta}\prod_{j=1}\|u_j\|_{\xsbj}\|u_4\|_{X_{\pm_4}^{0,-b'}}.
\end{align*}
Here we used the assumption $s>\frac38$ and $b' < -\frac14$. Therefore this completes the proof of the \eqref{nonlinear-hartree}.
\end{proof}
\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm2}}\label{proof-ill}
This section aims to show Theorem \ref{mainthm2}. It adopts the argument \cite{mst,hele, lee} to prove of smoothness failure of flows of \eqref{maineq} with cubic and Hartree type nonlinearity. As in proof of \cite{mst, hele}, if the flow map $\psi \mapsto u$ is $C^3$ at the origin from $H^s$ to $C( \left[ 0,T\right);H^s)$, we have \eqref{illpose}. In \cite{mst, hele}, they showed smoothness failure of flows of Benjamin-Ono, semi-relativistic equations, respectively. For the results about Dirac equation, we refer to \cite{ lee}.
Let us consider the system of equation($\ell=1,2$):
\begin{align}\label{maineq-ill}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(\partial_t + \al\cdot D) \psi = -i\ka \mathcal N_\ell(\psi,\psi)\psi,\\
\psi(0)=\delta\psi_0\in H^s(\mathbb R^2).
\end{array}\right.\end{align}
If the flow is $C^3$ at the origin in $H^s$, then it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dthree}
\partial_\delta^3\psi(0,t,\cdot) = 6C\sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4}\int_0^t S_{\pm_1}(t-t')\Pi^{\pm_1}(D) \left[ \mathcal N_\ell\Big( S_{\pm_2}(t')\psi_0,S_{\pm_3}(t')\psi_0 \Big) S_{\pm_4}(t')\psi_0 \right](t')dt'
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_\pm(t)= e^{-\pm it|D|}$ for $\ell=1,2$. From the $C^3$ smoothness we have that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{smooth}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}\left\| \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4}\int_0^t S_{\pm_1}(t-t')\Pi^{\pm_1}(D) \left[ \mathcal N_\ell \Big(S_{\pm_2}(t')\psi_0, S_{\pm_3}(t')\psi_0 \Big) S_{\pm_4}(t')\psi_0 \right]dt' \right\|_{H^s} \les \|\psi_0\|_{H^s}^3
\end{eqnarray}
for a local existence time $T$ and $j=1,2$. However we show that \eqref{smooth} fails for $s<s(\ell)$. The explicit statement is as follows:
\begin{prop}\label{prop-illpose}
Let $\ell=1,2$. Assume that $s< s(\ell)$. Then the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{illpose}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}\left\| \mathcal{L}_\ell(\vp)(t) \right\|_{H^s} \les \|\vp\|_{H^s}^3.
\end{eqnarray}
fails to hold for all $\varphi \in H^s$, where $\mathcal{L}_\ell(\vp)(t)=\underset{\pm_j,j=1,\cdots,4}{\sum}\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1,\cdots,4}(\varphi)(t)$ with
$$
\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1,\cdots,4}(\varphi)(t) = \int_0^t S_{\pm_1}(t-t')\Pi^{\pm_1}(D) \mathcal N_\ell\Big( S_{\pm_2}(t')\vp, S_{\pm_3}(t')\vp, \beta S_{\pm_4}(t')\vp \Big) dt'.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Proposition \ref{prop-illpose} is proven by contradiction. For this purpose, let us assume that the \eqref{illpose} holds. Fix $ \lam \gg 1$. We first choose $\mu = \lam^{1-\varepsilon}$ for fixed $0<\varepsilon \ll 1$. Let us define a box
\begin{align*}
B_{\mu} &= \{ \xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2) : |\xi_1 - \lam|\les \mu,\;|\xi_2|\les \mu \}
\end{align*}
and consider $\vp = \left(\begin{array}{c} \mathcal{F}_\xi^{-1}\chi_{B_\mu}\\ 0 \end{array} \right) $. Then we have $\|\varphi\|_{H^s} \sim \mu\lam^s$.
To lead a contradiction we adopt a following estimate:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gtr-ine}
\left| \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,\cdots,4} \mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) \right| \gtrsim t\mu^{3+2s(j)}.
\end{eqnarray}
We now prove the \eqref{gtr-ine}. By taking Fourier transform we see that
\begin{align*}
& \mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) \\
&= \Pi^{\pm}(\xi) \int_0^t \int e^{-\pm_1i(t-t')|\xi|} \mathcal{F}_x \left[ \mathcal N_\ell\Big( S_{\pm_2}(t')\vp, S_{\pm_3}(t')\vp \Big) \right](\sigma) \mathcal{F}_x \left[S_{\pm_4}(t')\vp \right](\xi-\sigma) d\sigma dt'\\
&=-\Pi^{\pm}(\xi) \int_{|\sigma| \les \mu}\int_{-B_\mu} \mathbf{p}_{1\cdots4}(t,\xi,\sigma,\zeta)|\sigma|^{-1+2s(j)}\chi_{B_\mu}(-\zeta)\chi_{B_\mu}(\sigma - \zeta) \chi_{B_\mu}(\xi-\sigma) d\zeta d\sigma\\
\end{align*}
where $-B_\mu := \{ \xi= (\xi_1,\xi_2) : (-\xi_1, -\xi_2) \in B_\mu\}$ and
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{p}_{1\cdots4}(t,\xi,\sigma,\zeta) &:= \int_0^t e^{-i(\pm_1(t-t')|\xi|\pm_2t'|\zeta|\pm_3t'|\sigma-\zeta|\pm_4t'|\sigma|)}dt'\\
&= \frac{e^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}(e^{it\omega}-1)}{i\omega}
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
\omega = \pm_1 |\xi| \pm_2 |\zeta| \pm_3 |\sigma - \zeta| \pm_4 |\sigma|.
\end{align*}
From the support condition it follows that $|\sigma| \les 2\mu$, provided $\xi \in B_{3\mu} $. Then $|\omega| \les \lam$.
We set $t= \delta\lam^{-1-\varepsilon}$ for fixed $0<\delta \ll 1$. Since $|t\omega| \ll 1$ for $\lam$ large enough, we get
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4}\mathbf{p}_{1\cdots4}(t,\xi,\sigma,\zeta) &\qquad = \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}\left( \frac{\cos(t\omega)-1}{it\omega} +i \frac{\sin(t\omega)}{it\omega}\right)\\
&\qquad = \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}(O_\pm(\delta) +i)\\
&\qquad = \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}O_\pm(\delta) +i\sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}\\
&\qquad = \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}O_\pm(\delta) +8it\cos(t|\xi|)\\
&\qquad = \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} te^{-\pm_1it|\xi|}O_\pm(\delta) +8it(1+O(\delta)).
\end{align*}
Hence we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\left| \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} \mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) \right| \\
&\qquad\gtrsim \left| \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4}\int_{|\sigma| \les \mu}\int_{-B_\mu} \mathbf{p}_{1\cdots4}(t,\xi,\sigma,\zeta)|\sigma|^{-1+2s(\ell)}\chi_{B_\mu}(-\zeta)\chi_{B_\mu}(\sigma - \zeta) \chi_{B_\mu}(\xi-\sigma) d\zeta d\sigma\right|\\
&\qquad\gtrsim t \left| \int_{|\sigma| \les \mu}\int_{-B_\mu}|\sigma|^{-1+2s(\ell)}\chi_{B_\mu}(-\zeta)\chi_{B_\mu}(\sigma - \zeta) \chi_{B_\mu}(\xi-\sigma) d\zeta d\sigma\right|\\
&\qquad\gtrsim t\mu^{3+2s(\ell)}.
\end{align*}
Therefore we get \eqref{gtr-ine}.
We return to the main proof. Since $\mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) =0$ for $\xi \notin B_{3\mu}$, the \eqref{gtr-ine} yields that
\begin{align*}
\left\| \mathcal{L}_\ell(\vp)(t) \right\|_{H^s} = \left\|\langle\xi\rangle^s \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,2,3,4} \mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_\ell^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) \right\|_{L_{\xi}^2} &\gtrsim t\mu^{3+2s(\ell)}\left\|\langle \xi \rangle^s \right\|_{L_{\xi}^2(B_{3\mu})} \gtrsim t \mu^{4+2s(\ell)}\lam^s.
\end{align*}
This gives us that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{failure2}
t\mu^{4+2s(\ell)}\lam^{s} \les \left\|\langle\xi\rangle^s \sum_{\pm_j,j=1,\cdots,4} \mathcal{F}_x\Big[\mathcal{L}_j^{1\cdots4}(\vp)(t)\Big](\xi) \right\|_{L_{\xi}^2} \les \mu^{3}\lam^{3s}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, by \eqref{failure2} and $t=\delta\lam^{-1-\varepsilon}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{contradiction}
\delta \les \mu^{-1-2s(\ell)} \lam^{2s+1+\ve}=\lam^{2s + 2s(\ell) +2\varepsilon \big(1+s(\ell) \big) }.
\end{align}
Then since the \eqref{contradiction} does not hold for $s<s(\ell)$ and $\lam \gg 1$, we reach a contradiction. This completes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-illpose}.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by National University Promotion Development Project in 2019.
|
\section{Introduction}
The term 'Neural Combinatorial Optimization' proposed by \cite{bello} et al. is a framework to tackle combinatorial optimization problems using neural networks and reinforcement learning. This framework solves Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) with up to 100 customer nodes on a Euclidean graph while achieving near optimal solutions. TSP requires finding the shortest route connecting all customer nodes and returning to the starting point. A few other combinatorial optimization problems like the vehicle routing problem (VRP), bin packing, and assignment problem follow a similar framework. Vehicle Routing Problem is a variant of Traveling Salesman Problem, with the use of multiple vehicles and several other constraints like capacity associated with different vehicles or time-windows within which a customer node needs to serviced. Bin packing problems focus on packing a set of items with varying sizes into fixed capacity containers. Every item has a value and dimension associated with it, and the goal is to fit maximum items into the available containers for maximum capacity utilization. The customer nodes in TSP/VRP become containers in bin-packing problem, and workers in the assignment problem. The assignment problem requires a group of workers to perform a certain set of tasks. These tasks have time constraints and costs associated with them against each worker, while the workers have fixed time unit limitations. The complexity of these problems comes from dynamic nature of the environment rather than intractability of computing the optimal solution. The use of neural networks and reinforcement learning becomes a compelling choice to work with problems of this nature, as the agent can learn by interacting with the environment by gathering rewards. The performance of reinforcement learning to solve combinatorial optimization problems is competitive, while not requiring much of the domain knowledge. \cite{nazari} et al. solve both static and online versions of vehicle routing problem by using actor-critic methods for reinforcement learning for 10, 20, 50, and 100 VRP instances with customer locations on a Euclidean graph and demands as the static and dynamic features of the input respectively, with negative distance as the reward. Critic estimates the value function and actor updates policy distribution in the direction suggested by critic (with policy gradients). Basically, an actor decides what action to take and critic evaluates how good the action was and how the actor should adjust. Both actor and critic are parameterized by neural networks.
\newline
\newline
\cite{schulman} et al. proposed Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), a policy gradient method for reinforcement learning which has some benefits of trust region optimization, but are much simpler and have better sample complexity. It involves training on a small batch from experiences interacting with the environment and updating the policy while ensuring the updates don't deviate much from previous policy. A new batch of experiences is used for every update. In our framework, we use PPO for policy optimization in conjunction with actor-critic methods. The actor is trained to study environment state inputs characterized by
effort required for a task and available time units with a worker. Critic estimates the value function based on costs measured by the cumulative cost associated with task-worker combination. The reinforcement learning agent learns this policy to produce solutions with minimal workers, thereby reducing costs. With every action taken, the policy compares it with another action to compute advantage of one action over another for the given environment state.
\newline
\newline
We propose a framework to solve the Assignment Problem with fixed time constraints using reinforcement learning to plan most cost-effective task assignments to worker groups. We also experiment with bin-packing to maximize available container utilization increasing associated value, and capacitated vehicle routing problem to plan multi-stop routes with least number of vehicles and shortest path, to eventually reduce transportation costs from geographically distributed customer locations. This framework has the potential to be applied more generally to combinatorial optimization problems. We formulate the problem as Markov Decision Process (MDP) for modeling a series of actions for decision making given the state of the environment. The environment state is characterized by the static and dynamic elements, and time constraints within which the nodes (workers/containers/customers) need to be serviced. The environment is continuously evolving until a termination condition is met. Selecting what node to service next is the action to be taken by the agent given current state of the environment. With every action taken, the agent accumulates a reward, with the goal of finding the most cost-effective value-driven solution.
\newline
\newline
With traditional heuristic approaches or when modeling on static instance-specific environments, a policy needs to be trained for every instance separately. Changes to the state would require to build solutions from scratch. For the assignment problem, we model on a dynamic environment where the task efforts and available worker time units change over time. Every task has a worker eligibility based on what type of worker can service the task. The trained policy can thus perform well on instances sampled from the same distribution. It can accommodate changes to the dynamic elements and can automatically adapt to the solution. The policy suggests best possible worker-task combinations by finding a solution with minimal cost and least number of workers. A worker can accept tasks until it runs out of available time units and other constraints. The process continues until there are no more tasks to be performed.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\vskip 0.2in
\centering
\fbox{ \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{network.png} \rule[-.5cm]{0cm}{0cm} \rule[-.5cm]{0cm}{0cm}}
\caption{A schematic representation of our proposed network architecture. We extract features from the dynamic elements of environment state, concatenate it with current time (${t}$) and last completed task node (${x^i_{t-1}}$), and finally mask (${m_t}$) the non-serviceable customer nodes. \newline}
\label{network}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\section{Problem Formulation}
We focus on the Assignment Problem as our main design and use bin packing and capacitated vehicle routing as an extension to our experiments. The objective is to maximize rewards and using minimum workers / bins / vehicles. In the real world setting, it is more important to reduce total number of worker / bins / vehicles used, as these come with fixed capacities at fixed costs.
\subsection{Assignment Problem}
We define an environment state-action pair for the assignment problem with time constraints. The environment state is dynamically evolving with every action taken. In our problem setting, we define our environment state by a set of input features for every task ${X = \{x^i, i = 1, 2, .., n\}}$, and for every worker ${Z = \{z^j, j = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. These features are characterized by dynamic elements of the inputs over time, which is the effort (time units) for selected task and available time units with a worker. Every time a task ${x^i}$ is completed by worker ${z^j}$, ${x^i}$ effort is set to ${0}$, and ${z^j}$ available time units are updated. The environment state keeps evolving until the termination condition is met (all tasks are completed). For a given task, the agent selects a worker node eligible to service from a pool of different workers available.
\newline
\newline
We allow a worker to perform multiple tasks. Once a worker runs out of available time units or cannot service additional tasks due to other constraints, it is skipped for further tasks. The available set of actions at ${t=0}$ with ${m}$ worker nodes are ${Y = \{y^k, k = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. Not every worker is assigned a task if a subset of workers can finish off all tasks. The agent keeps producing a sequence of actions for evolving states until the termination condition is satisfied. We define the termination condition as, when all tasks have been completed. ${cost_t}$ is the sum of cost over time.
\newline
\newline
Once a worker ${z^j}$ finishes task ${x^i}$,
\[ cost_t = calculate\_cost(x^i_t, z^j_t) \]
\[ z^j_{t+1} = z^j_t - x^i_t \]
\[ x^i_{t+1} = 0 \]
We use a masking scheme that masks all worker nodes not eligible to service current set of tasks. These masked nodes include $(i)$ worker nodes with zero available time units $(z^j_t = 0)$ and $(ii)$ worker nodes with available time units less than minimum value of current task efforts $(X)$. The $calculate\_cost(task, worker)$ gives cost associated with the worker $z^j$ performing task $x^i$. We do not explicitly provide cost values to the model as input. Cost values are provided in reward formulation for the model to learn from. For the reward setting, we use negative of cost value and number of workers as the total reward. This eliminates the need to explicitly provide a cost matrix as input to the model. This reward works as feedback to the agent. The agent finds an optimal policy by maximizing rewards while satisfying problem constraints. The optimal policy $\pi^*$ will generate the optimal solution with probability 1. Our goal is to make $\pi$ as close to $\pi^*$ as possible.
\subsection{Bin Packing}
The bin packing environment state is defined by a collection of $n$ items of varying weights $X = {\{x^i, i = 1, 2, .., n\}}$, and bins with capacities $Z = {\{z^j, j = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. The problem is to fit maximum items into minimum bins while maximizing total value, with $m$ total available bins. Value is computed in the reward formulation. Bins that run out of capacity are masked. The available set of actions at ${t=0}$ with ${m}$ bins are ${Y = \{y^k, i = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. The environment is evolving with the sequence of actions taken by the agent until the termination condition is met.
\subsection{Capacitated Vehicle Routing}
In the capacitated vehicle routing problem setting, our input features are characterized by customer demands $X = {\{x^i, i = 1, 2, .., n\}}$, and vehicles with capacities $Z = {\{z^j, i = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. The problem setting is similar to assignment problem and bin packing, to service maximum demands using minimum vehicles. Objective is to maximize reward which is the negative of distance between geographically distributed customer nodes. Vehicles that run out of capacity are masked. The available set of actions at ${t=0}$ with ${m}$ vehicles are ${Y = \{y^k, k = 1, 2, .., m\}}$. The environment is evolving with the sequence of actions taken by the agent until the termination condition is met.
\section{Network architecture}
In our framework, we use proximal policy optimization (PPO) for policy optimization in conjunction with actor-critic methods. Both actor and critic are parameterized by neural networks. The advantage function basically decides how much better off it is to take a specific action. In our assignment problem, it decides among a choice of available worker nodes. We transform current reward with the future reward along with a discount factor $\gamma$ = 0.99 and maintain an experience buffer of length 1000. We set the learning rate to 1e-4 with a decay of 0.001. We lower the learning rate as the problem size grows. Lower learning rate greatly stabilizes training. Loss clipping ($\epsilon$) is set to 0.2 as the tolerance for policy updates for how much we are willing to deviate from the previous policy. Using this we ensure the policy lies within the trust region, where the local approximations of the policy are accurate. With reward from current state as ${r_t}$, value function from current state as ${V(X_t)}$, and value function from future state as ${V(X_{t+1})}$, the Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) for our advantage function is,
\[ GAE = r_t + \gamma \cdot V(X_{t+1}) - V({X_t}) \]
Let ${\pi_{new}}$ be the new policy, ${\pi_{old}}$ the old policy. Loss for the actor network is computed as follows:
\[ratio = [\log{\pi_{new}} - \log{\pi_{old}}]\cdot \exp() \]
\[ r\_gae = (ratio \cdot GAE) \]
\[ l\_gae = loss\_clipping(ratio, 1-\epsilon, 1+\epsilon) \cdot GAE) \]
\[actor\_loss = min(r\_gae, l\_gae) \]
\begin{table*} [t]
\caption{A comparison of costs, and solution times using Google OR-Tools and our framework for AP10, AP20, AP30, AP40, and AP50 instances. Solution time is in minutes. Solution time for our framework is recorded after training the model. \newline}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Google OR-Tools} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Our Framework} \\
\cmidrule(r){3-4}
\cmidrule(lr){5-6}
AP Instance & Workers assigned & Solution time & Cost & Solution time & Cost \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{AP 10} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.000169} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1240} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.000264} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1240} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{AP 20} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.400000} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1582} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.000522} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{1582} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{AP 30} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{11} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{11.250000} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2264} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.001090} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2142} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{AP 40} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{14} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{67.230000} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3528} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.001110} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{3528} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{AP 50} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{17} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{103.000000} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{9850} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.001580} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{8800} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{or-comparison}
\vskip 0.2in
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!htb]
\caption{A comparison of assignment costs, and solution times using Google OR-Tools and our framework after updating time efforts of 5 tasks in AP30 instance. Solution time is in minutes. Updated task efforts doesn't require retraining our RL framework. \newline}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Google OR-Tools} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Our Framework} \\
\cmidrule(r){3-4}
\cmidrule(lr){5-6}
AP Instance & Workers assigned & Solution time & Cost & Solution time & Cost \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{updated AP 30} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{12.327} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2752} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{0.001090} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{2592} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{updated30}
\end{table*}
Figure \ref{network} illustrates our proposed model. We use a simple neural network architecture for the actor and critic. The actor and critic architectures are identical, input to which is the environment state defined by task efforts and worker's available time units (capacity), current time and last task completed. The state input is then fed to a one dimensional convolution with 128 filters followed by a dense layer with 128 units. Current time and last performed task inputs are followed by two dense layers with 128 units. Final layer to the actor network is a dense layer with total\_workers units and softmax activation. The final layer to actor network further goes through a masking layer which masks $(i)$ worker nodes with zero available time units (capacity) and, $(ii)$ worker nodes with available time units (capacity) less than minimum value of current task efforts. We tried setting penalties for when the model makes a wrong decision and selects an invalid node, but masking facilitated faster training and convergence as the model has less options to learn from. When training, the actor has two additional inputs, another action and advantage to compare with the current prediction. Final layer to critic network is a 1 unit dense layer for the value function. The actor network uses proximal policy optimization loss function and critic uses mean squared error. We train the actor-critic networks for 20 epochs on every episode with a batch size of 256. By adding current time and last task completed as one of the inputs to actor and critic networks, we eliminate the need for an RNN LSTM decoder to encode sequence information.
\section{Experiments}
A typical assignment problem is to find an optimal assignment of tasks to a group of workers that minimizes the cost of these assignments. Several variants of the problem with additional constraints have been studied which include assignments across different teams of workers with a limit on number of tasks a team can complete, or a certain group of workers is eligible to undertake a task. Another form is when tasks have associated time constraints. We experiment with worker eligibilities across tasks with time constraints. We allow workers to undertake multiple tasks until it runs out of available time units (capacity). We make an initial split of worker nodes according to eligibility across tasks. All workers that are eligible to undertake a task are clustered together and the framework finds optimal assignments for that cluster. This now repeats fresh for the next cluster which has a different vehicle eligibility. We compare our results against Google OR-Tools. \cite{ortools} uses MIP and CP-SAT solver variants to solve the problem and we compare results against the best versions.
\newline
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Assignment costs on AP10 instance by increasing time efforts of every task by 5 units using Google OR-Tools and our pretrained policy on AP10 instance. \newline}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Assignment Cost} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3}
Tasks updated & Google OR-Tools & Our Framework \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1288} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1288}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{2} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1316} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1338} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1350} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1344}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1350} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1350}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1372} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1332}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1400} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1392}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1400} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1400}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1420} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1437} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1461} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{1457}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1494} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1520} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{updated10}
\end{table}
We use randomly generated tasks with time efforts and workers with capacities. We generate samples with 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 tasks, where the available worker nodes equal number of tasks with additional 2 worker nodes. The worker capacities are set to 15, and task time efforts are randomly generated with a cap at 15. We remove a worker node when it runs out of capacity or can no longer service additional tasks due to other constraints. We do not explicitly provide cost matrix to our framework, this is part of the reward formulation for the model to learn. Before starting with a solution, we give priority to tasks with time efforts equal to worker capacity, leaving less combinations for the model to try. So now the model has to find assignments only for the remaining workers and tasks. Table \ref{or-comparison} illustrates the solution times and resulting assignment costs for our experiments
\newline
\newline
Next, we modify task efforts of randomly selected 5 tasks in our AP30 instance and make predictions using Google OR-Tools and our reinforcement leaning framework. With Google's OR Tools and other traditional heuristic approaches, even modifying demand of a single customer node requires to build solutions from scratch. As shown in Table \ref{updated30}, OR Tools require another 12 minutes to build a solution for the same task nodes. Task time effort being the dynamic element in our framework's environment state, the previously trained policy can perform well on instances sampled from the same distribution. It accommodates these updates to task efforts and automatically adapts to a solution without the need to retrain the policy. Similarly, new tasks can replace already serviced tasks in our environment state and the previously trained policy can still make optimal predictions.
\newline
\newline
We increase time efforts of task nodes by 5 units on AP10 instance from Table \ref{updated30} and record total cost using Google OR-Tools. We then use our pretrained policy and make predictions on these updated task efforts. As shown in Table 3, we increase time effort of one task node by 5 units per iteration. OR-Tools converges to an optimal solution and we use it as a baseline to monitor if our pretrained policy makes optimal predictions with updates to the dynamic elements. There is no definite pattern as to how often a pretrained policy would make optimal predictions, but it does most of the times. Also, for larger AP instances where OR-tools fail to achieve near-optimal solutions, our framework with a pretrained policy achieves better solutions as experimented with AP 30 instance in Table \ref{updated30}.
\newline
\newline
Similar experiments from Table \ref{updated30} follow for bin packing problem and vehicle routing problem as illustrated in Table \ref{bin_updated10} and Table \ref{vrp_updated10} respectively. The results show our framework can be generalized across different environment types of combinatorial optimization. The trained policy can thus perform well on instances sampled from the same distribution. It can accommodate changes to the dynamic elements and can automatically adapt to the solution.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Total value on BIN10 instance by increasing weights of every item by 5 units using Google's OR-Tools and our pretrained policy on BIN10 instance. \newline}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total Value} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3}
Demands updated & OR-Tools & Our Framework \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{395} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{395}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{2} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{409} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{421} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{451} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{444}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{532} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{516}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{612} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{620} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{649} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{663} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{815} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{809}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{820} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{814} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{834} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{828}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{850} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{845}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{bin_updated10}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Distance traveled on VRP10 instance by increasing demands of every customer by 5 units using Google's OR-Tools and our pretrained policy on VRP10 instance. \newline}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total Distance} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3}
Demands updated & OR-Tools & Our Framework \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4496} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4816} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{2} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5112} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{5112}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5240} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{5240}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5240} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5315} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5432} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{5432}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5432} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{5432}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5432} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5560} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5592} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5820} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6344} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{6344}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6800} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{6800}} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{vrp_updated10}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
Our proposed architecture can be extended to reuse of workers / bins / vehicles, and to work with more complex environments with several soft constraints like break intervals, driver shifts, and other variable costs such as fuel, in VRP. In our network design, using time as one of the inputs eliminates the need of adding sequential information to the model, thereby making the architecture much simpler. Also, it does not require an external cost/value matrix as this information is embedded in the reward function. Our proposed architecture can potentially be applied to various other combinatorial optimization problems. A real world and practical application would be managing ad-spaces to fill minimum slots and based on priority. Another application is to contract vehicles with third party providers. The model learns to adjust according to dynamic elements of the environment which eliminates need to retrain, if samples are generated from the same distribution. Masking helps with faster convergence and with larger problem sizes, our architecture provides competitive solution times.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:introduction}
Attentional mechanisms are a central component in many deep architectures~\citep{bahdanau2014neural, luong-etal-2015-effective}, which allow a model to selectively focus on specific information in the context. Transformer \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} and its many variants, such as~\citep{pmlr-v80-parmar18a, DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17,kitaev2020reformer,carion2020endtoend}, which are solely based on attentional mechanisms, have advanced the state of the art on many tasks that involve data with inherent temporal and spatial orders, e.g., machine translation \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}, image generation \citep{kitaev2020reformer}, and object detection~\citep{carion2020endtoend}.
In contrast to recurrent~\citep{lstm, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1808-03314,NEURIPS2019_383beaea} or convolutional architectures~\citep{cnn}, which automatically capture the ordinal information as computation progresses based on sequential or spatial dependencies, attentional mechanisms are order invariant. It allows a model to directly access information at an arbitrary position in a sequence or space. The lack of ordinal information in the model is not an issue when attentional mechanisms are combined with a recurrent or convolutional architecture~\citep{bahdanau2014neural, luong-etal-2015-effective}. However, it is crucial for Transformer-alike models where the entire model is built based on attentional mechanisms.
To capture positional information in the data, e.g., the token position in a sentence or the pixel coordinates in an image, \textit{positional encoding} has been introduced~\citep{pmlr-v70-gehring17a,DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}, where a position in a one or two-dimensional space is mapped to a vector space by either learning or heuristics-based approaches. The representation of an input, by combining both its positional encoding and content representation, e.g., word embeddings, then participates in downstream computation for attentional mechanisms.
The original Transformer model uses a fixed sinusoidal encoding with predefined wavelengths~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}. However, the predefined features lack flexibility and may not capture important position information in a task-dependent manner. To encode positions in a more flexible and data-driven way, position embedding approaches (e.g., one used in BERT~\cite{devlin-etal-2019-bert}) introduce trainable embedding vectors for each (absolute or relative) position. Unfortunately,
this data-driven approach comes at the cost of introducing a large amount of extra learnable parameters proportional to sequence lengths times the hidden dimension size. Moreover, it is non-trivial to apply position embedding to problems with variable sequence lengths.
In this paper, we consider the problem of designing a position encoding for multi-dimensional spatial positions, such as pixel positions in an image or object bounding boxes in a spatial structure such as UIs. Existing methods typically use sinusoidal position encoding with hand-crafted frequencies or learned embedding to encode each dimension independently and then combine the resulting vector representations via concatenation, e.g., ~\citep{pmlr-v80-parmar18a,carion2020endtoend,visiontransformer}. Unfortunately, these approaches, by concatenating the representation of each dimension, are not effective to capture desired positional similarity on an image, such as $L_2$ distance or more complex positional relationships. While embedding-based approaches have the potential to learn complex positional relationships, since the number of unique positions grows exponentially to the input dimension, the approach incurs large overhead in 2D and could be infeasible scaling to a higher dimensional space. In addition, special treatments are needed to adjust the learned position embedding when the test image sizes differ from training, such as bicubic interpolation used in DeiT~\cite{touvron2020training} or Vision Transformer~\cite{visiontransformer}. To avoid these special adjustments, it is an important for positional encoding to handle unseen positions.
The main contributions of our work are as follows. We design a novel positional encoding method that learns a function to map multi-dimensional positions into a vector space. The function extracts position information based on a set of Fourier features and passing them to an MLP.
The encoding function is \textit{learnable}
and is initialized in such a way that the inner products of our positional encodings approximate Euclidean distances.
The inductive bias can be desirable in a 2D or higher-dimensional space and by learning from the data, the representation can be adapted to a specific problem. Since our method learns an encoding function instead of embedding vectors for each position, it is naturally \textit{inductive} and can handle test samples with arbitrary length.
Our method is \textit{parameter-efficient}, in the sense that the number of parameters do not grow with sequence length.
To allow complex positional relationships, our representation is also \textit{composable} by encoding each subset of dimensions, in a multi-dimensional space, using a shared learnable Fourier features.
We evaluate our method on a number of tasks where Transformer-based models have been used for problems with multi-dimensional positions, including image generation~\citep{kitaev2020reformer}, object detection~\citep{carion2020endtoend} and image classification~\citep{visiontransformer}, which all involve 2D positions (vertical and horizontal) in images. We also evaluate our method on natural language generation in graphical user interfaces, which involve modeling a sparse spatial structure of UI objects on the screen, where each object is characterized by 4-coordinate values (top, left, bottom, and right)~\citep{li-etal-2020-widget}. These experiments show that our positional encoding method consistently outperforms existing methods by both improving accuracy and accelerating learning.
\section{Background}
\label{section:background}
\subsection{Positional Encoding}
\label{section:positional}
In Transformer models, the self-attentional mechanism determines the strength between each pair of items based on the dot product similarity of their vector representations, which are derived from an item's content embedding and positional encoding~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} (Appendix~\ref{section:attention-models}). Although positional encoding (PE) does not function alone in determining the attention strength, the benefit of having the inductive bias of positional relevance in the PE is evidenced by the success of the sinusoidal positional encoding originally proposed in Transformer~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17} (Equation~\ref{eq:sin-cos}).
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sin-cos}
PE(p,2d) = \sin{\frac{p}{10000^{2d/D}}};
PE(p,2d+1) = \cos{\frac{p}{10000^{2d/D}}}
\end{equation}
which encodes a scalar position, $p$, using sinusoidal functions with different constant frequencies for each dimension, $d$, of a $D$-dimensional encoding vector. The dot product of this encoding representation naturally captures positional similarity in a 1D sequence in a parameter-free fashion.
The other category of approaches for PE is to treat each position as a discrete token that can then be uniquely represented as a learnable embedding vector~\cite{visiontransformer,pmlr-v70-gehring17a,kitaev2020reformer,devlin-etal-2019-bert}. The approach can capture arbitrarily complex relationships between positions by learning from data, but it can be difficult to generalize for positions that are rarely encountered during training. For example, the heatmap map in Figure~\ref{fig:emb} shows the positional similarity learned by a Transformer model for a machine translation task on En-De WMT32k~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/VaswaniSPUJGKP17}. Towards the diagonal, i.e., positions that are closer, there tends to be higher similarity because each token attends to itself the most. However, the trend is diffused for large positions, i.e., when a sequence is long, because fewer training examples have long sequences. For what is followed, a model will not be able to correctly represent large positions in a long sequence at training and test time.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{figures/wmt_emb.png}}
\caption{The heatmap shows the dot product similarity of positional embeddings learned by a Transformer model for the En-De WMT32k machine translation task.}
\label{fig:emb}
\end{wrapfigure}
There has been extensive work in extending positional encoding for different modeling tasks, e.g., handling long-range sequences~\cite{dai-etal-2019-transformer,NEURIPS2019_dc6a7e65} or tree structures~\cite{shiv2019novel,wang-etal-2019-self}, or enhancing vision tasks using input-dependent positional encoding~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2102-10882}. Our work is related to the effort of using a continuous function instead of embedding retrieval for modeling positions. Previous work~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1912-12333} uses complex embedding functions to model 1D positions. It has been shown that position encoding in a 1D space can be learned as a Neural ODE system~\cite{Liu2020LearningTE}. However, their approach cannot be extended to 2D or higher-dimensional problems. More recently, previous work has proposed learnable sinusoidal representations for 1D positions~\cite{wang2021on} in language tasks. In contrast, we focus on representing 2D or even higher dimensional positions in spatial tasks.
Our work is different from the body of work on relative positional encoding, which directly represents pairwise positional relation between query and key~\cite{shaw-etal-2018-self,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1809-04281,Bello_2019_ICCV,NEURIPS2019_3416a75f,DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2104-01136}. Because
there are $O(N^2)$ of pairwise relations for $N$ positions, relative positional attention is only feasible for a small range, e.g., within a clip distance or local range, although recent work~\cite{pmlr-v139-liutkus21a} has achieved linear complexity by approximating relative positional encoding. Because relative positional encoding directly participates in the computation of the attention matrix, instead of addressing the representation of individual input items, it cannot be easily plugged into many existing Transformer architectures. In contrast, our method is fully compatible with many Transformer benchmarks models.
In our work, we focus on representing individual multi-dimensional spatial positions such that these representations achieve desirable pairwise relation later during attention computation.
\subsection{Encoding Multi-Dimensional Spatial Positions}
\label{section:multidim}
A common approach for positional encoding for a 2D problem is to encode each positional dimension (vertical and horizontal) independently using either sinusoidal (Equation~\ref{eq:sin-cos}) or direct embedding-based methods, and then concatenate these representations to form the final positional encoding~\citep{pmlr-v80-parmar18a,carion2020endtoend,kitaev2020reformer,visiontransformer}. Although the approach of sinusoidal concatenation allows the model to capture the positional (spatial) relationships orthogonally along each axis, the similarity decays much faster along other directions, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:heatmap_concat}, which ideally should decay at the same rate along all the directions for modeling $L_2$ distances as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:heatmap_fourier}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[Sinusoidal-concatenation encoding.]{%
\includegraphics[height=1.5in]{figures/sinusoidal.png}
\label{fig:heatmap_concat}}%
\qquad
\subfigure[2D Fourier feature PE.]{%
\includegraphics[height=1.5in]{figures/random.png}\label{fig:heatmap_fourier}}%
\caption{The similarities of the center position to the rest positions on the 2D space, based on the dot product between their positional encoding of each approach.}
\label{fig:sinusoidal}
\end{figure}
While concatenating learned embedding has the capacity to model complex spatial relations between positions, they can be difficult to generalize. It is even brittle for addressing problems involving higher-dimensional positions. For example, for modeling spatial structures in UIs~\citep{li-etal-2020-mapping,li-etal-2020-widget}, recent work takes a collection of UI objects as input and the positional attribute of each object is its spatial configuration on the screen, which involves 4 coordinate values: \texttt{[top, left, bottom, right]}.
The occurrence of unique object positions can be sparse, which makes it difficult for a model to generalize. There are positions that are rarely seen during training might occur at test time. Motivated by these analyses, we intend to develop a positional encoding method for representing a multi-dimensional position by taking into account all the dimensions holistically, and meanwhile enabling effective inductive bias and learnability in the representation.
\subsection{Fourier Features}
\label{section:fourier}
The task of mapping data points to a vector space such as their dot product achieves certain distance metric has been extensively investigated in the literature of kernel functions~\cite{RFF07,RahimiR08,Quoc14,Yang14,Hamid14,Tewari18}.
\begin{equation*}
k(x,y) \approx z(x)'z(y)
\end{equation*}
where $x,y \in \mathcal{R}^d$ and $k(x,y)$ is a shift-invariant kernel function; and $z(x)$ and $z(y)$ are feature mapping respectively.
Fourier features~\cite{RFF07,RahimiR08} are a common technique to approximate a Gaussian kernel, a shift-invariant kernel, with $k(x,y) = \exp(-\frac{\|x-y\|^2}{\gamma^2})$ where $\|x-y\|^2$ is the Euclidean distance between two points, $x$ and $y$, which each point is a multi-dimensional position in our context. This unique attribute inspired us to represent a multi-dimensional position via Fourier features, which is a basis for our approach for positional encoding.
Random Fourier features have also been applied in deep learning models, e.g., approximating the attention matrix in Transformer \cite{Performer}. Recently, adaptive random Fourier features~\cite{Li_Zhang_Wang_Kumar_2019} have been proposed for better kernel approximation that show improvement on classification tasks. In contrast, we propose learnable Fourier features for spatial positional encoding and integrate the method in various Transformer-based deep architectures that show improvements on multi-dimensional spatial tasks.
\section{Learnable Fourier Features Positional Encoding}
\label{section:model}
We propose to learn a position encoding function that maps an $M$-dimensional position $x\in \mathcal{R}^M$ into a $K$-dimensional feature vector. This $K$-dimensional vector will then be used in downstream computation for attention mechanisms. The proposed encoding function is composed with the following two components:
\paragraph{Learnable Fourier Features}
To extract useful features from the input position $x$,
we consider the following feature extraction layer motivated by the idea of Fourier features~\cite{RFF07,RahimiR08}.
Given an $M$-dimensional position, $x\in \mathcal{R}^{M}$, we acquire a $D$-dimensional Fourier feature vector representation for the position, $r_{x}\in \mathcal{R}^{D}$, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:random_kernel}
r_{x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{D}}[\cos{xW_{r}^{T}}\mathbin\Vert \sin{xW_{r}^{T}}]
\end{equation}
where $\mathbin\Vert$ is the concatenation of two vectors. This can also be viewed as the generalization of sinusoidal position encoding to the multi-dimensional case, while we set $W_r\in \mathcal{R}^{\frac{D}{2}\times M}$, which defines both the orientation and wavelength of Fourier features, as trainable parameters. Since $\cos(a-b)=\cos a \cos b + \sin a \sin b$, we have the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:relative}
r_x \cdot r_y = \frac{1}{D} \text{sum} \big( {\cos((x-y)W_r^T)}\big) := h_{W_r}(x-y)
\end{equation}
where $\cdot$ is the dot product. Therefore,
vectors in the form of \eqref{eq:random_kernel} enjoys the shift-invariance property---the dot product of $r_x$ and $r_y$ is a function of $x-y$ and the function is parameterized by $W_r$. Learning $W_r$ is equivalent to obtaining the most informative function on $x-y$ that can be useful for the downstream task.
In our algorithm, the linear projection $W_r$ is initialized by drawing from a normal distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:guassian}
W_{r} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\,\gamma^{-2}).
\end{equation}
When the linear projection weights are drawn in such a way, according to random Fourier features~\citep{RFF07,RahimiR08}, the dot product between two feature vectors, $r_{x}$ and $r_{y}$, approximates the Gaussian kernel over the original positions.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:approximate}
r_{x} \cdot r_{y}\approx\exp(-\frac{\|x-y\|^2}{\gamma^2}).
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{fig:heatmap_fourier} visualizes this representation, which introduces a useful inductive bias of $L_2$ distances into the model.
\paragraph{MLP layer}
To feed the representation to the downstream computation, we give the representation additional capacity by modulating the features with a multi-layer perceptron:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mlp}
PE_{x}=\phi(r_{x},\theta)W_{p},
\end{equation}
where $\phi(\cdot)$ is the perceptron parameterized by $\theta$. $W_{p}$ are trainable parameters for projecting the representation onto a target dimension of positional encoding for combining with content embedding. Our purpose with MLP here is very different from previous work that uses non-linear transformation such as an RNN to capture positional dynamics~\cite{neishi-yoshinaga-2019-relation,Liu2020LearningTE}. These previous works do not handle non-sequential multi-dimensional positions.
The learnable parameters in our position encoding function are $W_r$ for Fourier features and $\theta, W_p$ for the MLP layer. The size of these matrices are independent of the sequence length. Furthermore, the position encoding function can be applied to any input position $x$, so our method can be easily applied when training and testing involve different positions, e.g., images with different resolutions. Compared to the previous sinusoidal representation (Equation~\ref{eq:sin-cos}), our representation is learnable and multi-dimensional. Compared to the discrete embedding-based approach, our representation treats each dimension of a position as a continuous-valued vector, which alleviates the sparsity issue with discrete positions. Previous work has revealed that using sinusoidal activation functions might suffer optimization problems due to vanishing gradients in extreme cases~\cite{Parascandolo2017TamingTW}, although we do not observe much difficulty in training our positional encodings.
Our representation is applicable for many 2D spatial tasks, e.g., image-related tasks.
For tasks involving higher-dimensional positions, the positional similarity between positions might be more complicated than $L_2$ distances. For example, to model the spatial structure of a natural scene or a graphical user interface, given two objects in the structure, $x$ and $y$, coordinate values, $[x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}]$ and $[y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}, y_{4}]$, represent the object's top, left, bottom, and right position. The $L_2$ distance between the two positions $\sum_{i=1}^{4}(x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}$ will capture neither the minimum nor the maximum distance between the two objects, or any vertical or horizontal alignments of them. To address this issue, we hypothesize that complex spatial relationships can be built on top of shift-invariant relations enabled by our positional encoding. Specifically, we can partition a multi-dimensional position into groups, and apply the same encoding pipeline to each group of coordinate values. The process is similar to applying convolution over partitions with the kernel and stride sizes to be the group size. We can then concatenate the output of all the groups to form the final positional encoding. We will elaborate on this use case in the UI modeling experiment (Section~\ref{sec:widget_captioning}).
An implementation of our positional encoder based on tensor operation is detailed in Algorithm~\ref{alg:psedo1} in which Equation~\ref{eq:random_kernel} and~\ref{eq:mlp} are realized in Line 1 and 2.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Compute the Fourier feature positional encoding of a multi-dimensional position.}
\label{alg:psedo1}
\KwIn{A tensor $X$ in the shape of $[N, G, M]$ that represents $N$ positions where each position is in the shape of $[G, M]$ that represents $G$ positional groups and each group has $M$-dimensional positional values.}
\KwOut{$PE_{X}$ in the shape of $[N, D]$ where $D$ is the depth of the positional encoding.}
{\nonl{\bf{Hyperparameter}}: The depth of the Fourier feature dimension $|F|$, the hidden layer dimension $|H|$, and the positional encoding dimension $D$, and $\gamma$.}
{\nonl {\bf{Initialization}}: Initialize learnable weights $W_{r}\in \mathcal{R}^{\frac{|F|}{2}\times M}$ by sampling from $\mathcal{N}(0,\ \gamma^{-2})$; Initialize learnable weights $W_{1}\in \mathcal{R}^{|F|\times |H|}$, $B_{1}\in \mathcal{R}^{|H|}$, $W_{2}\in \mathcal{R}^{|H|\times \frac{D}{G}}$ and $B_{2}\in \mathcal{R}^{\frac{D}{G}}$.}
{\nonl \ }
$F\leftarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{|F|}}[\cos{XW_{r}^{T}}; \sin{XW_{r}^{T}}]$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:random_kernel})\;
$Y\leftarrow\mbox{GeLU}(FW_{1}+B_{1})W_{2} + B_{2}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:mlp}) \;
$PE_{X}\leftarrow$ Reshape $Y$ into the shape of $[N, D]$\;
\Return $PE_{X}$.
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate our approach on a range of benchmark tasks using Transformer-based models in comparison with several existing positional encoding methods.
\subsection{Image Generation}
We compare our method with existing positional encoding approaches based on Reformer~\citep{kitaev2020reformer} for the image generation task on the ImageNet 64x64 dataset~\citep{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1904-10509}. Reformer is a Transformer-based model that uses locality-sensitive hashing and reversible residual layers to efficiently handle long sequences.
Reformer flattens a 64x64 image into a sequence (Length=64x64x3=12,288) in a raster scan red-green-blue order. Reformer as an auto-regressive model predicts the pixel value at each position by attending to previous positions. We equip Reformer with different positional encoding methods.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Embed-2D}: Reformer's default positional encoding concatenates the embedding of each dimension from two embedding matrices: vertical $[64, 384]$ and horizontal $[64, 384]$.
\item \textit{Embed-1D}: The baseline method assigns a learnable embedding to each position in the flattened sequence, from an embedding matrix of $[64\times 64, 768]$, which ignores the 2D structure of an image and lets the model learn positional relations all by itself.
\item \textit{Sine-2D} and \textit{Sine-1D}: Similar to Embed-2D and Embed-1D, but they instead encode a position using Transformer's constant sinusoidal formulation (Equation~\ref{eq:sin-cos}).
\item \textit{Learnable-Fourier + MLP}: Our method that implements Algorithm~\ref{alg:psedo1} using the hyperparameter $|F|=384$, $|H|=32$, $D=768$. We picked these dimensions for our method to have roughly the same number of parameters as Embed-2D, the benchmark of Reformer.
\end{itemize}
We leave the RGB axis to use the direct embedding as the original Reformer: $[3, 256]$. The concatenation of the pixel position encoding and the RGB index embedding results in an representation that has the same depth ($1024$) as the one in the original paper, which allows the rest of the model intact.
We follow the experimental procedure as detailed in the Reformer paper. All our experiments used a 6-layer, 8-head-attention Reformer, with $d_{model} = 1024$, $d_{ff} = 4096$, and $n_{heads} = 8$. These models are implemented based on the Reformer codebase in Trax\footnote{\url{https://github.com/google/trax/tree/master/trax/models/reformer}}. The training for each Reformer model is parallelized across 32 TPU v2 cores, and each batch contains 8 sequences (images) on each core. We trained each model variant for 100k steps, which took about 24 hours to complete.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Comparison w/ baselines.]{%
\includegraphics[height=1.65in]{figures/fig3a.pdf}
\label{fig:reformer_baseline}}%
\qquad
\subfigure[Comparison w/ individual components.]{%
\includegraphics[height=1.65in]{figures/fig3b.pdf}\label{fig:reformer_transformer}}%
\qquad
\caption{Bits per dim (bpd) w.r.t. training steps on evaluating Reformer on the held-out data of the ImageNet 64x64 dataset for image generation, using different positional encoding methods. The plot shows the mean and 95\% confidence interval based on 3 repeats of experiments for each method.}
\label{fig:reformer_imagenet64}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reformer_imagenet64}a, our method, Learnable-Fourier + MLP, outperforms all the baselines in terms of convergence speed and achieves better accuracy, i.e., lower bits per dim at the end. The Reformer's original positional encoder, Embed-2D, is the second best. Sine-2D clearly outperforms Sine-1D, and Embed-1D achieves a similar performance as Sine-1D.
To understand how each component in our method contributes to the overall performance, we compare Learnable-Fourier+MLP with its components Learnable-Fourier and MLP alone. MLP takes a 2D position as input and outputs a 768-dimensional positional encoding. Our experiment shows that Learnable-Fourier or MLP alone does not perform as good as their combination, Learnable-Fourier+MLP (see Figure~\ref{fig:reformer_imagenet64}b). It is worth noting that Learnable-Fourier shows competitive performance for the first 30k steps, which indicates that it benefits from an effective bias for capturing meaningful positional relationships.
\subsection{Object Detection}
\label{section:detr}
We evaluate the proposed positional encoding in DETR~\citep{carion2020endtoend}, a recent model that uses a Transformer for end-to-end object detection. It uses a Transformer to take the output from a ResNet, i.e., a feature map with the spatial dimensions of $42\times42$. Similar to Reformer, positional encoding represents each position in the grid as part of the input to the Transformer encoder in DETR.
We experiment with the default 6-layer Encoder-Decoder setup in DETR, with the same set of hyperparameters, on the COCO 2017 object detection dataset~\cite{DBLP:conf/eccv/LinMBHPRDZ14} that has 118k images for training and 5k for validation.
We equip the DETR model with different positional encoding methods, including Sine-2D that is DETR's default method, Learnable-Fourier+MLP, Embed-2D and MLP. The model implementations are based on the DETR codebase\footnote{\url{https://github.com/facebookresearch/detr/blob/master/models}}, which are ported into JAX\footnote{\url{https://github.com/google/jax}}. The training for each DETR model is parallelized across 64 TPU v3 cores with a batch size of 64 images. We let each model train for 300 epochs to converge, which took about 3 days. We follow the experimental procedure of the DETR paper, and report accuracy on the validation set.
DETR uses image augmentation in both training and validation. Each image is randomly resized to several specific dimensions with the smaller side of the image at one of the following sizes: 480, 512, 544, 576, 608, 640, 672, 704, 736, 768, and 800. For positional encoding, all image positions are normalized to a range of $(0, 1)$. Normalization is valuable because of random resizing and cropping during image augmentation results in images with different sizes. Embed-2D treats each position as a discrete value, and all the methods except Embed-2D leverages position normalization. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:obj_normal}, Learnable-Fourier+MLP offers the best performance across all the metrics.
Sine-2D and MLP perform competitively while Embed-2D has the worst performance.
To investigate how each encoding generalizes to unseen image sizes, we modify the benchmark by reserving the three largest sizes: 736, 768, and 800 for validation only. We also disable position normalization. As a result, there are large positions that are never seen during training, which requires each method to generalize (or extrapolate) to these positions. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:obj_extra}, the benefit of Learnable-Fourier+MLP is more pronounced, and the performance gap between Embed-2D and the other methods is further increased.
\begin{table}
\caption{The impact of different positional encodings on DETR for object detection.}
\label{tab:obj_normal}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\toprule
Method & $AP$ & $AP_{50}$ & $AP_{75}$ & $AP_{small}$ & $AP_{medium}$ & $AP_{large}$\\
\midrule
Sine-2D & 40.1 & 60.4 & 42.6 & 18.5 & 43.6 & 58.8 \\
Embed-2D & 39.3 & 59.8 & 41.4 & 18.7 & 42.5 & 57.5 \\
MLP & 40.0 & 60.3 & 42.2 & 18.6 & 43.7 & 58.1 \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP & \bf 40.2 & \bf 60.7 & \bf 42.7 & \bf 18.8 & \bf 43.8 & \bf 59.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Performance of each method for object detection involving unseen image dimensions.}
\label{tab:obj_extra}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\toprule
Method & $AP$ & $AP_{50}$ & $AP_{75}$ & $AP_{small}$ & $AP_{medium}$ & $AP_{large}$\\
\midrule
Sine-2D & 38.9 & 59.6 & 40.9 & 17.5 & 42.5 & 57.5 \\
Embed-2D & 36.6 & 58.2 & 37.7 & 15.9 & 40.0 & 55.3 \\
MLP & 38.6 & 59.5 & 40.3 & 17.1 & 42.1 & 57.1 \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP & \bf 39.5 & \bf 60.0 & \bf 41.6 & \bf 18.9 & \bf 43.0 & \bf 58.0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Image Classification}
We evaluate the proposed positional encoding on image classification, another popular task on images, based on Vision Transformer (ViT)~\cite{visiontransformer}, a Transformer-only architecture that does not use CNN for image embedding. The default positional encoding in ViT is Embed-1D. In this experiment, we focus on the ViT-B/16 model that is a 12-layer Transformer encoder with Hidden\_size=768, MLP\_size=3072 and 12 attention heads.
The input to ViT-B/16 uses a $14\times 14$ image grid where each cell corresponds to a $16\times 16$ image patch. We train each model on the ImageNet dataset for 90 epochs, and report its accuracy on the ImageNet validation dataset. Learnable Fourier+MLP achieved better performance (Precision@1=74.5\%) on the validation dataset than Embed1D (Precision@1=73.6\%).
Dosovitskiy et.al. investigated several positional encoding methods in their work (see Table 8 in~\cite{visiontransformer}), including Embed-1D, Embed-2D and relative positional encoding. They pre-trained these models on the large JFT dataset (300 million examples) and then report their performance on ImageNet 5-shot linear tasks. They found the model suffers when no positional encoding is used but there are no significant impacts for using each of these positional encoding methods. We suspect that given such a large model (86M Params), it is not difficult for any of these positional encoding methods to learn the small number of unique positions ($14\times 14=196$) on the image. In their experiment, Embed-1D achieves 64.206\% accuracy, Embed-2D 64.001\% and Relative Positional Encoding 64.032\%. We experimented Learnable-Fourier+MLP in this experiment, which achieved 64.732\% accuracy.
\subsection{Widget Captioning}
\label{sec:widget_captioning}
So far, we have investigated tasks that handle 2D positions in an image. In this experiment, we investigate even higher-dimensional positions.
In a widget captioning task~\citep{li-etal-2020-widget}, the model is trained to generate natural language description of widgets in graphical user interfaces, e.g., buttons and icons. A significant part of the model is to encode a UI screen structure, which consists of a collection of 2D objects of different sizes, using a Transformer encoder. To represent the spatial configuration of each object, the original model assigns a learnable embedding vector to every discrete coordinate value of each dimension of the object bounding box, including the left, top, right, and bottom dimensions. The four embedding vectors then jointly represent a bounding box on the screen. We refer this baseline as \textit{Embed-4D}. Li et al. found that position encoding has a significant impact on the performance of widget captioning models (see Table 6 in Appendix F of the paper~\cite{li-etal-2020-widget}).
Because there is no obvious distance metrics between bounding boxes, we hypothesize that an appropriate metric can be learned on top of $L_2$ distances of specific dimensions. To do so,
We evaluate three different partitions of bounding box dimensions, and use our method to encode each group in parallel as detailed in Algorithm~\ref{alg:psedo1}: Learnable-Fouier+MLP-1/4 treats all the 4 coordinate dimensions \texttt{[(top, left, bottom, right)]} as one group, i.e., $G=1$; Learnable-Fourier+MLP-2/2 splits the 4 dimensions into 2 groups \texttt{[(top, left), (bottom, right)]}, i.e., $G=2$; and finally Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 encodes 4 groups of 1-dimensional value \texttt{[(top), (left), (bottom), (right)]}, i.e., $G=4$.
We also add the sinusoidal approach to the comparison, which represents each positional dimension separately and then uses their concatenation to as the positional encoding a bounding box (referred as \textit{Sine-4D}).
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{The performance of different positional encoding methods on the widget captioning test set. SOTA shows the results from the original paper, which is reproduced by Embed-4D in our experiment.}
\label{tab:caption_accuracy}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
{Method}
& {BLEU-1}
& {BLEU-2}
& {ROUGE}
& {CIDEr}
& {METOER}
& {SPICE} \\
\midrule
SOTA~\cite{li-etal-2020-widget} & 44.9 & 32.2 & 44.7 & 97.0 & 31.7 & 17.6 \\
Embed-4D & 45.2 & 31.9 & 45.0 & 97.0 & 31.7 & 17.3 \\
MLP & 34.0 & 23.5 & 33.7 & 70.3 & 23.7 & 10.2 \\
Sine-4D & 44.9 & 31.9 & 43.9 & 94.9 & 31.0 & 16.7 \\
Learnable-Fourier-2/2 & 44.9 & 31.6 & 44.3 & 95.3 & 31.6 & 17.7 \\
Fixed-Fourier+MLP-1/4 & 45.0 & 32.1 & 44.2 & 95.4 & 31.2 & 17.1 \\
Fixed-Fourier+MLP-2/2 & 46.1 & 32.5 & 45.8 & 100.2 & 32.5 & 18.4 \\
Fixed-Fourier+MLP-4/1 & 45.5 & 32.1 & 45.1 & 97.2 & 31.7 & 17.6 \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP-1/4 & 45.6 & 32.7 & 45.2 & 99.1 & 32.2 & 17.1 \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP-2/2 & 46.1 & 32.7 & 45.9 & 98.0 & \textbf{32.6} & \textbf{17.9} \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 & \textbf{46.8} & \textbf{33.4} & \textbf{46.1} & \textbf{100.7} & 32.4 & 17.8 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We use the same model architecture and hyperparameters of the strongest model, \textit{Pixel+Local+Context}, as the original paper \citep{li-etal-2020-widget}, and built our experiment based on the public codebase of widget captioning\footnote{\url{https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/widget_caption}}. Specifically, the screen encoder uses a 6-layer, 8-head Transformer with a hidden size of 128. We train all the models to 100k steps with Adam optimizer and a scheduled learning rate detailed the original paper.
All the models converged within 12 hours using 4 V100 GPU cores.
All the results are acquired by applying each trained model on the test dataset, based on the same set of captioning metrics.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:caption_accuracy}, our method outperforms the benchmark method Embed-4D (\#Params=5.11M) with a large margin even though our method uses fewer parameters (\#Params=5.07M), particularly on BLEU-1, BLEU-2, ROUGE and CIDEr, which clearly advanced the state of the art for this task. Interestingly, both Learnable-Fourier+MLP-2/2 and Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 outperform Learnable-Fourier+MLP-1/4, which indicate that more complex distances needed to be modeled in this task than $L_2$ distances. Compared to Embed-4D, T-tests (over 3 runs of each model) show the gain of Learnable-Fourier+MLP 4/1 is statistically significant ($p < 0.05$) on BLEU-1, ROUGE, CIDEr and METOER; Learnable-Fourier + MLP 2/2 achieves significance ($p < 0.05$) on BLEU-1, ROUGE and METOER. For the two champion conditions, i.e., Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 and 2/2, we found on most metrics there is no statistical significance between their performance ($p>0.05$). Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 outperforms 2/2 only on CIDEr with marginal statistical significance ($p=0.042$).
We also included a few ablation studies in this experiment. One variant is to fix Fourier features but still include MLP. In this group, i.e., Fixed-Fourier+MLP-*, Fixed-Fourier+MLP-2/2 clearly performs the best across all the metrics. Overall, it seems that Learnable-Fourier+MLP still has advantages over the fixed one on most cases. We then look at Learnable-Fourier but without using MLP. Learnable-Fourier-2/2 seems to perform worse than its counterpart in the other groups on every metric, which indicates that MLP is a crucial component for positional encoding in this task. Lastly, although using MLP alone as the encoding function seems competitive in the object detection task, it performs poorly in this experiment.
\section{Discussion}
One clear trend that emerges from our experiments is that positional encoding methods that treat an image as a flattened sequence (Embed-1D or Sine-1D) do not perform well, even though the model is given a great capacity to learn these positional relations. We also observe that taking a multi-dimensional position holistically often performs better than representing each dimension separately and then concatenating these representations.
We found it generally beneficial to use the multi-layer perceptron (Equation~\ref{eq:mlp}) to process the Fourier features for positional encoding before it is mixed with content embedding. We obtained mixed results for using MLP alone as the positional encoding function, which performs competitively on the object detection task but poorly on the UI modeling task that involves sparse spatial structures.
From these experiments, it seems not necessary to use a large random feature dimension to achieve good results.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The accuracy of each method on widgets with seen and unseen positions.}
\label{tab:oov_accuracy}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
{Method}
& {Seen CIDEr}
& {Unseen CIDEr} \\
\midrule
Embed-4D & \textbf{123.4} & 78.5 \\
Sine-4D & 121.3 & 76.4 \\
Learnable-Fourier+MLP-4/1 & \textbf{123.4} & \textbf{82.2} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/caption_pos.png}
\caption{Widget position distributions for each dimension in the training set. There are positions rarely occurred in the training set.}
\label{fig:widget-position}
\end{figure}
To understand how different positional encoding methods can generalize to unseen positions, we analyze test results for the widget captioning task. There are positional values rarely or never seen in the training set (Figure \ref{fig:widget-position}).
Specifically, 1867 widgets in the test set have seen positions and 2692 have unseen positions. Table \ref{tab:oov_accuracy} shows that our method generalizes to unseen positions significantly better than baselines.
There are a number of reasons for the proposed positional encoding to generalize for unseen positions. First, it treats positions as continuous-valued vectors. As a result, it does not suffer from the difficulty with embedding-based approaches where an embedding vector is assigned to a discrete position, which can be not trained or significantly under-trained when a position is unseen or rarely seen. Second, the Fourier features capture the relative positional relationships by maintaining the shift-invariant property during learning (Equation~\ref{eq:relative}), which applies to unseen positions as well.
One direction that deserves further investigation is how the interaction between positional encoding and content embedding should be taken into account for the design of a positional encoding function. Our work investigated positional encoding when it is combined with content embedding via addition for all the image tasks. It would be interesting to investigate how our positional encoding performs when it is concatenated with content embedding on these tasks.
Although Euclidean distances might be a desirable positional metric for images, tasks such as widget captioning involves sparse spatial structures, and the spatial relations between two rectangular objects on the screen can be more complicated. For example, similarity between two bounding boxes can be related to their vertical or horizontal alignment or overlaps (IoU), or other domain specific factors related to UI layouts. Our positional encoding method outperformed benchmark methods in this task, which showed that it is better equipped to capture these spatial relationships. Yet, it is worth investigating methods that can more directly capture these complex spatial relationships.
\section{Conclusion}
We present a novel approach for positional encoding based on learnable Fourier features.
We evaluate our approach on a range of multi-dimensional spatial tasks, including image generation, object detection, image classification, and sparse spatial structure modeling in user interfaces, which show that our positional encoding consistently outperforms the benchmark methods.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive feedback that have significantly improved the work.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction and statement of main results}
A {\em Kepler orbit} is a plane conic -- ellipse, parabola or hyperbola --
with a focus at the origin (in case of a hyperbola only the branch bending around the origin is taken).
Kepler orbits form a 3-parameter family of plane curves, traced by the motions of a point mass subject to Newton's inverse square law:
the radial attractive force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance to the origin.
We exclude `collision orbits' (lines through the origin).
See Figure \ref{fig:kepler_orbits}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\figsize{.9}{kepler_conics1}
\caption{Kepler orbit types (ellipse, parabola or hyperbola), shapes and sizes are given by their energy $E$ and angular momentum $M$. The major axis is $1/|E|$ and the {\em Latus rectum} (vertical dotted segment) is $2M^2$.
See Section \ref{sec:reminder}. }
\label{fig:kepler_orbits}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Orbital symmetries} These are local diffeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0,$ taking (unparametrized) Kepler orbits to Kepler orbits. At the outset, it is not clear that there are any such symmetries, local or global, other than the obvious ones -- dilations and rotations about the origin, or reflections about lines through the origin (a 2-dimensional group of symmetries).
Nevertheless, as we find out, there are many additional orbital symmetries, both for the full 3-parameter family of Kepler orbits, as well as for some natural 2-parameter subfamilies.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main1}The orbital symmetries of the Kepler problem form a 7-dimensional group of local diffeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ (aka a `pseudo-group'),
the maximum dimension possible for a 3-parameter family of plane curves, generated by the following infinitesimal symmetries (vector fields whose flows act by orbital symmetries):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vf}
r\partial_r,\
\partial_\theta,\
r\partial_x,\ r\partial_y, \ -x r\partial_r,\ -y r\partial_r,\
-r^2\partial_r
\end{equation}
\noindent (using both Cartesian and polar coordinates).
\end{theorem}
Note that the first two vector fields generate dilations and rotations, the `obvious' symmetries mentioned above. {\em How about the rest of the symmetries? Where do they come from?}
We emphasis that the 7 vector fields of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} do {\em not} generate a honest 7-dimensional Lie group action on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$. The first 4 vector fields do generate an action of the connected component of the group $\CO_{2,1}$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$, but the last three vector fields are in fact imcomplete (their integral curves ``run to infinity'' in finite time). As we explain later, to obtain a global group action, one needs to embedd the Kepler plane in a larger surface, a cone in $\R P^3$, to which the above 7 vector fields extend, generating an action of the 7-dimensional subgroup of $\mathrm{PGL}_4(\mathbb{R})$ preserving this cone.
Now quite generally, there is a standard method for finding infinitesimal symmetries
of $n$-parameter families of plane curves, going back to S. Lie in the 19th century, consisting of first writing down an $n$-th order scalar ODE whose graphs of solutions form the curves of the family. Then, one writes down a system of PDEs for the infinitesimal symmetries of this ODE, which with some luck and skill, one can solve explicitly. See Chapter 6 of P.\,Olver's book \cite{O}.
This is a straightforward albeit tedious procedure (best left nowadays to computers), producing the infinitesimal symmetries above, but the result remains mysterious.
Instead, our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} exploits the peculiar geometry of Kepler's problem, in particular, its {\em projective} geometry, borrowing from Lie's theory only the upper bound of 7 on the dimension of the symmetry group. This proof,
rather then the actual statement of Theorem \ref{thm:main1}, is the main thrust of this article. See subsection \ref{sec:sketch} below for a sketch of the proof.
\subsection{The space of Kepler orbits}\label{sec:orbitspace}
As is well known, every Kepler orbit is the orthogonal projection onto the $xy$ plane (the `Kepler plane') of a {\em conic section}, the intersection of the cone $\mathcal C:=\{x^2+y^2=z^2\}\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ with a plane $ax+by+cz=1,\ c\neq 0$. See Section \ref{sec:reminder} below for a proof (due to Lagrange \cite{L}) as well as a reminder of some other standard facts about the Kepler problem.
Let $\R^{2,1}$ be the 3-dimensional space with coordinates $(a,b,c)$ equipped with
Minkowski's quadratic form $\|(a,b,c)\|^2:=a^2+b^2-c^2$ (we use this notation even though the expression has negative values!). Note that the planes $ax+by+cz=1$ and $ax+by-cz=1$ (the reflection of the former about the $xy$ plane) generate the same Kepler orbit. Thus $\R^{2,1}_+=\{c>0\}\subset \R^{2,1}$ is identified with the space of Kepler orbits. Furthermore,
the cone $\|(a,b,c)\|^2=0$ parametrizes Kepler parabolas, its interior $\|(a,b,c)\|^2<0$ parametrizes Kepler ellipses and its exterior $\|(a,b,c)\|^2>0$ parametrizes Kepler hyperbolas. See Figure \ref{fig:conics}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{conics.pdf} \qquad
\caption{Kepler orbits are orthogonal projections of conic sections. (i) Ellipses. (ii) Hyperbolas. (iii) The space of Kepler orbits.}
\label{fig:conics}
\end{figure}
The orbital symmetries of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} clearly act on the space of Kepler orbits and thus on $\R^{2,1}_+$. Again, this is only a local action (a 7-dimensional Lie algebra of vector fields), but it extends to a global action on all of $\R^{2,1}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main2}The local group action of the orbital symmetries of the Kepler problem on $\R^{2,1}_+$ extends to $\R^{2,1}$, generating the identity component of the group $\mathrm{CO}_{2,1}\ltimes\R^{2,1}$ of Minkowski similarities (compositions of Minkowski rotations, dilations and translations). The infinitesimal generators of this action, corresponding to those of Equation \eqref{eq:vf},
are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dualvf}
-a \partial_a-b \partial_b-c \partial_c,\
-b \partial_a+a \partial_b,\
-a \partial_c-c \partial_a,\
-b \partial_c-c \partial_b,\
\partial_a,\ \partial_b\ ,\partial_c.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The first vector field generates dilations in $\R^{2,1}$, the next 3 generate Minkowski rotations
about the origin and the last 3 generate translations. It follows that orbital symmetries actually `mix' the orbit types (ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas).
The horizontal plane $\{c=0\}\subset\R^{2,1}$ corresponds to `ideal' Kepler orbits which are inevitably added upon completing the orbital symmetry action. For $(a,b,0)\neq (0,0,0)$ they are (affine) lines in $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$, obtained by projecting to the $xy$ plane sections of $\mathcal C$ by vertical affine 2-planes in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The point $(0,0,0)\in\R^{2,1}$ corresponds to the `line at infinity' in the Kepler plane.
\subsection{Sketch of proof of Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{thm:main2}}\label{sec:sketch}
With Figure \ref{fig:conics} in mind, consider the group $\CO_{2,1}\subset\mathrm{GL}_3(\mathbb{R})$, preserving the quadratic form $x^2+y^2-z^2$ up to scale. Its identity component acts on $\mathcal C_+:=\{x^2+y^2=z^2, z>0\}$, preserving its set of plane sections, thus projects to an action on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ by orbital symmetries. This accounts for the first 4 vector fields of Equation \eqref{eq:vf}.
Next, consider the 3-dimensional projective space $\R P^3$ with homogeneous coordinates $(X:Y:Z:W)$ and embed $\mathbb{R}^3\hookrightarrow\RP^3$ as the affine chart $W\neq 0$, $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x:y:z:1).$ The closure of $\mathcal C$ in $\RP^3$, $\overline{\cC}=\{(X:Y:Z:W)\, | \, X^2+Y^2=Z^2\}$, is obtained by adding to $\mathcal C$ the `circle at infinity' $S^1_\infty=\{X^2+Y^2=Z^2, W=0\}$. See Figure \ref{fig:cylinders}. Now consider the group $\widetilde{\OS}\subset \mathrm{GL}_4(\mathbb{R})$, preserving the (degenerate) quadratic form $X^2+Y^2-Z^2$, up to scale. A simple calculation (see Section \ref{sec:proofs} below) shows
that $\widetilde{\OS}$ is an 8-dimensional group, thus its image $\mathcal{G}=\widetilde{\OS}/\mathbb{R}^*\subset \mathrm{PGL}_4(\mathbb{R})$ is $7$-dimensional, acting effectively on $\overline{\cC}$, preserving its set of (projective) plane sections. It leaves invariant the set of sections by planes {\em not} passing through the vertex of $\overline{\cC}$, parametrized by $\R^{2,1}$.
The action restricts to a local action on $\mathcal C_+\subset \overline{\cC}$, then projects to a local action on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ by orbital symmetries. Equations \eqref{eq:vf} and \eqref{eq:dualvf}
follow easily from this description.
Finally, we use a basic result of Lie's theory of symmetries of ODEs (reviewed in the Appendix), according to which the maximum dimension of the group of point symmetries of a 3rd order ODE is 7, thus the above construction provides the full group of orbital symmetries of the Kepler problem. See Section \ref{sec:proofs} below for the full details.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cylinders.pdf}
\caption{ In the affine chart $\{Z\neq 0\}\subset \R P^3$, the cone $\overline{\cC}=\{(X:Y:Z:W)| X^2+Y^2=Z^2\}\subset\R P^3$ appears as an infinite vertical cylinder, its vertex $(0:0:0:1)$ is `at infinity' and the `circle at infinity' $S^1_\infty=\overline{\cC}\cap\{ W=0\}$ is visible (the dotted horizontal circle). A conic section may intersect $S^1_\infty$ in 0, 1 or 2 points; the corresponding Kepler orbit is an ellipse, parabola or hyperbola, as in figures (a), (b) or (c), respectively. In the hyperbolic case (c), $S^1_\infty$ divides the section into two `branches'; the Kepler orbit corresponds to the branch whose convex hull intersects the vertical axis (the dark arc of the solid ellipse). }
\label{fig:cylinders}
\end{figure}
\subsection{2-parameter subfamilies}
The simplest example of a 2-parameter family of plane curves (also called a `path geometry') is the family of straight lines. It admits an 8-dimensional local group of symmetries (the projective group), the maximum dimension possible for a 2-parameter family of plane curves. A 2-parameter family of plane curves locally diffeomorphic to this family is called {\em flat}. There are no straight lines among Kepler orbits, but there are flat 2-parameter subfamilies.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:parab}Kepler's parabolas form a flat 2-parameter family of curves. The map ${\mathbf{z}}\mapsto {\mathbf{z}}^2$ (in complex notation) is a local diffeomorphism taking straight affine lines to Kepler parabolas.
\end{theorem}
This theorem is essentially known. The squaring map ${\mathbf{z}}\mapsto {\mathbf{z}}^2$, in the context of the Kepler problem, is known sometimes as the {\em Levi-Civita} or {\em Bohlin} map. It can be used to define a local orbital equivalence between Hooke and Kepler orbits (see e.g. Appendix 1 of \cite{Ar}).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:angmom}Kepler's orbits with fixed angular momentum $\pm M\neq 0$ form a flat 2-parameter family of curves. The map $\r\mapsto \r/(1-r/M^2)$ takes Kepler orbits with angular momentum $M$ to straight lines.
\end{theorem}
See Section \ref{sec:reminder} for a reminder about the angular momentum (also Figure \ref{fig:kepler_orbits}). The proof of this theorem is particularly simple using the geometry of the space $\R^{2,1}$ of Kepler orbits: the family of Kepler orbits
with fixed $|M|$ is represented in $\R^{2,1}$ by a horizontal plane; a vertical translation in this space, which according to Theorem \ref{thm:main2} is available as an orbital symmetry, maps this plane to the plane $c=0$, parametrizing lines in the $xy$-plane.
Next we consider Kepler orbits with fixed energy $E\neq 0.$ These fill up a plane region $\mathcal H_E$, the {\em Hill region}. For $E\ge 0$ (Kepler hyperbolas with major axis $1/E$ or Kepler parabolas) the Hill region is the whole punctured plane, for $E<0$ (Kepler ellipses with major axis $1/|E|$) it is a punctured disk of radius $1/|E|$. See Figure \ref{fig:hill}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{hill.pdf}
\caption{Kepler orbits of fixed energy $E$ fill up the Hill region $\mathcal H_E$.
}
\label{fig:hill}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hill1} \begin{enumerate}[label=$(\mathrm{\alph*})$, left=-5px, itemsep=-2px]
\item For each fixed energy $E\neq 0$, the 2-parameter family of Kepler orbits with energy $E$ is non flat but is locally homogeneous: its orbital symmetry group is a 3-dimensional subgroup of the 7-dimensional group of Kepler's orbital symmetries, isomorphic to $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ and generated by the infinitesimal symmetries
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fe}\partial_\theta, r(\partial_x + Ex\partial_r), r(\partial_y +E y\partial_r).
\end{equation}
\item For $E<0$ the action of $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ on the Hill region $\mathcal H_E$ is global; for $E>0$ it is only local.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
This theorem is also essentially known, or at least can be deduced easily by experts on `superintegrable metrics' from known results from the 19th centrury by S. Lie and G. Koenigs (see for example \cite{BMM} and references within; we thank V. Matveev for pointing out to us this relation).
Our proof of this theorem is quite simple using the geometry of the space of orbits $\R^{2,1}$: as we explain in Section \ref{sec:reminder}, orbits of fixed energy $E$ correspond to one of the sheets of the hyperboloid of two sheets $a^2+b^2-(c-|E|)^2=-E^2$ (the upper sheet for $E<0$, the lower one for $E>0$). See Figure \ref{fig:parabo}(iii). The Minkowski metric in $\R^{2,1}$ restricts to a hyperbolic metric in each of these sheets, the subgroup of
$\mathcal{G}\simeq \mathrm{CO}_{2,1}\ltimes\R^{2,1}$ preserving the hyperboloid acts as the full group of isometries of this metric, with generators given by Equation \eqref{eq:fe}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{paraboloids.pdf} \qquad
\caption{ Theorem \ref{thm:hill1}.
(i) Kepler ellipses of fixed (negative) energy correspond to sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to the lower part of a fixed paraboloid of revolution $\mathcal P$ inscribed in $\mathcal C$. (ii) Kepler hyperbolas of the opposite (positive) energy correspond to sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to the upper part of $\mathcal P$. (iii) The surface dual to $\mathcal P$ is a 2-sheeted hyperboloid of revolution $\mathcal P^*\subset \R^{2,1}$ tangent to the $c=0$ plane. Its upper and lower sheets correspond to $\mathcal P_-$ and $\mathcal P_+$, respectively.
}
\label{fig:parabo}
\end{figure}
Any two Hill regions with the same sign of energy are obviously orbitally equivalent by dilation. For opposite signs of energies this is still true but less obvious.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hill2}
$\mathcal H_1$ is orbitally embedded in $\mathcal H_{-1}$ by the map $\r\mapsto \r/(1+2r).$ See Figure \ref{fig:emb}.
\end{theorem}
Viewed in $\R^{2,1}$, where the two Hill regions correspond to the two sheets of a hyperboloid, the map is simply the reflection about a horizontal plane $c=1$, interchanging the two sheets. See Figure \ref{fig:parabo}(iii).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{embedding.pdf}
\caption{
Theorem \ref{thm:hill2}. The image of $\mathcal H_1=\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ (left) under $\r\mapsto\r/(1+2r)$ is the darker punctured disk of radius 1/2 in $\mathcal H_{-1}=\{0<x^2+y^2<1\}$ (right). Each hyperbolic orbit in $\mathcal H_{1}$ (the solid curve) is mapped onto `one half' of an elliptic orbit in $\mathcal H_{-1}$. The map, $\r\mapsto\r/(1-2r)$ maps $\mathcal H_1$ onto the annulus $1/2<x^2+y^2<1$ in $\mathcal H_{-1}$, taking the `repulsive' branch (dotted) onto the other half of the ellipse.
}
\label{fig:emb}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Further results}\label{sec:apps}
\begin{enumerate}[left=0px, itemsep=-3px]
\item We establish a dictionary between the Minkowski geometry of the Kepler orbit space $\R^{2,1}$ and properties of Kepler orbits. For example: a parabolic (or isotropic) plane in $\R^{2,1}$ corresponds to the family of Kepler orbits passing through a fixed point. See Table \ref{tab:pd} of Section \ref{sec:dual}.
\item We give three illustrations of the usage of this dictionary: a new proof of `Kepler's fireworks' (Proposition \ref{prop:fireworks}), a Keplerian analogue of the 4 vertex and Tait-Kneser theorems (Theorem \ref{thm:TK}) and a `minor axis version' of Lambert's Theorem (Theorem \ref{thm:Lambert}).
\item Similar results to Theorems \ref{thm:main1}-\ref{thm:hill2} hold for orbital symmetries of the Hooke problem -- the set of conics sharing a center (trajectories of mass points under central force proportional to the distance to the origin), and the orbits of the corresponding `Coulomb' problems, where the sign of the force is reversed, becoming a repelling force. By central projection, our results extend to Hooke and Kepler orbits on surfaces of constant curvature (sphere and hyperbolic plane). See Table \ref{tab:proj}.
\item We establish a converse to Theorem \ref{thm:main1}: among all central forces, Hooke and Kepler force laws are the only ones producing `flat' families of orbits (3 parameter families with a 7-dimensional group of symmetries). See Theorem \ref{thm:flat}. This is reminiscent of Bertrand's Theorem (1873), characterizing these two force laws as the only central force laws with bound orbits all of whose bound orbits are closed \cite{Be}, \cite[page 37]{Ar1}.
\end{enumerate}
\medskip\noindent \centerline{*\qquad *\qquad *}
\sn{\bf Techniques.} Other than standard projective and differential geometric constructions, we use some of the work of S.~Lie (1874), A.~Tresse (1896) and K. W\"unschmann (1905) on point symmetries of 2nd and 3rd order ODEs. We do not assume the reader's familiarity with their work. We summarize in the Appendix the needed tools of this theory.
\sn{\bf Figures.} The figures here were computer generated using Wolfram's Mathematica and Apple's Keynote.
\medskip\noindent{\bf Acknowledgment.}
We thank Richard Montgomery, Sergei Tabachnikov, Alain Albouy and Vladimir Matveev for fruitful correspondence and discussions. GB was supported by CONACYT Grant A1-S-4588.
\section{Wider context: `orbital' vs `dynamical' symmetries}
The Kepler problem is centuries old with an enormous literature. It is hard to imagine one can add anything new to this problem in the 21st century. Yet, new and interesting works continue to appear. See, for example, \cite{AV, Bl, Mo, So, Giv, GS}.
Some facts have been rediscovered several times, centuries apart, especially before the existence of internet search engines. For example, V.I. Arnol'd attributes in his 1990 book \cite[Appendix 1]{Ar} the fact that ${\mathbf{z}}\mapsto {\mathbf{z}}^2$ maps Hooke orbits to Kepler orbits to K. Bohlin's 1911 article \cite{B}, then goes on to generalize it to a `duality' between central force power laws. In fact, all this appeared in C. Maclaurin's 1742 `Treatise of fluxions' \cite[Book II, Chap. V, \S 875]{M} (we thank S. Tabachnikov for pointing out this reference to us).
One of the most studied aspects of the Kepler problem are its symmetry properties. The most obvious symmetries are diffeomorphisms of the plane, mapping solutions $\r(t)$ of the underlying ODE, $\ddot\r=-\r/r^3$, to solutions. One can show that these consist only of the rotations about the origin and reflections about lines through the origin, valid for any central force motion.
More interesting symmetries arise
when the Kepler problem is considered as a Hamiltonian system, ie a flow defined on its phase space $T^*(\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0)$. The symplectomorphisms of phase space preserving {\em parametrized} trajectories of this flow form a larger group of symmetries, associated to the Hamiltonian flows of additional conserved quantities such as components of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. These symmetries generate a (local) $\mathrm{SO}_3$-action on the open subset of phase space with negative energy. Apart from the lift of the rotation symmetries above, these oft-called `hidden' symmetries do not descend to an action on the Kepler plane, even locally. The action is rather on phase space, mixing position and momentum variables.
A good reference for this type of `dynamic' or `phase space' symmetries of the Kepler problem is the book \cite{GS} or Chapters 3 and 4 of \cite{FvK}.
In contrast, the symmetries in this article are `orbital' symmetries, acting on the {\em configuration space} of the Kepler problem, $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$, {\em not its phase space}. They are closer to the symmetries one can extract from Albouy's `projective dynamics' papers \cite{AlbPr0, AlbPr}.
So how original are our results? As far as we can tell, after consulting with experts and searching the literature, our results are new. The articles \cite{AlbPr0, AlbPr, Car} are the nearest in spirit that we found. `Hidden symmetries' of the Kepler problem, ie of its phase space, have been studied extensively, and symmetries of 2nd and 3rd order ODEs have been studied extensively as well since the mid 19th century, but it seems that the symmetries of the 2nd and 3rd order ODEs that arise in the Kepler problem have not been studied systematically before, which is the present article's contribution.
But of course, given the subject's long and rich history, it is is still quite possible that at least some of the theorems announced here have been noted before, in some form or another. If some of the readers of this article are aware of such work we will be grateful if they contact us.
\section{A reminder on the Kepler problem}\label{sec:reminder}
Here we review briefly some well known facts about the Kepler problem that will be used in the sequel. See also \cite{AlbLect,Ar,Ar1,Giv}.
Kepler orbits are the {\em unparametrized} plane curves traced by the solutions of
the ODE
\begin{equation} \label{eq:kepler}
\ddot \r=-{\r\over r^3},
\end{equation}
where $ \r=\r(t)=(x(t), y(t))\in\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ and $ r:=\|\r\|=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}.$
The {\em energy} and {\em angular momentum} of a solution are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conserve}
E:={1\over 2}\|\dot \r\|^2-{1\over r}, \quad M:=x \dot y- y \dot x,
\end{equation}
respectively, and can be easily shown to remain constant during the motion.
Note that
$M$ is twice the {\em sectorial velocity}, the rate at which area is swept by the line segment connecting the origin to $\r(t)$. It follows that $M=0$ if and only if the motion is along a line passing through the origin. Our exclusion of `collision' orbits thus amounts to assuming $M\neq 0.$
Note also that although $E$ and $M$ are defined in equation \eqref{eq:conserve} via the time parametrization of the Kepler orbit, they are in fact determined by the shape of the underlying unparametrized curve (except for the sign of $M$).
See Figure \ref{fig:kepler_orbits}.
A {\em conic} in a Euclidean plane is the locus of points with constant ratio of distances to a fixed point and a fixed line. The fixed point, line and ratio are called a {\em focus, directrix} and {\em eccentricity} $e$ (respectively).
Conics with $e>1$, $e=1$, $0< e <1$ and $e=0$ are hyperbolas, parabolas, non-circular ellipses and circles (respectively).
Identify the $xy$ plane with the
plane $z=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $(x,y)\mapsto (x,y,0)$. We use the term `projection' to mean the orthogonal projection $\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^2,$ $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x,y)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:EM}
\begin{enumerate}[label=$(\mathrm{\alph*})$, left=-5px, itemsep=-2px]
\item Every Kepler orbit is the projection of a section of the cone $\mathcal C=\{x^2+y^2=z^2\}\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ by a plane $ax+by+cz=1$, $c\neq 0.$
More precisely: if $c>0$ then the orbit is the projection of the intersection of the plane with the upper cone $\mathcal C_+:=\mathcal C\cap \{z>0\}$; if $c<0$ then it is the projection of the intersection of the plane with the lower cone $\mathcal C_-:=\mathcal C\cap \{z<0\}$.
\item The projected section is a conic with a focus at the origin and eccentricity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eccen}
e={\sqrt{a^2+b^2}\over| c|}
\end{equation}
\item The angular momentum and energy of the projected Kepler orbit are
\begin{equation} \label{eq:EM
M= \pm {1\over \sqrt{|c|}}, \quad
E={a^2+b^2-c^2\over 2|c|}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rmrk:ojo} For positive energy orbits (hyperbolas), the plane section has two components (branches), one in each of $\mathcal C_\pm$, and one needs to pick carefully the correct branch, as stated in item (a).
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
(a) Let $\r(t)=(x(t), y(t))$ be a solution of Equation \eqref{eq:kepler} with $M\neq 0$. Rewriting Equations \eqref{eq:kepler} and \eqref{eq:conserve} in polar coordinates, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polar} \ddot r=-{1\over r^2}+{M^2\over r^3}, \quad E={\dot r^2\over 2}-{1\over r}+{M^2\over 2r^2 }
\end{equation}
From the first equation follows that the inhomogeneous linear ODE
$$\ddot f+{f\over r(t)^3}={M^2\over r(t)^3}$$
has two particular solutions: $r(t)$ and the constant solution $M^2$. Their difference is thus a solution of the homogeneous equation $\ddot f+f/ r(t)^3=0$. But $x(t), y(t)$ are two solutions of this equation, linearly independent for $M\neq 0$, hence there are constants $A,B$ such that $r(t)-M^2=Ax(t)+By(t).$ Rearranging and renaming the constants we obtain $ax+by+cr=1$, $r^2=x^2+y^2$,
as claimed.
The statement about the precise right half cone to pick is best seen by examining Figure \ref{fig:conics}, (i) and (ii).
\medskip\noindent (b) By rotating the secting plane about the $z$ axis and possibly reflecting it about the $xy$ plane, we can assume $a\geq 0, b=0, c>0$. If $a=0$ then the secting plane is parallel to the $xy$ plane and the projected conic is a circle ($e=0$). Otherwise, $a>0$, the secting plane is $ax+cz=1$, its intersection with the $xy$ plane is the line $ax=1$ and the projected conic is $ax+cr=1$. The ratio of distances of a point $(x,y)$ on the projected section to the origin and the intersection line is thus $e=r/|x-1/a|=ar/|cr|=a/c$, a constant, hence the projected section is a conic, the origin is a focus and the intersection line is the corresponding directrix. The formula for $e$ follows from this calculation, since rotation of the plane $ax+by+cz=1$ about the $z$ axis and reflecting it about the $xy$ plane does not affect the values of $e,|c|$ and $a^2+b^2$.
\medskip\noindent (c) The formula for $M$ follows from the proof of item (a). For $E$, we again assume $a\geq 0, b=0, c>0.$ The orbit is then $ax+cr=1$ and at the pericenter (the point nearest the origin) we have $x=r=1/(a+c)$. Using this in the formula for $E$ in Equation \eqref{eq:polar}, with $\dot r=0$, $M^2=1/c$, we get $E=(a^2-c^2)/(2c).$ For a general secting plane $a^2$ is replaced with $a^2+b^2$ and $c$ with $|c|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}The clever argument in the proof of item (a) above is due to Lagrange \cite{L}. For a more geometric proof of item (c) see \cite[\S4]{Giv}.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:dc} The cone $\{a^2+b^2=c^2\}\subset\R^{2,1}$ parametrizes Kepler parabolas, its interior $a^2+b^2<c^2$ Kepler ellipses and exterior $a^2+b^2>c^2$ Kepler hyperbolas. See Figure \ref{fig:conics}(iii).
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:M}
Kepler orbits with angular momentum $M\neq 0$ have fixed {\em latus rectum} $2M^2$ and are the projections of sections of $\mathcal C$ by non-vertical planes passing through $(0,0, M^2)$ or $(0,0, -M^2)$. See Figure \ref{fig:EM_pencils}(a).
\end{corollary}
This is immediate from Equations \eqref{eq:eccen} and \eqref{eq:EM}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{EM_pencils.pdf} \qquad
\caption{(a) Kepler orbits with fixed angular momentum (same as fixed {\em latum rectum}); the heavy curve is a parabola. (b) Kepler ellipses with fixed (negative) energy $E$ (same as fixed major axis).
}
\label{fig:EM_pencils}
\end{figure}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:E}
Kepler orbits with energy $E\neq 0$ are the projections of sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to the paraboloid of revolution
$$\mathcal P:=\left\{(x,y,z)\in \mathbb{R}^3\, | \, z={|E|\over 2}\left(x^2+y^2\right)+{1\over 2|E|}\right\},$$
inscribed in $\mathcal C$ and tangent to it along a horizontal circle, dividing $\mathcal P$ into two components:
Kepler ellipses with energy $-|E|$ are the projections of sections of $\mathcal C_+$ by planes tangent to the lower component $\mathcal P_-=\mathcal P\cap\{z<1/|E|\}$; Kepler hyperbolas with energy $|E|$ are the projections of sections of $\mathcal C_-$ by planes tangent to the upper component $\mathcal P_+=\mathcal P\cap\{z>1/|E|\}$. See Figure \ref{fig:parabo}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}$\mathcal P$
is given in homogeneous coordinates $(X:Y:Z:W)$ on $\R P^3$ by $E^2(X^2+Y^2)-2|E|ZW+W^2=0.$ The dual equation, parametrizing the planes $AX+BY+CZ+DW=0$ tangent to $\mathcal P$, is given by inverting the coefficient matrix of the quadratic equation defining $\mathcal P$, and is $A^2+B^2-C^2-2|E|CD=0,$ or in affine coordinates, $a^2+b^2-c^2+2|E|c=0$. At a point ${\mathbf{p}}_0=(x_0,y_0,z_0)\in\mathcal P$ the tangent plane is $ax+by+cz=1$ where $(a,b,c)=(|E|x_0, |E|y_0, -1)/(|E|z_0-1)$. If ${\mathbf{p}}_0\in \mathcal P_-$ then $z_0<1/|E|$ hence $c>0$, so by Equation \eqref{eq:EM} the energy of the corresponding orbit is $(a^2+b^2-c^2)/(2c)=-|E|,$ as needed. A similar calculation for
the case ${\mathbf{p}}_0\in \mathcal P_+$ completes the proof. \end{proof}
\begin{remark}The last corollary we learned from \cite[page 145]{Giv}, although our proof is quite different.
\end{remark}
\section{The geometry of the space of Kepler orbits}
\label{sec:dual}
Recall that $\R^{2,1}$ is the 3-dimensional space with coordinates $a,b,c$, equipped with the indefinite quadratic form $\|(a,b,c)\|^2:=a^2+b^2-c^2$ and associated flat Lorentzian metric
ds^2=da^2+db^2-dc^2$. A line in $\R^{2,1}$ is {\em spacelike}, {\em null} or {\em timelike} if $ds^2$ restricts on it to a positive, null or negative metric, respectively. A plane in $\R^{2,1}$ is {\em elliptic}, {\em parabolic} \footnote{Some authors use the term `isotropic' instead of `parabolic'. For example, \'E. Cartan \cite{Cart}. Elliptic planes are called also `spacelike.'} or {\em hyperbolic} if $ds^2$ restricted to it is of signature $(2,0),(1,0),$ or $(1,1)$, respectively. The {\em null cone} with vertex $\v\in\R^{2,1}$ is the set of points $\v'\in\R^{2,1}$ such that $\|\v-\v'\|^2=0$; equivalently, the union of null lines through $\v$.
\subsection{Duality}
The equations $ax+by+cz=1, x^2+y^2=z^2$ define a duality between Kepler's $xy$ plane and Minkowski's space $\R^{2,1}$: to each point $(a,b,c)\in\R^{2,1}\setminus 0 $ corresponds a curve in the $xy$ plane, a Kepler orbit if $c\neq 0$ or a straight line if $c=0$, the projection of the intersection of the plane $ax+by+cz=1$ with one of the components of $\mathcal C=\{x^2+y^2=z^2\}$ (see Theorem \ref{thm:EM}(a)): if $c>0$ then one projects the intersection with $\mathcal C_+=\mathcal C\cap \{z>0\}$, if $c< 0$ the intersection with $\mathcal C_-=\mathcal C\cap \{z<0\}$ and if $c=0$ the intersection with either component. Conversely, to each point $(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ corresponds the plane $ax+by+ cr=1$ in $\R^{2,1}$, where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}. $ Table \ref{tab:pd} summarizes some instances of this duality.
\begin{table}[!htbp
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.2}
\captionsetup{ font=normalsize}
\caption{Kepler-Minkowski duality}
{
\centering
\hspace{-.5cm}
\begin{tabular}[t]{
c
p{.48\textwidth}|p{.48\textwidth} }
& Kepler $xy$-plane& Minkowski space $\R^{2,1}$\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3}
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount&A Kepler orbit (or a line) & A point \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount&A Kepler ellipse/parabola/hyperbola & A point inside/on/outside $a^2+b^2=c^2$\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount&A line & A point in the $ab$ plane \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:para}}& A point & A parabolic plane\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:nullcone}}&Kepler orbits tangent to a given Kepler orbit & The null cone with a given vertex \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:nullline}}&Kepler orbits tangent at a point& A null line \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:spaceline}}&Kepler orbits passing through 2 given points& A spacelike line \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:timeline}}&Nested Kepler orbits with concurrent directrices& A timelike line \\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{it:fam}}&Kepler orbits of fixed angular momentum $\pm M\neq 0$ & A horizontal plane $c\neq 0$
\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{ti:ee}}&Kepler ellipses with energy $E<0$ (projected sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to $2|E|z=E^2\left(x^2+y^2\right)+1$, $|E|z<1)$
& The upper sheet of the hyperboloid of 2 sheets $a^2+b^2-(c-|E|)^2=-E^2$\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{ti:eh}}&Kepler hyperbolas of energy $E> 0$ (projected of sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to $2|E|z=E^2\left(x^2+y^2\right)+1$, $|E|z>1)$
& The lower sheet of the hyperboloid of 2 sheets $a^2+b^2-(c-|E|)^2=-E^2$\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{ti:me}}&Kepler ellipses with minor axis $B$ (projected sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to
$x^2 + y^2 - z^2= -B^2/4$) & The hyperboloid of 2 sheets $a^2+b^2-c^2=-4/B^2$\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{ti:mh}}&Kepler hyperbolas with minor axis $B$: projected sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to $x^2 + y^2 -z^2=B^2/4$ & The hyperboloid of 1 sheet $a^2+b^2-c^2=4/B^2$\\
\refstepcounter{ticount}\theticount{\label{ti:cu}}&Central projections of Kepler orbits with energy $\pm E_k$ on a surface of constant curvature $k$ &
The hyperboloid (of 1 or 2 sheets, depending on $k$) $a^2 + b^2 - (c - |E_k|)^2=- E_k^2 - k $ \\
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:pd}
\end{table}
We shall not dwell on all items of this table, as most reflect statements proven elsewhere in this article or are simple to verify. We sketch here proofs of a few items and leave the rest for the reader to explore.
\begin{proposition}[Item \ref{it:para} of Table \ref{tab:pd}]
The set of Kepler orbits sharing a point corresponds to a parabolic plane in $\R^{2,1}$. Every parabolic plane in $\R^{2,1}$ arises in this way.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} A plane $ax+by+cz=1$ in $\R^{2,1}$ is parabolic if and only if it forms an angle of 45 degrees with a horizontal plane. This angle satisfies $\tan\alpha=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}/|z|$ and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} This last proposition is equivalent to Corollary \ref{cor:dc} above by projective duality.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}[Item \ref{it:nullline} of Table \ref{tab:pd}] \label{prop:null}
The set of Kepler orbits tangent to a given Kepler orbit at one of its points corresponds to a null line in $\R^{2,1}$. Every null line is obtained in this way. See Figure \ref{fig:null_pencil}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $C$ be the given Kepler orbit and $P\in C$. Using Kepler's orbital symmetries (Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{thm:main2}) we can assume, without loss of generality, that $C$ is the unit circle and $P=(0,1)$ (see Remark \ref{rmrk:alert} below, though). A Kepler orbit $ax+by+cr=1$ is tangent to $C$ at $P$ if and only if $a=1, b+c=0$, which is a null line in $\R^{2,1}$. Every null line is congruent to this line by an orbital symmetry.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{null_pencil.pdf}
\caption{\small Proposition \ref{prop:null}.
%
Left: the set of Kepler orbits tangent to a fixed Kepler orbit $C$ (the dark curve) at a fixed point $P\in C$.
Right: the point $\v \in \R^{2,1}_+$ corresponds to $C$, the null cone with vertex $\v$ corresponds to all Kepler orbits tangent $C$, the parabolic plane $\pi$ corresponds to all Kepler orbits passing through the point $P\in C$. The intersection of $\pi$ with the cone is one of its generators, a null line, corresponding to the Kepler orbits tangent to $C$ at $P$. The intersection of the cone with the $c=0$ plane is a circle $C^*$, corresponding to all lines tangent to $C$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:dualC}). }
\label{fig:null_pencil}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition}[Item \ref{it:timeline} of Table \ref{tab:pd}] \label{prop:time}
The Kepler orbits corresponding to a line in $\R^{2,1}$ (a `pencil' of Kepler orbits) have concurrent directrices (they all pass through a single point). The orbits of a timelike pencil are nested (same as disjoint). \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The orbits of a Kepler pencil corresponding to a line $\ell^*\subset \R^{2,1}$ are obtained by projecting sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes passing through a fixed line $\ell\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ (the line dual to $\ell^*$). The directrix of a Kepler orbit is the intersection of the secting plane with the $xy$ plane. Thus all directrices of Kepler orbits in a pencil pass through a fixed point, the intersection of $\ell$ with the $xy$ plane. The line $\ell^*$ is spacelike, null or timelike if and only if $\ell$ intersects $\mathcal C$ at $2,1$ or $0$ points, respectively. These intersections points project to the intersection points of the orbits of the pencil. Thus the orbits of a timelike pencil are disjoint. See Figure \ref{fig:pencils}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pencils.pdf}
\caption{Kepler pencils: (a) spacelike, (b) null, (c) timelike.}\label{fig:pencils}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}[Error alert]\label{rmrk:alert} Strictly speaking, items \ref{it:nullcone}-\ref{it:spaceline} of Table \ref{tab:pd}, and the last two propositions with their proof, are incorrect. Can you see why before continuing reading?
The exceptions arise with the hyperbolic orbits. By our definition, they only include one branch (the `attractive branch', see Figure \ref{fig:kepler_orbits}). For example, there are spacelike pencils of Kepler hyperbolas which only intersect at one point (the 2nd point of intersection is on the `repelling branch')
or even spacelike pencils of disjoint Kepler hyperbolas (the 2 intersection points are on the repelling branch). The same problem occurs with null lines: there are null pencils of disjoint Kepler hyperbolas (the tangency point is again on the repelling branch). The proof of Proposition \ref{prop:null} is not correct because applying an orbital symmetry to the circular case may move the tangency point to a repelling branch.
Another problem is that some of the statements are true only when considered in the projective plane. For example, the null line $a=c, b=0$ corresponds to all Kepler parabolas symmetric about the $x$-axis. Their common tangency point lies on the line at infinity.
To fix these problems one needs to separate statements and proofs of some items of Table \ref{tab:pd} into cases. It is not difficult, and can be even quite entertaining, but we shall not elaborate further on this issue, trusting the reader to make adjustments of the relevant items in the table accordingly.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:fixedMin}
Each family of Kepler orbits of fixed minor axis, ellipses or hyperbolas, is a non-flat 2-parameter family admitting a 3-dimensional group of symmetries. The elliptic and hyperbolic cases are not orbitally equivalent, although in both cases the orbital symmetry group is isomorphic to $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}The dual surface of such a family is a hyperboloid of either 1 or 2 sheets, the `hypersphere' $a^2+b^2-c^2=\pm 4/B^2$ (items \ref{ti:me}-\ref{ti:mh} of Table \ref{tab:pd}). These are the level surfaces of the Minkowski norm and are thus invariant under the Lorentz group $\mathrm{O}_{2,1}$, a 3-dimensional subgroup of the full 7-dimensional group of orbital symmetries. This shows that every such family admits at least a 3-dimensional group of symmetries. To show that the family is non-flat, and hence its symmetry group is at most 3-dimensional, we turn to the same argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hill1}, explained in the Appendix (Proposition \ref{prop:flatE}).
Note also that in the elliptic case the said surface (a spacelike hypersphere) is a translation of the surface corresponding to Kepler orbits of fixed non-zero energy (items \ref{ti:ee}-\ref{ti:eh}). Since translations are generated by orbital symmetries (Theorem \ref{thm:main2}), the non-flatness follows from Theorem \ref{thm:hill1}.
The elliptic and hyperbolic cases are not orbitally equivalent, even locally, because the two actions of the symmetry group $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ are non-equivalent: in the elliptic case the isotropy is an elliptic subgroup and in the hyperbolic case it is a hyperbolic subgroup, which are non conjugate 1-parameter subgroups of $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{The `curved' Kepler problem}(item \ref{ti:cu} of Table \ref{tab:pd}). There is an analogue of the Kepler problem on surfaces of constant curvature $k\neq 0$ (a sphere in $\mathbb{R}^3$ for $k>0$ and a spacelike `hypersphere' in $\R^{2,1}$ for $k<0$). They are characterized by the property that their {\em unparametrized} orbits centrally project to planar Kepler orbits. See \cite{AlbPr} for more details, where the following proposition is proved.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:crvd}
Central projection maps orbits of the `curved' Kepler problem on a surface of constant curvature $k\neq 0$ to Kepler orbits in $\mathbb{R}^2$. The energy $E_k$ of an orbit in the curved space is related to the energy $E$ of its centrally projected orbit by
\[E_k = E + \frac{k}{2}M^2,\]
where $M$ is their common angular momentum value.
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:k}
Central projections of Kepler orbits with energy $\pm E_k$ on a surface of constant curvature $k$ are parametrized by the surface $\{a^2 + b^2 -(c - |E_k|)^2=- E_k^2 - k \}\subset \R^{2,1}$, where $c>0$ represent orbits with negative energy $E_k = -|E_k|$ and $c<0$ orbits of positive energies, $E_k = |E_k|$. They are the projections to the $xy$-plane of sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to the surface $(E_k^2 + k)(x^2 + y^2) =kz^2 + 2|E_k|z - 1$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{corollary}
The proof is immediate from the last proposition and formulas \eqref{eq:EM}. Let us remark also that Corollary \ref{cor:k} gives a pleasant dynamical interpretation of Kepler orbits of fixed minor axis: they are the central projections of zero energy orbits of an appropriate curved Kepler problem.
\subsection{A Keplerian version of the Tait-Kneser and 4 vertex theorems}
\paragraph{Point-line duality.} The equation $ax+by=1$ defines a duality between the $xy$ and $ab$-planes. Namely, each point $(a,b)$ defines a line in the $xy$ plane and vice versa. Given a curve $C$ in one of these planes, its dual $C^*$ is a curve in the other plane, whose points correspond to the lines tangent to $C$. For example, the dual of the circle $x^2+y^2=R^2$ is the circle $a^2 + b^2=1/R^2.$ If $C$ is a smooth strictly convex curve, containing the origin in its interior, so is $C^*$ and $C^{**}=C.$ This still works if $C$ does not contain the origin in its interior, provided we allow for curves in the projective plane, as we do in the sequel. The tangents to $C$ through the origin then correspond to intersections of $C^*$ with the `line at infinity'.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:dualC} $C$ is a Kepler orbit if and only if $C^*$ is a circle. If $C$ is an ellipse then $C^*$ contains the origin, if it is a parabola then $C^*$ passes through the origin and if $C$ is an hyperbola then the origin lies outside $C^*$. In the latter case, the two tangents to $C^*$ through the origin divide $C^*$ into two arcs, corresponding to the two branches of $C$. The larger arc corresponds to the `attractive branch' of $C$ and the shorter to the `repelling branch'. See Figure \ref{fig:duality}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{duality.pdf}
\caption{\small Proposition \ref{prop:dualC}}. \label{fig:duality}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}Let $\v=(a,b,c)\in\R^{2,1}_+$ be the point corresponding to $C$. The intersection of the null cone through $\v$ with the $ab$ plane is a circle of radius $c$ centered at $(a,b)$. See Figure \ref{fig:null_pencil} (right). The points of this circle correspond to the lines tangent to $C$ (a special case of Proposition \ref{prop:null}), so the circle is $C^*$. For a parabola, one of its tangents is the line at infinity, whose dual is the origin of the $ab$ plane.
When $C$ is a hyperbola it has two tangents, its asymptotes, whose tangency points with $C$ are two points on the line at infinity of the $xy$ plane. The two asymptotes correspond to two points on $C^*$ and their intersection points with the line at infinity correspond to the two tangents to $C^*$ at these points, passing through the origin of the $ab$ plane. The longer arc of $C^*$ corresponds to the attractive branch of $C$ because the latter is nearer the origin then the repelling branch. \end{proof}
\begin{remark} The same warning as in Remark \ref{rmrk:alert} applies here, although it is simpler to fix: if $C$ is a Kepler hyperbola then $C^*$ is not a circle, but rather a circular arc, corresponding to the Kepler branch of the `full' hyperbola, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:duality}. The complementary arc of the circle corresponds to the 'repelling branch'.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Osculating circles.} A plane curve with non-vanishing curvature admits at each of its points an {\em osculating circle}, tangent to the
curve at this point to 2nd order (its curvature coincides with that of the curve at this point). Sometimes the osculating circle is {\em hyperosculating}, i.e. tangent to order higher than two. This occurs at the critical points of the curvature and such points are called {\em vertices}. For example, a (non-circular) ellipse has 4 vertices, corresponding to two minima and two maxima of the curvature. The 4-vertex theorem states that {\em on any convex simple planar closed curve there are at least 4 vertices.} A related theorem is the Tait-Kneser theorem, stating that {\em along any vertex-free curve segment with non-vanishing curvature the osculating circles are pairwise disjoint and nested.} Both theorems are over 100 years old and there are many variations \cite{DGPV, GTT}.
Using Proposition \ref{prop:dualC} above, we shall obtain a Keplerian version of these theorems. To this end, we consider a strictly convex star-shaped closed curve $\gamma$, that is $\gamma, \gamma'$ and $\gamma', \gamma''$ are everywhere linearly independent (these are parametrization independent conditions). These conditions imply that one can define at each point along $\gamma$ its osculating Kepler orbit, tangent to the curve to 2nd order. A point where the osculating Kepler orbit is hyperosculating is a {\em Kepler vertex}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:TK} There are at least 4 Kepler vertices along $\gamma$. Along any vertex free segment of $\gamma$ the osculating Kepler orbits are pairwise disjoint and nested. See Figure \ref{fig:TK}
\end{theorem}
The proof reduces to the observation that point-line duality preserves order of contact between curves, hence, by Proposition \ref{prop:dualC}, it maps the osculating Kepler orbit of $\gamma$ to the osculating circle of $\gamma^*$, and the same for hyperosculating Kepler orbits, so it maps Euclidean vertices to Kepler vertices. It also maps nested Kepler orbits to nested circles, so the theorem is reduced to the Euclidean version.
In a recent article we gave a different proof of this theorem \cite{BT}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{TK.pdf}
\caption{Kepler-Euclid duality. Left: a curve is drawn in the Kepler plane (a circle centered on the $x$-axis) and the nested family of osculating Kepler orbits along its arc in the 1st quadrant, between 2 of its 4 Kepler vertices (the white dots, intersections of the circle with the coordinate axes). Right: the dual of the left circle is a Kepler ellipse, with 4 euclidean vertices and osculating circles between two of them, duals of the osculating ellipses on the left.}
\label{fig:TK}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A minor axis variant of Lambert's Theorem}
Lambert's Theorem (1761) is a statement about the elapsed time along a Keplerian arc \cite{AlbLamb, Se}. Let us recall this theorem.
Consider a time parametrized Kepler ellipse, i.e. a solution $\r(t)$ of $\ddot\r=-\r/r^3$, with major axis $A$. We fix two moments $t_1< t_2$, the corresponding points $\r_1=\r(t_1),\r_2=\r(t_2)$, the chord distance $r_{12}=\|\r_1-\r_2\|$, the distances to the origin $r_i=\|\r_i\|$ and the time lapse $\Delta t=t_2-t_1$. See Figure \ref{fig:lamb}(a).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{lamb.pdf}
\caption{\small (a) Lambert's Theorem. (b) The eccentric anomaly $u$. }
\label{fig:lamb}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Lambert's theorem.} {\em $\Delta t$ is a function of $r_{12}, r_1 + r_2$ and $A$.}
\medskip\noindent
Clearly, for elliptical orbits the said function is only well defined modulo the period of the orbit (a function of $A$). The main thrust of the theorem is that $\Delta t$ does not depend on the individual values of $r_1, r_2$. Thus one can deform the orbit, keeping the three quantities $r_{12}, r_1 + r_2,A$ fixed, into a linear orbit, for which the time $\Delta t$ is easy to write as an explicit integral.
Our `minor axis variant' of this theorem involves a different well-known parametrization of Kepler orbits, by the {\em eccentric anomaly} $u$, see Figure \ref{fig:lamb}(b). For simplicity, we shall only deal with Kepler ellipses, although the statement and proof can be easily modified for parabolic and hyperbolic orbits.
Consider a Kepler ellipse with minor axis $B$, two values $u_1<u_2$, $\r_1=\r(u_1),\r_2=\r(u_2)$, $r_{12}=\|\r_1-\r_2\|$, $r_i=\|\r_i\|$ and $\Delta u=u_2-u_1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Lambert}
$\Delta u$ is a function of $r_{12}, r_1 - r_2$ and $B$, well defined modulo $2\pi$. Explicitly,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lamb}
B^2 \sin^2\frac{\Delta u}{2} = r_{12}^2 - (r_1 - r_2)^2.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\newcommand{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\mathrm{SO}_{2,1}}{\mathrm{SO}_{2,1}}
\begin{proof} We consider an ellipse $\mathcal{E}$ with minor axis $B$, parametrized by $u$, as in Figure \ref{fig:lamb}(b). We lift $\mathcal{E}$ to $\tilde\mathcal{E}\subset \mathcal C_+$ and $\r_i$ to $\tilde\r_i=(\r_i, r_i)\in\tilde\mathcal{E}.$ The right-hand side of Equation \eqref{eq:lamb} is
then $\|\tilde\r_1-\tilde\r_2\|^2$ (using Minkowski's norm), hence is invariant under the Lorentz group $\mathrm{O}_{2,1}$. We claim that the left hand is invariant as well, hence it is enough to check formula \eqref{eq:lamb} in the circular case, for which it is immediate.
To establish the said invariance, we first note that $B$ is $\mathrm{O}_{2,1}$-invariant by item \ref{ti:me} of Table \ref{tab:pd}. The invariance of $\Delta u$ follows from the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}\ \\
\vspace{-.5cm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Restricted to $\mathcal C$, $dx^2+dy^2-dz^2=(r d\theta)^2.$
\item Restricted to $\mathcal{E}$, $rd\theta=(B/2)du.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\medskip\noindent{\em Proof.} The 1st statement is a simple calculation, using $x=r\cos\theta, y=r\sin \theta$ and $x^2+y^2=z^2$. For the 2nd statement, from Figure \ref{fig:lamb} we have
$x = a ( \cos u - e),
y = b \sin u, r = a ( 1 - e \cos u )$, where $a,b$ are the major and minor semi axes of $\mathcal{E}$ (respectively) and $e=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}/a$ the eccentricity. From the first two equations follows $dx^2+dy^2=(a^2(\sin u)^2+b^2(\cos u)^2)du^2$ and from the last follows $dx^2+dy^2=dr^2+r^2d\theta^2=
a^2e^2(\sin u)^2du^2+r^2d\theta^2.$ Equating these two expressions for $dx^2+dy^2$ we obtain $b^2du^2=r^2d\theta^2$, as needed. This completes the proof of the lemma and also the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Formula \eqref{eq:lamb} is an elementary geometric statement about ellipses,
so one expects to find an elementary proof. Indeed, we sketch such a proof here and invite the reader to
compare it with our proof above.
Let $a=A/2$, $b=B/2$ (the major and minor semi-axes), $e=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}/a$ (the eccentricity).
Then $ r_j = a( 1 - e\cos u_j) $ and $r_{12}^2 = a^2(\cos u_1 - \cos u_2)^2 +
b^2(\sin u_1 - \sin u_2)^2, $ from which follows $r_{12}^2 - ( r_1 - r_2)^2 =
b^2 \left[ ( \cos u_1 - \cos u_2)^2 + ( \sin u_1 - \sin u_2 )^2 \right]
=
B^2 \sin^2 (\Delta u/2).$
\end{remark}
\subsection{Kepler fireworks}
The following intriguing result is well known.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:fireworks}Consider the family of Kepler ellipses of fixed (negative) energy, passing through a fixed point. Then there exists a Kepler ellipse, with second focus at the fixed point, tangent to all ellipses of the family (the `envelope' of the family). See Figure \ref{fig:fw}(c).
\end{proposition}
There are many proofs available. For example, Richard's proof \cite[page 839]{R}, using only elementary Euclidean geometric, is hard to beat for simplicity and elegance. We shall prove it following a longer path, but will obtain on the way two variations on this result, seemingly new. Let us begin.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:hfw}Consider the family of Hooke (or central) ellipses of fixed area passing through a fixed point in $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0.$ Then these ellipses are all tangent to a pair of parallel lines, symmetric about the line passing through the origin and the fixed point. See Figure \ref{fig:fw}(a). \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Without loss of generality, let the fixed area be $\Delta$ and the fixed point $(1,0)$ (using rotations and dilations about the origin). Any ellipse of area $\Delta$ passing through $(1,0)$ can be brought by a `shear' $S:(X,Y)\mapsto (X+sY, Y)$ to an ellipse of the form $X^2+(\pi Y/\Delta)^2=1,$ which is clearly tangent to the two lines $Y=\pm \Delta/\pi$. Since $S$ preserves these lines the original ellipse is also tangent to these lines. \end{proof}
This is our 1st variation on Proposition \ref{prop:fireworks} (a rather modest one, admittedly). Before stating the next variation we use another lemma, possibly of some independent interest.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bohm} The squaring map $\C\to\C$, ${\mathbf{z}}\mapsto {\mathbf{z}}^2$, takes Hooke ellipses of fixed area to Kepler ellipses of fixed minor axis.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let a Hooke ellipse be $(x/a)^2+(y/b)^2=1$ (without loss of generality). Its area is $\Delta=\pi ab$ and it is parametrized by $X=a\cos \theta, Y=b\sin\theta.$ Its square is parametrized by $x=X^2-Y^2=(a^2-b^2)/2+(a^2+b^2)\cos2\theta, y=2XY=ab\sin2\theta.$ This is a Kepler ellipse with minor axis $2ab=2\Delta/\pi.$
\end{proof}
Now for the 2nd variation.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:minfireworks}Consider the family of Kepler ellipses with fixed minor axis and passing through a fixed point in $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$. Then there exists a Kepler parabola tangent to all ellipses of the family (the `envelope' of the family). See Figure \ref{fig:fw}(b).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By Lemma \ref{lemma:bohm}, the family of Kepler ellipses with fixed minor axis, passing through a fixed point, is the image under the
squaring map of the family of Hooke ellipses of fixed area passing through a fixed point. By Proposition \ref{prop:hfw}, the envelope of these Hooke ellipses is a pair of parallel lines, equidistant from the origin. Under the squaring map, the image of these lines is the envelope of the family of Kepler ellipses. Following this recipe for the envelope of the Kepler ellipses with minor axis $B$ going through $(x_1,0)$ we get the Kepler parabola $y^2=4p(x+p)$, where $p=B^2/(4x_1).$\end{proof}
\begin{remark} The last proposition can be also established by passing to the dual statement using Table \ref{tab:pd}, by considering the parabolic plane in $\R^{2,1}$ corresponding to the fixed point, then taking its polar with respect to the quadric corresponding to ellipses with a fixed minor axis (hyperboloid of 2 sheets). We leave the details of this alternate proof for the reader to explore.
\end{remark}
Now we use duality (Table \ref{tab:pd}) and translation symmetries in $\R^{2,1}$ (Theorem \ref{thm:main2}) to derive Proposition \ref{prop:fireworks} from its minor axis variant (Proposition \ref{prop:minfireworks}).
\medskip\noindent{\em Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:fireworks}.} Kepler ellipses with energy $E<0$ passing through
$(x_0,0)$ correspond to the intersection of $a^2+b^2-(c+E)^2=-E^2$ with $ x_0(a+c)=1.$ This is mapped by
$(a,b,c)\mapsto (a,b,c+E)$ to the intersection of $a^2+b^2-c^2=-E^2$ with $x_0(a+c-E)=1.$ The latter are Kepler ellipses with minor axis $B=-2/E$ passing through $(x_1, 0)$, where $x_1=x_0/(1+Ex_0)$, with envelope $y^2=4p(x+p)$, where $p=B^2/(4x_1)=(1+Ex_0)/(x_0E^2),$ corresponding to $(-1/(2p), 0, 1/(2p))\in\R^{2,1}$. Translating back, the envelope of the original family is given by $(-1/(2p), 0, 1/(2p)-E)\in\R^{2,1}$. Using the value of $p$ and a bit of algebra, this is seen to correspond to a Kepler ellipse with 2nd focus $(x_0, 0)$, as needed. \qed
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fireworks.pdf}
\caption {Envelopes of concurrent conics. (a) Hooke's orbits with fixed area. (b) Kepler's orbits with fixed minor axis. (c) Kepler's orbits with fixed major axis. }
\label{fig:fw}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark} The positive energy analog of Proposition \ref{prop:fireworks}, i.e. for hyperbolic orbits, is somewhat disappointing, as the family admits no envelope. There is however a `scattering' version of this proposition, for the repelling inverse square law, see Figure \ref{fig:fw_extras}(i).
A familiar `everyday' version, for constant force, where all orbits as well as the envelope are parabolas, can be observed in fireworks displays and water fountains. See Figure \ref{fig:fw_extras}(b) and (c).
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fireworks_extras.pdf}
\caption{\small (a) Coulomb scattering. (b) Fireworks envelope. (c) Water fountain envelope.}
\label{fig:fw_extras}
\end{figure}
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:main1}-\ref{thm:hill2}}\label{sec:proofs}
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1}.}
Let $\RP^3$ be the 3-dimensional projective space with homogeneous coordinates $(X:Y:Z:W)$. We identify $\mathbb{R}^3$ with the affine chart $W\neq 0$, $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x:y:z:1).$
The closure of $\mathcal C=\{x^2+y^2=z^2\}$ in $\RP^3$ is $\overline\mathcal C=\{ X^2+Y^2=Z^2\}$, obtained by adding to $\mathcal C$ the `circle at infinity' $S^1_\infty=\{ X^2+Y^2=Z^2, \ W=0\}=\overline{\cC}\setminus \mathcal C$. See Figure \ref{fig:cylinders}.
Let $\widetilde{\OS}\subset \mathrm{GL}_4(\mathbb{R})$ be the subgroup preserving the (degenerate) quadratic form $X^2+Y^2-Z^2$,
up to scale. Its image $\mathcal{G}:=\widetilde{\OS}/\mathbb{R}^*$ in the projective group $\mathrm{PGL}_4(\mathbb{R})=\mathrm{GL}_4(\mathbb{R})/\mathbb{R}^*$ is the group of projective transformations of $\RP^3$ preserving $\overline{\cC}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:g}
$ \widetilde{\OS}$ consists of elements of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A & 0 \\
\b^t & \lambda \\
\end{array}
\right), \quad A\in \CO_{2,1}, \ \b\in\mathbb{R}^3,\ \lambda\in \mathbb{R}\setminus 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} $g\in\widetilde{\OS}$ if and only if $g^tJg=cJ$, where $J=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,-1,0)$ and $c\in \mathbb{R}$. By a simple calculation $g$ has the claimed form.
\end{proof}
It follows that $\widetilde{\OS}$ is an 8-dimensional group and $\mathcal{G}=\widetilde{\OS}/\mathbb{R}^*$ is 7-dimensional.
In the affine chart $\mathbb{R}^3\subset\R P^3$ (column vectors), ${\mathbf{q}}\mapsto ({\mathbf{q}}:1)$, the action of an element of $\widetilde{\OS}$ given by Equation \eqref{eq:g} is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:action}
{\mathbf{q}}\mapsto \frac{A{\mathbf{q}}}{\lambda + \b^t {\mathbf{q}}}, \quad {\mathbf{q}}\in\mathbb{R}^3.
\end{equation}
%
It restricts to a local action on $\mathcal C_+$
and projects to a local action on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$. By the general theory of point symmetries of ODEs (see the Appendix), the maximal dimension of the symmetry group of a 3-parameter family of plane curves is 7, hence this local $\mathcal{G}$-action on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ provides the full group of orbital symmetries.
The expressions for the infinitesimal symmetries in Equation \eqref{eq:vf} follow from the above by differentiating the action along 1-parameter subgroups of $\widetilde{\OS}$. Let $X\in \mathrm{Lie}(\widetilde{\OS})$ (the Lie algebra of $\widetilde{\OS}$). Since we are considering projectivized action, we can assume without loss of generality that $\tr(X)=0$. From Equation \eqref{eq:g} follows that such an $X$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:X}
X=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{x_1}{4} & -x_2 & x_3 & 0 \\
x_2 & \frac{x_1}{4} & x_4& 0 \\
x_3 & x_4 & \frac{x_1}{4} & 0 \\
x_5 &x_6 &x_7 & -\frac{3 x_1}{4} \\
\end{array}
\right), \ x_1, \ldots, x_7\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
The induced vector field on $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus 0$ is
$(x,y)\mapsto \gamma'(0),$ where $\gamma(t)=\pi(e^{tX}q)$, $q=(x,y,\sqrt{x^2+y^2},1)^t$ and $\pi(X,Y,Z,W)=\left(X/W, Y/W\right).$ The formulas of Equation \eqref{eq:vf} follow from this recipe by setting $x_i=1$ and the rest 0 in Equation \eqref{eq:X}, $i=1, \ldots, 7.$ \qed
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main2}.}
Note first that an element $g\in\widetilde{\OS}$, given by Equation \eqref{eq:g}, acts on $(\mathbb{R}^4)^*$ (row vectors) by $p\mapsto pg^{-1}$. In the affine chart $\R^{2,1}\subset\mathrm{P}((\mathbb{R}^4)^*)$ (row vectors), ${\mathbf{p}}\mapsto ({\mathbf{p}}:-1)$, the action on $\R^{2,1}$ by an element of $\widetilde{\OS}$, given by Equation \eqref{eq:g}, is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dualaction}
{\mathbf{p}}\mapsto (\lambda{\mathbf{p}} +\b^t) A^{-1}, \ {\mathbf{p}}\in\R^{2,1}.
\end{equation}
It follows that for $X$ given by Equation \eqref{eq:X} the induced vector field on $\R^{2,1}$ is ${\mathbf{p}}\mapsto \gamma'(0),$ where $\gamma(t)=\pi(p e^{-tX})$, $p=({\mathbf{p}},-1)$ and $\pi(A,B,C,D)=-\left(A/D, B/D, C/D\right).$ \qed
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:parab}.} Identify $\mathbb{R}^2=\C$ and consider the squaring map $B: {\mathbf{z}}\mapsto {\mathbf{z}}^2.$
\begin{lemma} $B$ defines a $2:1$ cover $\C\setminus 0\to\C\setminus 0$, mapping pairs of parallel symmetric affine lines into Kepler parabolas.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $B$ is $\C^*$-equivariant, $B(\lambda Z)=\lambda^2B(Z),$ $\lambda\in\C^*$, it is enough to consider the pair $x=\pm 1$. Their $B$-image is the Kepler parabola $x=(1+y/2)^2.$
\end{proof}
It follows that the set of Kepler parabolas is a flat 2-parameter family of plane curves. \qed
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:angmom}.} We offer two proofs.
\medskip\noindent {\em First proof.} Kepler orbits with angular momentum $M$ are the projections of sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes passing through $P:=(0,0,M^2)$ (Corollary \ref{cor:M}). Central projection from $P$ then maps these conic sections to straight lines in the $xy$ plane.
\medskip\noindent {\em Second proof.} Kepler orbits with fixed $M$ are parametrized by the horizontal plane $\{c=1/M^2\}\subset \R^{2,1}$, see Corollary \ref{cor:M} above. We know that $\mathcal{G}$ acts on $\R^{2,1}$ as its full group of Minkowski similarities, so there is an element $g\in\widetilde{\OS}$ that translates this plane to the plane $c=0$, parametrizing straight lines in the $xy$ plane. By Equation \eqref{eq:dualaction}, we can take $g$ corresponding to $A = id, \b = (0,0,-1/M^2)$.
The stated formula follows from Equation \eqref{eq:action}.\qed
\begin{remark} Yet another proof, less elementary, is to write a second order linear ODE for the family of Kepler orbits with fixed $M$ and use the fact that second order linear ODEs are flat \cite[page 44]{Ar2}. The said ODE is $\rho''(\theta)+\rho(\theta)=1/M^2,$ where $\rho=1/r$. See the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:flatE} below.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hill1}.}
According to the general theory of symmetries of ODEs, flatness of a 2-parameter family of plane curves is equivalent to the vanishing of certain two differential invariants of an associated second order ODE. In the Appendix we carry out a calculation showing that one of these invariants is non-vanishing for the family of Kepler orbits of fixed non-zero energy, thus proving that each such family is non-flat, see Proposition \ref{prop:flatE}. Next, according to another basic result of the theory, the dimension of the symmetry group of a non-flat 2-parameter family is at most 3. Thus, for each $E\neq 0$, it is enough to find a 3-dimensional subgroup of $\mathcal{G}$ preserving the set of Kepler orbits with energy $E$.
As explained in Corollary \ref{cor:E}, Kepler orbits with energy $\pm E\neq 0$ are projections of sections of $\mathcal C$ by planes tangent to the inscribed paraboloid of revolution $\mathcal P=
\{2z=|E|\left(x^2+y^2\right)+1/|E|\}$. Let $\overline\cP$ be the closure of $\mathcal P$ in $\R P^3$.
It is a smooth convex compact surface,
given in homogeneous coordinates by the vanishing of the quadratic form $|E|\left(X^2+Y^2\right)-2ZW+W^2/|E|,$ obtained by adding to $\mathcal P$ the point $(0:0:1:0)$, the tangency point of $\overline\cP$ with the plane $W=0$ (the white dot in Figure \ref{fig:huevo}(a)). Consider the subgroup $\widetilde{\OS}_E\subset \widetilde{\OS}$ preserving this quadratic form up to scale. A short calculation shows that its Lie algebra consists of matrices of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:XX}
X=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -x_2 & x_3 & 0 \\
x_2 & 0 & x_4 & 0 \\
x_3 & x_4 & 0 & 0 \\
|E| x_3 & |E| x_4 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \quad x_2, x_3, x_4\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
The associated vector field in the $xy$-plane is $(x,y)\mapsto \gamma'(0)$, where $\gamma(t)=\pi(e^{tX}q)$, $q=(x,y,\pm\sqrt{x^2+y^2},1)
^t$ and $\pi(X,Y,Z,W)=\left(X/W, Y/W\right).$ The sign in $q$ is the opposite sign of $E$, since for $E>0$ (the hyperbolic case) we need to project the action from $\mathcal C_-$ and for $E<0$ from $\mathcal C_+$. Setting $x_i=1$ and the rest 0 in Equation \eqref{eq:XX}, $i=2,3,4, $ we obtain from this recipe for $E<0$ the vector fields
$$v_2:=\partial_\theta,\ v_3:=r(\partial_x+Ex\partial_r),\ v_4:=r(\partial_y+Ey\partial_r),$$
as in Equation \eqref{eq:fe}.
For $E>0$ we get the vector fields $v_2,-v_3,-v_4.$ In both cases, $v_2, v_3, v_4$ are infinitesimal generators of the $\mathcal{G}_E$-action, as stated.
The isomorphism $\widetilde{\OS}_E/\mathbb{R}^*\simeq \mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is best seen in the dual picture, in $\R^{2,1}$. See Figure \ref{fig:huevo}(b).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{huevo.pdf}
\caption{\small The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hill1}. (a) In the affine chart $Z\neq 0$, with coordinates $x=X/Z, y=Y/Z, w=W/Z$ the surface $\overline\cP$ is the ellipsoid of revolution $x^2+y^2+(w-E)^2/E^2=1,$ inscribed in the vertical cylinder $\overline{\cC}=\{x^2+y^2=1\}$, tangent to the plane $w=0$ (the `plane at infinity' in the chart $W\neq 0$). Compare to Figure \ref{fig:parabo}, where $\mathcal P$ is drawn in the chart $W\neq 0$. (b) The dual picture where $\mathcal P^*$ parametrizes planes tangent to $\mathcal P$. It is a hyperboloid of revolution of two sheets. The Minkowski metric restricts to a hyperbolic metric on it, and $\mathcal{G}_E$ acts as its group of isometries.
}
\label{fig:huevo}
\end{figure}
Kepler orbits of energy $E\neq 0$ are parametrized by the surface $\mathcal P^*=\{-a^2-b^2+(c-|E|)^2=E^2\}\subset \R^{2,1}$, the quadric surface dual to $\overline\cP$ (see Equation \eqref{eq:EM} and Figure
\ref{fig:huevo}(b)). This is a hyperboloid of revolution of two sheets. The lower sheet $\mathcal P^*_+$ parametrizes planes tangent to $\mathcal P_+$, which correspond to Kepler hyperbolas with energy $|E|$. Similarly for the lower sheet. The Lorentzian metric $da^2+db^2-dc^2$ in $\R^{2,1}$ restricts to an hyperbolic metric on each of the sheets, on each of which the identity component of $\mathcal{G}_E$ acts as the identity component of its isometry group (in the full $\mathcal{G}_E$ there is also an element interchanging the two sheets, we will use it in the proof of the next theorem).
It is also clear from Figure \ref{fig:huevo}(a) why the orbital symmetry action on $\mathcal H_E$ for $E>0$ is only local. This is because $\overline\cP_+$ touches the plane $W=0$ (the `plane at infinity' of the affine chart $W=0$, intersecting $\overline{\cC}$ at $S^1_\infty$) at one point, which does not correspond to any point in Kepler's $xy$ plane. \qed
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hill2}.} Consider in Figure \ref{fig:huevo}(b) the reflection about the horizontal plane $c=|E|$ passing through the vertex of the shown cone, $(a,b,c)\mapsto (a,b, 2|E|-c),$
interchanging the lower and upper sheets $\mathcal P^*_\pm$ of $\mathcal P^*$. The corresponding element in $\widetilde{\OS}$ is
$$g=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0& 0 & 0 \\
0& 1& 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2|E| & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).
$$
In Figure \ref{fig:huevo}(a), in the affine chart $Z\neq 0$ with coordinates $x=X/Z, y=Y/Z, w=W/Z$, $g$ acts by $(x,y,w)\mapsto (x,y,2|E|-w)$, a reflection about the center $(0,0,|E|)$ of $\overline\cP$ (the dark dot), interchanging $\overline\cP_\pm$.
In Figure \ref{fig:parabo}, in the affine chart $W\neq 0$, with coordinates $x=X/W, y=Y/W, z=Z/W$, $g$ acts by $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x,y,-z)/(1-2|E|z),$ interchanging $\mathcal P_\pm.$
To write an explicit orbital embedding $\mathcal H_E\to \mathcal H_{-E}$, note first in Figure \ref{fig:parabo} that Kepler hyperbolas are the projections of sections of the {\em lower} part $\mathcal C_-$ with planes tangent to $\mathcal P_+$, and that Kepler ellipses are the projections of sections of the {\em upper} part $\mathcal C_+$ with planes tangent to $\mathcal P_-$. The embedding is thus given by the composition $\r=(x,y)\mapsto (\r,-r)\mapsto (\r,r)/(1+2Er)\mapsto \r/(1+2Er),$ as needed.
We can also map the `repelling branches' of Kepler hyperbolas with energy $E$ into $\mathcal H_{-E}$, but these are the projections of sections of the {\em upper} part of $\mathcal C$ with planes tangent to $\mathcal P_+$, thus the embedding is $\r=(x,y)\mapsto (\r,r)\mapsto (\r,-r)/(1-2Er)\mapsto \r/(1-2Er).$ See Figure \ref{fig:emb}. \qed
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Somewhat surprisingly, learning in a Markov Decision Process is most often considered under the performance criteria of \emph{consistency} or \emph{regret minimization} (see e.g.~\cite{Sutton1998,csaba10,torCsaba2020} and references therein). Regret minimization (see e.g.~\cite{auerJaksch10,klucrl10}) is particularly relevant when the rewards accumulated during the learning phase are important. This is however not always the case: for example, when learning a game (whether Go, chess, Atari, or whatever), winning or losing during the learning phase does not really matter. One may intuitively think that sometimes getting into difficulty on purpose so as to observe unheard situations can significantly accelerate the learning process. Another example is the training of robot prototypes in the factory: a reasonably good policy is first searched, regardless of the losses incurred, that can serve as an initialization for a second phase regret-minimization mode that starts when the robot is deployed. It is hence also of great practical importance to study the sample complexity of learning, and to work on strategies that might improve, in this perspective, on regret minimizing algorithms.
In this work, we are interested in the best policy identification (BPI) problem for infinite-horizon discounted MDPs. This framework was introduced by \cite{Fiechter1994EfficientRL} under the name of \textit{PAC-RL}. In BPI the algorithm explores the MDP until it has gathered enough samples to return an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy with probability at least $1-\delta$. Crucially, the algorithm halts at a \textit{random time step}, determined by a \textit{stopping rule} which guarantees that the probability of returning a wrong answer is less that $\delta$. The optimality of BPI algorithms is measured through their \textit{sample complexity}, defined as their expected stopping time. Best policy identification in MDPs has been mostly investigated under the lens of minimax-optimality. The minimax framework may be overly pessimistic by accounting for the worst possible MDP, whereas an algorithm with instance-specific guarantees can adapt its exploration procedure to the hardness of the MDP instance that it faces. Recently, a few works made the first attempts towards understanding the instance-specific sample complexity of reinforcement learning. However, they typically either make simplifying assumptions such as access to a generative model \cite{BESPOKE2019,pmlr-v139-marjani21a}, or restrict their attention to episodic MDPs \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret}. In practice however, the samples gathered rather correspond to a single, possibly infinite, trajectory of the system that we wish to control. This motivates our study of the full online setting where observations are only obtained by navigating in the MDP, that is by sequential choices of actions and following the transitions of the MDP.
{\bf Our contributions.} \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} recently proposed an information-theoretical complexity analysis for MDPs in the case of access to a generative model. Here we extend their results to the online setting. Our main goal is to understand how the online learning scheme affects the sample complexity compared to the easier case where we have a generative model. A natural first step consists in understanding how the first order term $T^\star\log(1/\delta)$ changes. Thus we only focus on the asymptotic regime $\delta\to 0$. Our key contributions can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item First, we adapt the lower bound of \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} to the online setting (Proposition \ref{prop:LB2}). The new bound also writes as the value of a zero-sum two-player game between nature and the algorithm, where the loss function remains the same, but where the set of possible strategies for the algorithm is restricted to a subset $\Omega(\mathcal{M})$ of the simplex of dimension $SA-1$. We refer to the constraints defining $\Omega(\mathcal{M})$ as the \emph{navigation constraints}.
\item We propose MDP-NaS, the first algorithm for the online setting\footnote{Before publication of this work, but after a preprint was available online, \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret} proposed another algorithm with instance-dependent guarantees.} with instance-dependent bounds on its sample complexity in the asymptotic regime $\delta \to 0$ (Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation}). A major challenge lies in the design of a sampling rule that guarantees that the sampling frequency of state-action pairs $\big(N_{sa}(t)/t\big)_{s,a}$ converges to some target oracle allocation $\omega^\star \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})$. Indeed, since we can no longer choose the next state of the agent, the tracking procedure which was developed by \cite{garivier16a} for multi-armed bandits and used in \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} for MDPs with a generative model can no longer be applied in our setting. We propose a new sampling rule which performs exploration according to a mixture of the uniform policy and a plug-in estimate of the \textit{oracle policy} (the policy whose stationary state-action distribution is $\omega^\star$) and prove that it satisfies the requirement above. The analysis of our sampling rule relies on an ergodic theorem for non-homogeneous Markov chains of independent interest (Proposition~\ref{prop:ergodic}).
\item We investigate, depending on the communication properties of the ground-truth instance $\mathcal{M}$, what is the minimal forced-exploration rate in our sampling rule that guarantees the consistency of the plug-in estimator of the oracle policy. Our findings imply that when $\mathcal{M}$ is ergodic, an exploration rate as low as $1/\sqrt{t}$ is sufficient. However, when $\mathcal{M}$ is only assumed to be communicating, one is obliged to resort to a much more conservative exploration rate of $t^{-\frac{1}{m+1}}$, where $m$ is a parameter defined in Lemma \ref{lemma:visits} that may scales as large as $S-1$ in the worst case.
\item Finally, our stopping rule represents the first implementation of the Generalized Likelihood Ratio test for MDPs. Notably, we circumvent the need to solve the max-min program of the lower bound exactly, and show how an upper bound of the best-response problem, such as the one derived in \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}, can be used to perform a GLR test. This improves upon the sample complexity bound that one obtains using the KL-Ball stopping rule of \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} by at least a factor of $2$\footnote{Note that the stopping rule is independent of the sampling rule and thus can be used in both the generative and the online settings. Furthermore, one may even obtain an improved factor of $4$ by using a deviation inequality for the full distribution of (reward, next-state) instead of a union bound of deviation inequalities for each marginal distribution.}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Related work}
{\bf Minimax Best-Policy Identification.} BPI in the online setting has been investigated recently by a number of works with minimax sample complexity bounds. In the case of episodic MDPs \cite{pmlr-v132-kaufmann21a}, \cite{Menard2020FastAL} proposed algorithms that identify an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy at the initial state w.h.p. In contrast, in the case of infinite-horizon MDPs one is rather interested in finding a good policy at {\it every} state. Recent works provide convergence analysis for Q-learning \cite{li2020asynchronous} or policy gradient algorithms \cite{PCPG_NEURIPS2020}, \cite{Feng2021ProvablyCO}, \cite{Zanette2021CautiouslyOP}. Their results typically state that if the algorithm is fed with the appropriate hyperparameters, it can return an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy w.h.p. after collecting a polynomial number of samples. In practice, a pure exploration agent needs a stopping rule to determine when to halt the learning process. In particular, the question of how to tune the number of iterations of these algorithms without prior knowledge of the ground truth instance remains open.\footnote{Here we chose not to mention works that investigate the sample complexity in the PAC-MDP framework \cite{kakade2003sample}. Indeed, in this framework the sample complexity is rather defined as the the number of episodes where the algorithm does not play an $\varepsilon$-optimal policy. As explained in \cite{Domingues2021a}, this objective is closer to regret minimization than to pure exploration.}
{\bf Generative Model.}
A large body of literature focuses on the so-called {\it generative model}, where in each step, the algorithm may query a sample (i.e., observe a reward and a next-state drawn from the rewards and transitions distributions respectively) from any given state-action pair \cite{kearnsSingh98},\cite{KearnsMansour99}, \cite{EMM06}, \cite{azar2013minimax},\cite{Dietterich13}, \cite{Wang17}, \cite{Sidford18a}, \cite{BESPOKE2019}, \cite{pmlr-v125-agarwal20b}, \cite{li2020breaking}, \cite{li2021qlearning}, \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}.
{\bf Instance-specific bounds.} Instance-optimal algorithms for Best Arm Identification in multi armed bandits (MDPs with one state) have been obtained independently by \cite{garivier16a},\cite{Russo16}. Here, we extend their information-theoretical approach to the problem of Best Policy Identification in MDPs. More recently, \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret} provided an algorithm for BPI in episodic MDPs with instance-specific sample complexity. A more detailed comparison with \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret} can be found in Section~\ref{sec:MOCA}.
{\bf Outline.} The rest of the paper is organized as follows: After introducing the setting and giving some notation and definitions in Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we derive in Section~\ref{sec:lb} a lower bound on the time required by any algorithm navigating the MDP until it is able to identify the best policy with probability at least $1-\delta$. The algorithm is presented in Section~\ref{sec:alg}. Section~\ref{sec:analysis} contains our main results along with a sketch of the analysis. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:MOCA} we compare our results with MOCA, the only other algorithm (to the best of our knowledge) with problem-dependent guarantees in the online setting. Most technical results and proofs are given in the appendix.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\section{Setting and notation}\label{sec:prelim}
{\bf Discounted MDPs.} We consider infinite horizon MDPs with discount and finite state and action spaces ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal A}$. Such an MDP ${\cal M}$ is defined through its transition and reward distributions $p_{\cal M}(\cdot |s,a)$ and $q_{\cal M}(\cdot|s,a)$ for all $(s,a)$. For simplicity, $q_{\cal M}(\cdot|s,a)$ will denote the density of the reward distribution w.r.t. a positive measure $\lambda$ with support included in $[0,1]$. Specifically, $p_{\cal M}(s' |s,a)$ denotes the probability of transitioning to state $s'$ after playing action $a$ at state $s$ while $R(s,a)$ is the random instantaneous reward that is collected. Finally, $\gamma \in [0,1)$ is a discounting factor. We look for an optimal control policy $\pi^\star: \mathcal{S} \to \mathcal{A}$ maximizing the long-term discounted reward: $V_{\cal M}^\pi(s) = \mathbb{E}_{{\cal M},\pi}[\sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^t R(s_t, \pi(s_t))]$, where $\mathbb{E}_{{\cal M},\pi}$ denotes the expectation w.r.t the randomness in the rewards and the trajectory when the policy $\pi$ is used. Classically, we denote by $V_{\cal M}^\star$ the optimal value function of ${\cal M}$ and by $Q^\star_{\mathcal{M}}$ the optimal $Q$-value function of ${\cal M}$. $\Pi^\star(\mathcal{M}) = \{ \pi: \mathcal{S} \to \mathcal{A},\ V_{\cal M}^\pi = V_{\cal M}^\star\}$ denotes the set of optimal policies for $\mathcal{M}$.
{\bf Problem-dependent quantities.} The sub-optimality gap of action $a$ in state $s$ is defined as $\Delta_{sa} = \starV{\mathcal{M}}(s) - \starQ{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)$. Let $\Delta_{\min}=\min_{s,a \neq \pi^\star(s)}\Delta_{sa}$ be the minimum gap and $\spn{\starV{\mathcal{M}}}=\max_{s,s'}|\starV{\mathcal{M}}(s)-\starV{\mathcal{M}}(s')|$ be the span of
$\starV{\mathcal{M}}$. Finally, we introduce the variance of the value function in $(s,a)$ as $\mathrm{Var}_{p(s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}] = \mathrm{Var}_{s'\sim p_{\mathcal{M}}(.|s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}(s')]$.
{\bf Active pure exploration with fixed confidence.} When ${\cal M}$ is unknown, we wish to devise a learning algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ identifying, from a single trajectory, an optimal policy as quickly as possible with some given level of confidence. Formally, such an algorithm consists of (i) a sampling rule, selecting in each round $t$ in an adaptive manner the action $a_t$ to be played; $a_t$ depends on past observations, it is ${\cal F}_t^\mathbb{A}$-measurable where ${\cal F}_t^\mathbb{A}=\sigma(s_0,a_0,R_0\ldots,s_{t-1},a_{t-1},R_{t-1},s_t)$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by observations up to time $t$; (ii) a stopping rule $\tau_\delta$, a stopping time w.r.t. the filtration $({\cal F}_t^\mathbb{A})_{t\ge 0}$, deciding when to stop collecting observations; (iii) a decision rule returning $\hat{\pi}^\star_{\tau_\delta}$ an estimated optimal policy.
An algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ is $\delta$-Probably Correct ($\delta$-PC) over some set $\mathbb{M}$ of MDPs, if for any ${\cal M}\in \mathbb{M}$, it returns (in finite time) an optimal policy with probability at least $1-\delta$. In this paper, we aim to devise a $\delta$-PC algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ with minimal sample complexity $\mathbb{E}_{{\cal M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau_\delta]$. We make the following assumption.
\begin{assumption} We consider the set $\mathbb{M}$ of {\it communicating} MDPs with a unique optimal policy.
\label{assumption:uniqueness}
\end{assumption}
We justify the above assumption as follows. (i) We restrict our attention to the case where ${\cal M}$ is communicating, for otherwise, if it is Multichain there would be a non-zero probability that the algorithm enters a subclass of states from which there is no possible comeback. In this case it becomes impossible to identify the \textit{global} optimal policy\footnote{Unless we modify the objective to finding the optimal policy in this subchain.}. (ii) About the uniqueness of the optimal policy, treating the case of MDPs with multiple optimal policies, or that of $\epsilon$-optimal policy identification, requires the use of more involved Overlapping Hypothesis tests, which is already challenging in multi-armed bandits (MDPs with a single state) \cite{Garivier2019NonAsymptoticST}. We will analyze how to remove this assumption in future work.
{\bf Notation.} $\mathcal{Z}\triangleq\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{A}$ is the state-action space. $\Sigma \triangleq \{\omega \in \mathbb{R}_{+}^{S\times A}:\ \sum_{s,a} \omega_{s a} = 1\}$, the simplex of dimension $SA -1$. $N_{sa}(t)$ denotes the number of times the state-action pair $(s,a)$ has been visited up to the end of round $t$. We also introduce $N_s(t)=\sum_{a \in \mathcal{A}} N_{sa}(t)$. Similarly, for a vector $\omega \in \Sigma$ we will denote $\omega_s \triangleq \sum_{a \in \mathcal{A}} \omega_{s a}$. For a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$, the infinity norm is defined as $\norm{A}_\infty \triangleq \max_{1\leq i\leq n} \sum_{j=1}^m |a_{i,j}|$. The KL divergence between two probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ on some discrete space $\mathcal{S}$ is defined as: $KL(P\| Q) \triangleq \sum_{s \in \mathcal{S}} P(s)\log(\frac{P(s)}{Q(s)})$. For Bernoulli distributions of respective means $p$ and $q$, the KL divergence is denoted by $\operatorname{kl} (p,q)$. For distributions over $[0,1]$ defined through their densities $p$ and $q$ w.r.t. some positive measure $\lambda$, the KL divergence is:
$KL(p\| q)\triangleq \int_{-\infty }^{\infty }p(x)\log \left(\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}\right)\,\lambda(dx)$. $\mathbb{M}$ denotes the set of communicating MDPs with a unique optimal policy. For two MDPs ${\cal M}, {\cal M}'\in \mathbb{M}$, we say that $\mathcal{M} \ll \mathcal{M}'$ if for all $(s,a)$, $p_\mathcal{M}(\cdot|s,a)\ll p_{\mathcal{M}'}(\cdot|s,a)$ and $q_\mathcal{M}(\cdot|s,a)\ll q_{\mathcal{M}'}(\cdot|s,a)$. In that case, for any state (action pair) $(s,a)$, we define the KL divergence of the distributions of the one-step observations under ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal M}'$ when starting at $(s,a)$ as $\textrm{KL}_{\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{M}'}(s,a) \triangleq KL(p_\mathcal{M}(\cdot| s,a)\| p_{\mathcal{M}'}(\cdot|s,a)) +KL(q_\mathcal{M}(\cdot|s,a)\| q_{\mathcal{M}'}(\cdot|s,a))$.
\section{Sample complexity lower bound}\label{sec:lb}
In this section, we first derive a lower bound on the expected sample complexity satisfied by any $\delta$-PC algorithm. The lower bound is obtained as the solution of a non-convex optimization problem, as in the case where the learner has access to a generative model \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}. The problem has however additional constraints, referred to as the {\it navigation} constraints, due the fact that the learner has access to a single system trajectory.\\
The expected sample complexity of an algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ is
$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau_\delta]=\sum_{s,a} \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{sa}(\tau_\delta)].
$
Lower bounds on the sample complexity are derived by identifying constraints that the various $N_{sa}(\tau_\delta)$'s need to satisfy so as to get a $\delta$-PC algorithm. We distinguish here two kinds of constraints:
{\bf Information constraints.} These are constraints on $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{sa}(\tau_\delta)]$, so that the algorithm can learn the optimal policy with probability at least $1-\delta$. They are the same as those derived \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} when the learner has access to a generative model and are recalled in Lemma \ref{lem1} in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_LB}.
{\bf Navigation constraints.} Observations come from a single (but controlled) system trajectory which imposes additional constraints on the $N_{sa}(\tau_\delta)$'s. These are derived by just writing the Chapman-Kolmogorov equations of the controlled Markov chain (refer to Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_LB} for a proof).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2} For any algorithm $\mathbb{A}$, and for any state $s$, we have:
\begin{align}\label{eq:balance}
\Big| \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_s(\tau_\delta)]- \sum_{s',a'} p_{\mathcal{M}} (s |s',a') \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{s'a'}({\tau_\delta})] \Big| \le 1.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Putting all constraints together, we obtain the following sample complexity lower bound.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:LB2}
Define the set of navigation-constrained allocation vectors:
\begin{equation*}
\Omega(\mathcal{M}) = \big\{\omega\in \Sigma :\ \forall s \in \mathcal{S},\ \omega_s = \underset{s',a'}{\sum} p_{\mathcal{M}}(s|s',a') \omega_{s' a'} \big\}.
\end{equation*}
Further define $\operatorname{Alt}{\mathcal{M}} = \{\mathcal{M}' \textrm{ MDP}: \mathcal{M} \ll \mathcal{M}' ,\Pi^\star(\mathcal{M})\cap \Pi^\star(\mathcal{M}')=\emptyset\}$ the set of alternative instances. Then the expected sample complexity $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau_\delta]$ of any $\delta$-PC algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LBasympt}
\underset{\delta \to 0}{\liminf}\ \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau]}{\log(1/\delta)} \geq T_o(\mathcal{M}),\quad \textrm{where}\quad T_o(\mathcal{M})^{-1} = \sup\limits_{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})} T(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
T(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1} = \inf\limits_{\mathcal{M}' \in \mathrm{Alt}(\mathcal{M})} \sum_{s,a}\omega_{s a}\textrm{KL}_{\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{M}'}(s,a).
\label{eq:SC_lower_bound}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
A common interpretation of change-of-measure lower bounds like the one above is the following: the optimization problem in the definition of $T_o(\mathcal{M})$ can be seen as the value of a two-player zero-sum game between an algorithm which samples each state-action $(s,a)$ proportionally to $\omega_{sa}$ and an adversary who chooses an alternative instance $\mathcal{M}'$ that is difficult to distinguish from $\mathcal{M}$ under the algorithm's sampling strategy. This suggests that an optimal algorithm should play the optimal allocation that solves the optimization problem (\ref{eq:LBasympt}) and, as a consequence, rules out all alternative instances as fast as possible.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Note that compared to the lower bound of the generative setting in \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}, the only change is in the set of sampling strategies that the algorithm can play, which is no longer equal to the entire simplex.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proxy for the optimal allocation and the characteristic time}
As shown in \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}, even without accounting for the navigation constraints, computing the characteristic time $T_o(\mathcal{M})$ and in particular, the optimal allocation leading to it is not easy. Indeed, the sub-problem corresponding to computing $T(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1}$ is non-convex. This makes it difficult to design an algorithm that targets the optimal weights $\argmax_{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})} T(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1}$. Instead, we use a tractable upper bound of $T(\mathcal{M},\omega)$ from \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}:
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 1, \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a})\label{lem:proxy}
For all vectors $\omega\in \Sigma$, $T(\mathcal{M}, \omega)\leq U(\mathcal{M},\omega)$, where\footnote{The exact definition of $H^\star$ is given in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_LB}.}
\begin{equation}
U(\mathcal{M},\omega) = \underset{(s,a): a\neq \pi^\star(s)}{\max}\ \frac{
H_{sa}}{\omega_{s a}} + \frac{ H^\star}{S\underset{s}{\min}\ \omega_{s,\pi^\star(s)}},
\label{eq:upper_bound}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hbox{and }
\begin{cases}
H_{sa} = \displaystyle{\frac{2}{ \Delta_{s a}^2}} + \displaystyle{\max\bigg(\frac{16\mathrm{Var}_{ p(s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}] }{\Delta_{s a}^2},\frac{6\spn{\starV{\mathcal{M}}}^{4/3}}{\Delta_{s a} ^{4/3}}\bigg)},\\
H^\star = \displaystyle{\frac{2S}{[\Delta_{\min} (1-\gamma) ]^2} + \mathcal{O}\bigg(\frac{S}{\Delta_{\min}^2(1-\gamma)^3} \bigg)}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\label{lemma:upper_bound}
\end{lemma}
Using $U(\mathcal{M},\omega)$, we obtain the following upper bound on the characteristic time (\ref{eq:LBasympt}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LBasympt2}
T_o(\mathcal{M}) \leq U_o(\mathcal{M}) \triangleq \underset{{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}}{\inf} U(\mathcal{M},\omega).
\end{equation}
The advantages of the above upper bound $U_o(\mathcal{M})$ are that: (i) it is a problem-specific quantity as it depends on the gaps and variances of the value function in $\mathcal{M}$; (ii) the corresponding allocation (that solves (\ref{eq:LBasympt2})) can be easily computed, and hence targeted. Indeed, the optimization problem in (\ref{eq:LBasympt2}) has convex objective and constraints. Therefore, we can use the projected subgradient-descent algorithm to compute
\begin{equation}
{\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\mathcal{M}) \triangleq \underset{{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}}{\argmin}\ U(\mathcal{M},\omega)= \argmax_{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}\ U(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1},
\label{eq:def_oracle_allocation}
\end{equation}
which will be used in our algorithm as a proxy\footnote{Note that if we have access to an optimization oracle that, given a MDP $\mathcal{M}$, returns the optimal allocation solution to (\ref{eq:LBasympt}), then we can replace ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\mathcal{M})$ by this optimal allocation. Our algorithm will then be asymptotically optimal up to a factor of 2.} for $\argmax_{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}\ T(\mathcal{M},\omega)^{-1}$.
\section{Algorithm}\label{sec:alg}
We propose MDP-NaS (MDP Navigate-and-Stop), a model-based algorithm that is inspired by the lower bound. The lower bound suggests that to identify the best policy in a sample-efficient manner, the algorithm must collect samples from state-action pair $(s,a)$ proportionally to ${\boldsymbol \omega}_{sa}^\star(\mathcal{M})$. We propose two sampling rules which ensure that the former statement holds in the long term (see Section \ref{sec:sampling_rule} and Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic} for a rigorous formulation). Our sampling rules are combined with a Generalized Likelihood Ratio (GLR) test (or rather a proxy of the GLR test, see Section \ref{sec:stopping_rule} for details), that stops as soon as we are confident that $\widehat{\pi}_t^\star = \pi^\star$ with probability at least $1-\delta$. The pseudo-code for MDP-NaS is given in Algorithm \ref{alg:main}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\label{alg:main}
\caption{MDP Navigate and Stop (MDP-NaS)}
\KwIn{Confidence level $\delta$, $\textrm{ERGODIC}$ boolean variable, communication parameter $m$ or an upper bound.}
\eIf{\textrm{ERGODIC}}{
Set $(\epsilon_t)_{t\geq 1} = (1/\sqrt{t})_{t\geq 1}$. \\
}{
Set $(\epsilon_t)_{t\geq 1} = (t^{-\frac{1}{m+1}})_{t\geq 1}$.\\
}
Set $t \leftarrow 0$ and $N_{sa}(t) \leftarrow 0$, for all (s,a).\\
Initialize empirical estimate $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_0$ by drawing an arbitrary MDP from $\mathbb{M}$.\\
Compute $\widehat{\pi}_t^{\star}\leftarrow \textrm{POLICY-ITERATION}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$.\\
\While{Stopping condition (\ref{eq:def_stopping_tule}) is not satisfied}
{
Compute ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$ according to (\ref{eq:def_oracle_allocation}) and $\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$ according to (\ref{eq:def_oracle_policy}).\\
\eIf{$t = 0$}{
Play $a_0 \sim \mathrm{Unif}([|1,A|])$.
}{
Play $a_{t} \sim \pi_t(.|s_t)$, where $\pi_t$ is determined by either (\ref{eq:def_D_navigation}) or (\ref{eq:def_C_navigation}).
}
Observe $(R_t,s_{t+1}) \sim q(.|s_t,a_t) \otimes p(.|s_t,a_t)$.\\
$t \leftarrow t+1$.\\
Update $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{t}$ and $(N_{sa}(t))_{s,a}$.\\
Compute $\widehat{\pi}_t^{\star}\leftarrow \textrm{POLICY-ITERATION}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$.
}
\KwOut{Empirical optimal policy $\widehat{\pi}_{\tau}^{\star}$.}
\label{main_algorithm}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Sampling rule}\label{sec:sampling_rule}
We introduce a few definitions to simplify the presentation. Any stationary policy $\pi$ induces a Markov chain on $\mathcal{Z}$ whose transition kernel is defined by $P_{\pi}((s,a), (s',a')) \triangleq P(s'|s,a) \pi(a'|s')$. With some abuse of notation, we will use $P_\pi$ to refer to both the Markov chain and its kernel. We denote by $\pi_u$ the uniform random policy, i.e., $\pi_u(a|s) = 1/A$ for all pairs $(s,a)$. Finally, we define the vector of visit-frequencies ${\boldsymbol N}(t)/t \triangleq \big(N_{sa}(t)/t\big)_{(s,a)\in \mathcal{Z}}$.
In contrast with pure exploration in Multi-Armed Bandits and MDPs with a generative model where any allocation vector in the simplex is achievable, here the agent can only choose a \textit{sequence of actions} and follow the resulting trajectory. Therefore, one might ask if the oracle allocation can be achieved by following a simple policy. A natural candidate is the \textit{oracle policy} defined by
\begin{align}
\forall (s,a) \in \mathcal{Z},\quad \pi^o(a|s) \triangleq \frac{\omega_{s a}^\star}{\omega_s^\star} = \frac{\omega_{s a}^\star}{\sum_{b\in \mathcal{A}}\omega_{sb}^\star}.
\label{eq:def_oracle_policy}
\end{align}
It is immediate to check that ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star$ is the stationary distribution of $P_{\pi^o}$. Denote by $\pi^o(\mathcal{M})$ the above oracle policy defined through $\omega^\star(\mathcal{M})$. Policy $\pi^o(\mathcal{M})$ is the target that we would like to play, but since the rewards and dynamics of $\mathcal{M}$ are unknown, the actions must be chosen so as to estimate consistently the oracle policy while at the same time ensuring that ${\boldsymbol N}(t)/t$ converges to ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\mathcal{M})$. The following two sampling rules satisfy these requirements.
{\bf D-Navigation rule:} At time step $t$, the learner plays the policy
\begin{equation}
\pi_t = \varepsilon_t \pi_u + (1-\varepsilon_t)\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t),
\label{eq:def_D_navigation}
\end{equation}
{\bf C-Navigation rule:} At time step $t$, the learner plays
\begin{equation}
\pi_t = \varepsilon_t \pi_u + (1-\varepsilon_t)\sum_{j=1}^{t} \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_j)/t,
\label{eq:def_C_navigation}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_t$ is a decreasing exploration rate to be tuned later. In the second case, the agent navigates using a Cesàro-mean of oracle policies instead of the current estimate of the oracle policy, which makes the navigation more stable.
\subsubsection{Tuning the forced exploration parameter}
The mixture with the uniform policy\footnote{Our results still hold if $\pi_u$ is replaced by any other policy $\pi$ which has an ergodic kernel. In practice, this can be helpful especially when we have prior knowledge of a fast-mixing policy $\pi$.} helps the agent to explore all state-action pairs often enough in the initial phase. This is particularly necessary in the case where the empirical weight $\omega_{s a}^\star(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$ of some state-action pair $(s,a)$ is under-estimated, which may cause that this pair is left aside and hence the estimation never corrected.
The next result in this section gives a tuning of the rate $\varepsilon_t$ that ensures a sufficient forced exploration:
\begin{lemma}
Let $m$ be the maximum length of the shortest paths (in terms of number of transitions) between pairs of states in $\mathcal{M}$: $
m \triangleq\max_{(s,s')\in \mathcal{S}^2}\ \min \{n\geq 1:\ \exists \pi: \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}, P_{\pi}^n(s,s') > 0 \}$. Then C-Navigation or D-Navigation with any decreasing sequence $(\varepsilon_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that $\forall t \geq 1,\ \varepsilon_t \geq t^{-\frac{1}{m+1}}$ satisfies: $\P_{\mathcal{M}, \mathbb{A}}\big(\forall (s,a) \in \mathcal{Z},\ \lim_{t \to \infty} N_{s a}(t) = \infty \big) = 1 $.
\label{lemma:visits}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
When the parameter $m$ is unknown to the learner, one can replace it by its worst case value $m_{\max} = S-1$. However, when prior knowledge is available, using a faster-decreasing sequence $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\frac{1}{m+1}}$ instead of $t^{-\frac{1}{S}}$ can be useful to accelerate convergence, especially when the states of $\mathcal{M}$ are densely connected ($m \ll S-1$).
\label{remark:dense_MDP_case}
\end{remark}
{\bf Minimal exploration rate: Communicating MDPs.} The forced exploration rate $t^{-\frac{1}{S}}$ vanishes quite slowly. One may wonder if this rate is necessary to guarantee sufficient exploration in communicating MDPs: the answer is yes in the worst case, as the following example shows. Consider a variant of the classical RiverSwim MDP with state (resp. action) space $\mathcal{S} = [|1,S|]$, (resp. $\mathcal{A} = \{ \small{\textsc{LEFT1, LEFT2, RIGHT}} \}$). $\small{\textsc{LEFT1}}$ and $\small{\textsc{LEFT2}}$ are equivalent actions inducing the same rewards and transitions. After playing $\small{\textsc{RIGHT}}$ the agent makes a transition of one step to the right, while playing $\small{\textsc{LEFT1}}$ (or $\small{\textsc{LEFT2}}$) moves the agent all the way back to state $1$. The rewards are null everywhere but in states $\{1,S\}$ where $R(1,\small{\textsc{LEFT1}}), R(1,\small{\textsc{LEFT2}})$ are equal to $0.01$ almost surely and $R(S,\small{\textsc{RIGHT}})$ is Bernoulli with mean 0.02.
When $\gamma$ is close to $1$, the optimal policy consists in always playing $\small{\textsc{RIGHT}}$ so as to reach state $S$ and stay there indefinitely. Now suppose that the agent starts at $s=1$ and due to the small probability of observing the large reward in state $S$, she underestimates the value of this state in the first rounds and focuses on distinguishing the best action to play in state $1$ among $\{\small{\textsc{LEFT1, LEFT2}}\}$. Under this scenario she ends up playing a sequence of policies that scales like $\pi_t = 2\varepsilon_t \pi_u + (1-2\varepsilon_t)(\small{\textsc{LEFT1}}+\small{\textsc{LEFT2}})/2$\footnote{Modulo a re-scaling of $\epsilon_t$ by a constant factor of 1/2.}. This induces the non-homogeneous Markov Chain depicted in Figure \ref{fig:minimal_epsilon}. For the exploration rate $\displaystyle{\varepsilon_t = t^{-\alpha}}$, we show that if the agent uses any $\alpha > \frac{1}{S-1}$, with non-zero probability she will visit state $S$ only a finite number of times. Therefore she will fail to identify the optimal policy for small values of the confidence level $\delta$. The proof is deferred to Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_sampling}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance={18mm}]
\tikzset{node style/.style={state, fill=gray!20!white}}
\node[node style] (1) {1};
\node[node style, right=of 1] (2) {2};
\node[draw=none, right=of 2] (2-S) {$\cdots$};
\node[node style, right=of 2-S] (S) {$S$};
\draw[>=latex,
auto=left,
every loop]
(1) edge[bend left, auto=left] node {$\varepsilon_t$} (2)
(2) edge[bend left, auto=right] node {$1-\varepsilon_t$} (1)
(2) edge[bend left, auto=left] node {$\varepsilon_t$} (2-S)
(2-S) edge[bend left, auto=right] node {$ \quad \quad \ 1-\varepsilon_t$} (1)
(2-S) edge[bend left, auto=left] node {$\varepsilon_t$} (S)
(S) edge[bend left, auto=right] node {$\quad \quad \quad 1-\varepsilon_t$} (1)
(1) edge[loop above] node {$1-\varepsilon_t$} (1)
(S) edge[loop above] node {$\varepsilon_t$} (S);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Non-homogeneous Markov Chain. An exploration rate of at least $t^{-\frac{1}{S-1}}$ is needed.}
\label{fig:minimal_epsilon}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Minimal exploration rate: Ergodic MDPs.} For such MDPs, we can select $\varepsilon_t=1/t^\alpha$ where $\alpha<1$ without compromising the conclusion of Lemma \ref{lemma:visits}. The proof is deferred to Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_sampling}.
\subsection{Stopping rule}\label{sec:stopping_rule}
To implement a GLR test, we define $\ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t)$, the likelihood of the observations under some MDP $\mathcal{M}' \ll \mathcal{M}$: $\ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t) =
\prod_{k = 0}^{t-1}
p_{\mathcal{M}'} (s_{k+1}|s_k, a_k)
q_{\mathcal{M}'} (R_{k}|s_k, a_k)$, where at step $k$ the algorithm is in state $s_k$, plays action $a_k$ and observes the reward $R_k$ and $s_{k+1}$ (the next state). Performing a GLR test in step $t$ consists in computing the optimal policy $\widehat{\pi}_t^\star$ for the estimated MDP $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t$ and in comparing the likelihood of observations under the most likely model where $\widehat{\pi}_t^\star$ is optimal to the likelihood under the most likely model where $\widehat{\pi}_t^\star$ is sub-optimal. Following the standardized form of the GLR for multi-armed bandits in \cite{Degenne2019NonAsymptoticPE} we write:
\begin{align}
G_{\widehat{\pi}_t^\star} (t) &= \log\ \frac{\underset{\mathcal{M}': \widehat{\pi}_t^\star \in \Pi^\star(\mathcal{M}')}{\sup}
\ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t)}{\underset{\mathcal{M}': \widehat{\pi}_t^\star \notin \Pi^\star(\mathcal{M}')}{\sup} \ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t)} \nonumber= \log\ \frac{\ell_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t}(t)}
{\underset{\mathcal{M}' \in \operatorname{Alt}{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t}}{\sup} \ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t)} \nonumber
= \underset{\mathcal{M}' \in \operatorname{Alt}{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t}}{\inf} \log \frac{\ell_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t} (t)}{\ell_{\mathcal{M}'} (t)} \nonumber \\
&= \underset{\mathcal{M}' \in \operatorname{Alt}{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t}}{\inf} \underset{(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{s a}(t) \big[\operatorname{KL}{\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)}{q_{\mathcal{M}'}(s,a)} + \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{s,a}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}'}(s,a)}\big] \label{eq:GLR_first_exp} \\
& = t\; T\bigg(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t, {\boldsymbol N}(t)/t\bigg)^{-1} \;.\label{eq:GLR_second_exp}
\end{align}
The hypothesis $(\widehat{\pi}_t^\star \neq \pi^\star)$ is then rejected as soon as the ratio of likelihoods becomes greater than the threshold $\beta(t,\delta)$, properly tuned to ensure that the algorithm is $\delta$-PC.
Note that the likelihood ratio $G_{\widehat{\pi}_t^\star} (t)$ itself can be difficult to compute for MDPs, since it is equivalent to solving (\ref{eq:SC_lower_bound}), we lower bound it using (\ref{eq:GLR_second_exp}) and Lemma \ref{lemma:upper_bound}. This leads to the following proposition:
\begin{proposition}
Define the random thresholds for the transitions and rewards respectively:
\begin{align*}
\beta_p(t,\delta) &\triangleq \log(1/\delta) + (S-1)\underset{(s,a)}{\sum}\log\bigg(e\big[1+N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)\big]\bigg)\\
\beta_r(t,\delta) &\triangleq SA\; \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big) + 3\sum_{s,a} \log\big[1+\log(N_{s a}(t))\big]
\end{align*}
where $\varphi(x) \underset{\infty}{\sim} x + \log(x)$ is defined in the appendix.
Then the stopping rule:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\delta} \triangleq \inf \bigg\{t \geq 1 :\ t\; U\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t,{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t\big)^{-1} \geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2) \bigg\}
\label{eq:def_stopping_tule}
\end{equation}
is $\delta$-PC, i.e., $\P(\tau_{\delta} < \infty,\ \widehat{\pi}_{\tau_\delta}^\star \neq \pi^\star) \leq \delta.$
\end{proposition}
\section{Main results and sample complexity analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
First we state our main results, which take the form of asymptotic upper bounds on the sample complexity of MDP-NaS, under a slightly more conservative exploration rate than in Lemma \ref{lemma:visits}. Then we present the most important ingredients in their proof. The complete proof is provided in Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_SC}.
\begin{theorem}
Using the C-Navigation sampling rule with $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\frac{1}{2(m+1)}}$ and the stopping rule (\ref{eq:def_stopping_tule}):
(i) MDP-NaS stops almost surely and its stopping time satisfies\\
$\P\big( \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \frac{\tau_\delta}{\log(1/\delta)} \leq 2 U_{o}(\mathcal{M}) \big) = 1$, where $U_{o}(\mathcal{M})$ was defined in (\ref{eq:LBasympt2});\\
(ii) the stopping time of MDP-NaS has a finite expectation for all $\delta \in (0,1)$, and $\limsup_{\delta \to 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}[\tau_\delta]}{\log(1/\delta)} \leq 2 U_{o}(\mathcal{M})$.
\label{theorem:expectation}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Proof sketch}
{\bf Concentration of empirical MDPs:} The starting point of our proof is a concentration event of the empirical estimates $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t$ around $\mathcal{M}$. For $\xi > 0$ and $T\geq 1$, we define $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) = \bigcap_{t= T^{1/4}}^{T}\bigg(\norm{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t -\mathcal{M}} \leq \xi, \norm{\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t) - \pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \leq \xi \bigg)$, where $\norm{.}$ is a semi-norm on MDPs.
Then we prove in Lemma \ref{lemma:concentration_empirical_mdps} that $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)$ holds with high probability in the sense that for all $T\geq 1$:
\begin{equation}
\P\left(\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \right) \geq 1 - \mathcal{O}\big(1/T^2\big).
\label{eq:HP_first_event}
\end{equation}
For this purpose we derive, for all pairs $(s,a)$, a lower bound on $N_{sa}(t)$ stating that\footnote{Using the method in our proof one can derive a lower bound of the type $t^\zeta$ for any $\zeta <1/2$ and any exploration rate $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\theta}$ with $\theta< 1/(m+1)$. We chose $\theta = \frac{1}{2(m+1)}$ and $\zeta = 1/4$ because they enable us to have an explicit formula for $\lambda_\alpha$. See Lemma \ref{lemma:HP_forced_exploration} in the appendix.}: $\P\big(\forall (s,a) \in \mathcal{Z},\ \forall t \geq 1,\ N_{sa}(t) \geq (t/\lambda_\alpha)^{1/4} - 1\big) \geq 1 - \alpha$ where $\lambda_\alpha \propto \log^2(1+SA/\alpha)$ is a parameter that depends on the mixing properties of $\mathcal{M}$ under the uniform policy. These lower bounds on $N_{sa}(t)$ w.h.p. contrast with their deterministic equivalent obtained for C-tracking in \cite{garivier16a}. \\ \\
{\bf Concentration of visit-frequencies:} Before we proceed, we make the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}
$P_{\pi_u}$ is aperiodic\footnote{This assumption is mild as it is enough to have only one state $\Tilde{s}$ and one action $\Tilde{a}$ such that $P_\mathcal{M}(\Tilde{s}|\Tilde{s},\Tilde{a}) > 0$ for it to be satisfied. Furthermore, Assumptions \ref{assumption:uniqueness} and \ref{assumption:aperiodic} combined are still less restrictive than the usual \textit{ergodicity} assumption, which requires that the Markov chains of \textit{all} policies are ergodic.}.
\label{assumption:aperiodic}
\end{assumption}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumption:uniqueness} and \ref{assumption:aperiodic} the kernel $P_{\pi_u}$, and consequently also $P_{\pi^o}$, becomes ergodic. Hence the iterates of $P_{\pi^o}$ converge to ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\mathcal{M})$ at a geometric speed. Also note that the Markov chains induced by playing either of our sampling rules are non-homogeneous, with a sequence of kernels $(P_{\pi_t})_{t\geq 1}$ that is history-dependent. To tackle this difficulty, we adapt a powerful ergodic theorem (see Proposition \ref{proposition:ergodic_thm} in the appendix) from \cite{Fort2011} originally derived for adaptive Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) algorithms to get the following result.
\begin{theorem
Using the C-Navigation or D-Navigation we have: $\underset{t \to \infty}{\lim} {\boldsymbol N}(t)/t = \omega^\star(\mathcal{M})$ almost surely.
\label{theorem:ergodic}
\end{theorem}
Lemma \ref{lemma:visits} and Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic} combined prove Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation} {\it (i)} in a straightforward fashion. The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation} {\it (ii)} is more involved. Again, we adapt the proof method from \cite{Fort2011} to derive a finite-time version of Proposition \ref{proposition:ergodic_thm} which results into the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
Under C-Navigation, for all $\xi>0$, there exists a time $T_\xi$ such that for all $T \geq T_\xi$, all $t\geq T^{3/4}$ and all functions $f: \mathcal{Z} \xrightarrow{} \mathbbm{R}^{+}$, we have:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg( \bigg|\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{t} f(s_k,a_k)}{t} - \mathbb{E}_{(s,a)\sim\omega^\star}[f(s,a)] \bigg| \geq K_\xi \norm{f}_\infty \xi \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \bigg) \leq 2\exp\big(-t \xi^2\big).
\end{align*}
where $\xi \mapsto K_\xi$ is a mapping with values in $(1,\infty)$ such that $\limsup_{\xi \to 0} K_\xi < \infty$.
\label{proposition:concentration_visits_informal}
\end{proposition}
Now define $\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi) = \bigcap_{t= T^{3/4}}^{T}\big( \big|{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t - \omega^\star(\mathcal{M}) \big| \leq K_\xi\; \xi \big)$. Then Proposition \ref{proposition:concentration_visits_informal} and Eq. (\ref{eq:HP_first_event}) combined imply that for $T$ large enough, the event $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \cap \mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)$ holds w.h.p. so that the expected stopping time is finite on the complementary event: $\mathbb{E}[\tau_\delta \mathbbm{1}\{\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cup \overline{\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)}\}] <\infty$. Now given the asymptotic shape of the thresholds: $\beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2) \underset{\delta\to 0}{\sim} 2\log(1/\delta)$, we may informally write:
$$\mathbb{E}\big[\tau_\delta \mathbbm{1}\{ \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \cap \mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)\}\big] \underset{\delta \to 0}{\preceq} 2\log(1/\delta) \sup_{(\mathcal{M}',\omega')\in B_\xi} U_o\big(\mathcal{M}', \omega'\big),$$ where $B_\xi=\{(\mathcal{M}',\omega'): \norm{\mathcal{M}' -\mathcal{M}} \leq \xi, \norm{\omega' -\omega^\star(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \leq K_\xi \; \xi\}$. Taking the limits when $\delta$ and $\xi$ go to zero respectively concludes the proof.
\section{Comparison with MOCA}\label{sec:MOCA}
Recall from Lemma \ref{lem:proxy} and Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation} that our sample complexity bound writes as:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{O}\bigg( \underset{\omega\in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}{\inf}\ \underset{(s,a): a\neq \pi^\star(s)}{\max}\
\frac{1+\mathrm{Var}_{ p(s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}]}{\omega_{sa}\Delta_{s a}^2}
+ \frac{1}{\underset{s}{\min}\omega_{s,\pi^\star(s)}\Delta_{\min}^2(1-\gamma)^3} \bigg)\log(1/\delta).
\end{equation*}
Hence, in the asymptotic regime $\delta \to 0$, MDP-NaS finds the optimal way to balance exploration between state-action pairs proportionally to their \textit{hardness}: $(1+\mathrm{Var}_{ p(s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}])/\Delta_{sa}^2$ for sub-optimal pairs (resp. $1/\Delta_{\min}^2(1-\gamma)^3$ for optimal pairs).
After a preprint of this work was published, \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret} proposed MOCA, an algorithm for BPI in the episodic setting. MOCA has the advantage of treating the more general case of $\epsilon$-optimal policy identification with finite-time guarantees on its sample complexity. The two papers have different and complementary objectives but one can compare with their bound for exact policy identification, i.e when $\epsilon < \epsilon^\star$\footnote{$\epsilon^\star$ is defined in their work as the threshold value for $\epsilon$ such that the only $\epsilon$-optimal policy is the best policy. However, when the objective is to find the optimal policy, it is not clear from their paper how one can determine such a value of $\varepsilon$ without prior knowledge of the ground truth instance.}, in the asymptotic regime $\delta \to 0$. In this case, by carefully inspecting the proofs of \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret}, we see that MOCA's sample complexity writes as\footnote{The $\log^3(1/\delta)$ term comes from the sample complexity of their sub-routine \textsc{FindExplorableSets}.}:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{O}\bigg(\sum_{h=1}^H\ \underset{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}{\inf}\ \underset{s,a\neq \pi^\star(s)}{\max} \frac{H^2}{\omega_{sa}(h) \Delta_{sa}(h)^2} \bigg) \log(1/\delta) + \frac{\textrm{polylog}(S,A,H, \log(\epsilon^*))\log^3(1/\delta)}{\epsilon^*}
\end{equation*}
where $H$ is the horizon and $\Delta_{sa}(h)$ is the sub-optimality gap of $(s,a)$ at time step $h$. We make the following remarks about the bounds above:
\begin{enumerate}
\item MOCA only pays the cost of worst-case visitation probability multiplied by the gap of the corresponding state $\underset{s,a\neq \pi^\star(s)}{\min}\omega_{sa}\Delta_{sa}^2$. Instead, MDP-NaS pays a double worst-case cost of the smallest visitation probability multiplied by the minimum gap $\min_s \omega_{s,\pi^\star(s)}\Delta_{\min}^2$. As pointed out by \cite{wagenmaker2021noregret} the former scaling is better, especially when the state where the minimum gap is achieved is different from the one that is hardest to reach. This is however an artefact of the upper bound in Lemma \ref{lem:proxy} that MDP-NaS uses as a proxy for the characteristic time. Using a more refined bound, or an optimization oracle that solves the best-response problem, one can remove this double worst-case dependency.
\item The sample complexity of MOCA \textit{divided by $\log(1/\delta)$ still explodes} when $\delta$ goes to zero, contrary to MDP-NaS's bound.
\item The sample complexity of MDP-NaS is variance-sensitive for sub-optimal state-action pairs, while MOCA's bound depends on a worst-case factor of $H^2$. Indeed as the rewards are in $[0,1]$, we always have $\starV{\mathcal{M}} \leq H$ and $\mathrm{Var}_{ p(s,a)}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}] \leq H^2$ in the episodic setting.
\end{enumerate}
We conclude this section by noting that MDP-NaS has a simple design and can easily be implemented.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to propose an algorithm with \textit{instance-dependent sample complexity} for Best Policy identification (BPI) in the \textit{full online} setting. Our results are encouraging as they show: 1) How the navigation constraints of online RL impact the difficulty of learning a good policy, compared to the more relaxed sampling schemes of Multi-Armed Bandits and MDPs with a generative model. 2) That, provided access to an optimization oracle that solves the information-theoretical lower bound (resp. some convex relaxation of the lower bound), asymptotic optimal (resp. near-optimal) sample complexity is still possible through adaptive control of the trajectory. This opens up exciting new research questions. First, it is intriguing to understand how the mixing times -and not just the stationary distributions- of Markov chains induced by policies impact the sample complexity of BPI in the moderate confidence regime. A second direction would be to extend our contributions to the problem of finding an $\epsilon$-optimal policy, which is of more practical interest than identifying the best policy.
\section{Sampling rule}\label{sec:appendix_sampling}
Recall that $\mathcal{Z} \triangleq \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A}$ denotes the set of state-action pairs. Any policy $\pi$ induces a Markov Chain on $\mathcal{Z}$ whose kernel is defined by:
\begin{equation*}
P_{\pi}((s,a), (s',a')) = P(s'|s,a) \pi(a'|s').
\end{equation*}
\paragraph{\underline{Fact 1}:} Note that if it takes $m$ steps to move between any pair of states $(s,s')$ with non-zero probability, then we can move between any pair of state-actions $((s,a), (s',a'))$ in at most $m+1$ steps by playing the policy:
\begin{align*}
\Tilde{\pi}(x) = \begin{cases}
a' \quad \textrm{if $x=s'$,}\\
\pi_{\hookrightarrow s'}(x) \quad \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $\pi_{\hookrightarrow s'}$ is the policy corresponding to shortest path to $s'$. Finally, for the sake of simplicity, we will note $P_t \triangleq P_{\pi_t}$.
\subsection{Almost sure forced exploration: proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:visits}}
Consider the event $\mathcal{E} \triangleq \big(\exists z\in \mathcal{Z},\ \exists M > 0,\ \forall t \geq 1,\ N_{z}(t) < M \big)$. Observe that $\mathcal{E} = \bigcup\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \mathcal{E}_{z}$, where for $z \in \mathcal{Z}$, $\mathcal{E}_z \triangleq \big(\exists M > 0,\ \forall t \geq 1,\ N_{z}(t) < M \big)$. We will prove that $\P(\mathcal{E}_{z'}) = 0$ for all $z'$, which implies the desired result. From Fact 1 above, we have:
\begin{align}
\forall (z,z') \in \mathcal{Z}^2,\ \exists r \in [|1,m+1|],\ \exists \pi \in \Pi,\ P_{\pi}^r(z,z') > 0,
\label{eq:communicating}
\end{align}
where $P_{\pi}^r$ is the $r$-th power of the transition matrix induced by policy $\pi$. Therefore:
$$\eta = \underset{z,z'}{\min} \max_{\substack{1 \leq r \leq m+1\\ \pi \in \Pi}} P_{\pi}^r(z,z') > 0$$
is well defined. Fix $z \in \mathcal{Z}$ and let $\pi, r_z$ be a policy and an integer satisfying the property (\ref{eq:communicating}) above for the pair $(z,z')$. Observe that:
\begin{align*}
P_{t} \geq \varepsilon_t P_{\pi_u} \geq \frac{\varepsilon_t}{A} P_{\pi}
\label{eq:min_coverage}
\end{align*}
where the matrix inequality is entry-wise. Now define the stopping times $(\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1}$ where the agent reaches state-action $z$ for the $k$-th time\footnote{We restrict our attention to departure state-action pairs $z$ that are visited infinitely often. Such pairs always exist, therefore $\tau_k(z)$ is well defined.}. Then:
\begin{align*}
\P\big(\mathcal{E}_{z'} |\ (\pi_t)_{t \geq 1},\ (\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1} \big) &\leq \P\big(\exists N \geq 1, \forall k \geq N, X_{\tau_k(z)+r_z} \neq z'\ |\ (\pi_t)_{t \geq 1},\ (\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1} \big)\\
&\leq \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty} \P\big(X_{\tau_k(z)+r_z} \neq z'\ |\ \tau_k(z),\ (\pi_t)_{t \in [|\tau_k(z)+1,\tau_k(z)+r_z|]} \big)\\
&= \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \bigg(\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+r_z}P_{\pi_t}\bigg)(z,z') \bigg]\\
&\leq \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \bigg(\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+r_z}\frac{\varepsilon_t}{A} P_{\pi}\bigg)(z,z')\bigg]\\
&\leq \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{r_z}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+r_z}\varepsilon_t \bigg]\\
&\leq \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg]\;.
\end{align*}
The second inequality comes from a union bound and the strong Markov property\footnote{This property is sometimes referred to as: Markov Chains start afresh after stopping times.}. The last inequality comes from the fact that $r_z \leq m+1$ and $\varepsilon_t \leq 1$. Now observe that the inequality above holds for all realizations of the sequences $(\pi_t)_{t \geq 1}$. Therefore, integrating that inequality over all possible sequences of policies yields:
\begin{align*}
\forall z \in \mathcal{Z},\ \P\big(\mathcal{E}_{z'} |\ (\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1} \big) \leq \sum_{N=1}^{\infty} \prod_{k=N}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg] \;.
\end{align*}
We can already see that if state-action $z$ is visited "frequently enough" ($\tau_k(z) \sim c. k$ for some constant $c$) then the right-hand side above will be zero. Since we know that a least one state-action $z$ is visited frequently enough, we consider the product over all state-action pairs $z$ of the probabilities above:
\begin{align}
\prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \P\bigg(\mathcal{E}_{z'} |\ (\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1} \bigg) &\leq \sum_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA}) \in (\mathbb{N}^\star)^{SA}}\ \prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \prod_{k=N_z}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg] \\
& \triangleq \sum_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})} a_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})} \;.\nonumber
\label{eq:ineq1}
\end{align}
We will now show that $a_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})} = 0$ for all tuples $(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})$:
\begin{align*}
a_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})} &\leq \prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \prod_{k= \max\limits_{z} N_z}^{\infty}\bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg] \\
& = \prod_{k= \max\limits_{z} N_z }^{\infty} \prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z)+1}^{\tau_k(z)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg] \;.
\end{align*}
Now observe that for all $k \geq 1$ there exists $z_k \in \mathcal{Z}$ such that $\tau_k(z_k) \leq S A k$, i.e., at least one state-action has been visited $k$ times before time step $SA k$. For that particular choice of $z_k$ and since $(\varepsilon_t)_{t \geq 1}$ is decreasing, we get:
\begin{align*}
a_{(N_1,\ldots,N_{SA})} &\leq \prod_{k= \max\limits_{z}N_{z} }^{\infty} \bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t =\tau_k(z_k)+1}^{\tau_k(z_k)+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg] \\
& \leq \prod_{k= \max\limits_{z}N_{z} }^{\infty} \bigg[1- \frac{\eta}{A^{m+1}}\prod_{t = SA.k+1}^{SA.k+m+1}\varepsilon_t \bigg]. \\
\end{align*}
For the choice of $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\frac{1}{m+1}}$ the right-hand side above is zero. To sum up, for all realizations of $(\tau_k(z))_{z \in \mathcal{Z}, k \geq 1}$:
\begin{align*}
\prod_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \P\bigg(\mathcal{E}_{z'} |\ (\tau_k(z))_{k \geq 1} \bigg) = 0 \;.
\end{align*}
Therefore, for all $z'$: $\P\big(\mathcal{E}_{z'}\big) = 0$ and consequently: $\P(\mathcal{E}) = 0$.
\subsection{Minimal exploration rate for communicating MDPs}
Indeed if the agent visits state $S$ at time $k$, then the last $S-1$ transitions before $k$ must have been to the right, ie $\P(s_k = S) \leq \prod_{j=k-S+1}^{k-1} \varepsilon_j \leq (\varepsilon_{k-S+1})^{S-1}$. Therefore $ \mathbb{E}[N_S(t)] \leq \sum_{k=S}^t (k-S+1)^{-\alpha(S-1)}$. In particular this implies that for $\alpha > \frac{1}{S-1}$, $\limsup_{t\to\infty} \mathbb{E}[N_S(t)] = M < \infty$. Therefore using the reverse Fatou lemma and Markov's inequality:
\begin{align*}
\P(\forall t\geq 1, N_S(t) \leq & 2M) = \mathbb{E}\big[\limsup_{t\to\infty} \prod_{k=1}^t \mathbbm{1}\{N_S(k)\leq 2M\}\big]\\
&\geq \limsup_{t\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\big[ \prod_{k=1}^t \mathbbm{1}\{N_S(k)\leq 2M\}\big] = \limsup_{t\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\big[\mathbbm{1}\{N_S(t)\leq 2M\}\big] \geq \frac{1}{2}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Minimal exploration rate for ergodic MDPs}
This is a consequence of Proposition 2 \cite{burnetas1997optimal}, stating that there exist $c_1,c_2, C>0$ such that for all $s$ and $t$ large enough, $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{M}, \mathbb{A}}[N_s(t)> c_1t] \ge 1-Ce^{-c_2t}$. A union bound yields: $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{M}, \mathbb{A}}[\forall s, N_s(t)> c_1t] \ge 1-CSe^{-c_2t}$. To extend this result to the numbers of visits at the various (state, action) pairs, we can derive a lower bound on $N_{sa}(t)$ given that $N_s(t)> c_1t$ by observing that a worst scenario (by monotonicity of $\varepsilon_s$) occurs when $s$ is visited only in the $c_1t$ rounds before $t$. We get $\mathbb{E}[N_{sa}(t) | N_s(t)> c_1t] \ge c_3t^{(1-\alpha)}$. Remarking that $N_{sa}(t+1) - N_s(t)\varepsilon_t$ is a sub-martingale with bounded increments, standard concentration arguments then imply that $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{M}, \mathbb{A}}[\forall s,a, N_{sa}(t)> {\frac{c_3}{2}}t^{(1-\alpha)}] \ge \phi(t)$, where $\phi(t)\to 1$. Next, define the random variable $Z_t=\prod_{s,a} \mathds{1}\{N_{sa}(t)> {\frac{c_3}{2}}t^{(1-\alpha)}\}$. Applying the reverse Fatou lemma, we get $1=\lim\sup_t\mathbb{E}[Z_t]\le \mathbb{E}[\lim\sup_t Z_t]$. From there, we directly deduce (by monotonicity of $t\mapsto N_{sa}(t)$) that a.s. $\lim_{t\to\infty} N_{sa}(t)=\infty$.
\subsection{High probability forced exploration}
\begin{lemma}
Denote by $\tau_k(z)$ the k-th time the agent visits the state-action pair $z$. Under C-Navigation with exploration rate $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\frac{1}{2(m+1)}}$ we have: for all $\alpha \in (0,1)$, there exists a parameter $\eta > 0$ that only depends on $\mathcal{M}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\forall z \in \mathcal{Z},\ \forall k \geq 1,\ \tau_k(z) \leq \lambda_\alpha k^4\bigg) \geq 1 - \alpha,
\end{align*}
where $\lambda_\alpha \triangleq \frac{(m+1)^2}{\eta^2}\log^2(1+\frac{SA}{\alpha})$.
\label{lemma:HP_forced_exploration}
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
Denote by $N_{z}(t)$ the number of times the agent visits state-action $z$ up to and including time step $t$. Then under the same notations of the lemma above we have: for all $\alpha \in (0,1)$:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\forall z \in \mathcal{Z},\ \forall t \geq 1,\ N_z(t) \geq \bigg(\frac{t}{\lambda_\alpha}\bigg)^{1/4} - 1\bigg) \geq 1 - \alpha.
\end{align*}
\label{corollary:forced_exploration}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $f$ be some increasing function such that $f(\mathbb{N}) \subset \mathbb{N}$ and $f(0) = 0$ and define the event $\mathcal{E} = \bigg(\forall z \in \mathcal{Z},\ \forall k \geq 1,\ \tau_k(z) \leq f(k) \bigg)$. We will prove the following more general result:
\begin{align}
\P(\mathcal{E}^c) \leq SA \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod\limits_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{f(k-1) + (m+1).j + l} \bigg] \;,
\end{align}
where $\eta$ is a constant depending on the communication properties of $\mathcal{M}$. Then we will tune $f(k)$ and $\varepsilon_t$ so that the right-hand side is less than $\alpha$. First, observe that:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}^c = \bigcup\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}}\ \bigcup\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} \bigg(\tau_k(z) > f(k)\ \mathrm{and}\ \forall j \leq k-1,\ \tau_j(z) \leq f(j) \bigg)\;. \end{equation*}
Using the decomposition above, we upper bound the probability of $\mathcal{E}^c$ by the sum of probabilities for $k \geq 1$ that the $k$-th excursion from and back to $z$ takes too long:
\begin{align}
\P(\mathcal{E}^c) &\leq \sum\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \bigg[\P(\tau_1(z)> f(1)) + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \P\bigg(\tau_k(z) > f(k)\ \mathrm{and}\ \forall j \leq k-1,\ \tau_j(z) \leq f(j) \bigg) \bigg] \nonumber\\
& \leq \sum\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \bigg[\P(\tau_1(z)> f(1)) + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \P\bigg(\tau_k(z) > f(k)\ \mathrm{and}\ \tau_{k-1}(z) \leq f(k-1) \bigg)\bigg]\nonumber\\
&\leq \sum\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \bigg[\P(\tau_1(z)> f(1)) + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \P\bigg(\tau_k(z) - \tau_{k-1}(z)> f(k) - f(k-1),\ \tau_{k-1}(z) \leq f(k-1) \bigg)\bigg] \nonumber\\
&\leq \sum\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}}\bigg[\P(\tau_1(z)> f(1))+\sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{n =1}^{f(k-1)} \P\big(\tau_k(z) - \tau_{k-1}(z)> f(k) - f(k-1) \big| \tau_{k-1}(z) = n \big) \P(\tau_{0}(z) = n) \bigg] \nonumber \\
& = \sum\limits_{z \in \mathcal{Z}} \big[a_{1}(z) + \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{f(k-1)} a_{k,n}(z) \P(\tau_{k-1}(s) = n) \big]\;,
\label{eq:4}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
a_{1}(z) &\triangleq \P(\tau_1(z)> f(1))\;, \\
\forall k \geq 2 \ \forall n\in [|1,f(k-1)|],\ a_{k,n}(z) &\triangleq \P\big(\tau_k(z) - \tau_{k-1}(z)> f(k) - f(k-1) \big| \tau_{k-1}(z) = n \big)\;.
\end{align*}
We will now prove an upper bound on $a_{k,n}(z)$ for a fixed $z \in \mathcal{Z}$ and $k \geq 1$.
\paragraph{1) \underline{Upper bounding the probability that an excursion takes too long:}} Let us rewrite $P_t$ as
$$P_t =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
\\
\quad Q_t(z) \quad \\
\\
\end{matrix}
& \hspace*{-\arraycolsep}\vline\hspace*{-\arraycolsep} & [P_t(z',z)]_{z' \neq z} \\
\hline
[P_t(z, z')]_{z' \neq z}^{T} & \hspace*{-\arraycolsep}\vline\hspace*{-\arraycolsep} &
\begin{matrix}
P_t(z,z)
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix}\;,
$$
so that state-action $z$ corresponds to the last row and last column. Further let $p_t(z', \neg z) \triangleq [P_t(z', z")]_{z" \neq z}$ denote the vector of probabilities of transitions at time $t$ from $z'$ to states $z"$ different from $z$. Using a simple recurrence on $N$, one can prove that for all $k,N,n \geq 1$ we have:
\begin{align}
\P\bigg(\tau_k(z) - \tau_{k-1}(z)> N \bigg| \tau_{k-1}(z) = n \bigg) = p_n(z, \neg z)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} \bigg( \prod\limits_{j=n+1}^{n+N-1} Q_j(z) \bigg) \mathbbm{1} \;.
\label{eq:Recurrence_excursion}
\end{align}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:substochastic_matrices}, there exists $\eta > 0$ (that only depends on $\mathcal{M}$) such that for all $n \geq 1$ and all sequences $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that $\pi_t \geq \varepsilon_t \pi_u$ we have:
\begin{equation}
\norm{\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} Q_l(z)}_\infty \leq 1 - \eta \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} \varepsilon_l\;.
\label{eq:lemma_Q}
\end{equation}
Therefore using (\ref{eq:Recurrence_excursion}) for $N = f(k) - f(k-1)$ and breaking the matrix product into smaller product terms of $(m+1)$ matrices, we get for $k \geq 2$:
\begin{align}
a_{k,n}(z) &= \P\bigg(\tau_k(z) - \tau_{k-1}(z)> f(k) - f(k-1) \bigg| \tau_{k-1}(z) = n \bigg) \nonumber\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}}\bigg[\P\bigg(\tau_k(s) - \tau_{k-1}(s)> f(k) - f(k-1) \bigg| \tau_{k-1}(z) = n, (\pi_t)_{t\geq 1} \bigg)\bigg] \nonumber\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}}\bigg[p_n(z, \neg z)^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} \bigg( \prod\limits_{j=n+1}^{n+f(k)-f(k-1)-1} Q_j(z) \bigg) \mathbbm{1}\bigg]\nonumber \\
&\leq \norm{\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+f(k)-f(k-1)-1} Q_l(z)}_\infty\nonumber \\
&\leq \norm{\prod\limits_{l=(m+1)\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}}+1}^{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1} Q_{n+l}(z)}_\infty \times \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \norm{\prod_{l=1}^{m+1} Q_{n+(m+1)j+l}(z)}_{\infty}\nonumber\\
&\leq \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{n+(m+1)j+l}\bigg]\nonumber\\
&\leq \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{f(k-1)+(m+1)j+l}\bigg] \triangleq b_k\;,
\label{eq:5}
\end{align}
where in the fourth line we used that $\norm{p_n(z, \neg z)}_1 \leq 1$. The sixth line uses the fact that the matrices $Q$ are substochastic. The last line is due to the fact that $n \leq f(k-1)$ and $t \mapsto \varepsilon_t$ is decreasing. Similarly, one can prove that:
\begin{align}
a_1(z) &\leq \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(1)- 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{(m+1)j+l}\bigg] \nonumber\\
&= \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(1) - f(0) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{f(0)+(m+1)j+l}\bigg] \triangleq b_1\;,
\label{eq:5.5}
\end{align}
where we used the fact that $f(0) = 0$. Now we only have to tune $f(k)$ and $\varepsilon_t$ so that $\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty b_k < \frac{\alpha}{SA}$ and conclude using (\ref{eq:4}), (\ref{eq:5}) and (\ref{eq:5.5}).
\paragraph{2) \underline{Tuning $f$ and the exploration rate:}} Since the sequence $(\varepsilon_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is decreasing we have:
\begin{align*}
b_k &= \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \prod_{l=1}^{m+1} \varepsilon_{f(k-1)+(m+1)j+l}\bigg] \\
&\leq \prod\limits_{j=0}^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} - 1} \bigg[1 - \eta \big(\varepsilon_{f(k-1)+(m+1)j+S}\big)^{m+1}\bigg] \\
&\leq \bigg[1 - \eta \big(\varepsilon_{f(k)}\big)^{m+1} \bigg]^{\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}}}.
\end{align*}
For $f(k) = \lambda.k^4$ where $\lambda \in \mathbb{N}^\star$ and $\varepsilon_t = t^{-\frac{1}{2(m+1)}}$ we have: $\floor{\frac{f(k) - f(k-1) - 1}{m+1}} \geq \frac{\lambda k^3}{(m+1)}$ and $\big(\varepsilon_{f(k)}\big)^{m+1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda} k^2}$, implying:
\begin{align*}
b_k &\leq \bigg[1 - \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\lambda} k^2}\bigg]^{\frac{\lambda k^3}{(m+1)}}\\
&\leq \exp\bigg(\frac{-\lambda k^3 \eta }{(m+1)\sqrt{\lambda} k^2}\bigg) = \exp\bigg(-\frac{\lambda^{1/2}k \eta}{m+1}\bigg) \;.
\end{align*}
Summing the last inequality, along with (\ref{eq:4}), (\ref{eq:5}) and (\ref{eq:5.5}) we get:
\begin{align*}
\P(\mathcal{E}^c) &\leq SA \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k\\
&\leq SA \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\exp\bigg(-\frac{\lambda^{1/2}k\eta}{m+1}\bigg) \\
&= \frac{SA \exp\big(-\frac{\lambda^{1/2}\eta}{m+1}\big)}{1 - \exp\big(-\frac{\lambda^{1/2} \eta}{m+1}\big)} \triangleq g(\lambda)\;.
\end{align*}
For $\lambda_\alpha \triangleq \frac{(m+1)^2}{\eta^2}\log^2(1+\frac{SA}{\alpha})$, we have $g(\lambda_\alpha) = \alpha$, which gives the desired result.
\begin{remark}
It is natural that $\lambda$ depends on $\eta$, which expresses how well connected is the MDP under the uniform policy, see proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:substochastic_matrices}.
\end{remark}
\end{proof}
\subsection{An Ergodic Theorem for non-homogeneous Markov Chains}
We start with some definitions and a technical result. Let $\{P_{\pi}, \pi \in \Pi \}$ be a collection of Markov transition kernels on the state-action space $\mathcal{Z}$, indexed by policies $\pi \in \Pi$. For any Markov transition kernel $P$, bounded function $f$ and probability distribution $\mu$, we define:
\begin{equation*}
Pf(z) \triangleq \sum\limits_{z'\in \mathcal{Z}} P(z,z')f(z')\quad \textrm{and}\quad \mu P(z) \triangleq \sum\limits_{z'\in \mathcal{Z}} \mu(z')P(z',z).
\end{equation*}
For a measure $\mu$ and a function $f$, $\mu(f) = \mathbb{E}_{X\sim\mu}[f(X)]$ denotes the mean of $f$ w.r.t. $\mu$. Finally, for two policies $\pi$ and $\pi'$ we define $D(\pi,\pi') \triangleq \norm{P_{\pi} - P_{\pi'}}_\infty = \max\limits_{z\in\mathcal{Z}}\norm{P_{\pi}(z,.) - P_{\pi'}(z,.)}_1$.\\
We consider a $\mathcal{Z}\times\Pi$-valued process $\{(z_t, \pi_t), t\geq1\}$ such that $(z_t,\pi_t)$ is $\mathcal{F}_t$-adapted and for any bounded measurable function $f$:
$$
\mathbb{E}[f(z_{t+1})|\mathcal{F}_t] = P_{\pi_t} f(z_t).
$$
The next result is adapted from \cite{Fort2011}. There the authors prove an ergodic theorem for adaptive Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) algorithms with a general state space and a parameter-dependent function. For the sake of self-containedness, we include here the proof of their result in the simple case of finite state space chains with a function that does not depend on the policy $\pi_t$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ergodic}(Corollary 2.9, \cite{Fort2011})
Assume that:
\begin{align*}
&\textrm{\hypertarget{assumption:B1}{(B1)}}\ \forall t\geq1,\ P_t\ \textrm{is ergodic. We denote by $\omega_t$ its stationary distribution.}\\
&\textrm{\hypertarget{assumption:B2}{(B2)}}\ \textrm{There exists an ergodic kernel $P$ such that $\norm{P_t - P}_\infty \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$ almost surely.} \\
&\textrm{\hypertarget{assumption:B3}{(B3)} There exists two constants $C_t$ and $\rho_t$ such that for all $n\geq1$, } \norm{P_t^n - W_t}_\infty \leq C_t \rho_t^n\ ,\\
&\quad \quad \textrm{where $W_t$ is a rank-one matrix whose rows are equal to $\omega_t^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$}.\\
&\textrm{\hypertarget{assumption:B4}{(B4)}}\ \textrm{Denote by } L_t \triangleq C_t (1-\rho_t)^{-1}. \textrm{ Then } \limsup\limits_{t\to\infty} L_t < \infty \textrm{ almost surely}.\textsc{ (UNIFORM ERGODICITY)}\\
&\textrm{\hypertarget{assumption:B5}{(B5)}}\ D(\pi_{t+1},\pi_t) \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0 \textrm{ almost surely}. \textsc{ (STABILITY)}
\end{align*}
Finally, denote by $\omega^\star$ the stationary distribution of $P$. Then for any bounded non-negative function $f:\ \mathcal{Z} \to \mathbb{R}^{+}$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{t} f(z_k)}{t} \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} \omega^\star(f)
\end{align*}
almost surely.
\label{proposition:ergodic_thm}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the difference
\begin{align}
D &= \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{t} f(z_k)}{t} - \omega(f) \nonumber\\
&= \underbrace{\frac{f(z_1) - \omega^\star(f)}{t}}\limits_{D_{1,t}} + \underbrace{\frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} \big[f(z_k) - \omega_{k-1}(f)\big]}{t}}\limits_{D_{2,t}} + \underbrace{\frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} \big[\omega_{k-1}(f) - \omega^\star(f)\big]}{t}}\limits_{D_{3,t}}.\\
\label{eq:diff_decomposition}
\end{align}
We clearly have:
\begin{align}
|D_{1,t}| \leq \frac{\norm{f}_\infty}{t} \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.
\label{ineq:D1}
\end{align}
Next, by Lemma \ref{lemma:Schweitzer} there exists a constant $\kappa_P$ (that only depends on $P$) such that: $\norm{\omega_k - \omega^\star}_1 \leq \kappa_P \norm{P_k - P}_\infty$. Therefore:
\begin{align}
|D_{3,t}| &\leq \kappa_P \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{t-1} \norm{P_{k} - P}_\infty }{t}\underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
\label{ineq:D3}
\end{align}
where the convergence to zero is due to assumption \hyperlink{assumption:B2}{(B2)}. Now to bound $D_{2,t}$ we use the function $\widehat{f}_k$ solution to the Poisson equation $\big(\widehat{f}_k - P_k\widehat{f}_k\big)(.) = f(.) - \omega_{k}(f)$. By Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson}, $\widehat{f}_k(.) = \sum\limits_{n\geq0} P_k^n[f - \omega_{k}(f)](.)$ exists and is solution to the Poisson equation. Therefore we can rewrite $D_{2,t}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
D_{2,t} &= \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} \big[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k)\big]}{t} \nonumber\\
&= M_t + C_t + R_t,
\label{eq:D_2_decomposition}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
& M_t \triangleq \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} \big[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_{k-1})\big]}{t},\\
& C_t \triangleq \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} \big[P_{k}\widehat{f}_{k}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k)\big]}{t},\\
& R_t \triangleq \frac{P_1\widehat{f}_{1}(z_1) - P_{t}\widehat{f}_{t}(z_{t})}{t}.
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Bounding $M_t$: }Note that $S_t \triangleq t M_t$ is a martingale since $\mathbb{E}[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) | \mathcal{F}_{k-1}] = P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_{k-1})$. Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson}:
\begin{align*}
|S_t - S_{t-1}| &= |\widehat{f}_{t-1}(z_t) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{t-1}(z_{t-1})|\\
&\leq 2\norm{\widehat{f}_{t-1}}_\infty\\
&\leq 2 L_{t-1} \norm{f}_\infty.
\end{align*}
In particular, this implies that:
\begin{align*}
\sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{\mathbb{E}[ |S_k - S_{k-1}|^2\ | \mathcal{F}_{k-1}]}{k^2} &\leq \sum\limits_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{4\norm{f}_\infty^2 L_{k-1}^2}{k^2} < \infty
\end{align*}
where the convergence of the series is due to \hyperlink{assumption:B4}{(B4)}.
(Theorem 2.18 in \cite{HALL80}) then implies that $M_t \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$ almost surely.
\paragraph{Bounding $C_t$: } Using Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson}, we have:
\begin{align}
|C_t| &\leq \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} L_k\bigg[ \norm{\omega_k - \omega_{k-1}}_1 + L_{k-1} D(\pi_k, \pi_{k-1}) \bigg] }{t} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} L_k\bigg[ \norm{\omega_k - \omega^\star}_1 + \norm{\omega^\star - \omega_{k-1}}_1 + L_{k-1} D(\pi_k, \pi_{k-1}) \bigg] }{t} \nonumber \\
&\leq \norm{f}_\infty \bigg[ \kappa_P \frac{L_2 \norm{P_1 - P}_\infty + L_t \norm{P_{t} - P}_\infty +\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t-1} (L_k + L_{k+1})\norm{P_{k} - P}_\infty}{t}\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad \quad \quad + \frac{\sum\limits_{k=2}^{t} L_k L_{k-1} D(\pi_k, \pi_{k-1})}{t} \bigg] \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
\label{ineq:C_t}
\end{align}
where the third line comes from applying Lemma \ref{lemma:Schweitzer} and the convergence to zero is due to assumptions \hyperlink{assumption:B2}{(B2)}-\hyperlink{assumption:B4}{(B4)}-\hyperlink{assumption:B5}{(B5)}.
\paragraph{Bounding $R_t$: } Finally, by Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson} we have:
\begin{align}
|R_t| &\leq \frac{\norm{\widehat{f}_{1}}_\infty + \norm{\widehat{f}_t}_\infty}{t} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{f}_\infty (L_1 + L_t)}{t}\underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0,
\label{ineq:R_t}
\end{align}
where the convergence to zero is due to Assumption \hyperlink{assumption:B4}{(B4)}. Summing up the inequalities (\ref{ineq:D1}-\ref{ineq:R_t}) gives the result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Application to C-Navigation: proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic}}
\paragraph{We will now prove that C-Navigation verifies the assumptions (B1-5).} The same can be proved for D-Navigation by replacing $\overline{\pi_t^o}$ with $\pi_t^o$. Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic} follows immediately by applying Proposition \ref{proposition:ergodic_thm} for the functions $f(\Tilde{z}) = \mathbbm{1}\{\Tilde{z}=z\}$, where $z$ is any fixed state-action pair.
\paragraph{\underline{(B1)}:} This is a direct consequence of the fact that $P_{\pi_u}$ is ergodic (due to Assumptions \ref{assumption:uniqueness} and \ref{assumption:aperiodic}) which implies by construction that $P_t$ is also ergodic.
\paragraph{\underline{(B2)}:} By Lemma \ref{lemma:visits} we have: $N_{sa}(t) \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} \infty$ for all $(s,a)$. Hence $\widehat{\mathcal{M}} \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{M}$ and by continuity: $\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}) \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} \pi^o(\mathcal{M})$, which implies that:
\begin{equation}
P_t \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} P_{\pi^o}.
\label{eq:kernel_cvg}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{\underline{(B3)}:} By Lemma \ref{lemma:Geometric_C_Navigation}, $P_t$ satisfies \hyperlink{assumption:B3}{(B3)} for $C_t = 2\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{-1}$ and $\rho_t = \theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{1/r}$.
\paragraph{\underline{(B4)}:} We have:
\begin{align}
\sigma(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t) &= \bigg(\varepsilon_t^r + \big[(1-\varepsilon_t) A \min\limits_{s,a} \overline{\pi_t^o}(a|s) \big]^r \bigg) \sigma_u \bigg(\min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega_t(z)}\bigg) \nonumber\\
&\overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} \bigg(A \min\limits_{s,a} \pi^o(a|s) \bigg)\sigma_u \min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega^\star(z)} \triangleq \sigma_o.
\label{eq:sigma_o}
\end{align}
Note that $\sigma_o > 0$ since $\omega_u > 0$ (ergodicity of $P_{\pi_u}$), $\omega^\star < 1$ and $\pi^o > 0$ entry-wise. Similarly, it is trivial that $\sigma_o < 1$ since $A \min\limits_{s,a} \pi^o(a|s) < 1, \min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega^\star(z)} < 1$ and $\sigma_u < 1$. Therefore $\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)= 1 - \sigma(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t) \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} 1 - \sigma_o \triangleq \theta_o \in (0,1)$ and:
\begin{align}
\limsup\limits_{t\to\infty}\ L_t &= \limsup\limits_{t\to\infty}\ C_t (1-\rho_t)^{-1}\nonumber \\
&= \limsup\limits_{t\to\infty} \frac{2}{\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t) \big[1- \theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{1/r}\big]}\nonumber\\
&= \frac{2}{\theta_o \big[1-\theta_o^\frac{1}{r}\big]} < \infty.
\label{eq:theta_o}
\end{align}
\paragraph{\underline{(B5)}:} We have: $\big(P_{t+1} - P_t\big)(s,s') = \sum\limits_{a} [\pi_{t+1}(a|s) - \pi_t(a|s)] p_\mathcal{M}(s'|s,a)$. Hence: $\norm{P_{t+1} - P_t}_\infty \leq \norm{\pi_{t+1} - \pi_t}_\infty$, where $\pi_{t+1}$ and $\pi_t$ are viewed as vectors. On the other hand:
\begin{align*}
\pi_{t+1} - \pi_t &= (\varepsilon_t - \varepsilon_{t+1})(\overline{\pi_t^o} - \pi_u) + (1-\varepsilon_t)(\overline{\pi_{t+1}^o} - \overline{\pi_t^o})\\
&= (\varepsilon_t - \varepsilon_{t+1})(\overline{\pi_t^o} - \pi_u) + (1-\varepsilon_t)(\frac{t\times \overline{\pi_{t}^o} + \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{t+1})}{t+1} - \overline{\pi_t^o})\\
&= (\varepsilon_t - \varepsilon_{t+1})(\overline{\pi_t^o} - \pi_u) + (1-\varepsilon_t)\frac{ \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{t+1}) - \overline{\pi_{t}^o}}{t+1}
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{t+1} - P_t}_\infty &\leq \norm{\pi_{t+1} - \pi_t}_\infty\\
&\leq (\varepsilon_t - \varepsilon_{t+1}) + \frac{1}{t+1} \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.
\end{align*}
For D-Navigation, we get in a similar fashion:
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_{t+1} - P_t}_\infty &\leq \norm{\pi_{t+1} - \pi_t}_\infty\\
&\leq (\varepsilon_t - \varepsilon_{t+1}) + (1-\varepsilon_t)\norm{\pi_{t+1}^o - \pi_t^o}_\infty \underset{t \to\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Geometric ergodicity of the sampling rules}
Since $P_{\pi_u}$ is ergodic, there exists $r>0$ such that $P_{\pi_u}^r(z,z')>0$ for all $z,z'$ (Proposition 1.7, \cite{LevinPeresWilmer2006}). Thus we define
\begin{align}
r &= \min\{ \ell \geq 1:\ \forall (z,z') \in \mathcal{Z}^2,\ P_{\pi_u}^\ell (z,z') > 0 \},\\
\sigma_u &\triangleq \min\limits_{z,z'}\ \frac{ P_{\pi_u}^r(z,z')}{\omega_u(z')},
\label{eq:pi_u_ergodic}
\end{align}
where $\omega_u$ is the stationary distribution of $P_{\pi_u}$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\pi_t^o \triangleq \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$ (resp. $\overline{\pi_t^o} \triangleq \sum_{j=1}^{t} \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_j)/t$) denote the oracle policy of $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t$ (resp. the Cesaro-mean of oracle policies up to time $t$). Further define
\begin{align*}
\sigma(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) &\triangleq \bigg(\varepsilon^r + \big[(1-\varepsilon) A \min\limits_{s,a} \pi(a|s) \big]^r \bigg) \sigma_u \bigg(\min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega(z)}\bigg),\\
\theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) &\triangleq 1 - \sigma(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega),\\
\mathcal{L}(\varepsilon, \pi, \omega) &\triangleq \frac{2}{\theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) \big[1- \theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega)^{1/r}\big]}.
\end{align*}
Then for D-Navigation (resp. C-Navigation) we have:
\begin{align*}
\forall n\geq 1,\ \norm{P_t^n - W_t}_\infty \leq C_t \rho_t^n
\end{align*}
where $C_t = 2\theta(\varepsilon_t, \pi_t^o, \omega_t)^{-1}$ and $\rho_t = \theta(\varepsilon_t, \pi_t^o, \omega_t)^{1/r}$ \big(resp. $C_t = 2\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{-1}$ and $\rho_t = \theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{1/r}$\big). In particular $L_t \triangleq C_t (1-\rho_t)^{-1} = \mathcal{L}(\varepsilon_t, \pi_t^o, \omega_t)$ \big(resp. $L_t = C_t (1-\rho_t)^{-1} = \mathcal{L}(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)$\big).
\label{lemma:Geometric_C_Navigation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We only prove the lemma for C-Navigation. The statement for D-Navigation can be proved in the same way. Recall that: $P_t = \varepsilon_t P_{\pi_u} + (1-\varepsilon_t) P_{\overline{\pi_t^o}}$. Therefore:
\begin{align*}
\forall (z,z'),\quad P_t^r(z,z') &\geq [\varepsilon_t^r P_{\pi_u}^r + (1-\varepsilon_t)^r P_{\overline{\pi_t^o}}^r](z,z')\\
&\geq \bigg(\varepsilon_t^r + \big[(1-\varepsilon_t) A \min\limits_{s,a} \overline{\pi_t^o}(a|s) \big]^r \bigg) P_{\pi_u}^r(z,z')\\
&\geq \bigg(\varepsilon_t^r + \big[(1-\varepsilon_t) A \min\limits_{s,a} \overline{\pi_t^o}(a|s) \big]^r \bigg) \sigma_u \omega_u(z') \\
& \geq \underbrace{\bigg(\varepsilon_t^r + \big[(1-\varepsilon_t) A \min\limits_{s,a} \overline{\pi_t^o}(a|s) \big]^r \bigg) \sigma_u \bigg(\min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega_t(z)}\bigg)}\limits_{\sigma_t} \omega_t(z')\\
&= \sigma(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t) \omega_t(z').
\end{align*}
where the second and third inequalities comes from the fact that $P_{\overline{\pi_t^o}} \geq A \min\limits_{s,a} \overline{\pi_t^o}(a|s) P_{\pi_u}$ entry-wise and from (\ref{eq:pi_u_ergodic}) respectively.
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:geometric_ergodicity} we conclude that or all $n\geq1$:
\begin{equation*}
\norm{P_t^n - W_t}_\infty \leq 2 \theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{\frac{n}{r}-1}
\end{equation*}
where $\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t) = 1 - \sigma(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)$. Therefore $P_t$ satisfies $\norm{P_t^n - W_t}_\infty \leq C_t \rho_t^n $ for $C_t = 2\theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{-1}$ and $\rho_t = \theta(\varepsilon_t, \overline{\pi_t^o}, \omega_t)^{1/r}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Stopping rule}\label{sec:appendix_stopping}
\subsection{Deviation inequality for KL divergences of rewards}
We suppose that the reward distributions $q_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)$ come from a one-dimensional exponential family and can therefore be parametrized by their respective means $r_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)$. Furthermore, for any $t$ such that $N_{sa}(t) > 0$, we let $\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)$ denote the distribution belonging to the same exponential family, whose mean is the empirical average $\widehat{r}_{t}(s,a) = \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^t R_k \mathbbm{1}\{(s_t,a_t) = (s,a)\}}{N_{sa}(t)}$. For $x\geq 1$, define the function $h(x) = x - \log(x)$ and its inverse $h^{-1}(x)$. Further define the function $\Tilde{h}: \mathbbm{R}^{+} \longrightarrow \mathbbm{R}$ by:
\begin{equation*}
\Tilde{h}(x) = \begin{cases}
h^{-1}(x) \exp(1/h^{-1}(x)) \quad \textrm{if } x \geq h^{-1}(1/\ln(3/2)),\\ \\
\frac{3}{2}\big[x - \log(\log(3/2)\big] \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Finally let
$$\varphi(x) = 2 \Tilde{h}\bigg(\frac{h^{-1}(1+x) + \log(2 \Gamma(2))}{2}\bigg),$$
where $\Gamma(2) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} 1/n^2$. Now we recall a deviation inequality from \cite{Kaufmann2018MixtureMR}, which we use for the empirical KL divergence of rewards.
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 14, \cite{Kaufmann2018MixtureMR})
Define the threshold $\beta_r(t,\delta) \triangleq SA \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big) + 3\sum\limits_{s,a} \log\big[1+\log(N_{s a}(t))\big]$. Then for all $\delta \in (0,1)$:
\begin{equation*}
\P\bigg(\exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{sa}(t) \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)}{q_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)} > \beta_p(t, \delta) \bigg) \leq \delta.
\end{equation*}
\label{lemma:concentration_rewards}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
One can easily see that $\varphi(x) \underset{x \to \infty}{\sim} x$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Deviation inequality for KL divergences of transitions}
Our second deviation inequality is adapted from Proposition 1 in \cite{jonsson2020planning}. There the authors derive a deviation inequality for a \textit{single KL divergence} of a multinomial distribution. In order to get a deviation inequality of a \textit{sum of KL divergences}, we modified their proof by considering the product over state-action pairs of the martingales they used. For the sake of self-containedness, we include the proof below.
$\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)$ is defined as the categorical distribution with a vector of probabilities $q$ satisfying:
\begin{align*}
\forall s' \in \mathcal{S},\ q_{s'} =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{\frac{\sum_{k=0}^{t-1} \mathbbm{1}\{(s_k,a_k,s_{k+1}) = (s,a,s')\}}{N_{sa}(t)}} \quad \textrm{if } N_{sa}(t) \neq 0,\\ \\
1/A \quad \textrm{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}(Proposition 1, \cite{jonsson2020planning})
Define the threshold $\beta_p(t,\delta) \triangleq \log(1/\delta) + (S-1)\underset{s,a}{\sum}\log\bigg(e\big[1+N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)\big]\bigg)$. Then for all $\delta \in (0,1)$ we have:
\begin{equation*}
\P\bigg(\exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{sa}(t) \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)} > \beta_p(t, \delta) \bigg) \leq \delta,
\end{equation*}
with the convention that $ N_{sa}(t) \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)} =0$ whenever $N_{sa}(t)=0$.
\label{lemma:concentration_transitions}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin with a few notations. For any vector $\lambda \in \mathbbm{R}^{S-1}\times \{0\}$ and any element of the simplex $p \in \Sigma_{S-1}$, we denote $<\lambda,p> \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{S-1} \lambda_i p_i$. We define the log-partition function of a discrete distribution $p$ supported over $\{1,\ldots,S\}$ by:
\begin{align*}
\forall \lambda \in \mathbbm{R}^{S-1}\times \{0\},\ \phi_p(\lambda) \triangleq \log(p_S + \sum_{i=1}^{S-1} p_i e^\lambda_i).
\end{align*}
We use the shorthand and let $\phi_{sa}(\lambda) \triangleq \phi_{p_{sa}}(\lambda)$. For $N \in \mathbbm{N}^*$ and $x \in \{0, \ldots, N\}^k$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^k x_i = N$ the binomial coefficient is defined as: $\binom{N}{x} \triangleq \frac{N!}{\prod_{i=1}^k x_i!}$. Finally $H(p) = \sum_{i=1}^S p_i \log(1/p_i)$ is the Shannon entropy of distribution $p$.
\paragraph{Building a convenient mixture martingale for every state-action pair:} Following \cite{jonsson2020planning}, we define for every integer $t$:
\begin{equation}
M_t^{\lambda}(s,a) = \exp\bigg(N_{sa}(t)\big(<\lambda,\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)> - \phi_{sa}(\lambda)\big)\bigg)\;.
\end{equation}
The sequence $(M_t^{\lambda}(s,a))_t$ is an $(\mathcal{F}_t)_t$-martingale since:
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}[M_{t}^{\lambda}(s,a) | \mathcal{F}_{t-1},\ (s_t,a_t)=(s,a)] \\
& = \mathbb{E}\bigg[\exp\bigg(N_{sa}(t)\big[<\lambda,\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)> - \phi_{sa}(\lambda)\big]\bigg) \bigg|\ \mathcal{F}_{t-1},\ (s_t,a_t) =(s,a) \bigg]\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{X \sim p_{sa}}\bigg[\exp\bigg(\big(N_{sa}(t-1)+1\big)\big(<\lambda,\frac{N_{sa}(t-1)\widehat{p}_{sa}(t-1) + X}{N_{sa}(t-1)+1}> - \phi_{sa}(\lambda)\big)\bigg)\bigg|\ \mathcal{F}_{t-1}\bigg]\\
& = \mathbb{E}_{X \sim p_{sa}}\bigg[M_{t-1}^{\lambda}(s,a) \exp\bigg(<\lambda,X> - \phi_{sa}(\lambda)\bigg) \bigg|\ \mathcal{F}_{t-1}\bigg] = M_{t-1}^{\lambda}(s,a).
\end{align*}
The same holds trivially when $(s_t,a_t) \neq (s,a)$. Now, we define the mixture martingale defined by the family of priors $\lambda_q = \nabla\phi_{sa}^{-1}(q)$ where $q \sim \mathcal{D}\mathrm{ir}(1, \ldots, 1)$ follows a Dirichlet distribution with parameters $(1, \ldots, 1)$:
\begin{align*}
& M_t(s,a) = \int M_t^{\lambda_q}(s,a) \frac{\Gamma(S)}{\prod_{i=1}^{S} \Gamma(1)}\prod_{i=1}^{S} q_i dq \\
&= \int e^{N_{sa}(t) \big(KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) -KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),q) \big)} (S-1)! \prod_{i=1}^{S} q_i dq \\
&= \exp\bigg(N_{sa}(t) \big(KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)) \big) \bigg) (S-1)! \int \prod_{i=1}^{S} q_i^{1 + N_{sa}(t)\widehat{p}_{sa,i}(t)} dq \\
&= \exp\bigg( N_{sa}(t) \big[KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\big]\bigg) \frac{(S-1)! \prod_{i=1}^S \Gamma\bigg(1+N_{sa}(t)\widehat{p}_{sa,i}(t)\bigg)}{\Gamma(N_{sa}(t) + S)}\\
& = \exp\bigg( N_{sa}(t) \big[KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\big]\bigg) \frac{(S-1)! \prod_{i=1}^S \big(N_{sa}(t)\widehat{p}_{sa,i}(t)\big)!}{(N_{sa}(t) + S-1)!}\\
&= \exp\bigg( N_{sa}(t) \big[KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\big]\bigg) \frac{\prod_{i=1}^S \big(N_{sa}(t)\widehat{p}_{sa,i}(t)\big)!}{N_{sa}(t)!} \frac{(S-1)! N_{sa}(t)!}{(N_{sa}(t) + S-1)!}\\
&= \exp\bigg( N_{sa}(t) \big[KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\big]\bigg) \frac{1}{\binom{N_{sa}(t) + S-1}{S-1}}\frac{1}{\binom{N_{sa}(t)}{N_{sa}(t)\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}},
\end{align*}
where in the second inequality we used Lemma \ref{technical_lemma_1} and $\widehat{p}_{sa,i}(t)$ denotes the i-th component of $\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)$. Now using Lemma \ref{technical_lemma_binomial}, we upper bound the binomial coefficients which leads to:
\begin{align*}
M_t(s,a) &\geq \exp\bigg(N_{sa}(t) \big[KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) +H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\big] - N_{sa}(t) H(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t))\\ & \quad -(N_{sa}(t)+S-1) H(S-1/(N_{sa}(t)+S-1))\bigg) \\
& = \exp\bigg(N_{sa}(t) KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa})-(N_{sa}(t)+S-1) H(S-1/(N_{sa}(t)+S-1))\bigg).
\end{align*}
\paragraph{The product martingale:} Taking the product over all state-action pairs we get:
\begin{align}
M_t & \triangleq \prod_{(s,a)\in \mathcal{Z}} M_t(s,a) \nonumber \\
&\geq \exp\bigg(\sum_{s,a} N_{sa}(t) KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) - \sum_{s,a} (N_{sa}(t)+S-1) H(S-1/(N_{sa}(t)+S-1))\bigg).
\label{eq:M_t_lb_1}
\end{align}
Next, using that $\log(1+x) \leq x$ we get:
\begin{align*}
(N_{sa}(t)+S-1) H(S-1/(N_{sa}(t)+S-1)) & = (S-1)\log(1 + N_{sa}(t)/(S-1))\\
& \quad + N_{sa}(t)\log(1 + (S-1)/N_{sa}(t))\\
& \leq (S-1)\log(1 + N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)) + (S-1)\\
& = (S-1)\log\bigg(e\big[1+N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)\big]\bigg).
\end{align*}
Hence (\ref{eq:M_t_lb_1}) becomes:
\begin{align}
M_t \geq \exp\bigg(\sum\limits_{s,a} N_{sa}(t) KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) - (S-1)\underset{s,a}{\sum}\log\bigg(e\big[1+N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)\big]\bigg) \bigg).
\label{eq:M_t_lb_2}
\end{align}
Now, we show that $M_t$ is a martingale. For any fixed pair $(s,a)$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[M_{t} | \mathcal{F}_{t-1},\ (s_t,a_t) =(s,a)] &= \mathbb{E}[M_t(s,a) \prod_{(s',a')\neq (s,a)} M_t(s',a') | \mathcal{F}_{t-1},\ (s_t,a_t) =(s,a)]\\
& = \mathbb{E}[M_t(s,a) \prod_{(s',a')\neq (s,a)} M_{t-1}(s',a') | \mathcal{F}_{t-1}]\\
& = \mathbb{E}[M_{t}(s,a) | \mathcal{F}_{t-1}] \times \prod_{(s',a')\neq (s,a)} M_{t-1}(s',a')\\
& = M_{t-1},
\end{align*}
where the third equality is because $M_t(s,a)$ and $\big(M_{t-1}(s',a')\big)_{(s',a') \neq (s,a)}$ are independent conditionally on $\mathcal{F}_{t-1}$.
Finally, using the tower rule we get:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[M_{t} | \mathcal{F}_{t-1}] = \mathbb{E}\bigg[\mathbb{E}[M_{t} | \mathcal{F}_{t-1},\ (s_t,a_t)] \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t-1}\bigg] = \mathbb{E}[ M_{t-1}| \mathcal{F}_{t-1}] = M_{t-1}.
\end{align*}
Hence $M_t$ is a martingale. Thanks to Doob's maximal inequality we have:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\exists t \geq 0,\ M_t > 1/\delta \bigg) \leq \delta \mathbb{E}[M_0] = \delta.
\end{align*}
In view of (\ref{eq:M_t_lb_2}), we conclude that for $\beta_p(t,\delta) = \log(1/\delta) +(S-1)\underset{s,a}{\sum}\log\bigg(e\big[1+N_{sa}(t)/(S-1)\big]\bigg)$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\exists t \geq 1,\ \sum_{s,a} N_{sa}(t) KL(\widehat{p}_{sa}(t),p_{sa}) > \beta_p(t,\delta) \bigg) \leq \delta.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}(Lemma 3 in \cite{jonsson2020planning})
For $q,p$ in $\Sigma_m$ the simplex of dimension $(m-1)$ and $\lambda \in \mathbbm{R}^{m-1}$, we have:
$$<\lambda,q> - \phi_p(\lambda) = KL(q,p) - KL(q,p^\lambda) $$
where $p^\lambda = \nabla \phi_p(\lambda)$.
\label{technical_lemma_1}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 11.1.3, \cite{elements_IT})
Let $N \in \mathbbm{N}^*$, and $x \in \{0, \ldots, N\}^k$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^k x_i = N$ then:
$$
\binom{N}{x} = \frac{N!}{\prod_{i=1}^k x_i!} \leq e^{N H(x/N)}
$$
where $H(x/N)$ is the Shannon entropy of the discrete distribution over $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with vector of probabilities $(\frac{x_i}{N})_{1\leq i \leq k}$.
\label{technical_lemma_binomial}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Correctness of the stopping rule}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:upper_bound} and equations (\ref{eq:GLR_first_exp}-\ref{eq:GLR_second_exp}) in the second and third lines respectively, we get:
\begin{align*}
\P(\widehat{\pi}_{\tau}^* \neq & \pi^* ,\tau_{\delta} < \infty) = \P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ t\; U\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t,{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t\big)^{-1} \geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2), \widehat{\pi}_t^* \neq \pi^* \bigg)\\
& \leq \P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ t\; T\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t,{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t\big)^{-1} \geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2), \mathcal{M} \in \textrm{Alt}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t) \bigg)\\
& = \P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{\mathcal{M}' \in \operatorname{Alt}{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t}}{\inf} \underset{(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{s a}(t) \big[\operatorname{KL}{\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)}{q_{\mathcal{M}'}(s,a)} + \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}'}(s,a)}\big]\\
&\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2), \mathcal{M} \in \textrm{Alt}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t) \bigg)\\
& \leq \P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{s a}(t) \big[\operatorname{KL}{\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)}{q_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)} + \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)}\big]\\
&\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2) + \beta_p(t,\delta/2) \bigg) \\
& = \P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{(s,a)\in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{sa}(t) \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{q}_{s,a}(t)}{q_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)}\geq \beta_r(t,\delta/2)\bigg)\\
& \quad \quad \quad +\P\bigg( \exists t \geq 1,\ \underset{(s,a)\in \mathcal{Z}}{\sum}\ N_{sa}(t) \operatorname{KL}{\widehat{p}_{sa}(t)}{p_{\mathcal{M}}(s,a)} \geq \beta_p(t,\delta/2) \bigg) \\
&\leq \delta/2 + \delta/2 = \delta
\end{align*}
where the last inequality is due to Lemmas \ref{lemma:concentration_rewards} and \ref{lemma:concentration_transitions}.
\end{proof}
\section{Sample complexity upper bound}\label{sec:appendix_SC}
\subsection{Almost sure upper bound: proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation} {\it (i)}}
\begin{proof}
Consider the event $\mathcal{E} =\bigg(\forall (s,a) \in \mathcal{Z},\ \lim_{t \to \infty}\frac{N_{sa}(t)}{t} = \omega^\star_{s,a},\ \widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t \to \mathcal{M} \bigg)$. By Lemma \ref{lemma:visits} and Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic}, we have $\P(\mathcal{E}) = 1$. We will prove that under $\mathcal{E}$, $\limsup\limits_{\delta \to 0} \frac{\tau_\delta}{\log(1/\delta)} \leq 2 U_{o}(\mathcal{M})$.\\
Fix $\eta > 0$. There exits $t_\eta$ such that for all $t\geq t_\eta$:
\begin{align}
&U\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t,{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t\big)^{-1} \geq (1-\eta) U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big)^{-1}\\
&\beta_p(t,\delta/2) \leq \log(1/\delta) + \eta U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big)^{-1} t \\
&\beta_r(t,\delta/2) \leq SA\; \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big) + \eta U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big)^{-1} t
\end{align}
where the last two inequalities come from the fact that both the thresholds satisfy $\beta(t, \delta/2) = \mathcal{O}\big(\log(t)\big) = o(t)$. Combining the inequalities above with the definition of $\tau_\delta$, we get:
\begin{align*}
\tau_\delta &\leq \inf\bigg\{t \geq t_\eta, (1-3\eta)t U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big)^{-1} \geq \log(1/\delta) +SA\; \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big) \bigg\}\\
&= \max\bigg(t_\eta,\ \frac{\bigg[log(1/\delta) +SA\; \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big)\bigg]U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big) }{1-3\eta}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Since $\varphi(x) \underset{\infty}{\sim} x$, then the last inequality implies that $\limsup\limits_{\delta \to 0} \frac{\tau_\delta}{\log(1/\delta)} \leq \frac{2 U(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star)}{1-3\eta}$. Taking the limit when $\eta$ goes to zero finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Upper bound in expectation: proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:expectation} {\it (ii)}}
\begin{proof}
We start by defining the semi-distance between MDPs:
\begin{align*}
\norm{\mathcal{M} -\mathcal{M}'} = \max\limits_{s,a} \max\big(|r_\mathcal{M}(s,a) - r_{\mathcal{M}'}(s,a)|, \norm{p_\mathcal{M}(.|s,a) - p_{\mathcal{M}'}(.|s,a)}_1\big).
\end{align*}
Now for $\xi > 0$, by continuity of $\mathcal{M} \to \pi^o(\mathcal{M})$\footnote{As a consequence of Berge's Theorem, which gives the continuity of $\mathcal{M} \mapsto {\boldsymbol \omega}^\star(\mathcal{M})$.} there exists $\rho(\xi) \leq \xi$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\forall \mathcal{M}' \in \mathcal{B}\big(\mathcal{M}, \rho(\xi)\big),\ \norm{\pi^o(\mathcal{M}') - \pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \leq \xi
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{M}, \rho) = \{\mathcal{M}':\ \norm{\mathcal{M}' - \mathcal{M}} \leq \rho \}$.
For $T \geq 1$, consider the concentration events\footnote{\ For simplicity and w.l.o.g, we consider that $T^{1/4}$ and $T^{3/4}$ are integers.}:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) & \triangleq \bigcap\limits_{t= T^{1/4}}^{T}\bigg(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t \in \mathcal{B}\big(\mathcal{M}, \rho(\xi)\big) \bigg).\\
\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi) &\triangleq \bigcap\limits_{t= T^{3/4}}^{T}\bigg(\big|{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t - \omega^\star \big| \leq K_\xi \xi \bigg)
\end{align*}
where $K_\xi$ is a mapping defined in Proposition \ref{proposition:concentration_visits_informal_1}. We will upper bound the stopping time of MDP-NaS under $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \cap \mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)$. Define:
\begin{align*}
U(\mathcal{M}, \omega^\star, \xi) \triangleq& \sup\ U\big(\mathcal{M}', \omega'\big).\\
&\scalebox{0.75}{$\mathcal{M}' \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{M}, \rho(\xi))$}\nonumber\\
&\scalebox{0.75}{$\norm{\omega' -\omega^\star}_\infty \leq K_\xi \xi$}.
\end{align*}
By Proposition \ref{proposition:concentration_visits_informal_1}, there exists $T_1(\xi)$ such that for all $T\geq T_1(\xi)$, conditionally on $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)$, the event $\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)$ occurs with high probability. For $T \geq T_1(\xi)$ we have: \begin{align}
\forall t \in [|T^{3/4}, T|],\ U\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t,{\boldsymbol N}(t)/t \big) \leq U(\mathcal{M}, \omega^\star, \xi).
\label{ineq:bound_U_voisinage}
\end{align}
Furthermore, using the bound $N_{sa}(t) \leq t$ in the definitions of the thresholds $\beta_p$ and $\beta_r$ and the fact that $\log(t) \underset{t \to \infty}{=} o(t)$, we prove the existence of $T_2(\xi)$ such that for all $t \geq T_2(\xi)$:
\begin{align}
\beta_p(t,\delta/2) &\leq \log(1/\delta) + \xi U(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star, \xi)^{-1} t \\
\beta_r(t,\delta/2) &\leq SA\; \varphi\big(\log(1/\delta)/SA\big) + \xi U(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star, \xi)^{-1} t.
\label{ineq:bound_thresholds}
\end{align}
Finally define:
\begin{align*}
T_3(\xi, \delta) \triangleq \frac{U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star, \xi\big)\bigg[ \log(1/\delta) +SA\varphi\big(\frac{\log(1/\delta)}{SA}\big)\bigg]}{(1-2\xi)}.
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{ineq:bound_U_voisinage}-\ref{ineq:bound_thresholds}), we have for all $T \geq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big)$ under $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \cap \mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)$ the following holds:
\begin{align*}
T\times U\big(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_T,{\boldsymbol N}(T)/T\big)^{-1} \geq \beta_p(T,\delta/2)+ \beta_r(T,\delta/2).
\end{align*}
In other words:
\begin{align}
\forall T \geq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big),\quad \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \cap \mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi) \subset \big(\tau_\delta \leq T\big).
\label{eq:Golden_inclusion}
\end{align}
Therefore\footnote{\ $\overline{\mathcal{E}}$ denotes the complementary of event $\mathcal{E}$.}:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[\tau_\delta] &= \sum\limits_{T=1}^\infty \P(\tau_\delta > T)\\
&\leq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big) + \sum\limits_{T=\max(T_1,T_2, T_3)}^\infty \P(\tau_\delta > T)\\
&\leq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big) + \sum\limits_{T=\max(T_1,T_2, T_3)}^\infty \P\bigg(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cup \overline{\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)} \bigg)\\
&\leq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big) + \sum\limits_{T=1}^\infty \bigg[\P\bigg(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)}\bigg) + \P\bigg(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)} \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)\bigg) \bigg] \\
&\leq \max\big(T_1(\xi),T_2(\xi), T_3(\xi, \delta)\big) + \sum\limits_{T=1}^\infty \frac{1}{T^2} + B T \exp\bigg(-\frac{C T^{1/16}}{\sqrt{\log(1+ SA T^2)}}\bigg) \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + \frac{2SA \exp(-T^{3/4}\xi^2)}{1-\exp(-\xi^2)},
\end{align*}
where we used Lemma \ref{lemma:concentration_empirical_mdps} and Proposition \ref{proposition:concentration_visits_informal_1} in the last inequality. This implies that $\mathbb{E}[\tau_\delta]$ is finite and:
\begin{align*}
\limsup\limits_{\delta \to 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}[\tau_\delta]}{\log(1/\delta)} &\leq \limsup\limits_{\delta \to 0} \frac{T_3(\xi, \delta)}{\log(1/\delta)}\\
&= \frac{2 U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star, \xi\big)}{(1-2\xi)}
\end{align*}
where we used $\varphi(x) \underset{\infty}{\sim} x + \log(x)$. Finally, we take the limit $\xi \to 0$. Since $\rho(\xi) \leq \xi$ and $\limsup\limits_{\xi \to 0} K_\xi < \infty$ then $\limsup\limits_{\xi \to 0} U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star, \xi\big) = U\big(\mathcal{M},\omega^\star\big) = U_{o}(\mathcal{M})$ which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Concentration of the empirical MDPs}
\begin{lemma}
Define the event $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \triangleq \bigcap\limits_{t= T^{1/4}}^{T}\bigg(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t \in \mathcal{B}\big(\mathcal{M}, \rho(\xi)\big) \bigg)$. Then there exists two positive constants $B$ and $C$ that only depend on $\xi$ and $\mathcal{M}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\forall T\geq 1,\ \P\left(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \right) \leq \frac{1}{T^2} + B T \exp\bigg(-\frac{C T^{1/16}}{\sqrt{\log(1+ SA T^2)}}\bigg).
\end{align*}
\label{lemma:concentration_empirical_mdps}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For simplicity we will denote $\rho(\xi)$ by $\rho$. Consider the forced exploration event:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{E}_T = \bigg(\forall (s,a)\in \mathcal{Z},\ \forall t\geq 1,\ N_{sa}(t) \geq \bigg[\frac{t}{\lambda(T)}\bigg]^{1/4} - 1 \bigg)
\end{align*}
where $\lambda(T) \triangleq \frac{(m+1)^2}{\eta^2}\log^2(1+ SA T^2)$ and $\eta$ is a parameter that only depends on $\mathcal{M}$. Applying Corollary \ref{corollary:forced_exploration} for $\alpha = \frac{1}{T^2}$, we get $\P(\mathcal{E}_T) \geq 1 - 1/T^2$. Therefore we have:
\begin{align}
\P\left(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \right) &\leq \P(\overline{\mathcal{E}_T}) + \P(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cap \mathcal{E}_T)\nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{1}{T^2} + \P(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cap \mathcal{E}_T).
\label{ineq:C_1_first_decomposition}
\end{align}
On the other hand:
\begin{align}
\P(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cap \mathcal{E}_T) &\leq \sum_{t = T^{1/4}}^{T} \P\left(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t \notin \mathcal{B}\big(\mathcal{M}, \rho(\xi)\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \right) \nonumber\\
&\leq \sum_{t = T^{1/4}}^{T} \underset{s,a}{\sum}\ \Bigg[\P\bigg(\big(\widehat{r}_t(s,a) - r(s,a) > \rho\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T\bigg) \nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad + \P\bigg(\big(\widehat{r}_t(s,a) - r(s,a) < -\rho \big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg)\nonumber\\
&\qquad \qquad + \underset{s'}{\sum}\ \P\bigg(\big(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) - p(s'|s,a) > \rho/S\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad + \P\bigg(\big(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) - p(s'|s,a) < -\rho/S\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) \Bigg].
\label{ineq:C_1_second_decomposition}
\end{align}
Using a union bound and Chernoff-Hoeffding theorem respectively we get for $t\geq T^{1/4}$:
\begin{align}
\P\bigg(\big(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) - & p(s'|s,a) > \rho/S\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) \nonumber\\
& \leq \P\bigg(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) - p(s'|s,a) > \rho/S,\ N_{sa}(t) \geq \bigg[\frac{t}{\lambda(T)}\bigg]^{1/4} - 1 \bigg) \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{t'=\big[\frac{t}{\lambda(T)}\big]^{1/4} - 1}^{t} \P\bigg(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) - p(s'|s,a) > \rho/S,\ N_{sa}(t) = t' \bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq \sum_{t'=\big[\frac{t}{\lambda(T)}\big]^{1/4} - 1}^{t} \exp\bigg(-t'\cdot \operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{ \exp\bigg(-\big(\big[\frac{t}{\lambda(T)}\big]^{1/4} - 1 \big)\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{ \exp\bigg(-[\frac{T^{1/16}}{\lambda(T)^{1/4}} - 1 ]\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}.
\label{ineq:C_1_third_decomposition}
\end{align}
In a similar fashion we prove that:
\begin{align}
\P\bigg(\big(\widehat{p}_t(s'|s,a) & - p(s'|s,a) < -\rho/S\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) \nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad \leq \frac{ \exp\bigg(-[\frac{T^{1/16}}{\lambda(T)^{1/4}} - 1 ]\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)-\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)-\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\P\bigg(\big(\widehat{r}_t(s,a) - r(s,a) > \rho\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) &\leq \frac{ \exp\bigg(-[\frac{T^{1/16}}{\lambda(T)^{1/4}} - 1 ]\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)+\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)+\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}, \\
\P\bigg(\big(\widehat{r}_t(s,a) - r(s,a) < -\rho\big) \cap \mathcal{E}_T \bigg) &\leq \frac{ \exp\bigg(-[\frac{T^{1/16}}{\lambda(T)^{1/4}} - 1 ]\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)-\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)-\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}.
\label{ineq:C_1_fourth_decomposition}
\end{align}
Thus, for the following choice of constants
\begin{align*}
C = \sqrt{\frac{\eta}{m+1}}\min\limits_{s,a,s'}\Bigg(&\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)-\rho,\ r(s,a)\big),\ \operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)+\rho,\ r(s,a)\big),\\
&\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)-\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big),\ \operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\Bigg),
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
B = & \sum\limits_{s,a}\ \Bigg(\frac{ \exp\bigg(\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)+\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)+\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)} + \frac{ \exp\bigg(\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)-\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(r(s,a)-\rho,\ r(s,a)\big)\bigg)} \\
& +\sum\limits_{s'} \Bigg[ \frac{ \exp\bigg(\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)+\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)} \\
& + \frac{ \exp\bigg(\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)-\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\operatorname{kl}\big(p(s'|s,a)-\rho/S,\ p(s'|s,a)\big)\bigg)} \Bigg] \Bigg),
\end{align*}
and using (\ref{ineq:C_1_second_decomposition}-\ref{ineq:C_1_fourth_decomposition}) we get:
\begin{align*}
\P(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \cap \mathcal{E}_T) \leq \sum\limits_{t=T^{1/4}}^T B \exp\bigg(-\frac{C T^{1/16}}{\sqrt{\log(1+ SA T^2)}}\bigg) \leq B T \exp\bigg(-\frac{C T^{1/16}}{\sqrt{\log(1+ SA T^2)}}\bigg)\;.
\end{align*}
Combined with (\ref{ineq:C_1_first_decomposition}), the previous inequality implies that:
\begin{align*}
\P\left(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)} \right) \leq \frac{1}{T^2} + B T \exp\bigg(-\frac{C T^{1/16}}{\sqrt{\log(1+ SA T^2)}}\bigg) \;.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Concentration of state-action visitation frequency}
The following proposition is a somewhat stronger version of Proposition \ref{proposition:ergodic_thm}. The fact that $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t$ is within a distance of at most $\xi$ from $\mathcal{M}$ enables us to have a tighter control of the ergodicity constants $L_t$. This in turn allows us to derive a finite sample bound on the deviations of state-action frequency of visits. Before stating the result we recall some simple facts:
\paragraph{Fact 1:} For any two policies $\pi, \pi'$ we have: $\norm{P_{\pi'} - P_{\pi}}_\infty \leq \norm{\pi' - \pi}_\infty$, where the norm is on policies viewed as vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{SA}$.
\paragraph{Fact 2:} Under $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)$, for $k\geq \sqrt{T}$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\norm{\overline{\pi_k^o} -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty &\leq \frac{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{T^{1/4}} \varepsilon_j \norm{\pi_u -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty}{k} + \frac{\sum\limits_{j=T^{1/4}+1}^{k} \norm{\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_j) -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty}{k}\\
&\leq \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \xi.
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Fact 3:} Under $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)$, for $k\geq \sqrt{T}$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\norm{\omega_k -\omega^\star}_1 &\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{P_k - P_{\pi^o}}_\infty\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{\pi_k -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \big[\varepsilon_k + \norm{\overline{\pi_k^o} -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \big]\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \big[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \xi \big].
\end{align*}
where we used Lemma \ref{lemma:Schweitzer}, Fact 1, the definitions of $\pi_k$ and $\varepsilon_k$ and Fact 2 respectively.
\paragraph{Fact 4:} Under $\mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)$, for $k\geq \sqrt{T}$ we have:
\begin{align*}
D(\pi_k, \pi_{k-1}) &= \norm{P_k - P_{k-1}}_\infty\\
&\leq \norm{P_k - P_{\pi^o}}_\infty + \norm{P_{\pi^o} - P_{k-1}}_\infty\\
&\leq 2\big[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k-1} + \xi \big]
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}
Under C-Navigation, for all $\xi>0$, there exists a time $T_\xi$ such that for all $T \geq T_\xi$, all $t\geq T^{3/4}$ and all functions $f: \mathcal{Z} \xrightarrow{} \mathbbm{R}^{+}$, we have:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg( \bigg|\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{t} f(s_k,a_k)}{t} - \mathbb{E}_{(s,a)\sim\omega^\star}[f(s,a)] \bigg| \geq K_\xi \norm{f}_\infty \xi \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \bigg) \leq 2\exp\big(-t \xi^2\big),
\end{align*}
where $\xi \mapsto K_\xi$ is a mapping with values in $(1,\infty)$ such that $\limsup_{\xi \to 0} K_\xi < \infty$. In particular, this implies that:
\begin{align*}
\P\bigg(\exists (s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}, \bigg|N_{sa}(t)/t - \omega_{s a}^\star \bigg| \geq K_\xi \xi \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \bigg) \leq 2SA\exp\big(-t \xi^2\big).
\end{align*}
\label{proposition:concentration_visits_informal_1}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
We have $\P\bigg(\overline{\mathcal{C}_T^2(\xi)} \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi)\bigg) \leq \displaystyle{\frac{2SA \exp(-T^{3/4}\xi^2)}{1-\exp(-\xi^2)}}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Consider the difference
\begin{align}
D &= \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{t} f(z_k)}{t} - \omega^\star(f) \nonumber\\
&= \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\sqrt{T}} [f(z_k)-\omega^\star(f)]}{t} + \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} [f(z_k)-\omega^\star(f)]}{t}\nonumber\\
&= \underbrace{\frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\sqrt{T}} [f(z_k)-\omega^\star(f)]}{t} }\limits_{D_{1,t}} + \underbrace{\frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} \big[f(z_k) - \omega_{k-1}(f)\big]}{t}}\limits_{D_{2,t}} + \underbrace{\frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} \big[\omega_{k-1}(f) - \omega^\star(f)\big]}{t}}\limits_{D_{3,t}} \nonumber.\\
\label{eq:diff_decomposition_bis}
\end{align}
We clearly have:
\begin{align}
\forall T \geq \frac{1}{\xi^4},\ \forall t\geq T^{3/4},\ |D_{1,t}| \leq \frac{\norm{f}_\infty \sqrt{T}}{t} \leq \frac{\norm{f}_\infty}{T^{1/4}} \leq \norm{f}_\infty \xi.
\label{ineq:D1_bis}
\end{align}
Using Fact 3 and integral-series comparison, we upper bound the third term as follows:
\begin{align}
\forall T\geq \big(\frac{2}{\xi}\big)^{4(m+1)},\ \forall t\geq T^{3/4},\ |D_{3,t}| &\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t-1} \norm{\omega_{k} - \omega^\star}_1 }{t \nonumber}\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t-1} \big[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \xi \big]}{t}\nonumber \\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \bigg( T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t-1} \frac{T^{1/4}}{k}}{t} + \xi \bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \bigg( T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + \frac{T^{1/4}\log(t)}{t} \bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \bigg( T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + \frac{T^{1/4}}{\sqrt{t}} \bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \bigg( T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + T^{\frac{-1}{8}} \bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \bigg( 2T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi\bigg) \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{f}_\infty \xi.
\label{ineq:D3_bis}
\end{align}
Now to bound $D_{2,t}$ we use the function $\widehat{f}_k$ solution to the Poisson equation $\big(\widehat{f}_k - P_k\widehat{f}_k\big)(.) = f(.) - \omega_{k}(f)$. By Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson}, $\widehat{f}_k(.) = \sum\limits_{n\geq0} P_k^n[f - \omega_{k}(f)](.)$ exists and is solution to the Poisson equation. Therefore we can rewrite $D_{2,t}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
D_{2,t} &= \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} \big[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k)\big]}{t} \nonumber\\
&= M_t + C_t + R_t.
\label{eq:D_2_decomposition_bis}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
& M_t \triangleq \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} \big[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_{k-1})\big]}{t}.\\
& C_t \triangleq \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} \big[P_{k}\widehat{f}_{k}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k)\big]}{t}.\\
& R_t \triangleq \frac{P_{\sqrt{T}}\widehat{f}_{\sqrt{T}}(z_{\sqrt{T}}) - P_{t}\widehat{f}_{t}(z_{t})}{t}.
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Bounding $M_t$: }Note that $S_t \triangleq t M_t$ is a martingale since $\mathbb{E}[\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) | \mathcal{F}_{k-1}] = P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_{k-1})$. Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson}:
\begin{align}
|S_k - S_{k-1}| &= |\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_k) - P_{k-1}\widehat{f}_{k-1}(z_{k-1})| \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\norm{\widehat{f}_{k-1}}_\infty \nonumber\\
&\leq 2 \norm{f}_\infty L_{k-1} .
\label{ineq:bound_martingale_difference}
\end{align}
Recall from Lemma \ref{lemma:Geometric_C_Navigation} that $L_k = \mathcal{L}(\varepsilon_k, \overline{\pi_k^o}, \omega_k)$ where:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}(\varepsilon, \pi, \omega) &\triangleq \frac{2}{\theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) \big[1- \theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega)^{1/r}\big]} \\
\theta(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) &\triangleq 1 - \sigma(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega).\\
\sigma(\varepsilon,\pi,\omega) &\triangleq \bigg[\varepsilon^r + \bigg((1-\varepsilon) A \min\limits_{s,a} \pi(a|s) \bigg)^r \bigg] \sigma_u \bigg(\min\limits_{z}\frac{\omega_u(z)}{\omega(z)}\bigg).
\end{align*}
Now for $T \geq \big(\frac{2}{\xi}\big)^{4(m+1)}$ and $k \geq \sqrt{T}$ we have:
\begin{align*}
&|\varepsilon_k| = k^{\frac{-1}{2(m+1)}} \leq T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} \leq \xi/2.\\
&\norm{\overline{\pi_k^o} -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \leq \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \xi \leq \frac{1}{T^{1/4}}+ \xi \leq 2\xi.\\
&\norm{\omega_k -\omega^\star}_1\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \big[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \xi \big]
\leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \big[2T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi \big] \leq 2\kappa_\mathcal{M} \xi.
\end{align*}
Therefore:
\begin{flalign}
L_k \leq L_\xi \triangleq &\sup\ \mathcal{L}(\varepsilon, \pi, \omega) \nonumber.\\
&\scalebox{0.85}{$|\varepsilon| \leq \xi/2$}\nonumber\\
&\scalebox{0.85}{$\norm{\pi -\pi^o(\mathcal{M})}_\infty \leq 2\xi$}\nonumber\\
&\scalebox{0.85}{$\norm{\omega -\omega^\star}_1 \leq 2\kappa_\mathcal{M} \xi$}
\label{ineq:bound_L_k}
\end{flalign}
Using (\ref{ineq:bound_martingale_difference}), (\ref{ineq:bound_L_k}) and Azuma-Hoeffding inequality we get for all $t\geq T^{3/4}$:
\begin{align}
\P\big(|M_t| \geq 2\norm{f}_\infty L_\xi \xi\big) &= \P\big(|S_t| \geq 2 t\norm{f}_\infty L_\xi \xi\big) \nonumber\\
&= \P\big( |S_t - S_{\sqrt{T}}| \geq 2 t \norm{f}_\infty L_\xi \xi\big) \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\exp\bigg(\frac{-t^2 \xi^2}{(t-\sqrt{T})}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\leq 2\exp\big(-t \xi^2\big).
\label{ineq:M_t_bis}
\end{align}
\paragraph{Bounding $C_t$: } Using Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson} we have for all $T\geq \big(\frac{2}{\xi}\big)^{4(m+1)}$ and all $t\geq T^{3/4}$:
\begin{align}
|C_t| &\leq \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} L_k\bigg[ \norm{\omega_k - \omega_{k-1}}_1 + L_{k-1} D(\pi_k, \pi_{k-1}) \bigg] }{t} \nonumber\\
&\leq \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} L_\xi \bigg[ \norm{\omega_k - \omega^\star}_1 + \norm{\omega^\star - \omega_{k-1}}_1 + 2 L_\xi \big(T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k-1} + \xi \big) \bigg] }{t} \nonumber \\
&\leq \norm{f}_\infty \frac{\sum\limits_{k=\sqrt{T}+1}^{t} L_\xi \bigg[ \kappa_\mathcal{M} \big(2T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + 2\xi + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k-1} \big) + 2 L_\xi \big(T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \frac{T^{1/4}}{k-1} + \xi \big) \bigg]}{t} \nonumber \\
&\leq 2\norm{f}_\infty (\kappa_\mathcal{M} L_\xi + L_\xi^2) \bigg[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + T^{1/4}\frac{\log(t)}{t} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\norm{f}_\infty (\kappa_\mathcal{M} L_\xi + L_\xi^2) \bigg[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + T^{1/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\norm{f}_\infty (\kappa_\mathcal{M} L_\xi + L_\xi^2)\bigg[T^{\frac{-1}{4(m+1)}} + \xi + T^{-1/8} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\leq 4\norm{f}_\infty (\kappa_\mathcal{M} L_\xi + L_\xi^2)\xi,
\label{ineq:C_t_bis}
\end{align}
where the second line comes from (\ref{ineq:bound_L_k}) and Fact 4 and the third line is due to Fact 3.
\paragraph{Bounding $R_t$: } Finally, by Lemma \ref{lemma:poisson} we have:
\begin{align}
\forall T\geq \big(\frac{2}{\xi}\big)^{4(m+1)},\ \forall t\geq T^{3/4},\ |R_t| &\leq \frac{\norm{\widehat{f}_{\sqrt{T}}}_\infty + \norm{\widehat{f}_t}_\infty}{t} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{f}_\infty (L_{\sqrt{T}} + L_t)}{t} \nonumber\\
&\leq 2 \norm{f}_\infty L_\xi T^{-3/4} \nonumber\\
&\leq 2 \norm{f}_\infty L_\xi \xi.
\label{ineq:R_t_bis}
\end{align}
Summing up the inequalities (\ref{ineq:D1_bis}-\ref{ineq:R_t_bis}) yields for all $T\geq \big(\frac{2}{\xi}\big)^{4(m+1)}$ and all $t\geq T^{3/4}$:
\begin{align}
\P\bigg(\bigg|\frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{t} f(z_k)}{t} - \omega^\star(f) \bigg| \geq K_\xi \norm{f}_\infty \xi \bigg| \mathcal{C}_T^1(\xi) \bigg) \leq 2\exp\big(-t \xi^2\big).
\label{ineq:local_concentration_f}
\end{align}
where $K_\xi \triangleq 1+2\kappa_\mathcal{M} + 4 L_\xi(1+\kappa_\mathcal{M}+L_\xi)$. Note that $\limsup\limits_{\xi \to 0} L_\xi = \mathcal{L}(0, \pi^o(\mathcal{M}), \omega^\star) < \infty$ \footnote{Refer to (\ref{eq:sigma_o}) and (\ref{eq:theta_o}) for a formal justification.} implying that $\limsup\limits_{\xi \to 0} K_\xi < \infty$. We get the final result by applying (\ref{ineq:local_concentration_f}) to indicator functions $\mathbbm{1}_{s,a}(z)$ and using a union bound.
\end{proof}
\section{Technical Lemmas}\label{sec:appendix_technical}
\subsection{Upper bound on the norm of products of substochastic matrices}
Before we proceed with the lemma, we lay out some definitions. $\eta_1 \triangleq \min\big\{P_{\pi_u}(z,z')\ \big| (z,z')\in \mathcal{Z}^2, P_{\pi_u}(z,z') > 0 \big\}$ denotes the minimum positive probability of transition in $\mathcal{M}$. Similarly define $\eta_2 \triangleq \min\big\{P^{n}_{\pi_u}(z,z')\ \big| (z,z')\in \mathcal{Z}^2, n \in [|1,m+1|], P^{n}_{\pi_u}(z,z') > 0 \big\}$ the minimal probability of reaching some state-action pair $z'$ from any other state-action $z$ after $n\leq m+1$\footnote{Refer to the preamble of Appendix \ref{sec:appendix_sampling} for more detail.} transitions in the Markov chain induced by the uniform random policy. Finally, $\eta \triangleq \eta_1\eta_2$.
\begin{lemma}
Fix some state-action $z$ and let $P_t$ be the transition matrix under some policy $\pi_t$ satisfying $\pi_t(a|s) \geq \epsilon_t \pi_u(a|s)$ for all $(s,a) \in \mathcal{Z}$. Define the substochastic matrix $Q_t$ obtained by removing from $P_t$ the row and the column corresponding to $z$:
$$P_t =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
\\
\quad Q_t \quad \\
\\
\end{matrix}
& \hspace*{-\arraycolsep}\vline\hspace*{-\arraycolsep} & [P_t(z',z)]_{z' \neq z} \\
\hline
[P_t(z, z')]_{z' \neq z}^{T} & \hspace*{-\arraycolsep}\vline\hspace*{-\arraycolsep} &
\begin{matrix}
P_t(z,z)
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix}\;.
$$
Then we have:
\begin{equation*}
\forall n\geq 1,\ \norm{\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} Q_l}_\infty \leq 1 - \eta \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} \epsilon_l.
\end{equation*}
\label{lemma:substochastic_matrices}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $r_k(n_1, n_2) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n_1 + 1}^{n_2} Q_l\bigg)_{k j}$ the sum of the k-th row in the product of matrices $Q_l$ for $l \in [[n_1 +1, n_2|]$. We will prove that or all $i \in [|1,SA-1|]$: $r_i(n, n+m+1) \leq 1 - \eta \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} \epsilon_l$. The result follows immediately by noting that $\norm{\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} Q_l}_\infty = \max\limits_{i \in [|1,SA-1|]} r_i(n,n+m+1)$.\\
Consider $z'$ such that $P_{\pi_u}(z',z) \geq \eta_1$ (such $z'$ always exists since $\mathcal{M}$ is communicating) and let $k^\star$ be the index of the row corresponding to $z'$ in $Q_t$. Then for all $n_1\geq1$:
\begin{align}
r_{k^\star}(n_1,l=n_1+1) &= \sum\limits_{j=1}^{SA-1} (Q_{n_1+1})_{k^\star j}\nonumber\\
&= 1 - P_{n_1+1}(z',z)\nonumber\\
&\leq 1- \eta_1\epsilon_{n_1+1}.
\label{eq:r_k_star}
\end{align}
Now for $n_1, n_2\geq 1$ we have:
\begin{align}
r_{k^\star}(n_1,n_1+ n_2) &= \sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n_1+1}^{n_1+n_2} Q_l\bigg)_{k^\star j_1} \nonumber\\
&= \sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n_1+1}^{n_1+n_2 -1}Q_l\bigg)_{k^\star j_2} (Q_{n_1+n_2})_{j_2 j_1}\nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n_1+1}^{n_1+n_2 -1}Q_l\bigg)_{k^\star j_2} \bigg[\sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} (Q_{n_1+n_2})_{j_2 j_1} \bigg] \nonumber\\
&= \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n_1+1}^{n_1+n_2 -1}Q_l\bigg)_{k^\star j_2} r_{j_2}(n_1+n_2-1,n_1+n_2)\nonumber\\
&\leq r_{k^\star}(n_1,n_1+n_2-1)\nonumber\\
&\quad \vdots \nonumber\\
&\leq r_{k^\star}(n_1,n_1+1)\nonumber\\
&\leq 1 - \eta_1\epsilon_{n_1+1},
\label{eq:6}
\end{align}
where in the fifth line we use the fact that for all $j_2, a, b$: $r_{j_2}(a, b) \leq 1$ since the matrices $Q_l$ are substochastic. The last line comes from (\ref{eq:r_k_star}). Now for all other indexes $i \in [|1,SA-1|]$ we have:
\begin{align}
\forall n_1 \in [|1,m|],\ r_i(n, n+m+1) &= \sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\ \times \prod\limits_{l=n+n_1+1}^{n+m+1}Q_l\bigg)_{ij_1}\nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i j_2} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+n_1+1}^{n+m+1}Q_l\bigg)_{j_2 j_1}\nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i j_2}\ \sum\limits_{j_1=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+n_1+1}^{n+m+1 }Q_l\bigg)_{j_2 j_1}\nonumber \\
&= \sum\limits_{j_2=1}^{SA-1} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1 }Q_l\bigg)_{i j_2} r_{j_2}(n+n_1,n+m+1) \nonumber\\
&\leq (1 - \eta_1\epsilon_{n+n_1+1})\bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i k^\star} + \sum\limits_{j_2 \neq k^\star} \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i j_2} \nonumber\\
&\leq (1 - \eta_1\epsilon_{n+n_1+1})\bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i k^\star} + 1 - \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i k^\star} \nonumber\\
&= 1 - \eta_1\epsilon_{n+n_1+1}\bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l\bigg)_{i k^\star},
\label{eq:7}
\end{align}
where we used (\ref{eq:6}) and the fact that the matrix $\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_1}Q_l$ is substochastic. Now since $\mathcal{M}$ is communicating then we can reach state-action $z'$ from any other state-action $z_i \in [|1,SA-1|]$, after some $n_i\leq m+1$ steps in the Markov chain corresponding to the random uniform policy. In other words, if $i$ is the index corresponding to $z_i$ then there exists $n_i \leq m+1$, such that $(P_{\pi_u}^{n_i})_{i k^\star} \geq \eta_2 >0$. Therefore:
\begin{align}
\bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_i}Q_l\bigg)_{i k^\star} &\geq \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_i} \epsilon_l P_{\pi_u}\bigg)_{i k^\star} \nonumber\\
&= \bigg(\prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_i} \epsilon_l \bigg)(P_{\pi_u}^{n_i})_{i k^\star}\nonumber\\
&\geq \eta_2 \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_i} \epsilon_l.
\label{eq:8}
\end{align}
Thus, combining (\ref{eq:7}) for $n_1 = n_i$ and (\ref{eq:8}) we get:
\begin{align*}
\forall i \in [|1,SA-1|],\ r_i(n, n+m+1) &\leq 1 - \eta_1\eta_2 \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+n_i} \epsilon_l \\
&\leq 1 - \eta_1\eta_2 \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} \epsilon_l \\
&= 1 - \eta \prod\limits_{l=n+1}^{n+m+1} \epsilon_l.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Geometric ergodicity: a general result}
The following lemma is adapted from the proof of the Convergence theorem (Theorem 4.9, \cite{LevinPeresWilmer2006}).
\begin{lemma}
Let $P$ be a stochastic matrix with stationary distribution vector $\omega$. Suppose that there exist $\sigma > 0$ and an integer $r$ such that $P^r(s,s') \geq \sigma \omega(s')$ for all $(s,s')$. Let $W$ be a rank-one matrix whose rows are equal to $\omega^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}$. Then:
$$
\forall n\geq 1,\ \norm{P^n - W}_\infty \leq 2 \theta^{\frac{n}{r}-1}
$$
where $\theta = 1 - \sigma$.
\label{lemma:geometric_ergodicity}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We write: $P^r = (1-\theta) W + \theta Q$ where $Q$ is a stochastic matrix. Note that $W P^k = W$ for all $k\geq 0$ since $\omega^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} = \omega^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} P$. Furthermore $M W = W$ for all stochastic matrices since all rows of $W$ are equal. Using these properties, we will show by induction that $P^rk = (1-\theta^k) W + \theta^k Q^k$: \\
For $k=1$ the result is trivial. Now suppose that $P^rk = (1-\theta^k) W + \theta^k Q^k$. Then:
\begin{align*}
P^r(k+1) &= P^rk P^r\\
&= [(1-\theta^k) W + \theta^k Q^k] P^r\\
&= (1-\theta^k) W P^r + (1-\theta)\theta^k Q^k W + \theta^{k+1} Q^{k+1}\\
&= (1 - \theta^k) W + 1-\theta)\theta^k W + \theta^{k+1} Q^{k+1}\\
&= (1 - \theta^{k+1}) W + \theta^{k+1} Q^{k+1}.
\end{align*}
Therefore the result holds for all $k\geq 1$. Therefore $P^{rk +j} - W = \theta^k (Q^k P^j - W)$ which implies:
\begin{align*}
\forall n = rk+j \geq 1,\ \norm{P^n - W}_\infty &\leq \theta^k \norm{Q^k P^j - W}_\infty\\
&\leq 2 \theta^k = 2 \theta^{\floor{\frac{n}{r}}} \leq 2 \theta^{\frac{n}{r}-1}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Condition number of Markov Chains}
\begin{lemma}(Theorem 2 in \cite{Schweitzer68})
Let $P_1$ (resp. $P_2$) be the transition kernel of a Markov Chain with stationary distribution $\omega_1$ (resp. $\omega_2$). Define $Z_1 \triangleq (I -P_1 + \mathbbm{1}\omega_1^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T})^{-1}$. Then:
\begin{align*}
\omega_2^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} - \omega_1^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} = \omega_2^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T} [P_2 - P_1] Z_1 \quad \textrm{and}\quad \norm{\omega_2 - \omega_1}_1 \leq \kappa_1 \norm{P_2 - P_1}_\infty.
\end{align*}
where $\kappa_1 \triangleq \norm{Z_1}_\infty$. Crucially, in our setting this implies that there exists a constant $\kappa_\mathcal{M}$ that only depends on $\mathcal{M}$ such that for all $\pi$:
\begin{align*}
\norm{\omega_\pi - \omega^\star}_1 \leq \kappa_\mathcal{M} \norm{P_\pi - P_{\pi^o}}_\infty.
\end{align*}
where $\kappa_\mathcal{M} \triangleq \norm{Z_{\pi^o}}_\infty = \norm{(I -P_{\pi^o} + \mathbbm{1}{\omega^\star} ^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T})^{-1}}_\infty$.
\label{lemma:Schweitzer}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Properties of Poisson equation's solutions}
\begin{lemma}
Let $P_\pi$ be a Markov transition kernel satisfying the assumptions \hyperlink{assumption:B1}{(B1)} and \hyperlink{assumption:B3}{(B3)} and denote by $\omega_\pi$ its stationary distribution. Then for any a bounded function $f: \mathcal{Z} \to \mathbb{R}^{+}$, the function defined by $\widehat{f}_\pi(.) \triangleq \sum\limits_{n\geq0} P_\pi^n[f - \omega_{\pi}(f)](.)$ is well defined and is solution to the Poisson equation $\big(\widehat{f}_\pi - P_\pi\widehat{f}_\pi\big)(.) = f(.) - \omega_{\pi}(f)$. Furthermore:
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\widehat{f}_\pi}_{\infty} \leq L_{\pi} \norm{f}_{\infty},
\end{equation*}
and for any pair of kernels $P_\pi, P_{\pi'}$:
\begin{equation*}
\norm{P_{\pi'}\widehat{f}_{\pi'}-P_\pi\widehat{f}_\pi}_{\infty} \leq L_{\pi'} \norm{f}_\infty \big[ \norm{\omega_{\pi'} -\omega_\pi}_1 + L_\pi D(\pi',\pi) \big].
\end{equation*}
\label{lemma:poisson}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will prove that $\widehat{f}_\pi$ is well defined. Checking that it satisfies the Poisson equation is straightforward. Observe that:
\begin{align*}
\widehat{f}_\pi(.) &\triangleq \sum\limits_{n\geq0} P_\pi^n[f - \omega_{\pi}(f)](.)\\
&= \sum\limits_{n\geq0} [P_\pi^n - W_\pi] [f - \omega_{\pi}(f)](.),\\
\end{align*}
where the second equality is because $(W_\pi f)(z) = \omega_{\pi}(f)$ for all $z\in \mathcal{Z}$. From the last expression, we see that the sum defining $\widehat{f}_\pi$ converges and we have the first bound $\norm{\widehat{f}_\pi}_{\infty} \leq L_{\pi} \norm{f}_\infty $. Now for the second bound, we write:
\begin{align}
(P_{\pi'}\widehat{f}_{\pi'}-P_\pi\widehat{f}_\pi)(.) &= \sum\limits_{n\geq 1} \bigg[P_{\pi'}^n \big[\omega_\pi(f) - \omega_{\pi'}(f)\big] + \big[P_{\pi'}^n - P_{\pi}^n \big] \big[f - \omega_\pi(f)\big] \bigg](.)\nonumber\\
&= \underbrace{\sum\limits_{n\geq 1} P_{\pi'}^n \big[\omega_\pi(f) - \omega_{\pi'}(f)\big](.)}\limits_{A(.)} + \underbrace{\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}\big[P_{\pi'}^n - P_{\pi}^n \big] \big[f - \omega_\pi(f)\big](.)}\limits_{B(.)}.
\label{eq:A+B}
\end{align}
Using the same trick as before we obtain:
\begin{align}
\norm{A}_\infty &\leq \norm{f}_\infty C_{\pi'}(1-\rho_{\pi'})^{-1} \norm{\omega_\pi -\omega_{\pi'}}_1 \nonumber\\
&= \norm{f}_\infty L_{\pi'} \norm{\omega_\pi -\omega_{\pi'}}_1.
\label{ineq:A}
\end{align}
On the other hand, a simple calculation shows that $(B - P_{\pi'}B) (.) = (P_{\pi'} - P_\pi)\widehat{f}_\pi (.)$, ie $B$ is solution to the modified Poisson equation where the right hand side is $(P_{\pi'} - P_\pi)\widehat{f}_\pi$. Therefore:
\begin{align*}
B(.) = \sum\limits_{n\geq0} P_{\pi'}^n \big[(P_{\pi'} - P_\pi)\widehat{f}_\pi \big](.).
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}
\norm{B}_\infty &\leq L_{\pi'}\norm{(P_{\pi'} - P_\pi)\widehat{f}_\pi}_\infty \nonumber\\
&\leq L_{\pi'} D(\pi',\pi) \norm{\widehat{f}_\pi}_\infty \nonumber\\
&\leq L_{\pi} L_{\pi'} D(\pi',\pi) \norm{f}_\infty.
\label{ineq:B}
\end{align}
Summing up equation (\ref{eq:A+B}) and inequalities (\ref{ineq:A}-\ref{ineq:B}) ends the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Sample complexity lower bound}\label{sec:appendix_LB}
Let $\mathrm{Alt}(\mathcal{M})$ be the set of MDPs such that $\mathcal{M} \ll \mathcal{M}'$ and $\Pi^\star(\mathcal{M})\cap \Pi^\star(\mathcal{M}')=\emptyset$. The information constraints are obtained by change-of-measure arguments as in the bandit literature \cite{lai1985, kaufmann2016complexity}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}(\cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a}) For any $\delta$-PC algorithm $\mathbb{A}$, and for any $\mathcal{M}'\in \mathrm{Alt}(\mathcal{M})$, we have:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:information-bdd}
\sum_{s,a}\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{sa}(\tau_\delta)]\textrm{KL}_{\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{M}'}(s,a) \ge \operatorname{kl} (\delta,1-\delta).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Navigation constraints: proof of Lemma \ref{lem2}}
For all states $s$,
\begin{align*}
N_{\tau}(s) & = \mathbbm{1}_{ \{ S_1=s\} } + \sum_{s',a'}\sum_{u=1}^{N_{\tau-1}(s',a')}\mathbbm{1}_{ \{ W_u=s\} },
\end{align*}
where $W_u$ denotes the state observed after the $u$-th times $(s',a')$ has been visited. Fix $s',a'$. Introduce $G_t^{s',a'}= \sum_{u=1}^{N_{t-1}(s',a')}\mathbbm{1}_{ \{ W_u=s\} }$. Observe that ${ \{ W_u=s\} }$ and $\{ N_{t-1}(s',a')>u-1\}$ are independent. Furthermore, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\mathbbm{1}_{ \{ W_s=s\} }]=p_{\mathcal{M}}(s|s',a')$. Hence:
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}} [G_{\tau}^{s',a'}] = p_\mathcal{M}(s|s',a')\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau-1}(s',a')].
$$
Finally,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}} [N_\tau(s)]= \mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{M}}[\mathbbm{1}_{ \{ S_1=s\} }] +\sum_{s',a'} p_\mathcal{M}(s|s',a')\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau-1}(s',a')].
\end{align}
From the above equality, the lemma is proved by just observing that $\mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{M}}[\mathbbm{1}_{ \{ S_1=s\} }]\le 1$, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau-1}(s',a')]\le \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau}(s',a')]$ for any $(s',a')$, and $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau}(s)]\le \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[N_{\tau-1}(s)]+1$ for any $s$.
\subsection{Lower bound: proof of Proposition \ref{prop:LB2}}
By combining Lemma \ref{lem1} and Lemma \ref{lem2} we get the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:LB1} The expected sample complexity $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau_\delta]$ of any $\delta$-PC algorithm $\mathbb{A}$ is larger than the value of the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
&\inf_{n\ge 0} \ \sum_{s,a}n_{sa}\label{eq:LB1}\\
&\textrm{s.t.}\ \ \forall s, \ \Big| \sum_a n_{sa} - \sum_{s',a'} p_{\mathcal{M}} (s |s',a') n_{s'a'} \Big| \le 1,\nonumber\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \forall \mathcal{M}'\in \mathrm{Alt}(\mathcal{M}), \ \sum_{s,a}n_{sa}\textrm{KL}_{\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{M}'}(s,a) \ge \operatorname{kl} (\delta,1-\delta).\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
In (\ref{eq:LB1}), $n_{sa}$ is interpreted as the expected number of times $(s,a)$ is visited before the stopping time. Note that the above proposition provides a lower bound for any value of $\delta$. We can further simplify this bound when restricting our attention to asymptotic regimes where $\delta$ goes to 0. In that case, the navigation constraints (\ref{eq:balance}) can be replaced by $\sum_a n_{sa} = \sum_{s',a'} p_{\mathcal{M}} (s |s',a') n_{s'a'}$ (by just renormalizing $n$ with $n/\log(1/\delta)$, and letting $\delta\rightarrow 0$). For small $\delta$ regimes, we can hence rewrite the lower bound as follows:
\begin{align*}
\underset{\delta \to 0}{\liminf}\ \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{M},\mathbb{A}}[\tau]}{\log(1/\delta)} \geq\ &\inf_{n\ge 0} \ \sum_{s,a}n_{sa}\label{eq:LB1}\\
&\textrm{s.t.}\ \ \forall s, \ \sum_a n_{sa} = \sum_{s',a'} p_{\mathcal{M}} (s |s',a') n_{s'a'},\nonumber\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \forall \mathcal{M}'\in \mathrm{Alt}(\mathcal{M}), \ \sum_{s,a}n_{sa}\textrm{KL}_{\mathcal{M}|\mathcal{M}'}(s,a) \ge 1.\nonumber
\end{align*}
One can easily conclude by showing that the value of the optimization program above is equal to the one in Eq~\ref{eq:LBasympt}.
\subsection{Full definition of the terms in the upper bound}
Let $\mathrm{Var}_{\max}^{\star}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}] = \max\limits_{s \in \mathcal{S}}\ \mathrm{Var}_{s'\sim p_{\mathcal{M}}(.|s,\pi^\star(s))}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}(s')]$ denote the maximum variance of the value function on the trajectory of the optimal policy. In \cite{pmlr-v139-marjani21a} are defined the following functionals of $\mathcal{M}$:
\begin{align*}
T_3(\mathcal{M}) &\triangleq \frac{2}{\Delta_{\min}^2 (1-\gamma)^2},\\
T_4(\mathcal{M}) &\triangleq \min\Bigg(\frac{27}{\Delta_{\min}^2(1-\gamma)^3},\ \max\bigg(\frac{16\mathrm{Var}_{\max}^{\star}[\starV{\mathcal{M}}]}{\Delta_{\min}^2 (1-\gamma)^2}, \frac{6\spn{\starV{\mathcal{M}}}^{4/3}}{\Delta_{\min}^{4/3} (1-\gamma)^{4/3}} \bigg)\Bigg).
\end{align*}
Then $H^\star$ is simply defined as $H^\star = S(T_3(\mathcal{M})+T_4(\mathcal{M}))$. Note that $T_4(\mathcal{M}) = \mathcal{O}\big(\frac{1}{\Delta_{\min}^2(1-\gamma)^3} \big)$.
\section{Symbols}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Additional notations used in the appendix}
\label{Notation}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c }
Symbol & Definition \\
\toprule
$m$ & Maximum length of shortest paths: $\underset{(s,s')\in \mathcal{S}^2}{\max}\ \min \{n\geq 1:\ \exists \pi: \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}, P_{\pi}^n(s,s') > 0 \}$ \\ \\
$P_{\pi_u}$ & Transition kernel of the uniform policy \\ \\
$\omega_u$ & Stationary distribution of $P_{\pi_u}$ \\ \\
$r$ & $\min\{ \ell \geq 1:\ \forall (z,z') \in \mathcal{Z}^2,\ P_{\pi_u}^\ell (z,z') > 0 \}$ \\ \\
$\sigma_u$ & $\min\limits_{z,z' \in \mathcal{Z} }\ \frac{ P_{\pi_u}^r(z,z')}{\omega_u(z')}$\\ \\
$\eta_1$ & $\min\big\{P_{\pi_u}(z,z')\ \big| (z,z')\in \mathcal{Z}^2, P_{\pi_u}(z,z') > 0 \big\}$ \\ \\
$\eta_2$ & $\min\big\{P^{n}_{\pi_u}(z,z')\ \big| (z,z')\in \mathcal{Z}^2, n \in [|1,m+1|], P^{n}_{\pi_u}(z,z') > 0 \big\}$ \\ \\
$\eta$ & Communication parameter $\eta_1\eta_2$ \\ \\
$\omega^\star$ & oracle weights: $\omega^\star \triangleq \argmax\limits_{\omega \in \Omega(\mathcal{M})}\ U(\mathcal{M}, \omega)$.\\ \\
$\pi^o$ & oracle policy: $\displaystyle{\pi(a|s) \triangleq \frac{\omega_{sa}^\star}{\sum\limits_{a'\in \mathcal{A}} \omega_{sa'}^\star}}$. \\ \\
$\pi_{t}^o$ & $\pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t)$\\ \\
$\overline{\pi_{t}^o}$ & $\sum_{j=1}^t \pi^o(\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_j)/t$\\ \\
$Z_{\pi^o}$ & $(I -P_{\pi^o} + \mathbbm{1}{\omega^\star} ^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T})^{-1}$ \\ \\
$\kappa_\mathcal{M}$ & Condition number $\norm{Z_{\pi^o}}_\infty$ \\ \\
$P_t$ & Kernel of the policy $\pi_t$ \\ \\
$\omega_t$ & Stationary distribution of $P_t$ \\ \\
$C_t, \rho_t$ & Constants such that $\forall n\geq 1,\ \norm{P_t^n(z_0,.) - \omega_t^\mathsf{\scriptscriptstyle T}}_\infty \leq C_t \rho_t^n$ \\ \\
$L_t$ & $C_t (1-\rho_t)^{-1}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we test our algorithm on two small examples. The first instance is an ergodic MDP, with $5$ states, $5$ actions per state and a discount factor $\gamma=0.7$. The rewards of each state-action pair come from independent Bernoulli distributions with means sampled from the uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}([0,1])$. The transitions kernels were generated following a Dirichlet distribution $\mathcal{D}(1,\ldots,1)$. The second instance is the classical RiverSwim from \cite{strehl2008analysis}, which is communicating but not ergodic. The instance we used has $5$ states and $2$ actions: $\{ \textrm{LEFT, RIGHT}\}$, with deterministic transitions and a discount factor $\gamma=0.95$. Rewards are null everywhere but in states $\{1,5\}$ where they are Bernoulli with respective means $r(1,\textrm{LEFT}) = 0.05$ and $r(1,\textrm{RIGHT}) = 1$. We fix a confidence level $\delta=0.1$, and for each of these MDPs, we run $30$ Monte-Carlo simulations of MDP-NaS with either C-Navigation or D-Navigation. Towards computational efficiency, we note that the empirical oracle policy does not change significantly after collecting one sample, therefore we only update it every $10^4$ time steps\footnote{The period was chosen so as to save computation time, and knowing that for MDPs algorithms usually require $\geq 10^6$ samples to return a reasonably good policy.}.\\ First, we seek to check whether the frequencies of state-action pair visits converge to their oracle weights, as stated in Theorem \ref{theorem:ergodic}. Figure \ref{fig:omega} shows the relative distance, in log scale, between the vector of empirical frequencies ${\boldsymbol N}(t)/t$ and the oracle allocation ${\boldsymbol \omega}^\star$. The shaded area represents the $10\%$ and $90\%$ quantiles. We see that the relative distance steadily decreases with time, indicating that the visit-frequencies of both D-Navigation and C-Navigation converge to the oracle allocation. We also note that the D-Navigation rule exhibits a faster convergence than the C-Navigation rule.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/omega_d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/omega_d_RIVERSWIM.png}
\caption{Relative distance in log scale: $\log_{10}\big(\max_{s,a} \frac{|N_{sa}(t)/t - {\boldsymbol \omega}^\star_{sa}|}{{\boldsymbol \omega}^\star_{sa}}\big)$. Left: Ergodic MDP with $S = A = 5$. Right: River Swim with $S=5, A=2$.}
\label{fig:omega}
\end{figure}
Next we compare our algorithm with Variance-reduced-Q-learning (VRQL) \cite{li2020asynchronous}, a variant of the classical Q-learning with faster convergence rates. VRQL finds an $\varepsilon$-estimate $\widehat{Q}$ of the Q function $Q^\star$, by following a fixed sampling rule, referred to as the \textit{behavior policy} $\pi_b$, and updating its estimate of the Q function via Temporal Difference learning. VRQL does not have a stopping rule, but is guaranteed to yield an estimate such that $\norm{\widehat{Q} - Q}_\infty \leq \varepsilon$ with probability $1-\delta$ after using $M(N+t_{\textrm{epoch}})$ samples where
\begin{align*}
M &= c_3 \log(1/\varepsilon^2 (1-\gamma)^2),\\
t_{\textrm{epoch}} &= \frac{c_2}{\mu_{\min}} \bigg(\frac{1}{(1-\gamma)^3}+\frac{t_{mix}}{1-\gamma}\bigg)\log\big(1/(1-\gamma)^2 \varepsilon\big)\log\big(SA/\delta\big),\\
N &= \frac{c_1}{\mu_{\min}} \bigg(\frac{1}{(1-\gamma)^3 \min(1,\varepsilon^2)}+ t_{mix}\bigg) \log\big(SAt_{\textrm{epoch}}/\delta\big),
\end{align*}
where $\mu_{\min}$ (resp. $t_{mix}$) is the minimum state-action occupancy (resp. the mixing time) of $\pi_b$ and $c_1, c_2, c_3$ are some large enough universal constants. We use VRQL with $c_1 = c_2 = c_3 = 10$, $\varepsilon \leq \Delta_{\min}$ (since the goal is to identify the best policy) and use the uniform policy as a sampling rule\footnote{In the absence of prior knowledge about the MDP, the uniform policy is a reasonable choice to maximize $\mu_{\min}$.}. We plug this value into the equations above and the compute the sample complexity of VRQL. Table \ref{tab:tau} shows a comparison of the sample complexities of MDP-NaS and VRQL. MDP-NaS has much better performance than VRQL.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
& MDP-NaS & VRQL \\
\toprule
Small Ergodic MDP & $8 \times 10^5$ & $2.5\times 10^8$\\
\midrule
RIVER-SWIM & $2.6 \times 10^6$ & $3.3 \times 10^9$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular} \\
\vspace{0.2cm}
\caption{Average sample complexity of MDP-NaS (D-Navigation) vs deterministic sample complexity of VRQL. $\delta = 0.1$.}
\label{tab:tau}
\end{table}
\section*{References}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\makeatletter
Sensitive information sharing is a challenging problem in information systems. It is often handled by obfuscating the available information before sharing it with other parties. In \cite{makhdoumi2014information}, this problem has been formalized as the \textbf{privacy funnel (PF)} in an information theoretic framework. Given two correlated random variables $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{X}$ with a joint distribution $P_{\mathbf{S}, \mathbf{X}}\,$, where $\mathbf{X}$ represents the available information and $\mathbf{S}$ the private latent variable, the goal of the PF model is to find a representation $\mathbf{Z}$ of $\mathbf{X}$ using a stochastic mapping $P_{\mathbf{Z}\mid \mathbf{X}}$ such that: (i) $\mathbf{S} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{X} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{Z}$ form a Markov chain; and (ii) representation $\mathbf{Z}$ is maximally informative about the useful data $\mathbf{X}$ (maximizing Shannon's mutual information (MI) $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$) while being minimally informative about the sensitive data $\mathbf{S}$ (minimizing $\I \left( \mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$). There have been many extensions of this model in the recent literature, e.g., \cite{makhdoumi2014information, calmon2015fundamental, basciftci2016privacy, sreekumar2019optimal, hsu2019obfuscation, rassouli2019data, rassouli2019optimal, razeghi2020perfectobfuscation, rassouli2020perfect_JSAIT}.
\makeatletter
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\advance\leftskip-0.7cm
\advance\rightskip-0.8cm
\includegraphics[scale=0.71]{image/Problem_diagram.eps}
\caption{The general setup.}
\label{Fig:First_diagram}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we will consider a delicate generalization of the PF model considered in \cite{basciftci2016privacy, rassouli2020perfect_JSAIT}, where the goal of the system designer is not to reveal the data that has available but another correlated utility variable. In particular, we assume that the data owner/user acquires some utility from the service provider based on the amount of information disclosed about a utility random variable $\mathbf{U}$ correlated with $\mathbf{X}$, measured by $\I \! \left( \mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$. Therefore, considering Markov chain $\left( \mathbf{U}, \mathbf{S}\right) \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{X} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{Z}$, the data owner's aim is to share a representation $\mathbf{Z}$ of \textit{observed data} $\mathbf{X}$, through a stochastic mapping $P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}$, while preserving information about \textit{utility attribute} $\mathbf{U}$ and obfuscate information about \textit{sensitive attribute} $\mathbf{S}$ (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:First_diagram}).
The implicit assumption in the PF model presented above and the related generative adversarial privacy framework \cite{huang2017context, tripathy2019privacy} is to have \textit{pre-defined interests} in the game between the `defender' (data owner/user) and the `adversary'; that is, the data owner knows in advance what feature/ variable of the underlying data the adversary is interested in. Accordingly, the data release mechanism can be optimized/ tuned to minimize any inference the adversary can make about this specific random variable. However, this assumption is violated in most real-world scenarios. The attribute that the defender may assume as sensitive may not be the attribute of interest for the inferential adversary. As an example, for a given utility task at hand, the defender may try to restrict inference on gender recognition while the adversary is interested in inferring an individual's identity or facial emotion. Inspired by \cite{issa2019operational}, and in contrast to the above setups, we consider the scenario in which the adversary is curious about an attribute that is \textit{unknown} to the system designer.%
In particular, we argue that the information complexity of the representation measured by MI $\I \! \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$ can also limit the information leakage about the unknown sensitive variable. In this paper, obtaining the parameterized variational approximation of information quantities, we investigate the core idea of \cite{issa2019operational} in the supervised representation learning setup.
\textbf{Notation:}
Throughout this paper,
random vectors are denoted by capital bold letters (e.g., $\mathbf{X}$), deterministic vectors are denoted by small bold letters (e.g., $\mathbf{x}$), and alphabets (sets) are denoted by calligraphic fonts (e.g., $\mathcal{X}$).
We use the shorthand $\left[ N \right]$ to denote the set $\{ 1, 2, \dots , N\}$.
$\H \left( P_{\mathbf{X}} \right) \! \coloneqq \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}}} \left[ - \log P_{\mathbf{X}} \right]$ denotes the Shannon's entropy, while
$\H \left( P_{\mathbf{X}} \Vert Q_{\mathbf{X}} \right) \coloneqq \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}}} \left[ - \log Q_{\mathbf{X}} \right]$ denotes the cross-entropy of the distribution $P_{\mathbf{X}}$ relative to a distribution $Q_{\mathbf{X}}$
\space The relative entropy is defined as $\D_{\mathrm{KL}}\left(P_{\mathbf{X}} \Vert Q_{\mathbf{X}}\right) \coloneqq \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}}} \big[ \log \frac{P_{\mathbf{X}}}{Q_{\mathbf{X}}} \big]$.%
\space The conditional relative entropy is defined by:
\begin{equation*}
\D_{\mathrm{KL}}\left( P_{\mathbf{Z}\mid \mathbf{X}}\Vert Q_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}} \mid P_{\mathbf{X}}\right) \coloneqq \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}}} \left[\D_{\mathrm{KL}}\left( P_{\mathbf{Z}\mid\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}}\Vert Q_{\mathbf{Z}\mid\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}}\right)\right].
\end{equation*}
\noindent And the MI is defined by:
\begin{equation*}
\I \left( P_{\mathbf{X}}; P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}} \right)\coloneqq \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}} \Vert P_{\mathbf{Z}}\mid P_{\mathbf{X}}\right)
\end{equation*}
\noindent We abuse notation to write $\H \left( \mathbf{X} \right) = \H \left( P_{\mathbf{X}} \right)$ and $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right) = \I \left( P_{\mathbf{X}}; P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}} \right)$
for random vectors $\mathbf{X} \sim P_{\mathbf{X}}$ and $\mathbf{Z} \sim P_{\mathbf{Z}}$.
\section{Problem Formulation}\label{Sec:ProblemFormulation}
Given the observed data $\mathbf{X}$, the data owner wishes to release a representation $\mathbf{Z}$ for a utility task $\mathbf{U}$. Our aim is to investigate the potential statistical inference about a sensitive random attribute $\mathbf{S}$ from the released representation $\mathbf{Z}$. The sensitive attribute $\mathbf{S}$ is possibly also correlated with $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{X}$.
The objective is to obtain a stochastic map $P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}: \! \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Z}$ such that $P_{\mathbf{U} \mid \mathbf{Z}} \! \approx \! P_{\mathbf{U} \mid \mathbf{X}}, \forall \, \mathbf{Z} \! \in \! \mathcal{Z}, \forall \, \mathbf{U} \! \in \! \mathcal{U}, \forall \, \mathbf{X} \! \in \! \mathcal{X}$.
This means that the posterior distribution of the utility attribute $\mathbf{U}$ is similar when conditioned on the released representation $\mathbf{Z}$ or on the original data $\mathbf{X}$.
Under logarithmic loss, one can measure the utility by Shannon's MI \cite{makhdoumi2014information, tishby2000information, razeghi2020perfectobfuscation}. The logarithmic loss function has been widely used in learning theory \cite{cesa2006prediction}, image processing \cite{andre2006entropy}, information bottleneck \cite{harremoes2007information}, multi-terminal source coding \cite{courtade2011multiterminal}, and PF \cite{makhdoumi2014information}.
\textbf{Threat Model:}
We make minimal assumptions about the adversary's goal, which can model a large family of potential adversaries.
In particular, we have the following assumptions
\begin{itemize
\item
The distribution $P_{\mathbf{S} \mid \mathbf{X}}$ is unknown to the data user/owner. We only restrict attribute $\mathbf{S}$ to be discrete, which captures most scenarios of interest, e.g., a facial attribute, an identity, a political preference.
\item
The adversary observes released representation $\mathbf{Z}$ and the Markov chain $(\mathbf{U}, \mathbf{S}) \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{X} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{Z}$ holds.
\item
We assume the adversary knows the mapping $P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}$ designed by the data owner, i.e., the data release mechanism is public. Furthermore, the adversary may have access to a collection of the original dataset with the corresponding labels $\mathbf{S}$.
\end{itemize}
Suppose that the sensitive attribute $\mathbf{S} \! \in \! \mathcal{S}$ has a uniform distribution over a discrete set $\mathcal{S}$, where $\vert \mathcal{S} \vert \! = \! 2^{L} \! < \! \infty$. If $\I (\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z}) \geq L - \epsilon$, then equivalently $\H (\mathbf{S}\! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} ) \leq \epsilon$. Also note that due to the Markov chain $\mathbf{S} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{X} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{Z}$, we have $\I (\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z}) = \I (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z}) - \I (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{S})$. When $\mathbf{S}$ is not known a priori, the data owner has no control over $\I (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{S})$. On the other hand, $\I (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z})$ can be interpreted as the information complexity of the released representation, which plays a critical role in controlling the information leakage $\I (\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z})$.
Note also that a statistic $\mathbf{Z} \! = \! f \!\left( \mathbf{X}\right)$ induces a partition on the sample space $\mathcal{X}$, where $\mathbf{Z}$ is sufficient statistic for $\mathbf{U}$ if and only if the assigned samples in each partition do not depend on $\mathbf{U}$.
Hence, intuitively, a larger $\vert \mathcal{U} \vert$ induces finer partitions on $\mathcal{X}$, which could potentially lead to more leakage about the unknown random function $\mathbf{S}$ of $\mathbf{X}$. This is the core concept of the notion of \textit{variational leakage}, which we shortly address in our experiments.
Since the data owner does not know the particular sensitive variable of interest to the adversary, we argue that it instead aims to design $P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}$ with the minimum (information) complexity and minimum utility loss.
With the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier $\beta \! \in \! \left[ 0, 1 \right]$, we can formulate the objective of the data owner by \textit{maximizing} the associated~Lagrangian~functional:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} \left( P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}, \beta \right) =
\I \left( \mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z} \right) - \, \beta \, \I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right).
\end{equation}
This is the well-known \textbf{information bottleneck (IB)} principle \cite{tishby2000information}, which formulates the problem of extracting, in the most succinct way, the relevant information from random variable $\mathbf{X}$ about the random variable of interest $\mathbf{U}$. Given two correlated random variables $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{X}$ with joint distribution $P_{\mathbf{U,X}}$, the goal is to find a representation $\mathbf{Z}$ of $\mathbf{X}$ using a stochastic mapping $P_{\mathbf{Z}\mid \mathbf{X}}$ such that: (i) $\mathbf{U} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{X} \hbox{$\--$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\circ$}\kern-1.5pt\hbox{$\--$} \mathbf{Z}$, and (ii) $\mathbf{Z}$ is maximally informative about $\mathbf{U}$ (maximizing $\I \left( \mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$) and minimally informative about $\mathbf{X}$ (minimizing $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z}\right)$).
Note that in the PF model, $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$ measures the \textit{useful} information, which is of the designer's interest, while in the IB model, $\I \left( \mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$ measures the \textit{useful} information. Hence, $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{S} \right)$ in PF quantifies the \textit{residual} information, while $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{U} \right)$ in IB quantifies the \textit{redundant} information.
In the sequel, we provide the parameterized variational approximation of information quantities, and then study the impact of the information complexity $\I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right)$ on the information leakage for an unknown sensitive variable.
\subsection{Variational Approximation of Information Measures}
Let $Q_{\mathbf{U}\mid \mathbf{Z}} \! : \! \mathcal{Z} \! \rightarrow \! \mathcal{P}\!\left( \mathcal{U}\right)$, $Q_{\mathbf{S}\mid \mathbf{Z}} \! : \! \mathcal{Z} \! \rightarrow \! \mathcal{P}\!\left( \mathcal{S}\right)$, $Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \! : \! \mathcal{Z} \! \rightarrow \! \mathcal{P}\! \left( \mathcal{Z}\right)$ be variational approximations of the optimal utility decoder distribution $P_{\mathbf{U} \mid \mathbf{Z}}$, adversary decoder distribution $P_{\mathbf{S} \mid \mathbf{Z}}$, and latent space distribution $P_{\mathbf{Z}}$, respectively.
The common approach is to use \textbf{deep neural networks (DNNs)} to model/parameterized these distributions.
Let $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z} \!\! \mid \!\! \mathbf{X})$ denote the family of encoding probability distributions $P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}}$ over $\mathcal{Z}$ for each element of space $\mathcal{X}$, parameterized by the output of a DNN $f_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}$ with parameters $\boldsymbol{\phi}$.
Analogously, let $P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U} \! \! \mid \! \! \mathbf{Z})$ and $P_{\boldsymbol{\xi}} \! \left( \mathbf{S} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right)$ denote the corresponding family of decoding probability distributions $Q_{\mathbf{U} \mid \mathbf{Z}}$ and $Q_{\mathbf{S} \mid \mathbf{Z}}$, respectively, parameterized by the output of DNNs $g_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ and $g_{\boldsymbol{\xi}}$.
Let $P_{\mathsf{D}} \! \left( \mathbf{X} \right) \! = \! \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \! \delta ( \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}_n )$, $\mathbf{x}_n \in \mathcal{X}$ denote the empirical data distribution.
In this case, $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \! \left( \mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Z} \right) \! = \! P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X}) P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \! \left( \mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{X} \right)$ denotes our joint inference data distribution, and $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z}) \! = \! \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X})} \left[ P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{X}) \right]$ denotes the learned \textit{aggregated} posterior distribution over latent space $\mathcal{Z}$.
\noindent
\textbf{Information Complexity:}
The information complexity can be decomposed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{I_xz_decomposition}
\!\! \I \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right) \!\!\! \! &=& \!\!\! \! \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Z}}} \Big[ \log \frac{P_{\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Z} }}{P_{\mathbf{X}} P_{\mathbf{Z}}} \Big] \! = \!
\mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Z}}} \Big[ \log \frac{P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X} }}{ Q_{\mathbf{Z}}} \frac{Q_{\mathbf{Z}}}{P_{\mathbf{Z}}} \Big] \nonumber \\
&=& \!\!\! \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{X}}} \left[ \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}} \Vert Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \right) \right] \! - \! \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\mathbf{Z}} \Vert Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Where $Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$ is the latent space's prior.
Therefore, the parameterized variational approximation of information complexity \eqref{I_xz_decomposition} can be recast~as
\begin{align}\label{Eq:I_XZ_phi}
\I_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \! \left( \mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \right) \coloneqq \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{X}) \, \Vert \, Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \mid P_{\mathsf{D}}(\mathbf{X}) \right) - \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z}) \, \Vert \, Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \right).
\end{align}
The optimal prior $Q^{\ast}_{\mathbf{Z}}$ minimizing the information complexity is $Q^{\ast}_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z}) = \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X})} \left[ P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \left( \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X} = \mathbf{x} \right) \right]$; however, it may potentially lead to over-fitting.
A critical challenge is to guarantee that the learned aggregated posterior distribution $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z})$ conforms well to thd prior $Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$ \cite{kingma2016improved, rezende2015variational, rosca2018distribution, tomczak2018vae, bauer2019resampled}. We can cope with this issue by employing a more \textit{expressive} form for $Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$, which would allow us to provide a good fit of an arbitrary space for $\mathcal{Z}$, at the expense of additional \textit{computational complexity}.
\noindent
\textbf{Information Utility:}
The parameterized variational approximation of MI between the released representation $\mathbf{Z}$ and the utility attribute $\mathbf{U}$ can be recast~as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:I_UZ_phi_theta_SecondDecomposition}
\begin{split}
\I_{\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}}&\! \left( \mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z} \right)\!\;\coloneqq \nonumber\\
&
\mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{U}, \mathbf{X}}} \Big[ \mathbb{E}_{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \left( \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X} \right) } \Big[ \log \frac{P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \! \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right) }{P_{\mathbf{U}}} \cdot \frac{P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U})}{P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U})} \Big] \Big]=\nonumber \\
&
\mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{U}, \mathbf{X}}} \left[ \mathbb{E}_{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \left( \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X} \right) } \left[ \log P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \! \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right) \right] \right] \nonumber \\
& \qquad - \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{U}}} \big[ \log \frac{P_{\mathbf{U}}}{P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U})}\big]
+ \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{U}}} \left[ \log P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U}) \right]
\nonumber \\
& =
- \H_{\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}} \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right)
- \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\mathbf{U}} \Vert P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U}) \right)
+ \H \left( P_{\mathbf{U}} \Vert P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U}) \right)
\nonumber \\
& \geq
\underbrace{- \H_{\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}} \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right) }_{\mathrm{Prediction~Fidelity}}
- \underbrace{ \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\mathbf{U}} \, \Vert \, P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U}) \right)}_{\mathrm{Distribution~Discrepancy~Loss}} ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\H_{\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}} \! \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right) \! = \! - \mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathbf{U}, \mathbf{X}}} \! \left[ \mathbb{E}_{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \left( \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X} \right) } \! \left[ \log P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \! \left( \mathbf{U} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z} \right) \right] \right]$ represents the parameterized decoder uncertainty, and in the last line we use the positivity of the cross-entropy $\H \left( P_{\mathbf{U}} \Vert P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} (\mathbf{U}) \right)$.
\section{Learning Model}
\label{Sec:DeepVariationalApproximation}
\textbf{System~Designer.}
Given independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) training samples $\{ \left( \mathbf{u}_n, \mathbf{x}_n \right) \}_{n=1}^{N}$ $ \subseteq \mathcal{U} \times \mathcal{X}$, and using stochastic gradient descent (SGD)-type approach, DNNs $f_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}$, $g_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$, $D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}}$, and $D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ are trained together to maximize a Monte-Carlo approximation of the deep variational IB functional over parameters $\boldsymbol{\phi}$, $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\boldsymbol{\eta}$, and $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ (Fig.~\ref{Fig:Architecture}). Backpropagation through random samples from the posterior distribution $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z} \! \!\mid \! \!\mathbf{X})$is required in our framework, which is a challenge since backpropagation cannot flow via random nodes; to overcome this hurdle, we apply the reparameterization approach \cite{kingma2014auto}).
The inferred posterior distribution is typically assumed to be a multi-variate Gaussian with a diagonal co-variance, i.e., $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{x}) = \mathcal{N} \big( \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}), $ $ \mathsf{diag} ( \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}) ) \big)$.
Suppose $\mathcal{Z} = \mathbb{R}^d$. We first sample a random variable $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}$ i.i.d. from $\mathcal{N} \! \left( \boldsymbol{0}, \mathbf{I}_d\right)$, then given data sample $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, we generate the sample $\mathbf{z} = \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}) + \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}) \odot \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}$, where $\odot$ is the element-wise (Hadamard) product.
The latent space prior distribution is typically considered as a fixed $d$-dimensional standard isotropic multi-variate Gaussian, i.e., $Q_{ \mathbf{Z}} = \mathcal{N} \! \left( \boldsymbol{0}, \mathbf{I}_d \right)$.
For this simple choice, the information complexity upper bound
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Z})} [ \log \frac{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \left( \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{X}\right) }{ Q_{ \mathbf{Z}}} ] =
\mathbb{E}_{P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X})} \left[ \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \! \left( \mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{X}\right) \Vert Q_{ \mathbf{Z}} \right) \right]
\end{equation*}
\noindent has a closed-form expression, which reads as:
\begin{equation*}
2 \, \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} \, \left( \mathbf{Z} \, \mid \, \mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}\right) \Vert \right. \left. Q_{ \mathbf{Z}} \right)={\Vert \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}) \Vert}_2^2 + d + \sum_{i=1}^{d} ( \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x})_i - \log \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x})_i)
\end{equation*}
The $\mathrm{KL}$-divergences in \eqref{Eq:I_XZ_phi} and \eqref{Eq:I_UZ_phi_theta_SecondDecomposition} can be estimated using the density-ratio trick \cite{nguyen2010estimating, sugiyama2012density}, utilized in the GAN framework to directly match the data and generated model distributions.
The trick is to express two distributions as conditional distributions, conditioned on a label $C \in \{ 0, 1 \}$, and reduce the task to binary classification. The key point is that we can estimate the KL-divergence by estimating the ratio of two distributions without modeling each distribution explicitly.
Consider $\D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z}) \, \Vert \, Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \right)= \mathbb{E}_{ P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z})} [ \log \frac{ P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z})}{Q_{\mathbf{Z}}} ]$. We now define $\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z}\! \mid \! c)$ as $\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z} \! \mid \! c\!=\!1) \! =\! P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z})$, $\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z} \! \mid \! c\!=\!0) = Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$.
Suppose that a perfect binary classifier (discriminator) $D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z})$, with parameters $\boldsymbol{\eta}$, is trained to associate the label $c=1$ to samples from distribution $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z}) $ and the label $c=0$ to samples from $Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$. Using the Bayes' rule and assuming that the marginal class probabilities are equal, i.e., $\rho (c=1) = \rho (c=0)$, the density ratio can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:DensityRatioTrick}
\frac{P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z} = \mathbf{z})}{Q_{\mathbf{Z}} ( \mathbf{z})} \! = \!
\frac{\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z} \mid c=1)}{\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z} \mid c=0)} \! = \!
\frac{\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} (c=1 \mid \mathbf{z} )}{\rho_{\mathbf{Z}} ( c=0 \mid \mathbf{z})} \! \approx \! \frac{D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z})}{1 - D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z})}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore, given a trained discriminator $D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z})$ and $M$ i.i.d. samples $\{ \mathbf{z}_m \}_{m=1}^{M}$ from $P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z})$, we estimate $\D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z}) \, \Vert \, Q_{\mathbf{Z}}\right)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:D_KL_Z_estimation}
\D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}}(\mathbf{Z}) \, \Vert \, Q_{\mathbf{Z}} \right) \approx \frac{1}{M} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \log \frac{D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z}_m)}{1 - D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z}_m)}.
\end{equation}
Our model is trained using alternating block coordinate descend across five steps (See Algorithm~\ref{Algorithm:VariationalNestedLeakage}).
\textbf{Inferential~Adversary:}
Given the publicly-known encoder $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and $K$ i.i.d. samples $\{ (\mathbf{s}_k , \mathbf{z}_k) \}_{k=1}^K \! \subseteq \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{Z}$, the adversary trains an inference network $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ to minimize $\H_{\boldsymbol{\xi}} (\mathbf{S} \! \mid \! \mathbf{Z})$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\advance\leftskip-0.9cm
\advance\rightskip-0.9cm
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{image/VariationalLeakage_framwork.eps}
\caption{The training and testing architecture. During training, the data user/owner trains the parameterized networks $\left( \boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\eta}, \boldsymbol{\omega} \right)$. During testing, only the encoder-decoder pair $( \boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta} )$ is used.
The adversary uses the publicly-known (fixed) encoder $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and a collection of the original dataset, and trains an inference network $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ to infer attribute $\mathbf{S}$ of his interest.}
\label{Fig:Architecture}
\end{figure}
\begin{center}
\centering
\begin{spacing}{1}
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\setstretch{1.3}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State \textbf{Inputs:} Training Dataset: $\{ \left( \mathbf{u}_n, \mathbf{x}_n \right) \}_{n=1}^{N}$;
\hspace{11pt}Hyper-Parameter: $\beta$;
\State $\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\eta}, \boldsymbol{\omega}\; \gets$ Initialize Network Parameters
\Repeat
\hspace{-20pt}(1) {\small\textbf{\textsf{Train the Encoder and Utility Decoder}} $\left( \boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta} \right)$}
\State Sample a mini-batch $\{ \mathbf{u}_m, \mathbf{x}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X}) P_{\mathbf{U} \mid \mathbf{X}}$
\State Compute $\mathbf{z}_m \sim f_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}_m), \forall m \in [M]$
\State Back-propagate loss:\vspace{3pt}
$ \mathcal{L} \! \left( \boldsymbol{\phi}, \! \boldsymbol{\theta} \right) \! = \! - \frac{1}{M} \! \sum_{m=1}^{M} \!\! \big( \log P_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} ( \mathbf{u}_m \! \mid \! \mathbf{z}_m )$
$\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad - \beta \, \D_{\mathrm{KL}} \! \left( P_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{z}_m \! \mid \! \mathbf{x}_m ) \Vert Q_{\mathbf{Z}} (\mathbf{z}_m) \right)\! \big)$
\vspace{3pt}
\hspace{-20pt}(2) {\small\textbf{\textsf{Train the Latent Space Discriminator}} $ \boldsymbol{\eta} $}
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{x}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X})$
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$
\State Compute $\mathbf{z}_m \sim f_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}_m), \forall m \in [M]$
\State Back-propagate loss:\vspace{3pt}
$\mathcal{L} \! \left( \boldsymbol{\eta} \right) \! \! = \! \! - \frac{ \beta}{M} \! \sum_{m=1}^{M} \!\! \big( \! \log \! D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z}_m) \! +\! \log \! \left( 1 \! - \! D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} ( \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m ) \right) )$
\vspace{3pt}
\hspace{-20pt}(3) {\small\textbf{\textsf{Train the Encoder $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ Adversarially}}}
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{x}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim P_{\mathsf{D}} (\mathbf{X})$
\State Compute $\mathbf{z}_m \sim f_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{x}_m), \forall m \in [M]$
\State Back-propagate loss:
%
$\mathcal{L} \! \left( \boldsymbol{\phi} \right) \! = \! \! \frac{ \beta}{M} \! \sum_{m=1}^{M} \! \log D_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} (\mathbf{z}_m) \!$
\vspace{3pt}
\hspace{-20pt}(4) {\small\textbf{\textsf{Train the Attribute Class Discriminator}} $ \boldsymbol{\omega} $}
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{u}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim P_{\mathbf{U}} $
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$
\State Compute $\mathbf{\widetilde{u}}_m \sim g_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \left( \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m \right), \forall m \in [M]$
\State Back-propagate loss:\vspace{3pt}
\hspace{-4pt}$\mathcal{L} \! \left( \boldsymbol{\omega} \right) \! \! = \!\! - \frac{1}{M} \! \sum_{m=1}^{M}\! \big( \! \log \! D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} (\mathbf{u}_m) \! + \! \log \! \left( 1 \! - \! D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} ( \mathbf{\widetilde{u}}_m ) \right))$
\vspace{3pt}
\hspace{-20pt}(5) {\small\textbf{\textsf{Train the Utility Decoder $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ Adversarially}}}
\State Sample $\{ \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m \}_{m=1}^{M} \sim Q_{\mathbf{Z}}$
\State Compute $\mathbf{\widetilde{u}}_m \sim g_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \left( \mathbf{\widetilde{z}}_m \right), \forall m \in [M]$
\State Back-propagate loss:
%
$\mathcal{L} \! \left( \boldsymbol{\omega} \right) \! = \! \! \frac{1}{M} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \! \log \left( 1 \! - \! D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} ( \mathbf{\widetilde{u}}_m ) \right)$
\vspace{3pt}
\Until{Convergence}
\State \textbf{return} $\boldsymbol{\phi}, \boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\eta}, \boldsymbol{\omega}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Training Algorithm: Data Owner}
\label{Algorithm:VariationalNestedLeakage}
\end{algorithm}
\end{spacing}
\end{center}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we show the impact of the following factors on the amount of leakage: (i) information complexity regularizer weight $\beta \! \in \! (0, 1 ]$, (ii) released representation dimension $d_{\mathrm{z}}$, (iii) cardinalities of the known utility and unknown sensitive attribute sets, (iv) correlation between the utility and sensitive attributes, and (v) potential bias in a sensitive attribute of adversary's interest.
We conduct experiments on the Colored-MNIST and large-scale CelebA datasets.
The Colored-MNIST\footnote{Several papers have employed Colored-MNIST dataset; However, they are not unique, and researchers synthesized different versions based on their application. The innovative concept behind our version was influenced from the one used in \cite{rodriguez2020variational}.} is \textit{our modified} version of MNIST \cite{lecun-mnisthandwrittendigit-2010}, which is a collection of $70,000$ \textit{colored} digits of size $28 \times 28$. The digits are randomly colored with red, green, or blue based on two distributions, as explained in the caption of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Results_MNIST}.
The CelebA \cite{liu2015faceattributes} dataset contains $202,599$ images of size $218 \times 178$.
We used TensorFlow $2.4.1$ \cite{abadi2016tensorflow} with Integrated Keras API. The method details and network architectures are provided in Appendix.~\ref{Appendix:AlgorithmDetails} and Appendix~\ref{Appendix:NetworksArchitecture}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\advance\leftskip-0.8cm
\advance\rightskip-0.8cm
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_a}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/chart_celeba_acc_u_Male_s_Heavy_Makeup_Isotropic_d_32}%
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_b}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/chart_celeba_acc_u_Smiling_s_Mouth_Slightly_Open_Isotropic_d_32}%
}
\vfill{}\vspace{1em}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_c}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/chart_celeba_acc_u_Male_s_Heavy_Makeup_Isotropic_d_128}%
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_d}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/chart_celeba_acc_u_Smiling_s_Mouth_Slightly_Open_Isotropic_d_128}%
}
\vfill{}\vspace{1em}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_e}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/mi_zs_celeba_u_Male_s_Heavy_Makeup_Isotropic}%
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_f}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/mi_zs_celeba_u_Smiling_s_Mouth_Slightly_Open_Isotropic}%
}
\vfill{}\vspace{1em}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_g}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/mi_zu_celeba_u_Male_s_Heavy_Makeup_Isotropic}%
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:CelebA_h}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{Results/mi_zu_celeba_u_Smiling_s_Mouth_Slightly_Open_Isotropic}%
}
\vspace{1em}
\caption{The results on CelebA dataset, considering isotropic Gaussian prior. (First Row): $d_{\mathrm{z}} \!= \! 64$; (Second Row): $d_{\mathrm{z}} \!= \! 128$; (Third Row): Estimated information leakage $\I(\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z})$ using MINE; (Fourth Row): Estimated useful information $\I(\mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z})$ using MINE.
(First Column): utility task is gender recognition $(\vert \mathcal{U} \vert \! =\! 2)$, adversary's interest is heavy makeup $(\vert \mathcal{S} \vert \! = \! 2)$;
(Second Column): utility task is emotion (smiling) recognition $(\vert \mathcal{U} \vert \!=\! 2)$, adversary's interest is mouth slightly open $(\vert \mathcal{S} \vert \! =\! 2)$.}
\label{Fig:Results_CelebA}
\end{figure}
The first and second rows of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Results_CelebA} and Fig.~\ref{Fig:Results_MNIST} depict the trade-off among (i) information complexity, (ii) service provider's accuracy on utility attribute $\mathbf{U}$, and (iii) adversary's accuracy on attribute $\mathbf{S}$.
The third row depicts the amount of information revealed about $\mathbf{S}$, i.e., $\I (\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z})$, for the scenarios considered in the first and second rows, which are estimated using MINE \cite{belghazi2018mutual}.
The fourth row depicts the amount of released information about the utility attribute $\mathbf{U}$, i.e., $\I (\mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z})$, corresponding to the considered scenarios in the first and second rows, also estimated using MINE.
We consider different portions of the datasets available for training adversary's network, denoted by the `data ratio'.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_a}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_class_s_color_Isotropic_uniform_d_8}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_b}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_class_s_color_Isotropic_biased_d_8}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_c}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_color_s_class_Isotropic_uniform_d_8}
}
\vfill{}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_d}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_class_s_color_Isotropic_uniform_d_64}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_e}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_class_s_color_Isotropic_biased_d_64}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_f}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/chart_colored_mnist_acc_u_color_s_class_Isotropic_uniform_d_64}
}
\vfill{}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_g}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.34\textwidth,width=0.3\textwidth]{Results/mi_zs_colored_mnist_s_color_Isotropic_uniform}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_h}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/mi_zs_colored_mnist_s_color_Isotropic_biased}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_i}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/mi_zs_colored_mnist_s_class_Isotropic_uniform}
}
\vfill{}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_j}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/mi_zu_colored_mnist_u_is_class_Isotropic_uniform}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_k}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/mi_zu_colored_mnist_u_is_class_Isotropic_biased}
}
\subfloat[\label{Fig:ColoredMNIST_l}]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{Results/mi_zu_colored_mnist_u_is_color_Isotropic_uniform}
}
\caption{The results on Colored-MNIST dataset, considering isotropic Gaussian prior. (First Row): $d_{\mathrm{z}} \!= \!8$; (Second Row): $d_{\mathrm{z}} \! = \! 64$; (Third Row): estimated information leakage $\I(\mathbf{S}; \mathbf{Z})$ using MINE; (Fourth Row): estimated useful information $\I(\mathbf{U}; \mathbf{Z})$ using MINE.
(First Column): utility task is digit recognition $(\vert \mathcal{U} \vert \!= \! 10)$, while the adversary's goal is the digit color $(\vert \mathcal{S} \vert \! = \! 3)$, setting $P_S (\mathsf{Red}) \!= \!P_S (\mathsf{Green}) \!= \! P_S (\mathsf{Blue}) \! = \! \frac{1}{3}$;
(Second Column): utility task is digit recognition $(\vert \mathcal{U} \vert \!= \!10)$, while the adversary's goal is the digit color, setting $P_S (\mathsf{Red}) \! = \! \frac{1}{2}$, $P_S (\mathsf{Green})\! = \! \frac{1}{6}$, $P_S (\mathsf{Blue}) \!=\! \frac{1}{3}$;
(Third Column): utility task is digit color recognition $(\vert \mathcal{U} \vert \!=\! 3)$, while the adversary's interest is the digit number $(\vert \mathcal{S} \vert \! = \! 10)$.}\label{Fig:Results_MNIST}
\end{figure*}
The experiments on CelebA consider the scenarios in which the attributes $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ are correlated, while $\vert \mathcal{U} \vert = \vert \mathcal{S} \vert = 2$. We provide utility accuracy curves for (i) training set, (ii) validation set, and (iii) test set.
As we have argued, there is a direct relationship between information complexity and intrinsic information leakage. Note that, as $\beta$ increases, the information complexity is reduced, and we observe that this also results in a reduction in the information leakage. We also see that the leakage is further reduced when the dimension of the released representation $\mathbf{Z}$, i.e., $d_{\mathrm{z}}$, is reduced. This forces the data owner to obtain a more succinct representation of the utility variable, removing any extra information.
In the Colored-MNIST experiments, provided that the model eliminates all the redundant information $\I (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z} \! \mid \! \mathbf{U})$ and leaves only the information about $\mathbf{U}$, we expect the adversary's performance to be close to `random guessing' since the digit color is independent of its value. We investigate the impact of the cardinality of sets $\vert \mathcal{U} \vert$ and $\vert \mathcal{S} \vert$, as well as possible biases in the distribution of $\mathbf{S}$. The results show that it is possible to reach the same level of accuracy on the utility attribute $\mathbf{U}$, while reducing the intrinsic leakage by increasing the regularizer weight $\beta$, or equivalently, by reducing the information complexity $\I_{\boldsymbol{\phi}} (\mathbf{X}; \mathbf{Z})$. An interesting possible scenario is to consider correlated attributes $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ with different cardinality sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{S}$. For instance, utility task $\mathbf{U}$ is personal identification, while the adversary's interest $\mathbf{S}$ is gender recognition.
\section{Conclusion}\label{Sec:Conclusions}
We studied the \textit{variational leakage} to address the amount of potential privacy leakage in a supervised representation learning setup.
In contrast to the PF and generative adversarial privacy models, we consider the setup in which the adversary's interest is not known a priori to the data owner. We study the role of information complexity in information leakage about an attribute of an adversary interest.
This was addressed by approximating the information quantities using DNNs and experimentally evaluating the model on large-scale image databases. The proposed notion of \textit{variational leakage} relates the amount of leakage to the minimal sufficient statistics.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
}
Throughout the paper we assume that $d$ is a positive integer, which is not a perfect square. Every real number $\alpha$ has a continued fraction expansion of the form:
$$
\alpha=a_0+\cfrac{1}{a_1+\cfrac{1}{a_2+\cfrac{1}{a_3+\cdots}}}
$$
for some non-negative integers $a_1,a_2, \ldots$. We will denote this fraction by $[a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3,...]$. Lagrange showed that continued fraction of $\alpha$ is eventually periodic if and only if $\alpha$ is a quadratic irrational -- that is an irrational root of a quadratic polynomial with integer coefficients. Later Galois proved that for numbers of the form $\alpha=\sqrt{d}$ this expansion is of the form
$$\sqrt{d}=[a_0,\overline{a_1;a_2,...,a_2,a_1,2a_0}],$$
where overlined part is periodic and consists of a palindrome with added $2a_0$ at the end. By $D(\alpha)$ we denote the length of the periodic part of the continued fraction expansion of $\alpha$.
Continued fraction expansions of the quadratic irrationals and the length of their periodic parts have been widely studied by many authors. In the paper from 1972, Chowla and Chowla \cite{Ch} asked the following question.
\begin{ques}\label{ques1}
For a given integer $k \geq 1$, are there infinitely many integers $d \geq 1$ such that $D(\sqrt{d})=k$?
\end{ques}
The answers turns out to be positive, which was shown by Friesen in \cite{Fr}. In fact, Friesen's approach gives more than that. He proved that for palindromes $(a_1,a_2,\ldots, a_2, a_1)$, satisfying certain quite general condition related to the parity, there exist infinitely many integers $d \geq 1$ with $\sqrt{d}=[a_0,\overline{a_1,\ldots a_1,2a_0}]$. This was later refined by Halter-Koch, who proved that it is possible to impose some additional conditions on $d$, related to its $p$-adic valuations (see Theorem 2 in \cite{HK}). The equation $D(\sqrt{d})=k$ for small $k \geq 1$ was studied in \cite{BH} by Balkov\'a and Hru\u skov\'a.
A similar but different line of research has been recently taken by Rada and Starosta in \cite{RS}. They studied the behaviour of the length of the continued fraction expansion of a certain transformation of $\sqrt{d}$. A \emph{M\"obius transformation} is a transformation of the form
$$h(x) = \frac{ax+b}{cx+d},$$
where $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ are integers. Rada and Starosta were able to provide some lower and upper bounds on $D(h(\sqrt{x}))$, in terms of $D(\sqrt{x})$. These estimates are expressed with help of the determinant $|ad-bc|$.
The main goal of the paper is to study a natural question, that falls somewhere in between the two previously mentioned lines of research. A transformation $x \to nx$, where $n \geq 1$ is an integer, is the simplest example of a M\"obius transformation. It is therefore natural to consider a variant of the Question \ref{ques1} in the class of the number of the form $n \sqrt{d}$. We shall state it in a rather general form.
\begin{ques}
\label{ques2}
For given integers $k \geq 1$ and $d \geq 1$, are there infinitely many integers $n \geq 1$ such that $D(n\sqrt{d})=k$?
\end{ques}
In the full generality, the answer to this question turns out easily to be negative, as opposed to Question \ref{ques1}. For example, if $D(\sqrt{d})$ is even, then $D(n\sqrt{d})$ is also even for every $n \geq 1$ (see Lemma \ref{even}). Therefore, in order to make this question more specific and interesting, we define
$$A_d=\{k\in\mathbb{N}: \ \text{there exist infinitely many $n$ for which $D(n\sqrt{d})=k$}\}.$$
In other words, $A_d$ is the set of limit points of the sequence $(D(n\sqrt{d}))_{n=1}^{\infty}$. Our main result goes as follows.
\begin{twr}
\label{glowne}
Let $d$ be a positive integer, which is not a perfect square. Then, the set $A_d$ is infinite. In other words, the sequence $(D(n\sqrt{d}))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ has infinitely many different limit points.
\end{twr}
It does not seem possible to deduce Theorem \ref{glowne} from any of the previously mentioned results. The proof is based on establishing a lower bound on $D(n_i \sqrt{d})$ for some specific sequence $(n_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$. In order to do this, we explore some connections between the continued fraction expansion, the Euclidean algorithm and the Pell equation.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{lemmas} we prove some preparatory results. Theorem \ref{glowne} is proved in Section \ref{dowod}. Section \ref{problemy} concludes the paper with some further open questions.
\section{Auxiliary results}
\label{lemmas}
For each continued fraction $[a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3, \ldots]$ we define sequences $(p_i)_{i=0}^{\infty}$, $(q_i)_{i=0}^{\infty}$ as follows:\begin{multicols}{2}
\noindent
$$
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
p_0=a_0\\
p_1=a_0a_1+1\\
p_k=a_kp_{k-1}+p_{k-2}
\end{array} \right.
$$
$$
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
q_0=1\\
q_1=a_1\\
q_k=a_kq_{k-1}+q_{k-2}
\end{array} \right.
$$
\end{multicols}
Let us recall (see Chapter 1.5 and 1.6 in \cite{co}) that these sequences satisfy the equations
\begin{equation}
\label{ciag1}
p_kq_{k-1}-p_{k-1}q_k=(-1)^{k-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{rat}
\frac{p_k}{q_k}=[a_0,a_1,...,a_k]
\end{equation}
for all $k\geq 1$. The reader is referred to \cite{co} for some basics on the continued fraction expansion.
We start our investigation with some preparatory lemmas related to the Pell equation.
Let $(x_n, y_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be the sequence of the solutions of the Pell equation $x^2-dy^2=1$. It is easy to see that for every integer $a$ the sequence $x_n \pmod{a}$ is periodic mod $a$. By $m_d(a)$ we denote the period length of this sequence modulo $a$. We recall a folklore result.
\begin{lem}
\label{pell}
For any prime $p>2$ we have $m_d(p)|p^2-1$.
\end{lem}
In the next two lemmas we relate the Pell equation to $D(n \sqrt{d})$.
\begin{lem}
\label{okres2}
For every positive integer $d$, there exists a positive integer $n$ such that $D(n \sqrt{d})=2.$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will show that, if a pair $(a,b)$ fulfills a Pell equation
$$a^2-db^2=1,$$
then
$$b\sqrt{d}=[a-1,\overline{1,2(a-1)}].$$
Let $\beta=[\overline{1,2(a-1)}]$. We have
$$\beta=[1,2(a-1),\beta]=\frac{p_1\beta+p_0}{q_1\beta+q_0}=\frac{(2a-1)\beta+1}{2(a-1)\beta+1}$$
Solving this for $\beta$ we obtain:
$$\beta=\frac{(a-1)+\sqrt{a^2-1}}{2(a-1)},$$
as we can exclude the second negative root. Therefore
$$a-1+\frac{1}{\beta}=a-1+\frac{2(a-1)}{(a-1)+\sqrt{a^2-1}}=\frac{a^2-1+(a-1)\sqrt{a^2-1}}{(a-1)+\sqrt{a^2-1}}=\sqrt{a^2-1}=b\sqrt{d},$$
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{even}
Suppose that $D(\sqrt{d})$ is even. Then $D(n \sqrt{d})$ is even for every $n \geq 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is known (see for example \cite[Theorem 7.26]{hs}), that a negative Pell equation
$$x^2-dy^2=-1,$$
has a solution (and thus infinitely many) if and only if, the number $D(\sqrt{d})$ is odd. Therefore, if $D(n \sqrt{d})$ is odd, then the equation
$$x^2-(dn^2)y^2=-1$$
has an integer solution $(a,b)$. But then, the equation
$$w^2-dz^2=-1$$
has an integer solution $(a,nb)$. This implies that $D(\sqrt{d})$ is odd and gives us a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Now we turn our attention to the Euclidean algorithm. For given positive integers $x, y$, by $L(x, y)$ we denote the length of the Euclidean algorithm for $x$ and $y$. Here we assume that for every positive integer $n \geq 1$ we have $L(n, 1)=1$. So, for example, $L(25, 7) =4$, because the Euclidean algorithm in this case goes as follows: $(25, 7) \to (7, 4) \to (4, 3) \to (3, 1)$. We suppose that for the Fibonacci sequence $(F_n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ we have $F_0=0$, $F_1=F_2=1$ and $\varphi$ denotes the golden ratio. A following lemma gives a lower bound on $L(a, b)$ for $a$ and $b$ with ratio close to $\varphi$.
\begin{lem}
\label{fib}
Let $a>b$ be positive integers such that
$\left | \frac{a}{b} - \varphi \right | < \left | \frac{F_{k+2}}{F_{k+1}} - \varphi \right |.$
Then $L(a, b) \geq k$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_0=a$, $x_1=b$ and for $n \geq 2$ let $x_n$ be the smaller of the numbers obtained in the $(n-1)$-th step of the Euclidean algorithm for $a$ and $b$, i.e. $x_n$ is the remainder of $x_{n-2}$ modulo $x_{n-1}$. We shall prove inductively that $x_n = (-1)^{n}aF_{n-1} + (-1)^{n+1}bF_{n}$ for $1 \leq n \leq k$. The statement is clearly true for $n=1$, so let us assume that it is true for some $1 \leq n \leq k-1$. We will show that $2x_{n} > x_{n-1}$. Indeed, by the definition of $x_n$, it is equivalent to
$$2(-1)^{n}F_{n-1}a + 2(-1)^{n+1}F_{n}b > (-1)^{n+1}F_{n-2}a + (-1)^{n}F_{n-1}b$$
or
$$(-1)^n(2F_{n-1} + F_{n-2})a > (-1)^{n}(2F_n + F_{n-1})b.$$
Simplifying we get
$$ (-1)^nF_{n+1}a > (-1)^{n} F_{n+2}b,$$
which is finally equivalent to
$$(-1)^n\frac{a}{b} > (-1)^{n}\frac{ F_{n+2}}{F_{n+1}} $$
and this clearly follows from our assumption and the monotonic convergence of $\frac{F_{n+2}}{F_{n+1}}$ to $\varphi$. In particular, $x_k > 2x_{k-1}$ and therefore $x_k \neq 0$. Hence $L(a, b) \geq k$ and conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
In the last lemma of this section we establish some relations concerning the middle of part of the palindrome with its right end.
\begin{lem}
\label{wlasnosci}
Suppose that $k=2l=D(\sqrt{d})$ is even. Then, the following properties are true:
\begin{equation}
\label{wlasnosci1}
q_{k-1} =q_{l-1}(q_l+q_{l-2})=q_{l-1}(a_l q_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{wlasnosci2}
p_{k-1} = a_0 q_{k-1} + q_{k-2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{wlasnosci3}
q_{l-1}|q_{k-2}+(-1)^{l-1},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{wlasnosci4}
a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}|q_{k-2} + (-1)^l.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will use an equivalent matrix definition of $(p_i)_{i=0}^{\infty}, (q_i)_{i=0}^{\infty}$, which follows directly from construction of these sequences (see \cite{Poo} for details). For
$$\sqrt{d}=[a_0,\overline{a_1,...,a_{l-1},a_l,a_{l-1},...,a_1,2a_0}]$$
we have
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
p_{k-1} & p_{k-2}\\
q_{k-1} & q_{k-2}
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\ldots`
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{l-1} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_l & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{l-1} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\ldots
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_1 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
=$$
$$=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\ldots
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_l & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\left(
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\ldots
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{l-1} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\right)^T
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}
.$$
Thus
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
p_l & p_{l-1} \\
q_l & q_{l-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
p_{l-1} & p_{l-2} \\
q_{l-1} & q_{l-2}
\end{pmatrix}^T=
\begin{pmatrix}
p_{k-1} & p_{k-2}\\
q_{k-1} & q_{k-2}
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
.$$
Finally, we obtain:
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
p_{l-1}(p_l+p_{l-2}) & p_{l}q_{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2} \\
q_{l}p_{l-1}+q_{l-1}p_{l-2} & q_{l-1}(q_l+q_{l-2})
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0p_{k-1}+p_{k-2} & p_{k-1} \\
a_0q_{k-1}+q_{k-2} & q_{k-1}
\end{pmatrix}
.$$
By comparing matrix entries we get:
\begin{itemize}
\item Property $(\ref{wlasnosci1}) $, by using the equality $q_l=a_lq_{l-1}+q_{l-2}.$.
\item Property $(\ref{wlasnosci2})$: by comparing matrix entries we have $p_{k-1}=p_lq_{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2}$. Then, using $(\ref{ciag1})$ we can write it as
$$q_lp_{l-1}+(-1)^{l-1}+q_{l-1}p_{l-2}+(-1)^{l-2}=q_lp_{l-1}+q_{l-1}p_{l-2}=a_0q_{k-1}+q_{k-2}.$$
\item Property $(\ref{wlasnosci3})$: from previous properties we have
$$p_{k-1}=p_lq_{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2}=a_0q_{k-1}+q_{k-2}.$$
From $(\ref{wlasnosci1})$ we get:
$$a_0q_{k-1}+q_{k-2}=a_0q_{l-1}(a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2})+q_{k-2}.$$
Comparing this two equalities we obtain:
$$a_0q_{l-1}(a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2})+q_{k-2}=p_lq_{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2}=q_{l-1}p_{l}+q_{l-1}p_{l-2}+(-1)^{l-2}.$$
Therefore
$$q_{k-2}+(-1)^{l-1}=q_{l-1}(p_{l}+p_{l-2}-a_0(a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2})).$$
\item Property $(\ref{wlasnosci4})$ similarly to property $(\ref{wlasnosci3})$:
$$a_0q_{l-1}(a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2})+q_{k-2}=p_lq_{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2}=q_{l}p_{l-1}+(-1)^{l-1}+p_{l-1}q_{l-2}$$
$$q_{k-2}+(-1)^{l}=(a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2})(p_{l-1}-a_0q_{l-1}),$$
where we used the relation $q_l+q_{l-2}=a_lq_{l-1}+2q_{l-2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
It is worth mentioning that property (\ref{wlasnosci2}) was used also by Friesen \cite{Fr} in the proof of the affirmative answer to Question \ref{ques1}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{glowne}}
\label{dowod}
Before proving our main result, we need one more lemma, which connects the number $D(n\sqrt{d})$, a corresponding Pell equation and the length of the Euclidean algorithm (as promised in the Introduction). In fact, Theorem \ref{glowne} is an easy consequence of this lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{nieparzyste}
Let $p, q$ be odd numbers. If $2|D(\sqrt{d})$ and $(x_a,y_a)$ is a solution of a Pell equation $x^2-dy^2=1$, satisfying the conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $2pq|y_a$,
\item $p|x_a\pm1$,
\item $q|x_a\mp1$,
\end{itemize}
then there exist infinitely many positive integers $n$ such that
$$D(n\sqrt{d}) \in \{ 2L(p,q), 2(L(p,q)+1) \}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If there exists at least one solution satisfying above conditions, then there exist infinitely many of them, as the sequence of solutions of Pell's equation is periodic modulo $2pq$. Let us take one of these solutions $(x_m,y_m)$, such that $x_m, y_m > 4p^2q^2$. We can consider another Pell equation of the form
$$w^2 - d\left ( \frac{y_m}{2pq} \right )^2z^2 = 1$$
Clearly $(w, z) = (x_m, 2pq)$ is a solution of this equation. In fact, it is the fundamental solution. Indeed, let $(w_1, z_1)$ be the fundamental solution and $(w_2,z_2)$ be the next one. Assume that $z_1 < 2pq$. Then
$$2pq \geq z_2 = 2w_1z_1 \geq 2w_1 > \frac{y_m}{2pq},$$
which contradicts our choice of $m$. Therefore $(w_1, z_1)=(x_m, 2pq)$. Let $n = \frac{y_m}{2pq}$ and $k = D(n \sqrt{d})$. By Lemma \ref{even} we know that $k$ is even, so let us write $k=2l$. From \cite{co} (see Chapter 4.8) we know that the fundamental solution $(w_1,z_1)$ is a pair $(p_{k-1},q_{k-1})$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\label{pellpara}
(x_m,2pq)=(p_{k-1},q_{k-1})
\end{equation}
First part of Lemma \ref{wlasnosci} yields the equality
\begin{equation}
\label{rownanie}
2pq = q_{l-1}(a_l q_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}).
\end{equation}
Also from Lemma \ref{wlasnosci} we easily get the following congurences
$$p_{k-1}\equiv (-1)^{l} \pmod{q_{l-1}},$$
$$p_{k-1}\equiv (-1)^{l-1} \pmod{a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}}.$$
Using $(\ref{pellpara})$ we can write this in the form:
$$q_{l-1}|x_m+(-1)^{l},$$
$$a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}|x_m+(-1)^{l-1}.$$
Since $p|x_m\pm1$, we have that $\gcd(p,a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2})=1$ or $\gcd(p,q_{l-1})=1$ (as $p$ is odd). Similar property holds also for $q$. As $p$ and $q$ divide $x_m+(-1)^\alpha$ with different parity of $\alpha$, the two inequalities: $\gcd(p,a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2})>1$ and $\gcd(q,a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2})>1$ can not be true at the same time. Without loss of generality, we assume that
$$\gcd(p,a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2})=1.$$ Then, from $(\ref{rownanie})$ it follows that $p|q_{l-1}$. Furthermore, if $2|q_{l-1}$, then $2|a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}$, so again by $(\ref{rownanie})$ we have $4|2pq$, which is false. In consequence, $2|a_lq_{l-1} + 2q_{l-2}$, which implies that $2|a_l$ and
$$p=q_{l-1},$$
$$q=\frac{a_l}{2}q_{l-1} + q_{l-2}.$$
Now, we consider the number $L(p,q)$. We have that
$$L(p,q)=L\left ( q_{l-1},\frac{a_l}{2}q_{l-1}+q_{l-2} \right )=L(q_{l-1},q_{l-2})+1=L(a_{l-1}q_{l-2}+q_{l-3},q_{l-2})+1=L(q_{l-2},q_{l-3})+2$$
$$=L(a_{l-2}q_{l-3}+q_{l-4},q_{l-3})+2=L(q_{l-3}, q_{l-4}) + 3= \ldots = L(q_{2},q_{1}) + l-2.$$
It follows that for $q_1=1$ we have $L(p, q) = l-1$ and for $q_1>1$ we have $L(p, q)=l$.
So we proved that for $n=\frac{y_m}{2pq}$ we have
$$D(n\sqrt{d}) \in \{ 2L(p,q), 2(L(p,q)+1) \}.$$
Since we have infinitely many options for choosing sufficiently large $m$, this finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove our main result.
\emph{Proof of Theorem \ref{glowne}}.
By Lemma \ref{okres2} it is enough to consider the case $D(\sqrt{d})=2$ -- every limit point of the sequence $D(nc\sqrt{d})$ for a fixed $c$, is also a limit point of the sequence $D(n\sqrt{d})$.
Let $r$ be any odd positive integer. Suppose that there exists an odd prime $p$ not dividing $d$, but dividing $x_{8r}+1$ where $(x_{8r},y_{8r})$ is the $8r$-th solution of the Pell equation
$$x^2-dy^2=1.$$
Let $t$ be the positive integer such that $p \in (\phi^{2t},\phi^{2(t+1)}).$
The distance between two consecutive numbers of the form $\frac{a}{p}$ is equal to $\frac{1}{p}$. Thus, we can choose a positive integer $b$ such that
$$\left|\frac{b}{p}-\phi\right|<\frac{1}{p}<\phi^{-2t}.$$
We note also that
$$ \left|\frac{F_{t+1}}{F_t}-\phi\right|=\frac{\phi+\phi^{-1}}{\phi^{2t}+(-1)^t}>\phi^{-2t}.$$
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{fib} we have
$$L(b,p)\geq t-1.$$
Now, let $q$ be any prime such that:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item $2r$ and $\frac{q^2-1}{8}$ are relatively prime
\item $q \equiv b \pmod{p}$.
\end{enumerate}
Since $8|q^2-1$ the system of congruences
$$m \equiv 8r \pmod{16r}, \quad m \equiv 0 \pmod{q^2-1}$$
has a solution $m$.
Let us recall that $p|x_{8r}+1$ and $p$ does not divide $d$. Hence, $p$ divides $y_{8r}$. Thus, looking modulo $p$ the pair $(x_{8r}, y_{8r})$ is congruent to the pair $(-1, 0)$ and therefore the pair $(x_{16r}, y_{16r})$ is congruent to $(1, 0)$. This shows that $m_d(p)|16r$. Hence, from the first congruence it follows that $p|x_m+1$. From the second congruence and Lemma \ref{wlasnosci} we get that $m_d(q)|m$ and thus $q|x_m-1$. This shows that $p$ and $q$ satisfy conditions of Lemma \ref{nieparzyste}. It follows that for infinitely many positive integers $n$ we have:
$$D(n\sqrt{d}) \in \{ 2L(p,q), 2(L(p,q)+1) \}.$$
From $q \equiv b \pmod{p}$ we obtain
$$L(p,q)=L(b,p)\geq t-1=\left \lfloor \frac{\log_{\phi}p}{2} \right \rfloor - 1.$$
On the other hand, we have
$$L(p,q)\leq \log_{\phi}p+1.$$
This shows that for infinitely many $n$ we have
$$D(n\sqrt{d}) \in (\log_{\phi}p-3,2\log_{\phi}p+4).$$
In particular, we get a limit point in each interval $(\log_{\phi}p-3,2\log_{\phi}p+4)$.
To finish the proof, we are left with proving that we can choose infinitely many primes $p$ for a variable $r$. As $d$ has only finitely many divisors, it is enough to prove that there are infinitely many primes $p$ such that $p|x_{8r}+1$ for some $r \geq 1$. Let us consider $r$ prime. In this case, we have $m_d(p)|16r$. If $r$ does not divide $m_d(p)$, then $m_d(p)|16$ which gives us $p|y_{16}$ and therefore it is satisfied by only finitely many primes $p$. If $r|m_d(p)$, then by Lemma \ref{pell} we have also that $r|p^2-1$. This clearly yields the desired infinite number of possibilities for $p$ and the proof is finished. \qed
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{problemy}
It is natural to ask, if something more can be said in general about the set $A_d$ of the limit points of the sequence $(D(n\sqrt{d}))_{n=1}^{\infty}$, besides the fact that it is of infinite cardinality. More specifically, we pose the following question.
\begin{ques}\label{hip1}
Is it true, that for every non-square integer $d \geq 1$ and every $k \geq 1$ at least one of the numbers $k, k+1$ belongs to $A_d$?
\end{ques}
Such a conjecture may seem to be quite strong at first glance, but there is a motivation behind it. We recall that by $L(x, y)$ we denoted the length of the Euclidean algorithm applied for $x$ and $y$. Let us state perhaps somewhat more natural question, that is related directly to $L(x, y)$.
\begin{ques}\label{hip2}
Is it true, that for every integer $k \geq 1$, there exists an integer $N \geq 1$, such that for every $n > N$ and $1 \leq i \leq k$ there exists $1 \leq m \leq n$ such that $L(m, n)=i$?
\end{ques}
It turns out, that a slight modification of the argument used in the proof of Theorem \ref{glowne} shows that an affirmative answer to Question \ref{hip2} would directly imply an affirmative answer to Question \ref{hip1}. We do not know if any of these questions has a positive answer, but we believe that some further properties of $A_d$ could be established in the full generality.
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{sections/intro}
\section{Related Work}
\input{sections/relate}
\section{Methodology}
\input{sections/method}
\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\input{sections/theory}
\section{Experiments}
\input{sections/exp}
\section{Conclusion \& Limitation}
\input{sections/conc}
\vspace{-3mm}
\newpage
\section{Introduction}
\input{sections/intro}
\section{Methodology}
\input{sections/method}
\subsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\input{sections/theory}
\section{Related Work}
\input{sections/relate}
\section{Experiments}
\input{sections/exp}
\section{Conclusion \& Limitation}
\input{sections/conc}
\vspace{-3mm}
\section*{Broader Impact}
\vspace{-3mm}
Stochastic simulation plays a fundamental role in science. Accelerating scientific simulation is the most important step towards the long-term goal of AI for science. We believe our method possesses broader interests in computational modeling far beyond infectious disease simulation. For similar simulations such as simulating multi-agent behavior in social science, as well as molecular dynamics simulations in chemistry and materials science, we can easily replicate our interactive process and transfer the setting to impact broader applications in many related scientific fields.
One ethical challenge of our framework is data privacy. The mobility data used in this study are aggregated and privacy-enhanced
mobility data for academic research and humanitarian initiatives. These first-party data are collected
from users who have opted in to provide access to their GPS location data anonymously, through
a GDPR-compliant framework. Furthermore, in our analysis the geospatial information is used
only to create a series of co-location events that are used as proxy for human-to-human contacts.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported in part by JP Morgan Outstanding Faculty Award, AWS Machine Learning Research Award, Google Faculty Award, NSF Grant \#2037745, and the DARPA W31P4Q-21-C-0014. D.W. acknowledges support from the HDSI Ph.D. Fellowship. M.C. and A.V. acknowledge support from grants HHS/CDC 5U01IP0001137 and HHS/CDC 6U01IP001137. The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the funding agencies, the National Institutes of Health, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
\small
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
\subsection{Latent Information Gain}
\label{app:latent_info_gain}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\begin{proposition}
The expected information gain (EIG) for neural process is equivalent to the KL divergence between the prior and posterior in the latent process, that is
\begin{align}
\mathrm{EIG}(\hat{x}, \theta) :=\mathbb{E} [H(\hat{x}) - H(\hat{x}| z, \theta)] =
\mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x}|\theta)} \lrb{ \mathrm{KL}\big( p( z| \hat{x}, \theta) \| p(z) \big) }
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~1]
The information gained in the latent process $z$, by selecting the parameter $\theta$ and generate $\hat{x}$ is the reduction in entropy from the prior to the posterior
$\mathrm{IG} (\theta) = H(\hat{x}) - H(\hat{x}|z, \theta)$.
Take the expectation of $\mathrm{IG}( \hat{x},\theta)$ under the marginal distribution, we obtain from the conditional independence of $z$ and $\theta$ that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x}|\theta)} \lrb{ \mathrm{KL}\big( p( z| \hat{x}, \theta) \| p(z) \big) }
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x},z|\theta)} \bigg[ \log \frac{p(z|\hat{x}, \theta )}{ p( z)} \bigg]\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x},z|\theta)} \bigg[ \log \frac{p(z|\hat{x}, \theta )}{ p( z|\theta)} \bigg]\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x},z|\theta)} \big[ \log {p(z, \hat{x}, \theta )} - \log p(\hat{x}, \theta) - { \log p( z,\theta)} + \log p(\theta) \big] \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x},z|\theta)} \big[ \log {p(\hat{x} |z, \theta )} - \log p(\hat{x} | \theta) \big] \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(z)} \bigg[ \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x}|z, \theta)} [\log {p(\hat{x} |z, \theta )} ] - \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x} | \theta)} [\log p(\hat{x} | \theta)] \bigg] \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{p(z)} [H(\hat{x} | \theta)-H(\hat{x} |z, \theta )]\\
&= \mathrm{EIG}(\hat{x}, \theta).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sample Efficiency of Active Learning}
\label{app:thm1_proof}
From the main text, we know that in each round, the output random variable \begin{align}
X = \lrw{\Psi(\theta),z^*} + \epsilon.
\label{eq:model}
\end{align}
We further assume that the random noise $\epsilon$ is mean zero and $\sigma$-subGaussian.
Using this information, we treat $z$ as an unknown parameter and define a likelihood function so that $p(X|z;\theta)$ has good coverage over the observations:
\[
p(X_k|z;\theta_k) \propto\exp\lrp{ -\frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \lrp{X_k-\lrw{\Psi(\theta_k), z}}^2 }.
\]
Let the prior distribution over $z$ be $p(z|\theta_k) = p(z) \propto \exp\lrp{-\frac{m}{2\sigma^2} \lrn{z}^2}$.
Here we use $k$ instead of $(i)$ in the Algorithm \ref{algo:inter_np} to represent the number of iterations. We can form a posterior $z$ in the $k$-th round:
\[
p(z|X_1,\theta_1,\dots,X_k,\theta_k) \propto \exp\lrp{ -\frac{m}{2\sigma^2} \lrn{z}^2 - \frac{1}{2\sigma^2} \sum_{s=1}^k \lrp{X_s - \lrw{\Psi(\theta_s), z}}^2 }.
\]
Focusing on the random variable $z\sim p(\cdot|X_1,\theta_1,\dots,X_k,\theta_k)$, the estimate of the hidden variable, we can express it at $k$-th round as:
\begin{align}
z_k = \hat{z}_k + \sigma V_k^{-1} \eta_k,
\label{eq:var_change}
\end{align}
where $\hat{z}_k = V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k X_s \Psi(\theta_s)$,
$V_k = m\mathrm{I} + \sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T}$,
and $\eta_k$ is a standard normal random variable.
We can either choose action $\theta$ randomly or greedily.
A random choice of $\theta$ corresponds to taking
\begin{align}
\theta_k \sim \mathcal{N}\lrp{0,\mathrm{I}},
\label{eq:random}
\end{align}
A greedy procedure is to choose action $\theta_k$ in the $k$-th round
to optimize $\mathrm{KL}\lrp{p(z|\hat{x},\theta)\|p(z)} = \mathbb{E}_{p(z|\hat{x},\theta)} \lrp{\log \frac{p(z|\hat{x},\theta)}{p(z)}}$, where we denote the estimated output variable $\hat{x}$ given $\theta$ and $z$ as $\hat{x}=\lrw{\Psi(\theta),z}$.
This optimization procedure is equivalent to maximizing the variance of the prediction:
\begin{align}
\theta_k = \arg\max_{\theta\in\mathbb{R}^d} {\mathbb E}_{z\sim p(\cdot|X_1,\theta_1,\dots,X_{k-1},\theta_{k-1})}\lrb{ \lrp{\lrw{\Psi(\theta), {z}} - {\mathbb E}_{z\sim p(\cdot|X_1,\theta_1,\dots,X_{k-1},\theta_{k-1})}\lrw{\Psi(\theta), {z}} }^2 }.
\label{eq:greedy}
\end{align}
For both approaches, we assume that the features $\Psi(\theta)$ are normalized.
We compare the statistical risk of this approach with the random sampling approach.
Assume that the features are normalized, so that for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $\Psi(\theta)\in\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$.
Define a matrix $\mathrm{A}_k\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ containing all the column vectors $\lrbb{\Psi(\theta_1),\dots,\Psi(\theta_k)}$.
We can then express the estimation error in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
The estimation error $\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2$ can be bounded as follow.
\begin{align*}
\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2
&\leq m \lrp{ m + \sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}} }^{-1} \cdot \lrn{z^*}_2 \\
&+\min\lrbb{1/\lrp{2\sqrt{m}},1/\lrp{ \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}} + \frac{m}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}}} }} \cdot \sigma \sqrt{d}.
\end{align*}
\label{lem:error}
\end{lemma}
We now analyze random sampling of $\theta$ versus greedy search for $\theta$.
If the feature map $\Psi(\cdot) = \mathrm{id}$, then from random matrix theory, we know that for $\theta$ randomly sampled from a normal distribution and normalized to $\lrn{\theta}=1$, $\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}} $ will converge to $ \lrp{ \sqrt{1/k}-\sqrt{1/d} }^2$ for large $k$, which is of order $\Omega(1/d)$.
This will lead to an appealing risk bound for $\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2$ on the order of $\mathcal{O}\lrp{ d/\sqrt{k} }$.
However, in high dimension, this feature map is often far from identity.
In the proof of Theorem~1 below, we demonstrate that even when $\Psi(\cdot)$ is simply a linear random feature map, with i.i.d. normal entries, random exploration in $\theta$ can lead to a deteriorated error bound.
This setting is motivated by the analyses of wide neural networks, where the features learned from gradient descent are close to those generated from random initialization~\cite{Lee2019NTK,Andrea2019}.
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\begin{theorem}[Formal statement]
Assume that the noise $\epsilon$ in~\eqref{eq:model} is $\sigma$-subGaussian.
For a normalized linear random feature map $\Psi(\cdot)$, greedily optimizing the KL divergence, $\mathrm{KL}\lrp{p(z|\hat{x},\theta)\|p(z)}$ (or equivalently the variance of the posterior predictive distribution defined in equation~\eqref{eq:greedy}) in search of $\theta$ will lead to an error $\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2 = \mathcal{O}\lrp{ {\sigma d}/{\sqrt{k}} }$ with high probability.
On the other hand, random sampling of $\theta$ following~\eqref{eq:random} will lead to $\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2 = \mathcal{O}\lrp{ {\sigma d^{2}}/{\sqrt{k}} }$ with high probability.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~1]
For a linear random feature map, we can express $\Psi(\theta) = \Psi \theta$, where entries in $\Psi\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ are i.i.d. normal.
The entries of $\Psi \theta$ are then normalized.
\begin{itemize}
\item
For random exploration of $\theta$, the matrix containing the feature vectors becomes $\mathrm{A}_k = \Psi \Theta_k$, where matrix $\Theta_k\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ collects all the $k$ column vectors of $\{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k\}$.
Then $\mathrm{A}_k\mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T} = \Psi \Theta_k \Theta_k^{\rm T} \Psi^{\rm T}$.
From random matrix theory, we know that the condition number of $\Psi$ is equal to $d$ with high probability~\cite{random_matrix_cond}.
Hence for normalized $\Psi$ and $\theta$, $\sigma_{\min} \lrp{ \Psi \Theta_k \Theta_k^{\rm T} \Psi^{\rm T} } \geq \sigma_{\min}^2\lrp{\Psi} \sigma_{\min} \lrp{ \Theta_k \Theta_k^{\rm T} } = \frac{1}{d^2} \sigma_{\min}\lrp{\Theta_k\Theta_k^{\rm T}}$.
The inequality holds because the smallest singular value is the inverse of the norm of the inverse matrix.
We then use the fact from random matrix theory that for normalized random $\theta$, the asymptotic distribution of the eigenvalues of $\frac{1}{k} \Theta_k \Theta_k^{\rm T}$ follow the (scaled) Marchenko–Pastur distribution, which is supported on $\lambda\in\lrb{ \lrp{ \sqrt{1/k}-\sqrt{1/d} }^2, \lrp{ \sqrt{1/k}+\sqrt{1/d} }^2 }$, where the $1/d$ scaling comes from the fact that $\theta$ is normalized~\cite{random_matrix_eig}.
Hence for large $k$, $\sigma_{\min} \lrp{\Theta_k\Theta_k^{\rm T}} \geq \lrp{1-\sqrt{k/d}}^2$ with high probability.
This combined with the previous paragraph yields that for the random feature model,
$$\sigma_{\min} \lrp{\mathrm{A}_k\mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}} = \Omega\lrp{ \frac{1}{d^2} \lrp{1-\sqrt{k/d}}^2 }$$
with high probability.
Plugging this result into Lemma~\ref{lem:error}, we obtain that the error $\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2$ for random exploration in the space of $\theta$ is of order $\mathcal{O}\lrp{d^2/\sqrt{k}}$.
\item
We then analyze the error associated with greedy maximization of the posterior predictive variance.
We first note that the variance of the posterior predictive distribution in equation~\eqref{eq:greedy} can be expressed as follows using equation~\eqref{eq:var_change}:
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}\lrb{ \lrp{\lrw{\Psi(\theta), z} - {\mathbb E}\lrw{\Psi(\theta), z} }^2 }
= \sigma^2 {\mathbb E}\lrb{ \lrp{\lrw{\Psi(\theta),V_{k-1}^{-1}\eta_k}}^2 }
= \sigma^2 \Psi(\theta)^{\rm T} V_{k-1}^{-2} \Psi(\theta),
\label{eq:quadratic}
\end{align}
where the expectations are with respect to $z\sim p(\cdot|X_1,\theta_1,\dots,X_{k-1},\theta_{k-1})$.
We perform a singular value decomposition $\mathrm{A}_k = U_k \Lambda_k W_k$.
Then $\sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} = \mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T} = U_k \Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T} U_k^{\rm T}$, and that $V_{k-1}^{-2} = \lrp{m\mathrm{I}+A_{k-1} A_{k-1}^{\rm T}}^{-2} = U_{k-1} \lrp{m\mathrm{I}+\Lambda_{k-1} \Lambda_{k-1}^{\rm T}}^{-2} U_{k-1}^{\rm T}$.
Via this formulation, we see that maximizing ${\Psi(\theta)^{\rm T} V_{k-1}^{-2} \Psi(\theta)}$ in equation~\eqref{eq:quadratic} to choose $\theta_k$ is equivalent to choosing $\Psi(\theta_k) = \lrp{U_{k-1}}^{\rm T}_{\lrp{\cdot,l}}$, where $l=\arg\min_{i\in\{1,\dots,d\}} \lrp{\Lambda_{k-1}\Lambda_{k-1}^{\rm T}}_{\lrp{i,i}}$.
In words, when we use greedy method and maximize the variance of the prediction, it corresponds to taking $\Psi(\theta_k)$ in the direction of the smallest eigenvector of $V_{k-1}$.
Since every $\Psi(\theta)$ is normalized and we initialize uniformly: $V_0 = m\mathrm{I}$, the process is equivalent to scanning the orthogonal spaces of normalized vectors in $\mathbb{R}^d$ for $\lfloor {k}/{d} \rfloor$ times.
For large $k$, entries in $\Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T}$ are approximately uniform and are all larger than or equal to $\lfloor {k}/{d} \rfloor$.
Then $\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}} = \Omega(k/d)$.
Plugging into the bound of Lemma~\ref{lem:error}, we obtain that
\[
\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2
= \mathcal{O}\lrp{ \frac{\sigma d}{\sqrt{k}} }.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:error}]
We first express the estimate $\hat{z}_k$ as follows.
\begin{align*}
\hat{z}_k
= V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k X_s \Psi(\theta_s)
= V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} z^* + V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \epsilon_s \Psi(\theta_s).
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
\lrn{\hat{z}_k-z^*}_2
&= \lrn{ \lrp{ V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} - \mathrm{I}} z^* + V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \epsilon_s \Psi(\theta_s) }_2 \\
&\leq \underbrace{\lrn{\lrp{ V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} - \mathrm{I}} z^*}_2}_{T_1} + \underbrace{\lrn{V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \epsilon_s \Psi(\theta_s)}_2}_{T_2}.
\end{align*}
Define a matrix $\mathrm{A}_k\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ containing all the column vectors $\lrbb{\Psi(\theta_1),\dots,\Psi(\theta_k)}$ and perform a singular value decomposition $\mathrm{A}_k = U_k \Lambda_k W_k$.
Then $\sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} = \mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T} = U_k \Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T} U_k^{\rm T}$, and $V_k = m\mathrm{I} + \mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}$,
We further define vector $e_k\in\mathbb{R}^{s}$ where $(e_k)_{s} = \epsilon_s$.
We use this definition to simplify the two terms further.
For term $T_1$,
\begin{align*}
\lrn{\lrp{ V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \Psi(\theta_s) \Psi(\theta_s)^{\rm T} - \mathrm{I}} z^*}_2
&= m \lrn{ V_k^{-1} z^* }_2 \\
&\leq m \lrn{ V_k^{-1} }_2 \cdot \lrn{z^*}_2 \\
&= m \lrp{ m + \sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}} }^{-1} \cdot \lrn{z^*}_2.
\end{align*}
For term $T_2$, we define a diagonal matrix $\Bar{\Lambda}_k\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times k}$ which satisfies $\lrp{\Bar{\Lambda}_k}_{i,i}=1$ if $i\leq d$ and $\lrp{\Bar{\Lambda}_k}_{i,i}=0$ if $i> d$, when $k>d$.
The following bound on $T_2$ can be achieved.
\begin{align*}
\lrn{V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \epsilon_s \Psi(\theta_s)}_2
&= \lrn{V_k^{-1} \mathrm{A}_k e_k}_2 \\
&= \lrn{ U_k \lrp{ \Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T} + m \mathrm{I} }^{-1} U_k^{\rm T} U_k \Lambda_k \Bar{\Lambda}_k W_k e_k}_2 \\
&\leq \lrn{U_k \lrp{ \Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T} + m \mathrm{I} }^{-1} \Lambda_k}_2 \cdot \lrn{\Bar{\Lambda}_k W_k e_k}_2 \\
&= \lrn{\lrp{ \Lambda_k \Lambda_k^{\rm T} + m \mathrm{I} }^{-1} \Lambda_k}_2 \cdot \lrn{\Bar{\Lambda}_k W_k e_k}_2 \\
&\leq \min\lrbb{1/\lrp{2\sqrt{m}},1/\lrp{ \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}} + \frac{m}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}}} }} \cdot \lrn{\Bar{\Lambda}_k W_k e_k}_2.
\end{align*}
Assuming that noise $\epsilon_s$ is $\sigma$-subGaussian, then so is $W_k e_k$ since $W_k$ is a unitary matrix.
Multiplied by the diagonal matrix $\Bar{\Lambda}_k$ which has zero, $\lrn{\Bar{\Lambda}_k W_k e_k}_2 \leq \sigma \sqrt{d}$.
Therefore,
\[
\lrn{V_k^{-1} \sum_{s=1}^k \epsilon_s \Psi(\theta_s)}_2
\leq \min\lrbb{1/\lrp{2\sqrt{m}},1/\lrp{ \sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}} + \frac{m}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\min}\lrp{\mathrm{A}_k \mathrm{A}_k^{\rm T}}}} }} \cdot \sigma \sqrt{d}.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Experiment Details}
\subsection{SEIR Simulator}
\label{app:seir_model}
Our SEIR simulator is a simple stochastic, discrete, chain-binomial compartmental model. In this model, susceptible individuals ($S$) become exposed ($E$) through interactions with infectious individuals ($I$). Exposed individuals which are infected but not yet infectious transition to the infectious compartment at a rate $\varepsilon$ that is inversely proportional to the latent period of the disease. Lastly, infectious individuals transition to the removed compartment at a rate $\mu$ which is inversely proportional to the infectious period. Removed individuals ($R$) are assumed to be no longer infectious and they are to be considered either recovered or dead. All transitions are simulated by randomly drawn from a binomial distribution.
\subsection{LEAM-US Model}
\label{app:leam_model}
LEAM-US integrates a human mobility layer, represented as a network, using both short-range (i.e., commuting) and long-range (i.e., flights) mobility data.
Commuting flows between counties are obtained from the 2011-2015 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows survey and properly adjusted to account for differences in population totals since the creation of the dataset. Instead, long-range air traveling flows are quantified using origin-destination daily passenger flows between airport pairs as reported by the Official Aviation Guide (OAG) and IATA databases (updated in 2021) \citep{OAG,IATA}. In addition, flight probabilities are age and country specific.
The model is initialized using a multi-scale modeling approach that utilizes GLEAM, the Global and Epidemic Mobility model \citep{balcan2009multiscale,balcan2010modeling,tizzoni2012real,zhang2017spread,chinazzi2020effect,davis2020estimating}, to simulate a set of 500 different initial conditions for LEAM-US starting on February 16th, 2020. The disease dynamics are modeled using a classic SEIR-like model and initial conditions are determined using the Global and Epidemic Mobility model \citep{balcan2009multiscale,balcan2010modeling,tizzoni2012real,zhang2017spread} calibrated to realistically represent the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic \citep{chinazzi2020effect,davis2020estimating}.
Lastly, travel restrictions, mobility reductions, and government interventions are explicitly modeled to mimic the real timeline of interventions of the events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
\subsection{Spatiotemporal NP Model}
\label{app:stnp_model}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth,trim={0 0 0 50}]{figs/SNP_Diagram.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of the STNP model architecture. For both the encoder and the decoder, we use a diffusion convolutional GRU (DCGRU) \cite{li2018diffusion} to capture spatiotemporal dependency. }
\label{fig:snp}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:snp}, our model has $\theta$ at both county and state level and $x_t$ at the state level. The total number of dimensions of $\theta$ is 16,264 (12 compartments $\times$ 2 (incidence + prevalence) + 28 days $\times$ 58 counties $\times$ 10 metadata parameters). The output dimension is 672 (12 compartments $\times$ 2 (incidence + prevalence) $\times$ 28 days). We use county-level parameter $\theta$ together with a county-to-county mobility graph $A$ as input. We use the DCGRU layer \citep{li2017diffusion} to encode the graph in a GRU. We use a linear layer to map the county-level output to hidden features at the state level. For both the state-level encoder and decoder, we use multi-layer GRUs.
The input $\theta_{1:t}$ is the county-level parameters for LEAM-US with a dimension of 10. The county level embedding uses 1 layer DCGRU with a width of 16. The internal state is at the state level with a dimension of 16. The state level encoder and decoder use 3 layer GRUs with width of 128. The dimension of the latent process $z_{1:t}$ is 32. The dimension of output $x_{1:t}$ is 24, including the incidence and prevalence for 12 compartments. We trained STNP model for $500$ steps with learning rate fixed at $10^{-3}$ using Adam optimizer. We perform early stopping with $50$ patience for both offline learning and Bayesian active learning.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{app:implementation}
For both GP and \texttt{INP}{} mimicking SEIR simulation, we ran experiments using CPU. No GPU accelerator is needed for this simple model. It takes 1.5 hours to complete training. For \texttt{INP}{} mimicking LEAM-US simulation, we ran experiments with GEFORCE RTX 2080. It takes 5 hours to complete training. For all experiments, we run with three different random seeds.
\subsection{Sequential Neural Likelihood (SNL) Model Implementation for SEIR Simulator.}
\label{app:snl_implementation}
The input and output of SNL are the same as \texttt{INP}{} and GP. We use the likelihood-free inference code \citep{durkan2020contrastive} to implement SNL model. For each iteration, we perform Monte Carlo sampling from the trained likelihood model to report MAE. SNL takes 1 hour to complete training.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison of different acquisition functions in NP for SEIR simulator}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
Percentage of samples & LIG & Random & MeanSTD & MaxEntropy \\
\midrule
$1.11\%$ & $\textbf{365.87}\pm142.87$ & $480.68\pm5.24$ & $480.22\pm12.63$ & $427.73\pm61.36$\\
\midrule
$1.85\%$ & $\textbf{236.9}\pm50.6$ & $398.33\pm131.05$ & $314.75\pm111.42$ & $302.24\pm119.84$\\
\midrule
$2.96\%$ & $\textbf{119.26}\pm14.22$ & $244.27\pm148.89$ & $158.94\pm36.6$ & $186.88\pm57.48$\\
\midrule
$4.07\%$ & $\textbf{96.73}\pm17.07$ & $116.8\pm9.1$ & $127.36\pm27.97$ & $146.72\pm26.06$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tb:SEIR_INP}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison of different acquisition functions in GP for SEIR simulator}
\resizebox{0.7\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule
Percentage of samples & Random & MeanSTD & MaxEntropy \\
\midrule
$1.11\%$ & $663.76\pm46.36$ & $606.81\pm6.89$ & $\textbf{586.25}\pm58.44$\\
\midrule
$1.85\%$ & $637.12\pm13.45$ & $\textbf{619.15}\pm36.42$ & $628.54\pm71.34$\\
\midrule
$2.96\%$ & $597.3\pm19.59$ & $589.72\pm24.9$ & $\textbf{568.84}\pm19.05$\\
\midrule
$4.07\%$ & $\textbf{519.98}\pm17.86$ & $530.07\pm 32.95$ & $578.34\pm68.7$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tb:SEIR_GP}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison of different acquisition functions in \texttt{INP}{} for LEAM-US simulator, population divided by 1000.}
\resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\toprule
Percentage of samples & Random & MeanSTD & MaxEntropy & LIG \\
\midrule
$11.1\%$ & $20.961\pm5.548$&$35.356\pm28.706$&$65.498\pm13.324$&$\textbf{14.447}\pm1.087$\\
\midrule
$13.7\%$ &$13.418\pm0.815$&$16.092\pm3.11$&$30.496\pm24.333$&$\textbf{11.704}\pm0.216$\\
\midrule
$21.3\%$ &$9.332\pm0.601$&$11.191\pm0.184$&$10.028\pm2.065$&$\textbf{7.593}\pm0.822$\\
\midrule
$28.9\%$ &$8.077\pm0.657$&$7.908\pm0.536$&$8.417\pm0.616$&$\textbf{6.539}\pm0.618$\\
\midrule
$36.5\%$ &$6.719\pm0.383$&$7.533\pm0.861$&$7.431\pm0.776$&$\textbf{6.008}\pm1.079$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tb:LEAM_NP}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Performance comparison between LIG in NP and SNL for SEIR simulator.}
\resizebox{0.62\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule
Percentage of samples & LIG & SNL \\
\midrule
$1.11\%$ & $\textbf{365.87}\pm142.87$ & $707.61\pm44.42$ \\
\midrule
$1.85\%$ & $\textbf{236.9}\pm50.6$ & $669.03\pm73.19$\\
\midrule
$2.96\%$ & $\textbf{119.26}\pm14.22$ & $668.67\pm72.42$\\
\midrule
$4.07\%$ & $\textbf{96.73}\pm17.07$ & $685.28\pm53.00$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tb:LIG_SNL}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Broader Impact}
The proposed approach has applications in the field of computational epidemiology as it provides a way to efficiently explore the parameter space of complex epidemiological model (such as LEAM-US) allowing to reduce the time-to-insights needed to provide actionable insights to policy makers. As an example, a single realization of the LEAM-US model requires about 1 hour to be completed (on a single thread of a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970x CPU, 3.7Ghz base clock) while in this work we show that using \texttt{INP}{} framework can achieve a performance comparable to the one of epidemic simulator while requiring less than one-third of the runs (as shown in Figure 5). In other words, this means that we can produce COVID-19 forecasts and projections three times faster than we would without the integration with the proposed framework. In addition, \texttt{INP}{} provides a general surrogate model that is not tailored to solve only for a specific target outcome (e.g. prediction of future deaths) but rather it retains the ability to describe the underlying \emph{state of the system} as the original mechanistic epidemic model. This feature preserves the ability of using the learned surrogate model as a situational awareness and outbreak analytics tool as it can also provide insights on unobservables (such as the fraction of immune population in a certain location/age group) which can be used by public health officials to assess the (potential) impact of past/future policies on the evolution of an epidemic.
\section{Additional Results}
\subsection{Results for NP Family, GP, and SNL}
\label{app:inp_add_result}
Table \ref{tb:SEIR_INP} shows the average results together with the standard deviation of \texttt{INP}{} for SEIR simulator after running experiments three times.
Table \ref{tb:SEIR_GP} shows the average results together with the standard deviation of GP for SEIR simulator.
Table \ref{tb:LIG_SNL} shows the comparison of average MAE together with the standard deviation for the SEIR simulator. We observe that LIG is always better than SNL until convergence.
Table \ref{tb:LEAM_NP} shows the average MAE together with the standard deviation of \texttt{INP}{} for the LEAM-US simulator.
\subsection{Batch Active Learning with LIG}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth,trim={20 50 20 50}]{iclr_figs/fig7.pdf}
\caption{Batch size comparisons for LIG on the LEAM-US simulator. MAE loss versus the percentage of samples for \texttt{INP}{} during Bayesian active learning.}
\label{fig:ablation_pred}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:ablation_pred} compares 4 different setups:
8 batches (size 1), 4 batches (size 2), 2 batches
(size 4), and 1 batch (size 8).
\subsection{SEIR Compartmental Model}
\textbf{SEIR Simulation.}
To show that \texttt{INP}{} indeed provides a more flexible and faster alternative to GP, we begin with a simple stochastic, discrete, chain-binomial SEIR compartmental model as our stochastic simulator. In this model, susceptible individuals ($S$) become exposed ($E$) through interactions with infectious individuals ($I$) and are eventually removed ($R$), see Appendix \ref{app:seir_model} for details.
We set the total population $N=S+E+I+R$ as $100,000$, the initial number of exposed individuals as $E_0=2,000$, and the initial number of infectious individuals as $I_0=2,000$. The latent period varies between approximately $1.5$ to $4$ days, i.e. latent individuals move to the infectious stage at a rate $\varepsilon \in [0.25,0.65]$ (step 0.05) that is inversely proportional to the latent period, the infectious period $\mu^{-1}$ is set to be equal to 1 day, and let the basic reproduction number $R_0$ (which in this case coincides with the transmissibility rate $\beta$) vary between $1.1$ and $4.0$ (step $0.1$). Here, each $(\beta,\varepsilon)$ pair corresponds to a specific scenario, which determines the parameters $\theta$ (2-dimensional input). We simulate the first $100$ days of the epidemic for the infectious population (output dimension $100$) with a total of $300$ scenarios. We generate $30$ samples for each scenario.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth,trim={25 50 25 30}]{iclr_figs/fig5.pdf}
\caption{Left: \texttt{INP}{} predictions for the number of individuals in Infectious and Removed compartments in LEAM-US model. Right: acquisition function comparisons on the LEAM-US simulator. MAE loss versus the percentage of samples for \texttt{INP}{} during Bayesian active learning. {The Black dash line shows the offline learning performance with the entire data set available for training.}}
\label{fig:gleam_pred}
\vskip -0.1 in
\end{figure}
\textbf{Model Implementation.}
We compare \texttt{INP}{} with GP for surrogate modeling. {We also include {likelihood-free inference method} Sequential Neural Likelihood (SNL) model \citep{papamakarios2019sequential} as a baseline. The implementation details are deferred to Appendix \ref{app:snl_implementation}.} In this toy experiment, we only predict the number of individuals in the infectious compartment. The input is $(\beta,\varepsilon)$ pair and the output is the $100$ days' infection prediction. As the simulator is simple, we use the vanilla NP model with the global latent variable $z$.
For each epoch, we randomly select $10\%$ of the samples as context. Implementation details are deferred to Appendix \ref{app:implementation}.
\textbf{Uncertainty Quantification.}
Figure \ref{fig:npvsgp} compares the NP and GP performance on one scenario in the held-out test set. It shows the ground truth and the predicted number of infectious population for the first $50$ days. We also include the confidence intervals (CI) with $5$ standard deviations for ground truth and NP predictions and $1$ standard deviation for GP predictions. We observe that NP fits the simulation dynamics better than GP for mean prediction. Moreover, NP has closer CIs to the truth, reflecting the simulator's intrinsic uncertainty. GP shows larger CIs which represent the model's own uncertainty. Note that NP is much more flexible than GP and can scale to high-dimensional data.
\textbf{Acquisition Functions.}
We compare different acquisition functions in Bayesian active learning. We select 2 scenarios as the initial training dataset. Then we continue augmenting the training set using the remaining scenarios until the validation loss converges. GP is not a latent variable model, hence LIG does not apply. We report the average test mean absolute error (MAE) over three random runs. The candidate set for training includes $270$ scenarios. We set aside $15$ scenarios each for validation and test. The scenarios are evenly distributed in the search space.
Figure \ref{fig:npvsgp} shows the testing MAE versus the percentage of data used for training for SNL, NP and GP with different acquisition functions. {Note that the percentage of data used for training is linearly proportional to the overall running time.} Our proposed acquisition function LIG is more sample efficient in NP. It takes only $4.07\%$ of the data to converge and reach the NP offline performance, which uses the entire {data} set for training. In contrast, neither SNL or GP can converge on the same amount of the data. {See more detailed analysis including the performance table in Appendix \ref{app:inp_add_result}.}
\textbf{Exploration Exploitation Trade-off.} To understand the large performance gap for LIG vs. other acquisition functions on NP, we visualize the values of test MAE and the reward from the acquisition functions for each Bayesian active learning iteration, shown in Figure \ref{fig:seir_acq_visual}. For Mean STD and Maximum Entropy, both tend to exploit the region with large transmission rate for the first $2$ iterations. Including these scenarios makes the training set unbalanced. The MAE in the region with small transmission rate become worse after $2$ iterations. Meanwhile, Random is doing pure exploration. The improvement of MAE performance is not apparent after $2$ iterations. LIG
is able to reach a balance by exploiting the uncertainty in the latent process and encouraging exploration. Hence, with a small number of iterations ($I=2$), it has already selected ``informative scenarios'' in the search space.
\subsection{Local Epidemic and Mobility model (LEAM-US)} \label{covid_deepgleam}
As a real-world experiment, we use a large-scale, spatiotemporal, age-structured epidemic model, LEAM-US, as our stochastic simulator. Our goal is to use \texttt{INP}{} to mimic the internal mechanism of this simulator to accelerate disease modeling and scenario creation. As the data is high-dimensional (input dimension 16,264, output dimension 672), we did not include GP or SNL as baselines.
\textbf{LEAM-US Simulator.}
The Local Epidemic and Mobility model (LEAM-US) is a stochastic, spatial, age-structured epidemic model based on a metapopulation approach which divides the US in more than 3,100 subpopulations, each one corresponding to a each US county or statistically equivalent entity. Population size and county-specific age distributions reflect Census' annual resident population estimates for year 2019.
We consider individuals divided into $10$ age groups. Contact mixing patterns are age-dependent and state specific and modeled considering contact matrices that describe the interaction of individuals in different social settings \citep{mistry2020inferring}.
LEAM-US integrates a human mobility layer, represented as a network, using both short-range (i.e., commuting) and long-range (i.e., flights) mobility data, see more details in Appendix \ref{app:leam_model}.
\begin{comment}
Commuting flows between counties are obtained from the 2011-2015 5-Year ACS Commuting Flows survey and properly adjusted to account for differences in population totals since the creation of the dataset. Instead, long-range air traveling flows are quantified using origin-destination daily passenger flows between airport pairs as reported by the Official Aviation Guide (OAG) and IATA databases (updated in 2021) \cite{OAG,IATA}. In addition, flight probabilities are age and country specific.
\textbf{Experiment Setup.}
Our simulation model is initialized using a multi-scale modeling approach that utilizes GLEAM, the Global and Epidemic Mobility model \cite{balcan2009multiscale,balcan2010modeling,tizzoni2012real,zhang2017spread,chinazzi2020effect,davis2020estimating}, to simulate a set of 500 different initial conditions for LEAM-US starting on February 16th, 2020. The disease dynamics are modeled using a classic SEIR-like model as in the first experiment and the time interval considered for the simulations is February 2020 until December 2020. However, in this second model, travel restrictions, mobility reductions, and government interventions are explicitly modeled to mimic the real timeline of interventions of the events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Google's COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports \cite{google_data} are used to quantify mobility and contact reductions, while non-pharmaceutical interventions and other policy interventions are tracked using the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT) \cite{Oxford}.
\end{comment}
\textbf{Dataset.}
In this experiment, we aim to reproduce LEAM-US projections only for California for which we consider monthly (28 days) sequences from the 2nd to the 29th day of each month from March to December. Each scenario $\theta$ includes the county-level parameters of LEAM-US and state level incidence and prevalence compartments. The total number of dimensions in $\theta$ is $16,264$, see details in Appendix \ref{app:leam_model}. Overall, there are $315$ scenarios in the search space, corresponding to $315$ different $\theta$ with total $16,254$ samples. We split $78\%$ of the data as the candidate train set, and $11\%$ for validation and test. We use $8.6\%$ data for initial training. We first perform passive learning with all the data to show that the \texttt{INP}{} model can accurately learn the LEAM-US dynamics. For Bayesian active learning, we use the candidate train set as the search space.
\textbf{Model Implementation.} We instantiate \texttt{INP}{} to mimic an epidemic simulator that has $\theta$ at both county and state level and $x_t$ at the state level. We use county-level parameter $\theta$ together with a county-to-county mobility graph $A$ in California as input. We use the DCGRU layer \citep{li2017diffusion} to encode the mobility graph in a GRU. We use a linear layer to map the county-level output to hidden features at the state level. For both the state-level encoder and decoder, we use multi-layer GRUs. For each epoch, we randomly select $20\%$ samples as context sequence.
\textbf{\texttt{INP}{} Predictions.}
Figure \ref{fig:gleam_pred} left visualize the \texttt{INP}{} predictions in four key compartments of a typical scenario with $R_{0}=3.1$ from March 2nd to March 29th. The confidence interval is plotted with $2$ standard deviations. We can see that both the mean and confidence interval of \texttt{INP}{} predictions match the truth well. These results demonstrate the promise that the generative \texttt{INP}{} model can serve as a deep surrogate model for the LEAM-US simulator.
\textbf{Acquisition Functions.}
We compare different acquisition functions with \texttt{INP}{}. All methods start with the same initial train set. Then we continue adding 8 scenarios to the training set until the validation loss converges. We measure the average performance over three random runs and report the test MAE.
Figure \ref{fig:gleam_pred} right shows the log scale MAE versus the percentage of samples included for training, which scales linearly in computation. It shows the proposed LIG always has the best MAE performance until the convergence. Moreover, after using $31.4\%$ of data from the candidate train set, LIG already outperforms the offline model.
\textbf{{Training Speed-up.}}
{A single realization of the LEAM-US model requires about 1 hour to be completed (on a single thread of a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970x CPU, 3.7Ghz base clock) while in this work we show that using Bayesian active learning with \texttt{INP}{} model can achieve a performance comparable to the one of epidemic simulator while requiring less than one-third of the runs (as shown in Figure \ref{fig:gleam_pred}).}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study on NP models, performance comparison for learning the LEAM simulator, population divided by 1000.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\toprule
Model & MAE \\
\midrule
NP \citep{garnelo2018neural} & 24.231 $\pm$ 5.884\\
\midrule
SNP \citep{singh2019sequential} & 21.781 $\pm$ 0.825\\
\midrule
\texttt{INP}{} (Ours) & \textbf{6.291}$\pm$ 0.848\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tb:offline}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Ablation Study on NP Models.}
We perform ablation study on our proposed NP model, \texttt{INP}{}. Compared with vanilla NP \citep{garnelo2018neural} and SNP \citep{singh2019sequential}, the key innovation of model is temporal latent process, modeled by state level encoder and decoder as in Appendix Figure \ref{fig:snp}. To ensure fair comparisons, we adapt NP and SNP to graph-based autoregressive settings and use the same architecture as \texttt{INP}{} to generate the hidden states. See Appendix \ref{app:stnp_model} for architecture details. Table \ref{tb:offline} shows the testing MAE of different NP models trained in an offline fashion. Our \texttt{INP}{} significantly improves the performance and can accurately learn the simulator dynamics.
\paragraph{Batch Active Learning with LIG.}
When we add more than one scenario of data per iteration, LIG allows us to calculate the corresponding reward for a batch of scenarios due to the mean aggregation layer in the NP encoder. In our LEAM-US experiment, we add $8$ scenarios per iteration (batch size $8$). As an ablation study, we compared 4 different batch sizes, see Appendix Figure \ref{fig:ablation_pred}. We observe that larger batch leads to better performance. This strategy combines LIG and random search, where it first randomly selects a set of groups and then uses LIG to measure the reward for the data within each group. Random search encourages exploration whereas LIG exploits the highest reward.
\subsection{Spatiotemporal Neural Processes}
We first review Neural Process before introducing our model.
Neural process ({NP}) \citep{garnelo2018neural} is a type of neural latent variable model that represents distributions over functions. It approximates a stochastic process by combining GP with deep learning. NP introduces a global latent variable $z$ to capture the stochasticity and learns the conditional distribution $p(x_{1:T}|\theta)$ by optimizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO):
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\log p(x_{1:T}|\theta) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q(z| x_{1:T},\theta)} \big[ \log p(x_{1:T}|z, \theta)\big] - \text{KL}\big( q(z|x_{1:T}, \theta)\| p(z) \big)
\label{eqn:np}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here $p(z)$ is the prior for the latent variable. We use $x_{1:T}$ as a shorthand for $(x_1,\cdots, x_T)$. The prior distribution $p(z)$ is conditioned on a set of context points $\theta^c, x_{1:T}^c$ as $p(z| x_{1:T}^c,\theta^c)$. The set of context points is randomly sampled from the training data. Its complement is the target set. However, the global latent variable $z$ in NP can be quite restrictive. SNP \citep{singh2019sequential} lifted such restriction by integrating a temporal transition model,
{but its hidden states can only encode and pass the information from historical latent variables.}
To better capture non-stationary, spatiotemporal dynamics in the epidemics, we propose \texttt{INP}{} with two extensions. First, we introduce a temporal latent process $(z_1,\cdots, z_T)$ to represent the unknown dynamics. The latent process provides an expressive description of the internal mechanism of the stochastic simulator. Each latent variable $z_t$ is sampled conditioning on the past history. Second, we explicitly model the spatial dependency in $x_t \in \mathbb{R}^D$. For instance, the travel graph between $D$ locations can be represented as an adjacency matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{D\times D}$ where entry $A_{ij}$ describes the number of individuals traveling between locations $i$ and $j$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth,trim={20 30 20 30}]{iclr_figs/fig2_icml.pdf}
\caption{Graphical model comparison: vanilla Neural Process (NP) and our Spatiotemporal Neural Process (\texttt{INP}{}). The key difference lies in the inference of the latent variables. {The distribution of a global $z$ of NP is $q(z|x_{t-1},x_{t},\theta_{t})$. The distribution of local $z_t$ of \texttt{INP}{} is $q(z_t|x_{0:t},\theta_{1:t},A)$.}
$A$ is the adjacency matrix for the spatial graph. $h_t$ is the encoder hidden state and $H_t$ is the decoder hidden state.
}
\label{fig:graphical_model}
\end{figure}
Given parameters $\{\theta\}$, simulation data $\{x_{1:T}\}$, and the spatial graph $A$ as inputs, \texttt{INP}{} models the conditional distribution $p(x_{1:T}|\theta, A)$ by optimizing the following ELBO objective:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\log p(x_{1:T}|\theta,A) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q(z_{1:T}| x_{1:T}, \theta,A)} \log p(x_{1:T}|z_{1:T}, \theta,A) - \text{KL}\big( q(z_{1:T}|x_{1:T},\theta, A)\| p(z_{1:T}) \big)
\label{eqn:stnp}
\end{split}
\end{align*}
where the conditional distributions $q(z_{1:T}| x_{1:T},\theta, A)$ and $p(x_{1:T}| z_{1:T}, \theta ,A)$ are parameterized with neural networks. The prior distribution $p(z_{1:T})$ is conditioned on a set of contextual sequences $p(z_{1:T}| x^c_{1:T}, \theta^c,A)$. Figure \ref{fig:graphical_model} visualizes the graphical model of the vanilla NP \citep{garnelo2018neural} and our proposed \texttt{INP}{} model. Note the hidden states of \texttt{INP}{} is able to encodes and passes the information from historical context data directly.
We implement \texttt{INP}{} following an encoder-decoder architecture. The encoder parametrizes the mean and standard deviation of the variational posterior distribution $q(z_{1:T}| x_{1:T},\theta, A)$ and the decoder approximates the predictive distribution $p(x_{1:T}| z_{1:T}, \theta ,A)$. To incorporate the spatial graph information, we use a Diffusion Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit (DCGRU) layer \citep{li2017diffusion} which integrates graph convolution in a GRU cell. We use multi-layer GRUs to obtain hidden states from the inputs. Using re-parametrization \citep{kingma2013auto}, we sample $z_{t}$ from the encoder and then decode $x_{t}$ conditioned on $z_{t}$ in an auto-regressive fashion.
\subsection{Bayesian Active Learning}
Simulating at a wide range of parameter regimes beforehand is very expensive. {To reach the same level of accuracy while using less data for training}, we take a Bayesian active learning approach to proactively query the simulator, augment the training set, and update the model incrementally. Algorithm \ref{algo:inter_np} outlines the Bayesian active learning algorithm, based on Bayesian optimization \citep{shahriari2015taking, frazier2018tutorial}. Note that the algorithm applies to the entire NP family and is not specific to our \texttt{INP}{} model.
Specifically, we train a NP model to interact with the simulator and improve learning. Let the superscript $^{(i)}$ denote the $i$-th interaction.
We start with an initial data set ${\mathcal{S}}_1 = \{\theta^{(1)}, x_{1:T}^{(1)} \}$ and use it to train our NP model and learn the latent process. During inference, given the augmented parameters $\theta$ that are candidate scenarios, we use the trained NP model to predict the states $(\hat{x}_1,\cdots, \hat{x}_T)$. We evaluate the models' predictions with an acquisition function $r(\hat{x}_{1:T}, z_{1:T}, \theta)$ and select the set of parameters $\{\theta^{(i+1)}\}$ with the highest reward. We query the simulator with $\{\theta^{(i+1)}\}$ to augment the training data set ${\mathcal{S}}_{i+1}$ and update the NP model for the next iteration.
The choice of the reward (acquisition) function $r$ depends on the goal of the active learning task. For example, to find the model that best fits the data, the reward function can be the log-likelihood $r= \log p(\hat{x}_{1:T}|\theta, A) $. To collect data and reduce model uncertainty in Bayesian experimental design, the reward function can be the mutual information. In what follows, we discuss different strategies to design the reward/acquisition function. We also propose a novel acquisition function based on information gain in the latent space tailored to our \texttt{INP}{} model.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwIn{Initial simulation dataset ${\mathcal{S}}_1$ }
Train the model $\texttt{NP}^{(1)}({\mathcal{S}}_1)$ \;
\For{$i =1,2, \cdots $} {
Learn $(z_{1}, z_2,\cdots, z_T)\sim q^{(i)}(z_{1:T}|x_{1:T}, \theta, {\mathcal{S}}_i)$\;
Predict $(\hat{x}_{1}, \hat{x}_2,\cdots, \hat{x}_T) \sim p^{(i)}(x_{1:T}|z_{1:T}, \theta,{\mathcal{S}}_i )$ \;
Select a batch $\{\theta^{(i+1)}\} \gets \argmax_{\theta}\Ep{p(x_{1:T}|z_{1:T}, \theta)}{r(\hat{x}_{1:T}| z_{1:T}, \theta)} $\;
Simulate $\{x_{1:t}^{(i+1)}\} \gets $ Query the simulator $F(\theta^{(i+1)};\xi)$ \;
Augment training set ${\mathcal{S}}_{i+1} \gets {\mathcal{S}}_i \cup \{\theta^{(i+1)}, x_{1:T}^{(i+1)}\}$ \;
Update the model $\texttt{NP}^{(i+1)}({\mathcal{S}}_{i+1})$ \;
}
\caption{Interactive Neural Process}
\label{algo:inter_np}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Reward/Acquisition functions}
For regression tasks, standard acquisition functions for active learning include Maximum Mean Standard Deviation (Mean STD), Maximum Entropy, Bayesian Active Learning by Disagreement (BALD), and random sampling \citep{gal2017deep}. With the distributions represented by NP, we explore various acquisition functions and their approximations. The temporal latent process in \texttt{INP}{} encodes the internal mechanism of the stochastic simulator. We introduce a new acquisition function based on our unique NP design called {Latent Information Gain} (LIG).
\textbf{Maximum Mean STD.} Mean STD \citep{gal2016dropout} is a heuristic for estimating the model uncertainty. For each $\theta$, we sample multiple $z_{1:T}$ and generate a set of predictions $\{\hat{x}_{1:T}\}$. We compute the standard deviation $\sigma_{t,d}$ for time step $t$ and feature $d$. For a length $T$ sequence with dimension $D$, mean STD computes $\bar{\sigma} = \frac{1}{TD}\sum_{t=1}^T\sum_{d=1}^D \sum \sigma_{t,d}$ for each $\theta$. We select the $\theta$ with the maximum $\bar{\sigma}$. Empirically, we observe that Mean STD often becomes over-conservative and tends to explore less.
\textbf{Maximum Entropy.} Maximum entropy computes the maximum predictive entropy as $H(\hat{x}) = - \mathbb{E}[\log p(\hat{x}_{1:T})]$. In general, entropy is intractable for continuous output. Our NP model implicitly assumes the predictions follow a multivariate Gaussian, which allows us to compute the differential entropy \citep{jaynes1957information}. We follow the same procedure as Mean STD to estimate the empirical covariance $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{TD\times TD}$and compute the differential entropy for each parameter as $H = \frac{1}{2}\ln{|\Sigma|}+\frac{TD}{2}(1+\ln{2\pi})$. We select the parameter $\theta$ with the maximum entropy.
\paragraph{BALD and EIG.} BALD \citep{houlsby2011bayesian} quantifies the mutual information between the prediction and model posterior $H(\hat{x}_{1:T}|\theta) - H(\hat{x}_{1:T}| z_{1:T},\theta) $, which is equivelant to the expected information gain (EIG). Computing the EIG/BALD is challenging since $p(\hat{x}_{1:T}| z_{1:T},\theta)$ cannot be found in closed form in general. The integrand is intractable and conventional MC methods are not applicable \citep{foster2019variational}. One way to get around this is to employ a nested MC estimator with quadratic computational cost for sampling \citep{myung2013tutorial,vincent2017darc}.
We prove the equivalence between the expected information gain for selecting the parameter $\theta$ and the expected KL divergence in the latent processes, as illustrated by the following proposition. In this way, conventional MC method becomes applicable, which helps reduce the quadratic computational cost to linear.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:information_gain}
The expected information gain (EIG) for neural process is equivalent to the KL divergence between the likelihood and posterior in the latent process, that is
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{EIG}(\hat{x}_{1:T}, \theta) :=\mathbb{E} [H(\hat{x}_{1:T}) - H(\hat{x}_{1:T}| z_{1:T}, \theta)] = \mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x}_{1:T}|\theta)} \lrb{ \mathrm{KL}\big( p( z_{1:T}| \hat{x}_{1:T}, \theta) \| p(z_{1:T}) \big) }
\end{split}
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
See proof in the appendix \ref{app:latent_info_gain}.
Inspired by this fact, we propose a novel acquisition function based on the information gain in the latent process.
\textbf{Latent Information Gain.} The trained NP model produces a variational posterior given the current dataset ${\mathcal{S}}$ as $p(z_{1:T}|{\mathcal{S}})$. For every parameters $\theta$ remained in the search space, we can predict $\hat{x}_{1:T}$ with the decoder. We use $\hat{x}_{1:T}$ and $\theta$ as input to the encoder to re-evaluate the posterior $p(z_{1:T}|\hat{x}_{1:T},\theta, {\mathcal{S}})$. Latent Information Gain (LIG) computes the distributional difference with respect to the latent process $z_{1:T}$ as $\mathbb{E}_{p(\hat{x}_{1:T}|\theta)} \lrb{ \mathrm{KL}\lrp{ p(z_{1:T}| \hat{x}_{1:T},\theta,{\mathcal{S}})\| p(z_{1:T}|{\mathcal{S}}) }}$ where $\mathrm{KL}(\cdot \| \cdot)$ denotes the KL-divergence between two distributions. We select a batch of $\theta$ with the highest latent information gain.
|
\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\qed}{\hbox{\rule[-2pt]{3pt}{6pt}}}
\newcommand{\newsection}[1]{\setcounter{equation}{0}\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{ |
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Models}
\begin{itemize}
\item \bert: Off the shelf "bert-base-uncased" from the huggingface transformers library \cite{Wolf2019HuggingFacesTS}
\item \qasquad: Both SQuAD QA models are trained with the huggingface question answering training script \footnote{ https://github.com/huggingface/transformers}. This adds a span prediction head to the default \bert, i.e., a linear layer that computes logits for the span start and span end. So for a given question and a context, it classifies the indices in in which the answer starts and ends. As a loss function it uses crossentropy. The model was trained on a single GPU. We used the huggingface default training script and standard parameters: 2 epochs, learning rate 3e-5, batch size 12. The training dataset was SQuAD 1.1~\cite{rajpurkar2016squad} and it achieved an F1 score of 88.5 on the test set.
\item \qasquadbig: Single GPU, also using huggingface training script with standard parameters. Learning rate was 3e-5, batch size 12, best model after 2 epochs. The training dataset was SQuAD 2~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-03822} and it achieved an F1 score of 67 on the test set.
\item \mlmsquad: \bert{} fine-tuned on text from SQUAD using the masked language modeling objective as per~\citet{devlin2018bert}. 15\% of the tokens masked at random. Trained for 4 epochs with LR 5e-5. Single GPU.
\item \rankmarco: Ranking model trained on the MSMarco passage reranking task~\cite{bajaj2016ms}. We used the fine-tuning procedure described in \cite{nogueira2019passage} to obtain a regression model that predicts a relevance score given query and passage. MSMarco, 100k iterations with batch size 128 (on a TPUv3-8).
\item \mlmmarco: \bert{} fine-tuned on the passages from the MSMarco dataset using the masked language modeling objective as per~\cite{devlin2018bert}. 15\% of the tokens masked at random. 3 epochs, batch size 8, LR 5e-5. Single gpu.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Datasets:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Wikitext-2: Used for fine-tuning the MLM head. Subset of the Englisch Wikipedia for long term dependency language modeling. 2,088,628 tokens for training, 217.646 for validation, 245.569 for testing. Vocab size: 33,278 out of vocab: 2.6\% of tokens. It can be downloaded from here: https://www.salesforce.com/products/einstein/ai-research/the-wikitext-dependency-language-modeling-dataset/
\item LAMA probe data: Can be downloaded from their github: https://github.com/facebookresearch/LAMA . Only used for testing. Consists of: Google-RE: 5528 instances over 3 relations. T-REx: 34017 instances over 41 relations. ConceptNet: 12514 instances. This is not grouped into relations. Squad: 305 instances. Context in-sensitive questions rewritten to cloze-statements. No specific relation either.
\item SQuAD 1.1: Can be downloaded from here: https://rajpurkar.github.io/SQuAD-explorer/ . 100,000+ question answer pairs based on wikipedia articles. Produced by crowdworkers.
\item SQuAD 2: Can be downloaded from here: https://rajpurkar.github.io/SQuAD-explorer/ . Combines the 100,000+ question answer pairs with 50,000 unanswerable questions.
\item MSMARCO: Can be downlaoded from here: https://microsoft.github.io/msmarco/ . For ranking: Dataset for passage reranking was used. Given 1,000 passages, re-rank by relevance. Dataset contains 8,8m passages. For MLM training: Dataset for QA was used. It consists of over 1m queries and the 8,8m passages. Each query has 10 candidate passages. For MLM, we appended the queries with all candidate passages before feeding into BERT.
\end{itemize}
\newpage
\subsection{Knowledge captured in BERT}
\subsubsection{Intermediate layers matter}
Additional precisions for Figure \ref{fig:layerwise_mixed} can be found in Figure \ref{fig:layerwise_mixes_additional_precisions}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/compare_bert_non_mlms/large_font/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png}
\caption{P@1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/compare_bert_non_mlms/large_font/TREx_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{P@10}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/compare_bert_non_mlms/large_font/TREx_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{P@100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Mean performance in different precisions on \trexprobe{} sets for \bert, \qasquadbig, \rankmarco, \ner.}
\label{fig:layerwise_mixes_additional_precisions}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Relational knowledge evolution}
Additional precisions for Figure \ref{fig:bert_layers} can be found in Figure \ref{fig:bert_layers_additional_precisions}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/bert/multi_means_large_font/multi_mean_P_AT_1.png}
\caption{P@1}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/bert/multi_means_large_font/multi_mean_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{P@10}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/bert/multi_means_large_font/multi_mean_P_AT_K.png}
\caption{P@100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Mean performance of \bert{} across all layers and probe sets.}
\label{fig:bert_layers_additional_precisions}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Effect of dataset size}
Figure \ref{fig:dataset_mlm_p_10} and \ref{fig:dataset_mlm_p_100} show the P@10 and P@100 plots for Figure \ref{fig:dataset_mlm}. Respectively, Figure \ref{fig:dataset_qa_squad_p_10} and \ref{fig:dataset_qa_squad_p_100} show the same for \ref{fig:dataset_qa_squad}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/TREx_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Squad_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Google_RE_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Showing P@10}
\label{fig:dataset_mlm_p_10}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/TREx_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Squad_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Google_RE_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Showing P@100}
\label{fig:dataset_mlm_p_100}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/TREx_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Squad_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Google_RE_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Showing P@10 for the QA objective.}
\label{fig:dataset_qa_squad_p_10}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/TREx_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Squad_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Google_RE_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Showing P@100 for the QA objective.}
\label{fig:dataset_qa_squad_p_100}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Effect of fine tuning objective}
For comparing MLM and QA on SQuAD (\ref{fig:finetuning_squad}), Figure \ref{fig:finetuning_squad_p_10} and \ref{fig:finetuning_squad_p_100} show more precisions. Also, for comparing fine tune objectives on MSMARCO (Figure \ref{fig:finetuning_msm}), Figure \ref{fig:finetuning_msm_p_10} and \ref{fig:finetuning_msm_p_100} show P@10 and P@100.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/TREx_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Squad_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Google_RE_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: SQUAD. Showing P@10.}
\label{fig:finetuning_squad_p_10}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/TREx_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Squad_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Google_RE_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: SQUAD. Showing P@100.}
\label{fig:finetuning_squad_p_100}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/TREx_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Squad_test_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Google_RE_means_P_AT_10.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: MSMarco. Showing P@10.}
\label{fig:finetuning_msm_p_10}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{ConceptNet}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/TREx_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{T-REx}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Squad_test_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Squad}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Google_RE_means_P_AT_k.png}
\caption{Google-RE}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: MSMarco. Showing P@100.}
\label{fig:finetuning_msm_p_100}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{MLM and learning factual knowledge}
\begin{table}[]
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Google-RE}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{T-REx}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{ConceptNet}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Squad}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{MLM loss}} \\ \hline
BERT & 0.10 & 0.29 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 2.115 \\ \hline
Evidences-object-1 & 0.10 & 0.34 & 0.39 & 0.43 & 3.156 (+49\%) \\
Evidences-object-2 & 0.10 & 0.30 & 0.54 & 0.86 & 4.18 (+98\%) \\
Evidences-object-10 & 0.17 & 0.36 & 0.86 & 0.99 & 6.041 (+184\%) \\ \hline
Evidences-random-1 & 0.06 & 0.26 & 0.20 & 0.16 & 2.843 (+34\%) \\
Evidences-random-2 & 0.09 & 0.26 & 0.19 & 0.20 & 3.634 (+72\%) \\
Evidences-random-10 & 0.08 & 0.26 & 0.32 & 0.25 & 4.863 (+130\%) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Capacity results from training 1,2,10 epochs on the probing data. The training dataset is not shuffled and it is trained sequentially in the same order as the table: \greprobe{}, \trexprobe{}, \concpetprobe{}, \squadprobe{}. We used the evidence sentences (see Table~\ref{tab:facts_template_evidence}) and either masked objects or random tokens.}
\label{tab:mlm_evidence_random_vs_objects}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\label{sec:discussion_conclusion}
\todo{Where do I want to mention this? Own subsection "On MLM and factual knowledge? There, we could also mention that MLM learn more facts when masking objects instead of random tokens.
We also note that remembering factual information is not the goal of masked language modeling. Language models are pre-trained on MLM and related tasks to gain a general understanding of language. When randomly masking out words in text, only few predictions require remembering factual information: most can be either guessed from the context or by learning the general linguistic patterns that our languages build on.}
In this paper, we introduce a framework to probe all layers of \bert{} for knowledge.
We experimented on a variety of probes and fine-tuning tasks and found that \bert{} contains more knowledge than was reported earlier. Our experiments shed light on the hidden knowledge stored in \bert{}'s parametric memory and also some important implications to model building.
Since intermediate layers contain knowledge that is forgotten by the final layers to make way for task-specific knowledge, our probing procedure can more accurately characterize the knowledge stored.
We show that factual knowledge, like syntactic and semantic patterns, is also replaced at the last layers when models are fine-tuned. However, the last layer can also make way for more domain specific knowledge when the fine-tuning objective is the same as the pre-training objective (MLM) as observed in \squadprobe{}.
The forgetting that we observe after fine-tuning can be attributed to multiple effects: some tasks seem to be not well aligned to MLM (catastrophic forgetting), whereas other models drop factual knowledge because of capacity or the under-representation of probing facts (information density). Hence, forgetting is not mitigated by larger datasets which potentially contain more factual knowledge (\mlmmarco{} $<$ \mlmsquad{} as measured by $\mathcal{P}$@1).
When investigating different training objectives, we find that knowledge-intensive tasks like ranking better mitigate forgetting compared to span prediction. Although the fine-tuned models generally contained less factual knowledge, with significant (and expected) forgetting in the last layers, \rankmarco{} remembers relatively more relationship types than \bert{} (2\% vs 7\% of \trexprobe{}'s relations being better captured at an intermediary layer, Table~\ref{tab:win_loss}). This result can partially explain findings in \citet{chang2019pre} where they found that pre-training \bert{} with inverse cloze tasks aids it's transferability to a retrieval and ranking setting. Essentially, ranking tasks encourage the retention of factual knowledge (as measured by cloze tasks) since they are seemingly required for reasoning between the relative relevance of documents to a query.
This is also evident when comparing \qasquadbig{} to \rankmarco{}, where the ranking model forgets a smaller amount of facts than the QA model (35\% vs. 53\%). When it comes to acquiring new knowledge from the training process, we find MLM to be the most effective task, whereas we do not see mayor differences between ranking and QA objectives. However, we see potential in either modifying the training procedures to lay more emphasis on learning facts for example by masking entities \citep{sun2019ERNIEER}, or by reducing the capacity load of distractors and low information text (as observed in Table~\ref{tab:capacity}). The latter could be done with either adjusting the attention modules to give longer expiration times to factual knowledge \citep{Sukhbaatar2021NotAM} or reducing the load by jointly masking highly correlated n-grams \citep{Levine2020PMIMaskingPM}. This is to be done in future work.
With this initial work, we provide a first starting point into understanding how different training objectives effect factual knowledge in language models.
Our results have direct implications on the use of \bert{} as a knowledge base. By effectively choosing layers to query and adopting early exiting strategies \citep{Xin2020DeeBERTDE, xin-etal-2021-berxit} knowledge base completion can be improved. The performance of \rankmarco{} also warrants further investigation into ranking models with different training objectives -- pointwise (regression) vs pairwise vs listwise. More knowledge-intensive QA models like answer generation models may also show a similar trend as ranking tasks but require investigation. We also believe that our framework is well suited to studying variants of \bert{}, different pre-training as well as fine-tuning tasks.
We hope this spurs further research into how the parametric memory of language models works and how we can build more knowledgeable models by devising more effective training paradigms.
As concrete applications of our work, we feel that knowledge intensive tasks that involve access to external knowledge will benefit most from our analysis~\citep{petroni2020kilt,zhang21:expred}.
Additionally, Web tasks that rely on triplified knowledge like tags and relations~\citep{holzmann2017exploring} can employ BERT-based models to store relational information without direct need for learning grammatical and fine-grained linguistic knowledge.
Information retrieval tasks like conversational search and Web search can use our observations to complement their ability to provide clarifications~\citep{kiesel2018toward:conv} or explanations~\citep{singh2018posthoc:secondary,SinghA19:exs} .
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
In contrast to existing work, we want to analyze relational knowledge across layers to measure the total knowledge contained in \bert{} and observe the evolution of relational knowledge through the layers.
\subsection{Intermediate layers matter}
\label{sec:intermediate}
The first question we tackle is -- Does knowledge reside strictly in the last layer of \bert{}?
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{updated_plots/wide.png}
\caption{$\mathcal{P}$@1 (upper value) vs last layer P@1 (lower value) for all models for each LAMA probe. Values are averaged over all relations in a dataset and given in percent. \bert{}'s P@1 of 10\% in the last layer (\greprobe{}) means that it answered 10\% of the cloze-questions correctly.}
\label{fig:last_layer_vs_union}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:last_layer_vs_union} compares the fraction of correct predictions in the last layer as against all the correct predictions computed at any intermediate layer in terms of $\mathcal{P}@1$.
It is immediately evident that a significant amount of knowledge is stored in the intermediate layers.
While the last layer does contain a reasonable amount of knowledge, a considerable proportion of relations seem to be forgotten and the \textbf{intermediate layers contain relational knowledge that is absent in the final layer.}
Specifically, 18\% for \trexprobe{} and 33\% approximately for the others are forgotten by \bert{}'s last layer.
For instance, the answer to \texttt{Rocky Balboa was born in [MASK]} is correctly predicted as \texttt{Philadelphia} by Layer 10 whereas the rank of \texttt{Philadelphia} in the last layer drops to $26$ for \bert{}.
The intermediary layers also matter for fine-tuned models. Models with high $\mathcal{P}@1$ tend to have a smaller fraction of knowledge stored in the intermediate layers -- 20\% for \rankmarco{} on \trexprobe{}. In other cases, the amount of knowledge lost in the final layer is more drastic -- $3\times$ for \qasquadbig{} on \greprobe{}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\textbf{Models} & \textbf{P@1} & \textbf{P@10} & \textbf{P@100} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\bert{}} & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.07 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\qasquad{}} & 0.43 & 0.38 & 0.38 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\qasquadbig{}} & 0.17 & 0.19 & 0.17 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\mlmsquad{}} & 0.12 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\rankmarco{}} & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.05 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\mlmmarco{}} & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.14 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{\ner} & 0.26 & 0.33 & 0.43 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:win_loss} Fraction of relationship types (of the 41 \trexprobe{}) that are best captured at an intermediary layer. Formally, this is the case if mean $P^{12}@1 <$ mean $P^{l}@1$ (p-value $< 0.05$).}
\end{table}
We also measured the fraction of relationship types in \trexprobe{} that are better captured in the intermediary layers (Table~\ref{tab:win_loss}). On average, 7\% of all relation types in \trexprobe{} are forgotten in the last layer for \bert{}. \rankmarco{} forgets the least amount of relation types (2\%) whereas \qasquad{} forgets the most (43\%) in \trexprobe{}, while also being the least knowledgeable (lowest or second-lowest $\mathcal{P}@1$ in all probes). This is further proof of our claim that \bert{}'s overall capacity can be better estimated by probing all layers. Surprisingly, \rankmarco{} is able to consistently store nearly all of its knowledge in the last layer. We postulate that for ranking in particular, relational knowledge is a key aspect of the task specific knowledge commonly found in the last layers.
\subsection{Relational knowledge evolution}
\label{sec:evolution}
Next, we study the evolution of relational knowledge through the \bert{} layers presented in Figure~\ref{fig:bert_layers} that reports P@1 at different layers.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{updated_plots/bert/multi_mean_P_AT_1.png}
\caption{Mean P@1 of \bert{} across all layers.}
\label{fig:bert_layers}
\end{figure}
We observe that the amount of \textbf{relational knowledge captured increases steadily with each additional layer}.
While some relations are easier to capture early on, we see an almost-exponential growth of relational knowledge after Layer 8.
This indicates that relational knowledge is predominantly stored in the last few layers as against low-level linguistic patterns are learned at the lower layers (similar to ~\citet{vanaken_2019}). Interestingly, \citet{tenney2019bert} found that the center of gravity for co-reference resolution in layer 16 of \bert{}-large's 24 layers. We hypothesize that a certain proficiency in matching different entity mentions is necessary for attributing facts to an entity.
In Figure~\ref{fig:trex_all_default} we inspect relationship types that show uncharacteristic growth or loss in \trexprobe{}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{updated_plots/bert/parallel/TREx_paralel_P_AT_1.png}
\caption{P@1 across all layers for \bert{} for select relationship types from \trexprobe{}.}
\label{fig:trex_all_default}
\end{figure}
While \texttt{member of} is forgotten in the last layers, the relation \texttt{diplomatic relation} is never learned at all, and \texttt{official language of} is only identifiable in the last two layers. Note that the majority of relations follow the nearly exponential growth curve of the mean performance in Figure~\ref{fig:bert_layers} (see line \trexprobe{}). From our calculations, nearly 15\% of relationship types double in mean P@1 at the last layer.
We now analyze evolution in fine-tuned models to understand the impact of fine-tuning on the knowledge contained through the layers.
There are two effects at play once \bert{} is fine-tuned.
First, during fine-tuning \bert{} observes additional task-specific data and hence has either opportunity to monotonically increase its relational knowledge or replace relational knowledge with more task-specific information. Second, the task-specific loss function might be misaligned with the MLM probing task.
This means that fine-tuning might result in difficulties in retrieving the actual knowledge using the MLM head.
In the following, we first look at the overall results and then focus on specific effects thereafter.
Figure~\ref{fig:layerwise_mixed} shows the evolution of knowledge in three fine-tuned models when compared to \bert{}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{updated_plots/compare_bert_non_mlms/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png}
\caption{Knowledge contained per layer measured in terms of P@1 on \trexprobe{}.}
\label{fig:layerwise_mixed}
\end{figure}
All models possess nearly the same amount of knowledge until layer 6 but then start to grow at different rates. Most surprisingly, \rankmarco{}'s evolution is closest to \bert{} whereas the other models forget information rapidly. With previous studies indicating that the last layers make way for task-specific knowledge
~\cite{kovaleva-etal-2019-revealing}, the ranking model can retain a larger amount of knowledge when compared to other fine-tuning tasks in our experiments.
These results raise the question: Is \rankmarco{} able to retain more knowledge because MSMarco is a bigger dataset or is it because the ranking objective is better suited to knowledge retention as compared to QA, MLM or NER?
\subsection{Effect of fine-tuning objectives}
\label{sec:finetuning}
For the first experiment, we study the effect of the fine-tuning objective. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that the task objective function is misaligned with the probing procedure.
Hence, we conducted two experiments where we fixed the dataset and compared the MLM objective (\mlmmarco{}) vs. the ranking objective \rankmarco{} and \mlmsquad{} vs. the span prediction objective (\qasquadbig{}). Figure~\ref{fig:finetuning_msm} shows the evolution of knowledge captured for \mlmmarco{} vs. \rankmarco{}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(a) ConceptNet & (b) T-REx \\[4pt]
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Squad_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/marco/Google_RE_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(c) Squad & (d) Google-RE \\[4pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: MSMarco.}
\label{fig:finetuning_msm}
\end{figure}
We observe that \rankmarco{} performs quite similar to \mlmmarco{} across all probes and layers. Although \mlmmarco{} has the same training objective as the probe, the ranking model can retain nearly the same amount of knowledge. We hypothesize that this is because the downstream fine-tuning task is sensitive to relational information.
Specifically, ranking passages for open-domain QA is a task that relies heavily on identifying pieces of knowledge that are strongly related -- For example, given the query: \textit{How do you mow the lawn?}, \rankmarco{} must effectively identify concepts and relations in candidate passages that are related to lawn mowing (like types of grass and lawnmowers) to estimate relevance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(a) ConceptNet & (b) T-REx \\[4pt]
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Squad_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_objective/squad/Google_RE_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(c) Squad & (d) Google-RE \\[4pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Effect of Fine-Tuning Objective on fixed size data: SQUAD.}
\label{fig:finetuning_squad}
\end{figure}
Reading comprehension or span prediction (QA) however seems to be a less knowledge-intensive task both in terms of total knowledge and at the last layer (Figure~\ref{fig:last_layer_vs_union}). In Figure~\ref{fig:finetuning_squad} we see that the final layers are impacted the most by fine-tuning on question answering. Intuitively, span prediction appears to be the tasks that requires less relational knowledge to be remembered as models only need to select the right answer from a given context. From Table~\ref{tab:win_loss} we observe that \mlmsquad{} has a lower amount of relations better captures at intermediary layers (12\% vs 17\%), with \qasquadbig{} seemingly forgoing relational knowledge for span prediction task knowledge. It is hard to compare \qasquadbig{} and \rankmarco{} from this experiment as both were trained on different datasets. In the next section, we study the effect of fine-tuning data on the amount of knowledge captured in parametric memory.
\subsection{Effect of fine-tuning data}
\label{sec:data_size}
To isolate the effect of the fine-tuning datasets, we fix the fine-tuning objective.
We experimented with the MLM and the QA span prediction objective.
For MLM, we used models trained on fine-tuning task data of varying size -- \bert{}, \mlmmarco{} ($\sim$ 8.8 million unique passages) and \mlmsquad{} ($\sim$ 500+ unique articles). For the QA objective, we experimented with \qasquad{} and \qasquadbig{} which utilize the same dataset of passages but \qasquadbig{} is trained on 50K extra unanswerable questions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(a) ConceptNet & (b) T-REx \\[4pt]
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Squad_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/qas/Google_RE_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(c) Squad & (d) Google-RE \\[4pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Mean P@1 across layers for \qasquad{} and \qasquadbig{}. }
\label{fig:dataset_qa_squad}
\end{figure}
Considering the QA span prediction objective, we first see that the total amount of knowledge stored ($\mathcal{P}@1$) in \qasquadbig{} is higher for 3/4 knowledge probes (from Figure~\ref{fig:last_layer_vs_union}). Figure~\ref{fig:dataset_qa_squad} shows the evolution of knowledge captured for \qasquad{} vs. \qasquadbig{}. \qasquadbig{} captures more knowledge at the last layer in 3/4 probes with both models showing similar knowledge emergence trends. This result hints to the fact that a more difficult task (SQuAD 2) on the same dataset forces BERT to remember more relational knowledge in its final layers as compared to the relatively simpler SQuAD 1. This point is further emphasized in Table~\ref{tab:win_loss}. Only 17\% of relation types are better captured in the intermediary layers of \qasquadbig{} as compared to 43\% for \qasquad{}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/ConceptNet_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/TREx_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(a) ConceptNet & (b) T-REx \\[4pt]
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Squad_test_P_AT_1.png} & \includegraphics[width=50mm]{updated_plots/fine_tune_data/mlms/Google_RE_means_P_AT_1.png} \\
(c) Squad & (d) Google-RE \\[4pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Effect of dataset size. Mean P@1 across layers for \bert{}, \mlmmarco{} and \mlmsquad{}.}
\label{fig:dataset_mlm}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:dataset_mlm} shows the evolution of knowledge for both MLM models as compared to \bert{}. When being fine-tuning, \bert{} seemingly tends to forget some relational knowledge to accommodate for more domain-specific knowledge. We suspect it forgets certain relations (found in the probe) to make way for other knowledge not detectable by our probes. In the case where the probe is aligned with the fine-tuning data (\squadprobe{}), \mlmsquad{} learns more about its domain and outperforms \bert{}, but only by a small margin ($<5\%$). Even though \mlmmarco{} uses a different dataset it is able to retain a similar level of knowledge in \squadprobe{}. The evolution trends in Figure~\ref{fig:dataset_mlm} further confirm that fine-tuning leads to forgetting mostly in the last layers. Since the fine-tuning objective and probing tasks are aligned, it is more evident in these experiments that relational knowledge is being forgotten or replaced.
When observing $\mathcal{P}@1$ and $P@1$, according to \trexprobe{} and \greprobe{} in particular, \mlmmarco{} forgets a large amount of knowledge but retains common sense knowledge (\concpetprobe{}). \mlmsquad{} contains substantially more knowledge overall according to 2/4 probes and nearly the same in the others as compared to \mlmmarco{}. Seemingly, the amount of knowledge contained in fine-tuned models is not directly correlated with the size of the dataset, on the contrary, we observe that training on the bigger dataset, containing more factual information, leads to more forgetting. There can be several contributing factors to this phenomenon potentially related to the data distribution and alignment of the probes with the fine-tuning data. In the next section, we will further investigate what lead to such a substantial amount of knowledge being dropped by \mlmmarco{} and \mlmsquad{}.
\section{What happens during Fine-tuning?}
\label{sec:fine-tuning-what-happens}
To understand what causes the forgetting observed in Figure~\ref{fig:dataset_mlm}, let us take a step back and revisit what is happening when a model is fine-tuned. As mentioned earlier, the process of fine-tuning usually exposes a model to a new task as well as to new data. One reason for our results might be, that the fine-tuning (QA, ranking, NER) and probing task (MLM) are very different and models suffer from the sequential learning problem. In Section~\ref{sec:sec:catastrophic-forgetting}, we will investigate what effect this alignment between training and probing tasks plays in our results. Other factors that might explain our results are the training \textit{data} being misaligned with the probes (Section~\ref{sec:sec:overlap}) and models dropping facts that are no longer present in the fine-tuning data due to capacity reasons (Section~\ref{sec:sec:capacity}). Nevertheless, exposing models to new data includes the possibility of learning new facts (Section~\ref{sec:sec:learn-forget}). In the following, we will discuss these points one by one.
\subsection{Catastrophic forgetting}
\label{sec:sec:catastrophic-forgetting}
With the current transformer-based language models, fine-tuning tasks are common down-stream tasks such as ranking, question answering or sentiment analysis, whereas pre-training tasks typically focus on teaching the models general language understanding (e.g., masked language modeling or causal language modeling). Fine-tuning tasks tend to be more specific than the pre-training tasks, hence, requiring a different set of (task) knowledge to effectively solve. As our probing task is masked language modeling, models might lose the ability to perform MLM after being fine-tuned on a different task.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{MLM test loss}} \\ \hline
\bert{} & 2.12 \\
\qasquad{} & 2.93 \\
\qasquadbig{} & 2.78 \\
\mlmsquad{} & 1.76 \\
\mlmmarco{} & 1.93 \\
\rankmarco{} & 2.06 \\
\ner{} & 3.76 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{MLM performance of the models after being fine-tuned. Last layer, MLM head is re-trained for all non-MLM models. Evaluated on the Wikitext-2 test set.}
\label{tab:catastrophic_forgetting_mlm}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:catastrophic_forgetting_mlm} shows the ability to do masked language modeling for \bert{} and the fine-tuned models as tested on the Wikitext-2 dataset. Note, that the non-MLM models were tested after re-training the decoding head as described Section~\ref{sec:setup}. Thus, this measures how much MLM ability can be decoded from the fine-tuned model's embeddings. In accordance with our previous probing results, we observe \qasquad{}, \qasquadbig{} and \ner{} to be on the lower end, while \bert{}, \rankmarco{} and the MLM-models perform better. This indicates, that a part of the performance difference is indeed because of different alignments between fine-tuning tasks and masked language modeling. Nevertheless, as \mlmsquad{} and \mlmmarco{} both have a lower MLM loss than \bert{} while generally performing worse on the probes. Catastrophic forgetting can not explain the different amounts of factual knowledge in these models.
\subsection{Overlap between training and probing data}
\label{sec:sec:overlap}
Another reason why \mlmmarco{} performed worse than \mlmsquad{}, despite MSMarco containing more facts, might be, that training and probing data are not aligned. That is, the model learns facts from MSMarco, that are not queried for in our probe set, which is mostly derived from Wikipedia.
To understand how the probing facts are represented in SQuAD and MSMarco, we devise a lightweight matching methodology:
First, we compute an inverted index over the training datasets, regarding question + context (SQuAD) and query + passage (MSMarco) as individual documents. Second, we check for each probe (containing subject, relation, object) if one document in the inverted index contains both the subject and the object. While this matching is not perfect, we deem this to be sufficient to give us some insight on what proportion of facts is covered in the training data.
Results of this alignment between training and probing data can be found in Table~\ref{tab:info_overlap}.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\textbf{Training dataset} & \textbf{\greprobe{}} & \textbf{\trexprobe{}} & \textbf{Information density} \\ \hline
SQuAD & 0.51\% & 11.1\% & 3393 facts in 100k passages \\
MSMarco & 1.9\% & 38\% & 12.621 facts in 8.8M passages \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Estimated overlap between the fine-tuning datasets (SQuAD, MSMarco) and the probe sets (\greprobe{}, \trexprobe{}).}
\label{tab:info_overlap}
\end{table*}
Surprisingly, we observe only a low amount of \greprobe{} facts covered in both probing sets, while both dataset contain a significantly larger proportion of \trexprobe{} facts. Note, the English Wikipedia contains over 6M articles and our probing facts span $\sim$ 52k facts, resulting in many facts not being covered by the probes. Also, while we find MSMarco to contain 3.5x more of our facts than SQuAD, this is surprisingly little as MSMarco also spans 88x more passages. The quotient of the number of facts covered in the dataset relative to the number of passages will be from here on referred to as the information density. This notion will give us a feel for how sparse or dense our probing facts are covered by the dataset. We conclude that both probing sets must contain a high amount of facts that are not covered by our probe sets. When restricting the capacity to retain information, under-represented classes are dropped \citep{Hooker2020WhatDC}). Given the low frequency of facts in text (compared to stop words) and the low information density of probing facts observed in MSMarco and SQuAD, we question if the lower probing results for \mlmmarco{} and \mlmsquad{} are due to models replacing unused knowledge with other facts.
\subsection{Capacity}
\label{sec:sec:capacity}
To understand how capacity affects the models retention of facts, we deploy the probe tasks used throughout this paper. These are very useful as they contain both sentences expressing only the fact as well as the evidence sentences from which the facts where extracted from. In this experiment, we use the facts as training as well as test data. This allows understanding how much and which information is actually learned and what is forgotten. This time, we do not shuffle our training data but train \bert{} sequentially on the probe sets in order of \greprobe{}, \trexprobe{}, \concpetprobe{} and \squadprobe{}. We now train \bert{} for different numbers of epochs on the templates and evidences (Table~\ref{tab:facts_template_evidence}). The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:capacity}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lX}
\hline
\textbf{Modality} & \textbf{Representation} \\ \hline
Fact-triple & (\textit{Albert Einstein}, born-in, \textit{Ulm}) \\
Template & \textit{Albert Einstein} was born in \textit{Ulm}. \\
Evidence & \textit{Albert Einstein} was born in \textit{Ulm}, in the \textit{Kingdom of Württemberg} in the \textit{German Empire}, on \textit{14 March 1879} into a family of secular \textit{Ashkenazi Jews}. His parents were \textit{Hermann Einstein}, a salesman and engineer, and \textit{Pauline Koch}... \\ \hline
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Overview of different representations of a fact. Triples are derived from knowledge bases, templates are sentences expressing only the fact and evidences are sentences these facts were derived from.}
\label{tab:facts_template_evidence}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Google-RE}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{T-REx}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{ConceptNet}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{Squad}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textbf{MLM loss}} \\ \hline
BERT & 0.10 & 0.29 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 2.115 \\ \hline
Templates-object-1 & 0.11 & 0.44 & 0.36 & 0.36 & 2.878 (+36\%) \\
Templates-object-2 & 0.12 & 0.48 & 0.53 & 0.75 & 3.453 (+63\%) \\
Templates-object-10 & 0.96 & 0.87 & 0.88 & 0.99 & 5.419 (+156\%) \\ \hline
Evidences-object-1 & 0.10 & 0.34 & 0.39 & 0.43 & 3.156 (+49\%) \\
Evidences-object-2 & 0.10 & 0.30 & 0.54 & 0.86 & 4.18 (+98\%) \\
Evidences-object-10 & 0.17 & 0.36 & 0.86 & 0.99 & 6.041 (+184\%) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Capacity results for training 1,2,10 epochs on the probing data. The training dataset is not shuffled and is in the same order as the table: \greprobe{}, \trexprobe{}, \concpetprobe{}, \squadprobe{}. For masked language modeling, we either use the templates or the evidence sentences from the data source (see Table~\ref{tab:facts_template_evidence}) and mask the objects.}
\label{tab:capacity}
\end{table*}
When training for one epoch on the templates (Templates-object-1), we can see that more of the facts are remembered that were exposed last to the model. Actually, the amount of facts retained increases monotonically. This result suggests two things: Seeing facts once, does not result in facts being perfectly memorized. This is in line with \citet{kassner-etal-2020-symbolic-reasoners}, who found that \bert{} requires seeing facts 15 times to remember them perfectly. Furthermore, it also indicates that most recent knowledge is remembered the best, just as humans do. Yet, even one epoch on the probe sets results in a drop in general MLM performance (+36\% loss), signalling that MLM knowledge had to be dropped to make room for the factual knowledge.
For training 2 epochs, we observe the same trends. Nevertheless, when training 10 epochs on the probe sets, most of the facts are actually retained by \bert{} with a significant drop in MLM performance (+156\%).
Training \bert{} on the evidence sentences introduces more facts as distractors into the training process. Overall, this results in increased degradation of MLM performance (+30\% higher compared to when using templates). In contrast to training with template sentences, when training 10 epochs on the evidence sentences, we do not see all facts being remembered close to perfectly. This hints at capacity constraints limiting the amount of facts that can be remembered without dropping too much MLM knowledge. \todo{Note that masking objects is better at learning facts than masking random words? If yes, where? }
\subsection{The circle of learning and forgetting}
\label{sec:sec:learn-forget}
In this section we want to review what happens during fine-tuning on a fact-by-fact instead of a probing set level. A probing set based analysis only shows that most fine-tuned models perform worse than \bert{}. Yet, some questions remain: is knowledge only forgotten or is some knowledge dropped and new knowledge learned? How can we specify what forgotten and learned mean? This is what we intend to answer in this section.
To understand what is dropped and acquired by our models, we again consider the entirety of the models and not only the last layers. We define that a model learned something by fine-tuning if some factual probe can be answered by some layer of a fine-tuned model if no layer of \bert{} can answer the probe: that is, the knowledge has not been available anywhere in \bert{}. In that case, the knowledge is indeed newly acquired. Conversely, we define a fact to be forgotten, if a fine-tuned model is no longer able to answer a factual probe at any layer that \bert{} was able to answer correctly (at one of its layer). Visually, what is learned and forgotten can be interpreted as a Venn-diagram (Figure~\ref{fig:venn}), where we have some overlap in the knowledge of models and some knowledge that only one of the models have.
\begin{equation}
learned = (\textit{MLM-SQuAD} \cap \textit{Overlap}) / \bert{} = 51/454 \approx 11\%
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
forgotten = (\bert{} \cap \textit{Overlap}) / \bert{} = 99/454 \approx 22\%
\end{equation}
\todo{Only keep one of both? Venn or formula?}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{updated_plots/learned_forgotten.png}
\caption{Definition of learned and forgotten.}
\label{fig:venn}
\end{figure}
An overview of how much knowledge is actually learned and forgotten by the fine-tuned models can be found in Table~\ref{tab:learned_forgotten}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Models} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{\textbf{Probing set}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Google-RE} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{T-REx} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ConceptNet} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Squad} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Average} \\ \cline{2-11}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{+} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{+} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{+} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{+} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{-} & + \\ \cline{2-11}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{QA-SQuAD-1} & 68 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{28} & 63 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{11} & 40 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13} & 49 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{11} & 55 & 15.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{QA-SQuAD-2} & 70 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{31} & 56 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13} & 40 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13} & 47 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{18} & 53.25 & 18.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{MLM-SQuAD} & 45 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{27} & 21 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{19} & 15 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{16} & 14 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{25} & 23.75 & 21.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{MLM-MSMarco} & 72 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{28} & 43 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{29} & 26 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{31} & 28 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{37} & 42.25 & 31.25 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{RANK-MSMarco} & 58 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{14} & 33 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{14} & 23 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13} & 25 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{25} & 34.75 & 16.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Proportion of (the pre-trained) \bert{}'s knowledge that is forgotten (-) by fine-tuning and the amount that is newly acquired (+). If a model learned 10\% it means that during its training, it acquired 10\% additional knowledge that was not in \bert{} before fine-tuning.}
\label{tab:learned_forgotten}
\end{table}
First of all, we find all models to learn a significant amount of knowledge from fine-tuning (11-37\% compared to \bert{}). In accordance with our previous findings that the QA models performing sub-par, we observe \qasquad{} and \qasquadbig{} to forget the most facts. When the fine-tuning objective is MLM (\mlmsquad{}), we observe a slightly smaller amount of facts being forgotten and a higher amount of new facts being acquired (22\% on average). Yet, \qasquad{} and \qasquadbig{} also learn a decent amount of new facts (16\% and 19\% respectively). In comparing the QA models, we again see the model trained on the harder task outperforming \qasquad{}. Turning to the two MLM models \mlmmarco{} and \mlmsquad{}, the amount of facts being forgotten is consistently higher for \mlmmarco{}, which was trained on the vastly bigger dataset. This can be the result of limited knowledge capacity forcing \mlmmarco{} to drop facts for new facts being learned. Accordingly, \mlmmarco{} outperforms \mlmsquad{} when it comes to new knowledge being acquired (31\%). Lastly, \rankmarco{} shows less knowledge being forgotten but also less new facts being learned compared to \mlmmarco{}.
\section{Introduction}
Large pre-trained language models like \bert{}~\cite{devlin2018bert} have heralded an \textit{ImageNet} moment for NLP\footnote{https://thegradient.pub/nlp-imagenet/} with not only significant improvements made to traditional tasks such as question answering and machine translation but also in the new areas such as knowledge base completion.
The \bert{} family of language models essentially showcase the need for over-parameterization and modelling long-term interaction in textual input for improved language understanding.
However, improved performance for such models comes at the expense of reduced interpretability.
Language models have been shown to understand linguistic information like local syntax, long-range semantics or even compositional reasoning.
A recent approach called \emph{probing} is one approach to inspect the inner workings of \bert{} and other complex language models for better interpretability~\cite{dasgupta2018evaluating,ettinger-etal-2018-assessing, tenney2019you}.
In general, probing is a procedure that tests if a specific linguistic information can be decoded from a model's latent embeddings.
Corresponding to the desired linguistic information under examination, probing inputs are constructed to explicitly test the presence of linguistic patterns.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{updated_plots/money_figure.pdf}
\caption{Overview of \bert{} with our proposed layer-wise probing procedure. Given a masked word, the masked language modeling head (i.e., the decoder) will use the \bert{} embeddings to produce a probability distribution over the vocabulary. The figure shows the top 3 tokens for a selection of layers with the correct answer in boldface. We find not all knowledge to be accessible in the last layers -- a significant amount of facts as well as some relationships are better captured at intermediary layers.}
\label{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure}
\end{figure}
More interestingly, recent studies have confirmed that \bert{} also acquires factual and relational knowledge from their training process.
Seminal work by~\citet{petroni2019language} probed \bert{} and other language models for relational knowledge (e.g., \textit{Trump} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}) in order to determine the potential of using language models as automatic knowledge bases.
Their approach converted queries in the knowledge base (KB) completion task of predicting arguments or relations from a KB triple into a natural language cloze task, for example, \texttt{[MASK]} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}.
This is done to make the query compatible with the pre-training masked language modeling (MLM) objective.
By considering multiple probe sets (also called as the LAMA probes), they consequently showed that a reasonable amount of knowledge is captured in \bert{}.
As a consequence, factual knowledge stored in the parametric memory of \bert{} models can be used for knowledge-intensive tasks like question answering and fact checking without the need of additional context~\citep{roberts-etal-2020-much, Lewis2021PAQ6M}.
However, many questions about the information content in the parametric memory of \bert{} are unanswered.
Firstly, the existing probing methodology focuses on the final layer of \bert{} and could underestimate the knowledge contained in the lower layers. This prompts the question -- \textit{Is there more knowledge in \bert{} than what is reported? }
Secondly, the effect of fine-tuning on the relational knowledge is not clearly understood. In other words -- \emph{What happens to relational knowledge when \bert{} is fine-tuned for other tasks?}
Finally, we study the knowledge evolution through the layers of the parametric memory of \bert{}, that is, we attempt to understand \emph{how knowledge is gained and/or forgotten through the layers of \bert{}?}
To the best of our knowledge, the effect and efficiency of training tasks other than language modeling on factual knowledge is largely unexplored. This is the extended version of our initial work~\citep{singh-etal-2020-bertnesia} that appeared at the BlackboxNLP 2020 workshop\footnote{https://blackboxnlp.github.io/2020/}. Whereas the prior work was able to show \textit{how} knowledge evolves and is forgotten, this extended version aims to detail \textit{why} these effects occur.
\subsection{Our contribution}
To improve our understanding of the parametric memory, we extensively study the emergence of knowledge through the layers in \bert{} by devising a procedure to estimate knowledge contained in every layer and not just the last (as done by~\citet{petroni2019language}).
Our probing procedure is roughly sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure} that shows the use of a light-weight decoder for the representations at each \bert{} layer.
\mpara{Knowledge containment.} We show that existing studies that observing only the final layer underestimate the amount of factual knowledge in \bert{}'s parametric memory.
Specifically, we find that a substantial amount of knowledge ($\sim24\%$) is stored in the intermediate layers (Section~\ref{sec:intermediate}).
\mpara{Knowledge evolution.} Additionally, we also provide insights into how relational knowledge emerges through \bert{}'s layers.
We find that not all relational knowledge is captured gradually through the layers with 15\% of relationship types essentially doubling in the last layer and 7\% of relationship types being maximally captured in an intermediate layer (Section~\ref{sec:evolution}). This is further evidence that not all knowledge is accessible in the last layer.
\mpara{Fine-tuning and forgetting.} We find that fine-tuning always causes forgetting (Section~\ref{sec:finetuning}).
When the size of the dataset is fixed and training objective varies, the ranking model (\rankmarco{} in our experiments) forgets less than the QA model (35\% vs. 53\%).
When it comes to acquiring new knowledge from fine-tuning, we find MLM to be more effective than QA and ranking (26.5\% vs. 17.25\% and 16.5\%).
\mpara{Impact of Training data.} We find that the dataset size does not play a major role when the training objective is fixed as MLM. Fine-tuning on a larger dataset does not lead to less forgetting (Section~\ref{sec:data_size}).
As the capacity to store factual knowledge is limited, training on larger amounts of new data will result in more previous knowledge being forgotten. We also observe the density of factual information in the training data to be a factor when it comes to retaining knowledge.
\subsection{Insights and implications.}
We believe that understanding how and under what conditions knowledge is acquired, stored, and forgotten in the parametric memory of \bert{} would help develop better knowledge-intensive models.
On one hand, our findings can help infuse more factual knowledge into the parametric memory is by enriching the pre-training data with additional knowledge retrieved from a large textual corpus~\citep{Guu2020REALMRL}.
On the other hand, our findings can also help design novel retrieval strategies for extracting relevant factual knowledge from the \bert{}'s parametric memory.
\section{Introduction}
Large pre-trained language models like \bert{}~\cite{devlin2018bert} have heralded an \textit{ImageNet} moment for NLP\footnote{https://thegradient.pub/nlp-imagenet/} with not only significant improvements made to traditional tasks such as question answering and machine translation but also in the new areas such as knowledge base completion.
\bert{} has over 100 million parameters and essentially trades-off transparency and interpretability for performance.
\todo{Needs revision}
Probing is a commonly used technique to better understand the inner workings of \bert{} and other complex language models~\cite{dasgupta2018evaluating,ettinger-etal-2018-assessing, tenney2019you}. In general, probing is a procedure that tests if a specific pattern can be decoded from a model's latent embeddings. Therefore, inputs are constructed whose expected output would not be possible to predict without knowledge of that specific pattern.
While language models have been shown to encode a lot of linguistic information -- like local syntax, long-range semantics or even compositional reasoning -- they also acquired factual and relational knowledge from their training process.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{updated_plots/money_figure.png}
\caption{Overview of \bert{} with our proposed layer-wise probing procedure. Given a masked word, the masked language modeling head (i.e., the decoder) will use the \bert{} embeddings to produce a probability distribution over the vocabulary. The figure shows the top 3 tokens for a selection of layers with the correct answer in boldface. We find not all knowledge to be accessible in the last layers -- a significant amount of facts as well as some relationships are better captured at intermediary layers.}
\label{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure}
\end{figure}
Recently, \citet{petroni2019language} probed \bert{} and other language models for relational knowledge (e.g., \textit{Trump} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}) in order to determine the potential of using language models as automatic knowledge bases.
Their approach converted queries in the knowledge base (KB) completion task of predicting arguments or relations from a KB triple into a natural language cloze task, for example, \texttt{[MASK]} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}.
This is done to make the query compatible with the pre-training masked language modeling (MLM) objective. By considering multiple probe sets (the LAMA probes), they consequently showed that a reasonable amount of knowledge is captured in \bert{}.
Since language models store factual knowledge in their parametric memory, they can be used in question answering to directly retrieve answers without using additional context \citep{roberts-etal-2020-much, Lewis2021PAQ6M}. This setting is called closed-book question-answering (CBQA). To build more knowledgeable models, it is important to understand how language models acquire, store, and forget factual knowledge. One approach to infuse more factual knowledge into the parametric memory is by enriching the pre-training data with additional knowledge retrieved from a large textual corpus \citep{Guu2020REALMRL}.To the best of our knowledge, the effect and efficiency of training tasks other than language modeling on factual knowledge is largely unexplored.
Yet, language models are typically fine-tuned to a down-stream task.
Hence, there are some natural questions that arise from these promising investigations:
\textit{Is there more knowledge in \bert{} than what is reported? What happens to relational knowledge when \bert{} is fine-tuned for other tasks? Is knowledge gained and lost through the layers?\todo{last question does not come naturally}}
\subsection{Our Contribution.} To improve our understanding of the parametric memory, we study the emergence of knowledge through the layers in \bert{} by devising a procedure to estimate knowledge contained in every layer and not just the last (as done by~\citet{petroni2019language}).
While this type of layer-by-layer probing has been conducted for syntactic, grammatical, and semantic patterns; knowledge probing has only been conducted on final layer representations.
Observing only the final layer (as we will show in our experiments) (i) underestimates the amount of knowledge and (ii) does not reveal how knowledge emerges. Our probing procedure is detailed in Figure~\ref{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure}.
Furthermore, we explore how knowledge is impacted when fine-tuning on knowledge-intensive tasks such as question answering and ranking.
We list the key research questions we investigated and key findings corresponding to them:
\mpara{Research question I: Do intermediary layers capture knowledge not present in the last layer?} (Section~\ref{sec:intermediate})
\\ \\
We find that a substantial amount of knowledge is stored in the intermediate layers ($\sim$24\% on average). \\
\mpara{Research question II: Does all knowledge emerge at the same rate? Do certain types of relational knowledge emerge more rapidly?} (Section~\ref{sec:evolution})
\\ \\
We find that not all relational knowledge is captured gradually through the layers with 15\% of relationship types essentially doubling in the last layer and 7\% of relationship types being maximally captured in an intermediate layer. This is further evidence that now all knowledge is accessible in the last layer. \\
\mpara{Research question III: What is the impact of fine-tuning data on knowledge capture?} (Section~\ref{sec:data_size})
\\ \\
As the capacity to store factual knowledge is limited, training on larger amounts of new data will result in more previous knowledge being forgotten. We also observe the density of factual information in the training data to be a factor when it comes to retaining knowledge.
\mpara{Research question IV: What is the impact of the fine-tuning objective on knowledge capture ? } (Section~\ref{sec:finetuning})
\\ \\
Fine-tuning always causes forgetting. When the size of the dataset is fixed and training objective varies, the ranking model (\rankmarco{} in our experiments) forgets less than the QA model (35\% vs. 53\%). When it comes to acquiring new knowledge from fine-tuning, we find MLM to be more effective than QA and ranking (26.5\% vs. 17.25\% and 16.5\%). \\
\section{Introduction}
Large pre-trained language models like \bert{}~\cite{devlin2018bert} have heralded an \textit{ImageNet} moment for NLP\footnote{https://thegradient.pub/nlp-imagenet/} with not only significant improvements made to traditional tasks such as question answering and machine translation but also in the new areas such as knowledge base completion.
The \bert{} family of language models essentially showcase the need for over-parameterization and modelling long-term interaction in textual input for improved language understanding.
However, improved performance for such models comes at the expense of reduced interpretability.
Language models have been shown to understand linguistic information like local syntax, long-range semantics or even compositional reasoning.
A recent approach called \emph{probing} is one approach to inspect the inner workings of \bert{} and other complex language models for better interpretability~\cite{dasgupta2018evaluating,ettinger-etal-2018-assessing, tenney2019you}.
In general, probing is a procedure that tests if a specific linguistic information can be decoded from a model's latent embeddings.
Corresponding to the desired linguistic information under examination, probing inputs are constructed to explicitly test the presence of linguistic patterns.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{updated_plots/money_figure.pdf}
\caption{Overview of \bert{} with our proposed layer-wise probing procedure. Given a masked word, the masked language modeling head (i.e., the decoder) will use the \bert{} embeddings to produce a probability distribution over the vocabulary. The figure shows the top 3 tokens for a selection of layers with the correct answer in boldface. We find not all knowledge to be accessible in the last layers -- a significant amount of facts as well as some relationships are better captured at intermediary layers.}
\label{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure}
\end{figure}
More interestingly, recent studies have confirmed that \bert{} also acquires factual and relational knowledge from their training process.
Seminal work by~\citet{petroni2019language} probed \bert{} and other language models for relational knowledge (e.g., \textit{Trump} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}) in order to determine the potential of using language models as automatic knowledge bases.
Their approach converted queries in the knowledge base (KB) completion task of predicting arguments or relations from a KB triple into a natural language cloze task, for example, \texttt{[MASK]} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}.
This is done to make the query compatible with the pre-training masked language modeling (MLM) objective.
By considering multiple probe sets (also called as the LAMA probes), they consequently showed that a reasonable amount of knowledge is captured in \bert{}.
As a consequence, factual knowledge stored in the parametric memory of \bert{} models can be used for knowledge-intensive tasks like question answering and fact checking without the need of additional context~\citep{roberts-etal-2020-much, Lewis2021PAQ6M}.
However, many questions about the information content in the parametric memory of \bert{} are unanswered.
Firstly, the existing probing methodology focuses on the final layer of \bert{} and could underestimate the knowledge contained in the lower layers. This prompts the question -- \textit{Is there more knowledge in \bert{} than what is reported? }
Secondly, the effect of fine-tuning on the relational knowledge is not clearly understood. In other words -- \emph{What happens to relational knowledge when \bert{} is fine-tuned for other tasks?}
Finally, we study the knowledge evolution through the layers of the parametric memory of \bert{}, that is, we attempt to understand \emph{how knowledge is gained and/or forgotten through the layers of \bert{}?}
To the best of our knowledge, the effect and efficiency of training tasks other than language modeling on factual knowledge is largely unexplored.
\subsection{Our contribution}
To improve our understanding of the parametric memory, we extensively study the emergence of knowledge through the layers in \bert{} by devising a procedure to estimate knowledge contained in every layer and not just the last (as done by~\citet{petroni2019language}).
Our probing procedure is roughly sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:money_fig_probing_procedure} that shows the use of a light-weight decoder for the representations at each \bert{} layer.
\mpara{Knowledge containment.} We show that existing studies that observing only the final layer underestimate the amount of factual knowledge in \bert{}'s parametric memory.
Specifically, we find that a substantial amount of knowledge ($\sim24\%$) is stored in the intermediate layers (Section~\ref{sec:intermediate}).
\mpara{Knowledge evolution.} Additionally, we also provide insights into how relational knowledge emerges through \bert{}'s layers.
We find that not all relational knowledge is captured gradually through the layers with 15\% of relationship types essentially doubling in the last layer and 7\% of relationship types being maximally captured in an intermediate layer (Section~\ref{sec:evolution}). This is further evidence that not all knowledge is accessible in the last layer.
\mpara{Fine-tuning and forgetting.} We find that fine-tuning always causes forgetting (Section~\ref{sec:finetuning}).
When the size of the dataset is fixed and training objective varies, the ranking model (\rankmarco{} in our experiments) forgets less than the QA model (35\% vs. 53\%).
When it comes to acquiring new knowledge from fine-tuning, we find MLM to be more effective than QA and ranking (26.5\% vs. 17.25\% and 16.5\%).
\mpara{Impact of Training data.} We find that the dataset size does not play a major role when the training objective is fixed as MLM. Fine-tuning on a larger dataset does not lead to less forgetting (Section~\ref{sec:data_size}).
As the capacity to store factual knowledge is limited, training on larger amounts of new data will result in more previous knowledge being forgotten. We also observe the density of factual information in the training data to be a factor when it comes to retaining knowledge.
\subsection{Insights and implications.}
We believe that understanding how and under what conditions knowledge is acquired, stored, and forgotten in the parametric memory of \bert{} would help develop better knowledge-intensive models.
On one hand, our findings can help infuse more factual knowledge into the parametric memory is by enriching the pre-training data with additional knowledge retrieved from a large textual corpus~\citep{Guu2020REALMRL}.
On the other hand, our findings can also help design novel retrieval strategies for extracting relevant factual knowledge from the \bert{}'s parametric memory.
\section{Introduction}
Large pre-trained language models like \bert{}~\cite{devlin2018bert} have heralded an \textit{Imagenet} moment for NLP\footnote{https://thegradient.pub/nlp-imagenet/} with not only significant improvements made to traditional tasks such as question answering and machine translation but also in the new areas such as knowledge base completion.
\bert{} has over 100 million parameters and essentially trades off transparency and interpretability for performance. Loosely speaking, probing is a commonly used technique to better understand the inner workings of \bert{} and other complex language models~\cite{dasgupta2018evaluating,ettinger-etal-2018-assessing}.
Probing, in general, is a procedure by which one tests for a specific pattern -- like local syntax, long-range semantics or even compositional reasoning -- by constructing inputs whose expected output would not be possible to predict without the ability to detect that pattern.
While a large body of work exists on probing \bert{} for linguistic patterns and semantics, there is limited work on probing these models for the factual and relational knowledge they store.
Recently, \citet{petroni2019language} probed \bert{} and other language models for relational knowledge (e.g., \textit{Trump} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}) in order to determine the potential of using language models as automatic knowledge bases.
Their approach converted queries in the knowledge base (KB) completion task of predicting arguments or relations from a KB triple into a natural language cloze task, e.g., \texttt{[MASK]} \textsf{is the president of} the \textit{USA}.
This is done to make the query compatible with the pre-training masked language modeling (MLM) objective. They consequently showed that a reasonable amount of knowledge is captured in \bert{} by considering multiple relation probes.
However, there are some natural questions that arise from these promising investigations:
\textit{Is there more knowledge in \bert{} than what is reported? What happens to relational knowledge when \bert{} is fine-tuned for other tasks? Is knowledge gained and lost through the layers?}
\subsection{Our Contribution.} In this paper, we study the emergence of knowledge through the layers in \bert{} by devising a procedure to estimate knowledge contained in every layer and not just the last (as done by~\citet{petroni2019language}).
While this type of layer-by-layer probing has been conducted for syntactic, grammatical, and semantic patterns; knowledge probing has only been conducted on final layer representations.
Observing only the final layer (as we will show in our experiments) (i) underestimates the amount of knowledge and (ii) does not reveal how knowledge emerges.
Furthermore, we explore how knowledge is impacted when fine-tuning on knowledge-intensive tasks such as question answering and ranking.
We list the key research questions we investigated and key findings corresponding to them:
\subsubsection{Research question I: Do intermediary layers capture knowledge not present in the last layer?} (Section~\ref{sec:intermediate})
\\ \\
We find that a substantial amount of knowledge is stored in the intermediate layers ($\approx24\%$ on average). \\
\subsubsection{Research question II: Does all knowledge emerge at the same rate? Do certain types of relational knowledge emerge more rapidly?} (Section~\ref{sec:evolution})
\\ \\
We find that not all relational knowledge is captured gradually through the layers with 15\% of relationship types essentially doubling in the last layer and 7\% of relationship types being maximally captured in an intermediate layer. \\
\subsubsection{Research question III: What is the impact of fine-tuning data on knowledge capture?} (Section~\ref{sec:data_size})
\\ \\
We find that the dataset size does not play a major role when the training objective is fixed as MLM. Fine-tuning on a larger dataset does not lead to less forgetting.\\
\subsubsection{Research question IV: What is the impact of the fine-tuning objective on knowledge capture ? } (Section~\ref{sec:finetuning})
\\ \\
Fine tuning always causes forgetting. When the size of the dataset is fixed and training objective varies, the ranking model (\rankmarco{} in our experiments) forgets less than the QA model (35\% vs. 53\%). When it comes to acquiring new knowledge from fine-tuning, we find MLM to be more effective than QA and ranking (26.5\% vs. 16.5\% and 17.25\%). \\
\section{Appendices}
\end{document}
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we survey previous work on probing language models (LMs) as well as acquiring and forgetting (factual) knowledge. For the related work on probing, we particularly focus on contextual embeddings learned by \bert{}. Probes have been designed for both static and contextualized word representations. Static embeddings refer to non-contextual embeddings such as GloVe~\cite{pennington2014glove}.
For the static case, the reader can refer to this survey by ~\citet{Belinkov_2019}.
In the following, we detail probing tasks for contextualized embeddings from language models.
\subsection{Probing for syntax, semantics, and grammar}
Initial work on probing dealt with linguistic pattern detection.
\citet{Peters2018DissectingCW} investigated the ability of various neural network architectures that learn contextualized word representations to capture local syntax and long-range semantics like co-reference resolution while
\citet{dasgupta2018evaluating,ettinger-etal-2018-assessing} probed language models for compositional reasoning.
\citet{McCoy_2019, goldberg2019assessing} found that \bert{} is able to effectively learn syntactic heuristics with natural language inference specific probes. \citet{tenney2019bert, liu2019linguistic, jawahar-etal-2019-bert} investigated \bert{} layer-by-layer for various syntactic and semantic patterns like part-of-speech, named entity recognition, co-reference resolution, entity type prediction, semantic role labeling, etc.
They all found that basic linguistic patterns like part of speech emerge at the lower layers.
However, there is no consensus with regards to semantics with somewhat conflicting findings (equally spread vs. final layer~\cite{jawahar-etal-2019-bert}).
~\citet{kovaleva-etal-2019-revealing} found that the last layers of fine-tuned \bert{} contain the most amount of task-specific knowledge. \citet{vanaken_2019} showed the same result for fined-tuned QA \bert{} with specially designed probes. They found that the lower and intermediary layers of the QA model were better suited to linguistic subtasks associated with QA.
For a more comprehensive survey on probing for linguistic information we point the reader to~\cite{rogers2020primer}.
Our work is similar to these studies in terms of setup.
In particular, our probes function on the sentence level and are applied to each layer of a pre-trained \bert{} model as well as \bert{} fine-tuned on several tasks.
However, we do not focus on detecting linguistic patterns and focus on relational and factual knowledge - how knowledge is acquired, forgotten and the effects of training tasks.
\subsection{Probing for knowledge}
\label{sec:know_probe}
In parallel, there have been investigations into probing for factual and world knowledge.
Initially, \citet{petroni2019language} found that LMs like \bert{} can be directly used for the task of knowledge base completion since they are able to memorize more facts than some automatic knowledge bases.
They created cloze statement tasks for factual and commonsense knowledge (LAMA) and measured cloze-task performance as a proxy for the knowledge contained.
However, using the same probing framework, \citet{poerner-etal-2020-e} showed that this factoid knowledge is influenced by surface-level stereotypes of words. For example, \bert{} tends to predict a typically French sounding name to be a French citizen. Originally, \citet{petroni2019language} manually formulated cloze statements and quite a few recent works have been on designing templates (or prompts) that are more effective at eliciting knowledge from \bert{}. In that line of work, \citet{bouraoui2019inducing} mined Wikipedia for sentences mentioning a fact and evaluated them by using \bert{} to predict the masked object. With LPAQA, \citet{Jiang2019HowCW} propose a different set of templates, that improved \bert{}'s performance on the LAMA data. Besides mining based approaches, \citet{Jiang2019HowCW} also used paraphrasing methods to introduce more diversity and constructed the final set of templates by ensembling. Another recent method is AutoPrompt by \citet{shin-etal-2020-autoprompt}, who devised a gradient-based search strategy for fixed-size templates. The templates generated with AutoPrompt are often not human understandable (Original: The native language of Bjork is [MASK] -> Bjorkneau optionally fluent!? traditional [MASK].), however allow for eliciting even more knowledge from \bert{}. Most recently, \citet{Zhong2021FactualPI} proposed OptiPrompt, which further improved performance on the LAMA data. While other approaches optimized the discrete input templates (i.e., words), OptiPrompt optimized the continuous embedding space. \citet{Zhong2021FactualPI} found this to be highly effective, yet even less interpretable to humans. Related to the works on designing better templates, \citet{Elazar2021MeasuringAI} study how much \bert{}'s predictions change given different paraphrases of the same fact (PARAREL), finding the outputs to lack consistency. Similarly, to overcome inconsistencies, \citet{Kassner2021EnrichingAM} proposed adding both a persistent memory component, keeping track of their model's beliefs and a SAT solver, that checks for clashing believes. Extending QA model with these components resulted in improved accuracy and consistency.
The majority of the previous research on factual knowledge in language models was limited to the English language. \citet{kassner-etal-2021-multilingual} probed the multilingual \bert{} (m\bert{}) for its factual knowledge. While m\bert{} performed close to the monolingual (English) \bert{} on languages as English, Spanish and French, it performed significantly worse on others such as Japanese or Thai. This discrepancy between individual languages suggests that facts and entity knowledge is not stored independent from the languages.
Tangentially to the work on the LAMA data, \citet{forbes2019neural} investigated \bert{}'s awareness of the world. They devised object property and action probes to estimate \bert{}'s ability to reason about the physical world. They found that \bert{} is relatively incapable of such reasoning but is able to memorize some properties of real-world objects. This investigation tested commonsense spatial reasoning rather than pure factoid knowledge.
Following the finding of \citet{Geva2020TransformerFL}, that feed forward layers are key-value memories, \citet{Dai2021KnowledgeNI} investigated where factual knowledge is located in transformer blocks. Using integrated gradients \citep{Sundararajan2017AxiomaticAF}, they proposed a knowledge attribution method that selects a small number of neurons ($\sim$6 on average) that significantly hurt the fact performance when activations are suppressed.
In this work, we utilize the LAMA probing data, but rather than proposing new templates, we aim to develop a better understanding of how the knowledge is stored and evolves in \bert{} and its fine-tuned variants. Here, we are more interested in relative differences, in which layers resides the most amount of knowledge and how fine-tuning effects factual knowledge in language models. To this end, we adapt the layer-wise probing methodology often employed for linguistic pattern detection by ~\citet{vanaken_2019,tenney2019bert,liu2019linguistic} for the probe tasks suggested in~\citet{petroni2019language}.
\subsection{Learning and forgetting}
The question of how we can inject more knowledge into the parametric memory of language models has been studied in many works. One prominent way of learning more factual knowledge is masking entities instead of random words in pre-training. This was done by \citet{sun2019ERNIEER} for their \textsc{ERNIE}-model, which improved for example named entity recognition and knowledge inference. \citet{Guu2020REALMRL} proposed adding a latent knowledge retriever to the pre-training process, which will extend the context with additional knowledge derived from a textual corpus. The latter pre-training procedure is also commonly used to improve the performance of closed-book question-answering (CBQA) models \citep{roberts-etal-2020-much, Lewis2021PAQ6M}. CBQA is highly related to the probing considered in this article: both settings require the model to produce the correct answer directly from their parametric memory, without access to outside sources. More generally, \citet{kassner-etal-2020-symbolic-reasoners} used a synthetic dataset to investigate what effects make \bert{} remember facts, finding that schema conformity and frequency are important factors.
Besides learning facts from training, such knowledge can also be directly infused into the embeddings. \citet{poerner-etal-2020-e} align Wikipedia2Vec entity vectors \citep{yamada-etal-2016-joint} with \bert{} and call their new model entity-enhanced \bert{} (\textsc{E-BERT}). This entity-enhanced version outperforms the regular \bert{} on cloze-style question answering, relation classification and entity linking. Besides word vectors, also knowledge graphs have been used to inject knowledge into language models with a variety of techniques \citep{Liu2020KBERTEL, Wang2020KAdapterIK, Peters2019KnowledgeEC, he-etal-2020-bert}.
While learning and infusing knowledge is well studied for the task of language modeling, it is largely unexplored for other down-stream tasks (e.g., question-answering, ranking). However, one thing that has been studied is the effect that models lose the ability to do their pre-training task when being fine-tuned. This sequential learning problem has also been referred to as catastrophic inference \citep{mccloskey1989catastrophic} or catastrophic forgetting \citep{kirkpatrick2017overcoming, mosbach2020stability}. This is an ongoing problem as general AI models will need to be able to learn and perform multiple tasks without forgetting how to perform the former. \citet{kirkpatrick2017overcoming} suggest slowing down learning of important weights for the initial task, whereas \citet{mosbach2020stability} investigated the role of catastrophic forgetting on fine-tuning stability, finding that the last few layers are usually replaced with task-specific knowledge. If and how factual knowledge is affected by catastrophic forgetting is largely unexplored.
In this work, we will take a first step into understanding how fine-tuning tasks and data effect both the learning and forgetting of factual knowledge.
There has been recent work on forgetting in attention modules when dealing with long contexts \citep{Child2019GeneratingLS, Schlag2021LinearTA}. When the capacity is exhausted, previous information is dropped in favor of the more recent context. By learning which parts of the context are important and systematically expiring ones faster that are not, \citet{Sukhbaatar2021NotAM} reduced the necessary capacity to attend to extremely long sequences. The work in this article is different in that we use probes without contexts as we want to retrieve knowledge from the model's parametric memory. Therefore, we do not investigate the attention modules but the learned embeddings.
\section{Experimental Setup}
\label{sec:setup}
\subsection{Models}
\label{sec:models}
\bert{} is a bidirectional text encoder built by stacking several transformer layers.
\bert{} is often pre-trained with two tasks: next sentence classification and masked language modeling (MLM).
MLM is cast as a classification task over all tokens in the vocabulary.
It is realized by training a decoder that takes as input the mask token embedding and outputs a probability distribution over vocabulary tokens. In our experiments we used \bert{} base (12 layers) pre-trained on the BooksCorpus ~\cite{zhu2015bookCorpus} and English Wikipedia.
We use this model for fine-tuning to keep comparisons consistent.
Henceforth, we refer to pre-trained \bert{} as just \bert{}. Table~\ref{tab:model_selection} details all models used in our experiments.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
\textbf{Name} & \textbf{Task} & \textbf{Dataset} \\ \hline
BERT & MLM + NSP & BooksCorpus, Wikipedia \\
NER-CoNLL & named entity recognition & CoNLL-2003 \\
QA-SQuAD-1 & QA (span prediction) & SQuAD 1.1 \\
QA-SQuAD-2 & QA (span prediction + unanswerable) & SQuAD 2 \\
RANK-MSMarco & passage re-ranking & MSMarco \\
MLM-MSMarco & masked language modeling & MSMarco \\
MLM-SQuAD & masked language modeling & SQuAD 1.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of the models used in our experiments. Additional information on training parameters and the datasets can be found in the Appendix.}
\label{tab:model_selection}
\end{table}
When fine-tuning, our goal was to not only achieve good performance but also to minimize the number of extra parameters added. More parameters outside \bert{} may increase the chance of knowledge being stored elsewhere leading to unreliable measurement. We used the Huggingface transformers library \cite{Wolf2019HuggingFacesTS} for implementing all models in our experiments. More details on hyperparameters and training can be found in the Appendix.
\subsection{Knowledge probes}
\label{sec:probes}
We utilized the existing suite of LAMA knowledge probes suggested in~\cite{petroni2019language}\footnote{ https://github.com/facebookresearch/LAMA} for our experiments. Table~\ref{tab:kp_details} briefly summarizes the key details. The probes are designed as cloze statements and limited to single token factual knowledge. Multi-word entities and relations are not included.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{lccll}
\hline
\textbf{Probe set} & \textbf{\#Rels} & \textbf{\#Instances} & \textbf{Example} & \textbf{Answer} \\
\hline
\concpetprobe{} & - & 12514 & Rocks are [MASK]. & {solid} \\
\trexprobe{} & 41 & \ 34017 & The capital of Germany is [MASK]. & {Berlin} \\
\greprobe{} & 3 & 5528 & Eyolf Kleven was born in [MASK]. & {Copenhagen} \\
\squadprobe{} & - & 305 & Nathan Alterman was a [MASK]. & {Poet} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Knowledge probes used in the experiments. \citet{petroni2019language} subsampled \concpetprobe{} \cite{speer2012representing}, \trexprobe{} \cite{elsahar2019t}, \greprobe{} \cite{orr201350} and \squadprobe{} \cite{rajpurkar2016squad}.}
\label{tab:kp_details}
\end{table*}
Each probe in LAMA is constructed to test a specific relation or type of relational knowledge. \concpetprobe{} is designed to test for general conceptual knowledge since it masks single token objects from randomly sampled sentences whereas \trexprobe{} consists of hundreds of sentences for 41 specific relationship types like \textit{member of} and \textit{language spoken}.
\greprobe{} tests for 3 specific types of factual knowledge related to people: place-of-birth (2937), date-of-birth (1825), and place-of-death (766 instances). The date-of-birth is a strict numeric prediction that is not covered by \trexprobe{}.
Finally, \squadprobe{} uses context insensitive questions from SQuAD that have been manually rewritten to cloze-style statements.
Note that this is the same dataset used to train \qasquad{} and \qasquadbig{}.
\subsection{Probing procedure}
\label{sec:procedure}
Our goal is to measure the knowledge stored in \bert{}'s parametric memory via knowledge probes.
LAMA probes rely on the MLM decoding head to complete cloze statement tasks. Note that this decoder is only trained for the mask token embedding of the final layer and is unsuitable if we want to probe all layers of \bert{}.
To overcome this, we train an individual decoding head for each layer of a \bert{} model under investigation.
\mpara{Training}: The new decoding head for each layer are trained the same way as in \bert{}'s standard pre-training, by using MLM.
We also used Wikipedia (WikiText-2 data) -- sampling passages at random and then randomly masking 15\% of the tokens in each.
Our decoding head uses the same architecture as proposed by~\citet{devlin2018bert} -- a fully connected layer with GELU activation and layer norm (epsilon of 1e-12) resulting in a new 768 dimensional embedding. This embedding is then fed to a linear layer with softmax activation to output a probability distribution over the 30K vocabulary terms. In total, the decoding head possesses $\sim$24M parameters. We froze \bert{}'s parameters and trained only the decoding head for every layer using the same training data. We initialized the new decoding heads with the parameters of the pre-trained decoding head and then fine-tuned it. Our experiments with random initialization yielded no significant difference in performance for the lower and middle and worse performance on the last few layers, but resulted in longer training time. We used a batch size of 8 and trained until validation loss was minimized using the AdamW optimizer~\cite{Loshchilov2019DecoupledWD}. With the new decoding heads, the LAMA probes can be applied to every layer.
\mpara{Measuring knowledge}: We convert the probability distribution output of the decoding head to a ranking with the most probable token at rank 1. The amount of knowledge stored at each layer is measured by precision at rank 1 (P@1 for short). We use P@1 as the main metric in all our experiments. Since rank depth of 1 is a strict metric, we also measured P@10 and P@100. We found the trends to be similar across varying rank depths. For completeness, results for P@10 and P@100 can be found in the Appendix. Additionally, we measure the total amount of knowledge contained in \bert{} by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}@1 = max( \{ P^{l}@1 | \,\, \forall l \in L \} )
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the set of all layers and $P^{l}@1$ is the P@1 for a given layer $l$. In our experiments $|L|=12$. This metric allows us to consider knowledge captured at all layers of \bert{}, not just a specific layer. If knowledge is always best captured at one specific layer $l$ then $\mathcal{P}$@1 = $P^{l}@1$. If the last layer always contains the most information then total knowledge is equal to the knowledge stored in the last layer.
\mpara{Caveats of probing with cloze statements}: Note that \bert{}, \mlmmarco{}, and \mlmsquad{} are trained for the task of masked word prediction which is exactly the same task as our probes. The last layers of \bert{} have shown to contain mostly task-specific knowledge -- how to predict the masked word in this case~\cite{kovaleva-etal-2019-revealing}. Hence, good performance in our probes at the last layers for MLM models can be partially attributed to task-based knowledge.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph of order $n+1$ and size $m \geq n$. Consider an injective labeling $\gamma:V\to\{0,\dots,m\}$ of its vertices and assign to each edge $e=uv$ the number $\gamma'(e)=|\gamma(u)-\gamma(v)|$. If every edge is assigned to a different number, we say that $\gamma$ is a {\it graceful labeling\/}, and if such a labeling exists we call $G$ a {\it graceful graph\/}. The long-standing Graceful Tree Conjecture ---also known as Ringel-Kotzig-Rosa conjecture \cite{Rin63, K73, Ro67}, or RKR-conjecture for short--- says that all trees are graceful graphs.
An $m$-edge-colouring of a graph $G$ is an assigment of colours to the edges of $G$ that uses $m$ colours. Equivalently, an $m$-edge-colouring of a graph $G$ is a partition $E=C_1\sqcup C_2\sqcup \ldots\sqcup C_m$ of the edge set of $G$; the sets $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_m$ are called the {\it colour classes}. A subgraph $H$ of an edge-coloured graph $G$ is {\it heterochromatic} if all edges in $H$ have different colours.
If we label the vertices of the complete graph $K_{n+1}$ with the numbers $\{0,1,\dots,n\}$ and assign to each edge the absolute value of the difference between the labels of its vertices, we get a colouring of the edges with $n$ colours which we call {\it the graceful colouring\/} of the complete graph ---we refer to the numbers in $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ as colours when assigned to the edges of the complete graph. In terms of this colouring, the RKR-conjecture says that there is an {\it heterochromatic\/} copy of each tree in the graceful colouring of the complete graph; that is, for each tree of order $n+1$, there is an isomorphic copy of it, inside the gracefully coloured $K_{n+1}$, which uses $n$ different colours in its edges. This ``beautiful'' colouring has several properties which we use along the paper to prove the existence of ``many'' heterochromatic trees.
To begin with, observe that in the graceful colouring the colour $c\in[n]$ is used exactly $n-c+1$ times;
so the $n$ colour classes have sizes $n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$, respectively. An $n$-colouring of the edges of the complete graph $K_{n+1}$ with such a property is called a {\it nice\/} colouring. For example, consider the following recursive ``Stellar'' colouring of a complete graph: start with a vertex; then, at each step, add a new vertex and colour all edges joining it to the previously added vertices with the same and new colour --- that is, at each step, add a monochromatic star, see Fig. \ref{stellar}. Clearly this is a nice colouring; furthermore, it is easy to see that this nice colouring has a heterochromatic copy of each tree of size $n$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 2in]{Stellar}
\caption{Stellar colouring of $K_6$.}
\label{stellar}
\end{figure}
The graceful and stellar colourings of the complete graph $K_{n+1}$ share many common properties: in both cases all monochromatic subgraphs are acyclic and $K_{n+1}$ can be decomposed into heterochromatic stars to mention just a couple. In Section 3 we show for every nice edge colouring of the complete graph $K_{n+1}$, there are $\Omega(n^2)$ different heterochromatic spanning trees.
Later, in Section \ref{sectionbeautiful} we define the class of {\it beautiful\/} edge-colourings of $K_{n+1}$, which includes the class of nice colourings, and prove that for any such a colouring, the graph $K_{n+1}$ has $\Omega(2^n)$ different heterochromatic spanning trees.
The existence of heterochromatic trees in edge colourings has been studied by various authors. {In particular K. Suzuki \cite{Su06} and S. Akbari and A. Alipour \cite{AkAl06} characterise independently those edge colourings that contain heterochromatic trees; viz.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Theorem A (K. Suzuki). } {\it Let $C$ be an edge colouring of a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices. There is a heterochromatic spanning tree of $G$ if and only if for any set of $r$ colours of $C$ with $1\leq r \leq n-2$, the graph obtained from $G$ by removing all edges of $G$ coloured with any of these $r$ colours has at most $r+1$ connected components.
}\medskip
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Theorem B (S. Akbari, A. Alipour). } {\it Let $G$ be an edge-coloured graph. Then $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree if and only if for every partition of $V(G)$ into $t$ parts, with $1 \leq t \leq \vert V(G) \vert$, there are at least $t-1$ edges with distinct colours whose ends lie in different parts.
}\medskip
Other results concerning the complete graph have been given too. For example, colourings given by perfect matchings of the complete graph $K_{2n}$ were studied by R. A. Brualdi and S. Hollingsworth \cite{BH96}.
$\bullet\quad$ {\it If $C$ is an edge colouring of the complete graph $K_{2n}$ given by $2(n-1)$ disjoint perfect matchings, then $K_{2n}$ contains two edge-disjoint heterochromatic trees.}
An upper bound for the minimum integer $k$ such that for every edge $k$-colouring of the complete graph $K_n$ there exists a heterochromatic spanning tree, was found by A. Bialostocki and W. Voxman \cite{BV01}.
$\bullet\quad$ {\it If $C$ is an edge colouring of the complete graph $K_n$ with at least $\binom{n-2}{2} +2$ colours, then $K_n$ has a heterochromatic} spanning tree.
This last proposition can be generalised in various directions. For examples, J. Arocha and V. Neumann \cite{AN} generalised Bialostocki's result for arbitrary graphs and J. J. Montellano-Ballesteros and E. Rivera-Campo \cite{MR13} gave the corresponding result for matroids.
$\bullet\quad$ {\it Let $G$ be a simple connected graph with with $m \geq 2$ edges. If $C$ is an edge colouring of $G$ with exactly $m - \tau (G) + 2$ colours, then $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree.}
$\bullet\quad$ {\it Let $M$ be a matroid with $m$ elements and rank at least 2. If $C$ is a colouring of the elements of $M$ with at least $m - \tau (M) + 2$ colours, then $G$ has a heterochromatic basis.}
Were, $\tau (G)$ (respectively $\tau (M)$) denote the size of the smallest set of edges of $G$ (elements of $M$) which contains at least two edges (elements) of each spanning tree of $G$ (each basis of $M$).
\section{Preliminary results}
Let $n \geq 0$ be an integer and $G$ be a graph with $n+1$ vertices. For an $n$-edge-colouring of $G$ let $M_1 = (E(G), \mathcal{I}_1)$ and $M_2 = (E(G), \mathcal{I}_2)$ be matroids with ground set $E(G)$ and independence sets $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$, respectively, where $X\in \mathcal{I}_1$ if the subgraph $G[X]$ of $G$ induced by $X$ is acyclic and $X\in \mathcal{I}_2$ if $G[X]$ is heterochromatic. A common independent set in $M_1$ and $M_2$ is the edge set of a heterochromatic forest of $G$.
For $X\subset E(G)$ we denote by $w(X)$ and $c(X)$, respectively, the number of connected components of the spanning subgraph of $G$ with edge set $X$ and the number of colour classes contained in $X$.
The following lemma will be used in the proofs of our main results. A proof of the lemma can be obtained using Suzuki's Theorem but, for the sake of completeness, we present an alternative proof that uses Edmond's Matroid Intersection Theorem \cite{Ed70}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemabasico}
Let $C$ be an $n$-edge-colouring of a graph $G$ with $n+1$ vertices. If $w(X) + c(X) \leq n+1$ for all $X \subset E(G)$, then $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $X \subset E(G)$. Then $r_{M_1}(X) = n +1 - w(X)$ and $r_{M_2}(E(G) \setminus X) = n - c(X)$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
r_{M_1}(X) + r_{M_2}(E(G) \setminus X) &= (n+1-w(X)) + (n - c(X))\\
&=(2n+1) - (w(X) + c(X)) \\
&\geq (2n+1) - (n+1)\\
&= n.
\end{align*}
By Edmonds' Matroid Intersection Theorem , $E(G)$ contains a set $X^*$ with size $n$ which is independent in both matroids $M_1$ and $M_2$. This implies that the subgraph of $G$ induced by $X^*$ is a heterochromatic spanning tree of $G$.
\end{proof}
\section{Heterochromatic spanning trees in cute and nice colourings of graphs}
\label{sectionniceandcute}
An $n$-edge-colouring of the complete graph $K_{n+1}$ is a \emph{nice colouring} if the $n$ colour classes have sizes $1, 2, \ldots, n$. Let $G$ be a graph with $n+1$ vertices and $1 + {n \choose 2}$ edges. An $n$-edge-colouring of $G$ is a \emph{cute} edge-colouring of $G$ if the sizes of the $n$ colour classes are $1, 1, 2, \ldots, n-1$.
With Lemma \ref{lemabasico} in hand, we prove the following theorems concerning cute and nice colourings.
\begin{theorem}
\label{cute}
Let $G$ be a graph with $n+1$ vertices and $1 + {n \choose 2}$ edges.
If $C$ is a cute $n$-edge-colouring of $G$, then $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_{n}$ be the colour classes of $C$. Without loss of generality we assume $\vert C_1 \vert = 1$ and $\vert C_i \vert = i-1$ for $i=2, 3, \ldots n$.
Let $X \subset E(G)$ and denote by $E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_{w(X)}$ the sets of edges of the connected components of the spanning subgraph of $G$ with edge set $X$. Then $$\vert X \vert = \sum_{i=1}^{w(X)} \vert E_i \vert \leq {n+2 -w(X) \choose 2}$$ since the number of edges of a graph is maximum when all edges lie in one connected component.
On the other hand if $C_{i_1}, C_{i_2}, \ldots, C_{i_{c(X)}}$ are the colour classes contained in $X$, then
\begin{align*}
\vert X \vert &= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \vert X \cap C_{i} \vert\\
&\geq \sum_{j=1}^{c(X)} \vert C_{i_j} \vert\\
&\geq 1 + 1+ 2+ \ldots + (c(X) - 1)\\
&= 1 + {c(X) \choose 2}.
\end{align*}
Therefore
$${n+2-w(X) \choose 2} \geq 1 + {c(X) \choose 2}$$
This implies $${n+2-w(X) \choose 2} > { c(X) \choose 2}$$ which in turn gives $n+2-w(X) > c(X)$ and therefore $w(X) + c(X) \leq n+1$. By Lemma \ref{lemabasico}, $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{proof}
The following remark shows that the condition in Theorem \ref{cute} can only guarantee the existence of one heterochromatic spanning tree, see Fig. \ref{uniquetree}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 4in]{Cute}
\caption{Cute colouring of a graph $G$ with exactly one heterochromatic spanning tree $T$.}
\label{uniquetree}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
\label{remarkunique}
For each tree $T$ with $n+1$ vertices, there is a spanning supergraph $G(T)$ of $T$ with $1 + \binom{n}{2}$ edges and a cute edge-coloring of $G(T)$ for which $T$ is the unique heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Let $T$ be a tree with vertices $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_{n+1}$. Without loss of generality assume that for $i=1, 2, \ldots, n+1$, the subgraph $T_i$ of $T$ induced by $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_i$ is a tree. For $i=2, 3, \ldots, n+1$ let $v_i^-$ be the unique vertex of $T_{i-1}$ adjacent to $v_i$ in $T_i$. Then $E(T) = \{v_i^-v_i : i = 2, 3, \ldots, n+1\}$.
Let $G(T)$ be the supergraph of $T$ with edge set
$$E(G(T)) = \{v_iv_j: 1\leq i \leq j \leq n\} \cup \{v_{n+1}^-v_{n+1}\};$$
clearly $G(T)$ is a spanning supergraph of $T$ with $1 + \binom{n}{2}$ edges.
Let $C$ be the edge-colouring of $G(T)$ with colour classes $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_{n}$ given by: $C_1 = \{v_1v_2\} = \{v_2^-v_2\}$ and for $k=2,3, \ldots, n$, $C_{k} = \{v_{k+1}^-v_{k+1}\} \cup \{v_iv_k: i=1, 2, \ldots k-1, v_i \neq v_k^-\}$. Notice that $C$ is a cute edge-colouring of $G(T)$ since $\vert C_1\vert = 1$ and $\vert C_k \vert = 1 + (k-2) =k-1$ for $k=2, 3, \ldots, n$. We claim that $T$ is the only spanning tree of $G(T)$ which is heterocromatic.
Let $H$ be a heterocromatic spanning tree of $G(T)$. Edges $v_2^-v_2$ and $v_3^-v_3$ are the unique edges in $C_1$ and $C_2$, respectively, therefore they must be edges of $H$. This implies that $T_1$ and $T_2$ are subtrees of $H$. Assume $T_k$ is a subtree of $H$; since $C_{k} = \{v_{k+1}^-v_{k+1}\} \cup \{v_iv_k: i=1, 2, \ldots k-1, v_i \neq v_k^-\}$ and all edges $v_iv_k: i=1, 2, \ldots k-1$ have both ends in $T_k$, the only possible edge in $C_k$ that lies in $H$ is edge $v_{k+1}^-v_{k+1}$. Therefore $T_{k+1}$ is a subtree of $H$. This inductive argument shows that $T = T_{n+1}$ is a subtree of $H$ which imples $H = T$.
\end{proof}
Unlike the stellar colouring, not every nice colouring of $K_n$ contains a heterochromatic copy of every tree witn $n$ vertices, see Fig. \ref{nostars}. Nevertheless every nice colouring of $K_n$ produces many different heterochromatic spanning trees.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 2in]{Nice}
\caption{A nice colouring of $K_6$ with no heterochromatic spanning tree $T$ with $\Delta (T) \geq 4$.}
\label{nostars}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{nice}
Let $G$ be a complete graph with $n+1$ vertices. If $C$ is a nice $n$-edge-colouring of $G$, then $G$ has at least $\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil \lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor$ different heterochromatic spanning trees.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_{n}$ be the colour classes of $C$. Without loss of generality assume $\vert C_i \vert = i$ for $i=1, 2, \ldots n$.
Let $e_1$ be an edge in $C_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil}$. We claim $G$ has at least $\lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor $ different heterochromatic spanning trees containing the edge $e_1$.
First choose an arbitrary subset $W_1$ of $C_{n}$ with size $\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil$ and let $G_{1,1}$ be the subgraph of $G$ with edge set
$$E(G_{1,1}) = \left(E(G) \setminus (C_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil} \cup C_{n})\right) \cup (\{e_1\} \cup W_1)$$
When restricted to the graph $G_{1,1}$ colouring $C$ is a cute edge-colouring since $\vert C_1 \vert = \vert \{e_1\} \vert = 1$, $\vert C_i \vert = i $ for $i \neq C_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil}$ and $\vert W_1 \vert = \lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil$. By Theorem \ref{cute}, $G_{1,1}$ has a heterocromatic spanning tree $T_{1,1}$.
Assume $T_{1,1}, T_{1,2}, \ldots , T_{1,t}$ are different heterocromatic spanning trees of $G$ containing edge $e_1$. For $i = 1, 2, \ldots, t$ let $f_i$ be the edge in $T_i$ having colour $n$. If $t < \lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor$, then we can choose $W_{t+1} \subset C_{n}$ with size $\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil$ containing none of the edges $f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_t$. Let $G_{1,t+1}$ be the subgraph of $G$ with edge set
$$E(G_{1,t+1}) = \left(E(G) \setminus (C_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil} \cup C_{n})\right) \cup (\{e_1\} \cup W_{t+1})$$
As with the case of $G_{1,1}$, when restricted to $G_{1,t+1}$, colouring $C$ is a cute edge-colouring. By Theorem \ref{cute}, $G_{1, t+1}$ has a heterochromatic tree $T_{1,t+1}$. Notice that $T_{1,t+1} \neq T_{1,i}$ for $i=1, 2, \ldots, t$ since $f_i$ is an edge of $T_{1,i}$ and not an edge of $T_{1, t+1}$.
To end the proof, repeat the previous argument for each edge $e_2, e_3, \ldots, e_{_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil}} \in C_{\lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil}$ obtaining different heterochromatic trees $T_{i,j}$ of $G$ with $i=1,2, \ldots, \lceil \frac{n+1}{2} \rceil$ and $j=1, 2, \ldots, \lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor$.
\end{proof}
\section{Heterochromatic spanning trees in beautiful colourings of complete graphs}
\label{sectionbeautiful}
Let $C$ be a nice $n$-edge-colouring of $K_{n+1}$, $\{C_1, C_2, \dots, C_n\}$ be its colour classes, where for each $i=1, \dots, n$, $|C_i| =i$. We denote by $G_i$ the subgraph of $K_{n+1}$ induced by $C_i$.
The edge-coloring $C$ will be called {\it beautiful} if for every colour class $C_{i}$ we have that $G_i$ is acyclic and there is a partition $\{V_1, V_2\}$ of $V(K_{n+1})$, with $|V_2|= \lceil\frac{n+1}{2}\rceil \geq \lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor = |V_1|$, such that:
\noindent {\it i)} The subgraph of $K_{n+1}$ induced by all the colour classes $C_i$, with $i \equiv n$ (mod 2), is isomorphic to the complete bipartite graph with parts $\{V_1, V_2\}$.
\noindent {\it ii)} For every colour class $C_{i}$, with $i \equiv n$ (mod 2), we have that $|V(G_i) \cap V_1| = \lfloor\frac{|V(G_i)|}{2}\rfloor$ and $|V(G_i) \cap V_2|= \lceil\frac{|V(G_i)|}{2}\rceil$.
\noindent {\it iii)} For every colour class $C_{i}$, with $i \not\equiv n$ (mod 2), we have that
$|C_i\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_1]) | = \lfloor\frac{i}{2}\rfloor$ and $|C_{i}\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_2]) |= \lceil\frac{i}{2}\rceil$.
\begin{theorem}\label{beautiful} Let $n\geq 2 $ be an integer and $C$ be a beautiful $n$-edge coloring of $K_{n+1}$.
Then in $K_{n+1}$ there are $2^{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}$ heterochromatic spanning trees.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof will be done as follows. Consider a spanning subgraph $G$ of $K_{n+1}$ obtained in the following way:
\noindent {\it 1.-} For each colour class $C_i$, with $i\geq 2$ and $i \not\equiv n$ (mod 2), choose one part $V_{j_i}$ of the partition $\{V_1, V_2\}$ of $V(K_{n+1})$, and let $Y_i = C_i \cap E(K_{n+1}[V_{j_i}])$.
\noindent {\it 2.-} For $i = 1$ and for $i\geq 2$, with $i \equiv n$ (mod 2), let $Y_i = C_i$.
\noindent {\it 3.-} Let $E(G) = \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^n Y_i$.
Observe that $C$ induces an $n$-edge coloring of $G$. We claim that $G$ contains an heterochromatic spanning tree.
\noindent Let $X$ be a set of edges of $G$ and $A$ be the set of colour classes $Y_i$, with $i \not\equiv n$(mod 2), such that $Y_i\subseteq X$; let $B$ be the set of colour classes $Y_i$, with $i \equiv n$ (mod 2) such that $Y_i\subseteq X$, and suppose that $|A|= r$ and $|B|= s$. Observe that $c(X) = r+s$.
Let $Y_{i_0}\in A$ and $Y_{i_1}\in B$ be of maximal size, respectively. Assume first $n$ is even. Then $i_0$ is odd, and since $|A|= r$ and $Y_{i_0}$ has maximal size, we see that $i_0 \geq 2r-1$ and the size of $Y_{i_0}$ is at least $\lfloor\frac{2r-1}{2}\rfloor$ if $Y_{i_0}$ is contained in $V_1$, and size at least $\lceil\frac{2r-1}{2}\rceil$ if $Y_{i_0}$ is contained in $V_2$.
Similarily, we see that $i_1$ is even, and since $|B|= s$ and $Y_{i_1}$ has maximal size, we see that $i_1 \geq 2s$ and therefore the size of $Y_{i_1}$ is at least $2s$. Moreover, since $G_{i_1}$ is acyclic, $|V(G_{i_1})| \geq 2s + \omega_{1}$, where $ \omega_{1}$ is the number of connected components of $G_{i_1}$, and therefore, by {\it ii)}, $|V_1\cap V(G_{i_1})| = \lfloor\frac{2s+\omega_{1}}{2}\rfloor$ and $|V_2\cap V(G_{i_1})| = \lceil\frac{2s+\omega_{1}}{2}\rceil$.
If $Y_{i_0}$ is contained in $V_1$, let $\{x_1, \dots, x_{\lceil\frac{2s+\omega_{1}}{2}\rceil}\} = V_2\cap V(G_{i_1})$ and for each $x_i$, choose an edge $e_i \in Y_{i_1}$ such that $x_i$ is incident to $e_i$. Let $H$ be the subgraph of $G$ induced by $Y_{i_0}$ and $\{e_1, \dots, e_{\lceil\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rceil}\}$. Graph $H$ has size at least $\lfloor \frac{2r-1}{2}\rfloor+ \lceil\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rceil \geq r+s$, and since $G_{i_0}$ is acyclic and each of the vertices $\{x_1, \dots, x_{\lceil\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rceil}\}$ has degree 1 in $H$, it follows that $H$ is acyclic. Thus, $|V(H)| \geq r+s+ \omega_{1}$, where $ \omega_{1}$ is the number of connected components of $H$, and therefore $\omega(X) \leq n+1- (r+s+ \omega_{1}) + \omega_{1} = n+1-(r+s)$. Since $c(X)= r+s$, by Lemma \ref{lemabasico} we see that $G$ contains an heterochromatic spanning tree.
If $Y_{i_0}$ is contained in $V_2$, let $\{y_1, \dots, y_{\lfloor\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rfloor}\} = V_1\cap V(G_{i_1})$ and for each $y_i$, choose an edge $e_i \in Y_{i_1}$ such that $y_i$ is incident to $e_i$. Let $H$ be the subgraph of $G$ induced by $Y_{i_0}$ and $\{e_1, \dots, e_{\lfloor\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rfloor}\}$. Observe that since $Y_{i_0}$ is contained in $V_2$, $Y_{i_0}$ has size at least $\lceil\frac{2r-1}{2}\rceil$, thus $H$ has size at least $\lceil \frac{2r-1}{2}\rceil+ \lfloor\frac{2s+ \omega_{1}}{2}\rfloor \geq r+s$. From here, as in the previous case, we see that $G$ contains an heterochromatic spanning tree.
For the case when $n$ is odd, it follows that $i_0$ is even, and since $|A|= r$ and $Y_{i_0}$ has maximal size, we see that $i_0 \geq 2r$ and the size of $Y_{i_0}$ is at least $r$ (either if it is contained in $V_1$ or $V_2$). Similarily, $i_1$ is odd, and since $|B|= s$ and $Y_{i_1}$ has maximal size, we see that $i_1 \geq 2s-1$ and therefore the size of $Y_{i_1}$ is at least $2s-1$. Moreover, since $G_{i_1}$ is acyclic, $|V(G_{i_1})| \geq 2s-1+\omega_{1}$, where $\omega_{1}$ is the number of connected components of $G_{i_1}$, and therefore, by {\it ii)}, $|V_1\cap V(G_{i_1})| = \lfloor\frac{2s-1+\omega_{1}}{2}\rfloor$ and $|V_2\cap V(G_{i_1})| = \lceil\frac{2s-1+\omega_{1}}{2}\rceil$. From here, in an analogous way as in the case when $n$ is even, we see that $G$ contains an heterochromatic spanning tree and the claim follows.
Since there are $\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ colour classes $C_i$, with $i\geq 2$ and $i \equiv n$ (mod 2), it follows there are $2^{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}$ different ways to obtain a subgraph $G$ which, by our claim, contains an heterochromatic spanning tree. Moreover, given any pair $G_1, G_2$ of these type of subgraphs, by construction, there is at least one colour class $C_i$, with $i\geq 2$ and $i \equiv n$ (mod 2), such that $\left(E(G_1)\cap C_i\right)\cap \left(E(G_2)\cap C_i\right)= \emptyset$. Thus, the heterochromatic spanning trees in $G_1$ and in $G_2$ are different, and from here, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{final} Let $n\geq 2 $ be an integer and $C$ be the graceful colouring of $K_{n+1}$.
Then in $K_{n+1}$ there are $2^{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}$ heterochromatic spanning trees.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{beautiful} we only need to show that $C$ is beautiful. Let $V(K_{n+1}) = \{v_0, v_1, \dots, v_n\}$, and, for each $i\in \{1, 2, \dots, n\}$, let $D_i = \{v_sv_t : |t-s|=i\}$, that is, $D_i$ denotes the set of edges coloured with $i\in \{1, 2, \dots, n\}$. Since $D_i$ contains $n+1-i$ edges, we see that $D_i = C_{n+1-i}$ and, it is not difficult to see that, $G_{n+1-i}$ is acyclic.
Assume first $n$ is even. Let $V_2=\{v_0, v_2, \dots, v_n\}$ and $V_1=\{v_1, v_3, \dots, v_{n-1}\}$. It is easy to see that the subgraph induced by $D_1 \cup D_3\cup\dots \cup D_{n-1}$ (that is, the subgraph induced by the union of the colour classes $C_{n+1-i}$, with $(n+1-i)\equiv n$ (mod 2)) is the complete bipartite graph with partite sets $V_1$ and $V_2$. Hence (i) holds. Moreover, given $D_j$, with $j$ odd, $V_2 \cap V(G_{n+1-j})= \{v_0, \dots, v_{n-1-j}\}\cup \{v_{1+j},\dots, v_n\}$ and $V_1 \cap V(G_{n+1-j})= \{v_1,\dots, v_{n-j}\}\cup \{v_{j},\dots, v_{n-1}\}$. Considering the cases whenever $j\leq n-j$ or not, it is not hard to see that (ii) holds.
Finally, given an even integer $2\leq j\leq n$, it is not hard to see that $D_j$ satisfies $|D_j\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_2])| = \frac{n+2-j}{2}$ and $|D_j\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_1])| = \frac{n-j}{2}$. Thus, for each colour class $C_{n+1-j}$, with $(n+1-j)\not\equiv n$ (mod 2), we have that $|C_{n+1-j}\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_2])| = \frac{n+2-j}{2}$ and $|C_{n+1-j}\cap E(K_{n+1}[V_1])| = \frac{n-j}{2}$, and (iii) holds.
For the case where $n$ is odd, let $V_2=\{v_0, v_2, \dots, v_{n-1}\}$ and $V_1=\{v_1, v_3, \dots, v_{n}\}$. As in the case where $n$ is even, we can show that $D_i$ (and so $C_{n+1-i}$), with $1\leq i \leq n$, satisfay the statements (i), (ii), and (iii). Therefore, $C$ is beautiful and the corollary follows. \end{proof}
\section{Further research; heterochromatic trees in edge-colourings of bipartite graphs}
\label{sectionbipartite}
Analogous results can be found in other classes of graphs beside the complete graph using exactly the same technics. For example, we can proceed we bipartite graphs as follows. A $(2m-1)$-edge-colouring of the complete bipartite graph $K_{m,m}$ is a \emph{nice} edge-colouring if the colour classes have sizes $1, 1, 2, 2, \ldots m-1, m-1, m$. Let $G_{m,m}$ be a spanning subgraph of $K_{m,m}$ with $1 + 2{m \choose 2}$ edges. A $(2m-1)$-edge colouring of $G_{m,m}$ is a \emph{cute} edge-colouring if the chromatic clases have sizes $1, 1, 1,2,2,\ldots, m-1, m-1$.
With the same technics as in the previous section we can prove the following results:
\begin{theorem}
\label{bipartitecute}
If $C$ is a cute edge-colouring of a subgraph $G_{m,m}$ of $K_{m,m}$ with $1 + 2{m \choose 2}$ edges, then $G$ has a heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{bipartiteunique}
For each tree $T$ with $2m$ v\'ertices there is a spanning bipartite supergraph $F(T)$ with $1 + 2{m \choose 2}$ edges and a cute edge-colouring of $F(T)$ for which $T$ is the unique heterochromatic spanning tree.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{bipartitenice}
If $C$ is a nice edge-colouring of a complete bipartite graph $K_{m,m}$, then $K_{m,m}$ contains at least $(\frac{m}{2})(\frac{m+2}{2})$ heterocromatic spanning trees if $m$ is even and at least $(\frac{m+1}{2})^2$ heterochromatic spanning trees if $m$ is odd.
\end{theorem}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(M,g)$ be an $n$-dimensional connected and
complete Riemannian manifold endowed with the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$. Let $\Delta$ denote the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and
let $p(t,x,y)$ denote its heat kernel, by which we mean the minimal positive fundamental solution to the equation $\frac \partial {\partial t} =\frac 12 \Delta $.
The objective of this article is to provide estimates on the first and the second order gradients of $\log p(t,x,\cdot)$, without imposing any curvature conditions on $M$.
For a fixed $x\in M$, we use the abbreviation $\log p$ for the logarithmic heat kernel
$\log p(t,x,\cdot)$ and use $\nabla \log p$ and $\nabla^2 \log p$ for its first and second order derivatives respectively.
We begin with explaining some of the motivations and potential applications.
Let $o\in M$ be fixed, we denote
$$P_o(M):=\{\gamma\in C([0,1];M): \gamma(0)=o\}$$
the based path space over $M$.
Likewise, let $L_o(M)$ denote the based loop space over $M$,
$$L_o(M):=\{\gamma\in P_o(M):\ \ \gamma(0)=\gamma(1)=o\}.$$
A classical problem is to seek a suitable probability measure on $P_o(M)$ or $L_o(M)$,
with which analysis on these infinite dimensional non-linear spaces can be made and understanding of the path spaces can be furthered.
If $M$ is compact or more generally with bounded geometry, a natural candidate for the probability measure on $L_o(M)$ is the probability distribution of the diffusion process with the infinitesimal operator
$$L:=\frac 12\Delta + \nabla \log p(1-t,\cdot, o)$$
and the initial value $o$. This is the Brownian bridge measure.
Since there is no analogue of a Lebesque measure, translation invariant, on $L_o(M)$, the Brownian bridge measure is essentially the canonical measure to use. Indeed, for $M=\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ the Brownian bridge measure is a Gaussian measure and it is quasi-invariant under translations of Cameron-Martin vectors.
To construct such a diffusion process, which is usually called the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, we define a pre-Dirichlet form. This form will be called the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (O-U) Dirichlet form.
To verify that the pre-Dirichlet form yields a Markov process, it is necessary to show it is closed -- a property following readily once we have an integration by parts (IBP) formula. The key ingredient for such an IBP formula is suitable short time estimates on $\nabla \log p$ and $\nabla^2 \log p$.
We refer the reader to Aida \cite{A,A3}, Airault and Malliavin \cite{Airault-Malliavin}, Driver \cite{D2}, Hsu \cite{Hsu2} and
Li \cite{Li2} for more detail.
Another interesting problem is to establish functional inequalities for
the O-U Dirichlet form. This includes the Poincar\'e inequality and logarithmic Sobolev inequality. They describe the long time behaviours of the associated diffusion process. The logarithmic Sobolev inequality for Gaussian measures was obtained by Gross in the celebrated paper \cite{Gro75}.
However, this is not known to hold for loop space over a general manifold $M$. When $M$ was the hyperbolic space, Poincar\'e inequality was shown to hold on $L_0(M)$ by the authors of the article \cite{CLW1} and Aida \cite{A4}. If $M$ was compact simply connected with strictly positive Ricci curvature, a weak Poincar\'e inequality with explicit rate function was also established by the authors of the article \cite{CLW2}.
It was shown in Gross \cite{Gross-91} that the Poincar\'e inequality for O-U Dirichlet form did not hold on $L_o(M)$ when $M$ was not simply connected. Soon after, Eberle
\cite{E1} constructed a simply connected compact manifold for which the Poincar\'e inequality for O-U Dirichlet form did not hold on $L_o(M)$.
When the based manifold $M$ was compact, Aida \cite{A}, Eberle \cite{E}, Gong and Ma \cite{GM}, Gong, R\"ockner and Wu
\cite{Gong-Rockner-Wu} and Gross \cite{Gross-91} have obtained
weighted log-Sobolev inequalities or other different versions of modified log-Sobolev inequalities on $L_o(M)$.
In all the
results mentioned above, the crucial ingredient was again the asymptotic estimates for $\nabla \log p$ and $\nabla^2\log p$.
We want to stress that all the results mentioned above have been established for the base manifold $M$ compact or with some bounded geometry conditions, since
the short time or asymptotic estimates for $\nabla \log p$ and $\nabla^2\log p$ were only known for manifolds with such restrictions.
Our immediate concern is to study the construction of diffusion processes and functional inequalities on
$L_o(M)$ without any bounded geometry conditions on $M$. We will obtain short time or asymptotic estimates for $\nabla \log p$ and $\nabla^2\log p$
in this paper. These estimates will be applied to study several problems on $L_o(M)$ in a forthcoming paper \cite{CLW}.
It is intriguing that estimates for $\nabla \log p $ and $\nabla^2 \log p$ are also main tools for proving the continuous counterpart of Talagrand's conjecture for the hypercube $\Omega_n=\{-1, 1\}^n$ which we explain below. Let $\sigma^i$ denote the configuration with the ith coordinate of $\sigma$ flipped and let $\sigma_i$ denote the i-th component of $\sigma\in \Omega_n$. Let $\mu_n\equiv 2^{-n}$ be the uniform measure on $\Omega_n$ which is reversible associated with the generator
$Lf(\sigma):=\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^n (f(\sigma^i)-f(\sigma))$ where $\sigma\in\Omega_n$.
Setting
$T_sf(\sigma):=\int_{\Omega_n} f(\eta) \Pi_{i=1}^n (1+e^{-s} \sigma_i \eta_i) d\mu_n(\eta)$, then
Talagrad's conjecture states that for any $s>0$ there exists a constant $c_s$ independent of the dimension $n$ such that
$\mu_n\Big(\Big\{\sigma: T_sf(\sigma)\ge t\Big\}\Big)\le c_s \frac 1 {t\sqrt { \log t}}$ for $ t>1$. The value $c_s$ is uniformly in the function $f$ with $\|f\|_{L^1(\mu_n)}=1$ and in the dimension.
The continuous counter-part of the conjecture is for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semi-group $T_t$ with generator $\Delta-x\cdot \nabla$
$$ \sup_{f \ge 0, \|f\|_{L^1(\gamma_n)}=1} \gamma_n
\left(\Big\{\sigma: T_sf(\sigma) \ge t\Big\}\right) \le c_s \frac 1 {t\sqrt { \log t}}, \qquad t \ge 2,$$
where $\gamma_n\sim N(0, I_{n\times n})$ is the standard $n$-dimensional normal distribution. This was proven to be affirmative in Ball, Barthe, Bednorz, Oleszkiewicz and Wolff \cite{BBBOW13}.
The dimension free best constants were given in Eldan and Lee \cite{EL15:focs} and Lehec \cite{Leh16} where the key ingredients are:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)] For any $g\in L^1(\gamma_n)$ and any $s>0$, $\nabla^2 (\log T_s g)\ge -c_s^2\, \mathrm {Id}$,
\item [(2)] For any $g\in L^1(\gamma_n)$ non-negative and with $\nabla^
(\log g)\ge - \beta \, \mathrm {Id}$ with a $\beta>0$, one has
$\gamma_n (g\ge t)\le \frac {C_\beta}{t \sqrt{\log t}}$ for any $ t>1$.
\end{itemize}
Here $\mathrm {Id}$ is the identity operator. Such estimates for non-Gaussian measures and also for the $M/M/\infty$ queue on ${\mathbb N}$ were obtained by
Gozlan, Li, Madiman, Roberto and Samson \cite{GLMRS}.
\section
{ Main Results}
The short time and asymptotic estimates are presented in \eqref{e1-1}--\eqref{e1-3b} below. To the best of our knowledge,
such estimates were obtained only for a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry including a compact Riemannian manifold.
Gradient and Hessian estimates of the form (\ref{e1-1}-\ref{e1-1a}) were proved by Sheu \cite{Sh} for $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ with a non-trivial Riemannian metrics where the objective was a non-degenerate parabolic PDEs with bounded derivatives up to order three, and (\ref{e1-1}) for a compact Riemannian manifold can be found in Driver \cite{D2}, obtained using a result of Hamilton \cite{Hamilton93}, Corollary 1.3 and the Gaussian bounds on heat kernels, see e.g. Li and Yau \cite{Li-Yau}, Cheeger and Yau \cite{Cheeger-Yau}, Davies \cite{Davies}, Setti \cite{Setti}, and Varopoulos \cite{Varopoulos1,Varopoulos2}. The estimate (\ref{e1-1a}) was shown in Hsu \cite{HsuEstimates} again for the compact case.
For a non-compact Riemannian manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature,
\eqref{e1-1}
was obtained by Kotschwar \cite{Kotschwar}.
Under a bounded geometry condition together with a volume non-collapsing condition, similar estimates were obtained by Souplet and Zhang \cite{SZ} and Engoulatov \cite{En}.
For the heat kernel associated with the Witten Laplacian operator, these estimates were proved by X.D. Li \cite{XLi}
under a bounded geometry condition on the Bakry–Emery Ricci curvature. In addition, in all the references mentioned above, suitable bounded geometry conditions were required. Likewise, the bounded geometry restrictions are used to derive differential Harnack inequalities and global heat kernel estimates, by Cheeger, Gromov and Taylor \cite{Cheeger-Gromov-Taylor}, Cheng, P. Li and Yau \cite{CLY}, Hamilton \cite{Hamilton93},
P. Li and Yau \cite{Li-Yau}, they provide an important step toward \eqref{e1-1}--\eqref{e1-1a}.
Meanwhile, the asymptotic gradient estimate \eqref{e1-2b} was first shown in Bismut \cite{Bis} for a compact
Riemannian manifold. It was extended to the hypo-elliptic heat kernel and the heat kernel on a vector bundle, for $M$ with bounded geometry, respectively by Ben Arous \cite{Ben}, Ben Arous and L\'eandre \cite{Ben-Le} and Norris \cite{Norris}, c.f. also Azencott \cite{Azencott-as}.
The asymptotic second order gradient estimate \eqref{e1-3b} was established by Malliavin and Stroock \cite{MS} for
a compact Riemannian manifold. For `asymptotically flat' Riemannian manifolds with poles and bounded geometry this can be found in Aida \cite{A3}.
On cut-locus estimates was studied by Neel \cite{Neel07}.
A natural question is then whether the estimates \eqref{e1-1}--\eqref{e1-3b} still hold for a general non-compact Riemannian manifold?
Note that in Azencott \cite{Azencott}, it was illustrated that
Gaussian type heat kernel estimates could not be automatically extended to an arbitrary manifold and may fail if the completeness of the Riemannian metric was removed.
We state the main estimate. For any $y\in M$, let ${\rm Cut}(y)$ be the cut-locus of $y$.
\begin{theorem}[Theorems \ref{thm6.7} and \ref{thm6.10}] \label{main}
Suppose that $M$ is a complete Riemannian manifold with Riemannian distance $d$.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)]
For every compact subset $K$ of $ M$, the following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] There exists a
positive constant $C(K)$, which may depend on $K$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e1-1}
\quad \left|\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M}
&\le&\ C(K)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}+\frac{d(x,y)}{t}\right),\\
\left|\nabla_x^2 \log p(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}&\le& C(K)\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t^2}+\frac{1}{t}\right)\label{e1-1a
\end{eqnarray}
for any $ x,y \in K $ and for any $\ t\in (0,1]$.
\item [(b)] There exist positive constants
$t_0(y,K)$ and $C_1(y,K)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.29}\aligned
&\left|t\nabla_x^2 \log p(t,x,y)+\textbf{I}_{T_x M}\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\\
&\le C_1(y,K)\left(d(x,y)+
\sqrt{t}\right),\quad \ \ x\in K,\ t \in (0,t_0(y,K)]\endaligned
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{I}_{T_x M}$ is the identical map on $T_x M$.
\end{itemize}
\item [(2)]
Let $y\in M$ and assume that $\tilde K \subset M\setminus \text{Cut}(y)$ is a compact set. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e1-2b}
&\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
\left|t\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)+\nabla_x\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2}\right)
\right|_{T_x M}=0,\\
&\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
\left|t\nabla_x^2\log p(t,x,y)+\nabla_x^2\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2}\right)
\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}=0.
\label{e1-3b}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
{\bf Remarks on the main theorem.}
As explained in Section 1, these estimates are crucial for the stochastic analysis of the loop space $L_o(M)$.
Despite of the collective efforts, so far, these type of results have been largely proved only for base manifolds with bounded geometry.
While in this paper, we only need to assume that the base manifold $M$ is complete and stochastically complete.
For analysis on the path space $P_o(M)$ over a general complete Riemanian manifold without curvature conditions, some work have already been done by Chen and Wu \cite{CW} and Hsu and Ouyang \cite{Hsu-Ouyang}. For $P_o(M)$, the content of Theorem \ref{main} is not essential.
In a forthcoming paper \cite{CLW}, we shall apply these to obtain integration by parts formula and construct of O-U Dirichlet form
on $L_o(M)$, and to prove several functional inequalities on $L_o(M)$.
Our main idea is to obtain localised asymptotic comparison theorems for the first and the second order gradients of logarithmic heat kernel (see Proposition \ref{prp6.6} and \ref{prp6.9} below).
One novelty is a new second order derivative formula via a new type of (second order) stochastic variation for Brownian paths on the orthonormal frame bundles, which is in particular different from that used by Bismut \cite{Bis} or Stroock \cite{S}.
The idea of stochastic variation was initiated in \cite{Bis} for obtaining an integration by part formula. While the choice of the variation in \cite{S} will produce a term with (the time reverse of) a non-random vector field on $L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$, see also Malliavin and Stroock \cite[(1.5)]{MS}, it seems not
possible to replace the non-random vector field in their paper by a random one (otherwise the time reversed field is not adapted, hence It\^o's integral is not well defined), which prevents the extension of
the formula in \cite{MS} to a general non-compact $M$ by a suitable localisation argument.
We shall choose a variation (see Section \ref{section2} below) with desired properties, which in particular ensures that the formula for the second order gradient of heat semigroup can take a random vector fields. This is the key step for us to extend the new formula to a general complete $M$ (see e.g. Theorem \ref{thm3.1} below).
The expression we obtain for the second order gradient of heat semigroup is different from that by Elworthy and Li \cite{EL}, Li \cite{Li-doubly-damped, Li18}, or from that in
Arnaudon, Plank and Thalmaier \cite{APT} or that in Thompson \cite{Thompson}. We prove the formula by combining the second order stochastic
variation (shown to hold for a compact manifold) and approximation arguments (for a non-compact manifold), which is totally different from that in \cite{APT,Thompson}. This new method is adapted for both the proof of Proposition \ref{prp6.9} here and the integration by parts formula in
our forthcoming paper~\cite{CLW}.
\medskip
\section{Expression for the second order gradient of heat semigroup}
Throughout the paper, $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathscr{F}_t, \mathbb{P})$ denotes a filtered probability space satisfying the standard assumptions, and $B_t=(B_t^1,B_t^2,\cdots, B_t^n)$ is a standard $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued Brownian motion.
Let $L(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ denote the collection of all stochastic processes $h: \Omega\times \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt_+ \rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ which are $\mathscr{F}_t$-adapted.
Let
$h'(\cdot, \omega)$ denote the time derivative of $h(\cdot, \omega)$. We define the Cameron-Martin space on the Wiener space as follows
\begin{equation*}
L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n):=\bigg\{
h\in L(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)
\; \mathbb{E}\Big[\int_0^1 |h'(s, \omega)|^2\, \hat d s\Big] <\infty\bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
Elements of $L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ are usually called random Cameron-Martin vectors. Let
$C_b(M)$ and $C_c(M)$ denote the collection of all real valued bounded and continuous functions on $M$ and continuous functions
with compact supports in $M$ respectively. Let ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$ denote the set of of anti-symmetric $n\times n$ matrices and let $SO(n)$ denote the collection
of orthonormal $n\times n$ matrices.
{\bf The curvature.} Let ${\bf R}_x$ denote the sectional curvature tensor and $\text{\rm{Ric}}_x$ denote the Ricci curvature tensor at $x\in M$ respectively. Thus both ${\bf R}_x:T_x M\times T_x M \rightarrow T_x M \times T_x M$ and $\text{\rm{Ric}}^{\sharp}_x:T_x M \rightarrow T_xM$ are linear map, the latter is given by the duality:
$$\big\langle \text{\rm{Ric}}^{\sharp}_x(v_1), v_2\big\rangle_{T_x M} =\text{\rm{Ric}}_x(v_1,v_2),\ \ \forall\ v_1,v_2\in T_x M.$$
\medskip
{\bf The horizontal Brownian motion.}
Given a point $x\in M$, let $O_xM$ denote the space of linear isometries from $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ to $T_xM$. Let $OM:=\cup_{x\in M} O_xM$, which is the orthonormal frame bundle over $M$, and let $\pi: OM \rightarrow M$ denote the canonical projection which takes a frame $u\in O_x M$ to its base point $x$.
For every $u\in OM$, we define
${\rm R}_u:\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n\times \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n \rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n\times \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ and $ {\rm ric}_u:\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n \rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ by
$$\begin{aligned}{\rm R}_u(e_1,e_2):&=u^{-1}\big({\bf R}_{\pi(u)}(ue_1,ue_2)\big), \\
\text{\rm ric}_u(e_1):&=u^{-1}\big({\bf \text{\rm{Ric}}^{\sharp}}_{\pi(u)}(ue_1)\big)
\end{aligned}$$
for every $ e_1,e_2\in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$.
Given a vector $e\in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$, we denote by $H_{e}$ the associated canonical horizontal vector fields on $OM$ with the property that $(T\pi)_{u}(H_{e})=u e\in T_{\pi(u)}M$.
Thus the solution of the ODE $$u'(t)=H_e(u(t))$$ projects to the geodesic on $M$ with the initial position $x$ and the initial speed $u(0)(e)$.
We choose an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ of $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$.
Suppose
$\{U_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ is the solution of following $OM$-valued Stratonovich stochastic differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{sde1}
\hat d U_t=\displaystyle\sum^n_{i=1}H_{e_i}\left(U_t \right)\circ\hat d B_t^i,
\end{equation}
where the initial value $U_0$ is a fixed orthonormal basis of $T_xM$.
We usually call $\{U_t\}_{0\le t<\zeta}$ the canonical horizontal Brownian motion, where
$\zeta:\Omega \to \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt_+$ is the life time for $U_t$. Let
$X_t^x:=\pi(U_t)$, $0\le t<\zeta(x)$, then $X_t^x$ is
a Brownian motion
on $M$ with initial value $x$ and life time $\zeta(x)$.
This is the celebrated intrinsic construction of $M$-valued Brownian motion by Eells and Elworthy \cite{EE} and
Elworthy \cite{Elworthy}, see also Malliavin \cite{Malliavin}.
It is well known that the Brownian motion on $M$ does not explode if and only if the horizontal Brownian motion $U_t$ on $OM$ does not explode.
In particular, it does not rely on the choice of an isometrically embedding from $M$ to an ambient Euclidean space.
Let $$P_tf(x):=\mathbb{E}\left[f\left(X_t^x\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta(x)\}}\right]$$
be the heat semigroup associated to Brownian motion $X_{\cdot}$.
\emph{The superscript $x$ may be omitted if there is no risk of confusion.}
\subsection{Second order gradient of the heat semigroup
Let $\{U_t\}_{0\le t <\zeta(x)}$
denote the horizontal Brownian motion on $M$ and
$\{X_t^x=\pi(U_t)\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ is the Brownian motion on $M$ with initial value $x$ and life time $\zeta(x)$.
For any $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{e3-2}
\Gamma^h_t:=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s} \left( \circ \hat d B_s, h(s)\right),\qquad
\Theta^h_t:=h'(t)+\frac{1}{2}\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t)),
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $\Gamma^h_t$ is an ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$-valued process. For $ t\geq0$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{e3-2a}
\begin{split}
\Lambda_t^h:=\Gamma_t^h h'(t)+\frac{1}{2}U_t^{-1} \; \nabla \text{\rm{Ric}}^{\sharp}_{X_t}\big(U_th(t), U_t h(t)\big)
-\frac 12\Gamma_t^h \;\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t))+\frac 12 \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}\left(\Gamma_t^h h(t)\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We are now ready to state one of our main tools, the second order gradient formula on a general complete $M$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm3.1}
Suppose that $M$ is a complete Riemannian manifold. Let $\{D_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$ denote the increasing family of exhaustive relatively compact open sets of $M$ and $\{l_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$ the cut-off vector fields
as constructed in Lemma \ref{lem5.1}.
Let $x\in m$, and there exists $m_0\in {\mathbb N}$ such that $x\in D_{m_0+1}$.
For every $m> m_0$, $v \in T_x M$, and $t\in (0,1]$, we define
$$h(s):=\Big(\frac{t-2s}{t}\Big)^+\cdot l_m\left(s,X_{\cdot}^x\right)\cdot U_0^{-1}v,
\quad s\geq0.$$
Then $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$. Furthermore, for any $f\in C_b(M)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3-1-1}
\begin{split}
&\big\langle \nabla^2 P_t f(x), v\otimes v\big\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\\
&=\EE_x\left[\left(
\left(\int_0^t\langle \Theta^h_s, \hat d B_s\rangle\right)^2-
\int_0^t \langle \Lambda^h_s, \hat d B_s\rangle-\int_0^t \left|\Theta^h_s\right|^2 \hat d s\right)f(X_t^x){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta(x)\}}\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In particular, the processes $l_m(t, \gamma)$ equals to $1$ at any time before $\gamma$ exits $D_{m-1}$ and equals to zero after it exits $D_m$ for the first time. So it is obvious to see that $h(t, \gamma)=U_0^{-1}v$ at $t=0$ and vanishes after the first exit time of $\gamma$ from $D_m$.
\subsection{Comments}
The main idea for proving the second order gradient of the heat semigroup $P_t$ is to
approximate the formula on $M$ by those for a family of specific compact manifolds.
We first use a result of Greene and Wu \cite{GW} to construct a family of relatively compact exhausting open subsets $\{D_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$,
which is valid for a complete Reimannian manifold $M$. This allows to construct a series of random cut-off vector fields $l_m\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$
which vanishes, as soon as the sample path exits $D_m$ for the first time, with the necessary quantitative estimates needed for the localisation. See Lemma \ref{lem5.1} below for details.
The lemma is partly inspired by the work of Thalmaier \cite{T} and Thalmaier and Wang \cite{TW}, where geodesic balls are used. For the purpose of embedding into compact manifolds, we make sure that each $D_m$ having a smooth boundary which, because of the cut locus, cannot be taken as granted of geodesic balls on arbitrary Riemannian manifolds.
We want to remark that this offers a more powerful (and also a more reliable) alternative to localisation with stopping times, the latter has been commonly used in stochastic calculus and occasionally incorrectly used. The stopping time argument relies on a continuity assumption on the Brownian motion with respect to the initial value.
Such continuity condition seems not easy to verify (for stopping times), and ought not be applied casually, see e.g. Elworthy \cite{Elworthy78}, Li and Sheutzow \cite{Li-Scheutzow}, and Li \cite{Li-flow} for more detail.
Note, however, that exit times from regular domains do have good regularity properties in the sense of Malliavin calculus, we refer the reader to
the work of Airault, Maillian, and Ren \cite{Airault-Malliavin-Ren} for more details.
Cut-off vector fields have been previously applied by
Arnaudon, Plank and Thalmaier \cite{APT}, Thompson \cite{Thompson}, Thalmaier \cite{T}, and Thalmaier and Wang \cite{TW}
to provide a {\it localised} differential formula
for heat semigroups. As explained earlier, we use a new type of (second order) stochastic variation argument to construct
the global second order gradient formula given below. In particular, the expression here is different from that
of Elworthy and Li \cite{EL}, Arnaudon, Planck, and Thalmaier \cite{APT}, Li \cite{Li-doubly-damped, Li18} and Thompson \cite{Thompson}
and particularly we do not use the doubly parallel translation operators used in \cite{Li-doubly-damped, Li18}.
\subsection{Comparison theorems}
The outline of the proof is as follows. We first show that the formula holds for a compact Riemannian manifold, this proof is given in Section \ref{section2} using a new stochastic variation.
To pass from a compact manifold to a non-compact manifold, we use a suitable isometric embedding from $D_m$ into a compact Riemannian manifold $\tilde M_m$, as well as the quantitative cut-off process $l_m$ constructed by Lemma \ref{lem7.1} and Lemma \ref{lem5.1} respectively.
Denote by $p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)$ the heat kernel on $\tilde M_m$.
Although the heat kernel of a Riemannian manifold is determined in a global manner by the Riemannian metric,
we obtain, below, short time comparison theorems between $\nabla \log p_{\tilde M_m}$, $\nabla^2 \log p_{\tilde M_m}$
and $\nabla \log p$, $\nabla^2 \log p$. These are used for proving \eqref{e1-1}--\eqref{e1-3b}.
The comparison theorem below allows us to obtain estimates for $\nabla^2 \log p_t$, with the successive applications of first order and second order gradient formula as well as comparison estimates for functionals of the Brownian motions on $M$ and that on $\tilde M_m$.
\begin{prp}
(Propositions \ref{prp6.6} and \ref{prp6.9})\label{prp3.1}
Suppose $K$ is a compact subset of $M$. For any constant $L>1$, there exists a $m_0=m_0(K,L)\in {\mathbb N}$, which may depend on $K$ and $L$, such that for all $m\ge m_0$ we could find a positive time
$t_0=t_0(K,L,m)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\sup_{x,y\in K} \left|\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)- \nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M}
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}},\ \forall\ t\in (0,t_0],\\
&\sup_{x,y\in K} e^{\frac{L}{t}} \left|\nabla_x^2\log p(t,x,y)-\nabla_x^2 \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)
\right|_{T_x M\otimes T_x M}\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}},\ \forall\ t\in (0,t_0],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C(m)$ is a positive constant depending on $m$.
\end{prp}
\section{Second Order Variation on a Compact Manifold}\label{section2}
\quad \quad \emph{Throughout this section, $M$ is an $n$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold.}
In Proposition \ref{prp4.5} below, we shall establish (\ref{t3-1-1}) for a compact manifold, which is a fundamental step toward Theorem \ref{thm3.1}.
The first second order differential formula for the heat semigroup $P_t$ was obtained by Elworthy and Li \cite{EL1} for a non-compact manifold, however with restrictions on their curvature. Another disadvantage of the formula was its involvement of a non-intrinsic curvature which was due to the application of the derivative flow of gradient stochastic differential equations, as well as a martingale approach developed in Li \cite{Li-thesis}. An intrinsic formula for $\nabla^2 P_t f$ was given by Stroock \cite{S} for a compact Riemannian manifold, while a localised intrinsic formula was obtained by Arnaudon, Planck and Thalmaier \cite{APT} with the martingale approach.
The study of the second order gradient of the Feynman-Kac semigroup of an operator $\Delta+V,$ with a potential function, was pioneered by Li \cite{Li18, Li-doubly-damped}, where a path integration formula was obtained with the help of doubly damped stochastic parallel transport equation. (The first order gradient formula was previously obtained in Li and Thompson \cite{Li-Thompson}, c.f. \cite{EL1, EL-Vilnius}.)
A localised version of the Hessian formula (still with doubly stochastic damped parallel translations) for the Feynman-Kac semigroup was derived by Thompson \cite{Thompson}.
However, all the expressions mentioned earlier do not seem to lead to our application, such as the proof of Proposition \ref{prp3.1}. To overcome this problem we introduce a quantitative localisation procedure and obtain a second order gradient formula to which this localisation method can be applied.
One of our main tools is to extend Bismut's idea to perturb the $M$-valued Brownian motion with initial value $\xi(\varepsilon)$ (where
$\xi(\varepsilon)$ is a smooth curve in $M$), they will be constructed as solutions of a family of SDEs with the driving Brownian motion
$\{B_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ rotated and translated appropriately.
The rotation and translation exerted on
$\{B_t\}_{t\ge 0}$
transmits the variation in the initial value of the Brownian motion on the manifold to variations, in the same parameter, of the Radon Nikodym derivatives of a family of probability measures, with respect to which the solutions are Brownian motions on $M$. This simple and elegant idea was applied in Bismut \cite{Bis} for deducing an integration by parts formula. Incidentally, such integration by parts formula and the first order gradient formula of the heat semigroup were proved to be equivalent on a compact manifold by Elworthy and Li \cite{EL}.
In Stroock \cite{S}, by calculating the concrete form of the second variation introduced by Bismut, this idea was adapted for obtaining the
second order derivative formula for the heat semigroup on a compact manifold.
As explained earlier,
the choice of stochastic variation in \cite{S} (see also Malliavin and Stroock \cite[(1.5)]{MS}) will produce a term coming from the time
reverse of a non-random vector field on $L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$, and it seems not possible to replace the non-random vector field by a random one (otherwise the time reversed field is not adapted, hence It\^o's integral is not well defined). Therefore the formula obtained
in Stroock \cite{S} may not be extended to the one with a random vector field and so is not suitable to for extension to non-compact manifolds with the localisation technique we introduce shortly.
One crucial ingredient for our choice of the stochastic variation is that
it ensures \eqref{l3-3-1}, which implies that the second variation vanishes at time $t$ when we choose
a vector field $h$ in the translated part satisfying $h(t)\equiv 0$. This allows us to derive a second order gradient formula
with localised vector fields and to extend it to a general (non-compact) complete Riemannian manifold.
\subsection{A novel stochastic variation with a second order term}
As before, $\{U_t\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ is the solution of equation \eqref{sde1} with initial point $U_0$ and $\pi(U_0)=x$.
In Bismut \cite{Bis} the following classical perturbation for the driving force $B_t$ was used:
$$\hat B_t^\varepsilon=\int_0^t e^{-\varepsilon \Gamma^h_s}\hat d B_s+\varepsilon \int_0^t \left(h'(s) +\frac 12 \text{\rm ric}_{U_s} h(s)\right) \hat d s.$$
where $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ is a chosen Cameron-Martin vector and $\Gamma^h_t:=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s} \left( \circ \hat d B_s, h(s)\right)$.
This perturbation of the noise
works well with the first variation for which one needs to ensure that $\frac {\partial} {\partial\varepsilon}|_{\varepsilon =0} \pi (U_t^\varepsilon) =
U_th(t)$ and has been the popular and standard perturbation, as used also in Driver \cite{D1}, Fang and Malliavin \cite{FM}. Other variation of the noise
are also of first order perturbations.
However, with the above mentioned variation, $\frac {\partial^2} {\partial\varepsilon^2}|_{\varepsilon =0} \pi (U_t^\varepsilon) \not =0$ as long as $h(t)\not \equiv 0$.
To solve this problem, we will introduce a second order variation (such perturbation is not unique and we may find a slightly different choice). Unlike the case with the classical perturbation, this time we cannot avoid differentiating the structure equation so have to choose a connection on the frame bundle. Our approach is inspired by the theory of linear connections induced by a SDE developed by Elworthy, LeJan and Li \cite{ELL}. We believe that the same method can also be used for higher order
variations.
For any $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$, we have defined an ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$-valued process $\Gamma_t^h$ and $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued process
$\Theta_t^h$, $\Lambda_t^h$ by \eqref{e3-2} and \eqref{e3-2a} respectively.
We first introduce the translation and define the $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued
process $B_t^{\varepsilon,h}$ as follows
\begin{equation}
B_t^{\varepsilon,h}:=B_t+\varepsilon\int_0^t h'(s)\hat d s+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\int_0^t \Phi^h_s\hat d s,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi^h_t:=\Gamma^h_t h'(t)$.
We then introduce a rotation for $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued Brownian motion. Let us first
set
\begin{equation}\label{e3-3}
\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_t^{(2),h}:=&\int_0^t U_s^{-1}\nabla {\rm {\bf R}}_{\pi(U_s)}\big(U_s h(s), U_s\circ \hat d B_s, U_s h(s)\big)-\int_0^t
\Gamma^h_s{\rm R}_{U_s}(\circ \hat d B_s, h(s))\\
&+\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}(h'(s),h(s))\hat d s+\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s, \Gamma^h_s h(s)\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $\Gamma_t^{(2),h}$ is an ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$-valued process.
Then for every $\varepsilon>0$, we define $SO(n)$-valued process $G_t^{\varepsilon,h}$ as follows
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
G_t^{\varepsilon,h}&:=\exp\left({-\varepsilon \Gamma^h_t
-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2} \Gamma_t^{(2),h} }\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\exp:{\mathfrak {so}}(n)\to SO(n)$ is
the exponential map in the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$ of $SO(n)$.
We can now introduce $\tilde B_t^{\varepsilon,h}$, the variation of $B_t$, as well as the corresponding equation on~$OM$.
\begin{defn}\label{def4.1}
Let $\xi(\varepsilon)$, $\varepsilon\in(-1,1)$, be a geodesic with $\xi(0)=x$.
Let $\{U_0^{\varepsilon,h}: \varepsilon\in(-1,1)\}$ be a parallel orthonormal
frame along $\xi(\varepsilon)$ with $\pi(U_0^{\varepsilon,h})=\xi(\varepsilon)$. Let $U_t^\epsilon$ denote the
solution of the following equation with initial condition $U_0^{\varepsilon,h}$,
\begin{equation}\label{sde2}
\begin{aligned}
&\hat d U_t^{\varepsilon,h}=\sum_{i=1}^n H_{e_i}(U_t^{\varepsilon,h})\circ \hat d \tilde B_t^{\varepsilon,h,i},\\&
\hat d\tilde B_t^{\varepsilon,h} =G_t^{\varepsilon,h}\circ \hat d B_t^{\varepsilon,h}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We define $X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon),h}= \pi(U_t^{\varepsilon,h})$. If $\varepsilon=0$, then $X_t^{0,x,h}=X_t^x$ with
$X_t^x=\pi(U_t)$.
\end{defn}
We remark that the perturbation in $U_t^{\varepsilon,h}$ has a translation part $B_t^{\varepsilon,h}$, and a rotation part $G_t^{\varepsilon,h}$. The rotation
$G_t^{\varepsilon,h}$ is chosen to offset precisely the twisting effects induced by the second
order stochastic variation.
\emph{For simplicity we omit the subscript
$h$, in $\Theta^h_t,\Lambda^h_t$,
$X_t^{\varepsilon,h},\Gamma_t^{h},\Gamma_t^{(2),h},G_t^{\varepsilon,h}$, $B_t^{\varepsilon,h}$ and $U_t^{\varepsilon,h}$, from time to time.}
Let $\varpi$ and $\theta$ denote respectively the ${\mathfrak {so}}(n)$-valued connection $1$-form and the $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued solder $1$-form
respectively.
Set
$$\varpi_t^\varepsilon:
\varpi\left( \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon\right), \qquad
\theta_t^\varepsilon:=
\theta\left( \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon} U_t^\varepsilon\right).$$
Through this paper, we use
$D_t$, $\hat d_t$ to denote the stochastic covariant differential for vector fields
and stochastic differential on $M$ along a semi-martingale respectively and
$\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}$ denotes the covariant derivative for vector fields on $M$ with respect to the variable $\varepsilon$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem 4.1}
If we choose $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ such that $h(0)=U_0^{-1}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\xi(\varepsilon)\right)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{varpi}
\varpi_t^\varepsilon=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s^\varepsilon} (G_s^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_s^\varepsilon, \theta_s^\varepsilon).
\end{equation}
And $\theta_t^\varepsilon$ satisfy the following equation,
\begin{equation}\label{l3-1-1}
\begin{cases}
& \hat d\theta_t^\varepsilon=-\big(\Gamma_t+\varepsilon\Gamma^{(2)}_t\big)G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+\varpi_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+
G_t^\varepsilon\big(h'(t)+\varepsilon\Phi_t\big)\hat d t,\\
& \theta_0^\varepsilon=(U_0^\varepsilon)^{-1}\frac{d \xi(\varepsilon)}{d \varepsilon}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\theta_t^0:=\theta\left( \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon} \Big|_{\varepsilon=0}U_t^\varepsilon\right)=h(t), \label{l3-1-2}
\\
&\varpi^0_t=\Gamma_t\\
&\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(U_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon e\right)=0,\ \ \forall\ e\in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^d,\\
&\frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=U_t h(t).
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first use the structure equation
\begin{align*}
\hat d\varpi\Big(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon, \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon\Big)&=-\varpi\wedge \varpi
\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon, \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon \right)+{\rm R}_{U_t^\varepsilon}\left(\theta\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon\right),
\theta\left( \frac
\partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&=-\sum_{i=1}^n\varpi\wedge \varpi\left(H_{e_i}(U_t^{\varepsilon})\circ d\tilde B^{\varepsilon,i}_t, \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon\right)+{\rm R}_{U_t^\varepsilon}\left(\theta\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon\right),\theta_t^\varepsilon\right)\\
&={\rm R}_{U_t^\varepsilon}\left(\theta\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon\right),\theta_t^\varepsilon\right)
\end{align*}
to obtain
\begin{align*}
\hat d \varpi_t^\varepsilon
&=\hat d\varpi\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon, \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon}U_t^\varepsilon\right)={\rm R}_{U_t^\varepsilon}\left(\theta\left(\hat d_t U_t^\varepsilon\right),
\theta_t^\varepsilon\right)={\rm R}_{U_t^\varepsilon}\left(G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon, \theta_t^\varepsilon\right).
\end{align*}
Since at time $0$, the variation $\{U_0^\varepsilon;\varepsilon\in (-1,1)\}$ is parallel along the geodesic $\xi$, $\varpi_0^\varepsilon=0$. Then
\eqref{varpi} follows immediately.
Here we have used the Transfer Principle: on the compact manifold $M$ we could \emph{treat the Stratonovich integral as the ordinary derivative} (with respect to time variable)
in the computation. This transfer principle will be used through this section without further comments. We also want to remark that
since $M$ is compact, we could \emph{exchange the order of any different derivative and integral}.
Due to the torsion free property,
the time derivative and the derivative for $\varepsilon$ could commute: $D_t\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}=
\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\hat d_t$.
Also note that $\theta_t^\varepsilon=(U_t^{\varepsilon})^{-1}T\pi ( \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon} U_t^\varepsilon)$, so we have,
\begin{equation}\label{1derivative}
\begin{split}
{\hat d } \theta_t^\varepsilon&=(U_t^\varepsilon)^{-1}\left(D_t \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}X_t^\varepsilon\right)
\right)=(U_t^\varepsilon)^{-1}\left(\frac D {\partial \varepsilon}\hat d_t X_t^\varepsilon\right)\\
&=(U_t^\varepsilon)^{-1}\left(\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\left(U_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon \circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&=\varpi_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon \circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon +\frac{\partial G_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+G_t^\varepsilon \circ
\hat d\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}B_t^\varepsilon\right)\\
&=\varpi_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon \circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon-\big(\Gamma_t+\varepsilon\Gamma^{(2)}_t\big)G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+
G_t^\varepsilon\big(h'(t)+\varepsilon\Phi_t\big)\hat d t,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the fourth equality is due to
\begin{equation}
\label{proof-1-4}
\begin{aligned}
\frac D {\partial \varepsilon} \left( U_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon \right)
&=U_t^\varepsilon \left( \varpi_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon + \frac {\partial}{\partial\varepsilon} G_t^\varepsilon \right).\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
So we have obtained the first equation
in \eqref{l3-1-1}. The initial condition in \eqref{l3-1-1} follows trivially from the fact
$ \theta_0^\varepsilon=(U_0^{\varepsilon})^{-1}\pi ( \frac \partial {\partial \varepsilon} U_0^\varepsilon))$, $\{U_0^\varepsilon; \varepsilon\in (-1,1)\}$ is a parallel orthonormal frame bundle along $\xi(\cdot)$ and $X_0^\varepsilon=\xi(\varepsilon)$.
Based on the fact that
$$\varpi_t^0=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s} \left( \circ \hat d B_s, \theta_s^0\right), \qquad \Gamma_t=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s} \left( \circ \hat d B_s, h(s)\right),$$
and taking $\varepsilon=0$ in \eqref{l3-1-1} we arrive at
\begin{align*}
d\theta^0_t=\left( \int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s} \left( \circ \hat d B_s, \theta_s^0\right)-\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s,h(s)\right)
\right)\circ \hat d B_t+ h'(t)\hat d t, \ \ \theta_0^0=h(0)
\end{align*}
It is easy to verify that $\theta^0_t=h(t)$ is the unique solution to above equation, proving the first line of \eqref{l3-1-2}.
Then plugging in $\theta_t^0=h(t)$ into \eqref{varpi} to see that $\varpi^0_t=\Gamma_t$, so we have
\begin{align*}
\frac D {\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(U_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon e\right)=
U_t\left(\varpi_t^0 e+\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}G_t^\varepsilon e\right)=U_t\left(\Gamma_t e-\Gamma_t e\right)=0,
\end{align*}
which is the third line of \eqref{l3-1-2}. Finally, $D_t\Big(\frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\Big)=U_t \hat d \theta_t^0=U_t h'(t)\hat d t$, giving
$ \frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=U_th(t)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
In particular, we obtain the following lemma:
\begin{lem}\label{lem 4.2}
For every $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ with $h(0)\equiv v=U_0^{-1}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\xi(\varepsilon)\right)$,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{l3-2-1}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\varpi_t^\varepsilon=\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s,\eta_s\right)+\Gamma_t^{(2)},
\end{equation}
where $\eta_s:=\frac {\partial \theta_s^\varepsilon} {\partial \varepsilon} \Big|_{\varepsilon=0}$ and $\Gamma_t^{(2)}$ is defined by \eqref{e3-3}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the first line of \eqref{l3-1-2} we have $\theta_t^0=h(t)$. We differentiate the integral expression \eqref{varpi}
for $\varpi_t^\varepsilon$ and apply the third line of \eqref{l3-1-2} to obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\varpi_t^\varepsilon
=&\frac{\partial}{\partial\varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}
\int_0^t (U_s^{\varepsilon})^{-1}
{\rm { R}}_{X_s^\varepsilon}\left( U_s^\varepsilon G_s^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_s^\varepsilon, U_s^\varepsilon \theta_s^\varepsilon\right)
\\
=&
\int_0^t \frac{\partial}{\partial\varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(G_s^\varepsilon ( U_s^{\varepsilon}G_s^\varepsilon )^{-1}
{\rm { R}}_{X_s^\varepsilon} \left(U_s^\varepsilon G_s^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_s^\varepsilon, U_s^\varepsilon G_s^{\varepsilon}(G_s^{\varepsilon})^{-1}\theta_s^\varepsilon\right)
\right)\\
=&\int_0^t \left(\frac{\partial G_s^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right) {\rm R}_{U_s} \left(\circ \hat d B_s,\,\theta_s^0\right)+
\int_0^t U_s ^{-1}\nabla {\rm { R}}_{X_s}\left(U_s\theta_s^0, U_s\circ \hat d B_s, U_s \,\theta_s^0\right)
\\
&+\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d \frac{\partial B_s^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}, \theta_s^0\right)+
\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s, \left(\frac{\partial (G_s^\varepsilon)^{-1}}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)\theta_s^0\right)\\
&+\int_0^t \, {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s, \frac {\partial \theta_s^\varepsilon} {\partial \varepsilon} \Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right).
\end{align*}
Here the last term is $\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s,\eta_s\right)$, while the sum of the rest is $\Gamma_t^{(2)}$, so we have
completed the proof.
\end{proof}
We observe that $\eta_s=\frac {\partial \theta_s^\varepsilon} {\partial \varepsilon} \Big|_{\varepsilon=0}$ is essentially the second variation of $\pi(U_s^\epsilon)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem 4.3}
For every $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ with $h(0)\equiv v=U_0^{-1}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\xi(\varepsilon)\right)$,
we have $\eta_t\equiv 0$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ and
\begin{equation}\label{l3-3-1}
\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(\frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\right)=U_t\Gamma_th(t).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We recall the first equation of \eqref{l3-1-1}
$$d\theta_t^\varepsilon=-\big(\Gamma_t+\varepsilon\Gamma^{(2)}_t\big)G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+\varpi_t^\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon\circ \hat d B_t^\varepsilon+
G_t^\varepsilon\big(h'(t)+\varepsilon \Gamma_th'(t))\hat d t.$$
Differentiating it at $\varepsilon=0$, using \eqref{l3-2-1} and
the following fact
\begin{equation*}\label{summarise}
\varpi_t^0=\Gamma_t, \quad \frac{\partial B_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=h'(t), \quad
\frac{\partial G_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=-\Gamma_t, \quad \Phi_t=\Gamma_t h'(t),
\end{equation*}
we could obtain
\begin{equation*}\label{l3-3-2}
\begin{split}
\hat d\eta_t=&-\left(\Gamma_t^{(2)}+\Gamma_t\frac{\partial G_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)\circ \hat d B_t
-\Gamma_t \circ \hat d\left(\frac{\partial B_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)+\left(\varpi_t^0\frac{\partial G_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}
+\frac{\partial \varpi_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)\circ \hat d B_t\\
&+\varpi_t^0 \hat d\left(\frac{\partial B_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)+\frac{\partial G_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}h'(t)\hat d t
+ \Gamma_th'(t)\hat d t\\
=&\left(\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s, \eta_s\right)\right)\circ \hat d B_t.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
At the same time, since $X_0^\varepsilon=\xi(\varepsilon)$, $\xi(\cdot)$ is a geodesic, and also $\{U_0^\varepsilon, \varepsilon\in (-1,1)\}$ is a parallel orthonormal frame bundle along $\xi(\cdot)$, we could verify that
$$\eta_0=\frac{\partial \theta_0^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=U_0^{-1}\left(\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}
\left(\frac{\partial \xi(\varepsilon)}{\partial \varepsilon}\right)\right)=0.$$
Observe that the unique solution to following equation is $v_t\equiv 0$ \begin{align*}
\hat d v_t=\left(\int_0^t {\rm R}_{U_s}\left(\circ \hat d B_s, v_s \right)\right)\circ \hat d B_t,\ \ v_0=0.
\end{align*}
Then we derive that
$\eta_t\equiv 0$ for all $t\in [0,1]$.
Moreover, note that by definition we have $\frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}=U_t^\varepsilon \theta_t^\varepsilon$, due to
the fact $\eta_t=\frac{\partial \theta_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\equiv 0$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(\frac{\partial X_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\right)
=\frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(U_t^\varepsilon \theta_t^\varepsilon\right)=
U_t\left(\varpi_t^0\theta_t^0+\frac{\partial \theta_t^\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right)
=U_t\Gamma_th(t).
\end{align*}
Now we have obtained \eqref{l3-3-1}. \end{proof}
\subsection{Proof for the 2nd order gradient formula on a compact manifold}
\begin{prp}\label{prp4.5}
Let $t>0$, $x\in M$ and $v\in T_x M$.
Then for any $f\in C_b(M)$ and $h\in L^{2,1}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ satisfying that $h(0)=U_0^{-1}v$ and $h(t)=0~a.s.$,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-0}
\big\langle \nabla P_tf(x), v\big\rangle_{T_x M}=-\EE\left[ f(X_t^x)\int_0^t \<\Theta_s^h, dB_s\>\right],
\end{equation}
where $ \Theta^h_t:=h'(t)+\frac{1}{2}{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t))$. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-1}
\begin{split}
&\quad \big\langle \nabla^2 P_t f(x), v\otimes v\big\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\\
&=\EE\left[f(X_t^x)\left(
\left(\int_0^t\big\langle \Theta_s^h, \hat d B_s\big\rangle\right)^2-
\int_0^t \big\langle \Lambda_s^h, \hat d B_s\big\rangle-\int_0^t \left|\Theta_s^h\right|^2 \hat d s\right)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We take $\xi(\cdot)$ to be a geodesic with initial value $\xi(0)=x$ and initial velocity $\frac{\partial \xi(\varepsilon)}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=v$. Let
$\{U_0^\varepsilon\in (-1,1)\}$ denote the parallel orthonormal frame bundle along $\xi(\cdot)$ with $U_0^\varepsilon\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}=U_0$. In particular, it holds
that $\pi(U_0^\varepsilon)=\xi(\varepsilon)$. Recall that $U_t^\varepsilon$ is the solution to
\eqref{sde2} with initial value $U_0^\varepsilon$ chosen above.
It holds that
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \circ dB_s^\varepsilon&=
\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \circ \hat d B_s+\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \left(\varepsilon h'(s)+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\Gamma_s\,h'(s)\right)\hat d s\\
&=\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \hat d B_s+\int_0^t \frac{1}{2}\hat d \langle G_{\cdot}^\varepsilon, B_{\cdot}\rangle_s+ \int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \left(\varepsilon h'(s)+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}
\Gamma_s\,h'(s)\right)\hat d s\\
&=\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \hat d B_s+\varepsilon\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \Theta_s \hat d s +\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \Lambda_s \hat d s.
\end{align*}
Here we have used that
\begin{align*}
\hat d \langle G_{\cdot}^\varepsilon, B_{\cdot}\rangle_t&=
-\varepsilon G_t^\varepsilon \hat d\langle\Gamma_\cdot , B_{\cdot}\rangle_t-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}
G_t^\varepsilon \hat d\langle\Gamma_\cdot^{(2)} , B_{\cdot}\rangle_t\\
&=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}G_t^\varepsilon\;\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t))\hat d t+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}G_t^\varepsilon\Big[U_t^{-1}\nabla {\rm Ric}^\sharp_{\pi(U_t)}\left(U_th(t),
U_t h(t)\right)\\
&\ +\Gamma_t \; \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t))-\; \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}\left(\Gamma_t h(t)\right)\Big].
\end{align*}
Note that $W_t^\varepsilon:=\int_0^t G_s^\varepsilon \hat d B_s$ is still an $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued Brownian motion, so we have
\begin{align*}
dU_t^\varepsilon&=H(U_t^\varepsilon)\circ \left(\hat d W_t^\varepsilon+G_s^\varepsilon\left(\varepsilon\Theta_t+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\Lambda_t\right)\hat d t\right).
\end{align*}
Let
\begin{align*}
M_t^\varepsilon:=\exp\left(-\int_0^t \left\langle \varepsilon\Theta_s+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\Lambda_s, \hat d B_s\right\rangle-
\int_0^t \left(\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\left|\Theta_s+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\Lambda_s\right|^2\right) \hat d s \right).
\end{align*}
Then by the Girsanov theorem, the distribution of
$\{U_{s}^\varepsilon; s\in [0,t]\}$ under $d\mathbb{Q}^\varepsilon:=M_t^\varepsilon d\mathbb{P}$ is the same as that
of $\{U_s^{0,\varepsilon}; s\in [0,t]\}$, where $U_\cdot^{0,\varepsilon}$ is the solution to equation \eqref{sde1} with initial value $U_0^{0,\varepsilon}=U_0^\varepsilon$.
Therefore we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-1a}
P_t f(\xi(\varepsilon))=\EE\left[f(X_t^{\xi(\varepsilon)})\right]=\EE\left[f(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)})M_t^\varepsilon\right],
\end{equation}
where $X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}=\pi(U_t^\varepsilon)$, $X_t^{\xi(\varepsilon)}=\pi(U_t^{0,\varepsilon})$.
We first assume $f\in C_b^2(M)$, differentiating \eqref{p3-1-1a} with respect to $\varepsilon$ yields that
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-2b}
\begin{split}
\big\langle\nabla P_t f (x), v\big\rangle_{T_x M}&=\frac{\partial}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} P_t f\big(\xi(\varepsilon)\big)\\
&=\EE\left[\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}f\big(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}\big)\right]+\EE\left[f(X_t)\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} M_t^\varepsilon\right)\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Another round of differentiation gives:
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-3}
\aligned
&\left\langle \nabla^2 P_t f(x), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} P_t f(\xi(\varepsilon))
\\&=\EE\left[\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}f\big(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}\big)\right]+2
\EE\left[\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}f\big(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}\big)\right)
\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} M_t^\varepsilon\right)\right]\\&+\EE\left[f\big(X_t^x\big)\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}M_t^\varepsilon\right].
\endaligned
\end{equation}
According to the last line of \eqref{l3-1-2}, \eqref{l3-3-1}, the definition of $M_t^\varepsilon$ and the fact that $h(t)\equiv 0$ we derive
$$\frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}f\big(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}\big)=\langle \nabla f(X_t^x),U_th(t)\rangle_{T_{X_t^x}M}=0$$
and also,
$$ \frac{\partial }{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} M_t^\varepsilon=-\int_0^t\langle \Theta_s, \hat d B_s\rangle.$$
Furthermore,
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}f(X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)})=\left \langle \nabla^2 f\big(X_t^x\big), \frac{\partial X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\bigotimes\frac{\partial X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\right\rangle_{T_{X_t^x}M\otimes T_{X_t^x}M}\\&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad +\left\langle \nabla f\big(X_t^x\big), \frac{D}{\partial \varepsilon}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0}\left(\frac{\partial X_t^{\varepsilon,\xi(\varepsilon)}}{\partial \varepsilon}\right)\right\rangle_{T_{X_t^x}M}\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad =\left\langle\nabla^2 f(X_t^x), U_t h(t)\otimes U_t h(t)\right\rangle_{T_{X_t^x}M\otimes
T_{X_t^x}M}+\left\langle \nabla f\big(X_t^x\big),U_t\Gamma_t h(t)\right\rangle_{T_{X_t^x}M}=0,\\
&\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \varepsilon^2}\Big|_{\varepsilon=0} M_t^\varepsilon=\left(\int_0^t\langle \Theta_s, \hat d B_s\rangle\right)^2-
\int_0^t \langle \Lambda_s, \hat d B_s\rangle-\int_0^t \left|\Theta_s\right|^2 \hat d s.
\end{align*}
Putting these back to \eqref{p3-1-2b} and \eqref{p3-1-3} yields \eqref{p3-1-0}, \eqref{p3-1-1} for $f\in C_b^2(M)$.
By standard approximation procedure and the compact property of $M$ we see that these equalities still hold for any $f\in C_b(M)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Quantitative Cut-off Processes}\label{s2-1}
\label{cut-off}
\emph{From now on, we assume that $M$ is an $n$-dimensional general complete Riemannian manifold, not necessarily compact.}
In this section we introduce a class of cut-off processes satisfying estimates
crucial for the localisation procedures, which we shall apply later to (\ref{p3-1-1}) and to
obtain the asymptotic gradient estimates for the logarithmic heat kernel.
Since geodesic balls have typically non-regular boundary, we firstly construct a family of relatively compact open sets $\{D_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$ with smooth boundary which plays the roles of geodesic balls and such that $\cup_{m=1}^\infty D_m=M$. Our localisation procedure crucially relies on $ D_m$ has smooth boundaries, see Lemma \ref{lem7.1}.
We first use a result in
Greene and Wu \cite{GW}
on the existence of a smooth approximate distance function, which is valid for complete manifold, and then construct a family of cut off vector fields adapted to $\{D_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$. Fixing an $o\in M$, denote by $d$ the Riemannian distance function on $M$ from $o$. Since $M$ is complete,
according to \cite{GW} there exists a non-negative smooth function $\hat d:M\rightarrow\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt_+$ with the property that $0<|\nabla \hat d|\le 1$ and
$$\left|\hat d(x)-\frac{1}{2}d(x)\right|<1,\quad \forall\; x\in M.$$
For every non-negative $m$, define $D_m:=\hat d^{-1}((-\infty,m)):=\{z \in M; \hat d(z)<m\}$,
then it is easy to verify
$B_o(2m-2)\subset D_m\subset B_o(2m+2)$, where $B_o(r):=\{z \in M; d(z)<r\}$ is the geodesic ball centred at $o$ with radius $r$. Let $\phi:\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt\rightarrow [0,1]$ be a smooth function such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.1}
\phi(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1, \qquad &r\leq1\\
\in (0,1), &r\in (1,2)\\
0, &r\geq2.\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.2}
f_m(z):=\phi\Big(\hat d(z)-m+2\Big),\quad z\in M,
\end{equation}
then it is easy to see that
\begin{equation*}
f_m(z)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1, \qquad &\text{if}~~z \in \overline D_{m-1}\\
0, \qquad &\text{if}~~z \in D_m^c\\
\in (0,1), \qquad &\text{orthewise}\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
and
$D_m=\{z \in M; f_m(z)>0\}$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $D_m$ is a bounded connected open set
(otherwise we could take the connected component of $D_m$ containing $B_o(2m-2)$). Moreover, since
$\partial D_m=\{z\in M; \hat d (z)=m\}$ and $|\nabla \hat d(z)|\neq 0$ for all $z\in M$, we know $\partial D_m$ is a smooth
$n-1$ dimensional submanifold of $M$.
As before we suppose that $\{U_t\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ is the solution to the canonical horizontal equation \eqref{sde1}
with $\zeta(x)$ denoting its explosion time, and $\{X_t^x:=\pi(U_t)\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ is a Brownian motion
on $M$ with initial value $x:=\pi(U_0)$.
Let $\partial$ denote the cemetery state for $M$ and set $\bar M=M\cup \{\partial\}$. Given a $x\in M$ we let
$$P_x(\bar M):=\{\gamma\in C([0,1];\bar M): \; \gamma(0)=x\}$$ denote
the collection of all $\bar M$-valued continuous paths with initial vale $x$. Let
$\mu_x$ denote the Brownian motion measure on $P_x(\bar M)$.
We also refer the natural filtration of the canonical process $\gamma(\cdot)$ as the canonical filtration on $P_x(\bar M)$,
which is augmented to be complete and right continuous as usual.
It is well known that the distribution of $\{X_{t}^x\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ and $\{U_t\}_{0\le t<\zeta(x)}$ under
$\mathbb{P}$ is the same as that of the canonical process $\{\gamma(t)\}_{0\le t<\zeta(\gamma)}$ and its horizontal lift
$\{U_t(\gamma)\}_{0\le t<\zeta(\gamma)}$ under $\mu_x$, where $\zeta(\gamma)$ denotes the explosion time
of $\gamma(\cdot)$. Set
$$\tau_m(\gamma)=\tau_{D_m}(\gamma):=\inf\left\{s \ge 0:\ \gamma(s) \notin D_m\right\}.$$
\begin{lem}\label{lem5.1}
For any $m \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists a stochastic process (vector fields)
$l_m: [0,1]\times P_x(\bar M) \rightarrow [0,1]$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] $l_m(t,\gamma)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1, \qquad &t \le \tau_{m-1}(\gamma)\wedge 1\\
0, &t > \tau_{m}(\gamma)\end{array}\right..$
\item[(2)] {\bf Absolute continuity:}
$l_m(t,\cdot)$ is adapted to the canonical filtration and
$l_m(\cdot,\gamma)$ is absolutely continuous for $\mu_x$-a.s. $\gamma \in P_x(\bar M)$.
\item[(3)] {\bf Local uniform moment estimates:}
For every positive integer $k \in {\mathbb N} $, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.4}
\sup_{x \in D_{m-1}}\int_{P_x(\bar M)} \int^1_0|l_m'(s, \gamma)|^k \hat d s\; \mu_x(\hat d\gamma)\le C_1(m,k)
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $C_1(m,k)$ (which may depends on $m$ and $k$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In the proof, the constant $C$ (which may depend on $m$) will change in different lines.
The main idea of the proof is inspired by the article of Thalmaier \cite{T} and Thalmaier and Wang \cite{TW}.
$(1)$ Since for any $m\geq1$, $D_m\subset D_{m+1}\uparrow M$, there exists a $m_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$$~~~~~~~~\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} x\in D_m, \qquad &\text{when}~m\geq m_0\\
x\notin D_m, &\text{when}~1\leq m<m_0\end{array}\right..$$
When $x\notin D_m$, let $l_m(t,\gamma)\equiv0$.
In the following, we will consider the case of $x\in D_m$ (which implies that $\tau_m(\gamma)>0$) without loss of generality.
Let $f_m:M \rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt_+$ be the function given by \eqref{eq2.2}, we define a sequence of functions:
$$T_m(t,\gamma):=\left\{ \begin{aligned}\int^t_0\frac {\hat d s}{ \left[ f_m\left(\gamma(s)\right)\right]^2},\quad\quad\quad\quad t< \tau_m(\gamma)\\
\infty, \quad\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad t\ge\tau_m(\gamma).\end{aligned}\right. $$
Then each $T_m(\cdot, \gamma)$ is an increasing right continuous function of $t$.
For any $t\ge 0$, set
$$A_m(t,\gamma):=\inf\left\{s \ge 0:\ T_m(s,\gamma)\ge t\right\}.$$
We may omit the parameter $\gamma$ in the notation of $T_m(t,\gamma)$, $A_m(t,\gamma)$ for simplicity in the proof.
Since $\inf_{s\in [0,t]}f_m(\gamma(t))>0$ for $t<\tau_m(\gamma)$, then $T_m(t)<\infty$ for every
$t<\tau_m$ and $T_m(\cdot)$ is strictly increasing and continuous in $[0,\tau_m)$ (with respect to the variable $t$). Therefore $A_m(\cdot)$ is continuous on $[0,T_m(\tau_m))$ and $T_m(A_m(t))=t$ for every $0\le \tau_m<T_m(\tau_m)$.
Furthermore we have $T_m(\tau_m)=\infty$. To see this we only need to observe that
\begin{align*}
f_m(\gamma(s))&=f_m(\gamma(s))-f_m\left(\gamma(\tau_m)\right)
\le \frac{1}{2}\sup_{x\in D_m}|\nabla^2 f_m(x)|d\left(\gamma(s),\gamma\left(\tau_m\right)\right)^2\\
&\le C_m(\gamma)\sqrt{|s-\tau_m|},\quad \forall\ s<\tau_m,
\end{align*}
where $C_m(\gamma)$ is a constant, and we applied the property that
$d\left(\gamma(s),\gamma\left(\tau_m\right)\right)\le C_m(\gamma)|s-\tau_m|^{1/4}$ which is easy to
prove by the Kolmogorov criterion. Combing the fact $T_m(\tau_m)=\infty$ with $T_m(t)<\infty$ for all
$0\le t<\tau_m$ immediately yields that $A_m(T_m(t))=t$ for every $0\le t\le \tau_m$ and $\tau_m>A_m(t)$ for every
$0\le t<\infty$.
Next,
we use the truncation function $\phi:\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt \rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt$ in \eqref{eq2.1} to define
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.5}
l_m(t,\gamma)=\phi\left(\int_0^{t} \frac {\phi\big(T_m(s)-2\big)}{f_m^{2}\left(\gamma(s)\right)}\hat d s\right),
\end{equation}
which is clearly adapted to the canonical filtration.
Suppose that $t\geq \tau_m>A_m(3)$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_0^t \frac {\phi\big(T_m(s)-2\big)}{f_m^{2}\left(\gamma(s)\right)}\hat d s
&\geq \int_0^t {\bf 1}_{\{T_m(s)\le 3\}}f_m^{-2}\left(\gamma(s)\right)\hat d s\\
& =\int_0^t {\bf 1}_{\{s\le A_m(3)\}}f_m^{-2}\left(\gamma(s)\right)\hat d s\\
&=T_m(A_m(3))=3,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
which implies $l_m(t,\gamma)=0$ for $t \geq \tau_m$ by the definition of $\phi$.
If $s\le \tau_{m-1}(\gamma)$ then $f_m(\gamma(s))=1$ and so $T_m(s)=s$. Consequently,
$\phi\big(T_m(s)-2\big)=1$
for every $s\le \tau_{m-1}\wedge 1$. Hence we obtain
$$l_m(t,\gamma)=\phi( t\wedge 1)=1,\ \ \forall\; t\le \tau_{m-1}\wedge 1, $$
concluding the proof of part (1).
$(2)$
Still by the expression of \eqref{eq2.5} we know the conclusion of part (2) holds.
$(3)$ Now it only remains to verify the estimates \eqref{eq2.4}. Firstly,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|l_m'(t)|&=\left|\phi'\left(\int_0^t \frac {\phi\big(T_m(s)-2\big)}
{f_m^{2}\left(\gamma(s)\right)}\hat d s\right)\right|
\frac {\phi\big(T_m(t)-2\big)}
{f_m^{2}\left(\gamma(t)\right)}\\
&\leq \|\phi'\|_\infty f_m^{-2}\left(\gamma(t)\right){\bf 1}_{\{\phi(T_m(t)-2) \neq 0\}}\leq C f_m^{-2}\left(\gamma(t)\right){\bf 1}_{\{T_m(t)\leq 4\}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then for every $k \in {\mathbb N} $,
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-2a}
\begin{split}
\int_0^1|l_m'(s)|^k\,\hat d s&\leq
C\int_0^1 f_m^{-2k}\left(\gamma(s)\right){\bf 1}_{\{T_m(s)\leq 4\}}\hat d s\\
&\leq C\int^{1}_0 f_m^{-2k+2}\bigl(\gamma(s) \bigl)
{\bf 1}_{\{s\leq A_m(4)\}}\hat d T_m(s)\\
&=C\int^{4\wedge T_m(1)}_0 f_m^{-2k+2}\left(\gamma\left(A_m(r)\right)\right) \hat d r\\
&\le C\int^{4}_0 f_m^{-2k+2}\left(\gamma\left(A_m(r)\right)\right) \hat d r.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Observe that the distribution of $X_{\cdot}^x$ under $\mathbb{P}$ is the same as that of $\gamma(\cdot)$ under $\mu_x$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.6}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{x \in D_{m-1}}\int_{P_x(\bar M)}\int^{4}_0 f_m^{-2k+2}\left(\gamma\left(A_m(s)\right)\right) \hat d s
\mu_x(\hat d \gamma)\\
&=\sup_{x \in D_{m-1}}\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^{4} f_m^{-2k+2}\left(X_{A_m(s,X_{\cdot}^x)}^x\right)\hat d s\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $S_{j,m}(\gamma):=\inf\left\{t>0; f_m\left(\gamma(t)\right)\le \frac{1}{j}\right\}$. According to It\^o's formula we obtain for all $j,k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $x\in D_{m-1}$,
\begin{equation}\label{p3-1-2}
\begin{split}
\EE \left[f_m^{-k} \left(X_{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}} \right)\right]
&=f_m^{-k}(x) +\frac{1}{2}
\EE \left[\int_0^{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}} \Delta \left(f_m^{-k}\right) (X_s) \hat d s\right]\\
&=1 +
\frac{1}{2}\EE\left[\int_0^{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}} \left(f_m^2 \Delta \left(f_m^{-k}\right)\right) \left(X_{A_m(T_m(s))}\right) \hat d T_m(s)\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we have applied the fact
that ${A_m\left(T_m(s)\right)=s}$ for every $0\le s<S_{j,m}$ and $f_m(x)=1$ for all $x\in D_{m-1}$.
Meanwhile we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
f_m^2\Delta(f_m^{-k})&=k(k+1)f_m^{-k}|\nabla f_m|^2-k f_m^{-k+1}\Delta f_m\\
&=k(k+1)f_m^{-k}\left|\phi'\left(\hat d-m+2\right)\right|^2
\left|\nabla \hat d\right|^2\\
&-k f_m^{-k}\left(f_m\phi''\left(\hat d-m+2\right)\left|\nabla \hat d\right|^2+\phi'
\left(\hat d-m+2\right)f_m\Delta \hat d\right)\\
&\leq k(k+1)f_m^{-k}\left(\|\phi'\|_{\infty}+\|\phi''\|_{\infty}+
\|\phi'\|_{\infty}\sup_{z \in D_m}|\Delta \hat d(z)|\right)\\
&\le Cf_m^{-k}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Putting this into \eqref{p3-1-2} we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\EE \left[f_m^{-k} \left(X_{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}} \right)\right]&
\le 1 +C\EE\left[\int_0^{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}}f_m^{-k}\bigl(X_{A_m(T_m(s))}\bigr)\hat d T_m(s)\right]\\
&\le 1+C\int_0^t \EE\left[f_m^{-k}\bigl(X_{A_m(r)\wedge S_{j,m}}\bigr)\right]\hat d r,
\end{align*}
where the last step follows from the procedure of change of variable $u=T_m(s)$ and the fact $A_m(t)\le t$.
Hence by Grownwall's inequality we arrive at for all $k,j\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{align*}
\EE \left[f_m^{-k} \bigl(X_{A_m(t)\wedge S_{j,m}} \bigr)\right]\le Ce^{Ct}.
\end{align*}
Then letting $j \rightarrow \infty$ and observing that $A_m(t)\le \tau_m=\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty}S_{j,m}$ we obtain for
all $k\in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{align*}
\EE \left[f_m^{-k} \left(X_{A_m(t)} \right)\right]\le Ce^{Ct},
\end{align*}
combing this with \eqref{p3-1-2a} yields \eqref{eq2.4}. This completes the proof for Lemma \ref{lem5.1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the Main Estimates}\label{section5}
In this section, we shall apply the cut-off
procedures, using the quantitative localised vector fields introduced in Section \ref{cut-off}, to obtain short time as well as asymptotic
first and second order gradient estimates for the logarithmic heat kernel of a complete Riemannian manifold without imposing on it any curvature bounds.
Let $\{D_m\}_{m=1}^{\infty}$ and $\{f_m\}_{m=1}^{\infty}$ be the sequences of domains and functions constructed in Section
\ref{cut-off}. Recall that for every $m$, $D_m=\{x \in M: f_m(x)>0\}$ is a bounded connected open set.
By Lemma \ref{lem7.1} from the Appendix there exists a compact Riemannian manifold $\tilde M_m$ such that $D_m$ is isometrically embedded into
$\tilde M_m$ as an open set. We could and will view $D_m \subset \tilde M_m$ as an open subset of $\tilde M_m$.
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.5}
d_{\tilde M_m}(x,y)=d(x,y),\quad \quad \forall\ x,y \in B_{o}(2m-2),
\end{equation}
where $d$ and $d_{\tilde M_m}$ are the Riemannian distance function on $M$ and $\tilde M_m$.
We denote the heat kernel on $M$ and $\tilde M_m$ by $p(t,x,y)$ and $p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)$ respectively.
For every $e\in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ we also let $H_{e}^m$ denote the horizontal lift of $ue$ on $TO(\tilde M_m)$.
Let us fix a probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F},\mathbb{P})$. Let $\{B_t\}_{t\ge 0}$ be the standard $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$-valued Brownian motion with
$B_t=(B_t^1, \dots, B_t^n)$, and we denote by $\mathscr{F}_t$ the filtration generated by it. Now we fix an orthonormal basis
$\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ of $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$.
For $x\in D_{m}\subset \tilde M_m$ and $U_0$ a frame $U_0 \in O_xM=O_x\tilde M_m$ so that $\pi(U_0)=x$,
let $U_t^m$ denote the solution to the following
$O(\tilde M_m)$-valued stochastic differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{e4-1}
\hat d U_t^m=\sum_{i=1}^n H_{e_i}^m\left(U_t^m\right)\circ \hat d B_t^i,\quad \ U_0^m=U_0,
\end{equation}
Set $X_t^{m,x}:=\pi(U_t^m)$. This is a $\tilde M_m$-valued Brownian motion. Recall that $X_t^x:=\pi(U_t)$, where $U_t$ is the solution to \eqref{sde1},
with the same driving Brownian motion $B_t$ and the same initial value $U_0$ as in \eqref{e4-1}.
Throughout this section, for every $m,k\in \mathbb{N}$ with $k\ge m$, we define
$$\tau_m:=\inf\{t>0; X_t^x\notin D_m\},\quad \quad \tau_{m}^k:=\inf\{t>0; X_t^{k,x}\notin D_m\}.$$
Note that for every $k>m$, $H_{e_i}^k=H_{e_i}$ on $\pi^{-1}(D_m)$. It is easy to verify that
\begin{equation}\label{e4-2}
\begin{aligned}\tau_m=& \tau_{m}^k, \qquad
X_t^x=& X_t^{k,x}, \ \forall\ k\ge m>1,\ 0\le t\le \tau_m.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As before, the superscript $x$ may be omitted from time to time when there is no risk of confusion. \emph{The probability and the expectation
for the functional generated by $X_{\cdot}^x$ or $X_{\cdot}^{m,x}$ (with respect to $\mathbb{P}$) are denoted by $\mathbb{P}_x$ and
$\mathbb{E}_x$ respectively in this section.}
\emph{If $M$ is compact, then when $m$ is large enough we have $D_m=M$ and we can take $\tilde M_m=M$
(we do not have to apply Lemma \ref{lem7.1} when $M$ is compact), then all the conclusions in this section
automatically hold. Hence
in this section we always assume that $M$ is non-compact.}
\medskip
We shall use the following estimates which are crucial for our proof.
\begin{lem}[\cite{Azencott, Molchanov, Va1,Va2}]\label{lem6.1}
For any $x, y \in M$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.1}
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}t\log p(t,x,y)=-\frac{d(x,y)^2}{2}.
\end{equation}
and the convergence is uniformly in $(x,y)$ on $ K\times K$ for any compact subset $K$.
Moreover, for every connected bounded open set $D\supseteq K$ with smooth boundary,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.2}
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}t\log \mathbb{P}_x\left(\tau_D<t\right)=-\frac{d(x,\partial D)^2}{2},\ \ \forall\ x\in K.
\end{equation}
Here $\tau_D:=\inf\{t>0; X_t \notin D\}$ is the first exit time from $D$ and $d(x,\partial D):=\inf_{z \in \partial D}d(x,z)$.
And the convergence is also uniform in $x$ on $K$.
\end{lem}
The asymptotic estimates \eqref{eq3.1} and \eqref{eq3.2} were firstly shown to hold for $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ in Varadhan
\cite{Va1,Va2}, extension to a complete Riemannian manifold was given in
Molchanov \cite{Molchanov}.
In addition,
Azencott \cite{Azencott-as} and \cite{Hsu90} indicated that these statements may fail for an
incomplete Riemannian manifold.
We shall also use the following statement, which follows readily from the small time asymptotics and the Gaussian heat kernel upper bounds.
\begin{lem}( \cite{Azencott-as}, \cite[Lemma 2.2]{Hsu90})\label{lem6.2}
For any compact subset $K$ of $M$ and any positive number~$r$,
Then there exists a positive number $t_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.3}
\sup_{t\in (0,t_0]} \sup_{ d(z,y) \ge r, \;y \in K}p(t,z,y)\le 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Comparison theorem for functional integrals involving approximate heat kernels}
Let $D_m$ dentoe the relatively compact subset and $l_m:[0,1]\times P_x(M)\rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt$ be the cut-off processes
adapted to $D_m$, as constructed by Lemma \ref{lem5.1}. Let $p^{D_m}(t,x,y)$ denote the Dirichlet heat kernel on $D_m$.
Let $K$ be a compact set and $x,y\in K$ be such that $d(x,y)<d(x, \partial D^m)\vee d(y, \partial D^m)$, then $p(t,x,y)$ and $p^{D_m}(t,x,y)$ are asymptotically the same for small $t$. See \cite{Azencott-as}, Lemma 2.3 on page 156.
Below we give a quantitative estimate on $p$ and $p_{D_m}$ on a compact set $K\times K$, for sufficiently large $m$. By sufficiently large, we mean that $m\ge m_0$ for
a natural number $m_0$ and $m_0$ may depend on other data. In all the results below, it depends on the compact set $K$ and the prescribed exponential factor $L>0$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem6.3}
Suppose that $K$ is a compact subset of $M$ and $L>1$ is a positive number. Then for sufficiently large $m$, there exists a positive number
$t_0=t_0(K,L,m)$ such that for every $t\in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.6}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{x,y\in K}\left|p(t,x,y)-p^{D_{m}}(t,x,y)\right| &\le \, e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}, \\\sup_{x,y\in K} \left|p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)-p^{D_{m}}(t,x,y)\right| &\le e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In particular, for every $t\in (0,t_0]$, \begin{equation}\label{eq3.7a}
\sup_{x,y\in K}\left|p(t,x,y)-p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)\right| \leq e^{-\frac{L}{t}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The estimates in \eqref{eq3.6} could be found in Azencott \cite[section 4.2]{Azencott-as}, \and also in Bismut \cite[Section III.a]{Bis} and Hsu \cite[The proof of Theorem 5.1.1]{Hsu2}. Here
we include a proof for the convenience of the reader. The technique and the intermediate estimates will be used later.
By the strong Markovian property,
$$P_tf(x)=\mathbb{E}_x \left[f\left(X_t\right){\bf 1}_{\{t\le \tau_{m}\}}\right]+\mathbb{E}_x \left[\mathbb{E}_{X_{\tau_m}}
\left[f\left(X_{t-\tau_m}\right)\right]{\bf 1}_{\{\tau_{m}<t<\zeta\}}\right]$$
and so for any $x,y \in K$ and $ t>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.8}
\begin{split}
p(t,x,y)=p^{D_m}(t,x,y)+\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p\left(t-\tau_{m},X_{\tau_{m}},y\right)
{\bf 1}_{\{\tau_{m}<t<\zeta\}}\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $M$ is non-compact, given any number $L>1$, there exists a natural number $m_0$ such that
$$K\subset B_o(2m_0-2), \quad d(K,\partial D_{m_0})\ge d(K,\partial B_o(2m_0-2))>4L.$$
Then, according to \eqref{eq3.2} and \eqref{eq3.3}, for every $m\ge m_0$, we could find a positive number $t_0(K,L,m)$ such that for any $t\in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \mathbb{P}_x\left(t>\tau_{m}\right)\le \exp\left(-\frac{d(x,\partial D_{m})^2-1}{2t}\right)\le
e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}, \qquad \forall x\in K,\\
& p(t,z,y)\le 1, \quad \hbox{ for all } \; z\in \partial D_m, \hbox{ and } \; y\in K.\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By these estimates we obtain that, for all $m\ge m_0$ and all $t \in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_x\left[p\left(t-\tau_{m},X_{\tau_m},y\right)
{\bf 1}_{\{t> \tau_{D_{m}}\}}\right]
&\le \sup_{t \in (0,t_0)}\sup_{ z\in \partial D_{m}, y \in K}p(t,z,y)\cdot
\mathbb{P}_x\left(t>\tau_{m}\right)\\
&\le e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Putting this into \eqref{eq3.8} we arrive at that for all $m\ge m_0$, all $x,y\in K$, and for all $ t \in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.9}
\begin{split}
& |p(t,x,y)-p^{D_{m}}(t,x,y)|\le e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that for every $m\ge m_0$, $D_{m}\subset \tilde M_{m}$ and $x\in K$,
$$d_{\tilde M_{m}}(x, \partial D_{m})\ge
d_{\tilde M_{m}}(x, \partial B_o(2m-2))
=d(x, \partial B_o(2m-2))$$
which is due to \eqref{eq3.5}.
By the same argument for \eqref{eq3.9} and changing the constant $t_0$ if necessary we could find a
$t_0(K,L,m)$ such that for all $m\ge m_0$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \left|p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)-p^{D_{m}}(t,x,y)\right|\le e^{-\frac{2L}{t}},\ \ x,y\in K,\ t \in (0,t_0].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This, together with \eqref{eq3.9}, yields \eqref{eq3.6} and \eqref{eq3.7a}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem6.4}
Suppose that $K$ is a compact subset of $M$ and $L>1$ is a positive number.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(1)$] For $m_0$ sufficiently large and any $m>m_0$,
there exists a $t_0(K,L,m)$ such that for every $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$ and $0<t\le t_0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{l4-1-7}
\sup_{x, y\in K}\sup_{z\in D_{m_0}} \left| \frac {p(t-s, x,z)}{p(t,x,y)}- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, x,z)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \right|
\le 2e^{-\frac{4L}{t}}.
\end{equation}
\item[$(2)$] Suppose $\Upsilon_t$ is an $\mathscr{F}_t$ adapted process, and for any $q>0$ and $m\geq1$ we set
$$F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot)=\Bigl( \int_0^s \Upsilon_r l_m'\Bigl(r,X_{\cdot}\Bigr)\hat d B_r\Bigr)^q,\quad
F_m^q(\Upsilon, X_\cdot^m)= \Bigl(\int_0^s \Upsilon_r l_m'\Bigl(r,X_{\cdot}^m\Bigr)\hat d B_r\Bigr)^q.$$
We also assume that
\begin{equation}\label{l4-1-0}
\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} |\Upsilon_s|^{2q}\hat d s\right]<\infty, \quad \forall m\geq1
\end{equation}
for some $q\in \mathbb{N}$.
Then for every sufficiently large $m$ (any $m$ greater than some number $m_0(K,L)$), we can find a positive number
$t_0(K,L,m)$
with the property that
\begin{equation}\label{l4-1-1}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{x,y\in K}\Bigg |\mathbb{E}_x \Bigl[ F_m^q(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \; \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}\;
\Bigr]
-\EE_x\Bigl[F_m^q(\Upsilon, X_\cdot^m)\;
\frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \Bigr]\Bigg|\\
& \le C(m)\;e^{-\frac{L}{t}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for any $0<t\le t_0$, $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$.
Here
the positive constant $C(m)$ may depend on $m$ and on
$\alpha_m:=\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1}\left|\Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\right|^{q} \hat d r\right]$. (Note that $l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\neq 0$ only for $r<\tau_m=\tau_{m}^m$ so the quantity is well defined.)
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In the proof, the constant $C$ may represent different constants in different lines.
Let $r_0:=\sup_{x,y\in K}d_M(x,y)$ denote the diameter of $K$. Since
$M$ is non-compact, we can choose a natural number $\tilde m_0$ (which may depend on $K$ and $L$) such that
$$K\subset B_o(2\tilde m_0-2)\subset D_{\tilde m_0}$$ and for all $m>\tilde m_0$,
$$d\left(K, \partial B_o(2\tilde m_0-2)\right)=d_{\tilde M_m}
\left(K, \partial B_o(2\tilde m_0-2)\right)> 4(L+ r_0+1).$$
Also, by the heat kernel comparison \eqref{eq3.6} and \eqref{eq3.7a}, we can find a $m_0>\tilde m_0$ so that for all $m>m_0$, there exists a constant $t_2(K,L,m)>0$ such that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.12}
\begin{split}
\left|p(t,z,y)-p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,z,y)\right| \le e^{-\frac{4(L+r_0+1)^2}{t}},\ \ \forall\ t\in (0,t_2],\ z,y\in D_{m_0}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
According to the asymptotic relations \eqref{eq3.1} and \eqref{eq3.2}, for every $m>m_0$( taking $m_0$ larger as is necessary) we could find a constant $0<t_1(K,L,m)\le t_2$ such that for all $t\in (0,t_1]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{l4-1-3}
&&p(t,z,y)\le e^{\frac{1}{t}}, \qquad \ \qquad p_{\tilde M_m}(t,z,y)\le e^{\frac{1}{t}},\quad \qquad \quad \forall z,y\in D_{m_0},
\\
\label{l4-1-4}
&&p(t,z,y)\ge e^{-\frac{r_0^2+1}{t}},\qquad \; p_{\tilde M_m}(t,z,y)\ge e^{-\frac{r_0^2+1}{t}},\; \qquad \forall z,y\in K,
\\
\label{l4-1-5}
&&\mathbb{P}_z\left(\tau_{m_0}<t\right)\le e^{-\frac{4(L+r_0+1)^2}{t}},
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \forall\,\ \ z\in K.
\end{eqnarray}
By the small time locally uniform heat kernel bound \eqref{eq3.3}, for every $m>m_0$ there exists a number $0<t_0(K,L,m)\le t_1$ such that
for all $ t\in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation}\label{l4-1-6}
p(t,z_1,y)\vee\ p_{\tilde M_m}(t,z_2,y)\le 1, \ \ \forall z_1\in M\cap D_{m_0}^c,\;
z_2\in \tilde M_m\cap D_{m_0}^c, \; y\in K.
\end{equation}
Therefore for every $m>m_0$ and for every $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$, every $0<t\le t_0$, and for all $x,y\in K$ and $ z\in D_{m_0}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\left| \frac {p(t-s, x,z)}{p(t,x,y)}- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, x,z)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \right| \\
&\le \frac{ p(t-s,x,z)\left|p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y) -p(t,x,y)\right|+
p(t,x,y) \left|p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s,x,z) -p(t-s,x,z) \right| }{p(t,x,y)p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\\
&\le 2e^{\frac{2(1+r_0^2)}{t}} e^{\frac{2}{t}} e^{-\frac{4(L+r_0+1)^2}{t}}
\le 2e^{-\frac{4L}{t}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here the second step above is due to \eqref{eq3.12}--\eqref{l4-1-4}. Thus, we finish the proof of $(1)$.
For all $m>m_0$, let us split the terms as follows,
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot)
\frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}
\right]\\
=&\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}{\bf 1}_{\{t\le \tau_{m_0}\}}\right]
+\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}{\bf 1}_{\{ t>\tau_{m_0}\}}\right]\\
=&:I_1^m(s,t)+I_2^m(s,t).
\end{align*}
Since $l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\neq 0$ if only if $t<\tau_m$, then $l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}^m\right)=l_m'\left(r, X_{\cdot}\right)$ and
we have
\begin{align*}
F_m^q(\Upsilon,X_\cdot^m)&=\left(\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X^m_{\cdot}\right)\hat d B_r\right)^q=
\left(\int_0^{s\wedge \tau_m} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X^m_{\cdot}\right)\hat d B_r\right)^q\\
&=\left(\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\hat d B_r\right)^q=F_m^q(\Upsilon,X_\cdot).
\end{align*}
Note also, $X_s^m=X_s$ for every $s\le \frac{t}{2}<\tau_m$. It holds that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F_m^q(\Upsilon,X_\cdot^m
\frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right]\\
=&\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}{\bf 1}_{\{t\le \tau_{m_0}\}}\right]
+\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F^q_m(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}{\bf 1}_{\{t> \tau_{m_0}\}}\right]\\
=&:J_1^m(s,t)+J_2^m(s,t),\quad 0<s<\frac{t}{2},
\end{align*}
Note that
\begin{equation}\label{14-1-11}\alpha_m=\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^1 \left|\Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\right|^q \hat d r \right]<\infty.\end{equation}
This follows from the moment estimates on $l_m$, \eqref{eq2.4}, the assumption \eqref{l4-1-0}, and
also $$
\alpha_m \le
\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} \left|\Upsilon_r\right|^{2q} \hat d r \right]^{1/2}
\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} \left|l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\right|^{2q} \hat d r \right]^{1/2}.
$$
For all
$m>m_0$, $x,y\in K$, $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$, and $0<t\le t_0$, we may assume that $t_0\le 2$,
\begin{align*}
&|I_1^m(s,t)-J_1^m(s,t)|\\
&\le \sup_{z\in D_{m_0}}\left| \frac {p(t-s, z,y)}{p(t,x,y)}
- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, z,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \right|
\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\hat d B_r\right|^q \right]\\
&\le Ce^{-\frac{4L}{t}}\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} \left|\Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\right|^q \hat d r \right]=C \alpha_m\;e^{-\frac{4L}{t}}.
\end{align*}
In the penultimate step, we have applied Burkholder-Davies-Gundy inequality and \eqref{l4-1-7}.
According to \eqref{l4-1-3} and \eqref{l4-1-6} we also have
$$\sup_{z\in M, y\in K}p(t,z,y)\le e^{\frac{1}{t}},\ \ \forall\ 0<t\le t_0.$$
Combining this with \eqref{l4-1-4}--\eqref{l4-1-5}, Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, and Burkholder-Davies-Gundy inequality, we obtain
that for every $m>m_0$, $x,y\in K$, $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$, and $0<t\le t_0$,
\begin{align*}
&|I_2^m(s,t)|\\
&\le C\; e^{\frac{r_0^2+1}{t}}\;\sup_{r\in [\frac{t}{2},t],z\in M,y\in K}p(r,z,y)\;
\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\hat d B_r\right|^{2q} \right]^{1/2}
\mathbb{P}_x\left(\tau_{m_0}<t\right)^{1/2}\\
&\le Ce^{\frac{r_0^2+1}{t}}e^{\frac{2}{t}}e^{-\frac{2(r_0+L+1)^2}{t}}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} \left|\Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\right|^{2q} \hat d r \right]^{1/2}\le C\alpha_m \;e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}.
\end{align*}
Here in the last step we used (\ref{14-1-11}).
Similarly, we obtain that for every $m>m_0$, $x,y\in K$,
\begin{align*}
|J_2^m(s,t)|\le C \alpha_m \;e^{-\frac{2L}{t}}, \qquad \hbox{ for all $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$ and $0<t\le t_0$.}
\end{align*}
Combing the above estimates for $I_1^m,I_2^m,J_1^m,J_2^m$ we see that, for every
$m>m_0$, $x,y\in K$, $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$ and $0<t\le t_0$,
\begin{align*}
&\Bigg |\mathbb{E}_x \left[ F_m^q(\Upsilon, X_\cdot) \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}
\right]
-
\EE_x\left[F_m^q(\Upsilon, X_\cdot^m)
\frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \right]\Bigg|\\
&\le |I_1^m(s,t)-J_1^m(s,t)|+|I_2^m(s,t)|+|J_2^m(s,t)|\le C \alpha_m e^{-\frac{L}{t}},
\end{align*}
which is \eqref{l4-1-1} and we have finished the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem6.1}
By the same arguments in the proof for \eqref{l4-1-1} we could obtain the following under the conditions of Lemma
\ref{lem6.4}: For sufficiently large $m$ we could find a positive number $t_0(K,L,m)$ so that for every $x,y\in K$, $0<s\le \frac{t}{2}$, and $0<t\le t_0$ the following estimates hold, replacing $l_m$ by $l_{m'}$, or $dB_r$ by $dr$.
\begin{equation}\label{r4-1-1}
\begin{split}
&\Bigg |\mathbb{E}_x \left[ \left(\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r \,l_m
(r,X_{\cdot})\hat d B_r\right)^q
\left( \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}
- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right)
\right] \Bigg|
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{r4-1-2}
\begin{split}
&\Bigg |\mathbb{E}_x \left[ \left(\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m'\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\hat d r\right)^q \left( \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)}
- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)} \right) \right]\Bigg|
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{r4-1-3}
\begin{split}
& \Bigg |\mathbb{E}_x \left[ \left(\int_0^{s} \Upsilon_r l_m\left(r,X_{\cdot}\right)\hat d r\right)^q
\left( \frac {p(t-s, X_s,y)}{p(t,x,y)
- \frac {p_{\tilde M_m}(t-s, X_s^m,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right)
\right]\Bigg|
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These estimates will also be used in
the proof for Proposition \ref{prp6.6}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proof of the main theorem: gradient estimates}
\begin{lem}\label{lem6.5}
Let $t>0$, $x\in M$ and $v\in T_x M$. Suppose that $m$ is a natural number such that $x\in D_m$. Let
$h\in L^{1,2}(\Omega;\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n)$ be given by
$$h(s)=\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)^+\times l_m(s,X_{\cdot})\times U_0^{-1}v.$$
Then for any $f\in C_b(M)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{l5-2-1}
\begin{split}
\langle \nabla P_tf(x), v\rangle_{T_x M}&=-\EE_x\left[ f(X_t)\int_0^t \<\Theta_s^h, dB_s\> {\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta_s^h$ defined by \eqref{e3-2} with the $h$ chosen above.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
When $M$ is compact, \eqref{l5-2-1} is just \eqref{p3-1-0} established in Proposition \ref{prp4.5}. For general
non-compact complete $M$, we could follow similar (but much simpler) arguments as that in the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm3.1}, see Section \ref{proof-second-order} below, so we omit the details here.
\end{proof}
Now we present an estimate
for the difference between the gradients of logarithmic heat kernels. Note that for every
$x, y \in K \subset B_o(2m-2)\subset D_m$,
we could view $\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)$ and
$\nabla_x\log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)$ as vectors in $T_x M$, so that
$$|\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)-\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)|_{T_x M}$$
is well defined.
Let $\partial$ be the cemetery point. We make the convention that $p(t,\partial,y)=0$ for all $t$.
\begin{prp}\label{prp6.6}
Suppose that $K$ is a compact subset of $M$ and $L>1$ is a positive number.
Then for every suficiently large $m$, we could find a number $t_0(K,L,m)$, depending on $K,L, m$, such that for every $0<t\le t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.7}
\sup_{x,y \in K} \left|\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)- \nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M}
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}}
\end{equation}
where $C(m)$ is a positive constant, which may depend on $m$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix points $x,y \in K$ and a unit vector $v \in T_x M$.
Let $m $ be a natural number such that $B_o(2m-2)\supset K$. Let $t>0$ be fixed.
By \eqref{l5-2-1} where $\Theta^h=h'(t)+\frac 12 \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(h(t))$, we have, for every $f \in C_c(M)$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\langle \nabla P_t f(x),v\rangle
=&\frac{2}{t}\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \left\langle l_m(s)U_0^{-1}v,\hat d B_s
\right\rangle \; f\bigl(X_t\bigr){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\Bigr]\\
&-\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \Bigl\langle
\bigl(\frac{t-2s}{t}\bigr)l_m'(s)U_0^{-1}v, \hat d B_s \Bigr\rangle\;f\left(X_t\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\Bigr]\\
&-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\Bigl\langle \, \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}\Bigl(\bigl(\frac{t-2s}{t}\bigr)l_m(s)U_0^{-1}v\Bigr), \hat d B_s\Bigr\rangle
\;f\left(X_t\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\Bigr]
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $f$ has compact support, the indicator function ${\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}$ can be removed.
Taking the conditional expectation on $\sigma(X_t)$, we obtain, for all $x \in M$ and
almost everywhere $y \in M$ (with respect to volume measure on $M$),
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&t\bigl\langle \nabla_x \log p(t,x,y),v\bigr\rangle\\
& =t\frac{\langle \nabla_x p(t,x,y), v \rangle}{p(t,x,y)}
=2\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[{\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \left\langle l_m(s)U_0^{-1}v, \hat d B_s
\right\rangle\; |\; X_t=y\Bigr]\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad -t\mathbb{E}_x\left[{\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \Bigl\langle
\bigl(\frac{t-2s}{t}\bigr)l_m'(s)U_0^{-1}v, \hat d B_s\Bigr\rangle \; \Big|X_t=y\right]\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad -\frac{t}{2}\mathbb{E}_x\left[{\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\Bigl\langle \, \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}\bigl(\frac{t-2s}{t}\bigr)l_m(s)
U_0^{-1}v, \hat d B_s\Bigr\rangle
\;\Big|\;X_t=y\right]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[{\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\; |\; X_t=y\Bigr].\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $$g_m(s):=2l_m(s) -t
\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)l_m'(s)
-\frac{t}{2}\;\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)l_m(s).$$
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{e3-8}
\begin{split}
&t\bigl\langle \nabla_x \log p(t,x,y),v\bigr\rangle
=\mathbb{E}_x\Bigl[{\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\; |\; X_t=y\Bigr]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\;\frac{p\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}},y\right)}{p(t,x,y)}{\bf 1}_{\{\frac t 2<\zeta\}} \right]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\;\frac{p\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}},y\right)}{p(t,x,y)} \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have used the property that for $p(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}},y)=0$ whenever $\frac t 2\ge\zeta(x)$.
Based on the heat kernel estimates in the previous lemmas, by the proof of Lemma \ref{lem7.2} we know immediately
$$x\mapsto\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\;\frac{p\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}},y\right)}{p(t,x,y)}\right]$$
is continuous.
So the expression
above is true for all $x,y \in M$.
Since $l_m'\left(s,X_{\cdot}^m\right)=
l_m'\left(s, X_{\cdot}\right)$ and $l_m\left(s,X_{\cdot}^m\right)=
l_m\left(s, X_{\cdot}\right)$ for $s<\tau_m$ and $X_s=X_s^m$,
applying the same arguments above to $\tilde M_{m}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{e3-9}
\begin{split}
&\langle t\nabla \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y),v \rangle_{T_x M}
=\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} g_m(s)\bigl\langle
U_0^{-1}v, dB_s
\bigr\rangle\;\frac{p_{\tilde M_m}\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}}^m,y\right)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To apply Lemma \ref{lem6.4} it remains to make moment estimates for $\int_0^t g(s)\<v , U_0dB_s\>$.
For any $m\in {\mathbb N}$ large enough and $q>0$, we observe that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.13}
\begin{split}
\sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m} \left| \text{\rm ric}_{U_t}(U_0^{-1}v)\right|^q \hat d s\right]
&\le |v|^q \sup_{x\in K}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\int_0^{1\wedge \tau_m}\left|\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}{\bf 1}_{\{s<\tau_m\}}\right|^q \hat d s\right]\\
&\le |v|^q \sup_{z\in D_m}\| \text{\rm ric}(z)\|^q<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This means condition \eqref{l4-1-0} in Lemma \ref{lem6.4} holds for the process $\Upsilon_t=\text{\rm ric}_{U_t}$ and we could apply \eqref{r4-1-1} and \eqref{l4-1-1} to conclude the estimates.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to proceed to prove the gradient estimates for $\log p(t,x,y)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm6.7}
The following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] Suppose $x,y \in M$ and $x\notin \text{Cut}_M(y)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.14}
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}t\nabla_x\log p(t,x,y)=-\nabla_x\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Here the convergence is uniformly in $x $ on
any compact subset of $M\setminus \text{Cut}_M(y)$.
\item[(2)] Let $K$ be a compact subset of $M$. Then there exists a
positive constant $C(K)$, which may depend on $K$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.15}
\left|\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M}\le C(K)\left(\frac{d(x,y)}{t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right),\ x,y\in K,
\ t \in (0,1].
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In the proof, the constant $C$ (which depends on $\tilde K$ or $K$) may change from line to line.
For every $m \in {\mathbb N} $ with $K\subset B_o(2m-2)\subset D_{m}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.16}
\begin{split}
&t\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)\\&=
t\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)+\left(t\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)-t\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For each compact set $\tilde K \subset M\setminus \text{Cut}_M(y)$, by \eqref{eq3.7}\emph{} we could
choose a $m_0 \in {\mathbb N} $ large enough such that $\tilde K \subset B_o(2m_0-2)\subset D_{m_0}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
|t\nabla_x \log p(t,x,y)-t\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)|_{T_x M}=0
\end{equation*}
At the same time, since $\tilde M_{m_0}$ is compact and
$\tilde K$ is outside of the cut locus $\text{Cut}_{\tilde M_m}(y)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
\left|t\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m_0}}(t,x,y)
+\nabla_x \left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2}\right)\right|_{T_x M}\\
&=
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
\left|t\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m_0}}(t,x,y)
+\nabla_x \left(\frac{d_{\tilde M_{m_0}}^2(x,y)}{2}\right)\right|_{T_x \tilde M_{m_0}}=
0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In the first step, we used that $d_{\tilde M_{m_0}}(x,y)=d(x,y)$ for $x,y \in \tilde K$,
while the second step is due to Corollary 2.29 from Malliavin and Stroock \cite{MS},
(see also Bismut \cite{Bis} and Norris \cite{Norris}). Plugging this into \eqref{eq3.16} with $m=m_0$, then we have shown \eqref{eq3.14}.
Given a compact set $K \subset M$ and a constant $L>1$, based on \eqref{eq3.7} there exists
a sufficiently large natural number $m_0$ such that $K \subset B_o(2m_0-2)\subset D_{m_0}$ and
and $t_0\in (0,1)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{t3-5-1}
\sup_{x,y \in K}|I^{m_0}(t,x,y)|_{T_x M}\le Ce^{-\frac{L}{t}},\ \quad \forall \; t\in (0,t_0].
\end{equation}
Since $\tilde M_{m_0}$ is compact,
we can apply Hsu \cite[Theorem 5.5.3]{Hsu2} or Sheu \cite{Sh}
to show that for all $x,y\in K$ and $t\in (0,1]$,
\begin{equation}\label{t3-5-2}
\begin{split}
\left|\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m_0}}\left(t,x,y\right)\right|_{T_x M}&\le
C(K)\left(\frac{d_{\tilde M_{m_0}}(x,y)}{t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right)\\
&=C(K)\left(\frac{d(x,y)}{t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combing \eqref{t3-5-1} and \eqref{t3-5-2} into \eqref{eq3.16} with $m=m_0$ we immediately find \eqref{eq3.15}
holds for all $t \in (0,t_0]$.
Also note that for all $ x,y\in K$ and for all $\ t\in [t_0,1]$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left|\nabla_x \log p\left(t,x,y\right)\right|_{T_x M}\le C(K,t_0)
\le C\left(\frac{d(x,y)}{t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By now we have completed the proof of \eqref{eq3.15}.
\end{proof}
{\bf Remark:}
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)] The gradient estimate \eqref{eq3.15} was proved in \cite{S,Sh,Hsu2} for a complete manifold with Ricci curvature bounded from below by a constant $K$,
In that case, the constant $C(K)$ in \eqref{eq3.15} in uniform and only depends on $K$, see also \cite{XLi}
for the case of the estimates for heat kernel associated with the Witten Laplacian operator.
\item [(2)] By carefully tracking the proof, we know the constant $C(K)$ from \eqref{eq3.15} depends only on ${|\nabla_x \log p_{\tilde M_{m_0}}(t,x,y)|}$, $\inf_{x\in D_{m_0}}\|{\rm Ric}_x\|$, and
$\sup_{x\in D_{m_0}}\mathbb{E}_x \int_0^{1}\left|l'_{m_0}(s)\right|^2\hat d s$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm3.1} and the main theorem: Hessian estimates}
\label{proof-second-order}
Now we can prove the claim for the second order gradient of logarithmic heat kernel.
In Proposition \ref{prp4.5}, we have established a second order gradient formula for $P_t f$ on a compact manifold.
In its proof we exchanged the differential and the integral operators several times, which may not
hold if $M$ is not compact. So it is not trivial to extend Proposition \ref{prp4.5} to a non-compact manifold.
To prove Theorem \ref{thm3.1}, we begin with comparing the terms in $\nabla^2 P_t^k$ and $\nabla^2P_t$.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma-I}
Given a $x\in M$, suppose that $m$ is sufficiently large so $x\in D_m$ and $k>m$. Let $\{U_t^k\}_{t\ge 0}$ be the horizontal Brownian motion on $\tilde M_k$ as defined in (\ref{e4-1}). Set $X_t^k=\pi(U_t^k)$ and $P_t^k f(x)=\mathbb{E}_x\left[f(X_t^k)\right]$.
Let $h(s)=\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)^+ \cdot l_m(s,X_\cdot^k)\cdot U_0^{-1}v$ and define
\begin{equation}\label{p4-1-2}
I \left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)
:=\left(\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\langle \Theta^h_s, \hat d B_s\rangle\right)^2-
\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \langle \Lambda^h_s, \hat d B_s\rangle-\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}} \left|\Theta_s^h\right|^2 \hat d s
\end{equation}
Let $I\bigl(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot}^k,v\bigr)$ be defined with the corresponding terms in $\tilde M_k$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{p4-1-2a}
I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot}^k,v\right)=I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)
=\left(\int_0^t\langle \Theta_s^h, \hat d B_s\rangle\right)^2-\int_0^t \langle \Lambda_s^h, \hat d B_s\rangle-\int_0^t \left|\Theta_s^h\right|^2 \hat d s.
\end{equation}
Furthermore it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{p4-1-4}
\sup_{x\in D_m, v\in T_x M, |v|=1}\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)\right|^2\right]<\infty,\ \ \forall\ t>0.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition of $h(s)$ and the property \eqref{e4-2}, $h(s)\neq 0$ only if $s\le \frac t 2$ and $s\le \tau_m= \tau_{m}^k$,
so $$h'(s)=\left(-\frac 2 tl_m(s,X_\cdot^k) + l_m'(s,X_\cdot^k)\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)^+\right){\bf 1}_{\{s<\frac t 2 \wedge \tau_m\}}\cdot U_0^{-1}v,$$
where we can replace $X^k_\cdot$ by $X_\cdot$.
Let $\Theta_s^{h,k}$, $\Gamma_s^{h,k}$, $\Lambda_s^{h,k}$ be the corresponding terms of $\Theta_s^h$,
$\Gamma_s^h$, $\Lambda_s^h$ defined on
$\tilde M_k$. By \eqref{e3-2} and the definition of $h(s)$ we have the following expression
\begin{equation}\label{p4-1-3}
\Theta_s^{h,k}=h'(s)+\text{\rm ric}^{\tilde M_k}_{U_s^k}(h(s))=h'(s)+\text{\rm ric}_{U_s}(h(s))=\Theta_s^h.
\end{equation}
Here we have applied again the fact that $h(s)\neq 0$ only if $s\le t\wedge \tau_m=t\wedge \tau_{m}^k$ and
\begin{align*}
\text{\rm ric}^{\tilde M_k}_{U_s^k}(h(s))=\text{\rm ric}^{\tilde M_k}_{U_s^k}(h(s)){\bf 1}_{\{s<\tau_m\}}=
\text{\rm ric}_{U_s}(h(s)),\ \forall\ k>m.
\end{align*}
where we have used the fact $U_s=U_s^k$ when $s<\tau_m$ and $\text{\rm{Ric}}^{\tilde M_k}_x=\text{\rm{Ric}}_x$ for every
$x\in D_m$.
Still based on \eqref{e3-2}, \eqref{e3-2a} and the same arguments for \eqref{p4-1-4} we can obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma_s^{h,k}=\Gamma_s^h,\ \Lambda_s^{h,k}=\Lambda_s^h,\ \forall\ k>m.
\end{equation*}
Therefore the term $I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot}^k,v\right)$ in \eqref{p4-1-2} is independent of $k$
and the required identity \eqref{p4-1-2a} holds.
Finally, (\ref{p4-1-4}) immediately follows from the moment estimates \eqref{eq2.4} for $l_m'$
and the same arguments for \eqref{eq3.13}.
\end{proof}
We can now begin the
\ \newline\emph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm3.1}.}
Let $m_0\in {\mathbb N}$ satisfy that $x\in D_{m_0+1}$, then for every $k>m>m_0$ it holds that
$B_o(2m-2)\subset D_m \subset D_k$. Let $h(s)=\left(\frac{t-2s}{t}\right)^+ \cdot l_m(s,X_\cdot^k)\cdot U_0^{-1}v$.
We can apply \eqref{p3-1-1} in Proposition \ref{prp4.5}
to the compact manifold $\tilde M_k$ to obtain that for every $k>m$,
\begin{equation}\label{p4-1-2-d}
\begin{split}
&\quad \left\langle \nabla^2 P_t^k f(x), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\\
&=\EE_x\left[f(X_t^k)\left(
\left(\int_0^t\langle \Theta_s^{h,k}, \hat d B_s\rangle\right)^2-
\int_0^t \langle \Lambda^{h,k}_s, \hat d B_s\rangle-\int_0^t \left|\Theta^{h,k}_s\right|^2 \hat d s\right)\right]\\
&=\mathbb{E}_x\left[f(X_t^k)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot}^k,v\right)\right]=
\mathbb{E}_x\left[f(X_t^k)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the process $\Theta_s$, $\Lambda_s$ are defined by \eqref{e3-2}, \eqref{e3-2a}, and in the last step
we have applied \eqref{p4-1-2a}.
According to \eqref{p4-1-2} and integration by parts formula (on compact manifold $\tilde M_k$), for any $\psi \in C_c^{\infty}(M)$, $V \in C_c^{\infty}(M;TM)$ with
$\text{\rm supp}{\psi}\cup\text{\rm supp}{V}\subset D_m$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.26}
\begin{split}
&\int_{M} \mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t^{k}\right)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},V(x)\right)\right]\psi(x)\hat d x
\\&=\int_{M} \left\langle \nabla^2 P_t^{k} f(x), V(x)\otimes V(x)\right\rangle\psi(x)\hat d x\\
&=\int_{\tilde M_k} \left\langle \nabla^2 P_t^{k} f(x), V(x)\otimes V(x)\right\rangle\psi(x)\hat d x\\
&=\int_{\tilde M_k} \mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t^{k}\right)\right]\Psi(\psi,V)(x)\hat d x=\int_{M}
\mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t^{k}\right)\right]\Psi(\psi,V)(x)\hat d x.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here we denote the gradient operator and Riemannian volume measure on both $M$ and $\tilde M_k$ by
$\nabla$ and $\hat d x$, and we set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Psi(\psi,V)(x):=&\text{\rm div}(\text{\rm div}(V\psi) V)+\text{\rm div}(\psi\nabla_V V)\\
=&\psi(x)\left(\text{\rm div}\left(\nabla_V V\right)+\left(\text{\rm div} V\right)^2+
\left\langle V, \nabla \text{\rm div} V\right\rangle_{T_x M}\right)(x)\\
&+2\left\langle \nabla \psi, \nabla_V V+(\text{\rm div} V) V\right\rangle_{T_x M}(x)+
\left\langle \nabla^2 \psi(x), V(x)\otimes V(x)\right\rangle_{T_xM \otimes T_x M}.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The second and last step above follow from the properties that Riemannian volume measure $\hat d x$ and
the second order gradient operator
$\nabla^2$ on $M$ are the same as that on $\tilde M_k$,
when they are restricted on $D_m$, the third equality is due to the integration
by parts formula.
Meanwhile note that $X_t=X_t^k$ if $t<\tau_k$, for every $x\in D_m$ it holds
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}
\left|\mathbb{E}_x\left[f(X_t^{k})I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},V(x)\right)\right]
-\mathbb{E}_x\left[f(X_t)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},V(x)\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right]\right|\\
&\le \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}
\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|f(X_t^{k})-f(X_t){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right|
\left|I\left(\frac t 2,X_{\cdot},V(x)\right)\right|\right]\\
&\le \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|f(X_t^{k})-f(X_t){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right|^2\right]}
\sqrt{\mathbb{E}_x\left[\left|I\left(\frac t 2,X_{\cdot},V(x)\right)\right|^2\right]}\\
&\le \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{2}\|f\|_{\infty}\sqrt{\mathbb{P}_x\left(\tau_k\le t<\zeta\right)}=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the last inequality is due to \eqref{p4-1-4}.
Putting this into \eqref{eq3.26}, letting $k \rightarrow \infty$ we see that
for every $\psi \in C_c^{\infty}(M)$ and $V \in C^{\infty}(M;TM)$ with
$\text{\rm supp}{\psi}\cup\text{\rm supp}{V}\subset D_m$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \int_{D_m} \mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t\right)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},V(x)\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right]\psi(x)\hat d x
=\int_{D_m} \mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right]\Psi(\psi,V)(x)\hat d x,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
which implies the weak (distributional) second order gradient
$\nabla^2 P_t f$ exists on $D_m$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.27}
\begin{split}
\left\langle \nabla^2 P_t f(x), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}=\mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t\right)
I\left(\frac{t}{2},X^{x}_{\cdot},v\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right],\ \ x\in D_m, v \in T_x M.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As shown by Lemma \ref{lem7.2} in Appendix, the functional $x \mapsto \mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X^x_t\right)
I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right]$ is continuous.
Now the distributional derivative $\nabla^2 P_t f$ exists and is continuous, then $\nabla^2 P_t f$ is
the classical second order gradient on $D_m$ and expression \eqref{t3-1-1} holds
\begin{prp}\label{prp6.9}
Suppose that $K$ is a compact subset of $M$ and $L>1$ is a positive constant.
Then, for any sufficiently large $m$, we could find a
$t_0(K,L,m)$ such that for any $t\in (0,t_0]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.17}
\sup_{x,y\in K}e^{\frac{L}{t}}\left|t\nabla_x^2\log p(t,x,y)-t \nabla_x^2 \log p_{\tilde M_{m}}(t,x,y)
\right|_{T_x M\otimes T_x M}\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}}
\end{equation}
where $C(m)$ is a positive constant which may depend on $m$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix $x,y \in K$ and a unit vector $v \in T_x M$ with $|v|=1$. Suppose that $m \in {\mathbb N} $ such that $K \subset B_o(2m-2)\subset D_m$.
Then by \eqref{t3-1-1} we have
\begin{equation*}
\left\langle \nabla^2 P_t f(x), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}=\mathbb{E}_x\left[f\left(X_t\right)
I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta\}}\right],
\end{equation*}
where $I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)$ is defined by \eqref{p4-1-2} with
$h(s):=\Big(\frac{t-2s}{t}\Big)^+\cdot l_m\left(s,X_{\cdot}\right)\cdot U_0^{-1}v$.
By this representation and following the same arguments of \eqref{e3-8} and \eqref{e3-9} we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \frac{\left\langle \nabla^2_x p(t,x,y), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}}{p(t,x,y)}=
\mathbb{E}_x\left[I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)
\frac{p\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}},y\right)}{p(t,x,y)} \right],\\
& \frac{\left\langle \nabla^2_x p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y), v\otimes v\right\rangle_{T_x M\otimes T_x M}}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}=
\mathbb{E}_x\left[I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot},v\right)
\frac{p_{\tilde M_m}\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\frac{t}{2}}^m,y\right)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Based on above expression and following the same arguments in the proof of Proposition \ref{prp6.6} (especially applying \eqref{l4-1-1} and
\eqref{r4-1-1}--\eqref{r4-1-3}) we could find a $m_0(K,L)\in {\mathbb N}$ such that
for all $m\ge m_0$, there exists a $t_0(K,L,m)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{p4-3-1}
\sup_{x,y\in K}\left|\frac{\nabla^2_x p(t,x,y)}{p(t,x,y)}-\frac{\nabla^2_x p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}{p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y)}\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}
\le C(m)e^{-\frac{L}{t}},\ \ t\in (0,t_0].
\end{equation}
Meanwhile we use
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\left\langle\nabla^2_x \log p(t,x,y),v\otimes v\right\rangle
=\frac{\left\langle \nabla_x^2 p(t,x,y), v\otimes v\right\rangle}{p(t,x,y)}
-\left(\frac{\langle \nabla_x p(t,x,y),v\rangle_{T_x M}}{p(t,x,y)}\right)^2,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and the similar expression for $\left\langle\nabla^2_x \log p_{\tilde M_m}(t,x,y), v\otimes v\right\rangle$. Toghther with \eqref{eq3.7} and \eqref{p4-3-1}, this yields \eqref{eq3.17} and concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
With \eqref{eq3.17} we are in the position to prove the second part of the main theorem on the short time and asymptotic second order gradient estimates.
\begin{thm}\label{thm6.10}
The following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] Suppose $y \in M$ and $\tilde K \subset M\setminus \text{Cut}_M(y)$ is a compact set, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.28}
\lim_{t \downarrow 0}\sup_{x \in \tilde K}
\left|t\nabla_x^2\log p(t,x,y)+\nabla_x^2\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2}\right)
\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}=0.
\end{equation}
\item[(2)] Let $K$ be a compact set of $M$.
For every $y \in M$ there exist positive constants
$t_0(y,K)$ and $C_1(y,K)$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.29}
\left|t\nabla_x^2 \log p(t,x,y)+\textbf{I}_{T_x M}\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\le C_1\left(d(x,y)+
\sqrt{t}\right),\ \ x\in K,\ t \in (0,t_0],
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{I}_{T_x M}$ is the identical map on $T_x M$.
\item[(3)] Suppose $K \subset M$ is a compact subset of $M$, then there exists a
positive constant $C_2(K)$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.30}
\left|\nabla_x^2 \log p(t,x,y)\right|_{T_x M \otimes T_x M}\le C_2\left(\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t^2}+\frac{1}{t}\right),\ x,y\in K,
\ t \in (0,1].
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Malliavin and Stroock \cite[Corollary 2.29]{MS}, Gong and Ma \cite[Theorem 3.1]{GM} and Stroock \cite{S} (or Sheu \cite{Sh}), we know
\eqref{eq3.28}--\eqref{eq3.30} hold when $M$ is compact.
Then using the estimates \eqref{eq3.17} and following the same procedure as in the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm6.7} we can verify that \eqref{eq3.28}-\eqref{eq3.30} hold for any complete
Riemannian manifold.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Isometric embedding of $D_m$ in a compact manifold}
Let $(M,g)$ and $D_m\subset M$ be the same terms in Section \ref{cut-off}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem7.1}
For every $m \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, there exists a (smooth) compact Riemannian manifold $(\tilde M_m,\tilde g_m)$, such that
$(D_m,g)$ is
isometrically embedded into $(\tilde M_m,\tilde g_m)$ as an open set.
In particular, if $y,x \in D_m$ and $x\not \in \text{\rm cut}_y(M)$, then $x\not \in \text{\rm cut}_y(\tilde M_m)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G_m =D_{m+1}$, recall that $\partial G_m$ is a connected smooth $n-1$-dimensional sub-manifold of $M$.
Hence $\overline{G_m}$ is an $n$-dimensional manifold with smooth boundary,
then there exist an atlas
of local charts $\{(V_i,\psi_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ of $\overline{G_m}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] $\bigcup_{i=1}^N V_i=\overline{G_m}$ ;
\item [(2)] For $i=1, \dots, N_1\le N$, these are charts for the interior. So $V_i\cap \partial G_m=\emptyset$ and
$\psi_i: V_i \rightarrow \mathbf{B}^n:=\{z \in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n; |z|< 1\}$ is a smooth diffeomorphsim for all $1\le i\le N_1$;
\item [(3)] For all $i>N_1$,
$V_i\cap \partial G_m\neq\emptyset$, $$\psi_i: V_i \rightarrow
\mathbf{B}^{n,+}:=\{z=(z_1,\dots,z_n) \in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n; |z|< 1,z_1\ge 0\}$$ is a smooth diffeomorphsim
and $\psi_i\big(V_i\cap \partial G_m\big)=\partial \mathbf{B}^{n,+}$.
\end{enumerate}
By the Whitney embedding theorem, we could embed $M$ into a (ambient) Euclidean space
$\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^p$. Let $\hat G_m$ be an identical copy of $G_m$ in $\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^p$ endowed with the local charts
$\{(\hat V_i,\hat \psi_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ (which is also an identical copy of
$\{(V_i,\psi_i)\}_{i=1}^N$). We define $h:\partial G_m \rightarrow \partial \hat G_m$
by $h(x):=\hat \psi_i^{-1}\left(\psi_i(x)\right)$, if $x \in V_i\cap \partial G_m$,
$h$ is well defined and is a smooth diffeomorphism.
We glue the boundary of $G_m$ and $\tilde G_m$ together to get
$\tilde M_m:=(G_m\sqcup\hat G_m)/\thicksim$, where $\thicksim$ is an equivalent relation such that
$x \thicksim y$ if and only if $h(x)=y$, $x \in \partial G_m$, $y \in \partial \hat G_m$.
Then $\tilde M_m$ is a smooth compact manifold without boundary. In fact,
$\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i=1}^{N+N_1}=\{(V_i,\psi_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_1}\bigcup \{(\hat V_i,\hat \psi_i)\}_{i=1}^{N_1}$ $\bigcup \{(\tilde V_i,\tilde \psi_i)\}_{i=N_1+1}^N$
is a local charts of $\tilde M_m$. Here $\tilde V_i=(V_i\sqcup\hat V_i)/\thicksim$ for every
$N_1<i\le N$ and
\begin{equation*}
\tilde \psi_i(x)=
\begin{cases}
&\psi_i(x),\ \ \ \ \ \text{if}\ \ x\in V_i,\\
&\mathbf{S}\big(\hat \psi_i(x)\big), \ \ \ \text{if}\ \ x\in \hat V_i,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{S}:\mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n\rightarrow \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$ is a map such that
$\mathbf{S}x=(-x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)$ for all $x=(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)\in \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt^n$.
It is easy to see $\tilde \psi_i: \tilde V_i \rightarrow \mathbf{B}^n$, $N_1<i\le N$
is a smooth diffeomorphsim, and the transition map between
different local charts on $\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i=1}^{N+N_1}$ is smooth.
We construct a smooth Riemannian metric $\tilde g_m$ on $\tilde M_m$
to ensure that $\tilde g_m(z)=g(z)$ for every $z \in D_m$. For the open set $D_m\subset G_m\subset \tilde M_m$,
by the standard procedure (via the finite local charts) we could construct a
function $\chi_m:\tilde M_m \rightarrow [0,1]$ such that
$\text{\rm supp}\chi_m \subset G_m$ and $\chi_m(x)=1$ for every $x \in D_m$. Note that $G_m$ could also be viewed as
an open subset of $\tilde M_m$, so $\hat g_m(x):=g(x)\chi_m(x)$, $x \in \tilde M_m$ is well defined on $\tilde M_m$.
Fixing a smooth Riemannian metric $g_m^0$ on $\tilde M_m$, which exists, we set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde g_m(x):=g(x)\chi_m(x)+g_m^0(x)\big(1-\chi_m(x)\big),\ x\in \tilde M_m.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see $\tilde g_m$ is a smooth Riemannian metric on $\tilde M_m$ and
$\tilde g_m(x)=g(x)$ for each $x \in D_m$. By now we have completed the proof.
\end{proof}
Let $I(t,X_{\cdot},v)$ be as defined in \eqref{p4-1-2}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem7.2}
For every fixed $f \in C_c^{\infty}(M)$, $V \in C^{\infty}(M;TM)$ with compact supports and
$t>0$, the function
\begin{equation*}
F(x):=\mathbb{E}\left[f\left(X_t^x\right)I\left(\frac{t}{2},X_{\cdot}^{x},V(x)\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta(x)\}}\right],\ x\in M.
\end{equation*}
is continuous.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\zeta(x)$ denotes the explosion time of the solution $X_t^x$ to \eqref{sde1} with the initial value $x$. Let $U$ be a frame at $x$. Then the explosion time of the horizontal Brownian motion
agree with $\xi(x)$ almost surely. So we use $\xi$ for the explosion time of both.
Furthermore, by Elworthy \cite{Elworthy}, there exist a maximal solution flow $\{U_t(\cdot,\omega)\}_{0\le t <\zeta(\cdot,\omega)}$
to \eqref{sde1}
such that $U_t(u,\omega)$ is the solution of
\eqref{sde1} with initial value $u\in OM$, and there is a
null set $\Delta$ such that for all $\omega \notin \Delta$,
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)] For each $t>0$, set $\Xi_t(\omega):=\{u\in OM:\ t<\zeta(u,\omega)\}$, Then $\Xi_t$ is open in $OM$
(i.e. $\zeta(\cdot,\omega):OM \to \mathbb R} \def\EE{\mathbb E} \def\Z{\mathbb Z} \def\ff{\frac} \def\ss{\sqrt_+$ is lower semi-continuous) and $U_t(.,\omega): \Xi_t(\omega)\rightarrow OM$ is a
$C^{\infty}$ diffeomorphism onto its image.
\item[(2)] For each fixed $u \in OM$ with $\pi(u)=x$, there exists a null set $\Delta(u)$ depending on $u$, such that
$\zeta(u,\omega)=\zeta(X_{\cdot}^{x})$ for each $\omega \notin \Delta(u) \bigcup \Delta$.
\end{itemize}
Fix a point $x_0 \in M$. For each sequence $\{x_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ with $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}x_k=x_0$, we
take a sequence $\{u_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and $U_0$ in $OM$, such that
$\pi(u_k)=x_k$, $\pi(U_0)=x_0$ and $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}u_k=u_0$ in $OM$.
Set $\tilde \Delta:=\left(\bigcup_{k=0}^{\infty}\Delta(u_k)\right)\bigcup \Delta$. For each $k$ and $\omega \notin \tilde \Delta$, $\zeta(U_k,\omega)=\zeta\left({x_k},\omega\right)$.
By the lower semi-continuity of $\zeta$, $\zeta({x_0})\le \liminf_{k \rightarrow \infty}\zeta({x_k})$, hence $u_k \in \Xi_t(\omega)$ for each $t<\zeta({x_0})$ when $k$ is large enough. By the property (1) above, we have immediately
$$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} U_t(u_k, \omega){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_k})\}}=U_t(u_0,\omega){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_0})\}}, \;
\quad \omega \notin \tilde \Delta,\ t>0.$$
Combing this with the definition $\Theta(s,X_{\cdot},v)$ and the expression \eqref{eq2.5} of $l_m$, we see
that
\begin{equation}\label{l5-1-1}
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_k},V(x_k)\right)=
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_0},V(x_0)\right),\ \ s>0.
\end{equation}
Let $h(s, X_{\cdot},V(x)):=\Big(\frac{t-2s}{t}\vee 0\Big)\cdot l_m(s,X_{\cdot})\cdot u_0(x)^{-1}V(x)$, where $u_0(\cdot)$ is a
smooth section of $OM$ with $\pi(u_0(x))=x$. We only need to demonstrate the proof for one of the term in $I(t,X_{\cdot}^{x},v)$, for this we set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
w(x)&:=
\mathbb{E}\left[f\left(X_t^x\right)\left(\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}
\left\langle \Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^x,V(x)\right), \hat d B_s\right\rangle\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta(x)\}}\right]\\
&=:\mathbb{E}\left[f\left(X_t^x\right)\left(\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}
\left\langle\left(h'(s)+\frac{1}{2}\text{\rm ric}_{U_s}h(s)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle\right){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta(x)\}}\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
For simplicity, we only prove the continuity for
the function $x\rightarrow w(x)$, the continuity property for the other terms in $F(x)$ could be verified similarly.
According to \eqref{eq2.4} we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{k>0}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_k},V(x_k)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle\right|^4\right]<\infty.
\end{equation*}
Based on this and \eqref{l5-1-1} we have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_k},V(x_k)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle-
\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_0},V(x_0)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle \right|^2\right]=0.
\end{equation*}
Similarly from \eqref{l5-1-1} we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|f(X_t^{x_k}){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_k})\}}-f(X_t^{x_0}){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_0})\}}\right|^2\right]=0.
\end{equation*}
Therefore by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}|w(x_k)-w(x_0)|^2\\
&\le 2\|f\|_{\infty}^2\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_k},V(x_k)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle-
\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_0},V(x_0)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle \right|^2\right]\\
&+ 2\sup_{k>0}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|\int_0^{\frac{t}{2}}\left\langle
\Theta\left(s,X_{\cdot}^{x_k},V(x_k)\right),\hat d B_s\right\rangle\right|^4\right]\cdot\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{E}\left[\left|f(X_t^{x_k}){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_k})\}}-f(X_t^{x_0}){\bf 1}_{\{t<\zeta({x_0})\}}\right|^2\right]\\
&=0
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Since $\{x_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is arbitrarily chosen, $w(\cdot)$ is continuous at $x_0\in M$.
Again $x_0$ is arbitrary, so $w(\cdot)$ is continuous on $M$.
This completes the proof for the lemma.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgement.}
We would like to thank Christian B\"ar for a helpful comment.
This research is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the EPSRC, Chen by grant No. 11501361 and No. 11871338, Li by EP/S023925/1, and Wu by grant No. 12071085.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Image based computational pathology has developed into an ever-evolving field for computer vision researchers. New methods are being introduced frequently in this field for natural everyday scenes, face recognition, video analysis and other forms of biometrics. Despite that, the rate of development of medical image CAD algorithms for enhancing their diagnostic performance could not mirror the rate of development of new natural scenes analysis algorithms. It may have been due to the highly heterogeneous nature of cancer cells, which increases the complexity of the task at hand. In context with breast cancer, extensive research based on oncogenic pathways and tumor cell metabolism, and based on chemotherapeutic observations, it has been realized by pathologists that the disease is quite unpredictable \cite{leong2011changing}.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth ,height=3.5in]{microscopyData.png}
\caption{Microscopy BACH data samples. First row to fourth: Benign Tumours, Invasive Carcinoma, \textit{In situ} Carcinoma, and Normal
\label{micro}
\end{figure}
\par Hence, there is a pressing need for the development of computer vision algorithms that are particularly advanced for diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of digitized biopsy images. Until then, there is a progressive adaptation of currently available state of the art methods for cancer detection, segmentation, and classification. The importance of precise prognosis in this field requires the differentiation of digitized samples into two, three, or more classes. In our work, we have four classes, Normal, Benign, \textit{In situ} carcinoma, and Invasive Carcinoma. The process of classification of breast samples by the pathologist help in a more accurate understanding of the disease and consequently help in the directed treatment of patients. The manual process is; however, quite a time consuming and requires an expert's knowledge due to the underlying complexity of the nature of images. The efforts to automate such non-trivial problem requires expert intervention to verify the diagnosis made by the CAD process. Besides that, the feasibility of implementation of such algorithms poses preliminary challenges. For instance, high resolution of gigapixel Whole Slide Images could not be processed by any current state of the art algorithms due to their large size. A large amount of information present in one patient slide makes the task more challenging concerning space and efficiency. Therefore, for practical problem solving, we need to either build new systems that could address such challenges or find a workaround of our problems that could be feasibly addressed by available systems. One such workaround is dividing WSI into patches of the size that could be easily fed into the algorithm. However, this leads to loss of overall structure of the tumor and various other sub-structures present in the slide. The spatial continuity of the patches also becomes hard to incorporate within a deep end-to-end model. The task becomes more non-trivial in case of a 4-class problem rather than a 2-class problem where the structures need to be segregated between two widely spaced classes. As the number of classes or segregation increases, the space between classes reduces.
\par Considering all these issues, we chose our model such that the gigapixel size of WSI could be harnessed in a way without losing the structure of the overall suspected region. The spatial relationship between the patches of the same region could be modeled end-to-end without the need of building a separate algorithm to infuse the context of the previous patch in the sequence of the patches which together makes an entire tumor region.
\par One such state of the art model which is well known for preserving the contextual relationship, is Recurrent Neural network, commonly known as RNN. RNNs have been used by the computer vision community to process sequences such as texts and videos. We acknowledged its efficiency and formulated our problem around the strength of the RNNs, which is processing sequences of patches from the same region and eventually classify the input sequence as one of the four classes. We classified image regions as a whole using BiLSTMs. BiLSTMs are a known version of RNNs for modeling textual and video sequences. They have been widely used for activity recognition in videos and have proved their niche in modeling future contextual information due to their bi-directional architecture. Our method could serve its purpose in clinical diagnosis by assisting pathologists for labeling suspected regions automatically.
Our main contribution is summarised in following points:
\begin{enumerate}
\item According to our knowledge, this is the first study that includes the use of contextual information among the patches from the same region using BiLSTMs for classification of tumors.
\item Our method is robust to the size of the tumour regions as it can take both very huge dimensions WSI and microscopy regions. In this study, the range of tumour regions vary between 17290 to 236 pixels across height and 20570 to 195 pixels across the width.
\item The study did not alter the size of the tumors for deep modeling and classify variable size tumor regions by processing them as a sequence of features.
\item This work proposed end-to-end network for patch to image classification unlike previous literatures that use stage wise networks to first classify patches and then aggregate classification results of patches into image labels \cite{hou2016patch,nazeri2018two,mahbod2018breast,
wang2019rmdl,roy2019patch,huang2018improving, shaban2019context, araujo2017classification}.
\item This is a shallow network that do not require heavy training to train hundreds of layers as in ResNet and GoogleNet.
\item We also experimented with patch scanning methods to verify that a particular scanning technique that deploy maximal connectivity between patches is better than randomly extracting patches from the image.
\end{enumerate}
\label{intro}
\section{Related Work}
The application of RNN based architectures such as LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long} and BiLSTMs \cite{schuster1997bidirectional,graves2005bidirectional} on series data classification such as texts and time series has been a very common methodology. Researchers have recently started combining CNNs and LSTMs for image captioning \cite{johnson2016densecap, karpathy2015deep, vinyals2015show} or multi-label image classification \cite{zhang2018multilabel, wang2016cnn, wei2014cnn, guo2018cnn} as well. The idea of using RNN based models for image classification stemmed from the fact that objects in an image are often, though not always, related to each other in some way. Images, although, are not sequential data but carry some latent semantic dependencies which can be modeled as a sequence of occurrences of certain objects present in the image that overall define the global image description. These deep LSTMs based models have, however, are not sufficiently explored on high-resolution medical data. With high dimensional images in case of WSIs, the tumor regions when divided into patches can act as a sequential data that have some contextual dependency with each other. Modeling this contextual information among patches is a crucial step to perform slide level classification. \par There have been studies in Whole Slide Image level analysis that have drawn contextual and spatial relationship among patches using their novel methods. For instance, authors in \cite{huang2018improving} proposed a deep spatial fusion network to predict image-wise label from patch-wise probability maps. They evaluated their network performance on two datasets BIC \cite{Bioimaging2015} and BACH \cite{bach2018} and used heavy augmentation due to the small volume of images. Their network was not end-to-end and required heavy data pre-processing steps to enhance the performance. They used microscopy images to test their model, which have dense class properties. Whereas, in the case of Whole Slide Image annotations, the tumour class like Invasive carcinoma could be spread across the gigapixel image and the parts of the annotation may look like normal. Therefore, with WSIs, the parts of the annotation when broken into patches, may not give the reliable label. Hence, such methods should be tested on such datasets as well for better clinical significance. The method in \cite{shaban2019context} exploits the spatial context between patches extracted from high resolution histopathological images for grading of colorectal cancer histology images. The authors propose a two staged framework consisting of two stacked CNNs. The first CNN called as LR-CNN learns the representations of the patches and aggregates the learned features from each patch in the same spatial dimension as the original image ($M\times N$). So, in other words LR-CNN converts a high resolution image into high dimensional feature map. The next stage consists of context aware blocks called as RA-CNN that takes feature representation cube as input to learn the spatial relationship between patches to make a context-aware prediction. The authors explored different network architectures for context-aware learning. The strategy solves a huge challenge of missing contextual information in patch-based classifiers. The robustness of the method also lies in the fact that the use of pre-trained architectures to extract features reduces the time and effort to train large models. However, the authors did not test their method on WSIs which pose a challenge of multi-resolution feature learning and very large size. In case of WSIs the feature cube could be as large as high resolution images and then its processing in a deep learning network could become infeasible.
\par To address the problem of multi-resolution analysis, majority of the previous works of literature have used patch-level analysis which requires breaking up of structures and hence global level features are lost. But, due to multi-resolution data, it is in fact left as an only choice to process such images. All the methods using WSI datasets discussed above have done the same for developing their models. Studies like \cite{hou2016patch,nazeri2018two,mahbod2018breast,wang2019rmdl,roy2019patch} have performed patch-based modelling of histopathology slides or microscopy images to perform image-wise classification using methods like probability fusion and majority voting. The authors in \cite{wang2019rmdl} developed a two-stage processing pipeline for classifying WSIs of gastric cancer. The first stage- discriminative instance selection selected the most informative patches on the basis of probability maps generated by a localization network. The second stage performed the image level prediction. The authors proposed a novel recalibrated multi-instance deep learning network (RMDL) with the purpose of aggregating both local and global features of each instance via a modified local-global feature fusion module. RMDL framework presented an effective way to aggregate patches for final image level prediction by exploiting the interrelationship of the patch features and overcame the drawbacks of direct patch aggregation. The method is however limited in its approach as it is confined to same scale context and do not address the spatial relationship between the instances.
\par The authors in \cite{spanhol2016breast} studied the applicability of deep learning architectures in identifying the breast cancer malignant tumours from benign tumours. The different sets of experiments were designed to train the CNN with different strategies that allow both high and low resolution images as input.
\par In \cite{bayramoglu2016deep} two CNN architectures have been used to identify breast cancer tumour and the magnification of the image. Single Task CNN classifies the benign and malignant tumour. Whereas, multi-task CNN has two output branches which takes multi-resolution image patches as input and produces two classification – between malignant and benign and between four classes of magnification.
\par Similarly, Araujo et al. \cite{araujo2017classification} first proposed a patch-wise classification and then combined the patch probabilities to perform image-wise classification. They used their custom CNN model to perform patch-wise classification and achieved 66.7\% accuracy. Then the majority voting scheme was used among the classified patches to predict the overall image label. This method was also not end-to-end and required extensive CNN training and experiments to decide optimal hyper-parameters for their proposed model. They also did not consider spatial context among the patches to build a relationship between same image patches which may have proved crucial performance enhancer.
\par All these methods although solve the challenge of multi-resolution analysis by patch-level aggregation of classification results, suffer from lack of spatial context and continuity relationship among patches. Moreover, due to the inherent limitation of state-of-the-art deep learning models which takes only a fixed size input, the previous works of literature had to sometimes perform heavy resizing to conform to the size of network input. Therefore, CNN + RNN based model could be the perfect replacement of such models since they could provide both spatial and contextual modelling, strategic region extraction method without the limitation of resizing along with the end-to-end compact model to process high-resolution Whole Slide and microscopy images.
\par Few of the recent pieces of literatures have used such type of CNN + RNN models for the analysis of histopathological data. For instance, the paper \cite{qaiser2019learning} explores the application of deep reinforcement learning in predicting the diagnostically relevant regions and their HER2 scores in breast immunohistochemical (IHC) Whole Slide Images. For the given task, the authors proposed context module and a CNN-LSTM end-to-end model. The model intelligently views the WSI as the environment and the CNN-LSTM acts as a decision maker or the agent.
Their model successfully mimics the histopathological expert analysis that first looks coarsely at ROIs at low resolution and then predict the scores of diagnostically relevant regions. Their model also incorporates multi-resolution analysis by combining features of the same region at multiple resolution for better predictive performance. The main advantage given by their model is that one need not look at all the regions of a WSI to predict the outcome and instead could focus on small number of regions without sacrificing the performance of the model. Similarly, \cite{ren2018differentiation} and \cite{bychkov2018deep} have also used the combination of CNN-LSTM for disease outcome prediction. The authors \cite{ren2018differentiation} have used the genomic data (Pathway Scores PS) with disease recurrence extracted from gene expression signatures exhibited in prostate tumors with a Gleason 7 score to identify prognostic marker. They calculated the PS scores and combined them with deep learning model for the purpose of combining the prognostic markers with image biomarkers. The deep learning model used is CNN-LSTM end-to-end model that take WSI patches as input sequence. CNN finds the features which LSTM processes to output the final hazard ratios of recurrence of the disease. Thy compared their model performance with different image features (LBP, HOG, SURF, neurons) with pathway scores. The results shows higher hazard rations with CNN-LSTM + PS in comparison to other clinically relevant prognostic features used in the comparison. The model show a novel idea of combining genetic markers with image biomarkers using LSTM in their model in order to preserve the spatial and contextual relationship among patches. However, the model is not sufficiently validated with different datasets along with their choice of CNN model and choice of training parameters. The paper \cite{bychkov2018deep} predicts the five-year disease specific survival of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer directly from digitized images of haematoxylin and eosin (H\&E) stained diagnostic tissue samples. The authors used a CNN-LSTM based model that takes TMA spots as input sequence into the model. The VGG16 architecture was used to extract patch features. The model claims the novelty of providing direct outcome prediction instead of doing intermediate analysis like classifying tissue samples. The proposed model by the authors used different scanning techniques to extract patches but claimed to have found no effect on the final prediction results. This claim is not properly validated in the study and is contradictory to what we found in our experimental analysis. The authors compared their model with traditional machine learning classifiers such as naïve-bayes, logistic regression, SVM. The lack of comparison with contemporary deep learning classifiers weakens the validation of the proposed method. All these methods using CNN-LSTM as their base model have shown the applicability of RNN based models in disease prognosis. Keeping the advantages in mind, we used the BiLSTMs, the Bidirectional LSTM to classify tumour regions in our work. The experimental observations on our dataset (Section \ref{experiments}) showed the advantage of using BiLSTMs over LSTMs in our model.
\label{review}
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{\textbf{Overview}}
In medical images, patch level classification is often useful for detecting cancer in microscopy and WSI images. However, if the prediction needs to be made for a whole tumor or gland, the network model needs to be trained such that the whole tumor region could be classified without losing its structure, resolution, and spatial correlation. For building such model, we have first extracted annotated tumour regions from WSIs and performed rotation transformation on regions for rotation invariance. After pre-processing of WSI dataset, we divided both microscopy and WSI tumour samples into patches. The patches were acquired by following different scanning techniques. We further developed a BiLSTM network model that takes the patches acquired from large tumour regions in the form of sequences. Since, the patches were extracted in a continuous pattern, therefore, we were able to construct a sequential data fit for BiLSTM network.
We extracted features from each patch in a sequence using GoogleNet (pre-trained on ImageNet). Accumulated features per region formed one sequence. The sequences were then passed through BiLSTM layers for classification into labels. At the test time, the test regions follow the same feature extraction and sequence formation procedure. The trained BiLSTM model then tests the sequence and give out the predicted label. In brief, the method follows the 5 steps: 1)extracting whole regions (Benign, Invasive, and \textit{In situ}), 2) extracting patches from each tumor region, 3) extracting features from each set, per patch, 4)forming a sequence out of each set, and 5) sequence processing and classification.
\label{overview}
\subsection{\textbf{Preprocessing}}
\subsubsection{Region Extraction}
\label{re}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth ,height=4in]{WSIreg.png}
\caption{WSI BACH data samples extracted from gigapixel slides. The variable size of each tumour region pose limitation in traditional deep learning framework. But, our model mitigate this limitation by allowing variable sequence size. First row to third: Benign Tumours, Invasive Carcinoma, \textit{In situ} Carcinoma. These regions can be seen having different dimensions but represent a single resolution level (level 0) from the WSI pyramid (Fig. \ref{WSIpyramid})}
\label{WSI}
\end{figure}
The histopathological breast cancer slide dataset used in our work contains ten annotated WSIs labeled into four major classes, Normal, Benign, \textit{In situ} carcinoma, Invasive carcinoma. The annotation of each WSI is recorded in XML files. Each XML file is divided into regions as annotated by pathologists in the corresponding WSI. The regions are then marked by drawing a rough boundary around the suspected region. The boundary is marked using slide annotation tools such as ASAP (Automated Slide Annotation Platform). Each pixel coordinate annotated by the pathologist is recorded in the XML file under a current region being annotated. The XML file also contains the region label, area of the region in pixels, region id, zoom ration, length of the region in microns, and area of the region in microns. Each annotated coordinate is represented in X, Y, and Z axes values. From the available information, we calculated the maximum and minimum boundary coordinates to find out the location, height, and width of the labeled region.
\par Since the tumour regions can be found in varying orientations depending upon the angle of acquisition of the particular WSI or microscopy image, the model should be robust to such changes. Therefore, to make the process more robust and rotation invariant, the obtained regions were rotated by following a unified method. To determined the angle of rotation for a particular region, the region mask was used to analyse the orientation of the region with respect to the vertical axis. The angle of rotation was then calculated following the steps below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Determine the major axis centroid of the region.
\item Calculate the major axis angle ($M$) from the X-axis.
\item Calculate the angle of rotation $R= 90-M$
\item Rotate the region along the major axis centroid by the angle $R$.
\item Repeat steps 1 to 4 for both region and region mask
\item Calculate the bounding box coordinates of the rotated mask.
\item Modify the obtained bounding box dimensions to the nearest multiple of 256.
\item Crop rotated region around the modified bounding box coordinates.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Scanning Methods for Patch Extraction}
\label{pe}
Some of the extracted regions had large pixel dimensions due to their high resolution, which required breaking regions into patches to enable the processing of the regions. The arbitrary dimensions of the sampled regions was also an issue for the deep network training since such networks require equal size images as input. Therefore, for the feasibility of the experiment, the regions were divided into patches of dimension $256 \times 256$. The particular patch size was chosen keeping in mind following points:
\begin{itemize}
\item The smaller patch size in the power of 2 is $128 \times 128$. This patch size contains less details than a $256\times 256$ patch.
\item The larger patch size $512\times 512$ and more (in the powers of 2) although would contain more details and context, but will impose computational constraints like expensive computation resources and time. This scenario would not be feasible in hospital implementation and integration of the CAD methods.
\item The pre-trained deep learning models like GoogLeNet, ResNet, DenseNet, InceptionV3 take fixed size input ranging from 200 to 300 pixels across their width and height. hence, taking smaller or larger patch sizes would demand heavy resizing resulting in loss of information and details. Therefore, $256\times 256$ patch size seemed appropriate for the proposed method. Many recent literatures like \textit{Wang et al.}, \textit{Chennaswamy et al.} in \cite{aresta2019bach} have resized their patches to $256\times 256$ and then resized them to $224 \times 224$ in order to process them with deep learning architectures like ResNet and DenseNet.
\end{itemize}
To study and analyze the effect of different scanning techniques for sampling patches from regions, we tested three different scanning methods. Fig. \ref{scan} shows the pictorial representation of these techniques.
\par The first technique deploys most commonly used scanning method that moves the sliding window of desired patch dimensions from left to right across the width until the maximum width. The process is repeated across the height of the region. The window is non-overlapping, and at the extreme ends, if the expected height and/or width of the patch is greater than the remainder, we used symmetric padding to level the patch dimensions. For the convenience of the language, we addressed this scanning method as \textit{Scan\_1}. The process is illustrated in Fig. \ref{subfig:fig1}.
\par The second scanning technique was thought as an attempt to arrange patches in sequence to bring as much continuity as possible. For any RNN method, where the sequence of data is the key to linking the context of the past and future with the present, we needed to derive sequential information from our tumor regions after they are sampled into patches. Our method is an effort to test the efficiency of RNN in case of image sequences. It scans patches starting from left to the right across the width in one iteration, and then the second iteration starts from the next row of non-overlapping pixels. It starts from right towards left, covering the width of the image. The process is repeated for subsequent rows until the entire region is exhausted. We named this scanning technique as \textit{Scan\_2}, shown in Fig. \ref{subfig:fig2}.
\par The third scanning method was deployed to bring more correspondence between the neighboring patches. The patches were scanned as represented in Fig. \ref{subfig:fig3}. The set of four neighboring patches are scanned first, then the next adjacent batch, and onwards. When the row of non-overlapping pixels changes, the batches were scanned from right to left. The process was repeated until the region was covered across both dimensions. This technique is further referred to in the article as \textit{Scan\_3}.
\begin{figure} [htp]
\centering
\vspace{-1in}
\subfloat[short for lof][Scan\_1]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=3in]{scanning1.png}
\label{subfig:fig1}
}
\subfloat[short for lof][Scan\_2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=3in]{scanning2.png}
\label{subfig:fig2}
}\\
\subfloat[short for lof][Scan\_3]{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=3in]{scanningZ.png}
\label{subfig:fig3}
}
\caption[short for lof]{The figure illustrates the different scanning methods that are used to extract patches from labeled WSI regions. The numbered blue blocks represents the patches in the WSI or Microscopy dataset. The dotted purple arrow shows the direction of scan and the dotted yellow arrow shows the transition from one pass of scan to another.}
\label{scan}
\end{figure}
The patches from each region were separated in the form of sets or folders. Each folder contained an arbitrary number of patches according to the dimensions of the particular region. The patches in each folder were labeled the same as the label of the region.
\par The variable number of patches in each set does not limit the efficiency of our model. In fact, it allows huge dimensional tumour regions to be flexibly processed all at once in the form of a sequence without the need for heavy resizing. This flexibility pose as a strength of our model.
\label{preprocessing}
\subsection{\textbf{CNN Feature Extraction}}
After patch sampling process using all three scanning techniques, each set of patches was passed through pre-trained GoogleNet architecture available in MATLAB 2019a for feature extraction step. The GoogleNet architecture was not fine-tuned on our datasets, and hence the hefty training process was not required in our work. The simple pre-trained weights of this architecture were used to extract deep features from the patches, and the sequence of features was constructed from each folder to be processed by BiLSTM layers. The complete process is further elaborated in the subsequent section. For comparison purposes during the experimental analysis, we also used ResNet101 and DenseNet201 pre-trained architectures to show the performance effect on the final classification output.
\label{fe}
\subsection{\textbf{Tumour Region Classification}}
\label{rnn}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\vspace{-1in}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth ,height=8in]{tumourClassification.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the whole process pipeline from patch extraction to computation of a BilSTM network. The steps are shown through green arrows. The first step is to extract patches, followed by CNN feature extraction and Sequence formation ($f_1,f_2,f_3,...$). The sequence of features is then used as a input to a BiLSTM network. BilSTM network is meant to learn to map input sequences $f$ to target sequences $y$. The $h$ recurrence propagates information forward in time (towards the right), while the $g$ recurrence propagates information backward in time (towards the left).}
\label{BiLSTM}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Patch Feature Sequence Formation}}
We used the GoogleNet pre-trained on ImageNet as a fixed feature extractor. The patches from each set are converted to sequences of feature vectors, where the feature vectors are the output of the activations function on the last pooling layer of the GoogleNet network ("pool-$7\times 7$\_s1"). We have used the pre-trained network because we did not have much training data to train a network from scratch, and there were no standard pre-trained weights publically available on similar medical data.
Each sequence is a D-by-m array, where D is the number of features (the output size of the pooling layer) and m is the number of patches in the region. Feature Dimension for one patch = 1024 X 1 (for GoogleNet features), feature dimension for $m$ patches in a region= $1024 \times m$; Labels for $m$ patches = label of the region. Let for patch 1 feature vector is $f_1$, patch 2 : $f_2$, patch 3 : $f_3, \ldots$, Patch $m$ : $f_m$, so the $nth$ sequence comprise : $f_1, f_2, f_3, f_4,\ldots, f_{m-1}, f_m$. Each labeled region in a WSI region forms a single sequence of patches. In other words, one region is converted into one sequence. We can then divide these sequences into training, testing, and validation sets.
\label{sequence}
\subsubsection{\textbf{BiLSTM Training and Classification}}
BiLSTMs or Bi-directional Long Short Term Memory models are different from traditional LSTMs by capturing information from past as well as future. This type of network is feasible for applications where prediction depends on the whole input sequence. BiLSTMs combine two LSTMs where one LSTM take input sequence from start to end while the other LSTM takes input sequence from end to the first patch in the sequence. Figure \ref{BiLSTM} illustrates the BiLSTM model, with $h_{(t)}$ is the state of the sub-BiLSTM that moves forward through the ordered sequence and $g_{(t)}$ represents the state of the sub-BiLSTM that moves backward through the sequence where $t={1,2,3,\ldots,m}$ . The output unit $V_{(t)}$ is obtained by concatenating $h_{(t)}$ and $g_{(t)}$. $V_{(t)}$ is a representation that depends on both the past and the future of the sequence but is most sensitive to the current inputs.
An output vector $V_{(t)}$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
V_{(t)}=f(h_{(t)}, g_{(t)})
\end{equation}
where function $f$ is used to combine the two output sequences. It can be a concatenating function, a summation function, an average function or a multiplication function. The following vector can represent the final output of a BiLSTM layer,
\begin{equation}
V_{m}=f(h_m, g_m)
\end{equation}
in which $V_m$, is the predicted sequence. Such a network where only the final output vector is sufficient to summarize a sequence is useful for predicting the label of the patch sequence.
To Train this network, the cross-entropy loss function $L$ is used at the end to back-propagate information first through forward $h$ states and second through backward states $g$. After forward and backward passes, the weights are updated.
The sequence sets are passed through BiLSTM one at a time, and the predicted output tells the class of the sequence. We have used softmax classifier for our prediction.
The end-to-end network architecture is described in the Table \ref{network}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\caption{End-to-end architecture of the Tumour classification network.}
\label{network}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Layer}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\shortstack{Input/Output\\ Dimensions}}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Description}}\\
&&&\\
\hline
1&\shortstack{Sequence Input\\ Layer}&$224 \times 224 \times 3$&Enables sequence data input to a network \\
\hline
2&\shortstack{Sequence Folding\\ Layer}&\shortstack{Out:$224 \times 224 \times 3$\\ Minibatch: 1}& \shortstack{This layer enables processing of a batch of sequence \\input as a batch of images}\\
\hline
3-140&\shortstack{Convolution Layers \\(GoogleNet)}&\shortstack{Input: $224 \times 224 \times 3$\\ Output: $7 \times 7 \times 1024$}&\shortstack{All the middle layers of GoogleNet including convolution,\\ ReLU, Batch Normalization, Dropout, etc.} \\
\hline
141&\shortstack{Average Pooling Layer \\(pool5-$7\times 7$\_s1)}&$1 \times 1 \times 1024$&Average the the input feature dimension $(7 \times 7$) to ($1 \times 1$) \\
\hline
142&\shortstack{Sequence Unfolding \\Layer}&$1 \times 1 \times 1024$& \shortstack{Restores the sequential structure of the input sequence \\of images. Minibatch output of sequence folding layer is\\ connected to minibatch input of this layer.}\\
\hline
143&\shortstack{Flatten Layer}&$1024$&Reshapes the 3 dimensional feature vector to one dimension\\
\hline
144&\shortstack{BiLSTM Layer \\(2000 hidden units)}&$4000$&\shortstack{Enables learning bidirectional long term \\dependencies between sequence of patches from a region.\\Hidden units correspond to amount of information remembered \\between time steps or hidden states of BiLSTM}\\
\hline
145&\shortstack{Dropout Layer}&$4000$& \shortstack{Randomly sets input features to zero with a specified probability.\\ This is added to prevent network overfitting.}\\
\hline
146&\shortstack{Fully Connected Layer}&$3$&Multiplies the weight matrix and adds bias to the input features.\\
\hline
147&\shortstack{Softmax Layer}&$3$&Applies softmax function to the input\\
\hline
148&\shortstack{Classification Layer}&$-$&Computes the cross-entropy loss.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table*}
\label{training}
\label{methodology}
\section{Setup and Results}
\subsection{\textbf{ICIAR 2018 BACH Dataset}}
The BACH (\textbf{B}re\textbf{A}st \textbf{C}ancer \textbf{H}istology) dataset was released by ICIAR 2018 conference organizers as a grand-challenge for classification and localization of tumors segregated by clinically relevant four classes. The dataset was released in two parts, microscopy and whole slide images. The microscopy image dataset contains 400 histology images, each with dimensions $2048 \times 1536$. The 400 microscopy images are subdivided into 4 classes, i.e., Normal, Benign, \textit{In situ} carcinoma, and Invasive carcinoma. The division is equal, having 100 images in each class, making it a balanced dataset (see Fig. \ref{micro}). According to the data released by conference organizers in \cite{aresta2019bach}, the images were annotated by two medical experts and those images were discarded where the two experts had any disagreements. The images are originally provided in \textit{.tiff} format and have three channels (RGB). The organizers of the BACH 2018 challenge have also provided patient details in separate files for both microscopy and WSI data. They have labelled the patient ids from 1 till 39. The WSI images were extracted from patient 1 to 10 whereas Microscopy images were extracted from patient 11 to 39. The excel files containing data of patient ids can be viewed and downloaded from the URL https://iciar2018-challenge.grand-challenge.org/Dataset/. Therefore, the two datasets are extracted from different patients and hence different samples from unique patients helped to validate the performance of the proposed method.
More detailed information about the microscopy dataset was provided in their article \cite{aresta2019bach} and the challenge website \cite{bach2018}. Since the organizers did not release the test dataset labels, hence we did not consider the test dataset (100 images) in our work.
\par The second dataset of Whole-slide images are high-resolution images of digitized sampled biopsy tissues. Each WSI contains more than one pathological labels (Benign, \textit{In situ} carcinoma, and Invasive carcinoma). All the unannotated regions are considered as normal. The challenge provided only 10 annotated WSIs and 20 unannotated WSIs for training. For testing, 10 more slides were released but, without labels. So, we had only 10 training WSI for both testing and training purposes. From each WSI, after the region extraction step elaborated in Section \ref{re}, the distribution of labels is shown in Table \ref{table1}. The regions have different dimensions and were extracted at the highest resolution level. The understanding of resolution levels of WSI can be understood from Figure \ref{WSIpyramid}. Out of the 109 Invasive regions originally annotated by the pathologists, seven regions could not be read by the available computing resource due to their high dimension and memory constraints. Hence, we processed 102 Invasive regions in our work. The images were digitized in \textit{.svs} format and could only be accessed with ASAP or similar software. The organizers also provided the python code to read the annotation files.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.3}
\caption{Distribution of the labels for the microscopy and WSI datasets}
\label{table1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset}&\textbf{Benign}&\textit{\textbf{In situ}}&\textbf{Invasive}&\textbf{Normal}\\
\hline
\textbf{Microscopy}&100&100&100&100\\
\hline
\textbf{WSI}&57&109&60&-\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\ - denotes no annotated normal regions
\end{table}
\label{sec3.1}
\subsection{\textbf{Dataset Preparation}}
The dataset obtained from the challenge had to be pre-processed for them to be feasibly used for input in the network. The high dimensional WSI regions for the purpose were broken into patches of size $256 \times 256$. The process is explained in Section \ref{pe}. The total accumulated patches from WSI regions were 16,934 for the three classes. The same process for patch extraction has been repeated for microscopy dataset where each image was of fixed dimension $2048 \times 1536$. For patch extraction step, Microscopy images were divided into a grid of $ 8 \times 6$ dimensions. We call it a grid of patches with each patch of $256 \times 256$ dimensions and total 48 patches were acquired from each histology microscopy image. From this dataset, total 19,200 patches were extracted. The accumulated patches from each region were then divided in the form of sets with variable patch numbers.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in ,height=2in]{WSIpyramid.png}
\caption{WSI file pyramid structure}
\label{WSIpyramid}
\end{figure}
\label{sec3.5.1}
\label{sec3.2}
\subsection{\textbf{Data Usage}}
The sequences of features formed after feature extraction process were divided into training, validation and testing sets in the ratio 0.7:0.15:0.15 during parameter selection experiments. After deciding the optimal parameters on the hold-out sets, we followed the 10 fold cross-validation test to verify our results. The distribution of the data during parameter selection experiments is shown in Table \ref{table2}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.3}
\caption{Distribution of the data for the microscopy and WSI datasets into training, validation and testing sets (for parameter selection only (refer Section \ref{experiments}))}
\label{table2}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=3.5in}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset}&&\textbf{Benign}&\textbf{Invasive}&\textit{\textbf{In situ}}&\textbf{Normal}\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Microscopy}}&Train&66&75&76&63\\
\cline{2-6}
&Validation&18&11&12&20\\
\cline{2-6}
&Test&16&14&12&17\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{WSI}}&Train&34&74&45&-\\
\cline{2-6}
&Validation&11&13&9&-\\
\cline{2-6}
&Test&12&15&6&-\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}\\
- denotes no annotated normal regions
\end{table}
All the images extracted from microscopy and WSIs had dimensions $256 \times 256$ and they were used in their raw form without any color normalization and adjustment.
\label{sec3.3}
\subsection{\textbf{Experiments}}
\label{experiments}
\par The pre-trained architecture for extracting deep features was selected through experiments. We tested the performance of end-to-end architecture using ResNet101 and DenseNet201 as feature extractors. The accuracy obtained with ResNet101, \textit{Scan\_2}, and WSI dataset was 63.64\% whereas with Microscopy dataset, we obtained the accuracy of 84.85\%. Similarly, the accuracy obtained with DenseNet201, \textit{Scan\_2}, and WSI dataset was 77.97\% whereas 71.19\% with Microscopy dataset. The choice of \textit{Scan\_2} and different hyper-parameters used to train the model with ResNet101 and DenseNet201 was validated in our next experiment.
\par The second experiment comprise optimal hyper-parameter selection using heuristics and best scanning technique for histopathological images irrespective of the dataset.
First, we experimented with three optimizing functions- Stochastic Gradient Descent with Momentum (SGDM), RMSprop, and ADAM. The specific hyper-parameters for each optimizer is summarized as:\\
SGDM- Momentum: $0.90$, \\RMSprop- SquaredGradientDecayFactor: $0.9900$, Epsilon: $1.0000e-08$,\\ ADAM- GradientDecayFactor: $0.9000$, SquaredGradientDecayFactor: $0.9900$, Epsilon: $1.0000e-08$.\\ These are the default parameter settings in MATLAB2019a and we used them as is. We made the combinations of the chosen hyperparameters which were four dropout rates, three scanning techniques, three optimization functions and two learning rates. The symbol '*' in-front of some of the accuracy values represents that the epochs were run keeping training option of validation patience at 5. The setting ensures that the training stops if the validation loss is larger than or equal to the previously recorded smallest loss for at most 5 times during the training or if the maximum number of epochs are exhausted, whichever is the earlier. In this setting, the number of epochs may or may not reach the maximum limit set at the start of the training. So, we performed all the 72 experiments with and without validation patience 5 for a maximum of 30 epochs. We have shown only the largest of the two accuracy values obtained from the two settings. The '*' indicates that the larger accuracy value is obtained with validation patience 5. So, in total, we conducted $4 \times 3\times 3\times 2 \times 2=144$ experiments for each dataset to select the optimal hyper-parameters. The experimental results are indicated in table \ref{table3} for 3-class classification of WSI tumour regions and table \ref{table4} for 4-class classification accuracy of Microscopy dataset. . Several deductions were made from the table \ref{table3}. Such as, across all the scanning methods, learning rate $10^{-4}$ performed better than learning rate $10^{-3}$. However, for second scanning method (\textit{Scan\_2}), both the learning rates performed closely with accuracy values falling in the range 80-88\%. Scanning method \textit{Scan\_3} followed closely in terms of frequency of accuracy values more than 80\%. When we kept the optimization function, learning rate and scanning method constant, the trend of accuracy across different drop-out rates signify the importance of tuning drop-out values during training custom models. With respect to optimization function and irrespective of the drop-out rates, the all-over analysis of the table \ref{table3} suggests that SGDM did not perform well in first two scanning methods (\textit{Scan\_1} and \textit{Scan\_2}) whereas, the gain in SGDM performance was observed in \textit{Scan\_3}. In case of ADAM, this optimization function could not enhance model's performance across all hyper-parameters except in \textit{Scan\_2} with learning rate $10^{-4}$. The optimization function RMSprop performed consistently better across scanning methods \textit{Scan\_2} and \textit{Scan\_3} irrespective of the learning rates and drop-out rates. The highest performance as can be seen in the table \ref{table3} for WSIs was given by \textit{Scan\_2}, RMSprop, 0.5 drop-out rate and $10^{-4}$ learning rate. The cell is highlighted in magenta.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\caption{Accuracy (\%) obtained against different learning rates, rates, optimizing functions and scanning techniques with respect to Whole Slide Images (3-classes).}
\label{table3}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=3.5in}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\shortstack{Scanning\\ Method}}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\shortstack{Learning\\ Rate}}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Optimizer}}&\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Dropout Rate}}\\
\cline{4-7}
&&&\textbf{0.4}&\textbf{0.5}&\textbf{0.6}&\textbf{0.7}\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_1}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&51.52&57.58&54.55&39.39\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&72.73*&60.61*&66.67&63.64\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&69.70&69.70&66.67&63.64\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&72.73*&72.73&66.67*&66.67*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&60.61&66.67*&63.64*&57.58*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&51.52&63.64&63.64&63.64\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_2}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&60.61&57.58&57.58&57.58\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&75.76&\cellcolor{magenta}} %{0.9 {\textbf{87.88*}}&81.82*&84.85\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&78.79&75.76&78.79&84.85\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&81.82&84.85&81.82*&81.82\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&78.79&75.76*&81.82&69.70\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&66.67&72.73&72.73&66.67\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_3}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&72.73&75.76&66.67&69.70\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&78.79*&72.73&84.85*&78.79\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&81.82*&69.70*&75.76&72.73*\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&78.79&75.76*&78.79*&72.73*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&75.76&78.79&72.73&75.76*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&69.70&69.70&66.67&75.76\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}\\
* validation patience 5
\end{table}
The analysis of table \ref{table4} also gives some interesting insights about the behaviour of model when the hyper-parameters change. These values were obtained after the 4-class classification of microscopy dataset. The parameters are most sensitive to scanning methods in this dataset as we could observe from the table \ref{table4} that when the patches extracted from \textit{Scan\_3} were trained using the same hyper-parameters, absolute drop in the accuracy was recorded. The results also indicate of the fact that scanning techniques can over-power the outcome of the model especially in the case of sequence modelling of images to labels. In Microscopy dataset as well, the learning rate $10^{-4}$ performed better than $10^{-3}$ and the scanning method \textit{Scan\_2} gave better outcome in comparison to other two methods. We observed the difference in optimization function (ADAM) and drop-out rate (0.6) when compared with best performing hyper-parameters in WSI dataset.
The hyper-parameter tuning gave us the insight as to how our model behaves which helped us to finally chose our parameter set to perform cross-validation. We deduced that learning rate $10^{-4}$ and scan technique \textit{Scan\_2} with validation patience gave us the better results in both the datasets.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\caption{Accuracy (\%) obtained against different learning rates, drop-out rates, optimizing function and scanning techniques with respect to Microscopy Images (4-classes).}
\label{table4}
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{width=3.5in}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\shortstack{Scanning\\ Method}}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\shortstack{Learning\\ Rate}}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Optimizer}}&\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\textbf{Drop-out Rate}}\\
\cline{4-7}
&&&\textbf{0.4}&\textbf{0.5}&\textbf{0.6}&\textbf{0.7}\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_1}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&59.32*&59.32&55.93&62.71\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&74.58&72.88&74.58&69.49\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&76.27&72.88&79.66*&76.27\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&69.49&69.49&69.49&67.80\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&67.80&69.49*&64.41*&62.71\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&59.32*&69.49*&59.32&71.19*\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_2}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&55.93&71.19*&72.88*&71.19*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&79.66&83.05*&77.97*&81.36\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&76.27&81.36&\cellcolor{magenta}} %{0.9{\textbf{84.75*}}&76.27*\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&76.27&81.36*&83.05*&83.05*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&62.71&72.88*&79.66*&74.58*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&71.19*&71.19*&81.36*&74.58*\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{\textbf{\textit{Scan\_3}}}&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-4}$}}&SGDM&18.69*&22.03*&22.03*&23.73*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&1.69*&1.69*&1.69*&1.69*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&0&3.39*&0&3.39*\\
\cline{2-7}
&\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{$10^{-3}$}}&SGDM&3.39*&5.08*&3.39*&5.08*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&RMSprop&10.17*&15.25*&11.86*&16.95*\\
\cline{3-7}
&&ADAM&8.47&15.25*&13.56*&22.03*\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}\\
* validation patience 5
\end{table}
\par The direct analysis of comparative methods in literature \cite{ren2018differentiation,qaiser2019learning,
bychkov2018deep} with our proposed method could not be achieved since these methods have different objectives like calculating HER2 scores, five year disease specific survival prediction, hazard ratios. Also, they have different data values associated with each image to facilitate survival analysis on their datasets. Whereas, we do not have such type of data and hence the objectives are different. However, all these methods used CNN + LSTM as their backbone model. Therefore, for indirect qualitative analysis, we performed experiments with one LSTM layer instead of BilSTM layer while keeping all the other hyperparameters unchanged. For microscopy dataset, we achieved the 10 fold cross-validation overall accuracy of 88.75\%. Whereas, we achieved overall accuracy of 54.55\% for WSI dataset. Table \ref{lstmExp} records the classwise results with LSTM layer.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Experimental results for proposed model with LSTM layer.}
\label{lstmExp}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.5}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Benign}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Invasive}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textit{\textbf{In situ}}}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{\textbf{Normal}}}\\
\hline
\textbf{Dataset}&\textbf{Acc}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}\\
\hline
\textbf{Microscopy}&0.8875$\pm$0.0056&0.8516$\pm$0.0106&0.9353$\pm$0.0050&0.9303$\pm$0.0103&0.9653$\pm$0.0061&0.8644$\pm$0.0081&0.9416$\pm$0.0039&0.9789$\pm$0.0045&0.9933$\pm$0.0014\\
\hline
\textbf{WSI}&0.5455$\pm$0.0629&0.4917$\pm$0.0410&0.8967$\pm$0.0116&0.7277$\pm$0.0115&0.5885$\pm$0.0421&0.7508$\pm$0.0481&0.8505$\pm$0.0376&-&-\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table*}
From the obtained results, we observed that the performance with LSTM layer has degraded in comparison to BILSTM layer. Moreover, with WSI dataset, the performance degradation is quite significant relative to what we observe with Microscopy dataset. Therefore, besides philosophical justification, the short experimental observation also strengthened the choice of BiLSTM over LSTM layer.
\subsection{\textbf{Results and comparison with current literature}}
The experiments on hyper-parameters tuning on both datasets gave us the optimal set to cross-validate the final accuracy value obtained over the two datasets. For benchmarking purpose we evaluated the performance of state of the art deep learning models- ResNet50\cite{he2016deep}, InceptionV3\cite{szegedy2017inception}, and DenseNet201\cite{huang2017densely}. We used the constant learning rate of $10^{-4}$ and SGDM as optimizer for fine-tuning each of these networks. The last fully connected layer of each of these models were removed and replaced with our new fully connected layer having four outputs in the case of Microscopy dataset and three outputs for the WSI dataset. Each model was trained for 30 epochs. After the model training, we performed majority voting scheme to predict the final label for the image. This process was done for both Microscopy and WSI dataset. The benchmark models are not end-to-end due to the required post-processing of patch-based classifier outputs for image label prediction.
\par We compared the results from benchmark models and the results by top 5 teams in BACH grand challenge \cite{bach2018} published in \cite{aresta2019bach} with our proposed method on the Microscopy dataset in table \ref{comparisonMicro}. Similarly, for WSI dataset, we compared our model's performance in table \ref{comparisonWSI}. We performed 10 fold cross-validation on our proposed model. We have evaluated the performance of our model in terms of overall accuracy of the model, class-wise sensitivity, and specificity.
\par Sensitivity and Specificity are commonly used for measuring medical applications. Sensitivity refers to how much our model is sensitive in detecting positive class or the percentage of actual positives that are correctly identified. Whereas, Specificity is the measure of actual negatives that are correctly identified. Both Sensitivity and Specificity of the model should be as high as possible to be able to correctly detect all positive samples and all negative samples.
\begin{equation}
Sensitivity= \frac{True\:Positive}{True\:Positive + False\:Negative}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Specificity= \frac{True\:Negative}{True\:Negative + False\:Positive}
\end{equation}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Comparative Performance metrics with standard errors for patch-to-image classification model for Microscopy Dataset (4-classes)}
\label{comparisonMicro}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{3.0}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Benign}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Invasive}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textit{\textbf{In situ}}}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Normal}}\\
\hline
\textbf{Method}&\textbf{Acc}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}\\
\hline
\textbf{Ours (proposed)}&0.9000$\pm$0.0053&0.9400$\pm$0.0052&0.9467$\pm$0.0059&0.9800$\pm$0.0042&0.9800$\pm$0.0023&0.9600$\pm$0.0052&0.9500$\pm$0.0039&0.7200$\pm$0.0235&0.9500$\pm$0.0022\\
\hline
\textbf{\shortstack{Chennaswamy et al.,\\ 2018 (team 216)* \cite{aresta2019bach}}}&0.87&0.8&0.96&0.88&0.99&0.84&1.0&0.96&0.88\\
\textbf{\shortstack{Kwok et al.,\\ 2018 (team 248)* \cite{aresta2019bach}}}&0.87&0.72&0.96&0.92&0.96&0.88&0.97&0.96&0.93\\
\textbf{\shortstack{Brancati et al.,\\ 2018 (team 1)* \cite{aresta2019bach}}}&0.86&0.68&0.97&0.96&0.95&0.84&0.99&0.96&0.91\\
\textbf{\shortstack{Wang et al.,\\ 2018 (team 157)* \cite{aresta2019bach}}}&0.83&0.64&0.99&0.8&0.97&0.92&0.91&0.96&0.91\\
\textbf{\shortstack{Kone et al.,\\ 2018 (team 19)* \cite{aresta2019bach}}}&0.81&0.4&0.99&0.92&0.89&0.92&0.92&1.0&0.95\\
\textbf{\shortstack{Roy et al.,\\ 2019 * \cite{roy2019patch}}}&0.90&0.70&1.0&1.0&1.0&1.0&0.93&0.90&0.93\\
\hline
\textbf{ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep}}&0.8675$\pm$0.0083&0.8674$\pm$0.0239&0.9341$\pm$0.0052&0.9243$\pm$0.0121&0.9666$\pm$0.0048&0.8307$\pm$0.0090&0.9706$\pm$0.0047&0.8605$\pm$0.0113&0.9542$\pm$0.0103\\
\textbf{DenseNet201 \cite{huang2017densely}}&0.8900$\pm$0.0107&0.8624$\pm$0.0227&0.9697$\pm$0.0039&0.8408$\pm$0.0209&0.9836$\pm$0.0029&0.9170$\pm$0.0099&0.9440$\pm$0.0055&0.9416$\pm$0.0080&0.9575$\pm$0.0093\\
\textbf{InceptionV3 \cite{szegedy2015rethinking}}&0.8700$\pm$0.0066&0.8499$\pm$0.0163&0.9463$\pm$0.0049&0.8628$\pm$0.0116&0.9735$\pm$0.0045&0.8557$\pm$0.0122&0.9599$\pm$0.0035&0.9125$\pm$0.0145&0.9476$\pm$0.0094\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\footnotesize *The standard error data for comparative literature is not available
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Performance on Microscopy dataset}
The accuracy of our model is 3\% more than the top performing team 216 \textit{Chennaswamy et al.}. The authors also used pre-trained CNNs instead of building their own custom model. They used ensemble of ResNet-101 \cite{he2016deep} and two DenseNet-161 \cite{huang2017densely} networks. In comparison to our model which is end-to-end, they first trained ResNet-101 and a DenseNet-161 using images normalized with breast-histology data
and then another DenseNet-161 with images fine-tuned with ImageNet normalization. During the testing, the majority voting scheme was used to declare the class of the input image from among the three classes predicted by the three models. Other notable difference between our model and theirs is that they used bilinear interpolation to resize their image dimensions from $2048 \times 1536$ to $224 \times 224$ whereas, we did not use resized images since that would have decreased the quality of extracted features. We maintained the resolution and instead broke the image into patches to decrease the size of the input image. At the training time, for feature extraction step through GoogleNet, the patches were resized from $256 \times 256$ to $224 \times 224$. Second team on the leaderboard \textit{Kwok et al.} team 248 trained their model using images from both microscopy dataset and extracted patches from WSI dataset. Their 2-stage process first trained the ResNet-v2 \cite{szegedy2017inception} pre-trained on ImageNet on patches acquired from microscopy dataset and then again pre-trained their network with the patches acquired from WSI dataset. The prediction of each patch was then aggregated to image-wise prediction. Their method was also not end-to-end and required two datasets to fine-tune the model performance. The difference between accuracy between our model and theirs was also 3\%. The class-wise comparison (Table \ref{comparisonMicro}) suggests that our model is much sensitive then the top 2 performing teams. Team 1 \textit{Brancati et al.} also used the ensemble of three ResNet models having 34, 50, and 101 layers, respectively. They used down-sampled microscopy images to extract patches of two sizes $308 \times 308$ and $615 \times 615$. These patches were taken from the center of the down-sampled images. They used highest class probability from three models as the class of the image. Our model performed better than theirs by overall accuracy of 90\% against 86\%. The next team in the list was Team 157 \textit{Wang et al.}. The authors in this work trained VGG16 \cite{simonyan2014very} using sample pairing data augmentation technique by \cite{inoue2018data} in which samples from different classes are augmented and then merged. The merged images are then trained using the chosen model. In the next step, the trained classifier from the mixed images is again trained using the initial non mixed dataset. The authors have resized their images to $256 \times 256$ and then extracted patches of size $224 \times 224$ at random locations. They achieved the accuracy of 83\%. The difference between their and our approach is same as with other competitive models. Team 19 \textit{Kone et al.} achieved the accuracy of 81\%, 9 percent less than our proposed model. They proposed binary tree like structure of 3 ResNeXt50 \cite{xie2017aggregated} models in which the top CNN in the hierarchy classifies images into carcinoma (\textit{In situ}, Invasive) and non-carcinoma{normal and benign}. The next two children of the root CNN then classifies the images into respective two sub-classes benign or normal and, \textit{In situ} or Invasive. They also used the two-stage process that used the learned weights of first stage to train the subsequent stages. All these methods in the challenge \cite{bach2018} who have reported their models performance used current state of the art deep learning models. The common thread between these models was that all used pre-trained models due to limited amount of data. However, they all used very heavy resizing of images which compromise with the quality of the high resolution intrinsic details present in cancer data. Moreover, their methods used two-three stages of training and the final outputs were aggregated to declare imagewise prediction. Our model on the other hand as mentioned avoid the disadvantages posed by the compared models. The same disadvantages are posed by the authors in \cite{roy2019patch} as well. They extracted different size patches ($64 \times 64, 128 \times 128, 512 \times 512$) to train their model separately but found optimum performance with $512 \times 512$. They then used heavy data augmentation to increase the amount of data. The augmented dataset is then trained using their custom CNN architecture. After the patches were trained, they used majority voting scheme to declare the predicted class of the input image. Although, they have achieved equal accuracy as our proposed model but suffered from the drawback of stage-wise model, data augmentation, and having to train their model from scratch which demands time and space.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Comparative Performance metrics with standard errors for patch-to-image classification model for WSI Dataset (3-classes)}
\label{comparisonWSI}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.5}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Benign}}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Invasive}}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{\textbf{In situ}}}\\
\hline
\textbf{Method}&\textbf{Acc}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}&\textbf{Se.}&\textbf{Sp.}\\
\hline
\textbf{Ours (proposed)}&0.8402$\pm$0.0032&0.7090$\pm$0.0309&0.9132$\pm$0.0157&0.9142$\pm$0.0136&0.9190$\pm$0.0096&0.8333$\pm$0.0264&0.9240$\pm$0.0117\\
\hline
\textbf{ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep}}&0.8127$\pm$0.0093&0.9233$\pm$0.0202&0.8341$\pm$0.0148&0.8285$\pm$0.0113&0.9492$\pm$0.0126&0.7167$\pm$0.0271&0.9556$\pm$0.0065\\
\textbf{DenseNet201 \cite{huang2017densely}}&0.8127$\pm$0.0054&0.8142$\pm$0.0202&0.9091$\pm$0.0071&0.8520$\pm$0.0098&0.9160$\pm$0.0135&0.7833$\pm$0.0500&0.9056$\pm$0.0079\\
\textbf{InceptionV3 \cite{szegedy2015rethinking}}&0.8221$\pm$0.0087&0.8356$\pm$0.0140&0.8740$\pm$0.0142&0.8451$\pm$0.0077&0.9183$\pm$0.0087&0.7667$\pm$0.0245&0.9369$\pm$0.0696\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Performance on WSI dataset}
Microscopy dataset has balanced sets of four classes having equal image dimensions. The labelled mask of each class covers the entire image area and hence the features detected belong to one class only. These properties have helped to capture patches that completely belong to the labelled image class. however, with WSI dataset, due to arbitrary shape and size of the regions, the automatic extraction script could only extract the tumour from the surrounding bounding box area. Hence, the patches sampled from such WSI regions also contained a lot of non-tumour or non-class images. Moreover, the final acquired image regions were imbalanced (Table \ref{table2}). Therefore, these reasons might have caused the performance decline in the accuracy with WSI dataset in comparison to microscopy images. We trained for only three classes since the normal patches were randomly extracted and therefore, did not belong to one particular area in the WSI. The continuity of the patches is the important factor for our model. For experimental purposes when we trained our model with non-continuous normal patches, our model suffered from performance decline which proved that the continuous patches draw spatial and contextual relationship through BiLSTMs. Otherwise, in the absence of non-continuity, the model may suffer from high variance. For benchmarking purposes and due to the lack of other comparative models, we compared our model with ResNet50, InceptionV3, And DenseNet121. From the Table \ref{comparisonWSI}, we could observe an improvement in the performance metrics when we used context based model. The main difference between our model and these state of the art models is that we did not train any deep architecture and our model is end-to-end.
\section{Discussions}
Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) by analysing samples of Ultrasound, CT, and MRI images has been vastly suggested by medical image researchers for quite sometime. They trained machine learning models with various morphological, graph, and intensity based methods from very small set of data samples which were sometimes in the range of only 30 to 100 images. The generalizing capability of such models has thus been questionable. However, after the introduction of deep learning models and availability of large amount of data. CAD techniques have experienced a huge success in performance precision and accuracy. When such deep models were tested for histopathological images, the low inter-class variability, especially between Normal and Benign classes, affected the overall performance. Hence, some new methods engaging these deep models in form of cascaded or ensemble architectures were proposed. Also, the most biopsy samples digitized at high resolutions contain very detailed information of cell structures and various other microstructures. The amount of information in one biopsy sample could collectively form a gigapixel image. Such high-resolution images are then required to be broken into smaller patches for further processing. Patch-based processing with complex ensemble methods followed by aggregation of patches into image labels in case of classification and segmented objects in case of segmentation makes it a lengthy process. The whole pipeline is divided into stages and lacks contextual relationship between patches. To overcome this drawback, we thought to streamline the process into an end-to-end network. The patches were visualized as a sequence of images as in a video and an effort was made to scan the patches so as to maintain as much continuity as possible. RNN based BiLSTM models are known to serve the purpose for predicting input sequence labels. Since, with BiLSTMs., we could capture both past and future contexts which enabled the model to aggregate the whole tumour features despite providing non-overlapping tumour parts in the form of patches as input sequence. \\
Due to sequence classification, the next step of predicting image label from patch labels was not required. The graphical structure of BiLSTMs helped to build a context-based high-resolution tumour classification model that also gave us the benefit of end-to-end network structure. We also analysed that with our proposed models, there is no need of training deep models. We used a pre-trained ImageNet model for feature extraction and only one BiLSTM layer to train a shallow network. The average time to train the model was 17 minutes for 30 epochs. Once the model's hyper-parameters are tuned for the particular dataset, the training would take only few minutes. The shallow structure of the model also make it feasible for deployment in lighter applications such as hand-held devices like mobile handsets. The complexity of the method is discussed in \autoref{complexity}. Another advantage is that the various limitation of high-resolution images could be exploited in the favour of the methodology. The large dimensions could be easily turned into sequences using the appropriate scanning process. Due to BiLSTM layer, the model encapsulates the context mining capability which helped form the spatial and contextual relationship between patches sampled from a single image. The results suggested that this context modelling was crucial in patch-based models that process patches instead of complete structures at a time. In other words, modelling direct dependencies between patches, past or future, is crucial for performance of the model.
\par The idea of processing patches as a sequence using RNN based BiLSTM model could be further extended by using four RNNs. Each RNN would take patches going in up, down, left, and right directions, respectively \cite{bengio2017deep}. According to the \cite{visin2015renet, kalchbrenner2015grid}, compared to CNNs, RNNs when applied to images allow for long-range lateral interactions between features in the same feature map.
\section{Complexity}
\label{complexity}
The model is end-to-end deep learning model whose architecture is briefly expressed in \autoref{network}. Till layer number $143- Flatten Layer$, there are no Floating Point Operations (FLOPs) being performed. GoogLeNet network is present to extract pre-trained features which are then passed on to subsequent layers for further processing. Similarly, Sequence Folding, Unfolding, Average Pooling, and Flatten layer also accumulate zero FLOPs. Therefore, the time complexity is calculated from BiLSTM layer onwards. The formula for calculating number of learnable parameters in a BiLSTM layer is derived as follows, \\
Let $I$ be the input size of the sequence, $K$ be the number of output dimensions and $H$ be the number of hidden units.
For BiLSTM if $H$ are the number of initialized hidden units then $M=2\times H$ are the total number of hidden units for both forward and backward passes of the BiLSTM network.
After concatenation of the forward and backward outputs, the total output dimensions become $K=M/2$.
Then the complexity of a BiLSTM layer is:
\[\mathcal{O}(W)\]
where $W$ are the total number of learnable parameters in the network calculated as:
\[W=4\times M((I+1)+K)\]
\[W=4\times (M(I+1)+MK)\]
Here in the above formula, the first term $4\times M(I+1)$ are the total number of input weights and the second term $4\times MK$ are the number of recurrent weights.\\
In the terms of Big Oh notation, the time complexity is;
\[\mathcal{O}(M(I+1)+MK)\]
The multiplication by factor $4$ represents four weight matrices of BiLSTM layer (Input gate, Forget gate, Cell candidate, Output gate). The input size variable $I$ is added with a bias value $1$. \\
For the BiLSTM layer in our network, the number of parameters are:
\[W=4\times4000\times ((1024+1)+2000)\]
\[W=16000 \times (1025+2000)\]
\[W=48400000\]
where $4000$ are the total number of hidden units for both forward and backward passes of the BiLSTM layer, $1024$ is the size of the input sequence, and $2000$ is the total number of outputs.\\
Next, for the fully connected layer, the parameters are
\[F=3\times 4000\]
Hence, the total number of FLOPs are \[W+F=48400000+12000=48412000\]
\[W+F=48.4 \times 10^6 = 48 MFLOPs\]
We have used NVIDIA TitanX GPU (12GB) for training our models. It performs $11 \times 10^{12}$ or 11 Tera FLOPs per second which is a sufficient computational efficiency required for training. \\
To put it in perspective, we mention the number of FLOPs for few popular deep learning networks in Table \ref{FLOPs}. \\
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\caption{FLOPs for popular deep learning architectures}
\label{FLOPs}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
AlexNet&727 MFLOPs\\
VGG16&16 GFLOPs\\
VGG19&20 GFLOPs\\
GoogLeNeT&2 GFLOPs\\
ResNet50&4 GFLOPs\\
DenseNet121&3 GFLOPs\\
InceptionV3&6 GFLOPs\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In terms of the Big Oh notation, the time complexity of the model for $t$ number of input samples and $n$ number of epochs is represented as;
\[\mathcal{O}(n\times t\times (W+F))\]
\section{Conclusion}
We proposed an end-to-end RNN based model that takes patches as input and outputs image labels. The patches are modelled as sequences by using one-layer BiLSTM model. The sequence in an image is captured using the strategic scanning method which was experimentally chosen. We used BACH challenge dataset to test our method and reported our results on two different datasets introduced in the challenge. The classifier performance was compared with recently reported metrics by top 5 teams in BACH challenge for microscopy dataset. We achieved highest performance of 90\% with simpler architecture and less time and space complexity.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This research was carried out in Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad and supported, in part, by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India and the Biomedical Research Council of the Agency for Science, Technology, and Research, Singapore. We are also grateful to the NVIDIA corporation for supporting our research in this area by granting us TitanX (PASCAL) GPU.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Additional Results}
\subsection{Additional Correlation Results}
\label{appendix:corr}
Table \ref{tab:corr_with_pvalues} shows Spearman rank correlation scores with p-values.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}l||c|c|c||c|c|c@{}}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{Spearman Rank Correlation (p-values)} \\ \toprule
Setup & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{1 human written reference} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{4 human written references} \\ \midrule
Dataset & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Single}{}} & \textsc{Paraphrase}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textsc{Scarce}{}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textsc{Multi}{}} & \textsc{Paraphrase}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textsc{Scarce}{}} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\tiny{\cite{li-etal-2017-dailydialog}}} & -\textsc{Single}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{-\textsc{Single}{}(Ours)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\tiny{\cite{gupta2019investigating}}} & -\textsc{Multi}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-\textsc{Multi}{}(Ours)} \\ \midrule
BLEU-4 & 0.093 (0.04) & 0.135 (0.00) & 0.302 (0.00) & 0.281 (0.00) & 0.269 (0.00) & 0.357 (0.00) \\
BLEU-3 & 0.055 (0.22) & 0.105 (0.02) & 0.291 (0.00) & 0.243 (0.00) & 0.238 (0.00) & 0.345 (0.00) \\
BLEU-2 & 0.040 (0.37) & 0.082 (0.07) & 0.275 (0.00) & 0.203 (0.00) & 0.206 (0.00) & 0.327 (0.00) \\
BLEU-1 & 0.024 (0.59) & 0.062 (0.17) & 0.250 (0.00) & 0.191 (0.00) & 0.178 (0.00) & 0.295 (0.00) \\
ROUGE-L & 0.071 (0.11) & 0.088 (0.05) & 0.259 (0.00) & 0.197 (0.00) & 0.196 (0.00) & 0.317 (0.00) \\
METEOR & 0.106 (0.02) & 0.094 (0.04) & 0.243 (0.00) & 0.227 (0.00) & 0.217 (0.00) & 0.299 (0.00) \\
\midrule
EmbeddingAvg & 0.030 (0.50) & 0.015 (0.73) & 0.025 (0.58) & 0.099 (0.03) & 0.096 (0.03) & 0.079 (0.08) \\
SkipThought & -0.003 (0.95) & -0.033 (0.46) & 0.087 (0.05) & 0.065 (0.15) & 0.053 (0.24) & 0.129 (0.00) \\
BERT-Prec & 0.270 (0.00) & 0.279 (0.00) & 0.378 (0.00) & 0.319 (0.00) & 0.322 (0.00) & 0.407 (0.00) \\
BERT-Rec & 0.096 (0.03) & 0.094 (0.04) & 0.240 (0.00) & 0.232 (0.00) & 0.212 (0.00) & 0.304 (0.00) \\
\midrule
Max. value & 0.270 & 0.279 & 0.378 & 0.319 & 0.322 & 0.407 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small
Utterance level Spearman Rank Correlation \cite{spearman1961proof} with p-values.
(1) \textsc{Scarce-Single}{} augments the original single human written response (\textsc{Single}{}) in DailyDialog dataset \cite{li-etal-2017-dailydialog} using proposed method. It leads to large improvements in correlations across most of the metrics, when compared to \textsc{Single}{}.
(2) \textsc{Scarce-Multi}{} augments the \textsc{Multi}{} dataset, again leading to improvements in correlations to human ratings, especially for BLEU and BERT-Prec metrics.
Additionally, we note that almost all of the correlation values with \textsc{Scarce}{}-\textsc{Multi}{} are statistically significant with $p<0.05$.
}
\label{tab:corr_with_pvalues}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Quality Assessment based on RUBER}
As a second, automated way of ascertaining response quality, we use the unreferenced part of the RUBER metric \cite{tao2017ruber}, which uses a pretrained model to score quality of responses based on context alone. Here, we use the RUBER checkpoint\footnote{\url{tinyurl.com/ynqd54tt}} from \cite{sai2020improving}, which first pretrains on a large Reddit dataset, followed by finetuning on DailyDialog. \textsc{Single} and \textsc{Multi} have a quality of $\approx$ 0.72, while for
\textsc{Retrieval} the values is $0.63$ . \textsc{CommonSense} is found to have the most superior quality at $0.82$, surpassing even \textsc{MULTI}.
\subsection{Diversity of References}
\label{appendix:diversity}
We investigate the diversity of the references by computing self-BLEU scores \cite{zhu2018texygen} among references from \textsc{Paraphrase}{} vs \textsc{Scarce}{}. For fair comparison, we randomly chose 4 references from corresponding method. We observe self-BLEU4 scores of $0.36$ for \textsc{Paraphrase}{} compared to only $0.13$\footnote{Note that lower self-BLEU denotes more diverse} for \textsc{Scarce}{}.
\section{Additional Details on Context Adaptation}
\label{appendix:context}
\subsection{Templates to convert Knowledge Base Outputs to Full Sentences}
\label{appendix:context-comet}
Table \ref{tab:templates} lists the set of templates and rules used to transform semi-structured COMET{} outputs to surface natural language forms.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}ll@{}}
Condition & Action \\
\toprule
Type is \textsc{oEffect} & Prepend `I feel' \\
Example: & \\
\textsc{oEffect} (excited) & => `I feel excited.' \\
\midrule
Type is \textsc{oWant} & Prepend `I' \\
Example: & \\
\textsc{oWant} (to thank personx) & => `I want to thank personx.' \\
\midrule
Type is \textsc{oReact} & Prepend `I will' \\
Example: & \\
\textsc{oReact} (have a party) & => `I will have a party.' \\
\midrule
Word \textsc{personx} & Replace with `you' \\
Example: & \\
i thank \textsc{personx}. & => `I thank \emph{you}.' \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Templates and rules to transform semi-structured COMET{} outputs to surface NL forms.}
\label{tab:templates}
\vspace{-3ex}
\end{table}
\subsection{Unsupervised Decoding Procedure For Context Adaptation}
\label{appendix:context-delorean}
We use the author's own implementation\footnote{\url{tinyurl.com/2lqp9z6s}} of their DELOREAN decoding algorithm from \cite{DBLP:conf/emnlp/QinSWBHBBC20}. We use default hyperparameters from their implementation, which use the non-finetuned \textit{gpt2-medium} checkpoint as the LM atop which the unsupervised, gradient-based decoding procedure is run. Note that the model parameters are not updated in any way - the gradient computation and updates here are happening w.r.t the states, or more specifically, the state activation.
More specifically, authors propose an iterature procedure wherein they alternatively perform forward and backward passes. In the forward pass, the current output $Y$ is updated as per the likelihood of the underlying decoder. In the backward pass, the output is updated to be as similar as possible to the sentence $Z$ from the knowledge source using back-propagation. However, since $Y$is discrete, we maintain a soft representation $\widetilde{Y}$ of the output $Y$ wherein $\widetilde{Y_i}$ represents the logits at the $i^{th}$ position as per the underlying decoder.
Next, we shall describe the backward and forward passes of the iterative procedure:
\textbf{1:} In backward pass, we update logits based on the gradients of a content-matching loss function $\triangledown_{\widetilde{Y}} L(\widetilde{Y}_{t-1},Z)$ giving backward logits $\widetilde{y}^{b}_{t}$
\textbf{2:} Next, we perform forward pass using the underlying decoder for steps $1$ to $N$. During forward pass at step $t$, we compute the logits $\widetilde{y}^{f}_{t}$ based on left context i.e. $X$ and $Y_{<t}$. Next we perform weighted averaging of the forward and backward logits at step $t$ to arrive at the final logits to be used for the next time step in forward pass.
$\widetilde{Y_i}$ is initialized by performing a forward pass conditioned only on $X$ as per greedy decoding. We alternatively perform backward and forward passes till convergence.
Final response is obtained via the resulting logit outputs $\widetilde{Y}$.
Specifically, we use their ``counterfactual'' setup, where an ending $e_{old}$ is adapted from its old context $c_{old}$ to an altered, new context $c_{new}$, generating a new, predicted ending $\hat{e}_{new}$. In our case, $c_{new}$ is the dialog context for the turn under evaluation $d^{past}_t$. In the \textsc{Retrieval} case, $c_{old}$ is the context of the retrieved candidate turn $x^{past}_{t'}$. For the \textsc{Commonsense} case, $c_{old}$ is also our current context, i.e the same as $c_{new}$ - we're simply attuning the already drawn inference better to the current context.
\section{Retrieval Similarity Function - Details}
\label{appendix:bm25_details}
Consider a dialog $d$ , broken up by turns as $\{C_{1}\ldots C_{t}, C_{t+1}{=} d^{resp}_{t}, C_{t+2} \ldots C_{T}\}$, where $t+1$ denotes the turn currently under evaluation. For the context-response $C^{1}_{t},\hat{r}_{t}$ pair to be evaluated, we retrieve pseudo-references based on a combination of of a) Past $d^{past}_{t}=C^{t-L_{b}}_{t}$ b) Gold response $d^{resp}_{t}$ c) Future $d^{future}_{t}=C^{t+2}_{t+2+L_{f}}$. $L_{b}$ and $L_{f}$ are past and future context windows.
Our retrieval similarity function is a sum of the log scores between each corresponding element of the turn under evaluation with the candidate turn.
\begin{center}
{}{\tiny
\begin{align*}
\vspace{-2ex}
Sim(d_{t},x_{t'}) &= \log S_{bm25}(d^{past}_{t},x^{past}_{t'}) + \log S_{bm25}(d^{resp}_{t},x^{resp}_{t'}) \\ &+ \log S_{bm25}(d^{future}_{t},x^{future}_{t'})
\vspace{-2ex}
\normalsize
\end{align*}}%
\end{center}
We set $L_{b}=L_{f}=2$ without specific tuning, as an intuitive tradeoff between enough specificity and enough possibility of relevant candidates.
BM25 \cite{robertson1995okapi} or ``Best Match 25'' is a tfidf like similarity. Its specific form is:
\begin{center}
\tiny
\begin{align*}
S_{BM25}(q,d) &= \sum_{w_{i} \in q} \log(\frac{N}{{df}_{i}}) \frac{(k_{1}+1){tf}_{i}}{k_{1}((1-b)+b\frac{dl}{avdl})+{tf}_{i}}
\end{align*}
\normalsize
\end{center}
Here, ${tf}_{i}$ and $df_{i}$ are the term frequency in the current document and the document frequency (in the corpus). $N$ is corpus size, while $dl$ and $avdl$ are current and average document lengths. $b$ controls extent of document length normalization, while $k_{1}$ controls effect of term frequency. With $b=0$ and $k_{1}{}\rightarrow{}\infty$, this reduces to simple tfidf . Here, we use default gensim values, $b=0.7$, $k_{1}=0.5$
\section{Qualitative Examples}
\label{appendix:qualExamples}
In Tables \ref{tab:qualExamples}, we list some examples, each illustrating a turn of a test dialog with its immediate past, future, the four additional human references from \cite{gupta2019investigating} (shown under \textsc{Multi 2,3} and \textsc{Multi 4,5}), followed by automated response sets from different sub-components of \textsc{Scarce}{}.
\subsection{Before/After \textsc{ContextAdapt}}
In Example \emph{4-4} of Table \ref{tab:qualExamples}, we can observe how \textit{``Yes , I'm young , and unmarried . It's no problem for me to travel frequently .''} gets context-adapted (shown as +\textsc{CA}, short for \textsc{ContextAdapt}) to \textit{``Yes , I'm able to understand English. It 's not that I don't understand English .''} which indeed does match the preceding dialog better. Similarly, in Example \emph{50-2} of Table \ref{tab:qualExamples}, we can see how \textit{``Well, that might be acceptable if you handle insurance fees"} is modulated stronger to the context which asks about duration, getting adapted to \textit{``Well, that's a lot of time to wait for the draft to be drawn."}. Note that we omit this row for the examples where it simply leaves the input unchanged, or produces outputs which are noticeably unfaithful or ill-formed.
\subsection{Complementarity of Components}
Sometimes, a component may suffer from example specific issues e.g In Example \emph{35-2}, the \textsc{Commonsense} approaches misinterpret what is a driving ticket in the context of the dialog as an event ticket, drawing inferences accordingly. However, even in such cases, the other component salvages the situation and ensures overall response set remains healthy - e.g, here, \textsc{Retrieval} produces pertinent responses like \textit{Could you tell me how you dealt with it this time?}, \textit{No I haven't. What about you ?} etc. In Example \emph{10-3}, we see the opposite situation, where the responses from \textsc{Retrieval} are somewhat less relevant, but \textsc{Commonsense} produces very pertinent responses such as \textit{``i decline the date"} and \textit{``I go on another date''}
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\centering
\scriptsize
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-4pt}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l| }
\hline
No & Type & Text \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{0-5} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red} A: I also have blow if you prefer to do a few lines.} \\
& \textsc{Future} & {\color{teal} A: come on man ! i even got dope and acid ! try some !.} \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: No, I am ok, really.} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: what is your price ? ; B: no thanks, I'm out of cash } \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: yeah , what have you go got ?; B: maybe tomorrow , i 'm running late .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: Well , I guess Zina figured you couldn't blow it if you were in the hotel room .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval w CA} & {\color{blue} B: I have a few lines of blow , but it is not necessary in the way of the rest of the script .} \\
& \textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{orange} B: i want to go to bathroom; B: i want to play game; B: i want to have rest; B: i want to sleep} \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{1-1} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red} B: The taxi drivers are on strike again A: What for?} \\
& \textsc{Future} & {\color{teal} A: it is really a hot potato .} \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: They want the government to reduce the price of gasoline .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: they want more pay for their time .; B: they are not happy with their permit related expenses .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: they want healthcare and benefits .; B: i don't know . i just know there are no cabs in the city} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: Well . Don't worry about it , I will be happy to share the taxi with you .} \\
& & {\color{blue} B: I think the price is a little high , can't you reduce it?} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval w CA} & {\color{blue} B: Well , they are not going to be able to get their fares back .} \\
& & {\color{blue} B: I think the reason is a little more complicated than that .} \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{4-4} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red} A: Do you think you can make yourself easily understood in English ?} \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: yes , in most circumstances .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: my english is fine . my keyboard sometimes just acts up . ;} {\color{violet} B: yes, and i'm constantly trying to improve my communication.} \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: i do n't know . i may be to nervous and then i 'll mess up . ;} {\color{violet} B: yes , i believe so . i 've been speaking english since birth .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: Yes , I'm young , and unmarried . It's no problem for me to travel frequently .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval w CA} & {\color{blue} B: Yes , I'm able to understand English . It 's not that I don't understand English .} \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{10-3} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red}B: Hold on , please . Let me check it for you . Yes , you're right . You will keep it for 3 days .} \\&& {\color{red} A: Well , now I want to change the date from 24th to 28th . } \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: ok , that shall be arranged .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: we can easily do that for you . ; B: i 'm sorry but someone's reserved the room for 28th . i can offer you a different room ?} \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: i can extend your stay time but it may cost more since it is going into the holiday . ; } \\ & & {\color{violet} B: i can give you a different double room for the 28th at a discounted price .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: All right . May I have your name ? ; B: Apparently there is only \$ 57 left in your account . ;} \\&& {\color{blue} B: Here you are . What is the rate ?; B: I prefer not to move first .} \\
& \textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{orange} B: i decline the date ; B: i go on another date; B: i go on a date;} \\&& {\color{orange} B: i get nervous; B: i get rejected; B: i get dumped; B: i feel sad} \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{23-10} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red} B: I mainly eat baked chicken , because there's not a lot of fat . } {\color{red}A: that does sound pretty good .} \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: i know it does , and that 's because it is .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: yes , it is very good and pretty healthy .; B: it is good , you should come over and i will make you dinner .} \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: thanks , it 's been a struggle , but i am starting to see results . ;} \\&& {\color{violet} B: i appreciate your kind words , i am getting used to eating more healthy .} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: You should try it . You won't be disappointed .; B: Do you have any plans for tomorrow ? ; B: That's it ? ; } \\&& {\color{blue} B: Just about . ; B: I like fish . Please bring me an order of that .} \\
& \textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{orange} B: i want to cook dinner; B: i want to go to movie; B: i want to write letter ;} \\ && {\color{orange} B: i will open your mouth; B: i will think about what you want; B: i will drink some water; } \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{35-2} & \textsc{Context} & {\color{red} B: I've never gotten one . Have you ?} {\color{red} A: I got a ticket yesterday .} \\
& \textsc{Future} & {\color{teal} A: i parked in the red zone .} \\
& \textsc{Single} & {\color{brown} B: really ? what did you get one for ?} \\
& \textsc{Multi 2,3} & {\color{violet} B: what was it for ? ; B: how much is it ?} \\
& \textsc{Multi 4,5} & {\color{violet} B: do you resent you got a ticket ? ; B: are you going to appeal the ticket ?} \\
& \textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{blue} B: I've gotten a few .; B: No , I haven't . What about you ? ;} \\&& {\color{blue} B: Could you tell me how you dealt with it this time ? ;} \\&& {\color{blue} B: I will explain it in detail in the next class , could you preview it ?} \\
& \textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{orange} B: i give ticket to you; B: i give ticket to the cashier; B: i give ticket to the clerk.; } \\&& {\color{orange} B: i feel happy .; B: I feel excited .; B: i feel annoyed . ; B: I feel disappointed .; } \\&& {\color{orange} B: i see what else they can do .; B: i see what else they can do to get the ticket; i go to the event } \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example context-response pairs from the test split of DailyDialog, showing the automated responses returned by different sub-components of \textsc{Scarce}{}. \textsc{ContextAdapt} is shortened to \textsc{CA} for brevity.}
\label{tab:qualExamples}
\vspace{-3ex}
\end{table*}
\section{Human Evaluation Details}
\subsection{Quality of References}
The quality of references were judged by two graduate students from a university where the medium of instruction is English. The annotators were requested to ignore minor grammar issues, and focus more on the content of the response.
\section{Computing Details}
The GPUs used for \textsc{Commonsense} and \textsc{ContextAdapt} experiments were a Geforce Rtx 2080 and TitanX Pascal respectively.
\clearpage
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we demonstrate how existing knowledge sources can be used to construct a diverse set of references in an automated and scalable manner.
The resulting reference set demonstrates high correlation with human ratings of system outputs.
In future, we plan to incorporate other commonsense types into \textsc{Scarce}, such as social \cite{sap2019social} and moral \cite{forbes2020social}. We also hope to explore human-in-the-loop setups which build on \textsc{Scarce}{} to collect even better references.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank anonymous ACL reviewers for insightful comments and feedback. We thank Prakhar Gupta \cite{gupta2019investigating} for useful discussions.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\noindent \textbf{Transferability to more languages:}
Transferability of our approach to more languages is one aspect that merits discussion. While commonsense resources aren't readily available in all languages, a workaround can be to use off-the-shelf MT to translate before querying into English versions of the commonsense resources, and then translate back retrieved information.
Furthermore, we note that while commonsense knowledge was useful, removing the \textsc{Commonsense} method and relying on retrieval alone causes only relatively modest drop in performance (see Table \ref{tab:ablations}). Thus, for languages lacking commonsense resources, one may still attain good gains in reference based evaluation by retrieving and adapting from dialog corpus alone. \\
\noindent \textbf{Reference-less metrics:}
We note that while comparisons of using proposed approach against using reference-free metrics \cite{lowe2017towards,tao2017ruber} would be interesting, the focus of the current work is on improving reference-based evaluation via unsupervised reference augmentation.
While reference-less metrics offer convenience to work with zero or a very small number of references, reference-based metrics can be advantageous on several fronts. Reference-based evaluation can be more interpretable under certain situations by identifying the reference which matches the most with a given system output. Reference-based evaluations allow for easy incorporation of additional references -- in contrast, many learned model-based metrics will require retraining if additional annotations become available.
\section*{Ethics Statement}
Our preference ratings are collected over source content from an already existing, publicly available and widely used dataset i.e DailyDialog \cite{li-etal-2017-dailydialog}
We neither solicit, record or request any kind of personal or identity information while collecting our ratings.
Our work primarily performs experiments on dialog in English \cite{bender2018data}.
Dialog models are known to suffer from biases learnable from dialog training data, such as gender bias \cite{dinan2019queens}. However, our work and contribution does not present or release any new models or model checkpoints, and is primarily focussed on making existing evaluation setups better through automated collection of larger reference sets.
\section{Experiments}
We investigate the extent to which automated metrics on an evaluation dataset correlate with human ratings of system outputs.
We use the human ratings collected by \citet{gupta2019investigating}, who collected utterance level human ratings using Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). They used a collection of 100 dialogue contexts that are randomly selected from the DailyDialog dataset. The generated response from various methods are rated in terms of appropriateness (from 1-5, with 5 denoting the best) by 5 different AMT workers. They collected and considered outputs from following methods: CVAE \cite{ZhaoZE17}, HRED \cite{Serban2016BuildingED}, Seq2Seq \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/VinyalsL15}, Dual-encoder \cite{DBLP:conf/sigdial/LowePSP15}, and Human-written responses. We report Spearman rank correlation \cite{spearman1961proof} and Kendall Tau rank correlation \cite{kendall1938new} of human ratings against ngram overlap metrics
such as BLEU \shortcite{papineni2002bleu}, METEOR \cite{banerjee2005meteor}, ROUGE-L \cite{lin2004rouge}, and embedding based metrics like cosine similarity of average word embedding (EmbeddingAvg) \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/WietingBGL15a} or Skip Thought Embedding \cite{DBLP:conf/nips/KirosZSZUTF15}, and precision (BERT-Prec) and recall (BERT-Rec) components of BertScore \cite{DBLP:conf/iclr/ZhangKWWA20}.
We compare the correlations across following setups:
\noindent \textbf{\textsc{Single}{}} \cite{li-etal-2017-dailydialog}: Original DailyDialog dataset which had one reference per context;
\textbf{\textsc{Scarce-Single}{}}: Proposed method along with \textsc{Single}{} reference;
\textbf{\textsc{Multi}{}} \cite{gupta2019investigating}: 4 human written references.
\textbf{\textsc{Scarce-Multi}{}}: Reference responses from the proposed method along with \textsc{Multi}{} references.
Additionally, we report the results when using \textsc{Paraphrase}{} instead of \textsc{Scarce}{}: \textbf{\textsc{Paraphrase}{}-\textsc{Single}{}} and \textbf{\textsc{Paraphrase}{}-\textsc{Multi}{}}.
Paraphrasing is a popular approach for automated data augmentation.
Paraphrasing via backtranslation (BT) \cite{sennrich-etal-2016-improving} is known to be an effective, domain-independent way to generate good quality paraphrases \cite{wieting2017paranmt}.
We use the BT model from \cite{xie2020unsupervised} with its default hyperparameters to sample 5 paraphrases per human written reference
\\
\vspace{-0.4\abovedisplayskip}
\noindent \textbf{Results:} We observe that most of the metrics show large improvements in correlations to human ratings for appropriateness when used along with \textsc{Single}{} or \textsc{Multi}{} (Table \ref{tab:corr}).
In fact, rank correlations across most of the metrics are better for \textsc{Scarce-Single}{} compared to \textsc{Multi}{}, even though former uses only single human written reference while latter uses upto 5 human written references\footnote{Rank correlations for \textsc{Single}{} and \textsc{Multi}{} deviate from the values in \citet{gupta2019investigating}, who (in private communication with us
, confirmed
that the final dataset and code available on their repo does lead to the numbers we report.
}.
Additionally, we observe that \textsc{Paraphrase}{} produces little or no improvements in correlations with human ratings (Table \ref{tab:corr}).
We posit that for a given response, alternate responses constitute a strictly richer subspace than that of response paraphrases, which tend to be lexico-syntactically variant but semantically invariant. \\
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
Method & \multicolumn{1}{c}{BLEU-4} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{BERT-Prec} \\\toprule
\textsc{Scarce-Single}{} & $0.30$ & $0.38$ \\
\midrule
\quad \textsc{Scarce-Single}{} variants: \\
\textsc{CommonSense}{} only & $0.24$ & $0.31$ \\
\textsc{Retrieval} only & $0.29$ & $0.36$ \\
\textsc{Retrieval} only (5\% corpus) & $0.17$ & $0.28$ \\
\textsc{w/o context-adapt} & $0.26$ & $0.37$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.3\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{
Analyzing the impact of various components
}
\label{tab:ablations}
\vspace{-3ex}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.4\abovedisplayskip}
\noindent \textbf{Analyzing the impact of various components:}
To understand the impact of various components, we report Spearman rank correlation scores for BLEU-4 and BERT-Prec metrics with some variants of \textsc{Scarce-Single}{} (Table \ref{tab:ablations}). We note that considering only one knowledge source (\textsc{CommonSense}{}-only, \textsc{Retrieval}-only) leads to good Spearman rank correlations of automated metrics to human ratings. Thus, the additive effect (\textsc{Scarce-Single}{}) shows rather small incremental benefit. Moreover, \textsc{Retrieval} by itself does better than \textsc{CommonSense}{}, though at smaller corpus availability (e.g. 5\%), \textsc{CommonSense}{} performs better.
Finally, not using context adaptation (\textsc{w/o context-adapt}) leads to significant performance drop. \\
\noindent \textbf{Qualitative Examples} To illustrate our approach, we present a couple of examples in Table \ref{tab:qualExamplesmain}. (A wider selection of examples can be found in Appendix Table 6.) \\
\noindent \textbf{Quality of Auto-generated References:}
We check the quality of \textsc{Scarce}{} references by recruiting human annotators, showing them the reference along with the dialog context, and requesting them to tag each reference as appropriate, neutral, or not-appropriate, with respect to the dialog context. We randomly select $150$ responses each from \textsc{Scarce}{} and \textsc{Multi}{} for this purpose.
We observe that in about $29\%$ of the references from \textsc{Scarce}{} (fully automatically generated) were annotated as not appropriate, compared to $7\%$ for \textsc{Multi}{}, demonstrating fair quality of augmented responses from \textsc{Scarce}{} (Additional details and results in Appendix). We do note that the ones marked as not relevant/appropriate can often be tweaked easily by a human to transform them into valid responses -- demonstrating the possibility of exploring human-in-the-loop setups along with \textsc{Scarce}{} to collect even better references.
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\centering
\small
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-4pt}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
Type & Text \\
\toprule
\textsc{Context} & {\color{black} A: How may I help you ?} \\
\textsc{Single} & {\color{black} B: I'm having a problem.} \\
\hdashline
\textsc{Multi} & {\color{black} B: You can help me with this problem. || B: You can tell me how to get to customer service. } \\
\textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{black} B: I have a problem. || B: There is a problem with my check. } \\
\textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{black} B: I want to find information. || B: I want to ask question. || B: I want to make appointment.} \\
\toprule
\textsc{Context} & {\color{black} B: It can be solved by drawing a draft on us at 90 days sight.} {\color{black} A: What about a draft at 120 days sight ?} \\
\textsc{Single} & {\color{black} B: All right. But we demand the draft be accepted by a bank acceptable to us.} \\
\hdashline
\textsc{Multi} & {\color{black} B: We'd like the matter resolved sooner. || B: We can do that, but there will be a higher interest rate.} \\
\textsc{Retrieval} & {\color{black} B: Well, that's a lot of time to wait for the draft to be drawn.} \\
\textsc{Commonsense} & {\color{black} B: I want to sign the contract. || B: I will look at the draft sheet.} \\ \toprule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example showing the automated responses returned by different sub-components of \textsc{Scarce}{}. Multiple responses from the same sub-component are separated by `||'.
}
\label{tab:qualExamplesmain}
\vspace{-3ex}
\end{table*}
\section{Introduction}
Evaluation by human annotators perhaps give the best insights into quality of machine generated natural language outputs. However, they can be expensive and time consuming. Much focus has therefore been on automated evaluation methods which correlate with human evaluations. Automated metrics such as BLEU \cite{papineni2002bleu}
work well for tasks such as machine translation, but often correlate poorly with human ratings in tasks such as open domain dialog which admit a wide variety of valid response for given context, often due to small number of human written references \cite{ZhaoZE17,sai2020survey}. Prior work \cite{sugiyama2019automatic,gupta2019investigating} has demonstrated that having multiple valid references for the same context leads to automated metrics being better correlated to human judgements for appropriateness. However, collecting human written responses is difficult to scale, can be costly, and may find it difficult to
cover a large variety of correct responses \cite{celikyilmaz2020evaluation}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{images/overview.png}
\caption{\small We propose automatic ways to collect references sans any crowd-sourcing, through two types of knowledge sources: commonsense
and retrieved instance
knowledge, followed by automated adaptation to make them more fluent in the target contexts.}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-3ex}
\end{figure}
In this work, we automatically extract a large number of diverse references to be used with such reference-based metrics, without resorting to expensive crowd-sourcing. Intuitively, since open-domain dialog pertains to everyday life, its utterance text tends to re-instantiate from a large but limited pool of situations \cite{schank1972conceptual} e.g friends debating politics etc, with variation only on some details e.g country discussed. Hence, knowledge encapsulating a wide scope of situations can serve as one starting point to automatically seed a set of diverse references.
We first fetch plausible candidates from two types of
knowledge sources (Figure \ref{fig:overview}).
Such knowledge sources provide ready and easy access to a large number of potentially appropriate and diverse references.
However, all retrieved instances may not be directly useful.
As such, to achieve more fluent references, we propose techniques to adapt the candidate references based on the context (e.g change country being discussed).
Note that since we are interested in creating references for only evaluating appropriateness of system outputs, our techniques can rely on broader data sources compared to dialog models. For example, we use future context
and human written reference
for retrieval, while a dialog model cannot.
Our contributions are as follows:
(1) We propose a method for automated reference set augmentation for automated dialog evaluation. Compared to collecting more human-written responses, our approach is inexpensive and scalable, and fetches a diverse set of references.
(2) We observe high correlations of various automated metrics with human ratings when proposed reference augmentation is applied to the test split of DailyDialog dataset \cite{li-etal-2017-dailydialog}.
We additionally observe that paraphrasing, a popular data augmentation technique, performs much worse.
(3) We employ novel use of commonsense knowledge and dialog corpus instances, and unsupervised techniques for adapting retrieved references into more fluent forms.
\section{Method}
Figure \ref{fig:overview} shows an overview of our proposed methodology. We first fetch plausible candidates from two types of
knowledge sources.
Thereafter, the retrieved candidate references are adapted so that they are fluent in the target context.
We refer to our proposed method as \textbf{\textsc{Scarce}{}} (
\textbf{SC}alable \textbf{A}utomated \textbf{R}eference \textbf{C}onstruction for \textbf{E}valuation).
\subsection{Knowledge Sources}
\noindent \textbf{Pre-trained Commonsense Model}
\label{subsec:commonsense}
Much open domain dialog is based on everyday matters.
We posit that extracting inferences about a situation using a commonsense knowledge base could be useful in identifying a wide variety of plausible reactions for a given dialog context. For example, a person making arrangements for an event might receive thanks from others (Figure \ref{fig:overview}).
We utilize COMET{} \cite{BosselutRSMCC19}
an off-the-shelf commonsense knowledge model built on ATOMIC \cite{SapBABLRRSC19} or ConceptNet \cite{speer2017conceptnet} corpus.
It can be used to elicit
commonsense inferences.
COMET{}-ATOMIC provides inferences on cause-effect interrelations between events pertaining to nine relation types such as \emph{oReact} (effect on others due to the event), and \emph{oWant} (inferences about wants of the receiver of event).
Given an utterance from the previous speaker, we draw up to 5 inferences pertaining to each of oEffect, oReact, and oWant relation types to construct plausible references for the target response. For example, for an utterance `I will make the arrangements. It will be great.', one of the inferences corresponding to oEffect is `feel excited', depicting a plausible state of the next dialog speaker.
However, such outputs are typically phrases, and we discuss transformation to fluent sentences in Section \ref{sec:context}.
Similarly, we use inferences pertaining to `CausesDesire' and `HasFirstSubevent' relation types from COMET{}-ConceptNet.
\\
\noindent \textbf{Dialog Corpus Retrieval}
For a test dialog context under consideration, one is likely to find similar contexts occurring in some of the training dialogues, given a sufficient number of them. Using retrieval, we can identify such contexts and use their responses as pseudo-references for the test-time response.
Specifically, for retrieval, we use the BM25 function $S_{bm25}(x,y)$ \cite{robertson1995okapi} to compare each element $\{d^{past}_{t},d^{resp}_{t},d^{future}_{t}\}$ of the turn under evaluation $d_{t}$ (the query) with those of the candidate turn $x_{t'}$, $\{x^{past}_{t'},x^{resp}_{t'},x^{future}_{t'}\}$. Here, $d^{past}_{t}$ and $d^{future}_t$ are the windows of turn sequences before and after response $d^{resp}_{t}$.
Our approach is related to \citet{galley2015deltableu}, who propose $\Delta$-BLEU measure which uses retrieval to produce pseudo-references. However, unlike here, they require annotator quality scores to weigh them during evaluation. Moreover, though we utilize retrieval for evaluation, methods of this kind have found success in many generation setups \cite{li2018delete,peng2019text,khandelwal2019generalization}.
Besides being automatic, our method differs from the above ones in that it explores the added utility of future information for retrieval. For instance, for the dialog shown in Figure 1, besides matching ``Great!'' in the response, our retrieval benefits from matching ``cool'' in the future.
\subsection{Context Adaptation}
\label{sec:context}
We note that commonsense knowledge outputs are incomplete sentences, and we use simple templates to convert them to fluent sentences e.g. `feels excited' gets transformed to `i feel excited'. (Detailed templates in Appendix B)
Further, we note that references from knowledge sources are often not fluent for the target context. For example, `event' in the retrieved reference shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview} can be updated to `party' to construct a more apt reference. To adapt the retrieved text to better fit the target context we use employ an unsupervised decoding procedure, based on the approach of \citet{DBLP:conf/emnlp/QinSWBHBBC20}, that uses gradient ascent to search for output text that maximizes
(1) fluency with the left context (approximated by the likelihood of the output text under a pretrained GPT-2 model) and (2) similarity to the original text from the knowledge source (approximated by the likelihood of the original text under the output text's token-level word distributions). The method utilizes a heuristic update procedure to iteratively refine a differentiable proxy for the output text (a sequence token-level word distributions), while keeping the model parameters fixed. More details can be found in \citet{DBLP:conf/emnlp/QinSWBHBBC20} and in Appendix B.
\section{Related Work}
Prior work explores many ways to improve over single-reference evaluation without collecting multiple ones.
\citet{fomicheva2020multi} obviate need for multiple references in MT by generating many ``alt-hypotheses" via test-time dropout from the same model.
\citet{sai2020improving} and \citet{gupta2019investigating} collect additional manually annotated responses for dialog contexts. Compare to them, our method of automatically collecting additional references automatically is more scalable.
Automatic data augmentation in NLP has largely been used for increasing training data \cite{feng2020genaug,wei2019eda,feng2021survey}. In this work, we use retrieved dialog instances and commonsense knowledge base to augment reference set for a given dialog context.
$\Delta$-Bleu \cite{galley2015deltableu} and uBLEU \cite{yuma2020ubleu} also use retrieval to produce pseudo-references for dialog response evaluation. Compared to $\Delta$-Bleu and uBLEU, our work is different since we utilize commonsense knowledge base and perform contextual adaptation.
Prior work in dialog response generation has explored the use of commonsense knowledge base \cite{emnlp2020persona} as well as retrieval \cite{song2016two,acl2021pabst} -- in contrast, our focus is on augmenting reference set for improving evaluation.
Automatic model-based metrics like ADEM \cite{lowe2017towards} and RUBER \cite{tao2017ruber}, which incorporate context while scoring for evaluation, at first glance seem to reduce the need for multiple references. However, these metrics have been found to suffer from several peculiar problems. For instance, ADEM can't discriminate between gold responses and certain classes of adversarial negatives e.g reversed gold responses and repeating the context as the response
\cite{sai2019re}.
\citet{sato2020evaluating} evaluate dialog systems through their ability at selecting valid responses from a semi-automatically curated candidate list.
\citet{mehri2020usr} introduce the unsupervised, reference-free USR metric, which leverages a suite of RoBERTa \cite{liu2019roberta} models, each finetuned to score one of five dialog aspects e.g \textit{Natural} and \textit{Uses Knowledge}. \citet{mehri2020unsupervised} further expand their USR metric to eighteen aspects from the initial five.
|
\section{Introduction}
Generative modeling can be thought of as inverting an inference process.
If the inference process is invertible, then one can focus on transforming the data into a tractable distribution \citep{dinh2016density}.
If the inference process is deterministic yet non-invertible, one could learn to invert it stochastically \citep{dinh2019rad, nielsen2020survae}.
Most generally, both inference and generation can be stochastic.
This is known as the variational autoencoder \citep[VAE]{kingma2014auto, rezende2014stochastic}.
Under the variational framework, one has a lot of flexibility in choosing the generative and inference models.
Recent work on diffusion-based modeling \citep{sohl2015deep, ho2020denoising} can be thought of as removing one degree of freedom, by freezing the inference path.
The inference model is a fixed discrete-time Markov chain, that slowly transforms the data into a tractable prior, such as the standard normal distribution.
The generative model is another Markov chain that is trained to revert this process iteratively.
Diffusion-based models have been shown to perform remarkably well on image synthesis \citep{dhariwal2021diffusion}, rivaling the performance of state-of-the-art Generative Adversarial Networks \citep{brock2018large}.
\citet{song2021score} connect diffusion-based model and \emph{score matching} \citep{hyvarinen2005estimation}, by looking at the stochastic differential equation (SDE) associated with the inference process.
They realize that the dynamic of the inference process can be inverted if one has access to the score function of the perturbed data, by solving another SDE reversed in time.
They then propose to learn the score function of the inference process and substitute the approximate score into the formula of the reverse SDE to obtain a generative model.
We call the resulting generative model the plug-in reverse SDE.
Conceptually simple as this learning procedure may seem, little is known about how the score matching loss relates to the plug-in reverse SDE.
In this paper, we propose a variational framework suitable for likelihood estimation for general generative diffusion processes, and use this framework to connect score matching with maximum likelihood.
We do so by combining two important theorems in stochastic calculus: the \emph{Feynman-Kac formula} for representing the marginal density of the generative diffusion as an expectation (Section \ref{sec:density}), and the \emph{Girsanov theorem} for performing inference in function space (Section \ref{sec:inference}).
We derive a functional evidence lower bound that consistently extends discrete-time diffusion models to have infinite depth, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace the number of layers goes to infinity (Section \ref{sec:infvae}).
Finally, by reparameterizing our generative and inference SDEs, we obtain a training objective equivalent to minimizing the (implicit) score matching loss (Section \ref{sec:score}).
Our theory suggests that by matching the score, one actually maximizes a lower bound on the log marginal density of the plug-in reverse SDE, laying a theoretical foundation for this learning procedure.
We further generalize our result to a family of \emph{marginal-equivalent} plug-in reverse SDEs, including an equivalent ODE as a limiting case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_diffusion_sigma0.0.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_diffusion.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_inference.png}
\caption{
Three special cases of generative SDEs.
The stars indicate the initial values, followed by some random sample paths.
\emph{Left}: trained with no diffusion $\sigma=0$ ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace neural ODE).
\emph{Middle}: trained with some fixed diffusion $\sigma>0$.
\emph{Right}: trained with a fixed inference process, $f$ and $g$ ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the plug-in reverse SDE).
}
\label{fig:generative_sde}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Notation: }
We use $({Y}_s, s)$ to denote the inference process (where ${Y}_0$ is the data), and $({X}_t, t)$ to denote the generative process (where ${X}_0$ is a random variable following an unstructured prior).
We use $s$ and $t$ to distinguish the two directions, and always integrate the differential equations from $0$ to $T>0$ (different from the literature, where sometimes one might see integration from $T$ to $0$).
$\hat{B}_s$ and $B_t$ denote the Brownian motions associated with the inference and generative SDEs, respectively.
$B_s'$ is a reparameterization of $\hat{B}_s$ (see Section \ref{sec:inference}).
$q(y, s)$ and $p(x, t)$ denote the probability density functions of ${Y}_s$ and ${X}_t$, respectively.
We let $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ denote a time-indexed parameterized function that will be used to approximate the score $\nabla \log q(y, s)$.
$\nabla$ is the gradient wrt the spatial variable ($x$ or $y$, which we sometimes call position), $\partt{ }$, $\parts{ }$ and $\partxj{i}$ are partial derivatives, and $H_{*}$ denotes Hessian.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
Assume ${Y}_0$
follows the data distribution $q(y,0)$, and ${Y}_s$ satisfies the It\^{o} SDE \citep{oksendal2003stochastic}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{Y} = f({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + g({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}{\hat{B}}_s,
\label{eq:fixed-inference-sde}
\end{align}
where $f$ and $g$ are chosen such that the density $q(y,s)$ will converge to some tractable prior $p_0$ as $s\rightarrow T$.
Following \citet{song2021score}, we assume $g$ is position-independent.
It is possible to find a ``reverse'' SDE, whose marginal density evolves according to $q(y,s)$, reversed in time, for example\footnote{See Appendix {\ref{app:equiv}} for a family of equivalent (reverse) SDEs indexed by some parameter $\lambda$, of which equation (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}) is a special case with $\lambda=0$. }
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = (gg^\top \nabla \log q({X}, T-t) - f) \,\mathrm{d}t + g \,\mathrm{d}B_t.
\label{eq:reverse-sde}
\end{align}
If ${X}_0\sim p_0$, then the density $p(x, t)$ of ${X}_t$ is equal to $q(x, T-t)$.
This means that if we have access to the score function $\nabla \log q$, we can solve the above SDE to obtain ${X}_T\overset{d}{=}{Y}_0$.
\citet{song2021score} propose to approximate the score via a parameterized score function $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ by minimizing
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s , s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s) ||_{\Lambda(s)}^2\right] \, \mathrm{d}s
\end{align*}
where the expectation in the integral is known as the explicit score matching (ESM) loss $\gL_\text{ESM}$, and $\Lambda(s)$ is a positive definite matrix\footnote{We use this matrix to induce a Mahalanobis norm $||x||_{\Lambda}^2 := x^\top \Lambda x$, which will be used in Section \ref{sec:score}.} that serves as a weighting function for the overall loss.
$\gL_\text{ESM}$ is not immediately useful, since we do not have access to the ground truth score $\nabla \log q$.
A few alternative losses can be used, which are all equal to one another up to a constant, including implicit score matching \citep[ISM]{hyvarinen2005estimation}, sliced score matching \citep[SSM]{song2020sliced}, and denoising score matching \citep[DSM]{vincent2011connection}.
The losses are summarized in Table \ref{tab:score-matching-losses}, and are related through the following identity (see Appendix \ref{app:score-matching} for the derivation):
\begin{align}
\gL_\text{ESM} - \frac{1}{2} {\mathcal{I}}(q(y_s,s))
= \gL_\text{ISM} = \gL_\text{SSM} = \gL_\text{DSM} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[ {\mathcal{I}}(q(y_s|y_0))
],
\label{eq:sm-identity}
\end{align}
where %
${\mathcal{I}}(q) = \mathbb{E}[||\nabla \log q||_\Lambda^2]$ is a constant.
After training, \citet{song2021score} plug $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ into (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}) to define a generative model.
We refer to this SDE as the \emph{plug-in reverse SDE}.
The plug-in reverse SDE has been demonstrated to have impressive empirical results, but a theoretical underpinning of this learning framework is still lacking.
For example, it is unclear how the training objective (minimizing the score matching loss) relates to the sampling procedure, {\it e.g.}\@\xspace whether the probability distribution induced by the plug-in reverse SDE gets closer to the data distribution in the sense of any statistical divergence or metric.
We seek to answer the following question in this paper:
\emph{How will minimizing the score-matching loss impact the plug-in reverse SDE?}
We first provide a framework to estimate the likelihood of generative SDEs, and then get back to this question in Section \ref{sec:score}.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.50\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
Method & Loss \\
\midrule
$\gL_\text{ESM}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)-\nabla \log q({Y}_s)||_\Lambda^2]$ \\
$\gL_\text{ISM}$ & $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)||_\Lambda^2 + \nabla\cdot(\Lambda^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta)]$ \\
$\gL_\text{SSM}$ & $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)||_\Lambda^2 + v^\top\nabla(\Lambda^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta)v]$ \\
$\gL_\text{DSM}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)-\nabla \log q({Y}_s|{Y}_0)||_\Lambda^2]$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Score matching losses.
$v$ follows the Rademacher distribution.
}
\label{tab:score-matching-losses}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
F-K & F-P \\
\midrule
$v(y, \varsigma)$ & $p(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
\midrule
$c(y, \varsigma)$ & $-\nabla \cdot \mu(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
$b(y, \varsigma)$ & $-\mu(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
$\eta(y,\varsigma)$ & $\sigma(T-\varsigma)$ \\
$g(y)$ & $p_0(y)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Feynman-Kac coefficients.}
\label{tab:fk-fp}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\section{Marginal density
and stochastic instantaneous change of variable
}
\label{sec:density}
Let ${X}_t$ be a diffusion process solving the following It\^{o} SDE\footnote{For generality, we use the notation $\mu$ and $\sigma$ to describe a generative SDE, which will be set to $g^2\mathsfit{s}_\theta -f$ and $g$ when we come back to the discussion of the plug-in reverse SDE in Section \ref{sec:score}.}:
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = \mu({X}, t) \,\mathrm{d}t+ \sigma({X}, t) \,\mathrm{d}B_t
\label{eq:gen-sde}
\end{align}
with the initial condition ${X}_0\sim p_0$, which induces a family of densities ${X}_t\sim p(\cdot, t)$.
We use this SDE as the generative SDE, and we are interested in $\log p(x, T)$ for maximum likelihood.
The density $p(x, t)$ follows the
\emph{Kolmogorov forward} (or the \emph{Fokker Planck}) \emph{equation}:
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} = - \sum_j \partxj{j}[\mu_j(x, t)\,p(x, t)] + \sum_{i,j} \partxxij{i}{j}[D_{ij}(x, t)\, p(x, t)]
\label{eq:fp}
\end{align}
with the initial value $p(\cdot, 0)=p_0(\cdot)$, where $D = \frac{1}{2}\sigma \sigma^T$ is the diffusion matrix.
We can expand the Fokker Planck and rearrange the terms to obtain
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} =
&\left[ -\nabla\cdot\mu(x, t) + \sum_{i,j} \partxxij{i}{j} D_{ij}(x, t) \right] p(x, t) \,\, + \nonumber \\
&\sum_i\left[ - \mu_i(x, t) + 2 \sum_j \partxj{i} D_{ij}(x, t)\right] \partxj{i} p(x, t) \,\, + %
\sum_{i,j} D_{ij}(x,t) \partxxij{i}{j}p(x, t)
\label{eq:fp-rearranged}
\end{align}
so that all coefficients of the same order are grouped together.
For simplicity, we assume the diffusion term $\sigma$ is independent of $x$ throughout the paper.
Then (\ref{eq:fp-rearranged}) reduces to
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} =
-\left(\nabla\cdot\mu(x, t)\right)\,p(x, t)
- \mu(x, t)^\top \nabla p(x, t)
+ D(t) : H_p(x, t)
\label{eq:fp-simplified}
\end{align}
where $:$ denotes the Frobenius inner product between matrices.
Even with this simplification, solving (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}) is not trivial.
Fortunately, we can estimate this quantity using the \emph{Feynman-Kac formula}, which tells us that the solution of certain second-order linear partial differential equations have a probabilistic representation.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Feynman-Kac representation}, Chapter 5.7 of \citet{karatzas2014brownian}]{thm}{feynmankac}
Let $T>0$.
Let $y$ and $\varsigma$ be the spatial and temporal arguments to the function $v \in C^{2, 1}(\mathbb{R}^d\times [0,T])$ solving
\begin{align}
\partial_{\varsigma}{v} + c v + b^\top \nabla v + A : H_v = 0
\label{eq:fk-pde}
\end{align}
with the terminal condition $v(y, T)=h(y)$, where $A = \frac{1}{2}\eta\eta^\top$ for some matrix-valued function $\eta(y, \varsigma)$.
Under the assumption stated in Appendix \ref{app:fk-assumption}, if $B_s'$ is a Brownian motion and ${Y}_s$ solves
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{Y} = b({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + \eta({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}B_s',
\label{eq:fk-dynamic}
\end{align}
with the initial datum ${Y}_\varsigma = y$, then
\begin{align}
v(y, \varsigma) = \mathbb{E}\left[h({Y}_T) \exp\left(\int_{\varsigma}^T c({Y}_{s}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s \right)\, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_{\varsigma} = y \right].
\label{eq:fk-rep}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
To estimate the density $p(\cdot, T)$ of (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}),
we can apply the change of variable $p(x, t) := v(x, T-t)$ by letting the Feynman-Kac (F-K) coefficients correspond to their Fokker-Planck (F-P) counterparts according to Table~\ref{tab:fk-fp}.
This way, solving (\ref{eq:fk-pde}) backward is equivalent to solving (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}) forward, and we have the following representation of the marginal density at $T$:
\begin{align}
p(x,T) = \mathbb{E}\left[p_0({Y}_T) \exp\left(\int_0^T -\nabla \cdot \mu({Y}_{s}, T-s) \,\mathrm{d}s\right) \, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_0 = x\right],
\label{eq:fk-fp}
\end{align}
where ${Y}_s$ is a diffusion process solving
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} {Y} = -\mu({Y}, T-s)\,\mathrm{d}s + \sigma(T-s) \,\mathrm{d} B_s'.
\label{eq:fk-fp-dynamic}
\end{align}
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Marginalization}]{rmk}{}
\label{rm:marginalization}
This representation can be interpreted as a mixture of continuous time flows.
Assume a sample path of the Brownian motion is given, and we are interested in how the density evolves following the dynamic (\ref{eq:gen-sde}).
In the infinitesimal setting, it can been seen as applying the invertible map $x\mapsto x + \mu(x,t)\Delta t + \sigma(t)\Delta B_i$, where $\Delta B_i := B_{(i+1)\Delta t} - B_{i\Delta t}$ is the Brownian increment.
Since the diffusion term is independent of the spatial variable, it can be seen as a constant additive transformation, which is volume preserving, so it will not be taken into account when computing the change of density.
The only contribution to the change of density will be from the log-determinant of the Jacobian of $\text{id} + \mu\Delta t$, which means we can simply apply the instantaneous change of variable formula \citep{chen2018neural}.
This will be the conditional density given the entire $\{B_t:t\geq0\}$, and marginalizing it out results in the expectation in (\ref{eq:fk-fp}).
See Appendix \ref{app:mixture} for details.
\end{restatable}
Our framework also works with the general case where $\sigma$ depends on $x$, but the formulae need to be adapted to account for the spatial partial derivatives.
See Appendix \ref{app:density} for the derivation.
\section{Inferring latent Brownian motion}
\label{sec:inference}
As our goal is to estimate likelihood, we would like to compute the log density value using (\ref{eq:fk-fp}).
However, this involves integrating out all possible Brownian paths, which is intractable.
To resolve this, we view the Brownian motion as a latent variable, and perform inference by assigning higher probability to sample paths that are more likely to generate the observation.
One can view this as a VAE, except we have an infinite dimensional latent variable.
Formally, let $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$ be the underlying probability space for which $B_s'$ is a Brownian motion.
Suppose ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is another probability measure on $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}})$ \emph{equivalent} to ${\mathbb{P}}$; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}$ and ${\mathbb{Q}}$ are similar in the sense that they have the same measure zero sets.
This allows us to apply the change-of-measure trick and lower bound the log-likelihood with a finite quantity using Jensen's inequality:
\begin{align}
\log p(x, T)
&\geq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[ \log \frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}} + \log p_0({Y}_T) - \int_0^T \nabla\cdot\mu \,\mathrm{d}s \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x\right].
\label{eq:elbo}
\end{align}
Note that $\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is the \emph{Radon-Nikodym} derivative of ${\mathbb{P}}$ wrt ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
When both measures are absolutely continuous wrt a third measure, say Lebesgue, then the derivative can be expressed as the ratio of the two densities.
However, since we are dealing with an infinite dimensional space, we are immediately faced with the following problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is there a measure ${\mathbb{Q}}$ (equiv. to ${\mathbb{P}}$) for which $\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}$ can be easily computed, or at least numerically approximated?
\item Can we find a reparameterization (similar to the Gaussian reparameterization) of $B_s'$ under the new law ${\mathbb{Q}}$ to estimate the gradient needed for training?
\end{enumerate}
We resort to the \emph{Girsanov theorem}, which describes a general framework for dealing with the change of measure of Gaussian random variables under additive perturbation.
It allows us to consider the law of a diffusion process as ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
See Appendix \ref{app:1d-girsanov} for an explanation using the more familiar notion of probability densities.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Girsanov theorem}, Theorem 8.6.3 of \citet{oksendal2003stochastic}]{thm}{girsanov}
Let $\hat{B}_s$ be an It\^o process solving
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s = - a(\omega, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + \mathrm{d}B_s',
\label{eq:girsanov-standardize}
\end{align}
for $\omega\in\Omega$, $0\leq s\leq T$ and $\hat{B}_0=0$,
where $a(\omega, s)$ satisfies the Novikov's condition $\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T a^2 \,\mathrm{d}s\right)\right] < \infty$.
Then $\hat{B}_s$ is a Brownian motion wrt ${\mathbb{Q}}$ where
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega) := \exp\left(\int_0^T a(\omega, s) \cdot \mathrm{d}B_s' - \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T ||a(\omega, s)||_2^2 \,\mathrm{d}s\right).
\label{eq:girsanov-density}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
Equation (\ref{eq:girsanov-standardize}) provides a standarization formula of $B_s'$ under ${\mathbb{Q}}$, which means we can ``invert'' it to reparameterize $B_s'$.
This leads to the following lower bound.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Continuous-time ELBO}]{thm}{ctelbo}
Let ${\mathbb{Q}}$ be defined via the density (\ref{eq:girsanov-density}).
Then the RHS of (\ref{eq:elbo}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[
- \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T ||a(\omega, s)||_2^2 \,\mathrm{d}s + \log p_0({Y}_T) - \int_0^T \nabla\cdot\mu \,\mathrm{d}s
\, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_0=x
\right] =: {\mathcal{E}}^\infty,
\label{eq:continuous:elbo}
\end{align}
where the expectation is taken wrt the Brownian motion $\hat{B}_s$, and ${Y}_s$ solves\footnote{Note that $\mu$ and $\sigma$ run backward in time from $T$, whereas $a$ runs forward.}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} {Y} = (-\mu + \sigma a) \,\mathrm{d}s + \sigma \mathrm{d} \hat{B}_s.
\label{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
We call ${Y}_s$ solving (\ref{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}) the inference SDE, and ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty$ the continuous-time ELBO (CT-ELBO).
\begin{restatable}[\bf Computation]{rmk}{}
\label{rm:computation}
This lower bound can be numerically estimated by using any black box SDE solver, by augmenting the dynamic of $y$ with the accumulation of $||a||^2$ and $\nabla\cdot\mu$.
Computing the divergence term $\nabla\cdot\mu$ directly can be expensive, but it can be efficiently estimated using the Hutchinson trace estimator \citep{hutchinson1989stochastic} along with reverse-mode automatic differentiation, similar to \citet{grathwohl2018ffjord}.
As the parameters of both the generative and inference models are decoupled from the random variable $\hat{B}_s$, their gradients can be estimated via the reparameterization trick \citep{kingma2014auto, rezende2014stochastic}.
Furthermore, backpropagation can be computed using an adjoint method with a constant memory cost \citep{li2020scalable}.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\bf Drift $a$]{rmk}{}
(i) In general, the drift term of the approximate posterior to the latent Brownian motion can be amortized, so that it will encode the information of individual datum $x$.
(ii) The regularization $||a||^2$ ensures that $a$ is kept close to $0$, since it represents the deviation of the measure it induces ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace ${\mathbb{Q}}$) from the classical Wiener measure (which is a centered Gaussian measure).
(iii) When the diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ is $0$, the inference SDE reduces to the reverse dynamic of the generative ODE, and if $a\equiv 0$ in this case, the lower bound is tight.
(iv) There is generally no constraint on the form of $a(\omega, s)$, so one can potentially augment it with additional dimensions to have a non-Markovian inference SDE.
For simplicity, we let the inference SDE be a Markovian model, i.e. $a=a(y, s)$. This is justified by the following theorem.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Variational gap and optimal inference SDE}]{thm}{optinf}
\label{thm:optinf}
The variational gap can be written as
\begin{align}
\log p(x,T) - {\mathcal{E}}^\infty = \int_0^T\mathbb{E}\left[||a(\omega, s) - \sigma^\top \nabla \log p({Y}_s, T-s)||^2\right] \,\mathrm{d}s.
\end{align}
In particular,
${\mathcal{E}}^\infty=\log p(x,T)$ if and only if
$a(\omega, s)$ can be written as $a(\omega, s) = a({Y}_s(\omega), s)$ for almost every $s\in[0,T]$ and $\omega\in\Omega$, and
$a(y, s)=\sigma^\top \nabla \log p(y, T-s)$ almost everywhere.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\bf Variational gap]{rmk}{}
Even though the inference SDE seemingly takes a simple form, it is sufficiently flexible in that
this type of variational problem can be generally solved by taking the supremem over all progressively measurable processes $a(\omega, s)$ \citep{boue1998variational}.
In fact, the above theorem shows that
${\mathcal{E}}^\infty = \log p(x,T)$ if and only if $a(y, s) = \sigma^\top \nabla \log p(y, T-s)$.
This means a non-amortized Markovian inference process is powerful enough.
\end{restatable}
\section{Infinitely deep hierarchical VAE}
\label{sec:infvae}
Before we make the connection to score matching, we formally address the common belief that ``diffusion models can be viewed as the continuous limit of hierarchical VAEs'' \citep{tzen2019neural}, and show that the CT-ELBO consistently extends their discrete-time counterpart.
We do so by inspecting the ELBO of a hierarchical VAE defined as discretized\footnote{We follow the Euler-Maruyama (EM) scheme. Other discretization scheme may also work; we leave that for future work.} generative and inference SDEs.
We assume the generative model ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the decoder) follows the transitional distributions
\begin{gather}
p(x_{i+1} | x_{i}) = {\mathcal{N}}(x_{i+1} ; \tilde{\mu}_{i}(x_{i}), \tilde{\sigma}^2_{i}) \\
\tilde{\mu}_{i}(x) = x + \Delta t\mu(x, i\Delta t) \qquad
\tilde{\sigma}^2_{i} = \Delta t\sigma^2(i\Delta t),
\label{eq:discrete-transition-p}
\end{gather}
where $\Delta t = T/L$ is the step size and $L$ is the number of layers.
For the inference model ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the encoder), we assume
\begin{gather}
q(x_{i} | x_{i+1}) = {\mathcal{N}}(x_{i} ; \hat{\mu}_{i+1}(x_{i+1}), \hat{\sigma}^2_{i+1}) \\
\hat{\mu}_{i}(x) = x + \Delta t (- \mu(x, i\Delta t) + \sigma(i\Delta t) a(x,T-i\Delta t)) \qquad
\hat{\sigma}^2_{i} = \Delta t\sigma^2(i\Delta t).
\label{eq:discrete-transition-q}
\end{gather}
These transition kernels constitute a hierarchical variational autoencoder of $L$ stochastic layers, whose marginal likelihood can be lower bounded by
\begin{align}
\log p(x_{L}) \geq \mathbb{E}_q\left[\log p(x_0)+\sum_{i=0}^{L-1}\log \frac{p(x_{i+1} |x_i)}{ q(x_i|x_{i+1})}\right] =: {\mathcal{E}}^L,
\label{eq:discrete-elbo}
\end{align}
which we refer to as the discrete-time ELBO (DT-ELBO).
The reconstruction error of the stochastic layer can be seen as some form of finite difference approximation to differentiation, which gives rise to $\nabla\cdot\mu$ in the CT-ELBO in the infinitesimal limit (as $\Delta t$ approaches $0$).
The regularization of $||a||^2$ pops up when we compare the difference between $\tilde{\mu}_i$ and $\hat{\mu}_i$ using the Gaussian reparameterization to compute the reconstruction error.
We formalize this idea in the following theorem.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Consistency}]{thm}{consistency}
Assume $\mu$, $\sigma$, $\sigma^{-2}$, $a$, $||a||^2$ and their derivatives up to the fourth order are all bounded and continuous, and that $\sigma$ is non-singular. Then ${\mathcal{E}}^L\rightarrow{\mathcal{E}}^\infty$ as $L\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{restatable}
This theorem tells us that the CT-ELBO we derive for continuous-time diffusion models is not that different from the traditional ELBO, and that maximizing the CT-ELBO can be seen as training an infinitely deep hierarchical VAE.
We present the proof in Appendix \ref{app:proofs}, which formalizes the above intuition, using Taylor's theorem to control the polynomial approximation error, which will go to $0$ as the step size $\Delta t$ vanishes when the number of layers $L$ increases to infinity.
\section{Score-based generative modeling}
\label{sec:score}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figures/equivalent-plug-in-reverse-sdes-main.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{figures/lambda_lower_bound.pdf}
\caption{
\emph{Left}: Samples from plug-in reverse SDEs with different $\lambda$ values (rows).
We use the same score function $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ trained on the Swiss roll dataset, and plug it into (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}).
For generation, we use the Euler Maruyama method with a step size of $\Delta t = 1/1000$.
We visualize the samples for the $i$-th iterates (columns), which approximately represent the same marginal distribution when the score function is well trained.
\emph{Right}:
Lower bound on the marginal likelihood of a continuum of plug-in reverse SDEs.
The lower bound is optimized when the score matching loss is minimized, which will push up the entire dark blue curve.
}
\label{fig:equiv-plug-in-lambda-elbo}
\end{figure}
Recall that our goal is to analyze the plug-in reverse SDE and draw connection to score matching.
To this end, we reparameterize the generative (\ref{eq:gen-sde}) and inference (\ref{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}) SDEs as
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = (gg^\top \mathsfit{s}_\theta -f)\,\mathrm{d}t + g\,\mathrm{d}B_t \,\,\text{ and }\,\, \mathrm{d}{Y} = f\,\mathrm{d}s + g\,\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s,
\label{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}
\end{align}
by letting $a=g^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta$, where the time variable is reversed ($T-t$) for the generative process, and forward in time ($s$) for inference.
The ELBO (\ref{eq:continuous:elbo}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
{\mathcal{E}}^\infty
= \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_T}[\log p_0({Y}_T)\,|\,{Y}_0=x] - \int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[ \frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta||_{gg^\top}^2 + \nabla \cdot (gg^\top \mathsfit{s}_\theta - f) \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x \right] \,\mathrm{d}s.
\label{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}
\end{align}
Comparing the integrand to the implicit score matching loss in Table \ref{tab:score-matching-losses}, we immediately see that the network $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ approximates $\nabla \log q(y, s)$, the score function of the marginal density of ${Y}_s$.
That is, \emph{matching the score of $q(y,t)$ amounts to maximizing the lower bound on the marginal likelihood of the plug-in reverse SDE}. %
Recently, \citet{durkan2021maximum}\footnote{This refers to the \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09258v1}{v1} of the paper on arXiv. This version was later on replaced with a new version where they derived a similar bound as ours.} also attempt to establish the equivalency between maximum likelihood and score matching, by showing the following relationship between the forward KL divergence and a weighted sum of score matching loss (aka the Fisher divergence):
\begin{align}
D_{\mathrm{KL}}(q(y,0) ||r(y, 0)) = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{q(\cdot, s)}\left[||\nabla \log r({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s)||_{gg^\top}^2\right]\,\mathrm{d}s,
\end{align}
where $r(y, s)$ is the density of ${Y}_s$ solving the same inference SDE with the initial condition $y_0\sim r(\cdot, 0)$, assuming $q(y,T)=r(y,T)$.
However, it is inaccurate to claim that score matching is equivalent to maximum likelihood.
This is because if we simply let $r(y, 0)= p(y, T)$, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace the density of the generative SDE evaluated at $y$, $r(y, s)$ will not necessarily be the same as either $p(y, T-s)$ or $\mathsfit{s}_\theta(y, s)$.
This means the KL divergence is not equal to the integral of the weighted score matching loss $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta - \nabla \log q||_{gg^\top}^2]$.
In fact, the latter corresponds to a lower bound on the likelihood (the cross-entropy term of the KL) up to some constant, as equation (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) suggests.
More generally, we can apply our analysis to a family of plug-in reverse SDEs indexed by some parameter $\lambda\leq1$:
\begin{align}
\resizebox{0.99\textwidth}{!}{%
$\mathrm{d} {X} =
\left(\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)g^2 \mathsfit{s}_\theta - f\right) \,\mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{1-\lambda} g \,\mathrm{d}B_t
\,\,\text{ and }\,\,
\mathrm{d} {Y} = \left(f - \frac{\lambda}{2} g^2 \nabla \log q\right) \,\mathrm{d}s + \sqrt{1-\lambda} g \,\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s,
$}
\label{eq:lambda-sde-pair}
\end{align}
where we assume $g$ is diagonal for simplicity.
We defer the formal discussion to Appendix \ref{app:equiv}, but the essence is that this inference SDE induces the same marginal distribution as (\ref{eq:fixed-inference-sde}), and the generative SDE is its corresponding plug-in reverse.
Equation (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}) includes the original plug-in reverse SDE (\ref{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}) and an equivalent ODE as special cases with $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=1$.
Denote its corresponding CT-ELBO by ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty_\lambda$.
Specifically, (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) becomes ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty_0$.
Then we have the following relationship.
\begin{restatable}[\bf Plug-in reverse SDE ELBO, abridged]{thm}{elboscoreshort}
For $\lambda < 1$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[{\mathcal{E}}^\infty_\lambda] = \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[{\mathcal{E}}^\infty_0] - \left(\frac{\lambda^2}{4(1-\lambda)}\right) \int_{0}^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s)||_{g^2}^2\right] \,\mathrm{d}s
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
We state the full theorem in Appendix \ref{app:score-plug-in-likelihood}, where we rearrange the terms to show that the average CT-ELBO of the $\lambda$-plug-in reverse SDE is also equivalent to the ISM loss, similarly to (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) but up to some multiplying and additive constants.
The implication is that \emph{while minimizing the score matching loss, we implicitly maximize the likelihood of a continuum of plug-in reverse SDEs which include the ODE as a limiting case ($\lambda\rightarrow1$)}.
See Figure \ref{fig:equiv-plug-in-lambda-elbo} (right) for illustration.
This suggests the likelihood of the equivalent ODE can be improved by minimizing the score matching loss, as the ODE's likelihood will be close to plug-in reverse SDEs with $\lambda\approx1$,
which explains the good likelihood of the equivalent ODE reported in \citet{song2021score}.
In practice, we can only estimate the ELBO of the case $\lambda=0$ since otherwise there will be some constant we do not have access to, but their gradients can all be estimated via score matching.
\subsection{Computational trade-off}
\label{subsec:computation}
Having a general framework for estimating the likelihood of diffusion processes allows us to compare a wide family of models, including continuous-time flows and plug-in reverse SDEs trained by score matching.
We compare the two by measuring the negative ELBO throughout training to highlight their computation-estimation trade-off.
We train the models on the Swiss roll toy data.
For continuous-time flow, we set $\sigma=0$, using the Hutchinson trace estimator following \citet{grathwohl2018ffjord}.
The ELBO in this case is tight since $a$ will be penalized to be 0.
We use the \texttt{torchdiffeq} library \citep{chen2018neural} for numerical integration for fairer comparison\footnote{Black-box SDE solvers such as \texttt{torchsde} \citep{li2020scalable} might not be optimized for the deterministic case, since their stochastic adjoint method scales ${\mathcal{O}}(L\log L)$ in time whereas deterministic numerical solvers are usually faster. This matters for our runtime comparison.}.
For plug-in reverse SDE, we train the drift network $a$ using SSM and DSM (for DSM the loss is weighted to reduce variance, which introduces some bias; see the next subsection).
We use the variance-preserving inference SDE from \citet{song2021score}, which allows us to sample ${Y}_s$ using a closed form formula, for $s$ sampled uniformly between $[0,T]$.
The trained models are visualized in Figure \ref{fig:generative_sde}, the learning curves presented in Figure \ref{fig:ode-sde}.
From the learning curve figures, we see that neg-likelihood decreases rapidly for the continuous-time flow in terms of the number of parameter updates.
But once the x-axis is normalized by runtime, the convergence speed becomes almost indistinguishable.
This is because for continuous-time flows, numerical integration takes time, whereas for plug-in reverse SDEs, we train on a random time step $s$; that is, within a fixed amount of time the latter can make more parameter updates at the cost of noisier gradients.
Note that both models have constant memory cost (wrt $T$ or $L$, the number of integration steps), so a large batch size can be used to reduce variance for training.
\subsection{Bias and variance trade-off}
\label{subsec:bias-variance}
The integral in equation (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) can be estimated by sampling $({Y}_s, s)$, and using the Hutchinson trace estimator to estimate the divergence, which corresponds to implicit score matching.
However, in practice the variance of this estimator is very high when the norm of the Jacobian $\nabla \mathsfit{s}_\theta$ is large.
Another popular approach is to use the denoising estimator (recall the identity from (\ref{eq:sm-identity})),
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s|{Y}_0)||_{gg^\top}^2 \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x\right].
\label{eq:dsm}
\end{align}
The inference SDE is typically chosen so that ${Y}_s$ can be easily sampled, e.g. following ${\mathcal{N}}(\mu_s, \sigma_s^2)$, where $\mu_s$ and $\sigma_s$ are functions of ${Y}_0$ and $s$.
In this case, if we reparameterize ${Y}_s=\mu_s + \sigma_s \epsilon$ where $\epsilon\sim{\mathcal{N}}(0,\mathbf{I})$, then the score becomes
$\nabla \log q = - \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_s}$.
Since $\sigma_s\rightarrow0$ as $s\rightarrow0$, this estimator normally has unbounded variance.
\citet{song2019generative, song2021score} propose to remedy
this by multiplying the DSM loss by $\sigma_s^2/g^2$ (assuming $g$ is a scalar for simplicity), so that the target has constant magnitude on average $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\sigma_s\mathsfit{s}_\theta + \epsilon||^2]$, which would result in a biased gradient estimate with much smaller variance.
We can debias this estimator by sampling $s\sim q(s)\propto g^2/\sigma_s^2$.
This ratio, however, is usally not normalizable in practice (as it integrates to $\infty$).
As an alternative, we consider the following unnormalized density
$\tilde{q}_\epsilon(s) = g^2(s_\epsilon)/\sigma_{s_\epsilon}^2$ for $s\in[0, s_\epsilon]$, and $\tilde{q}_\epsilon(s) = g^2(s)/\sigma_s^2$ for $s\in[s_\epsilon, T]$.
We experiment with this debiased procedure by sampling $s\sim q_\epsilon\propto\tilde{q}_\epsilon$, for $f$ and $g$ chosen to be the variance-preserving SDE.
$s_\epsilon$ is small so that the bias is negligible.
We train the model on MNIST \citep{lecun1998gradient} and CIFAR10 \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}.
We present the learning curves and the standard error of the estimate of the ELBO in Figure \ref{fig:debias}.
The lower bound is estimated using the Hutchinson trace estimator with $s$ sampled uniformly from $[0,T]$, with the same batch size, so the only thing that will affect the dispersion is the magnitude of $\nabla \mathsfit{s}_\theta$.
Since smaller values of $s$ are more likely to be sampled under $q_\epsilon$, the debiased model will see samples with less perturbation more often.
On the contrary, sampling $s$ uniformly will bias the model to learn from noisier data, causing the learned score to be smoother.
We also experiment with parameterizing $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ vs parameterizing $a$.
We find the latter parameterization to be helpful since the relationship $\mathsfit{s}_\theta=g^{-1}a$ has the effect of negating the multiplier $\sigma_s$ in the reweighted loss, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\frac{\sigma_s}{g}a + \epsilon||^2]$.
This is similar to the noise conditioning technique introduced in \citet{song2020improved}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/ODE-SDE-iterations.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/ODE-SDE-seconds.pdf}
\caption{Neural ODE vs plug-in reverse SDE (denoising or slice score matching). The learning curves are presented as a function of iterations (left) and runtime (right) to emphasize the computational distinction between the two families of models.}
\label{fig:ode-sde}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/mnist_bpd_aggregated.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/mnist_bpd_std_err_aggregated.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/cifar_bpd_aggregated.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/cifar_bpd_std_err_aggregated.pdf}
\caption{Likelihood estimation on MNIST (first row) and CIFAR10 (second row). $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ and $a$ denote which model we parameterize. Y-axes are bits-per-dim and the standard error of BPD of the test set.
The debiased curves improve upon the original biased gradient estimator \citep{song2021score} since it maximizes a proper ELBO.
Shaded area reflects the uncertainty estimated by 3 random seeds.}
\label{fig:debias}
\end{figure}
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
\paragraph{Diffusion-based generative models}
Our work lays a theoretical foundation for \citet{song2021score}, which recognizes that conditional denoising score matching \citep{song2019generative, song2020improved} and discrete-time diffusion-based generative models \citep{sohl2015deep, goyal2017variational, ho2020denoising} can be viewed as learning to revert an inference process (using the plug-in reverse SDE).
Different from \citet{ho2020denoising}, which shows the ELBO of discrete time diffusion process can be likened to DSM (Section 3.2 of the paper), we show that ISM loss naturally arises from the Fokker-Planck equation of the marginal density, via the Fenman-Kac representation and the Girsanov change of measure.
This line of work has been successfully applied to modeling high dimensional natural images \citep{dhariwal2021diffusion, saharia2021image}, audio \citep{kong2020diffwave}, 3D point cloud \citep{cai2020learning, zhou20213d}, and discrete data \citep{hoogeboom2021argmax}.
\paragraph{Time-reversal of diffusion processes}
Plenty of works have studied the reverse-time diffusion processes (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}), including \citet{anderson1982reverse, follmer1985entropy, elliott1985reverse, haussmann1986time}.
These are different from our marginal-equivalent (reverse) processes (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}) when $\mathsfit{s}_\theta=\nabla \log q$, since the latter is related by the marginals only.
\paragraph{Score matching for energy-based models}
Besides the connection to diffusion models, score matching is also often used as a method for learning energy based models (EBM)---~see \citet{song2021train} for a comprehensive review on useful techniques---.
When used as an EBM, sampling from the conditional score model can be achieved by running the annealed Langevin diffusion \citep{neal2001annealed}, which is connected to free-energy estimaton in physics \citep{jarzynski1997equilibrium}, wherein the \emph{path integral} is essentially a Feynman Kac representation.
\paragraph{De Bruijn's identity}
To connect maximum likelihood and score matching, \citet{durkan2021maximum} shows that KL divergence can be represented as an integral of weighted Fisher divergence, generalizing the case of \citet{lyu2009interpretation} where the inference perturbation is a simple Brownian motion.
This type of formulas fall into the category of de Bruijn's identity \citep{cover1999elements} for relative entropy.
A similar differential form result can be found in \citet{wibisono2017information}.
\paragraph{Learning SDEs}
\citet{tzen2019neural, li2020scalable} also propose to learn a neural SDE by applying Girsanov's theorem.
The key difference is that they treat the SDE entirely as a latent variable, with an additional emission probability, whereas we use the Feynman-Kac formula to directly express the marginal density as an expectation, side-stepping the need to smooth out the density using the emission probability (which will be a Dirac point mass in our case).
In their case, the inference direction is the same as the generative direction, since they infer the latent SDE directly, whereas we apply Girsanov to the Feynman-Kac diffusion (opposite the generative direction).
\citet{xu2021infinitely} further apply neural SDE as an infinitely deep Bayesian neural network.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this work, we derive a general variational framework for estimating the marginal likelihood of continuous-time diffusion models.
This framework allows us to study a wide spectrum of models, including continuous-time normalizing flows and score-based generative models.
Using our framework, we show that performing score matching with a particular choice of mixture weighting is equivalent to maximizing a lower bound on the marginal likelihood of a family of plug-in reverse SDEs, of which the one used in \citet{song2021score} and the equivalent ODE are special cases.
Empirically, we validate our theory by monitoring the ELBO while performing score matching, and discuss the implication of the choice of mixture weighting and the potential of debiasing via non-uniform sampling.
We emphasize that our theory does not explain the impressive sample quality of this family of models, which is still an open research problem and we leave it for future work.
This work introduces a general framework to estimate the likelihood of diffusion-based models, which allows the parameters of both the generative and inference SDEs to be learned, using a numerical solver with constant memory cost (as per Remark \ref{rm:computation}).
The training time can be reduced via the connection to score matching and the reverse-time parameterization (\ref{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}) as long as $f$ and $g$ take a simple form (so that ${Y}_t$ can be sampled without numerical integration).
For example, one can generalize the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process to have non-linear (in time) $f$ and $g$, similar to the variance-presering SDE, by parameterizing the integral of $f$ using a monotone network \citep{sill1998monotonic,kay2000estimating,daniels2010monotone,huang2018neural}.
This has been explored in a concurrent work by \citet{kingma2021variational} in a different framework.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank
David Kanaa, Ricky Chen, Simon Verret, Rémi Piché-Taillefer, Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau, and Faruk Ahmed for giving their feedback on this manuscript.
We would also like to thank the INNF+ 2021 reviewers and NeurIPS 2021 reviewers for their constructive suggestions, which help us improve the clarity of the paper.
Chin-Wei is supported by the Google PhD fellowship.
We also acknowledge the Python community \citep{van1995python, oliphant2007python} for developing the tools that enabled this work, including
numpy \citep{oliphant2006guide,van2011numpy, walt2011numpy, harris2020array},
PyTorch \citep{paszke2019pytorch},
Matplotlib \citep{hunter2007matplotlib},
seaborn \citep{seaborn}, and
SciPy \citep{jones2014scipy}.
\section{Introduction}
Generative modeling can be thought of as inverting an inference process.
If the inference process is invertible, then one can focus on transforming the data into a tractable distribution \citep{dinh2016density}.
If the inference process is deterministic yet non-invertible, one could learn to invert it stochastically \citep{dinh2019rad, nielsen2020survae}.
Most generally, both inference and generation can be stochastic.
This is known as the variational autoencoder \citep[VAE]{kingma2014auto, rezende2014stochastic}.
Under the variational framework, one has a lot of flexibility in choosing the generative and inference models.
Recent work on diffusion-based modeling \citep{sohl2015deep, ho2020denoising} can be thought of as removing one degree of freedom, by freezing the inference path.
The inference model is a fixed discrete-time Markov chain, that slowly transforms the data into a tractable prior, such as the standard normal distribution.
The generative model is another Markov chain that is trained to revert this process iteratively.
Diffusion-based models have been shown to perform remarkably well on image synthesis \citep{dhariwal2021diffusion}, rivaling the performance of state-of-the-art Generative Adversarial Networks \citep{brock2018large}.
\citet{song2021score} connect diffusion-based model and \emph{score matching} \citep{hyvarinen2005estimation}, by looking at the stochastic differential equation (SDE) associated with the inference process.
They realize that the dynamic of the inference process can be inverted if one has access to the score function of the perturbed data, by solving another SDE reversed in time.
They then propose to learn the score function of the inference process and substitute the approximate score into the formula of the reverse SDE to obtain a generative model.
We call the resulting generative model the plug-in reverse SDE.
Conceptually simple as this learning procedure may seem, little is known about how the score matching loss relates to the plug-in reverse SDE.
In this paper, we propose a variational framework suitable for likelihood estimation for general generative diffusion processes, and use this framework to connect score matching with maximum likelihood.
We do so by combining two important theorems in stochastic calculus: the \emph{Feynman-Kac formula} for representing the marginal density of the generative diffusion as an expectation (Section \ref{sec:density}), and the \emph{Girsanov theorem} for performing inference in function space (Section \ref{sec:inference}).
We derive a functional evidence lower bound that consistently extends discrete-time diffusion models to have infinite depth, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace the number of layers goes to infinity (Section \ref{sec:infvae}).
Finally, by reparameterizing our generative and inference SDEs, we obtain a training objective equivalent to minimizing the (implicit) score matching loss (Section \ref{sec:score}).
Our theory suggests that by matching the score, one actually maximizes a lower bound on the log marginal density of the plug-in reverse SDE, laying a theoretical foundation for this learning procedure.
We further generalize our result to a family of \emph{marginal-equivalent} plug-in reverse SDEs, including an equivalent ODE as a limiting case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_diffusion_sigma0.0.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_diffusion.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{figures/toy_SwissRoll_sde_with_paths_fixed_inference.png}
\caption{
Three special cases of generative SDEs.
The stars indicate the initial values, followed by some random sample paths.
\emph{Left}: trained with no diffusion $\sigma=0$ ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace neural ODE).
\emph{Middle}: trained with some fixed diffusion $\sigma>0$.
\emph{Right}: trained with a fixed inference process, $f$ and $g$ ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the plug-in reverse SDE).
}
\label{fig:generative_sde}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Notation: }
We use $({Y}_s, s)$ to denote the inference process (where ${Y}_0$ is the data), and $({X}_t, t)$ to denote the generative process (where ${X}_0$ is a random variable following an unstructured prior).
We use $s$ and $t$ to distinguish the two directions, and always integrate the differential equations from $0$ to $T>0$ (different from the literature, where sometimes one might see integration from $T$ to $0$).
$\hat{B}_s$ and $B_t$ denote the Brownian motions associated with the inference and generative SDEs, respectively.
$B_s'$ is a reparameterization of $\hat{B}_s$ (see Section \ref{sec:inference}).
$q(y, s)$ and $p(x, t)$ denote the probability density functions of ${Y}_s$ and ${X}_t$, respectively.
We let $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ denote a time-indexed parameterized function that will be used to approximate the score $\nabla \log q(y, s)$.
$\nabla$ is the gradient wrt the spatial variable ($x$ or $y$, which we sometimes call position), $\partt{ }$, $\parts{ }$ and $\partxj{i}$ are partial derivatives, and $H_{*}$ denotes Hessian.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
Assume ${Y}_0$
follows the data distribution $q(y,0)$, and ${Y}_s$ satisfies the It\^{o} SDE \citep{oksendal2003stochastic}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{Y} = f({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + g({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}{\hat{B}}_s,
\label{eq:fixed-inference-sde}
\end{align}
where $f$ and $g$ are chosen such that the density $q(y,s)$ will converge to some tractable prior $p_0$ as $s\rightarrow T$.
Following \citet{song2021score}, we assume $g$ is position-independent.
It is possible to find a ``reverse'' SDE, whose marginal density evolves according to $q(y,s)$, reversed in time, for example\footnote{See Appendix {\ref{app:equiv}} for a family of equivalent (reverse) SDEs indexed by some parameter $\lambda$, of which equation (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}) is a special case with $\lambda=0$. }
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = (gg^\top \nabla \log q({X}, T-t) - f) \,\mathrm{d}t + g \,\mathrm{d}B_t.
\label{eq:reverse-sde}
\end{align}
If ${X}_0\sim p_0$, then the density $p(x, t)$ of ${X}_t$ is equal to $q(x, T-t)$.
This means that if we have access to the score function $\nabla \log q$, we can solve the above SDE to obtain ${X}_T\overset{d}{=}{Y}_0$.
\citet{song2021score} propose to approximate the score via a parameterized score function $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ by minimizing
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s , s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s) ||_{\Lambda(s)}^2\right] \, \mathrm{d}s
\end{align*}
where the expectation in the integral is known as the explicit score matching (ESM) loss $\gL_\text{ESM}$, and $\Lambda(s)$ is a positive definite matrix\footnote{We use this matrix to induce a Mahalanobis norm $||x||_{\Lambda}^2 := x^\top \Lambda x$, which will be used in Section \ref{sec:score}.} that serves as a weighting function for the overall loss.
$\gL_\text{ESM}$ is not immediately useful, since we do not have access to the ground truth score $\nabla \log q$.
A few alternative losses can be used, which are all equal to one another up to a constant, including implicit score matching \citep[ISM]{hyvarinen2005estimation}, sliced score matching \citep[SSM]{song2020sliced}, and denoising score matching \citep[DSM]{vincent2011connection}.
The losses are summarized in Table \ref{tab:score-matching-losses}, and are related through the following identity (see Appendix \ref{app:score-matching} for the derivation):
\begin{align}
\gL_\text{ESM} - \frac{1}{2} {\mathcal{I}}(q(y_s,s))
= \gL_\text{ISM} = \gL_\text{SSM} = \gL_\text{DSM} - \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[ {\mathcal{I}}(q(y_s|y_0))
],
\label{eq:sm-identity}
\end{align}
where %
${\mathcal{I}}(q) = \mathbb{E}[||\nabla \log q||_\Lambda^2]$ is a constant.
After training, \citet{song2021score} plug $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ into (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}) to define a generative model.
We refer to this SDE as the \emph{plug-in reverse SDE}.
The plug-in reverse SDE has been demonstrated to have impressive empirical results, but a theoretical underpinning of this learning framework is still lacking.
For example, it is unclear how the training objective (minimizing the score matching loss) relates to the sampling procedure, {\it e.g.}\@\xspace whether the probability distribution induced by the plug-in reverse SDE gets closer to the data distribution in the sense of any statistical divergence or metric.
We seek to answer the following question in this paper:
\emph{How will minimizing the score-matching loss impact the plug-in reverse SDE?}
We first provide a framework to estimate the likelihood of generative SDEs, and then get back to this question in Section \ref{sec:score}.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.50\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
Method & Loss \\
\midrule
$\gL_\text{ESM}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)-\nabla \log q({Y}_s)||_\Lambda^2]$ \\
$\gL_\text{ISM}$ & $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)||_\Lambda^2 + \nabla\cdot(\Lambda^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta)]$ \\
$\gL_\text{SSM}$ & $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)||_\Lambda^2 + v^\top\nabla(\Lambda^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta)v]$ \\
$\gL_\text{DSM}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s)-\nabla \log q({Y}_s|{Y}_0)||_\Lambda^2]$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Score matching losses.
$v$ follows the Rademacher distribution.
}
\label{tab:score-matching-losses}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\toprule
F-K & F-P \\
\midrule
$v(y, \varsigma)$ & $p(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
\midrule
$c(y, \varsigma)$ & $-\nabla \cdot \mu(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
$b(y, \varsigma)$ & $-\mu(y, T-\varsigma)$ \\
$\eta(y,\varsigma)$ & $\sigma(T-\varsigma)$ \\
$g(y)$ & $p_0(y)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Feynman-Kac coefficients.}
\label{tab:fk-fp}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\section{Marginal density
and stochastic instantaneous change of variable
}
\label{sec:density}
Let ${X}_t$ be a diffusion process solving the following It\^{o} SDE\footnote{For generality, we use the notation $\mu$ and $\sigma$ to describe a generative SDE, which will be set to $g^2\mathsfit{s}_\theta -f$ and $g$ when we come back to the discussion of the plug-in reverse SDE in Section \ref{sec:score}.}:
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = \mu({X}, t) \,\mathrm{d}t+ \sigma({X}, t) \,\mathrm{d}B_t
\label{eq:gen-sde}
\end{align}
with the initial condition ${X}_0\sim p_0$, which induces a family of densities ${X}_t\sim p(\cdot, t)$.
We use this SDE as the generative SDE, and we are interested in $\log p(x, T)$ for maximum likelihood.
The density $p(x, t)$ follows the
\emph{Kolmogorov forward} (or the \emph{Fokker Planck}) \emph{equation}:
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} = - \sum_j \partxj{j}[\mu_j(x, t)\,p(x, t)] + \sum_{i,j} \partxxij{i}{j}[D_{ij}(x, t)\, p(x, t)]
\label{eq:fp}
\end{align}
with the initial value $p(\cdot, 0)=p_0(\cdot)$, where $D = \frac{1}{2}\sigma \sigma^T$ is the diffusion matrix.
We can expand the Fokker Planck and rearrange the terms to obtain
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} =
&\left[ -\nabla\cdot\mu(x, t) + \sum_{i,j} \partxxij{i}{j} D_{ij}(x, t) \right] p(x, t) \,\, + \nonumber \\
&\sum_i\left[ - \mu_i(x, t) + 2 \sum_j \partxj{i} D_{ij}(x, t)\right] \partxj{i} p(x, t) \,\, + %
\sum_{i,j} D_{ij}(x,t) \partxxij{i}{j}p(x, t)
\label{eq:fp-rearranged}
\end{align}
so that all coefficients of the same order are grouped together.
For simplicity, we assume the diffusion term $\sigma$ is independent of $x$ throughout the paper.
Then (\ref{eq:fp-rearranged}) reduces to
\begin{align}
\partt{p(x, t)} =
-\left(\nabla\cdot\mu(x, t)\right)\,p(x, t)
- \mu(x, t)^\top \nabla p(x, t)
+ D(t) : H_p(x, t)
\label{eq:fp-simplified}
\end{align}
where $:$ denotes the Frobenius inner product between matrices.
Even with this simplification, solving (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}) is not trivial.
Fortunately, we can estimate this quantity using the \emph{Feynman-Kac formula}, which tells us that the solution of certain second-order linear partial differential equations have a probabilistic representation.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Feynman-Kac representation}, Chapter 5.7 of \citet{karatzas2014brownian}]{thm}{feynmankac}
Let $T>0$.
Let $y$ and $\varsigma$ be the spatial and temporal arguments to the function $v \in C^{2, 1}(\mathbb{R}^d\times [0,T])$ solving
\begin{align}
\partial_{\varsigma}{v} + c v + b^\top \nabla v + A : H_v = 0
\label{eq:fk-pde}
\end{align}
with the terminal condition $v(y, T)=h(y)$, where $A = \frac{1}{2}\eta\eta^\top$ for some matrix-valued function $\eta(y, \varsigma)$.
Under the assumption stated in Appendix \ref{app:fk-assumption}, if $B_s'$ is a Brownian motion and ${Y}_s$ solves
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{Y} = b({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + \eta({Y}, s) \,\mathrm{d}B_s',
\label{eq:fk-dynamic}
\end{align}
with the initial datum ${Y}_\varsigma = y$, then
\begin{align}
v(y, \varsigma) = \mathbb{E}\left[h({Y}_T) \exp\left(\int_{\varsigma}^T c({Y}_{s}, s) \,\mathrm{d}s \right)\, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_{\varsigma} = y \right].
\label{eq:fk-rep}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
To estimate the density $p(\cdot, T)$ of (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}),
we can apply the change of variable $p(x, t) := v(x, T-t)$ by letting the Feynman-Kac (F-K) coefficients correspond to their Fokker-Planck (F-P) counterparts according to Table~\ref{tab:fk-fp}.
This way, solving (\ref{eq:fk-pde}) backward is equivalent to solving (\ref{eq:fp-simplified}) forward, and we have the following representation of the marginal density at $T$:
\begin{align}
p(x,T) = \mathbb{E}\left[p_0({Y}_T) \exp\left(\int_0^T -\nabla \cdot \mu({Y}_{s}, T-s) \,\mathrm{d}s\right) \, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_0 = x\right],
\label{eq:fk-fp}
\end{align}
where ${Y}_s$ is a diffusion process solving
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} {Y} = -\mu({Y}, T-s)\,\mathrm{d}s + \sigma(T-s) \,\mathrm{d} B_s'.
\label{eq:fk-fp-dynamic}
\end{align}
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Marginalization}]{rmk}{}
\label{rm:marginalization}
This representation can be interpreted as a mixture of continuous time flows.
Assume a sample path of the Brownian motion is given, and we are interested in how the density evolves following the dynamic (\ref{eq:gen-sde}).
In the infinitesimal setting, it can been seen as applying the invertible map $x\mapsto x + \mu(x,t)\Delta t + \sigma(t)\Delta B_i$, where $\Delta B_i := B_{(i+1)\Delta t} - B_{i\Delta t}$ is the Brownian increment.
Since the diffusion term is independent of the spatial variable, it can be seen as a constant additive transformation, which is volume preserving, so it will not be taken into account when computing the change of density.
The only contribution to the change of density will be from the log-determinant of the Jacobian of $\text{id} + \mu\Delta t$, which means we can simply apply the instantaneous change of variable formula \citep{chen2018neural}.
This will be the conditional density given the entire $\{B_t:t\geq0\}$, and marginalizing it out results in the expectation in (\ref{eq:fk-fp}).
See Appendix \ref{app:mixture} for details.
\end{restatable}
Our framework also works with the general case where $\sigma$ depends on $x$, but the formulae need to be adapted to account for the spatial partial derivatives.
See Appendix \ref{app:density} for the derivation.
\section{Inferring latent Brownian motion}
\label{sec:inference}
As our goal is to estimate likelihood, we would like to compute the log density value using (\ref{eq:fk-fp}).
However, this involves integrating out all possible Brownian paths, which is intractable.
To resolve this, we view the Brownian motion as a latent variable, and perform inference by assigning higher probability to sample paths that are more likely to generate the observation.
One can view this as a VAE, except we have an infinite dimensional latent variable.
Formally, let $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$ be the underlying probability space for which $B_s'$ is a Brownian motion.
Suppose ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is another probability measure on $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}})$ \emph{equivalent} to ${\mathbb{P}}$; that is, ${\mathbb{P}}$ and ${\mathbb{Q}}$ are similar in the sense that they have the same measure zero sets.
This allows us to apply the change-of-measure trick and lower bound the log-likelihood with a finite quantity using Jensen's inequality:
\begin{align}
\log p(x, T)
&\geq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}}\left[ \log \frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}} + \log p_0({Y}_T) - \int_0^T \nabla\cdot\mu \,\mathrm{d}s \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x\right].
\label{eq:elbo}
\end{align}
Note that $\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is the \emph{Radon-Nikodym} derivative of ${\mathbb{P}}$ wrt ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
When both measures are absolutely continuous wrt a third measure, say Lebesgue, then the derivative can be expressed as the ratio of the two densities.
However, since we are dealing with an infinite dimensional space, we are immediately faced with the following problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is there a measure ${\mathbb{Q}}$ (equiv. to ${\mathbb{P}}$) for which $\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}$ can be easily computed, or at least numerically approximated?
\item Can we find a reparameterization (similar to the Gaussian reparameterization) of $B_s'$ under the new law ${\mathbb{Q}}$ to estimate the gradient needed for training?
\end{enumerate}
We resort to the \emph{Girsanov theorem}, which describes a general framework for dealing with the change of measure of Gaussian random variables under additive perturbation.
It allows us to consider the law of a diffusion process as ${\mathbb{Q}}$.
See Appendix \ref{app:1d-girsanov} for an explanation using the more familiar notion of probability densities.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Girsanov theorem}, Theorem 8.6.3 of \citet{oksendal2003stochastic}]{thm}{girsanov}
Let $\hat{B}_s$ be an It\^o process solving
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s = - a(\omega, s) \,\mathrm{d}s + \mathrm{d}B_s',
\label{eq:girsanov-standardize}
\end{align}
for $\omega\in\Omega$, $0\leq s\leq T$ and $\hat{B}_0=0$,
where $a(\omega, s)$ satisfies the Novikov's condition $\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T a^2 \,\mathrm{d}s\right)\right] < \infty$.
Then $\hat{B}_s$ is a Brownian motion wrt ${\mathbb{Q}}$ where
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{Q}}}{\mathrm{d}{\mathbb{P}}}(\omega) := \exp\left(\int_0^T a(\omega, s) \cdot \mathrm{d}B_s' - \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T ||a(\omega, s)||_2^2 \,\mathrm{d}s\right).
\label{eq:girsanov-density}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
Equation (\ref{eq:girsanov-standardize}) provides a standarization formula of $B_s'$ under ${\mathbb{Q}}$, which means we can ``invert'' it to reparameterize $B_s'$.
This leads to the following lower bound.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Continuous-time ELBO}]{thm}{ctelbo}
Let ${\mathbb{Q}}$ be defined via the density (\ref{eq:girsanov-density}).
Then the RHS of (\ref{eq:elbo}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}\left[
- \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T ||a(\omega, s)||_2^2 \,\mathrm{d}s + \log p_0({Y}_T) - \int_0^T \nabla\cdot\mu \,\mathrm{d}s
\, \Bigg\vert \, {Y}_0=x
\right] =: {\mathcal{E}}^\infty,
\label{eq:continuous:elbo}
\end{align}
where the expectation is taken wrt the Brownian motion $\hat{B}_s$, and ${Y}_s$ solves\footnote{Note that $\mu$ and $\sigma$ run backward in time from $T$, whereas $a$ runs forward.}
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} {Y} = (-\mu + \sigma a) \,\mathrm{d}s + \sigma \mathrm{d} \hat{B}_s.
\label{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
We call ${Y}_s$ solving (\ref{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}) the inference SDE, and ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty$ the continuous-time ELBO (CT-ELBO).
\begin{restatable}[\bf Computation]{rmk}{}
\label{rm:computation}
This lower bound can be numerically estimated by using any black box SDE solver, by augmenting the dynamic of $y$ with the accumulation of $||a||^2$ and $\nabla\cdot\mu$.
Computing the divergence term $\nabla\cdot\mu$ directly can be expensive, but it can be efficiently estimated using the Hutchinson trace estimator \citep{hutchinson1989stochastic} along with reverse-mode automatic differentiation, similar to \citet{grathwohl2018ffjord}.
As the parameters of both the generative and inference models are decoupled from the random variable $\hat{B}_s$, their gradients can be estimated via the reparameterization trick \citep{kingma2014auto, rezende2014stochastic}.
Furthermore, backpropagation can be computed using an adjoint method with a constant memory cost \citep{li2020scalable}.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\bf Drift $a$]{rmk}{}
(i) In general, the drift term of the approximate posterior to the latent Brownian motion can be amortized, so that it will encode the information of individual datum $x$.
(ii) The regularization $||a||^2$ ensures that $a$ is kept close to $0$, since it represents the deviation of the measure it induces ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace ${\mathbb{Q}}$) from the classical Wiener measure (which is a centered Gaussian measure).
(iii) When the diffusion coefficient $\sigma$ is $0$, the inference SDE reduces to the reverse dynamic of the generative ODE, and if $a\equiv 0$ in this case, the lower bound is tight.
(iv) There is generally no constraint on the form of $a(\omega, s)$, so one can potentially augment it with additional dimensions to have a non-Markovian inference SDE.
For simplicity, we let the inference SDE be a Markovian model, i.e. $a=a(y, s)$. This is justified by the following theorem.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Variational gap and optimal inference SDE}]{thm}{optinf}
\label{thm:optinf}
The variational gap can be written as
\begin{align}
\log p(x,T) - {\mathcal{E}}^\infty = \int_0^T\mathbb{E}\left[||a(\omega, s) - \sigma^\top \nabla \log p({Y}_s, T-s)||^2\right] \,\mathrm{d}s.
\end{align}
In particular,
${\mathcal{E}}^\infty=\log p(x,T)$ if and only if
$a(\omega, s)$ can be written as $a(\omega, s) = a({Y}_s(\omega), s)$ for almost every $s\in[0,T]$ and $\omega\in\Omega$, and
$a(y, s)=\sigma^\top \nabla \log p(y, T-s)$ almost everywhere.
\end{restatable}
\begin{restatable}[\bf Variational gap]{rmk}{}
Even though the inference SDE seemingly takes a simple form, it is sufficiently flexible in that
this type of variational problem can be generally solved by taking the supremem over all progressively measurable processes $a(\omega, s)$ \citep{boue1998variational}.
In fact, the above theorem shows that
${\mathcal{E}}^\infty = \log p(x,T)$ if and only if $a(y, s) = \sigma^\top \nabla \log p(y, T-s)$.
This means a non-amortized Markovian inference process is powerful enough.
\end{restatable}
\section{Infinitely deep hierarchical VAE}
\label{sec:infvae}
Before we make the connection to score matching, we formally address the common belief that ``diffusion models can be viewed as the continuous limit of hierarchical VAEs'' \citep{tzen2019neural}, and show that the CT-ELBO consistently extends their discrete-time counterpart.
We do so by inspecting the ELBO of a hierarchical VAE defined as discretized\footnote{We follow the Euler-Maruyama (EM) scheme. Other discretization scheme may also work; we leave that for future work.} generative and inference SDEs.
We assume the generative model ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the decoder) follows the transitional distributions
\begin{gather}
p(x_{i+1} | x_{i}) = {\mathcal{N}}(x_{i+1} ; \tilde{\mu}_{i}(x_{i}), \tilde{\sigma}^2_{i}) \\
\tilde{\mu}_{i}(x) = x + \Delta t\mu(x, i\Delta t) \qquad
\tilde{\sigma}^2_{i} = \Delta t\sigma^2(i\Delta t),
\label{eq:discrete-transition-p}
\end{gather}
where $\Delta t = T/L$ is the step size and $L$ is the number of layers.
For the inference model ({\it i.e.}\@\xspace the encoder), we assume
\begin{gather}
q(x_{i} | x_{i+1}) = {\mathcal{N}}(x_{i} ; \hat{\mu}_{i+1}(x_{i+1}), \hat{\sigma}^2_{i+1}) \\
\hat{\mu}_{i}(x) = x + \Delta t (- \mu(x, i\Delta t) + \sigma(i\Delta t) a(x,T-i\Delta t)) \qquad
\hat{\sigma}^2_{i} = \Delta t\sigma^2(i\Delta t).
\label{eq:discrete-transition-q}
\end{gather}
These transition kernels constitute a hierarchical variational autoencoder of $L$ stochastic layers, whose marginal likelihood can be lower bounded by
\begin{align}
\log p(x_{L}) \geq \mathbb{E}_q\left[\log p(x_0)+\sum_{i=0}^{L-1}\log \frac{p(x_{i+1} |x_i)}{ q(x_i|x_{i+1})}\right] =: {\mathcal{E}}^L,
\label{eq:discrete-elbo}
\end{align}
which we refer to as the discrete-time ELBO (DT-ELBO).
The reconstruction error of the stochastic layer can be seen as some form of finite difference approximation to differentiation, which gives rise to $\nabla\cdot\mu$ in the CT-ELBO in the infinitesimal limit (as $\Delta t$ approaches $0$).
The regularization of $||a||^2$ pops up when we compare the difference between $\tilde{\mu}_i$ and $\hat{\mu}_i$ using the Gaussian reparameterization to compute the reconstruction error.
We formalize this idea in the following theorem.
\begin{restatable}[\textbf{Consistency}]{thm}{consistency}
Assume $\mu$, $\sigma$, $\sigma^{-2}$, $a$, $||a||^2$ and their derivatives up to the fourth order are all bounded and continuous, and that $\sigma$ is non-singular. Then ${\mathcal{E}}^L\rightarrow{\mathcal{E}}^\infty$ as $L\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{restatable}
This theorem tells us that the CT-ELBO we derive for continuous-time diffusion models is not that different from the traditional ELBO, and that maximizing the CT-ELBO can be seen as training an infinitely deep hierarchical VAE.
We present the proof in Appendix \ref{app:proofs}, which formalizes the above intuition, using Taylor's theorem to control the polynomial approximation error, which will go to $0$ as the step size $\Delta t$ vanishes when the number of layers $L$ increases to infinity.
\section{Score-based generative modeling}
\label{sec:score}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{figures/equivalent-plug-in-reverse-sdes-main.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{figures/lambda_lower_bound.pdf}
\caption{
\emph{Left}: Samples from plug-in reverse SDEs with different $\lambda$ values (rows).
We use the same score function $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ trained on the Swiss roll dataset, and plug it into (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}).
For generation, we use the Euler Maruyama method with a step size of $\Delta t = 1/1000$.
We visualize the samples for the $i$-th iterates (columns), which approximately represent the same marginal distribution when the score function is well trained.
\emph{Right}:
Lower bound on the marginal likelihood of a continuum of plug-in reverse SDEs.
The lower bound is optimized when the score matching loss is minimized, which will push up the entire dark blue curve.
}
\label{fig:equiv-plug-in-lambda-elbo}
\end{figure}
Recall that our goal is to analyze the plug-in reverse SDE and draw connection to score matching.
To this end, we reparameterize the generative (\ref{eq:gen-sde}) and inference (\ref{eq:fk-fp-dynamic-reparameterized}) SDEs as
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d}{X} = (gg^\top \mathsfit{s}_\theta -f)\,\mathrm{d}t + g\,\mathrm{d}B_t \,\,\text{ and }\,\, \mathrm{d}{Y} = f\,\mathrm{d}s + g\,\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s,
\label{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}
\end{align}
by letting $a=g^\top\mathsfit{s}_\theta$, where the time variable is reversed ($T-t$) for the generative process, and forward in time ($s$) for inference.
The ELBO (\ref{eq:continuous:elbo}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
{\mathcal{E}}^\infty
= \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_T}[\log p_0({Y}_T)\,|\,{Y}_0=x] - \int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[ \frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta||_{gg^\top}^2 + \nabla \cdot (gg^\top \mathsfit{s}_\theta - f) \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x \right] \,\mathrm{d}s.
\label{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}
\end{align}
Comparing the integrand to the implicit score matching loss in Table \ref{tab:score-matching-losses}, we immediately see that the network $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ approximates $\nabla \log q(y, s)$, the score function of the marginal density of ${Y}_s$.
That is, \emph{matching the score of $q(y,t)$ amounts to maximizing the lower bound on the marginal likelihood of the plug-in reverse SDE}. %
Recently, \citet{durkan2021maximum}\footnote{This refers to the \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09258v1}{v1} of the paper on arXiv. This version was later on replaced with a new version where they derived a similar bound as ours.} also attempt to establish the equivalency between maximum likelihood and score matching, by showing the following relationship between the forward KL divergence and a weighted sum of score matching loss (aka the Fisher divergence):
\begin{align}
D_{\mathrm{KL}}(q(y,0) ||r(y, 0)) = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \mathbb{E}_{q(\cdot, s)}\left[||\nabla \log r({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s)||_{gg^\top}^2\right]\,\mathrm{d}s,
\end{align}
where $r(y, s)$ is the density of ${Y}_s$ solving the same inference SDE with the initial condition $y_0\sim r(\cdot, 0)$, assuming $q(y,T)=r(y,T)$.
However, it is inaccurate to claim that score matching is equivalent to maximum likelihood.
This is because if we simply let $r(y, 0)= p(y, T)$, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace the density of the generative SDE evaluated at $y$, $r(y, s)$ will not necessarily be the same as either $p(y, T-s)$ or $\mathsfit{s}_\theta(y, s)$.
This means the KL divergence is not equal to the integral of the weighted score matching loss $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta - \nabla \log q||_{gg^\top}^2]$.
In fact, the latter corresponds to a lower bound on the likelihood (the cross-entropy term of the KL) up to some constant, as equation (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) suggests.
More generally, we can apply our analysis to a family of plug-in reverse SDEs indexed by some parameter $\lambda\leq1$:
\begin{align}
\resizebox{0.99\textwidth}{!}{%
$\mathrm{d} {X} =
\left(\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)g^2 \mathsfit{s}_\theta - f\right) \,\mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{1-\lambda} g \,\mathrm{d}B_t
\,\,\text{ and }\,\,
\mathrm{d} {Y} = \left(f - \frac{\lambda}{2} g^2 \nabla \log q\right) \,\mathrm{d}s + \sqrt{1-\lambda} g \,\mathrm{d}\hat{B}_s,
$}
\label{eq:lambda-sde-pair}
\end{align}
where we assume $g$ is diagonal for simplicity.
We defer the formal discussion to Appendix \ref{app:equiv}, but the essence is that this inference SDE induces the same marginal distribution as (\ref{eq:fixed-inference-sde}), and the generative SDE is its corresponding plug-in reverse.
Equation (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}) includes the original plug-in reverse SDE (\ref{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}) and an equivalent ODE as special cases with $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=1$.
Denote its corresponding CT-ELBO by ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty_\lambda$.
Specifically, (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) becomes ${\mathcal{E}}^\infty_0$.
Then we have the following relationship.
\begin{restatable}[\bf Plug-in reverse SDE ELBO, abridged]{thm}{elboscoreshort}
For $\lambda < 1$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[{\mathcal{E}}^\infty_\lambda] = \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_0}[{\mathcal{E}}^\infty_0] - \left(\frac{\lambda^2}{4(1-\lambda)}\right) \int_{0}^T \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2}||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s, s)||_{g^2}^2\right] \,\mathrm{d}s
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
We state the full theorem in Appendix \ref{app:score-plug-in-likelihood}, where we rearrange the terms to show that the average CT-ELBO of the $\lambda$-plug-in reverse SDE is also equivalent to the ISM loss, similarly to (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) but up to some multiplying and additive constants.
The implication is that \emph{while minimizing the score matching loss, we implicitly maximize the likelihood of a continuum of plug-in reverse SDEs which include the ODE as a limiting case ($\lambda\rightarrow1$)}.
See Figure \ref{fig:equiv-plug-in-lambda-elbo} (right) for illustration.
This suggests the likelihood of the equivalent ODE can be improved by minimizing the score matching loss, as the ODE's likelihood will be close to plug-in reverse SDEs with $\lambda\approx1$,
which explains the good likelihood of the equivalent ODE reported in \citet{song2021score}.
In practice, we can only estimate the ELBO of the case $\lambda=0$ since otherwise there will be some constant we do not have access to, but their gradients can all be estimated via score matching.
\subsection{Computational trade-off}
\label{subsec:computation}
Having a general framework for estimating the likelihood of diffusion processes allows us to compare a wide family of models, including continuous-time flows and plug-in reverse SDEs trained by score matching.
We compare the two by measuring the negative ELBO throughout training to highlight their computation-estimation trade-off.
We train the models on the Swiss roll toy data.
For continuous-time flow, we set $\sigma=0$, using the Hutchinson trace estimator following \citet{grathwohl2018ffjord}.
The ELBO in this case is tight since $a$ will be penalized to be 0.
We use the \texttt{torchdiffeq} library \citep{chen2018neural} for numerical integration for fairer comparison\footnote{Black-box SDE solvers such as \texttt{torchsde} \citep{li2020scalable} might not be optimized for the deterministic case, since their stochastic adjoint method scales ${\mathcal{O}}(L\log L)$ in time whereas deterministic numerical solvers are usually faster. This matters for our runtime comparison.}.
For plug-in reverse SDE, we train the drift network $a$ using SSM and DSM (for DSM the loss is weighted to reduce variance, which introduces some bias; see the next subsection).
We use the variance-preserving inference SDE from \citet{song2021score}, which allows us to sample ${Y}_s$ using a closed form formula, for $s$ sampled uniformly between $[0,T]$.
The trained models are visualized in Figure \ref{fig:generative_sde}, the learning curves presented in Figure \ref{fig:ode-sde}.
From the learning curve figures, we see that neg-likelihood decreases rapidly for the continuous-time flow in terms of the number of parameter updates.
But once the x-axis is normalized by runtime, the convergence speed becomes almost indistinguishable.
This is because for continuous-time flows, numerical integration takes time, whereas for plug-in reverse SDEs, we train on a random time step $s$; that is, within a fixed amount of time the latter can make more parameter updates at the cost of noisier gradients.
Note that both models have constant memory cost (wrt $T$ or $L$, the number of integration steps), so a large batch size can be used to reduce variance for training.
\subsection{Bias and variance trade-off}
\label{subsec:bias-variance}
The integral in equation (\ref{eq:continuous-elbo-ism}) can be estimated by sampling $({Y}_s, s)$, and using the Hutchinson trace estimator to estimate the divergence, which corresponds to implicit score matching.
However, in practice the variance of this estimator is very high when the norm of the Jacobian $\nabla \mathsfit{s}_\theta$ is large.
Another popular approach is to use the denoising estimator (recall the identity from (\ref{eq:sm-identity})),
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_s}\left[\frac{1}{2} ||\mathsfit{s}_\theta({Y}_s, s) - \nabla \log q({Y}_s|{Y}_0)||_{gg^\top}^2 \,\bigg|\, {Y}_0=x\right].
\label{eq:dsm}
\end{align}
The inference SDE is typically chosen so that ${Y}_s$ can be easily sampled, e.g. following ${\mathcal{N}}(\mu_s, \sigma_s^2)$, where $\mu_s$ and $\sigma_s$ are functions of ${Y}_0$ and $s$.
In this case, if we reparameterize ${Y}_s=\mu_s + \sigma_s \epsilon$ where $\epsilon\sim{\mathcal{N}}(0,\mathbf{I})$, then the score becomes
$\nabla \log q = - \frac{\epsilon}{\sigma_s}$.
Since $\sigma_s\rightarrow0$ as $s\rightarrow0$, this estimator normally has unbounded variance.
\citet{song2019generative, song2021score} propose to remedy
this by multiplying the DSM loss by $\sigma_s^2/g^2$ (assuming $g$ is a scalar for simplicity), so that the target has constant magnitude on average $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\sigma_s\mathsfit{s}_\theta + \epsilon||^2]$, which would result in a biased gradient estimate with much smaller variance.
We can debias this estimator by sampling $s\sim q(s)\propto g^2/\sigma_s^2$.
This ratio, however, is usally not normalizable in practice (as it integrates to $\infty$).
As an alternative, we consider the following unnormalized density
$\tilde{q}_\epsilon(s) = g^2(s_\epsilon)/\sigma_{s_\epsilon}^2$ for $s\in[0, s_\epsilon]$, and $\tilde{q}_\epsilon(s) = g^2(s)/\sigma_s^2$ for $s\in[s_\epsilon, T]$.
We experiment with this debiased procedure by sampling $s\sim q_\epsilon\propto\tilde{q}_\epsilon$, for $f$ and $g$ chosen to be the variance-preserving SDE.
$s_\epsilon$ is small so that the bias is negligible.
We train the model on MNIST \citep{lecun1998gradient} and CIFAR10 \citep{krizhevsky2009learning}.
We present the learning curves and the standard error of the estimate of the ELBO in Figure \ref{fig:debias}.
The lower bound is estimated using the Hutchinson trace estimator with $s$ sampled uniformly from $[0,T]$, with the same batch size, so the only thing that will affect the dispersion is the magnitude of $\nabla \mathsfit{s}_\theta$.
Since smaller values of $s$ are more likely to be sampled under $q_\epsilon$, the debiased model will see samples with less perturbation more often.
On the contrary, sampling $s$ uniformly will bias the model to learn from noisier data, causing the learned score to be smoother.
We also experiment with parameterizing $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ vs parameterizing $a$.
We find the latter parameterization to be helpful since the relationship $\mathsfit{s}_\theta=g^{-1}a$ has the effect of negating the multiplier $\sigma_s$ in the reweighted loss, {\it i.e.}\@\xspace $\mathbb{E}[\frac{1}{2}||\frac{\sigma_s}{g}a + \epsilon||^2]$.
This is similar to the noise conditioning technique introduced in \citet{song2020improved}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/ODE-SDE-iterations.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/ODE-SDE-seconds.pdf}
\caption{Neural ODE vs plug-in reverse SDE (denoising or slice score matching). The learning curves are presented as a function of iterations (left) and runtime (right) to emphasize the computational distinction between the two families of models.}
\label{fig:ode-sde}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/mnist_bpd_aggregated.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/mnist_bpd_std_err_aggregated.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/cifar_bpd_aggregated.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{figures/cifar_bpd_std_err_aggregated.pdf}
\caption{Likelihood estimation on MNIST (first row) and CIFAR10 (second row). $\mathsfit{s}_\theta$ and $a$ denote which model we parameterize. Y-axes are bits-per-dim and the standard error of BPD of the test set.
The debiased curves improve upon the original biased gradient estimator \citep{song2021score} since it maximizes a proper ELBO.
Shaded area reflects the uncertainty estimated by 3 random seeds.}
\label{fig:debias}
\end{figure}
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related}
\paragraph{Diffusion-based generative models}
Our work lays a theoretical foundation for \citet{song2021score}, which recognizes that conditional denoising score matching \citep{song2019generative, song2020improved} and discrete-time diffusion-based generative models \citep{sohl2015deep, goyal2017variational, ho2020denoising} can be viewed as learning to revert an inference process (using the plug-in reverse SDE).
Different from \citet{ho2020denoising}, which shows the ELBO of discrete time diffusion process can be likened to DSM (Section 3.2 of the paper), we show that ISM loss naturally arises from the Fokker-Planck equation of the marginal density, via the Fenman-Kac representation and the Girsanov change of measure.
This line of work has been successfully applied to modeling high dimensional natural images \citep{dhariwal2021diffusion, saharia2021image}, audio \citep{kong2020diffwave}, 3D point cloud \citep{cai2020learning, zhou20213d}, and discrete data \citep{hoogeboom2021argmax}.
\paragraph{Time-reversal of diffusion processes}
Plenty of works have studied the reverse-time diffusion processes (\ref{eq:reverse-sde}), including \citet{anderson1982reverse, follmer1985entropy, elliott1985reverse, haussmann1986time}.
These are different from our marginal-equivalent (reverse) processes (\ref{eq:lambda-sde-pair}) when $\mathsfit{s}_\theta=\nabla \log q$, since the latter is related by the marginals only.
\paragraph{Score matching for energy-based models}
Besides the connection to diffusion models, score matching is also often used as a method for learning energy based models (EBM)---~see \citet{song2021train} for a comprehensive review on useful techniques---.
When used as an EBM, sampling from the conditional score model can be achieved by running the annealed Langevin diffusion \citep{neal2001annealed}, which is connected to free-energy estimaton in physics \citep{jarzynski1997equilibrium}, wherein the \emph{path integral} is essentially a Feynman Kac representation.
\paragraph{De Bruijn's identity}
To connect maximum likelihood and score matching, \citet{durkan2021maximum} shows that KL divergence can be represented as an integral of weighted Fisher divergence, generalizing the case of \citet{lyu2009interpretation} where the inference perturbation is a simple Brownian motion.
This type of formulas fall into the category of de Bruijn's identity \citep{cover1999elements} for relative entropy.
A similar differential form result can be found in \citet{wibisono2017information}.
\paragraph{Learning SDEs}
\citet{tzen2019neural, li2020scalable} also propose to learn a neural SDE by applying Girsanov's theorem.
The key difference is that they treat the SDE entirely as a latent variable, with an additional emission probability, whereas we use the Feynman-Kac formula to directly express the marginal density as an expectation, side-stepping the need to smooth out the density using the emission probability (which will be a Dirac point mass in our case).
In their case, the inference direction is the same as the generative direction, since they infer the latent SDE directly, whereas we apply Girsanov to the Feynman-Kac diffusion (opposite the generative direction).
\citet{xu2021infinitely} further apply neural SDE as an infinitely deep Bayesian neural network.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this work, we derive a general variational framework for estimating the marginal likelihood of continuous-time diffusion models.
This framework allows us to study a wide spectrum of models, including continuous-time normalizing flows and score-based generative models.
Using our framework, we show that performing score matching with a particular choice of mixture weighting is equivalent to maximizing a lower bound on the marginal likelihood of a family of plug-in reverse SDEs, of which the one used in \citet{song2021score} and the equivalent ODE are special cases.
Empirically, we validate our theory by monitoring the ELBO while performing score matching, and discuss the implication of the choice of mixture weighting and the potential of debiasing via non-uniform sampling.
We emphasize that our theory does not explain the impressive sample quality of this family of models, which is still an open research problem and we leave it for future work.
This work introduces a general framework to estimate the likelihood of diffusion-based models, which allows the parameters of both the generative and inference SDEs to be learned, using a numerical solver with constant memory cost (as per Remark \ref{rm:computation}).
The training time can be reduced via the connection to score matching and the reverse-time parameterization (\ref{eq:plug-in-reverse-forward}) as long as $f$ and $g$ take a simple form (so that ${Y}_t$ can be sampled without numerical integration).
For example, one can generalize the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process to have non-linear (in time) $f$ and $g$, similar to the variance-presering SDE, by parameterizing the integral of $f$ using a monotone network \citep{sill1998monotonic,kay2000estimating,daniels2010monotone,huang2018neural}.
This has been explored in a concurrent work by \citet{kingma2021variational} in a different framework.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank
David Kanaa, Ricky Chen, Simon Verret, Rémi Piché-Taillefer, Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau, and Faruk Ahmed for giving their feedback on this manuscript.
We would also like to thank the INNF+ 2021 reviewers and NeurIPS 2021 reviewers for their constructive suggestions, which help us improve the clarity of the paper.
Chin-Wei is supported by the Google PhD fellowship.
We also acknowledge the Python community \citep{van1995python, oliphant2007python} for developing the tools that enabled this work, including
numpy \citep{oliphant2006guide,van2011numpy, walt2011numpy, harris2020array},
PyTorch \citep{paszke2019pytorch},
Matplotlib \citep{hunter2007matplotlib},
seaborn \citep{seaborn}, and
SciPy \citep{jones2014scipy}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
This note originates looking into the recent and very interesting paper by M. Goldman and F. Otto \cite{2020-goldman-otto-variational} containing a new proof of the regularity of optimal maps for the Monge problem when the cost is quadratic.
Our intention has been to investigate the validity of similar results for powers costs $|x-y|^p$ with $p\geq 2$, and
in that endeavor we came up with local $L^\infty$-estimates for monotone and interpolating maps relative to that cost, inequalities \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} and \eqref{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball}, respectively; these extend \cite[Lemma 3.1]{2020-goldman-otto-variational}. More generally, our estimates hold when the cost is given by a $C^2$ function that is homogeneous of degree $p$.
Since we believe that these estimates may be useful to obtain regularity results for optimal transport when $p\neq 2$, and may have independent interest, it is our purpose to present them here. Moreover, we are able to show that these estimates suffice to prove, with modifications, several important steps in parallel with those carried out in \cite{2020-goldman-otto-variational} toward the super-linear growth as in Prop. 3.3, eq. (3.15) of that paper; we will not provide these details in this note. However, a missing part is a replacement for $p\neq 2$ of the so called quasi-orthogonality property proved in \cite[Step 3, proof of Prop. 3.3]{2020-goldman-otto-variational}.
Recent regularity results for general cost functions are considered in \cite{2020-otto-prodhomme-ried-general-costs} but they do not include the case of non quadratic power costs, see Remark \ref{rmk:for pneq 2 C_4 does not hold}.
We mention that global $L^\infty$ estimates for optimal maps in terms of the $p$-Wasserstein distance are proved in \cite{2007-bouchitte}.
The note is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:L-infty-estimates} contains a detailed proof of the $L^\infty$-estimate \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} on general balls.
In Section \ref{sec:Estimates for the displacement interpolating map}, we introduce a notion of monotonicity \eqref{eq:A} that is equivalent to \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h}
and used it to prove in Section \ref{sec:L-infty-estimates of the interpolating map} the estimate \eqref{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball} for interpolating maps.
Section \ref{sec:L-infty-estimates of densities} shows, as a consequence, $L^\infty$-estimates for the densities of the transport problem. Section \ref{sec:fluids} shows that the quantity on the right hand side of the $L^\infty$-estimate \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} is comparable to an integral of a fluid flow.
Section \ref{sec:diff monotone maps} is self-contained and shows an $L^\infty$-estimate for monotone maps minus an arbitrary affine function,
Lemma \ref{lm:estimates of T with A}, which implies point-wise differentiability of locally integrable monotone maps, see Theorem \ref{thm:differentiability of monotone maps} and Remark \ref{eq:ambrosio result bounded deformation}.
Finally and for convenience, we include an appendix with the known formula \eqref{eq:third Green identity} which is the starting point to prove the main estimate in Section \ref{sec:L-infty-estimates}.
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
We would like to thank Craig Evans for useful comments and for pointing out Krylov's work \cite{K83}; see Remark \ref{rmk:mignot ambrosio and krylov results}. And we like to thank also Luigi Ambrosio for pointing out the connection between monotone maps and maps of bounded deformation, Remark \ref{eq:ambrosio result bounded deformation}, and useful comments.
C.E.G was partially supported
by NSF grant DMS--1600578, and A.M. was partially supported by
a grant from GNAMPA of INdAM.
\section{$L^\infty$-estimates}\label{sec:L-infty-estimates}
If $c(x,y):D\times D^*\to [0,+\infty)$ is a general cost function, then
from optimal transport theory, the optimal map for the Monge problem is given by $T=\mathcal N_{c,\phi}$ where $\phi$ is $c$-concave and
\[
\mathcal N_{c,\phi}(x)
=
\left\{m\in D^*:\phi(x)+\phi^c(m)=c(x,m)\right\}
\]
with $\phi^c(m)=\inf_{x\in D}\(c(x,m)-\phi(x)\)$, see for example \cite[Sect. 3.2]{gutierrez-huang:farfieldrefractor}.
This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c-monotonicty}
c\(x,Tx\)+c\(y,Ty\)\leq c\(x,Ty\)+c\(y,Tx\)
\end{equation}
assuming $Tx$ is single valued for a.e. $x\in D$.
In our analysis below we will only use that $T$ satisfies \eqref{eq:c-monotonicty}; and {\it that $T$ is optimal will not be used}.
We assume that the cost $c$ has the form $c(x,y)=h(x-y)$ where {\it $h\geq 0$ is a $C^2$ convex function in $\R^n$}.
What we have in mind is to obtain $L^\infty$-estimates for $u(x)=Tx-x$, as in the paper by Goldman and Otto \cite[Lemma 3.1]{2020-goldman-otto-variational}, but when {\it $h$ is positively homogenous of degree $p$ for some $1<p<\infty$}.
For this $c$, \eqref{eq:c-monotonicty} obviously reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:map T is c-monotone h}
h\(x-Tx\)+ h\(y-Ty\)\leq h\(x-Ty\)+ h\(y-Tx\),
\end{equation}
that is, $T$ is $h$-monotone, or equivalently
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c-monotonicity h}
h\(-u(x)\)+ h\(-u(y)\)\leq h\(x-y-u(y)\)+ h\(y-x-u(x)\).
\end{equation}
Defining
\[
G(a,b)=h(a-b)-h(a)-h(b),
\]
and assuming that {\it $h$ is even,}
the inequality \eqref{eq:c-monotonicity h} reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inequality between G}
-G\(x-y,u(y)\)\leq G\(y-x,u(x)\)+2\,h(x-y).
\end{equation}
Our purpose is then to prove the following local $L^\infty$-estimate.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main Linfty estimate}
Suppose $h\in C^2(\R^n)$ is nonnegative, even, convex, positively homogeneous of degree $p$, for some $p\geq 2$, and $\min_{x\in S^{n-1}} h(x)=m>0$. If $T$ is a map satisfying the monotonicity condition \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h} for a.e. $x,y\in \R^n$ and $u(x)=Tx-x$, then
{\small \begin{equation}\label{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball}
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|
\leq
\begin{cases}
L_1\,R^{n/(n+p)}\,\(\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx\)^{1/(n+p)} &
\text{if $\frac{1}{R^p}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx\leq \(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+p} \dfrac{(p-1)\,C_2}{(n+1)\,C_1\,\omega_n}$}\\
L_2\,\(R^{-1}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx\)^{1/(p-1)} & \text{if $\frac{1}{R^p}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx\geq \(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+p} \dfrac{(p-1)\,C_2}{(n+1)\,C_1\,\omega_n}$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}}
for each $R>0$, $x_0\in \R^n$, and $0<\beta <1$ with positive constants $C_1,C_2$ depending only on $p,n$ and $h$, with $\omega_n=|B_1|$; and with $L_1$ depending only on $p,n$ and $h$, and $L_2$ depending only on $p,n,h$ and $\beta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Our goal is to estimate the supremum of $|u|$ over a ball by the $L^p$-norm of $u$ over a slightly larger ball. To do this, the idea is to use \eqref{eq:third Green identity} and estimate the integrals by integrating \eqref{eq:inequality between G} in $x$
In fact, let us set $\omega=\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}$ and $r=\delta \,|u(y)|$, with $\delta>0$ to be chosen; $u(y)\neq 0$.
Applying the identity \eqref{eq:third Green identity} with $v(x)\leadsto -G(x-y,u(y))$ and the ball $B_r(y)\leadsto B_r(y+r\,\omega)$
yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:main formula A+B}
&v(y+r\,\omega)=-G(r\,\omega ,u(y))\notag\\
&=-\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}G\(x-y,u(y)\)\,dx\notag \\
&\qquad +\dfrac{n}{r^n}\,\int_0^r \rho^{n-1}\int_{|x-y-r \omega|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(x-y-r\omega)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,\Delta_x\(-G\(x-y,u(y)\)\) \,dx\,d\rho\notag\\
&=A+B.
\end{align}
We first estimate the left hand side of \eqref{eq:main formula A+B}
from below.
Write
\begin{align*}
&-G(r\,\omega ,u(y))\\
&=-G(\delta u(y), u(y))=h(\delta\,u(y)) +h(u(y))-h\(\delta\,u(y)-u(y)\)\\
&=\delta\,\(\dfrac{h(\delta\,u(y))}{\delta} +\dfrac{h(u(y))-h\(\delta\,u(y)-u(y)\)}{\delta}\)\\
&=\delta\,\(\dfrac{h(\delta\,u(y))}{\delta} +\dfrac{h(-u(y))-h\(\delta\,u(y)-u(y)\)}{\delta}\)\quad \text{since $h$ is even}\\
&=\delta\,\(\dfrac{h(\delta\,u(y))}{\delta} +\dfrac{\nabla h\(\xi\)\cdot -\delta\,u(y)}{\delta}\),\quad \text{with $\xi$ an intermediate point between $-u(y)$ and $\delta u(y)-u(y)$}.
\end{align*}
Since $h$ is smooth and homogenous of degree $p>1$, i.e., $h(\lambda x)=\lambda^p\,h(x)$ for $\lambda>0$, it follows that $\nabla h(\lambda x)=\lambda^{p-1}\,\nabla h(x)$ and so
\begin{align*}
\dfrac{h(\delta\,u(y))}{\delta} +\dfrac{\nabla h\(\xi\)\cdot -\delta\,u(y)}{\delta}
&=
\dfrac{h\(\delta |u(y)|\,\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)}{\delta}
-\nabla h\(\xi\)\cdot u(y)\\
&=
\delta^{p-1}\,|u(y)|^p\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)-\nabla h\(|\xi|\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot u(y)\\
&=
\delta^{p-1}\,|u(y)|^p\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)-|\xi|^{p-1}\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot u(y)\\
&=
\delta^{p-1}\,|u(y)|^p\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)-|u(y)|^p\,\(\dfrac{|\xi|}{|u(y)|}\)^{p-1}\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\\
&=
|u(y)|^p\,\(\delta^{p-1}\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)-\(\dfrac{|\xi|}{|u(y)|}\)^{p-1}\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\):=|u(y)|^p\,f(\delta,y).
\end{align*}
If $\delta\to 0^+$ we get $\xi\to -u(y)$ and
\[
f(\delta,y)=\delta^{p-1}\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)-\(\dfrac{|\xi|}{|u(y)|}\)^{p-1}\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\to
-\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}.
\]
Since $h$ is convex, then for each $x_0$ and $x$ we have $h(x)\geq h(x_0)+\nabla h(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0)$. Applying this inequality with $x_0=\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}$ and $x=0$ yields
\[
h(0)\geq h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)+\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}
\]
and since $h(0)=0$,
\[
h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\leq -\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}.
\]
{\it If $h$ is strictly positive in the unit sphere, then
$$0<m=\min_{x\in S^{n-1}} h(x)\leq M=\max_{x\in S^{n-1}} h(x)$$
by continuity}.
Therefore we get the inequality
\[
0<m\leq -\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\leq \max_{x\in S^{n-1}}|\nabla h(x)|.
\]
We next show that $f(\delta,y)\to -\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}$ as $\delta\to 0^+$ uniformly in $y\neq 0$.
In fact,
\begin{align*}
f(\delta,y)+\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}
&=\delta^{p-1}\,h\(\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\\
&\qquad -\(\dfrac{|\xi|}{|u(y)|}\)^{p-1}\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|\xi|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}
+
\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}=D_1+D_2.
\end{align*}
We have $D_1\leq M\,\delta^{p-1}$, and from the homogeneity of $\nabla h$
\begin{align*}
D_2
&=
-\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}+\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\cdot \dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|},
\end{align*}
so
\[
|D_2|\leq \left|\nabla h\(\dfrac{\xi}{|u(y)|}\)-\nabla h\(\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\)\right|.
\]
Since $\xi$ is an intermediate point between $-u(y)$ and $\delta u(y)-u(y)$,
$\xi=-u(y)+t\,\delta \,u(y)$ for some $0<t<1$, so
$\left| \dfrac{\xi}{|u(y)|}-\dfrac{-u(y)}{|u(y)|}\right|<\delta$. Since $\nabla h$ is uniformly continuous in a neighborhood of $S^{n-1}$ the uniform convergence of $f$ follows.
Therefore, we get the following lower bound for the left hand side of \eqref{eq:main formula A+B}:
there exists $\delta_0>0$ depending only on $h$ and independent of $y$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lower estimate general cost}
-G(r\,\omega ,u(y))\geq \dfrac{m}{2}\,\delta\,|u(y)|^p, \qquad \text{for $0<\delta<\delta_0$,}
\end{equation}
with $\omega=u(y)/|u(y)|$ and $r=\delta\, |u(y)|$, for each $y$ with $u(y)\neq 0$.
On the other hand, if $\delta\geq \delta_0$, then $\dfrac{r}{|u(y)|}\geq \delta_0$, implying obviously that $|u(y)|\leq \dfrac{r}{\delta_0}$, and obtaining the bound
$|u(y)|\leq \dfrac{\alpha}{\delta_0}$ for $0<r\leq \alpha$.
We now turn to estimate the right hand side of \eqref{eq:main formula A+B}.
Let us first calculate $\Delta_z G(z,v)$:
\[
\Delta_z G(z,v)=\Delta h(z-v)-\Delta h(z).
\]
Hence
\[
\Delta_x\(-G\(x-y,u(y)\)\)
=
-(\Delta_zG)(x-y,u(y))
=
\Delta h(x-y)-\Delta h(x-y-u(y)),
\]
and so
\[
B=
\dfrac{n}{r^n}\,\int_0^r \rho^{n-1}
\int_{|x-y-r \omega|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(x-y-r\omega)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\(\Delta h(x-y)-\Delta h(x-y-u(y))\) \,dx\,d\rho.
\]
Let us analyze the inner integral
\[
I(\rho,r,y)=
\int_{|x-y-r \omega|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(x-y-r\omega)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\(\Delta h(x-y)-\Delta h(x-y-u(y))\) \,dx.
\]
Making the change of variables $z=x-y-r\,\omega$ yields
\begin{align*}
I(\rho,r,y)
&=
\int_{|z|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(z)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\(\Delta h(z+r\,\omega)-\Delta h\(z+r\,\omega-u(y)\)\) \,dz.
\end{align*}
We have that $\Delta h$ is homogenous of degree $p-2$ so
\[
\Delta h(z+r\,\omega)=
\Delta h\(|z+r\,\omega|\,\dfrac{z+r\,\omega}{|z+r\,\omega|}\)
=
|z+r\,\omega|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{z+r\,\omega}{|z+r\,\omega|}\).
\]
Write, with $e_1$ a fixed unit vector in $S^{n-1}$,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{|z|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(z)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\Delta h(z+r\,\omega)\,dz\\
&=\int_{|z|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(z)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|z+r\,\omega|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{z+r\,\omega}{|z+r\,\omega|}\) \,dz\\
&=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|Tv+r\,Te_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+r\,Te_1}{|Tv+r\,Te_1|}\) \,dv,\,\text{with $T$ rotation around $0$ with $Te_1=\omega$}\\
&=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|v+r\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+r\,Te_1}{|Tv+r\,Te_1|}\) \,dv.
\end{align*}
{\small Similarly,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{|z|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(z)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\Delta h\(z+r\,\omega-u(y)\) \,dz\\
&=\int_{|z|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(z)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|z+r\,\omega-u(y)|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{z+r\,\omega-u(y)}{|z+r\,\omega-u(y)|}\) \,dz\\
&=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|Tv+r\,Te_1-u(y)|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+r\,Te_1-u(y)}{|Tv+r\,Te_1-u(y)|}\) \,dv,\,\text{with $T$ rotation around $0$ with $Te_1=\omega$}\\
&=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|Tv+r\,Te_1-|u(y)|Te_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+r\,Te_1-|u(y)|Te_1}{|Tv+r\,Te_1-|u(y)|Te_1|}\) \,dv\\
&=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
|v+(r-|u(y)|)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1}{|Tv+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1|}\) \,dv,\end{align*}
since $\omega=u(y)/|u(y)|$.
Then
\begin{align*}
I(\rho,r,y)
=
\int_{|v|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(v)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,
\(|v+r\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+r\,Te_1}{|Tv+r\,Te_1|}\)
-
|v+(r-|u(y)|)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{Tv+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1}{|Tv+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1|}\)
\) \,dv.\end{align*}
We then get
\begin{align*}
B&=
\dfrac{n}{r^n}\,\int_0^r \rho^{n-1}\,
I(\rho,r,y)\,d\rho=
n\,
\int_0^1t^{n-1}\,I(r\,t,r,y)\,dt.
\end{align*}
}
Now making the change of variables $v=r\zeta$ in the integral $I$ yields
{\small \begin{align*}
&I(r\,t,r,y)\\
&=
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(r\,\zeta)-\Gamma(r\,t)\)\,
\(|r\,\zeta+r\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(r\,\zeta)+r\,Te_1}{|T(r\,\zeta)+r\,Te_1|}\)
-
|r\,\zeta+(r-|u(y)|)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(r\,\zeta)+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1}{|T(r\,\zeta)+(r-|u(y)|)Te_1|}\)
\) \,r^n\,d\zeta\\
&=r^p\,\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,
\(|\zeta+e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+Te_1|}\)
-
|\zeta+(1-|u(y)|/r)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+(1-|u(y)|/r)Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+(1-|u(y)|/r)Te_1|}\)
\) \,d\zeta
\end{align*}
}
and now letting $r=\delta\,|u(y)|$ as before yields
\begin{align*}
B
&=
n\,
|u(y)|^p\,\delta^p\,\int_0^1t^{n-1}
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,\\
&\qquad
\(|\zeta+e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+Te_1|}\)
-
|\zeta+(1-(1/\delta))\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+(1-(1/\delta))Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+
(1-(1/\delta))Te_1|}\)
\) \,d\zeta\,dt\\
&=
n\,
|u(y)|^p\,\delta^p\,\int_0^1t^{n-1}
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,
|\zeta+e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+Te_1|}\)\,d\zeta\,dt\\
&\qquad
-n\,
|u(y)|^p\,\delta^2\,\int_0^1t^{n-1}
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,
|\delta\,\zeta+(\delta-1)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{\delta\,T(\zeta)+(\delta-1)Te_1}{|\delta\,T(\zeta)+
(\delta-1)Te_1|} \)\,d\zeta\,dt \\
&=
n\,
|u(y)|^p\,\delta\,F(\delta),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
F(\delta)
&=
\delta^{p-1}\,\int_0^1t^{n-1}
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,
|\zeta+e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{T(\zeta)+Te_1}{|T(\zeta)+Te_1|}\)\,d\zeta\,dt\\
&\qquad
-\delta\,\int_0^1t^{n-1}
\int_{|\zeta|\leq t}
\(\Gamma(\zeta)-\Gamma(t)\)\,
|\delta\,\zeta+(\delta-1)\,e_1|^{p-2}\,\Delta h\(\dfrac{\delta\,T(\zeta)+(\delta-1)Te_1}{|\delta\,T(\zeta)+
(\delta-1)Te_1|} \)\,d\zeta\,dt.
\end{align*}
Since $\Delta h$ is continuous, it is bounded in $S^{n-1}$ and so $F(\delta)\to 0$ uniformly in $y$ as $\delta\to 0^+$ when $p\geq 2$.
Therefore there exists $\delta_1>0$ such that $F(\delta)\leq \dfrac{m}{4\,n}$ for $0<\delta\leq \delta_1$ and so
\[
B\leq \dfrac{m}{4}\,|u(y)|^p\,\delta
\]
for $0<\delta\leq \delta_1$.
Combining this with \eqref{eq:lower estimate general cost} and \eqref{eq:main formula A+B}
yields the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lower bound of A}
\dfrac{m}{4}\,|u(y)|^p\,\delta\leq A,\qquad \text{for $0<\delta<\bar \delta$}
\end{equation}
with $\bar \delta=\min\{\delta_0,\delta_1\}$ independent of $y$ -depending only on $n,p$ and $h$- and with $r=\delta\,|u(y)|$.
We next estimate $A$ from above. To do this will use \eqref{eq:inequality between G}.
From \eqref{eq:main formula A+B}
\begin{align*}
A
&=
-\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}G\(x-y,u(y)\)\,dx
\leq \fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}\(G\(y-x,u(x)\)+2\,h(x-y)\)\,dx\\
&=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}G\(y-x,u(x)\)\,dx
+
2\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h(x-y)\,dx\\
&=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)} \(h(y-x-u(x))-h(y-x)-h(u(x))\)\,dx
+
2\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h(x-y)\,dx\\
&=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)} h(y-x-u(x))\,dx
-
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h(u(x))\,dx
+
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h(x-y)\,dx,\quad \text{since $h$ is even}\\
&\leq
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)} h(y-x-u(x))\,dx
+
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h(x-y)\,dx,\quad \text{since $h\geq 0$}\\
&=A_1+A_2.
\end{align*}
Let us estimate $A_i$:
\begin{align*}
A_1
&
=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h\(|y-x-u(x)|\,\dfrac{y-x-u(x)}{|y-x-u(x)|}\)\,dx\\
&=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|y-x-u(x)|^p\,h\(\dfrac{y-x-u(x)}{|y-x-u(x)|}\)\,dx\\
&\leq
\max_{x\in S^{n-1}}h(x)\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|y-x-u(x)|^p\,dx\\
&\leq
M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}2^{p-1}\(|y-x|^p+|u(x)|^p\)\,dx\\
&=
2^{p-1}\,M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|y-x|^p\,dx
+
2^{p-1}\,M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|u(x)|^p\,dx;
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
A_2
&=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}h\(|x-y|\,\dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|}\)\,dx
=
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|x-y|^p\,h\(\dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|}\)\,dx
\leq
M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|x-y|^p\,dx.
\end{align*}
We then obtain
\[
A\leq
2^{p-1}\,M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|u(x)|^p\,dx+\(2^{p-1}+1\)M\,\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|x-y|^p\,dx,
\]
with $M=\max_{x\in S^{n-1}} h(x)$.
We have
\begin{align*}
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|x-y|^p\,dx
&=
\dfrac{1}{|B_r(0)|}\int_{|x-y-r\omega|\leq r}|x-y|^p\,dx\\
&=
\dfrac{1}{|B_r(0)|}\int_{|z|\leq 1}|r(z+\omega)|^p\,r^n\,dz\qquad \text{with $rz=x-y-r\omega$}\\
&=
r^p\,\fint_{B_1(0)}|z+\omega|^p\,dz\leq 2^p\,r^p.
\end{align*}
Let us now fix a ball $B_R(x_0)$, and
suppose $y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)$ with $0<\beta<1$, $R>0$. Then
$B_r(y+r\,\omega) \subset B_R(x_0)$ for $r\leq \dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R$ and so
\[
\fint_{B_r(y+r\,\omega)}|u(x)|^p\,dx
\leq
\dfrac{1}{|B_r(0)|}\,\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx.
\]
Combining these estimates with the lower bound \eqref{eq:lower bound of A} and the upper bound for $A$
we obtain
\[
\dfrac{m}{4}\,|u(y)|^p\,\delta\leq \dfrac{M_1}{r^n}\,\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx+M_2\,r^p,\qquad \text{for $0<\delta<\bar \delta$}
\]
with $\bar \delta$ structural constant independent of $y$ and with $r=\delta\,|u(y)|$, for $y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)$ and $r\leq (1-\beta)R/2$; $M_1=2^{p-1}M/\omega_n$, $M_2=2^p(2^{p-1}+1)M$.
Therefore, if $y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)$, $0<r\leq (1-\beta)R/2$, and $\delta=\dfrac{r}{|u(y)|}<\bar \delta$, then we obtain the bound
\[
|u(y)|^{p-1}
\leq
\dfrac{C_1}{r^{n+1}}\,\int_{B_{R}(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx+C_2\,r^{p-1}:=H(r),
\]
with $C_i$ constants depending only on $p, n$, and $M/m$; $C_1=\dfrac{2^{p+1}}{\omega_n}(M/m)$, $C_2=2^{p+2}(2^{p-1}+1)(M/m)$.
On the other hand, if $y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)$, $0<r\leq (1-\beta)R/2$, and $\delta=\dfrac{r}{|u(y)|}\geq \bar \delta$, then
\[
|u(y)|\leq \dfrac{r}{\bar \delta}\leq \dfrac{1-\beta}{2\,\bar \delta}R.
\]
So for any $y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)$ and any $0<r\leq (1-\beta)R/2$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
|u(y)|
\leq
\max \left\{H(r)^{1/(p-1)}, \dfrac{r}{\bar \delta} \right\}.
\end{align*}
Since the constant $C_2$ in the definition of $H(r)$ can be enlarged with the last estimate remaining to hold, we can take $C_2$ so that $C_2\geq 1/\bar \delta^{p-1}$ and in this way $H(r)^{1/(p-1)}\geq \dfrac{r}{\bar \delta}$, and so $\max \left\{H(r)^{1/(p-1)}, \dfrac{r}{\bar \delta} \right\}=H(r)^{1/(p-1)}$.
Therefore we obtain the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main estimate in r to iterate}
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|
\leq
\min_{0<r\leq (1-\beta)R/2} H(r)^{1/(p-1)}.
\end{equation}
Set
\[
\Delta=\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx,
\]
so $H(r)= C_1\,\Delta\,r^{-(n+1)}+C_2\,r^{p-1} $. The minimum of $H$ over $(0,\infty)$ is attained at
\[
r_0=\(\dfrac{(n+1)\,C_1\,\Delta}{(p-1)\,C_2}\)^{1/(n+p)},
\]
$H$ is decreasing in $(0,r_0)$ and increasing in $(r_0,\infty)$, and
\[
\min_{[0,\infty)}H(r)=H(r_0)=
\(\(\dfrac{n+1}{p-1}\)^{-(n+1)/(n+p)}+
\(\dfrac{n+1}{p-1}\)^{(p-1)/(n+p)}\)\,\(C_1\,\Delta\)^{(p-1)/(n+p)}\,C_2^{(n+1)/(n+p)}.
\]
If $r_0<(1-\beta)R/2$, then $\min_{0<r<(1-\beta)R/2} H(r)=H(r_0)$.
On the other hand, if $r_0>(1-\beta)R/2$, that is,
$\Delta\geq \(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{n+p} \dfrac{(p-1)\,C_2}{(n+1)\,C_1} :=\Delta_0$, then we have
\begin{align*}
\min_{0<r<(1-\beta)R/2} H(r)&=H\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)
=
C_1\,\Delta\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{-(n+1)}+
C_2\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{p-1}\\
&=
C_1\,\Delta\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{-(n+1)}+
C_2\,\Delta\,\dfrac{1}{\Delta}\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{p-1}\\
&\leq
C_1\,\Delta\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{-(n+1)}
+
\dfrac{n+1}{p-1}\,C_1\,\Delta\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{-(n+1)}\\
&=
C_1\,\dfrac{p+n}{p-1}\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)^{-(n+1)}\Delta:=K_2\,R^{-(n+1)}\,\Delta.
\end{align*}
We then obtain the following estimate valid for all $0<\beta<1$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main L infty estimate general cost}
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|^{p-1}
\leq
\begin{cases}
K_1\,\Delta^{(p-1)/(n+p)} & \text{if $\Delta\leq \Delta_0$}\\
K_2\,R^{-(n+1)}\,\Delta & \text{if $\Delta\geq \Delta_0$,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with $K_1= \(\(\dfrac{n+1}{p-1}\)^{-(n+1)/(n+p)}+
\(\dfrac{n+1}{p-1}\)^{(p-1)/(n+p)}\)\,C_1^{(p-1)/(n+p)}\,C_2^{(n+1)/(n+p)}$,
$K_2=C_1\,\dfrac{p+n}{p-1}\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{-(n+1)}$, and
$\Delta= \int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx$.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\rm
Suppose $x_0\in \R^n$, $\displaystyle \lim_{R\to 0^+}\dfrac{1}{R^p}\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx=0$ and $x_0$ is a Lebesgue point of $|u(x)|^p$.
Then \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} implies that $u(x)$ is Lipschitz at $x_0$.
In fact, first notice that since $x_0$ is a Lebesgue point, the condition on the limit implies $u(x_0)=0$.
Now, pick for example $\beta=1/2$. Then there exists $R_0>0$ such that
\[
\dfrac{1}{R^p}\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|^p\,dx
\leq \(\dfrac{1}{4}\)^{n+p}\dfrac{(p-1)\,C_2}{(n+1)\,C_1\,\omega_n},
\quad \text{for $0<R<R_0$}
\]
and so
$\sup_{B_{R/2}(x_0)}|u(x)|\leq C_0\,R$ from \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball}
for $0<R<R_0$, with $C_0$ a positive constant depending only on $n,p$ and $h$.
If $y\in B_{R_0/2}(x_0)$ and $R=2\,|y-x_0|$, then $|u(y)|\leq \sup_{B_{|y-x_0|}(x_0)}|u(x)|\leq 2\,C_0\,|y-x_0|$. In particular, this implies $|Ty-Tx_0|\leq C\,|y-x_0|$ for $y\in B_{R_0/2}(x_0)$.
\end{remark}
\section{Estimates for the displacement interpolating map}\label{sec:Estimates for the displacement interpolating map}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In order to prove the desired estimates we first give a condition equivalent to \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h} resembling the classical notion of monotone map.
In fact, from \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h} we can write
\begin{align*}
0&\leq h(y-Tx)-h(y-Ty)-\(h(x-Tx)-h(x-Ty)\)\notag\\
&=\int_0^1 \langle Dh(y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)), Ty-Tx\rangle ds -\int_0^1 \langle Dh(x-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)), Ty-Tx\rangle ds\notag\\
&=\int_0^1 \langle Dh(y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx))-Dh((x-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)), Ty-Tx\rangle ds\notag\\
&=- \int_0^1\int_0^1\langle D^2h(x-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)) (y-x), (Ty-Tx)\rangle dt\, ds\notag\\
&=- \int_0^1\int_0^1\langle D^2h(y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)) (x-y), (Ty-Tx)\rangle dt\, ds\notag\\
&= \langle A(x,y) (x-y), Tx-Ty\rangle.
\end{align*}
Therefore \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A}
\langle A(x,y) (x-y), Tx-Ty\rangle\geq 0
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definition of A(x,y)}
A(x,y)=\int_0^1\int_0^1 D^2h(y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y))dt\, ds.
\end{equation}
Let us analyze the matrix $A(x,y)$. $A(x,y)$ is clearly symmetric, and satisfies $A(x,y)=A(y,x)$ by changing variables in the integral.
If $h$ is homogenous of degree $p$ with $p\geq 2$, then $D^2h(z)$ is homogeneous of degree $p-2$, i.e., $D^2h(\mu\,z)=\mu^{p-2}D^2h(z)$ for all $\mu>0$.
In addition, if $h$ {\it is strictly convex}, then $D^2h(x)$ is positive definite for each $x\in S^{n-1}$, i.e, there is a constant $\lambda>0$ such that
\[
\left\langle D^2h(x)\,\xi,\xi \right\rangle\geq \lambda\,|\xi|^2
\]
for all $x\in S^{n-1}$ and all $\xi\in \R^n$. Since $h$ is $C^2$, then there is also
a positive constant $\Lambda$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:strict ellipticity of D2h}
\lambda \,|\xi|^2
\leq
\left\langle D^2h(x)\xi,\xi\right\rangle
\leq
\Lambda \,|\xi|^2,\qquad \forall x\in S^{n-1},\xi\in \R^n.
\end{equation}
We then have
\[
A(x,y)=
\int_0^1 \int_0^1|y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)|^{p-2}D^2h\left(\frac{y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)}{ |y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)|}\right)dt \, ds
\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ellipticity of A}
\lambda \,\Phi(x,y)\,|\xi|^2
\leq
\left\langle A(x,y)\,\xi,\xi\right\rangle\leq \Lambda \, \Phi(x,y)\,|\xi|^2\quad \forall \xi \in \R^n,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi}
\Phi(x,y)=\int_0^1\int_0^1|y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)|^{p-2}dt \, ds.
\end{equation}
We also have that $\Phi(x,y)=0$ if and only if $y-Ty+s(Ty-Tx)+t (x-y)=0$ for all $s,t\in [0,1]$. That is, $\Phi(x,y)=0$ if and only if $y-Ty=0$, $Ty-Tx=0$ and $x-y=0$.
Therefore $\Phi(x,y)>0$ if and only if $Ty\neq y$ or $Ty\neq Tx$ or $x\neq y$.
\begin{remark}\rm\label{rmk:for pneq 2 C_4 does not hold}
If $c(x,y)=|x-y|^p$, then $\nabla_{xy}c(x,y)=-p\,|x-y|^{p-2}\(Id+(p-2)\,\(\dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|}\otimes \dfrac{x-y}{|x-y|}\)\)$ and from the Sherman-Morrison formula
it follows that $\det \nabla_{xy}c(x,y)=(p-1)\(-p\,|x-y|^{p-2}\)^n$. So condition \cite[($C_4$)]{2020-otto-prodhomme-ried-general-costs} does not hold for $p\neq 2$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\rm
To illustrate the notion of $h$-monotonicity, suppose $T$ satisfies \eqref{eq:A} and is $C^1$. Then writing $y=x+\delta\,\omega$ with $|\omega|=1$ yields
\[
A(x,x+\delta\,\omega)=
\iint_{[0,1]^2} D^2h\(x+\delta\,\omega-T(x+\delta\,\omega)+s(T(x+\delta\,\omega)-Tx)+t (-\delta\,\omega)\)dt\, ds
\to D^2h\(x-Tx\)
\]
as $\delta\to 0$ and
\[
\left\langle A(x,x+\delta\,\omega) (-\delta\,\omega), Tx-T(x+\delta\,\omega)\right\rangle\geq 0.
\]
Dividing the last expression by $\delta^2$ and letting $\delta\to 0$ we obtain
\[
\left\langle D^2h\(x-Tx\) \omega, \dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x}(x)\omega\right\rangle\geq 0,
\]
where $\dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x}$ is the Jacobian matrix of $T$ evaluated at $x$.
Since $h$ is $C^2$, the matrix $D^2h$ is symmetric and we get
\[
\left\langle \omega, D^2h\(x-Tx\)\,\dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x}(x)\omega\right\rangle\geq 0
\]
for each unit vector $\omega$.
Therefore, if $T$ is $h$-monotone and $C^1$, the matrix $D^2h\(x-Tx\)\,\dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x}(x)$ is positive semidefinite for each $x$;
notice that $\dfrac{\partial T}{\partial x}(x)$ is not necessarily symmetric.
In particular, when $n=1$, $T$ is $h$-monotone if and only if $T$ is non decreasing.
\end{remark}
\subsection{$L^\infty$-estimates of the interpolating map}\label{sec:L-infty-estimates of the interpolating map}
Let $T$ be a $h$-monotone map, i.e., satisfies \eqref{eq:map T is c-monotone h}, and consider the interpolating map defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definition of interpolanting map}
T_tx=t\,Tx+(1-t)\,x,\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
Suppose the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:main Linfty estimate} hold and assume in addition that $h$ is strictly convex.
If the integral $\mathcal E=\int_{B_1(0)}|Tx-x|^p\,dx$ is sufficiently small, then given $0<\beta<1$ there exists $0<\beta <\bar \beta<1$ depending only on $\beta$ and the ellipticity constants $\lambda,\Lambda$ in \eqref{eq:strict ellipticity of D2h} such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball}
T_t^{-1}\(B_\beta (0)\)\subset B_{\bar \beta}(0)\quad \text{for all $0\leq t\leq 1$},
\end{equation}
that is, $\bigcup_{0\leq t\leq 1}T_t^{-1}\(B_\beta (0)\)\subset B_{\bar \beta}(0)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The inclusion is obvious if $t=0$.
Let $x\in T_t^{-1}\(B_\beta (0)\)$. If $|x|\leq \beta$, then we are done.
Let $\beta<\beta_0<1$, consider the ball $B_{\beta_0}(0)$, and suppose that $|x|>\beta_0$.
From \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} applied in $B_1(0)$, we will show that is not possible if $\mathcal E$ is sufficiently small, i.e., smaller than $\dfrac{\lambda}{2\,\Lambda}(\beta_0-\beta)$.
We have $y=T_tx\in B_\beta (0)$, and $B_r(y)\subset B_{\beta_0}(0)$ with $r=\beta_0-\beta$.
Let $[y,x]$ be the straight segment between $y$ and $x$, and
let $z\in \partial B_r(y)\cap [y,x]$.
So $|z-y|=r$, and $|z|<\beta_0$.
Applying \eqref{eq:A} at $x,z$ yields
\begin{align*}
0&\leq
\left\langle A(x,z) (Tz-Tx), z-x\right\rangle=
\left\langle A(x,z) (Tz-z), z-x\right\rangle
+
\left\langle A(x,z) \(z-Tx\), z-x\right\rangle
\\
&=
\left\langle A(x,z) (Tz-z), z-x\right\rangle
+
\left\langle A(x,z) \(\dfrac1t\,(z-y)+\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,(z-x)\), z-x\right\rangle
\quad \text{since $Tx=\dfrac1t\,y+\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,x$}\\
&=
\left\langle A(x,z) (Tz-z), z-x\right\rangle
+
\dfrac1t\,\left\langle A(x,z) \(z-y\),z-x\right\rangle
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,\left\langle A(x,z) \(z-x\), z-x\right\rangle
\\
&=
\Delta.
\end{align*}
Since $x\neq z$, it follows from \eqref{eq:Phi} that $\Phi(x,z)> 0$.
Also notice that $\left\langle A (z-x), z-y\right\rangle$ is bounded above by a negative quantity, where we have set $A=A(x,z)$.
In fact, since $z$ is on the segment $[y,x]$, the vectors $z-x$ and $z-y$ have opposite directions. That is, there is $\mu<0$ such that $z-y=\mu\,(z-x)$ and so
$|z-y|=-\mu\,|z-x|$. Then
\begin{align*}
&\left\langle A (z-x), z-y\right\rangle
=
\mu\,\left\langle A (z-x), z-x\right\rangle\\
&\leq
\lambda\,\mu\,\Phi(x,z)\,|z-x|^2
=
\lambda\,\Phi(x,z)\,\mu\,|z-x|\,|z-x|,\quad \text{from \eqref{eq:ellipticity of A}}\\
&=
-\lambda\,\Phi(x,z)\,|z-y|\,|z-x|
=
-\lambda\,\Phi(x,z)\,r\,|z-x|.
\end{align*}
If $0< t\leq 1$, then
$1-\dfrac1t\leq 0$ and and once again from \eqref{eq:ellipticity of A}\begin{align*}
0
&\leq
\Delta
\leq
\Lambda \,\Phi(x,z)\,|Tz-z|\,|z-x|
-\dfrac1t\,\lambda\,\Phi(x,z)\,r\,|z-x|
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,
\lambda\,\Phi(x,z)\,|z-x|^2.
\end{align*}
Dividing this inequality by $\Lambda\,\Phi(x,z)$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
0
&\leq
\Delta
\leq
|Tz-z|\,|z-x|
-\dfrac1t\,\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,r\,|z-x|
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,
\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,|z-x|^2\\
&=
|z-x|\,\(|Tz-z|
-\dfrac1t\,\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,r
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,
\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,|z-x|\)
\\
&\leq
|z-x|\,\(\epsilon
-\dfrac1t\,\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,r
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,
\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,|z-x|\)\qquad \text{if $|Tz-z|\leq \epsilon$ from \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} for $\mathcal E$ small}\\
&\leq
|z-x|\,\(
-\dfrac1t\,\dfrac{\lambda}{2\,\Lambda}\,r
+
\(1-\dfrac1t\)\,
\dfrac{\lambda}{\Lambda}\,|z-x|\)\qquad \text{if $\epsilon\leq \dfrac{\lambda}{2\Lambda}r\(\leq \dfrac{\lambda}{t\,2\,\Lambda}r\)$}\\
&\leq
|z-x|\,\(
-\dfrac1t\,\dfrac{\lambda}{2\,\Lambda}\,r\)\qquad \text{since $1-\dfrac1t\leq 0$.}
\end{align*}
Hence $|z-x|=0$, and therefore $z=x$ obtaining $|x|< \beta_0$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We now use this to obtain an estimate for $T^{-1}x-x$, when $T$ is the optimal map for the cost $c(x,y)=h(x-y)$. We have from the theory of optimal transport that
$
T^{-1}(Tx)=x$ for a.e. $x\in \R^n$.
Then given $0<\beta<1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sup_{y\in B_\beta(0)}|T^{-1}y-y|&=\sup_{T^{-1}(B_\beta(0))}|x-Tx|\\
&\leq
\sup_{B_{\bar \beta}(0))}|x-Tx|\quad \text{from \eqref{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball} with $t=1$}\\
&\leq
C\,\(\int_{B_1(0)}|Tx-x|^p\,dx\)^{1/(n+p)}\quad \text{from \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball}}
\end{align*}
for $\mathcal E$ sufficiently small and with $C$ a constant depending only on $ p,n$ and the structural constants of $h$.
\subsection{$L^\infty$-estimates of densities}\label{sec:L-infty-estimates of densities}
We recall that the function $F(A)=\log\(\det A\)$ is concave over the set of matrices $A$ that are positive definite, i.e., $$F\((1-t)\,A+t\,B\)\geq (1-t)\,F(A)+t\,F(B),\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.$$
Exponentiating this yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:concavity of determinant}
\det\((1-t)\,A+t\,B\)\geq \(\det A\)^{1-t}\(\det B\)^t,\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.
\end{equation}
Let $T$ be a measure preserving map $(\rho_0,\rho_1)$, and let $T_t=t\,T+(1-t)\,Id$ be the interpolating map. Assuming the Jacobian matrix $\nabla T$ is positive definite\footnote{A proof of this may be given along the lines of \cite[Section 5.2, Theorem 5.2.1]{2002-agueh-phdthesis} and \cite[Remark 2.9]{Gutierrez:2007fk}, see also \cite[Theorem 7.28, pp. 272-273]{santambrogio-book} when the differentiability of $c,c^*$ at zero is not assumed. Notice also that if $h$ is homogenous of degree $p$, then $h^*$ is homogenous of degree $q$ with $1/p+1/q=1$.}, we get from \eqref{eq:concavity of determinant} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lower bound of det nabla T_t}
\det \(\nabla T_t\)(x)\geq \(\det \nabla T(x)\)^t.
\end{equation}
Let $\rho_t$ be the measure defined by
$
\rho_t=\(T_t\)_\# \rho_0,
$
that is, $\rho_t(E)=\int_{\(T_t\)^{-1}(E)} \rho_0(x)\,dx$. Assuming invertibility of the matrices involved, changing variables yields
\[
\int_{\(T_t\)^{-1}(E)} \rho_0(x)\,dx
=
\int_E \rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\,\dfrac{1}{\det \(\(\nabla T_t\)\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\)}\,dz.
\]
That is, the measure $\rho_t$ has density
\begin{align}\label{eq:formula for rho(x,t)}
\rho(t,z)&=\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\,\dfrac{1}{\det \(\(\nabla T_t\)\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\)}\\
&\leq
\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\,\dfrac{1}{\(\det \(\(\nabla T\)\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)\)\)^t}\notag
\end{align}
from \eqref{eq:lower bound of det nabla T_t}.
On the other hand, since $T$ is measure preserving
\[
\rho_0(x)=\det \(\nabla T(x)\)\,\rho_1(Tx)
\]
which combined with the previous inequality yields
\begin{align*}
\rho(t,z)
&\leq
\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\) \,\(\dfrac{\rho_1\(T\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)}{\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)}\)^t\\
&=
\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)^{1-t}\,\rho_1\(T\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)^t.
\end{align*}
From \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball}, $T(B_{r_1}(0))\subset B_{r_2}(0)$ for $0<r_1<r_2<1$, when $\mathcal E=\int_{B_1(0)}|Tx-x|^p\,dx$ is sufficiently small.
And, from \eqref{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball}, $T_t^{-1}\(B_\beta(0)\)\subset B_{\bar \beta}(0)$ for some $0<\beta<\bar \beta<1$ uniform for $0\leq t\leq 1$.
Hence $T\(T_t\)^{-1}\(B_\beta(0)\)\subset B_{\beta''}(0)$ for some $0<\beta<\bar \beta<\beta''<1$.
Therefore, assuming that $\rho_0(0)=\rho_1(0)=1$ and $\rho_0,\rho_1$ are H\"older continuous of order $\alpha$, we obtain
\[
\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)=1+\rho_0\(\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)-1\leq 1+[\rho_0]_{\alpha,1}
\]
and
\[
\rho_1\(T\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)=1+\rho_1\(T\(T_t\)^{-1}z\)-1\leq 1+[\rho_1]_{\alpha,1}
\]
for all $z\in B_\beta(0)$.
Consequently
\[
\sup_{z\in B_\beta(0)}\rho(t,z)
\leq
\(1+[\rho_0]_{\alpha,1}\)^{1-t}
\,
\(1+[\rho_1]_{\alpha,1}
\)^t;
\]
where $[\rho_i]_{\alpha,1}=\sup_{x,y\in B_1(0),x\neq y}\dfrac{|\rho_i(x)-\rho_i(y)|}{|x-y|^\alpha}$.
\subsection{Connection with fluids}\label{sec:fluids}
The connection between the Monge problem and fluid flows was discovered in
\cite{2000-benamouandbrenierformula} for quadratic costs. It can be seen that it holds also for general cost functions $h(x-y)$ as above.
Suppose $\rho_i$, $i=1,2$ are given, $v:\R^n\times [0,1]\to \R^n$ is a smooth field, and let $\rho(x,t)$ be a smooth solution of the continuity equation
\[
\partial_t\rho+\text{div}_x \(\rho\,v\)=0 \quad \text{for $(x,t)\in \R^n\times [0,1]$ with $\rho(x,i)=\rho_i(x), i=0,1 $.}
\]
Let $T$ be the optimal map of the Monge problem with cost $h$.
Given the interpolating map $T_tx=t\,Tx+(1-t)\,x$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, consider the field
\[
v(x,t)=\(T-Id\)\(T_t^{-1}x\),
\]
and let $\rho(x,t)$ be solution to the continuity equation above with this $v$.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optimal j}
j(x,t)=\rho(x,t)\,\(T-Id\)\(T_t^{-1}x\).
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{align*}
\int_0^1\int_{B_\beta}\dfrac{1}{\rho(x,t)^{p-1}}|j(x,t)|^p\,dxdt
&=
\int_0^1\int_{B_\beta}\left|\(T-Id\)\(T_t^{-1}x\)\right|^p\,\rho(x,t)\,dxdt\\
&=
\int_0^1\int_{T_t^{-1}(B_\beta)}\left|Tz-z\right|^p\,\rho(T_tz,t)\,|\det \nabla T_tz|\,dzdt\\
&=
\int_0^1\int_{T_t^{-1}(B_\beta)}\left|Tz-z\right|^p\,\rho_0(z)\,dzdt\quad \text{from \eqref{eq:formula for rho(x,t)}}\\
&\leq
\int_0^1\int_{B_{\beta'}}\left|Tz-z\right|^p\,\rho_0(z)\,dzdt\quad \text{from \eqref{eq:inclusion T_t^-1 ball contained into a ball} for $\beta<\beta'<1$}
\end{align*}
assuming $\mathcal E=\int_{B_1(0)}|Tx-x|^p\,dx$ is sufficiently small.
Here we have assumed that $\rho_0(1)=1$ and $\rho_0\approx 1$ in $B_1$.
On the other hand, if $\beta''<\beta$ it follows from \eqref{eq:main L infinity estimate in a general ball} that
\[
\sup_{|x|\leq \beta''}|T_tx|\leq \beta''+\sup_{|x|\leq \beta''}|Tx-x|
\leq
\beta''+\mathcal E^{\text{power}>0}<\beta,
\]
for $\mathcal E$ sufficiently small and therefore
\[
\int_0^1\int_{B_{\beta''}}\left|Tz-z\right|^p\,\rho_0(z)\,dzdt
\leq
\int_0^1\int_{B_\beta}\dfrac{1}{\rho(x,t)^{p-1}}|j(x,t)|^p\,dxdt
\leq
\int_0^1\int_{B_{\beta'}}\left|Tz-z\right|^p\,\rho_0(z)\,dzdt,
\]
for $j$ in \eqref{eq:optimal j}.
\section{Differentiability of Monotone maps}\label{sec:diff monotone maps}
When $T$ is monotone in the standard sense, the idea used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main Linfty estimate} can be implemented in a simpler way to obtain the following estimates for $T$ minus a general affine function.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:estimates of T with A}
Let $A\in \R^{n\times n}$, $b\in \R^n$, $T$ a monotone operator, $0<\beta<1$, and $u(x)=Tx-Ax-b$.
Then there are positive constants $C_1,C_2$ depending only on the dimension $n$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] for $A\neq 0$ we have
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0)}|u(y)|
\leq
C_1\,\(\|A\|\,R\)^{n/(n+1)}\, \(\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\)^{1/{(n+1)}}
\]
if
\[
\dfrac{1}{R}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\leq
C_2 \,\|A\|\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+1};
\]
and
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|\leq
C_1\,\(\(\dfrac{2}{1-\beta}\)^n\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx
+(1-\beta)\,R\,\|A\|\)
\]
if
\[
\dfrac{1}{R}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\geq
C_2 \,\|A\|\,\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+1}.
\]
\item[(b)]
if $A=0$, then
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|\leq
C_1\,\(\dfrac{2}{1-\beta}\)^n\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By monotonicity of $T$,
\begin{equation}\label{monotony}(u(x)-u(y))\cdot(x-y)\ge -\langle A(x-y),x-y\rangle,\quad \text{for a.e. $x, y$,}
\end{equation}
which implies
\[
f(x):=u(y)\cdot (x-y)\leq u(x)\cdot (x-y)+\langle A(x-y),x-y\rangle.
\]
Let $r>0$ and $z_r\in \R^n$ both to be determined, and consider the ball $B_r(z_r)$.
The function $f$ is harmonic in all space so integrating the last inequality for $x$ over $B_r(z_r)$ and applying the mean value theorem yields
\begin{align*}
u(y)\cdot (z_r-y)
&\leq
\fint_{B_r(z_r)}u(x)\cdot (x-y)\,dx+ \fint_{B_r(z_r)} \langle A(x-y),x-y\rangle\,dx\\
&\leq
\fint_{B_r(z_r)}|u(x)|\,|x-y|\,dx+\|A\|\, \fint_{B_r(z_r)} |x-y|^2\,dx\\
&=B+C.
\end{align*}
Fix $x_0$, $R>0$, and pick $r>0$, $z_r=y+r\,\dfrac{u(y)}{|u(y)|}$ such that $B_r(z_r)\subset B_R(x_0)$; $u(y)\neq 0$. If $y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0)$, then the inclusion holds if $r< (1-\beta)\,R/2$.
Also, if $x\in B_r(z_r)$, then $|x-y|\leq 2r$.
Hence
\[
B
\leq \dfrac{2\,r}{\omega_n\,r^n}\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx,\qquad
C\leq 4\,\|A\|\,r^2,
\]
and consequently
\[
|u(y)|\leq \dfrac{2}{\omega_n\,r^n}\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx
+4\,\|A\|\,r:=F(r)\qquad \forall y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0);\quad r\leq (1-\beta)\,R/2.
\]
We then obtain
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0)}|u(y)|
\leq
\min \left\{F(r):0<r\leq (1-\beta)\,R/2\right\}:=m.
\]
Suppose $A\neq 0$. Set $\Delta=\dfrac{2}{\omega_n} \int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx$,
so $F(r)=\dfrac{1}{r^n}\,\Delta +4\,\|A\|\,r$.
We have $F'(r)=-n\,r^{-(n+1)}\Delta + 4\,\|A\|=0$ for $r=r_0:=\(\dfrac{n\,\Delta}{4\,\|A\|}\)^{1/(n+1)}$.
So
\begin{align*}
&\min \{F(r):0<r<+\infty\}=F(r_0)\\
&=
\(\dfrac{4\|A\|}{n\,\Delta}\)^{n/(n+1)}\,\Delta +
4\,\|A\|\,\(\dfrac{n\,\Delta}{4\|A\|}\)^{1/(n+1)}\\
&=
C_n
\,\|A\|^{n/(n+1)}
\,\(\int_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\)^{1/{(n+1)}}.
\end{align*}
If $r_0<\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\,R$, then $m\leq F(r_0)$ and we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:main estimate of u}
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0)}|u(y)|
\leq
C_n\,\(\|A\|\,R\)^{n/(n+1)}\, \(\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\)^{1/{(n+1)}}
\end{equation}
when $C_n\,\dfrac{1}{\|A\|\,R}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\leq
\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+1}$;
in such a case we get
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta R}(x_0)}|u(y)|\leq
C_n\,(1-\beta)\,\|A\|\,R.
\]
On the other hand, if $\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\leq r_0$, then $m=F\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}R\)$
and we get
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|\leq
C_n\,\(\dfrac{2}{1-\beta}\)^n\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx
+C_n\,\,(1-\beta)\,R\,\|A\|
\]
when
$C_n\,\dfrac{1}{\|A\|\,R}\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx\geq
\(\dfrac{1-\beta}{2}\)^{n+1}$.
If $A=0$, then $F(r)=\dfrac{1}{r^n}\,\Delta$ is decreasing
and so
\[
\sup_{y\in B_{\beta\,R}(x_0)}|u(y)|\leq
m
=
C_n\,\(\dfrac{2}{1-\beta}\)^n\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|u(x)|\,dx.
\]
\end{proof}
Using part (b) of this lemma we will show strong differentiability of monotone maps.
Following Calder\'on and Zygmund \cite{Cal-Z}, see also \cite[Sect. 3.5]{Zim}, we recall the notion of differentiability in $L^p$-sense.
\begin{definition}
Let $1\leq p\leq \infty$, $k$ is a positive integer and $f\in L^p(\Omega)$, with $\Omega\subset \R^n$ open, and let $x_0\in \Omega$.
We say that $f\in T^{k,p}(x_0) \(f\in t^{k,p}(x_0)\)$ if there exists a polynomial $P_{x_0}$ of degree $\leq k-1 \(\text{$P_{x_0}$ of degree }\leq k\)$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\(\fint_{B_r(x_0)} |f(x)-P_{x_0}(x)|^p\,dx\)^{1/p}=O(r^k)\quad \text{as $r\to 0$}\\
&\(\(\fint_{B_r(x_0)} |f(x)-P_{x_0}(x)|^p\,dx\)^{1/p}=o(r^k)\quad \text{as $r\to 0$}\);
\end{align*}
when $p=\infty$ the averages are replaced by $\text{\rm ess sup}_{x\in B_r(x_0)}|f(x)-P_{x_0}(x)|=\|f-P_{x_0}\|_{L^\infty \(B_r(x_0)\)}$.
\end{definition}
We mention the following landmark result of Calder\'on and Zygmund \cite[Thm. 5]{Cal-Z}, see also \cite[Thm. 3.8.1]{Zim} or \cite[Chap. VIII, Sect. 6.1]{Stein}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:calderon-zygmund}
If $1<p\leq \infty$ and $f\in T^{k,p}(x_0)$ for all $x_0\in E$ with $E\subset \R^n$ measurable, then
$f\in t^{k,p}(x_0)$ for almost all $x_0\in E$; emphasizing that the orders of magnitude are not necessarily uniform in $x_0$\footnote{Whether this result holds when $p=1$ does not seem available in the literature.}.
\end{theorem}
The case when $p=\infty$ is a famous theorem of Stepanov which combined with Lemma \ref{lm:estimates of T with A}(b) yields immediately the following point-wise differentiability of monotone maps.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:differentiability of monotone maps}
Let $T$ be a monotone map that is locally in $L^1\(\R^n\)$
\footnote{In general, $T$ is a multivalued map. However, the monotonicity implies that $Tx$ is a singleton for a.e. $x\in \R^n$.
Denote $\text{dom }T=\{x\in \R^n: Tx\neq \emptyset \}$. From \cite[Corollary 12.38]{RW:variational analysis}, a maximal monotone mapping $T$ is locally bounded at $\bar x$ if and only if $\bar x$ is not a boundary point of $\overline{\text{dom }T}$. Also from \cite[Thm. 12.63]{RW:variational analysis}, if $T$ is maximal monotone, then $T$ is continuous at $\bar x$ if and only if $T$ is single valued at $\bar x$, in which case necessarily $\bar x\in \text{int }\(\text{dom }T\)$. For a clear and in depth presentation of the properties of monotone maps we recommend the comprehensive book \cite{RW:variational analysis}.}
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L2-integrability of T}
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-b|\,dx=O\(R\)\quad \text{as $R\to 0$}
\end{equation}
for some vector $b=b_{x_0}$, i.e, $Tx\in T^{1,1}(x_0)$ for all $x_0$ in a measurable set $E$.
Then
\[
\|Tx-A(x-x_0)-Tx_0\|_{L^\infty\(B_R(x_0)\)}=o\(R\)\quad \text{as $R\to 0$}
\]
for almost all $x_0\in E$, i.e., $Tx\in t^{1,\infty}(x_0)$ for a.e. $x_0\in E$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For each $x_0\in E$ there exist constants $M(x_0)\geq 0$, $R_0>0$ and $b\in \R^n$ such that
\[
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-b|\,dx\leq M(x_0)\,R
\]
for all $0<R<R_0$, i.e., $Tx\in T^{1,1}(x_0)$.
Since $T$ is monotone, from Lemma \ref{lm:estimates of T with A}(b)
\[
\sup_{B_{\beta R}(x_0)}|Tx-b|\leq
C(n,\beta)\,\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-b|\,dx
\leq
C(n,\beta)\,M(x_0)\,R
\]
for $0<R<R_0$. This means $\sup_{B_{R}(x_0)}|Tx-b|=O(R)$ as $R\to 0$ for all $x_0\in E$, i.e., $Tx\in T^{1,\infty}(x_0)$.
By Stepanov's theorem \cite[Chap. VIII, Thm. 3, p. 250]{Stein} this implies that
$Tx$ is differentiable for a.e. $x_0\in E$, i.e., $Tx\in t^{1,\infty}(x_0)$ for a.e. $x_0\in E$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:integral diff implies T11}\rm
Notice that $\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-Ax-b|\,dx=o\(R\)$ (or $Tx\in t^{1,1}(x_0)$) implies \eqref{eq:L2-integrability of T} because
if $x_0$ is a Lebesgue point, then $b=Tx_0-Ax_0$ and
\begin{align*}
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-c|\,dx
&=\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-Ax-b+Ax+b-c|\,dx\\
&\leq
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Tx-Ax-b|\,dx
+
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|Ax+b-c|\,dx\\
&=
o(R)
+
\fint_{B_R(x_0)}|A(x-x_0)|\,dx,\quad \text{if $c=Tx_0$}\\
&\leq
o(R)+\|A\|\,R=O(R).
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\rm\label{rmk:mignot ambrosio and krylov results}
When $T$ is a monotone map that is maximal, the differentiability of $T$ a.e. was proved by Mignot \cite[Thm. 3.1]{Mig} using Sard's Theorem; see also the more recent and perhaps simpler proof of Alberti and Ambrosio \cite[Thm. 3.2]{AA}.
When $T$ is monotone and bounded the differentiability is proved in \cite[Thm. 2.2]{K83}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\rm
If $\phi$ is a convex function in $\R^n$, then from \cite[Thm. 3, p. 240]{evans-gariepy} $\nabla \phi\in BV_{\text{loc}}(\R^n)$. Therefore, from \cite[Thm. 1, p. 228]{evans-gariepy} $\nabla \phi$ is $L^{n/(n-1)}$-differentiable a.e., that is $\nabla \phi\in t^{1,n/(n-1)}(x)$ a.e., and since $\nabla \phi$ is monotone, it follows from Remark \ref{rmk:integral diff implies T11}
and Theorem \ref{thm:differentiability of monotone maps} that $\nabla \phi\in t^{1,\infty}(x)$ a.e.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\rm\label{eq:ambrosio result bounded deformation}
Following \cite{ACDM}, a locally integrable mapping $u:\R^n\to \R^n$ is of bounded deformation ($u\in BD$) if the symmetrized gradient in the sense of distributions $\nabla u+(\nabla u)^t$ is a Radon measure.
If $T=(T_1,\cdots ,T_n)$ is a monotone map in $L^1_{\text{loc}}(\R^n)$, it then follows from the definitions of monotonicity and distributional derivative that $T\in BD$.
Because all distributional derivatives $\dfrac{\partial T_i}{\partial x_j}$ are non negative and therefore they are Radon measures.
From \cite[Theorem 7.4]{ACDM}, if $T\in BD$, then $T\in t^{1,1}(x_0)$ for a.e. $x_0\in \R^n$. Therefore from Remark \ref{rmk:integral diff implies T11}, condition \eqref{eq:L2-integrability of T} holds
for any locally integrable monotone map.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\rm
For completeness we also prove the following known fact: if $f\in L^p_{\text{loc}}(\R^n)$, with $p\geq 1$, then
\[
\lim_{r\to 0}\(\fint_{B_r(x_0)}|f(x)-f(x_0)|^p\,dx \)^{1/p}=0\quad \text{for a.e. $x_0$}.
\]
Define
\[
\Lambda f(x_0)=\limsup_{r\to 0}\(\fint_{B_r(x_0)}|f(x)-f(x_0)|^p\,dx \)^{1/p}.
\]
We have $0\leq
\Lambda f(x_0)\leq
\limsup_{r\to 0}\(\fint_{B_r(x_0)}|f(x)|^p\,dx \)^{1/p}+|f(x_0)|\leq
\(M(|f|^p)(x_0)\)^{1/p}+|f(x_0)|$ with $M$ the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. Since $f\in L^p_{\text{loc}}(\R^n)$, the right hand side of the last inequality is finite for a.e. $x_0$ and so $\Lambda f(x_0)$ is finite for a.e. $x_0$.
In addition, $\Lambda$ is sub-linear: $\Lambda (f+g)(x_0)\leq \Lambda f(x_0)+\Lambda g(x_0)$ and $\Lambda g(x_0)=0$ for each $g$ continuous at $x_0$. By localizing $f$ with a compact support function we may assume $f\in L^p(\R^n)$. Given $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $g\in C(\R^n)$ such that $\|f-g\|_p\leq \varepsilon$.
For each $\alpha>0$ we then have
\begin{align*}
\{x:\Lambda f(x)>\alpha\}
&\subset
\{x:\Lambda (f-g)(x)>\alpha/2\}\cup \{x:\Lambda g(x)>\alpha\}
=
\{x:\Lambda (f-g)(x)>\alpha/2\}\\
&\subset
\{x:\(M(|f-g|^p)(x)\)^{1/p}>\alpha/4\}\cup \{x:|f(x)-g(x)|>\alpha/4\}
\end{align*}
and so
\begin{align*}
|\{x:\Lambda f(x)>\alpha\}|
&\leq
|\{x:M(|f-g|^p)(x)>(\alpha/4)^p\}|
+
|\{x:|f(x)-g(x)|>\alpha/4\}|\\
&\leq
\dfrac{C_n}{\alpha^p}\|f-g\|_p^p+\dfrac{4^p}{\alpha^p}\|f-g\|_p^p\leq \dfrac{C}{\alpha^p}\,\varepsilon^p.
\end{align*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, we obtain $\Lambda f(x)= 0$ for a.e. $x$.
\end{remark}
\section{Appendix}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Recall that $\Gamma(x)=\dfrac{1}{n\omega_n (2-n)}|x|^{2-n}$, with $n>2$ where $\omega_n$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\R^n$, and
the Green's representation formula
\[
v(y)=\int_{\partial \Omega} \(v(x)\,\dfrac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial \nu}(x-y)-\Gamma(x-y)\,\dfrac{\partial v}{\partial \nu}(x)\)\,d\sigma(x)+\int_\Omega \Gamma(x-y)\,\Delta v(x)\,dx
\]
where $\nu$ is the outer unit normal and $y\in \Omega$.
If $\Omega=B_\rho(y)$, then
$\dfrac{\partial \Gamma}{\partial \nu}(x-y)=\dfrac{1}{n\,\omega_n}\,|x-y|^{1-n}$ and so the representation formula reads
\begin{align*}
v(y)
&=
\fint_{|x-y|=\rho}v(x)\,d\sigma(x)-\Gamma(\rho)\,\int_{|x-y|=\rho} \dfrac{\partial v}{\partial \nu}(x)\,d\sigma(x)
+\int_{|x-y|\leq \rho} \Gamma(x-y)\,\Delta v(x)\,dx\\
&=
\fint_{|x-y|=\rho}v(x)\,d\sigma(x)
+\int_{|x-y|\leq \rho} \(\Gamma(x-y)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,\Delta v(x)\,dx
\end{align*}
from the divergence theorem.
Multiplying the last identity by $\rho^{n-1}$ and integrating over $0\leq \rho\leq r$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:third Green identity}
v(y)=\fint_{|x-y|\leq r}v(x)\,dx+\dfrac{n}{r^n}\,\int_0^r \rho^{n-1}\int_{|x-y|\leq \rho}\(\Gamma(x-y)-\Gamma(\rho)\)\,\Delta v(x)\,dx\,d\rho.
\end{equation}
|
\subsection{Garbling scheme and properties}
\label{app:gcproperties}
As per Yao's garbling circuit paradigm~\cite{FOCS:Yao82b}, every wire in the circuit is assigned two $\kappa$-bit strings, called ``keys'', one each for bit value $0$ and $1$ on that wire. Let $(\key{\vl{x}}{0},\key{\vl{x}}{1})$ denote the zero-key and one-key, respectively, on wire $\vl{x}$ in the circuit.
For simplicity, the same notation is used for wire identity as well as the value on the wire. For instance, the key-pair for wire $\vl{x}$ is denoted as $(\key{\vl{x}}{0},\key{\vl{x}}{1})$, while the key corresponding to bit $\vl{x}$ on the wire is denoted as $\key{\vl{x}}{\vl{x}}$.
Then, each gate is constructed by encrypting the output-wire key with the appropriate input-wire keys. For example, for an AND gate with input wires $\vl{x}, \vl{y}$ and output wire $\vl{z}$, $\key{\vl{z}}{0}$ is double encrypted with keys $\key{\vl{x}}{0}, \key{\vl{y}}{0}$, with $\key{\vl{x}}{0}, \key{\vl{y}}{1}$, and with $\key{\vl{x}}{1}, \key{\vl{y}}{0}$, while $\key{\vl{z}}{1}$ is double encrypted with $\key{\vl{x}}{1}, \key{\vl{y}}{1}$. Given one key on each input wire, the output wire key can be obtained by decrypting the ciphertext which was encrypted using the corresponding input wire keys. These ciphertexts are provided in a permuted order so that the evaluating party does not learn which key, $\key{\vl{z}}{0}$ or $\key{\vl{z}}{1}$, it obtains after decryption.
Formally, a garbling scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$, consists of four algorithms $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}, \allowbreak \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{De}})$ defined as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa},\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}) \rightarrow (\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}},e,d)$: $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}$ takes as input the security parameter $\kappa$ and the circuit $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}$ to be garbled, and outputs a garbled circuit $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}$, encoding information $e$ and decoding information $d$.
%
\item $\ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}(x,e) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}$: $\ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}$ encodes input $x$ using $e$ to output encoded input $\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}$. $\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}$ is referred to as encoded input or encoded keys interchangeably.
%
\item $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbf{Y}}$: $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}$ evaluates the garbled circuit $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}$ on the encoded input $\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}$ and produces the encoded output $\ensuremath{\mathbf{Y}}$.
%
\item $\ensuremath{\mathsf{De}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{Y}},d) \rightarrow y$: The encoded output $\ensuremath{\mathbf{Y}}$ is decoded into the clear output $y$ by running the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{De}}$ algorithm on $\ensuremath{\mathbf{Y}}$ and $d$.
\end{enumerate}
We rely on the following properties of garbling scheme~\cite{CCS:BelHoaRog12} in our constructions.
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item A garbling scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}} = (\ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{De}})$ is {\em correct} if for all input lengths $n \leq \ensuremath{\mathsf{poly}}(\kappa)$, circuits $C: \{0,1\}^{n} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{m}$ and inputs $x \in \{0,1\}^{n}$, the following holds.
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathsf{Pr}}[\ensuremath{\mathsf{De}}(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}(x, e)), d) \neq C(x) : \\~~~(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, e, d) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, C)] < \ensuremath{\mathsf{negl}}(\kappa)
\end{align*}
\item A garbling scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ is said to be \textit{private} if for all $n \leq \ensuremath{\mathsf{poly}}(\kappa)$, circuit $C: \{0,1\}^{n} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{m}$, there exists a $\textsf{PPT}$ simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{\bf priv}}}$ such that for all $x \in \{0,1\}^{n}$, for all $\textsf{PPT}$ adversary $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ the following distributions are computationally indistinguishable.
\begin{myitemize}
\item[-] $\ensuremath{\textsc{real}}(C, x)$: run $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, e, d) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, C)$ and output $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}(x, e), d)$.
\item[-] $\ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}(C, C(x))$: run $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}^{\prime}, \textbf{X}, d^{\prime}) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{\bf priv}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, C, C(x))$ and output $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}^{\prime}, \textbf{X}, d^{\prime})$.
\end{myitemize}
\item A garbling scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}$ is \textit{authentic} if for all $n \leq \ensuremath{\mathsf{poly}}(\kappa)$, circuit $C: \{0,1\}^{n} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{m}$, input $x \in \{0,1\}^{n}$ and for all $\textsf{PPT}$ adversary $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$, the following probability is $\ensuremath{\mathsf{negl}}(\kappa)$.
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\mathsf{Pr}} \Bigg(
\begin{aligned}
&\hat{\textbf{Y}} \neq \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, \textbf{X}) \\
&\wedge \ensuremath{\mathsf{De}}(\hat{\textbf{Y}}, d) \neq \bot
\end{aligned}
:
\!
\begin{aligned}
\textbf{X} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{En}}(x, e), &(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, e, d) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}(\kappa, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}), \\
&\hat{\textbf{Y}} \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}, \textbf{X})
\end{aligned}
\Bigg)
\end{align*}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{2GC Variant}
\label{subsec:gcworld2}
We begin with the details of the evaluation and output phases.
\paragraph{Evaluation}
\label{subsec:gbeval}
Let $f(\vl{x})$ be the function to be evaluated. At this point, the function input is $\shrC{\cdot}$-shared. This renders $\shrG{\cdot}$-sharing for the input of the GC that corresponds to the function $f'\big({\mk{\vl{x}}}, {\av{\vl{x}}}, {\pad{\vl{x}}{3}} \big)$ which first combines the given boolean-shares to compute the actual input and then applies $f$ on it. Let $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_j$ denote the garbled circuit to be sent to $P_j \in \{P_1, P_2\}$ by garblers in $\PlSet{j}$. Sending of $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_j$ is overlapped with the key transfer (during generation of $\shrC{\vl{x}}$), to save rounds, where garblers in $\{P_0, P_3\}$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_j$ to $P_j$. On receiving the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}$, evaluators evaluate their respective GCs and obtain the key corresponding to the output, say $\vl{z}$. This generates $\shrG{\vl{z}}$.
\paragraph{Output phase}
\label{subsec:gbop}
The goal of output computation is to compute the output $\vl{z}$ from $\shrG{\vl{z}}$.
To reconstruct $\vl{z}$ towards $P_j \in \{P_1, P_2\}$, two garblers in $\PlSet{j}$ send the least significant bit $\vl{p}^j$ of $\key{\vl{z}}{0, j}$, referred to as the decoding information, to $P_j$. If the received values are consistent, $P_j$ uses the received $\vl{p}^j$ to reconstruct $\vl{z}$ as $\vl{z} = \vl{p}^j \oplus \vl{q}^j$, where $\vl{q}^j$ denotes the least significant bit of $\key{\vl{z}}{\vl{z}, j}$; else $P_j$ aborts.
To reconstruct $\vl{z}$ towards the garblers $P_g \in \{P_0, P_3\}$, one evaluator, say $P_1$ sends the least significant bit, $\vl{q}^1$, of $\key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z}, 1}$ along with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z}, 1})$ to $P_g$, where $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}$ is a collision-resistant hash function. If a garbler received a consistent $(\vl{q}^1, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ pair from $P_1$ such that there exists a $K \in \{\key{{\vl{z}}}{{0, 1}}, \key{{\vl{z}}}{{1, 1}}\}$ whose least significant bit is $\vl{q}^1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(K) = \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then it uses $\vl{q}^1$ for reconstructing $\vl{z}$; else the garbler aborts the computation.
Note that a corrupt evaluator $P_1$ cannot create confusion among garblers in $\{P_0, P_3\}$ by sending the key that was not output by the GC owing to the authenticity of the garbling scheme. Reconstruction is lightweight and requires a single round for garblers while reconstruction towards evaluators can be overlapped with key transfer and does not incur extra rounds.
The protocol appears in \boxref{fig:pirec}.
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Rec}}^{\bf G}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}, \shrG{\vl{z}})$}{Output computation: reconstruction of $\vl{z}$}{fig:pirec}
\justify
\begin{enumerate}
\item For an output wire $\vl{z}$, let $\vl{p}^j$ denote the least significant bit of $\key{{\vl{z}}}{0,j}$ and $\vl{q}^j$ denote the least significant bit of $\key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z},j}$for $j \in \{1, 2\}$.
\item {\em Reconstruction towards $P_j \in \{P_1, P_2\}$}: Garblers $P_0, P_3$ in $\PlSet{j}$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\vl{p}^j$ to $P_j$. If $P_j$ received consistent values from $P_0, P_3$, it reconstructs $\vl{z}$ as $\vl{z} = \vl{p}^j \oplus \vl{q}^j$.
\item {\em Reconstruction towards $P_g \in \{P_0, P_3\}$}: $P_1$ sends $\vl{q}^1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z},1})$ to $P_g$, where $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}$ is a collision-resistant hash function.
$P_g$ uses the $\vl{q}^1$ received from $P_1$ for reconstructing $\vl{z}$ as $\vl{z} = \vl{p}^1 \oplus \vl{q}^1$ if there exists a $K \in \{\key{{\vl{z}}}{{0,1}}, \key{{\vl{z}}}{{1,1}}\}$ whose least significant bit is $\vl{q}^1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(K) = \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\paragraph{Optimizations when deployed in mixed framework}
\label{subsec:gbopt}
Working in the preprocessing model enables transfer of the (communication-intensive) GC and generating $\shrG{\cdot}$-shares of the input-independent shares of $\vl{x}$ (i.e. $ {\av{\vl{x}}}, {\pad{\vl{x}}{3}}$) in the preprocessing phase. Thus, the online phase is very light and only requires one round to generate $\shrG{\cdot}$-shares for the input-dependent data (i.e. ${\mk{\vl{x}}}$). Since evaluation is local, evaluators obtain $\shrG{\cdot}$-sharing of the GC output at the end of $1$ round.
\paragraph{Achieving fairness and robustness}
To ensure fairness, we require a fair reconstruction protocol which proceeds as follows. As described in \S\ref{sec:fair4pc}, parties first ensure that all parties are alive.
If so, they proceed similar to the protocol in \boxref{fig:pirec}, except with the following differences. For reconstruction towards evaluators, {\em all} three respective garblers send it the decoding information. The evaluator selects the value appearing in majority for reconstruction. For reconstruction towards garblers $P_0, P_3$, {\em both} the evaluators send the least significant bit of the output key together with its hash to the garbler. The presence of at least one honest evaluator guarantees that both garblers will be on the same page.
To achieve robustness, the main difference from its fair counterpart is use of a robust $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ primitive. This guarantees that in the event that a misbehaviour is detected, a $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$ is identified which can take the computation to completion and deliver the output to all.
\subsection{1 GC Variant}
\label{subsubsec:gcworld1}
The input $\vl{x} = \vl{x}_1 \oplus \vl{x}_2 \oplus \vl{x}_3$ for this variant consists of the shares, $\vl{x}_1 = \mk{\vl{x}} \oplus \pad{\vl{x}}{2}$ and $\vl{x}_2 = \pad{\vl{x}}{3}, \vl{x}_3 = \pad{\vl{x}}{1}$, where $\mk{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{1}, \pad{\vl{x}}{2}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}$ are as defined in $\shrB{\vl{x}}$. While keys for the GC are sampled by all three garblers $P_0, P_2, P_3$, it suffices for only $P_0, P_3$ to generate and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ the GC to evaluator $P_1$, and $P_2$ assists only in the key transfer. Elaborately, the common input $\vl{x}_3$ held by $P_0, P_3$ is hard-coded in the circuit before being garbled by them. This necessitates a key transfer only for inputs $\vl{x}_1$ and $\vl{x}_2$. Garblers $P_0, P_2, P_3$ generate keys for the inputs following a similar procedure as in the 2GC variant. Then, $P_2, P_3$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ the key for $\vl{x}_1$ to $P_1$ while garblers $P_0, P_2$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ the key for $\vl{x}_2$.
The evaluation and output phases are similar to the 2GC variant except that now there exists only a single garbling instance. Looking ahead, in the mixed protocol framework, the output has to be reconstructed towards $P_1, P_2$. Reconstruction towards $P_1$ does not incur additional rounds since sending of decoding information can be overlapped with key transfer. However, unlike in the 2GC variant where reconstruction towards $P_2$ can be done similar to reconstruction towards $P_1$, in the 1GC variant an additional round is required as $P_2$ is no longer an evaluator. This incurs one extra round as opposed to the 2GC variant.
\paragraph{Achieving fairness}
To ensure fair reconstruction~(\S\ref{sec:fair4pc}), parties first perform an aliveness check. Following this, they proceed towards fair reconstruction of $\vl{z}$ from $\shrG{\vl{z}}$ as follows. First, reconstruction of $\vl{z}$ is carried out towards the garblers $P_g \in \PlSet{1}$. For this, $P_1$ sends $\vl{q}$ (least significant bit of \key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z}}) and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}} = \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\key{{\vl{z}}}{\vl{z}})$ to $P_g$ as before. Now, if a garbler received a consistent $(\vl{q}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$ pair from $P_1$ such that there exists a $K \in \{\key{{\vl{z}}}{{0}}, \key{{\vl{z}}}{{1}}\}$ whose least significant bit is $\vl{q}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(K) = \ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, then it uses $\vl{q}$ for reconstructing $\vl{z}$, and sends $\vl{z}$ to its co-garblers. Else, a garbler accepts a $\vl{z}$ received from a co-garbler as the output. Thus, further dissemination of the output by garblers ensures that all parties are on the same page.
If garblers receive the output, reconstruction of $\vl{z}$ is carried out towards $P_1$. For this, all garblers (who received the output) send the decoding information to $P_1$ who selects the majority value to reconstruct $\vl{z}$.
\paragraph{Achieving robustness}
To attain robustness, we list below the differences from the fair protocol that have to be carried out. The first difference is use of a robust variant of $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$. Second, in input sharing protocol, where $\vl{x}_1$ is held by only garbler $P_0$, a corrupt $P_0$ may refrain from providing $P_1$ with the correct key (sent as the opening information for the commitment). To ensure robustness, in the event that $P_1$ fails to receive the correct key from $P_0$, we let $P_1$ complain to all parties about this inconsistency by sending an inconsistency bit. All parties exchange this inconsistency bit among themselves, and agree on the majority value. If all parties agree on the presence of an inconsistency, then $P_0, P_1$ are identified to be in conflict and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}} = P_2$ is set to carry out the rest of the computation.
Finally, to ensure a robust reconstruction, the following approach is taken. Observe that the fair reconstruction provides robustness as long as evaluator $P_1$ is honest. In the event when none of the garblers obtain the output in the fair protocol, it is guaranteed that evaluator $P_1$ is corrupt. Thus, in such a scenario, all parties take $P_1$ to be corrupt, and proceed with $P_0$ as the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$.
\subsection{Related Work}
\label{app:related}
Related work covers MPC protocols with an honest majority for high-throughput and constant-round setting and mixed-protocol frameworks for the case of PPML.
ABY3~\cite{CCS:MohRin18} was the first framework for the case of 3 parties, supporting both training and inference. It had variants for both passive and active security, with the former being based on~\cite{CCS:AFLNO16} and the latter on~\cite{EC:FLNW17,SP:ABFLLN17}.
ASTRA~\cite{CCSW:CCPS19} improved upon the 3PC of~\cite{CCS:AFLNO16,EC:FLNW17,SP:ABFLLN17} by proposing faster protocols for the online phase with active security. As a result, secure inference of ASTRA is faster than ABY3. Building on~\cite{C:BBCGI19}, BLAZE~\cite{NDSS:PatSur20} proposed an actively secure framework that supports inference of neural networks. BLAZE pushes the expensive zero-knowledge part of the computation to the preprocessing phase, making its online phase faster than that of~\cite{C:BBCGI19}. SWIFT~(3PC) improved upon BLAZE by using the distributed zero-knowledge protocol of \cite{CCS:BGIN19}, thereby achieving GOD.
In an orthogonal line of work, FALCON~\cite{PoPETS:WTBKMR21} focused on enhancing the efficiency of actively secure protocols for large convolutional neural networks, supporting training and inference.
In the high-throughput setting for 4PC, ~\cite{AC:GorRanWan18} explores protocols for the security notions of abort. Inspired by the theoretical GOD construction in~\cite{AC:GorRanWan18}, FLASH proposed practical protocols with GOD for secure inference. Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20} improved protocols (in terms of communication) compared to~\cite{AC:GorRanWan18} with a focus on security with fairness. In addition, it was the first work to propose a mixed-protocol framework for the case of 4 parties. More recently,~\cite{USENIX:MLRG20} improved over~\cite{AC:GorRanWan18} to provide support for fixed-point arithmetic with applications to graph parallel computation, albeit with abort security.
Improving the security of Trident to GOD, SWIFT~\cite{USENIX:KPPS21} presented an efficient, robust PPML framework with protocols as fast as Trident. SWIFT only supports the secure inference of neural networks and lacks conversions similar to the ones from Trident and the garbled world. Fantastic Four~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20} also provides robust 4PC protocols which are on par with SWIFT. While they claim to provide a better security model called {\em private robustness} compared to SWIFT, it has been shown in SWIFT that the two security models are theoretically equivalent. Our security model is also similar to SWIFT, and we elaborate on its equivalence to private robustness in \S\ref{app:secmodel}.
In the regime of constant-round protocols,~\cite{CCS:MohRosZha15} presents 3PC protocols in the honest majority setting satisfying security with abort, which require communicating one garbled circuit and three rounds of interaction. The work of~\cite{C:IKKP15} presents a robust 4-party computation protocol (4PC) with GOD in $2$-rounds (which is optimal) at the expense of 12 garbled circuits. Further,~\cite{CCS:BJPR18} presents efficient 3PC and 4PC constructions providing security notions of fairness and GOD.
A mixed-protocol framework for MPC was first shown to be practical, in the 2-party dishonest majority setting, by TASTY~\cite{CCS:HKSSW10}. TASTY was a passively secure compiler supporting generation of protocols based on homomorphic encryption and garbled circuits. This was followed by ABY~\cite{NDSS:DemSchZoh15}, which proposed a mixed protocol framework, also with passive security, combining the arithmetic, boolean and garbled worlds. The recent work of ABY2~\cite{USENIX:PSSY21} improves upon the ABY framework, providing a faster online phase with applications to PPML.
The work of~\cite{INDOCRYPT:RotWoo19,C:EGKRS20} proposed efficient mixed world conversions for the case of $n$ parties with a dishonest majority. Both works have active security, with \cite{INDOCRYPT:RotWoo19} supporting the inference of SVMs, and~\cite{C:EGKRS20} supporting neural network inference.
In the honest majority setting, ABY3~\cite{CCS:MohRin18} extended the idea to 3 parties and provided specialised protocols for the case of PPML. ABY3 was the first work to support secure training in the case of 3 parties, while Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20} extended it to the 4-party setting.
\subsection{Basic Primitives}
\label{app:basicprimitives}
\paragraph{Shared Key Setup}
\label{app:keysetup}
Let $F : \{0, 1\}^{\kappa} \times \{0, 1\}^{\kappa} \rightarrow X$ be a secure pseudo-random function (PRF), with co-domain $X$ being $\Z{\ell}$. The following set of keys are established between the parties.
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item[--] One key between every pair -- $\Key{ij}$ for $P_i, P_j$.
\item[--] One key between every set of three parties -- $\Key{ijk}$ for $P_i, P_j, P_k$.
\item[--] One shared keys $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ known to all parties in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Suppose $P_0,P_1$ wish to sample a random value $r \in \Z{\ell}$ non-interactively. To do so they invoke $F_{k_{01}}(id_{01})$ and obtain $r$. Here, $id_{01}$ denotes a counter maintained by the parties, and is updated after every PRF invocation. The appropriate keys used to sample is implicit from the context, from the identities of the pair that sample or from the fact that it is sampled by all, and, hence, is omitted.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{systembox}{$\Func[Setup]$}{Ideal functionality for shared-key setup}{fig:FSETUP}
\justify
$\Func[Setup]$ interacts with the parties in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ and the adversary $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$. $\Func[Setup]$ picks random keys $\Key{ij}$ and $\Key{ijk}$ for $i,j,k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$ and $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$. Let $\vl{y}_s$ denote the keys corresponding to party $P_s$. Then
\begin{myitemize}
\item[--] $\vl{y}_s = (\Key{01}, \Key{02}, \Key{03}, \Key{012}, \Key{013}, \Key{023}$ and $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})$ when $P_s = P_0$.
\item[--] $\vl{y}_s = (\Key{01}, \Key{12}, \Key{13}, \Key{012}, \Key{013}, \Key{123}$ and $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})$ when $P_s = P_1$.
\item[--] $\vl{y}_s = (\Key{02}, \Key{12}, \Key{23}, \Key{012}, \Key{023}, \Key{123}$ and $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})$ when $P_s = P_2$.
\item[--] $\vl{y}_s = (\Key{03}, \Key{13}, \Key{23}, \Key{013}, \Key{023}, \Key{123}$ and $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}})$ when $P_s = P_3$.
\end{myitemize}
\begin{description}
\item {\bf Output: } Send $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Output}}, \vl{y}_s)$ to every $P_s \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
\end{description}
\end{systembox}
The key setup is modelled via a functionality $\Func[Setup]$ (\boxref{fig:FSETUP}) that can be realised using any secure MPC protocol. A simple instantiation of such an MPC protocol is as follows. $P_i$ samples key $\Key{ij}$ and sends to $P_j$. $P_i$ samples $\Key{ijk}$ and sens to $P_j$. $P_i, P_j$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\Key{ijk}$ to $P_k$. Similarly, $P_0$ samples $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ and sends to $P_3$. $P_0, P_3$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\Key{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ to $P_1$ and $P_2$.
\paragraph{Collision-Resistant Hash Function~\cite{FSE:RogShr04}}
\label{app:hash}.
A family of hash functions $\{\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}: \mathcal{K} \times \MS \rightarrow \mathcal{Y} \}$ is said to be collision resistant if for all PPT adversaries $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$, given the hash function $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}_k$ for $k \in_R \mathcal{K}$, the following holds: $\ensuremath{\mathsf{Pr}}[(x, x^{\prime}) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}(k) : (x \neq x^{\prime}) \wedge \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}_k(x) = \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}_k(x^{\prime})] = \ensuremath{\mathsf{negl}}(\kappa)$, where $x, x^{\prime} \in \{0,1\}^{m}$ and $m = \ensuremath{\mathsf{poly}}(\kappa)$.
\subsection{Security Model}
\label{app:secmodel}
We prove security using the real-world/ ideal-word simulation paradigm~\cite{Goldreich04, EPRINT:Lindell16}. The security is analyzed by comparing what an adversary can do in the real world's execution of the protocol with what it can do in an ideal world execution where there is a trusted third party and is considered secure by definition. In the ideal world, the parties send their inputs to the trusted third party over perfectly secure channels that carries out the computation and sends the output to the parties. Informally, a protocol is secure if whatever an adversary can do in the real world can also be done in the ideal world.
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ denote the probabilistic polynomial time ($\textsf{PPT}$) real-world adversary corrupting at most one party in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ denote the corresponding ideal world adversary, and $\Func{ }$ denote the ideal functionality. Let $\ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\Func{ }, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, z)$ denote the joint output of the honest parties and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ from the ideal execution with respect to the security parameter $\kappa$ and auxiliary input $z$. Similarly, let $\ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\Pi, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, z)$ denote the joint output of the honest parties and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ from the real world execution. We say that the protocol $\Pi$ securely realizes $\Func{ }$ if for every $\textsf{PPT}$ adversary $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ there exists an ideal world adversary $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ corrupting the same parties such that $\ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\Func{ }, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, z)$ and $\ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\Pi, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, z)$ are computationally indistinguishable. The ideal functionality for computing a function $f$ with fairness and robustness appears in \boxref{ideal:fair} and \boxref{ideal:god}, respectively.
\begin{systembox}{$\Func[Fair]$}{Fair functionality for computing function $f$}{ideal:fair}
Every honest party $P_i \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ sends its input $x_i$ to the functionality. Corrupted parties may send arbitrary inputs as instructed by the adversary. While sending the inputs, the adversary is also allowed to send a special $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ command.
\noindent \textbf{Input:} On message $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, x_i)$ from $P_i$, do the following: if $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, \ast)$ already received from $P_i$, then ignore the current message. Otherwise, record $x_i^{\prime} = x_i$ internally. If $x_i$ is outside $P_i$'s domain, consider $x_i^{\prime} = \ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$.
\noindent \textbf{Output:} If there exists an $i \in \{0, 1, 2, 3\}$ such that $x_i^{\prime} = \ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$, send $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Output}}, \bot)$ to all the parties. Else, compute $y = f(x_0^{\prime}, x_1^{\prime}, x_2^{\prime}, x_3^{\prime})$ and send $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Output}}, y)$ to all parties.
\end{systembox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{systembox}{$\Func[Robust]$}{Robust functionality for computing function $f$}{ideal:god}
Every honest party $P_i \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ sends its input $x_i$ to the functionality. Corrupted parties may send arbitrary inputs as instructed by the adversary.
\noindent \textbf{Input:} On message $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, x_i)$ from $P_i$, do the following: if $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, \ast)$ already received from $P_i$, then ignore the current message. Otherwise, record $x_i^{\prime} = x_i$ internally. If $x_i$ is outside $P_i$'s domain, consider $x_i^{\prime}$ to be some predetermined default value.
\noindent \textbf{Output:} Compute $y = f(x_0^{\prime}, x_1^{\prime}, x_2^{\prime}, x_3^{\prime})$ and send $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Output}}, y)$ to all parties.
\end{systembox}
\paragraph{On the security of robust $\textsf{Tetrad}$}
\label{sec:privaterobust}
We emphasize that we follow the standard traditional (real-world / ideal-world based) security definition of MPC, according to which, in the 4-party setting with one corruption, exactly one party is assumed to be corrupt, and the rest are {\em honest}. As per this definition, disclosing the honest parties' inputs to a selected {\em honest} party is {\em not} a breach of security. Indeed in $\textsf{Tetrad}$, the data sharing and the computation on the shared data are done so that any malicious behaviour leads to establishing a trusted party $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$ who is enabled to receive all the inputs and compute the output on the clear.
There has been a recent study on the additional requirement of hiding the inputs from a quorum of honest parties (treating them as semi-honest), termed as Friends-and-Foes (FaF) security notion~\cite{C:AloOmrPas20}. This is a stronger security goal than the standard one.
Informally, designing secure 4PC FaF protocols requires security against two independent corruptions. Our sharing semantics, designed to handle only one corruption, does not suffice. Hence, we leave FaF-secure 4PC for future exploration.
Another security notion, called {\em private robustness}, was recently proposed in the work of Dalskov et al.~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}, where the protocol does not demand the inputs be sent to a $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$. Their work, however, considers a more restricted security model, where it is assumed that parties will discard messages which are {\em non-intended} and are not a part of the protocol. This involves assuming a {\em secure erasure}. Under this assumption, our model is equivalent to that of private robustness since the trusted party $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$ will erase the input of the honest parties after computing the function output.
\subsection{Comparison with Fantastic Four~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}}
\label{pa:fantasticfour}
We analyse the performance of Fantastic Four~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20} where execution proceeds in segments~(cf. \S6.4,~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}). Elaborately, computation is carried out optimistically for each segment, followed by a verification phase before proceeding to the next segment. If verification fails, the current segment is recomputed via an active 3PC protocol. Subsequent segments also proceed with a 3PC execution until the verification fails again. In this case, a semi-honest 2PC with a helper is carried out for the current and rest of the segments. For analysis, we consider their best and worst-case execution cost.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r r r c}
\toprule
\Block{2-1}{Protocol} & \Block[c]{1-2}{Dot Product w/ Truncation} &
& \Block[c]{2-1}{\#Active\\Parties}\\ \cmidrule{2-3}
& Preprocessing & Online & \\
\midrule
Fantastic Four: Case I & $\ell$ & $9\ell$ & 4 \\
Fantastic Four: Case II & $76(\ell+\kappa)+54x + 12$ & $9\ell + 6\kappa$ & 3 \\
\textsf{Tetrad-R} (on-demand) & - & $5\ell$ & 3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Comparison with Fantastic Four~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}}\label{tab:compFour}
\end{table}
Observe that the best case happens when the verification is always successful, which we call as {\em Case I}. In this case, the communication cost is that of the 4PC execution. Note that an adversary can {\em always} make the verification fail in the first segment itself. This results in executing the entire protocol (all segments) with their active 3PC, which accounts for their worst-case cost. We denote this as {\em Case II}. Their 3PC protocols are designed to work over the extended ring of size $\ell + \kappa$ bits. As evident from Tables 2, 3 of their paper, their 3PC is at least $10 \times$ more expensive than their 4PC in terms of both runtime and communication. Thus, the higher cost of 3PC defeats the purpose of having an additional honest party in the system.
Observe that their protocols are designed to work with a function-independent preprocessing. Thus, for a fair comparison, we compare both cases against the on-demand variant of our robust protocols~(\textsf{Tetrad-R}). The results are summarised in~\tabref{compFour}. We remark that the values for their cases are obtained from Table 1 of their paper~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}.
\subsection{Function-independent preprocessing}
\label{app:nopre}
We provide the fair multiplication, $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}^{\mathsf{NoPre}}}$, for {\em function-independent} preprocessing in \boxref{fig:piMultNoPre}.
The protocol incurs no overhead over the fair multiplication~($\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$) in $\textsf{Tetrad}$. This is due to the design of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$ where values ${\vl{u}}^1, {\vl{u}}^2$ are sampled non-interactively in the preprocessing. Thus the joint-sharing by $P_0, P_3$~(Step 5 (a) in \boxref{fig:piMultNoPre}) can be performed along with the communication among $P_1, P_2$~(Step 4 in \boxref{fig:piMultNoPre}) in the online. Moreover, the rest of the communication can be deferred till the verification stage and thus, the online round complexity is retained. The protocol for robust setting is similar.
\smallskip
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}^{\mathsf{NoPre}}}(\vl{a}, \vl{b}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}})$}{Fair multiplication without preprocessing.}{fig:piMultNoPre}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}}$ be a bit that denotes whether truncation is required ($\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} =1$) or not~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}}=0$). \\
\detail{
{\bf Input(s):} $\shr{\vl{a}}, \shr{\vl{b}}$.\\
{\bf Output:} $\shr{\vl{o}}$ where $\vl{o} = \vl{z}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$ and $\vl{o} = \vl{z}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 0$ and $\vl{z} = \vl{ab}$.
}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item Locally compute the following:
\begin{align*}
P_0, P_1: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} \\
P_0, P_2: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{2} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{2} \\
P_0, P_3: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{2} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{1}
\end{align*}
\item $P_0, P_3$ and $P_j$ sample random ${\vl{u}}^j \in_R \Z{\ell}$ for $j \in \{1,2\}$. Let ${\vl{u}^1} + \vl{u}^2 = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} - \vl{r}$ for a random $\vl{r} \in_R \Z{\ell}$.
\item Let $\vl{y} = (\vl{z} - \vl{r}) - \mk{\vl{a}} \mk{\vl{b}}$. Locally compute the following:
\begin{align*}
P_1: \vl{y}_1 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{1} \mk{\vl{a}} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + {\vl{u}}^1 \\
P_2: \vl{y}_2 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{2} \mk{\vl{a}} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{u}}^2 \\
P_1, P_2: \vl{y}_3 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{3} \mk{\vl{a}}
\end{align*}
\item $P_1$ sends $\vl{y}_1$ to $P_2$, while $P_2$ sends $\vl{y}_2$ to $P_1$.
\item Parties proceed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item $P_0, P_3$: $\vl{r} = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} - {\vl{u}^1} - \vl{u}^2$; $\vl{q} = \vl{r}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$, else $\vl{q} = \vl{r}$; Execute $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}(P_0, P_3, \vl{q})$.
\item $P_1, P_2$: $\vl{z} - \vl{r} = (\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + \vl{y}_3) + \mk{\vl{a}} \mk{\vl{b}}$; $\vl{p} = (\vl{z} - \vl{r})^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$, else $\vl{p} = \vl{z} - \vl{r}$; Execute $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}(P_1, P_2, \vl{p})$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Locally compute $\shr{\vl{o}} = \shr{\vl{p}} + \shr{\vl{q}}$. Here $\vl{o} = \vl{z}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$ and $\vl{z}$ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Verification:}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item $P_0, P_1, P_2$ sample random ${\vl{s}_1}, \vl{s}_2 \in_R \Z{\ell}$ and set $\vl{s} = \vl{s}_1 + \vl{s}_2$. $P_0$ sends $\vl{w} = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{s}}$ to $P_3$.
\item $P_3$ computes $\vl{v} = - (\pad{\vl{a}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2}) \mk{\vl{b}} - (\pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{b}}{2}) \mk{\vl{a}} + {\vl{u}^1} + \vl{u}^2 + \vl{w}$ and sends $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{v})$ to $P_1$ and $P_2$. Parties $P_1, P_2$ $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ iff $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{v}) \ne \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + {\vl{s}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\subsection{Arithmetic/Boolean World}
\label{app:absec}
We provide the simulation for the case for corrupt $P_0, P_1$ and $P_3$. The case for corrupt $P_2$ is similar to that of $P_1$.
\paragraph{Sharing Protocol~($\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}$, \boxref{fig:piSh})}
During the preprocessing, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_0}$ emulates $\FSETUP$ and gives the respective keys to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$. The values commonly held with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ are sampled using the respective keys, while others are sampled randomly. The details for the online phase are provided next. We omit the simulation for corrupt $P_3$ as it is similar to that of $P_1,P_2$.
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_0}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_0}$ for corrupt $P_0$ }{fig:ShFSim0}
\justify
\algoHead{Online:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] If dealer is $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_0}$ receives $\mk{\vl{v}}$ from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ on behalf of $P_1, P_2, P_3$. If the received values are consistent, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_0}$ computes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$'s input $\vl{v}$ as $\vl{v} = \mk{\vl{v}} - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_1 - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_2 - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_3$, else sets $\vl{v}$ as the default value. It invokes $\Func[Robust]$ on $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, \vl{v})$ to obtain the function output $\vl{y}$.
\item[--] If dealer is $P_1, P_2$ or $P_3$, there is nothing to simulate as $P_0$ doesn't receive any value during the protocol.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_1}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_1}$ for corrupt $P_1$ }{fig:ShFSim1}
\justify
\algoHead{Online:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] If dealer is $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_1}$ receives $\mk{\vl{v}}$ from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ on behalf of $P_2, P_3$. If the received values are consistent, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_1}$ computes $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$'s input $\vl{v}$ as $\vl{v} = \mk{\vl{v}} - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_1 - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_2 - \sqr{\pd{\vl{v}}}_3$, else sets $\vl{v}$ as the default value. It invokes $\Func[Robust]$ on $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{Input}}, \vl{v})$ to obtain the function output $\vl{y}$.
\item[--] If dealer is $P_0, P_2$ or $P_3$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}}^{P_1}$ sets $\vl{v} = 0$ and performs the protocol steps honestly.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
Shares unknown to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ are sampled randomly in the simulation, whereas in the real protocol, they are sampled using the pseudorandom function (PRF). The indistinguishability of the simulation thus follows by a reduction to the security of the PRF. The same holds for the rest of the blocks.
The simulation for the joint sharing protocol~($\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{JSh}}}$) is similar to that of the sharing protocol. The protocol's design is such that the simulator will always know the value to be sent as part of the joint sharing protocol. The communication is constituted by $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ calls and is emulated according to the simulation of $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$.
\medskip
\paragraph{Multiplication Protocol~($\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$)}
~
\medskip
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_0}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_0}$ for corrupt $P_0$ }{fig:MulFSim0}
\justify
\algoHead{Preprocessing:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] Computes $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1}, \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2}$, and $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3}$ on behalf of $P_1, P_2, P_3$.
\item[--] Samples $\vl{u}^1, \vl{u}^2$ using the respective keys with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ and computes $\vl{r}$. The joint sharing of $\vl{q}$ is simulated as discussed earlier.
\item[--] Receives $\vl{w}$ from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ on behalf of $P_3$.
\item[--] Simulating $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$: Joint sharing of $\vl{e_1}, \vl{e_2}, \vl{e}$ is simulated as discussed earlier. The rest of the steps are simulated honestly. This is possible since $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_0}$ knows the randomness and inputs that should be used by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{description}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:}
$P_0$ has no communication in the online phase except the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ instances which are emulated by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_0}$.
\end{simulatorbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_1}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_1}$ for corrupt $P_1$ }{fig:MulFSim1}
\justify
\algoHead{Preprocessing:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] Computes $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1}, \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2}$, and $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3}$ on behalf of $P_0, P_2, P_3$.
\item[--] Samples $\vl{u}^1$ using the respective keys with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$. Samples a random $\vl{u}^2$ and computes $\vl{r}$. The joint sharing of $\vl{q}$ is simulated as discussed earlier.
%
\item[--] Simulate the steps of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$ honestly.
\end{description}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] Computes $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{s}_1, \vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}_2, \vl{y}_3$ honestly.
\item[--] Emulates two instances of $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ -- i) $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as sender to send $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{s}_1$ to $P_2$, and ii) $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as receiver to obtain $\vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}_2$ from $P_2$.
\item[--] Simulates joint sharing as discussed earlier.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_3}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}}^{P_3}$ for corrupt $P_3$ }{fig:MulFSim3}
\justify
\algoHead{Preprocessing:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] Computes $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1}, \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2}$, and $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3}$ on behalf of $P_0, P_1, P_2$.
\item[--] Samples $\vl{u}^1, \vl{u}^2$ using the respective keys with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ and computes $\vl{r}$. The joint sharing of $\vl{q}$ is simulated as discussed earlier.
\item[--] Honestly computes and sends $\vl{w}$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$.
\item[--] Simulate the steps of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$ honestly.
\end{description}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{description}
\item[--] Computes $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{s}_1, \vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}_2, \vl{y}_3$ honestly.
\item[--] Emulates two instances of $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as sender to exchange $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{s}_1, \vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}_2$ among $P_1, P_2$.
\item[--] Simulates joint sharing as discussed earlier.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Reconstruction Protocol~($\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}$, \boxref{fig:piRec})}
Using the input of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ obtained during simulation of sharing protocol, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}}$ invokes $\Func[Robust]$ on behalf of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ and obtains the function output $\vl{y}$ in clear. $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}}$ calculates the missing share of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ using $\vl{y}$ and the other shares. The missing share is then communicated to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ by emulating the $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ functionality.
\subsection{Security Proof for Garbled World}
\label{app:2gcsec}
In this section, we present the proof of security for our robust GC protocol with 2GCs. The case for 1 GC is similar, and we omit the details. For completeness, we provide the simulation assuming function evaluation entirely through the GC. However, as in the previous section, simulation steps are provided for the different phases separately. Thus, the simulation for the appropriate phase can be used while simulating the entire protocol in the mixed framework.
The simulation begins with the simulator emulating the shared-key setup~($\FSETUP$) functionality and giving the respective keys to the adversary. This is followed by the input sharing phase in which $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ computes the input of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$, using the known keys, and sets the inputs of the honest parties, to be used in the simulation, to $0$. $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ invokes the ideal functionality $\Func[Robust]$ on behalf of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ using the extracted input and obtains the output $\vl{y}$.
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}$ proceeds with simulating the GC computation phase using the output $\vl{y}$ by invoking the privacy simulator for the GC. The reconstruction phase follows this.
We provide the simulation steps in the following order:
\begin{description}
\item[--] Generation of boolean shares for the input.
\item[--] Transfer of keys and GC to the evaluator.
\item[--] Output computation.
\end{description}
We give the proof with respect to a corrupt $P_0$ and a corrupt $P_1$. Proofs for corrupt $P_3$ and corrupt $P_2$ follow similar to proof for corrupt $P_0$ and $P_1$, respectively.
\paragraph{Generation of boolean shares for the input}
This simulation proceeds as per the simulation of the boolean world mentioned in \S\ref{app:absec}.
\paragraph{Key, GC transfer and evaluation}
The simulation for $\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}$ coupled with the GC transfer for a corrupt $P_1$ and corrupt $P_0$ are provided here. Cases for corrupt $P_2, P_3$ follow.
\medskip
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_0}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_0}$ for corrupt $P_0$ }{fig:gshFSim0}
\justify
\begin{description}
\item[--] With respect to the $j^{\text{th}}$ garbling instance for $j \in \{1, 2\}$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_0}$ generates the keys $\{\key{{\mk{\vl{x}}}}{\bitb, j}, \key{{\av{\vl{x}}}}{\bitb, j}, \key{ {\lambda_{\vl{x}}^{3}} }{\bitb, j}\}_{\bitb \in \{0, 1\}}$ for each function input $\vl{x}$ and the GC as per the honest execution.
\item[--] Sends the keys for $\key{{\mk{\vl{x}}}}{\mk{\vl{x}}, j}, \key{{\av{\vl{x}}}}{\av{\vl{x}}, j}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_j$ to $P_j$ for $j \in \{1, 2\}$ by emulating $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as the sender.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$ for corrupt $P_1$ }{fig:gshFSim1}
\justify
\begin{description}
\item[--] With respect to the first garbling instance, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$ runs $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1, \textbf{X}_1, d_1) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{\bf priv}}}(\ensuremath{1^\kappa}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}, \vl{y})$ where $\vl{y}$ is obtained via invoking $\Func[Robust]$ on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$'s input.
With respect to the second garbling instance, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$ generates the keys $\{\key{{\mk{\vl{x}}}}{\bitb, 2}, \key{{\av{\vl{x}}}}{\bitb, 2}, \key{{\lambda_{\vl{x}}^{3}}}{\bitb, 2}\}_{\bitb \in \{0, 1\}}$ for each function input $\vl{x}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_2$ as per the honest execution.
\item[--] $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$ sends the keys for each input $\vl{v}$ to the GC, and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1$ by emulating $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as the receiver.
\item[--] $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ev}}}^{P_1}$ emulates $\Func[\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}]$ together with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ as the sender to send $\key{{\mk{\vl{x}}}}{\mk{\vl{x}}, 2}, \key{{\lambda_{\vl{x}}^{3}}}{\lambda_{\vl{x}}^{3}, 2}$ to $P_2$.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\paragraph{Output computation}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_0}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_0}$ for corrupt $P_0$}{fig:srec0}
\medskip
\justify
\begin{description}
\item[--] Let $\ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\vl{v})$ denote the least significant bit of $\vl{v}$.
\item[--] $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_0}$ sends $\vl{q}^J = \vl{y} \oplus \ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{{\vl{y}}}{0, j})$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}^j = \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\key{}{})$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ on behalf of honest $P_j \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}$ such that $\key{}{} \in \{\key{\vl{y}}{0, j}, \key{\vl{y}}{1, j}\}$ and $\vl{q}^j = \ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}({\key{}{}})$, where $\vl{y}$ is obtained via invoking $\Func[Robust]$.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\begin{simulatorbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_1}$}{Simulator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_1}$ for corrupt $P_1$}{fig:srec1}
\medskip
\justify
\begin{description}
\item[--] Let $\ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\vl{v})$ denote the least significant bit of $\vl{v}$.
\item[--] $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}^{P_1}$ sends $\vl{p}^1 = \ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{{\vl{y}}}{0, 1})$ to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ on behalf of honest garblers in $\PlSet{1}$ where $\vl{y}$ is obtained via invoking $\Func[Robust]$.
\end{description}
\end{simulatorbox}
\paragraph{Indistinguishability argument}
We argue that $\ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}}} \overset{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$ when $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ corrupts $P_1$ based on the following series of intermediate hybrids.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$: Same as $ \ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$: Same as $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$, except that $P_0$, $P_2, P_3$ use uniform randomness instead of pseudo-randomness to sample values not known to $P_1$.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$: Same as $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ except that $\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1$ is created as $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1, \textbf{X}_1, d_1) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_\ensuremath{\mathsf{prv}}(1^\kappa, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}, \vl{y})$.
Since $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2 := \ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}}}$, to conclude the proof we show that every two consecutive hybrids are indistinguishable.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0 \overset{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ : The difference between the hybrids is that $P_0, P_2, P_3$ use uniform randomness in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ rather than pseudo-randomness as in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$ (for sampling $\sqr{\av{}}_2$). The indistinguishability follows via reduction to the security of the PRF.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1 \stackrel{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$: The difference between the hybrids is in the way $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1, \textbf{X}_1, d_1)$ is generated. In $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$, $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1, e_1, d_1) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathsf{Gb}}(1^\kappa, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}})$ is run. In $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$, it is generated as $(\ensuremath{\mathsf{GC}}_1, \textbf{X}_1, d_1) \leftarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_\ensuremath{\mathsf{prv}}(1^\kappa, \ensuremath{\mathsf{Ckt}}, \vl{y})$. Indistinguishability follows via reduction to the privacy of the garbling scheme.
We argue that $\ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}}} \overset{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$ when $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ corrupts $P_0$ based on the following series of intermediate hybrids.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$: Same as $ \ensuremath{\textsc{real}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$: Same as $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$, except that $P_1$, $P_2, P_3$ use uniform randomness instead of pseudo-randomness to sample values not known to $P_0$.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$: Same as $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ except that hash of the key $\key{}{}$ where $\key{}{} \in \{\key{\vl{y}}{0, j}, \key{\vl{y}}{1, j}\}$ to be sent to $\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}$ is computed such that $\ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{}{}) \oplus \ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{{\vl{y}}}{0, j}) = \vl{y}$, for $j \in \{1,2\}$ instead of obtaining it as output of GC evaluation.
Since $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2 := \ensuremath{\textsc{ideal}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}, \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}_{\mathrm{\Pi}}}$, to conclude the proof we show that every two consecutive hybrids are indistinguishable.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0 \overset{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ : The difference between the hybrids is that $P_1, P_2, P_3$ use uniform randomness in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$ rather than pseudo-randomness as in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_0$ (for sampling $\pd{}{3}$). The indistinguishability follows via reduction to the security of the PRF.
$\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1 \stackrel{c}{\approx} \ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$: The difference between the hybrids is that in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_1$, key $\key{}{}$ where $\key{}{} \in \{\key{\vl{y}}{0, j}, \key{\vl{y}}{1, j}\}$ for $j \in \{1,2\}$ is computed as output of the GC evaluation while in $\ensuremath{{\textsc{hyb}}}_2$, it is computed such that $\ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{}{}) \oplus \ensuremath{\mathsf{lsb}}(\key{{\vl{y}}}{0, j}) = \vl{y}$. Due to the correctness of the garbling scheme, the equivalence of $\key{}{}$ computed in both the hybrids holds.
\subsection{Primitives}
\label{sec:4pcprimitives}
\paragraph{Joint-Send~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$)}
\label{p:jsend}
The Joint-Send~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$) primitive allows two parties $P_i, P_j$ to relay a message $\vl{v}$ to a third party $P_k$ ensuring either the delivery of the message or $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ in case of inconsistency. Towards this, $P_i$ sends $\vl{v}$ to $P_k$, while $P_j$ sends a hash of the same, $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{v})$, to $P_k$. Party $P_k$ accepts the message if the hash values are consistent and $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$s otherwise. Note that the communication of the hash can be clubbed together for several instances and be deferred to the end of the protocol, amortizing the cost.
\paragraph{Joint-Send~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$) for robust protocols}
To achieve robustness, we instantiate $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ using the joint-message passing~(jmp) primitive of~\cite{USENIX:KPPS21}. The $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ primitive~(\boxref{fig:4pcjsendrobust}) allows two senders $P_i, P_j$ to relay a common message, $\vl{v} \in \Z{\ell}$, to a recipient $P_k$, either by ensuring successful delivery of $\vl{v}$, or by establishing a conflicting pair of parties, one among which is guaranteed to be corrupt. This implies the residual two parties are honest, one of which is then entrusted to take the computation to completion by enacting the role of a trusted party ($\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$). The instantiation of $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ can be viewed as consisting of two phases ({\em send, verify}), where the {\em send} phase consists of $P_i$ sending $\vl{v}$ to $P_k$ and the rest of the protocol steps go to {\em verify} phase (which ensures correct {\em send} or $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$ identification). This requires $1$ round of interaction and $\ell$ bits of communication. To leverage amortization, {\em verify} will be executed only once, at the end of the computation, and requires $2$ rounds.
The $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ primitive is instantiated depending on the desired security guarantee. For simplicity, we give common constructions for fair and robust variants of the protocols, when they only differ in the instantiation of $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$.
\begin{notation}\label{notation_jsend}
Protocol $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\jsend}}$ denotes the instantiation of Joint-Send~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$) primitive. We say that $P_i, P_j$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\vl{v}$ to $P_k$ when they invoke $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\jsend}}(P_i, P_j, \vl{v}, P_k)$.
\end{notation}
\paragraph{Sharing}
\label{p:share}
Protocol $\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}$~(\boxref{fig:piSh}) enables $P_i$ to generate $\shr{\cdot}$-share of a value $\vl{v}$. During the preprocessing phase, $\pd{}$-shares are sampled non-interactively using the pre-shared keys~(cf. \S\ref{app:keysetup}) in a way that $P_i$ will get the entire mask $\pd{\vl{v}}$. During the online phase, $P_i$ computes $\mk{\vl{v}} = \vl{v} + \pd{\vl{v}}$ and sends to $P_1, P_2, P_3$, which exchange the hash values to check for consistency. Parties abort in the fair protocol in case of inconsistency, whereas for robust security, parties proceed with a default value.
\smallskip
\begin{protocolbox}{$\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}(P_i, \vl{v})$}{$\shr{\cdot}$-sharing of a value $\vl{v}$ by party $P_i$.}{fig:piSh}
\justify
\algoHead{Preprocessing:}
Sample the following: \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{align*}
P_i, P_0, P_1, P_3: \pad{\vl{v}}{1}~~\Big|~~
P_i, P_0, P_2, P_3: \pad{\vl{v}}{2}~~\Big|~~
P_i, P_0, P_1, P_2: \pad{\vl{v}}{3}
\end{align*}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item $P_i$ computes $\mk{\vl{v}} = \vl{v} + \pd{\vl{v}}$ and sends to $P_1, P_2, P_3$.
\item $P_1, P_2, P_3$ mutually exchange $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\mk{\vl{v}})$ and accept the sharing if there exists a majority. Else parties $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ for the case of fairness and accept a default value for the case of robust security.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Joint Sharing}
\label{p:jsh}
Protocol $\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{JSh}}}$ enables parties $P_i, P_j$ to generate $\shr{\cdot}$-share of a value $\vl{v}$. The protocol is similar to $\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Sh}}}$ except that $P_j$ ensures the correctness of the sharing performed by $P_i$. During the preprocessing, $\pd{}$-shares are sampled such that both $P_i, P_j$ will get the entire mask $\pd{\vl{v}}$. During the online phase, $P_i, P_j$ compute and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\mk{\vl{v}} = \vl{v} + \pd{\vl{v}}$ to parties $P_1, P_2, P_3$.
For joint-sharing a value $\vl{v}$ possessed by $P_0$ along with another party in the preprocessing, the communication can be optimized further. The protocol steps based on the $(P_i, P_j)$ pair are summarised below:
\begin{itemndss}
\item $(P_0, P_1): \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \setminus \{P_2\}$ sample $\pad{\vl{v}}{1} \in_R \Z{\ell}$; Set $\pad{\vl{v}}{2} = \mk{\vl{v}} = 0$; $P_0, P_1$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\pad{\vl{v}}{3} = - \vl{v} - \pad{\vl{v}}{1}$ to $P_2$.
\item $(P_0, P_2): \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \setminus \{P_3\}$ sample $\pad{\vl{v}}{3} \in_R \Z{\ell}$; Set $\pad{\vl{v}}{1} = \mk{\vl{v}} = 0$; $P_0, P_2$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\pad{\vl{v}}{2} = - \vl{v} - \pad{\vl{v}}{3}$ to $P_3$.
\item $(P_0, P_3): \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \setminus \{P_1\}$ sample $\pad{\vl{v}}{2} \in_R \Z{\ell}$; Set $\pad{\vl{v}}{3} = \mk{\vl{v}} = 0$; $P_0, P_3$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\pad{\vl{v}}{1} = - \vl{v} - \pad{\vl{v}}{1}$ to $P_1$.
\end{itemndss}
\paragraph{Reconstruction}
\label{p:rec}
Protocol $\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Rec}}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}, \vl{v})$ (\boxref{fig:piRec}) enables parties in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ to compute $\vl{v}$, given its $\shr{\cdot}$-share. Note that each party misses one share to reconstruct the output, and the other 3 parties hold this share. 2 out of the 3 parties will $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ the missing share to the party that lacks it. Reconstruction towards a single party can be viewed as a special case.
\paragraph{$\FZero$ - Generating additive shares of zero}
\label{pa:pizero}
In $\textsf{Tetrad}$, we make use of a functionality $\FZero$ to enable parties $P_0, P_i$ obtain $Z_i$ for $i \in \{1,2,3\}$ such that $Z_1 + Z_2 + Z_3 = 0$. We observe that the functionality can be instantiated non-interactively using the pre-shared keys~(cf. \S\ref{app:keysetup}). For this, parties in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \setminus \{P_j\}$ sample random value $\vl{r}_j$ for $j \in \{1,2,3\}$. The shares are then defined as $Z_1 = \vl{r}_3 - \vl{r}_2, Z_2 = \vl{r}_1 - \vl{r}_3$ and $Z_3 = \vl{r}_2 - \vl{r}_1$.
\paragraph{Multiplication of $\sgr{\vl{a}}, \sgr{\vl{b}}$, held in clear by $P_0$}
\label{pa:piMultsgr}
To multiply $\sgr{\vl{a}}, \sgr{\vl{b}}$, where $\vl{a}, \vl{b} \in \Z{\ell}$ are held in clear by $P_0$, and generate $\sgr{\vl{z}}$ such that $\vl{z} = \vl{a} \vl{b}$, $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Multsgr}}$~(\boxref{fig:piMultsgr}) proceed as follows. Parties locally generate a $\spr{\cdot}$-sharing of $\vl{z}$, where $P_0$ knows all three $\spr{\cdot}$-shares. To complete the generation of $\sgr{\vl{z}}$, $P_0, P_i$ for $i \in \{1, 2, 3\}$, randomize their $\spr{\cdot}$-share of $\vl{z}$ using $\spr{\cdot}$-share of 0, and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\spr{\vl{z}}^{i}$, to one other party.
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Multsgr}}(\sgr{\vl{a}}, \sgr{\vl{b}})$}{Multiplication of $\sgr{\cdot}$-shared values, held on clear by $P_0$.}{fig:piMultsgr}
\medskip
\justify
\begin{enumerate}
\item Invoke $\FZero$ to enable $P_0, P_j$ obtain $Z_j$ for $j \in \{1,2,3\}$ such that $Z_1 + Z_2 + Z_3 = 0$.
\begin{align*}
P_0, P_1 &~\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}~\spr{\vl{z}}^{1} = \vl{a}^{1} \vl{b}^{3} + \vl{a}^{3} \vl{b}^{1} + \vl{a}^{3} \vl{b}^{3} + Z_1~\text{to } P_2.\\
P_0, P_2 &~\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}~\spr{\vl{z}}^{2} = \vl{a}^{2} \vl{b}^{3} + \vl{a}^{3} \vl{b}^{2} + \vl{a}^{2} \vl{b}^{2} + Z_2~\text{to } P_3.\\
P_0, P_3 &~\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}~\spr{\vl{z}}^{3} = \vl{a}^{1} \vl{b}^{2} + \vl{a}^{2} \vl{b}^{1} + \vl{a}^{1} \vl{b}^{1} + Z_3~\text{to } P_1.
\end{align*}
\item Set $\sgr{\vl{z}}^{}$ as $\vl{z}^{1} = \spr{\vl{z}}^{3},~~\vl{z}^{2} = \spr{\vl{z}}^{2},~~\vl{z}^{3} = \spr{\vl{z}}^{1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Multiplication in $\textsf{Tetrad}$}
\label{sec:new4pc}
Given the shares of $\vl{a}, \vl{b}$, the goal of the multiplication protocol is to generate shares of $\vl{z} = \vl{ab}$. The protocol is designed such that parties $P_1, P_2$ obtain a masked version of the output $\vl{z}$, say $\vl{z} - \vl{r}$ in the online phase, and $P_0, P_3$ obtain the mask $\vl{r}$ in the preprocessing phase. Parties then generate $\shr{\cdot}$-sharing of these values by executing $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}$, and locally compute $\shr{\vl{z} - \vl{r}} + \shr{\vl{r}}$ to obtain the final output.
\paragraph{Online}
Note that,
\begin{align}\label{eq:z+r}
\vl{z} - \vl{r} &= \vl{a}\vl{b} - \vl{r} = (\mk{\vl{a}} - \pd{\vl{a}})(\mk{\vl{b}} - \pd{\vl{b}}) - \vl{r} \nonumber\\
&= \mk{\vl{ab}} - \mk{\vl{a}}\pd{\vl{b}} - \mk{\vl{b}}\pd{\vl{a}} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} - \vl{r}
~~\text{\footnotesize{(cf. notation~\ref{notation:concise})}}
\end{align}
In Eq~\ref{eq:z+r}, $P_1, P_2$ can compute $\mk{\vl{ab}}$ locally, and hence we are interested in computing $\vl{y} = (\vl{z - r}) - \mk{\vl{ab}}$. Let us view $\vl{y}$ as $\vl{y} = \vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + \vl{y}_3$, where $\vl{y}_1$ and $\vl{y}_2$ can be computed respectively by $P_1$ and $P_2$, and $\vl{y}_3$ consists of terms that can be computed by both.
\begin{align}\label{eq:y}
P_1: \vl{y}_1 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{1} \mk{\vl{a}} + \sqr{\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} - \vl{r}}_1 \nonumber\\
P_2: \vl{y}_2 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{2} \mk{\vl{a}} + \sqr{\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} - \vl{r}}_2 \nonumber\\
P_1, P_2: \vl{y}_3 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{3} \mk{\vl{a}}
\end{align}
The preprocessing is set up such that $P_1, P_2$ receive additive shares~($\sqr{\cdot}$) of $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} - \vl{r}$. $P_1, P_2$ then mutually exchange the missing share to reconstruct $\vl{y}$ and subsequently $\vl{z - r}$.
\paragraph{Verification}
To ensure correctness of the values exchanged in the online phase, we use the assistance of $P_3$. Concretely, $P_3$ obtains $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}$, where $\vl{s}$ is a random mask known to $P_0, P_1, P_2$. For this, $P_3$ needs $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} + \vl{s}$, which it obtains from the preprocessing phase. The mask $\vl{s}$ is used to prevent the leakage from $\gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{}$ to $P_3$. $P_3$ computes a hash of $\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + \vl{s}$ and sends it to $P_1, P_2$, which $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ if it is inconsistent.
\paragraph{Preprocessing}
Parties should obtain the following values from the preprocessing phase:
\begin{equation*}
{\sf i)}~~P_1, P_2: \sqr{\gm{\vl{ab}}{} - \vl{r}}~~\Big|~~
{\sf ii)}~~P_0, P_3: \vl{r}~~\Big|~~
{\sf iii)}~~P_3: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{} + \vl{s}
\end{equation*}
For ${\sf i)}$ and ${\sf ii)}$, let $\gm{\vl{ab}}{} = \gm{\vl{ab}}{1} + \gm{\vl{ab}}{2} + \gm{\vl{ab}}{3}$, where $P_0$ along with $P_i$ can compute $\gm{\vl{ab}}{i}$ for $i \in \{1, 2, 3\}$. For $P_1, P_2$, to form an additive sharing of $(\gm{\vl{ab}}{} - r)$, it suffices for them to define their share as $\gm{\vl{ab}}{i} + \sqr{\gm{\vl{ab}}{3} - r}$.
Instead of sampling a fresh random value for $\vl{r}$, $P_0, P_3$, along with $P_i$, sample the share for $\gm{\vl{ab}}{3} - \vl{r}$ as $\vl{u}^i$ for $i \in \{1, 2\}$. $P_0, P_3$ compute $\vl{r}$ as $\gm{\vl{ab}}{3} - \vl{u}^1 - \vl{u}^2$. Note that $\vl{r}$ computed this way is still uniformly random, as $\vl{u}^1, \vl{u}^2$ are sampled uniformly at random.
For ${\sf iii)}$, $P_3$ needs $\vl{w} = \gm{\vl{ab}}{1} + \gm{\vl{ab}}{2} + \vl{s}$. To tackle this, $P_0, P_1, P_2$ sample $\vl{s}_1, \vl{s}_2$, and set $\vl{s} = \vl{s}_1 + \vl{s}_2$. $P_0, P_i$, for $i \in \{1, 2\}$, $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\gm{\vl{ab}}{i} + \vl{s}_i$ to $P_3$. This requires a communication of 2 elements.
As an optimization, $P_0$ sends $\vl{w}$ to $P_3$. If $P_0$ is malicious, it might send a wrong value to $P_3$. However, in this case, every party in the online phase would be honest. And since $P_1, P_2$ do not use $\vl{w}$ in their computation, any error in $\vl{w}$ is bound to get caught in the verification phase.
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}(\vl{a}, \vl{b}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}})$}{Multiplication with / without truncation in $\textsf{Tetrad}$.}{fig:piMultiplication}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}}$ be a bit that denotes whether truncation is required ($\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} =1$) or not~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}}=0$). \\
\detail{
{\bf Input(s):} $\shr{\vl{a}}, \shr{\vl{b}}$.\\
{\bf Output:} $\shr{\vl{o}}$ where $\vl{o} = \vl{z}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$ and $\vl{o} = \vl{z}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 0$ and $\vl{z} = \vl{ab}$.
}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Preprocessing:} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item Locally compute:
\begin{align*}
P_0, P_1: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} \\
P_0, P_2: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{3} + \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \pad{\vl{b}}{2} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{2}\\
P_0, P_3: \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} &= \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{2} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \pad{\vl{b}}{1}
\end{align*}
\item $P_0, P_3$ and $P_j$ sample random ${\vl{u}}^j \in_R \Z{\ell}$ for $j \in \{1,2\}$. Let ${\vl{u}^1} + \vl{u}^2 = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} - \vl{r}$ for a random $\vl{r} \in_R \Z{\ell}$.
\item $P_0, P_3$ compute $\vl{r} = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{3} - {\vl{u}^1} - \vl{u}^2$ and set $\vl{q} = \vl{r}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$, else set $\vl{q} = \vl{r}$. $P_0, P_3$ execute $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}(P_0, P_3, \vl{q})$ to generate $\shr{\vl{q}}$.
\item $P_0, P_1, P_2$ sample random ${\vl{s}}_1, {\vl{s}}_2 \in_R \Z{\ell}$ and set ${\vl{s}} = {\vl{s}}_1 + {\vl{s}} _2$\footnote{For the fair protocol, it is enough for $P_0, P_1, P_2$ to sample ${\vl{s}}$ directly.}.
$P_0$ sends $\vl{w} = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{s}}$ to $P_3$.
\end{enumerate}
\justify
\vspace{-2mm}
\algoHead{Online:} Let $\vl{y} = (\vl{z} - \vl{r}) - \mk{\vl{a}} \mk{\vl{b}}$. \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item Locally compute:
\begin{align*}
P_1: \vl{y}_1 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{1} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{1} \mk{\vl{a}} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + {\vl{u}}^1 \\
P_2: \vl{y}_2 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{2} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{2} \mk{\vl{a}} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{u}}^2 \\
P_1, P_2: \vl{y}_3 &= - \pad{\vl{a}}{3} \mk{\vl{b}} - \pad{\vl{b}}{3} \mk{\vl{a}}
\end{align*}
\item $P_1$ sends $\vl{y}_1$ to $P_2$, while $P_2$ sends $\vl{y}_2$ to $P_1$, and they locally compute $\vl{z} - \vl{r} = (\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + \vl{y}_3) + \mk{\vl{a}} \mk{\vl{b}}$.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$, $P_1, P_2$ set $\vl{p} = (\vl{z} - \vl{r})^{\vl{t}}$, else $\vl{p} = \vl{z} - \vl{r}$. $P_1, P_2$ execute $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}(P_1, P_2, \vl{p})$ to generate $\shr{\vl{p}}$.
\item Locally compute $\shr{\vl{o}} = \shr{\vl{p}} + \shr{\vl{q}}$. Here $\vl{o} = \vl{z}^{\vl{t}}$ if $\ensuremath{\mathsf{isTr}} = 1$ and $\vl{z}$ otherwise.
\item {\em Verification:} $P_3$ computes $\vl{v} = - (\pad{\vl{a}}{1} + \pad{\vl{a}}{2}) \mk{\vl{b}} - (\pad{\vl{b}}{1} + \pad{\vl{b}}{2}) \mk{\vl{a}} + {\vl{u}^1} + \vl{u}^2 + \vl{w}$ and sends $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{v})$ to $P_1$ and $P_2$. Parties $P_1, P_2$ $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ iff $\ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{v}) \ne \ensuremath{\mathsf{H}}(\vl{y}_1 + \vl{y}_2 + {\vl{s}})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\vspace{-2mm}
\paragraph{Truncation}
For a value $\vl{v} = \vl{v}_1 + \vl{v}_2$, SecureML~\cite{SP:MohZha17} showed that the truncated value $\vl{v}/2^x$, denoted by $\vl{v}^\vl{t}$, can be computed as $\vl{v}_1^{\vl{t}} + \vl{v}_2^{\vl{t}}$. With high probability, a truncated value having at most one bit error in the least significant position is generated. It was shown in SecureML that accuracy drop for ML algorithms due to the one bit error is minimal. However, the method cannot be generalized to more than two parties.
ABY3~\cite{CCS:MohRin18} demonstrated the extension to 3-party setting with a generic design that uses a truncation pair of the form $(\vl{r}, {\vl{r}}^{\vl{t}})$. Here, $\vl{r}$ is a random value and $\vl{r}^{\vl{t}}$ denotes its truncated version. Given this pair, $\vl{z}$ can be truncated by opening $\vl{z} - \vl{r}$ towards all, and computing $\vl{z}^{\vl{t}}$ as $\vl{z}^{\vl{t}} = (\vl{z-r})^{\vl{t}} + \vl{r}^{\vl{t}}$. Note that all operations are carried out on shares.
The design of our multiplication allows for truncation to be carried out this way without any additional overhead in communication. Towards this, $P_1, P_2$ locally truncate $(\vl{z - r})$ and generate $\shr{\cdot}$-shares of it in the online phase. Similarly, $P_0, P_3$ truncate $\vl{r}$ in the preprocessing phase and generate its $\shr{\cdot}$-shares. Then $\shr{\vl{z}^{\vl{t}}} = \shr{(\vl{z-r})^{\vl{t}}} + \shr{\vl{r}^{\vl{t}}}$
\paragraph{Multiplication by constant}
This operation in MPC is typically local: given constant $\alpha$ and $\shr{\vl{v}}$, the product can be written as $\alpha\vl{v} = \beta^1 + \beta^2$ where $\beta^1 = \alpha.(\mk{\vl{v}} - \pad{\vl{v}}{3})$ and $\beta^2 = \alpha.(- \pad{\vl{v}}{1} - \pad{\vl{v}}{2})$.
However, in FPA, we need to perform a truncation on the output. For this $P_1, P_2$ truncate $\beta^{1}$ and execute $\prot{\ensuremath{\mathsf{JSh}}}$, while $P_0, P_3$ do the same with $\beta^{2}$.
\subsection{Achieving Fairness}
\label{sec:fair4pc}
Here we show how to extend the security of $\textsf{Tetrad}$ from abort to fairness using techniques from Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20}. Before proceeding with the output reconstruction, we need to ensure that all the honest parties are alive after the verification phase. For this, all the parties maintain an {\em aliveness} bit, say $\bitb$, which is initialized to $\ensuremath{\mathtt{continue}}$. If the verification phase is not successful for a party, it sets $\bitb = \ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$. In the first round of reconstruction, the parties mutually exchange their $\bitb$ bit and accept the value that forms the majority. Since we have only one corruption, it is guaranteed that all the honest parties will be in agreement on $\bitb$. If $\bitb = \ensuremath{\mathtt{continue}}$, then the parties exchange their missing shares and accept the majority. As per the sharing semantics, every missing share is possessed by three parties, out of which there can be at most one corruption. As an optimization, for instances where many values are reconstructed, two out of the three parties can send the share while the third can send a hash of the same.
\subsection{Achieving Robustness}
\label{sec:robust4pc}
Here we show how to extend the security of $\textsf{Tetrad}$ to provide robustness while retaining the same amortized communication complexity. The robust variant, denoted by $\textsf{Tetrad-R}$, additionally requires a verification check in the preprocessing phase of multiplication as compared to $\textsf{Tetrad}$. Moreover, the reconstruction protocol is similar to the fair counterpart, except that aliveness check is not required since a cheating would result in identifying an honest party~($\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$).
The multiplication protocol $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$~(\boxref{fig:piMultiplication}) is modified as follows. First, the robust variant of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}$ is used instead of the fair one. This ensures correctness of messages to be communicated or identifies a conflicting pair of parties, one among which is guaranteed to be corrupt.
Next, to ensure the correctness of $\vl{w}$ sent by $P_0$ alone in the preprocessing phase, we introduce $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$~(\boxref{fig:piVrfyP0}). If $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$ fails, parties identify a $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$ in the preprocessing phase itself.
Finally, in case of an $\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ in the online phase (which proceeds similar to the that of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$), $P_0$ is assigned as the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}}$. Since $P_0$ does not participate in the online phase of multiplication, and its communication in the preprocessing has been verified via $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$, this assignment is safe.
{\em Verifying the communication by $P_0$:}
In $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$~(\boxref{fig:piMultiplication}), $P_0$ computes and sends $\vl{w} = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{s}}_1 + {\vl{s}}_2$ to $P_3$, where $P_0, P_1, P_2$ know ${\vl{s}}_1, {\vl{s}}_2$ in clear. Note that $\vl{w} = \vl{w}^1 + \vl{w}^2$ for $\vl{w}^1 = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{1} + {\vl{s}}_1$ and $\vl{w}^2 = \gm{\vl{a}\vl{b}}{2} + {\vl{s}}_2$. Also, $P_0$ along with $P_1, P_2$ and $P_3$ possess the values $\vl{w}^1, \vl{w}^2$ and $\vl{w}$ respectively. Checking the correctness of $\vl{w}$ thus reduces to verifying if $\vl{w} = \vl{w}^1 + \vl{w}^2$.
To verify this relation for all $M$ multiplication gates in the circuit, i.e. $\{\vl{w}_j \ensuremath{\stackrel{?}{=} } \vl{w}_j^1 + \vl{w}_j^2\}_{j \in [M]}$, one approach is to compute a random linear combination and verify the relation on the sum.
While working over a field $\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_p$, this solution has an error probability $1/|\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_p|$, where $|\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_p|$ denotes the size of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_p$. However, this solution does not work naively over rings since not every element in the ring has an inverse, as opposed to fields. Concretely, the check can still pass with a probability of at most $1/2$~\cite{TCC:ACDEY19,CCS:BGIN19}. To reduce the cheating probability, the check is repeated $\kappa$ times, thereby bounding the cheating probability by $1/2^{\kappa}$. As an optimization, it is sufficient to choose the random combiners from $\{0,1\}$. Thus, for one check, parties need to sample only a binary string of $M$ bits using the shared-key. The formal verification protocol appears in \boxref{fig:piVrfyP0}.
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}(\{\sqr{{\vl{w}}_j}\}_{j=1}^{M})$}{Verification of $P_0$'s communication in the multiplication protocol of $\textsf{Tetrad-R}$}{fig:piVrfyP0}
\detail{
{\bf Input(s):} $P_0, P_1: {\vl{w}}_j^1~~\Big|~~P_0, P_2: {\vl{w}}_j^2~~\Big|~~P_0, P_3: {\vl{w}}_j~~\Big|~$, for $j = 1, \ldots, M$.\\
{\bf Output:} Whether ${\vl{w}}_j = {\vl{w}}_j^1 + {\vl{w}}_j^2$ or not, for $j = 1, \ldots, M$.
}
\justify
Repeat the following $\kappa$ times, in parallel.
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item Sample random values $\tau_1,\ldots, \tau_M \in \Z{\ell}$.
\item Locally compute: $P_0, P_1: \vl{e}^1 = \sum_{j=1}^{M} \tau_j \vl{w}_j^1$; $P_0, P_2: \vl{e}^2 = \sum_{j=1}^{M} \tau_j \vl{w}_j^2$; $P_0, P_3: \vl{e} = \sum_{j=1}^{M} \tau_j \vl{w}_j$.
\item $(P_0,P_1)$, $(P_0,P_2)$ and $(P_0,P_3)$ generate $\shr{\cdot}$-shares of $ \vl{e}^1, \vl{e}^2$ and $\vl{e}$ respectively using $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\JSh}}$.
\item Locally compute $\shr{\vl{g}} = \shr{\vl{e}} - \shr{\vl{e}^1} - \shr{\vl{e}^2}$.
\item Robustly reconstruct $\vl{g}$ and check if $\vl{g} \ensuremath{\stackrel{?}{=} } 0$.
\end{enumerate}
If for all $\kappa$ repetitions, $\vl{g} = 0$, then continue with rest of the computation. Else, $P_0$ is identified to be corrupt and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{TP}}} = P_1$.
\end{protocolbox}
\vspace{-3mm}
The robust protocol can be optimized further if cheating is detected ($\ensuremath{\mathtt{abort}}$ signal is generated) in the preprocessing phase. Concretely, this can be identified in the preprocessing phase either from the verification of $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ instances or output of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\VrfyP}}$. When such a cheating is detected, the corrupt party is identified as follows. Parties first broadcast their shared keys established in the key-setup phase (cf. \S\ref{app:keysetup}). They recompute all the preprocessing data and verify against the data that was communicated to identify the corrupt party. Note that disclosing the shared keys does not violate input privacy because the preprocessing data is input independent.
On identifying the corrupt party, it is eliminated from the computation, and a semi-honest 3-party computation is performed from this point onwards.
\subsection{The complete 4PC}
\label{sec:complete4pc}
The above primitives can be compiled to compute an arithmetic circuit over $\Z{\ell}$ as follows.
Parties first invoke the key-setup functionality $\FSETUP$ (\boxref{fig:FSETUP}) for key distribution, and preprocessing of input sharing ($\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Sh}}$) and multiplication ($\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$), as per the given circuit. This generates the masks ($\pad{}{}$) for all the wires in the circuit as per the sharing semantics. The preprocessing for linear gates can be performed non-interactively.
The verification of all the protocols is executed before moving on to the online phase.
During the online phase, $P_i \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ shares its input $\vl{x_i}$ by executing online steps of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Sh}}$ (\boxref{fig:piSh}). Parties then evaluate the gates in the circuit in the topological order, with linear gates being computed locally, and multiplication gates being computed via online phase of $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Mult}}$ (\boxref{fig:piMultiplication}). Finally, $\ensuremath{\Pi_{\Rec}}$ (\boxref{fig:piRec}) is executed for the output wires to reconstruct the function output.
\subsection{Supporting on-demand computations}
\label{p:nopre}
For on-demand applications where the underlying function to be computed is not known in advance, the preprocessing model is not desirable. We observe that the $\textsf{Tetrad}$ protocol can be modified by executing the preprocessing phase in the online phase itself, keeping the same overall communication cost. The formal protocol appears in \boxref{fig:piMultNoPre}.
\subsection{ML Training}
\label{subsec:bench_train}
For training we consider NN-1, NN-2, NN-3 and NN-4 networks. We report values corresponding to one iteration, that comprises of a forward propagation followed by a backward propagation. More details are provided in \S\ref{app:implementation}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.43\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r r r r r}
\toprule
Algorithm & Parameter & Trident & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T} & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-1}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 8.06 & 1.93 & 2.55 \\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 10.76 & 5.05 & 5.27 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 27.90 & 12.69 & 11.22. \\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 0.16 & 0.30 & 0.16 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 49.33 & 58.51 & 34.29 \\
& $\TP$ & 1904.79 & 3792.64 & 3725.49 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-2}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 8.13 & 2.05 & 2.67 \\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ &11.47 &5.79 &6.14 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &30.88 &14.82 &13.40 \\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 0.28 & 0.39 & 0.24 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 70.00 &75.67 &49.16 \\
& $\TP$ & 428.16 & 652.75 & 644.69 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-3}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 21.79 & 5.67 & 8.40 \\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ &30.66 &15.14 &17.87 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &91.68 &40.01 &42.76 \\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 1.59 & 1.94 & 1.28 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ &331.01 &343.73 &240.41 \\
& $\TP$ & 53.62 & 55.71 & 54.13 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-4}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 72.01 & 25.90 & 38.35 \\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ &283.89 &182.13 &194.58 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &859.09 &500.13 &522.32 \\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 31.59 & 29.52 & 22.24 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ &5779.27 &5146.10 &3999.30 \\
& $\TP$ & 2.55 & 2.61 & 2.56 \\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Benchmarking of the training phase of ML algorithms. Time~(in seconds) and communication~(in GB) are reported for $1$ iteration. Monetary cost~(USD) is reported for $1000$ iterations.\label{tab:mltrain}}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{table}
Starting with the time-optimized variant, $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ is $3 - 4\times$ faster than Trident in online runtime.
The primary factor is the reduction in online rounds of our protocol due to multi-input gates. More precisely, we use the depth-optimized bit extraction circuit while instantiating the ReLU activation function using multi-input AND gates~(cf.~\S\ref{sec:4pcTools}). Looking at the total communication~(${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$) in \tabref{mltrain}, we observe that the gap in ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ between $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ vs. Trident decreases as the networks get deeper. This is justified as the improvement in communication of our dot product with truncation outpaces the overhead in communication caused by multi-input gates. The impact of this is more pronounced with NN-4, as observed by the lower monetary cost of $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ over Trident.
Another reason is that there are two active parties ($P_1, P_2$) in our framework, whereas Trident has three. Given the allocation of servers, the best $\ensuremath{\mathsf{rtt}}$ Trident can get with three parties~$(P_0,P_1,P_2)$ is $153.74ms$, as compared to $62.01ms$ of Tetrad, contributing to Tetrad being faster. However, if the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{rtt}}$ among all the parties were similar, this gap would be closed. Concretely, the online runtime (${\sf PT_{on}}$) of Trident will be similar to that of $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}$.
The cost-optimized variant $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}$ on the other hand, is $1.5\times$ slower in the online phase compared to $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$. However, it is still faster than Trident owing to the $\ensuremath{\mathsf{rtt}}$ setup, as discussed above. When it comes to monetary cost, this variant is up to $20-40\%$ cheaper than it's time-optimized counterpart and cheaper by around $30\%$ over Trident.
These trends can be better captured with a pictorial representation as given in \figref{MLTrain}.
\paragraph{Varying batch sizes and feature sizes}
\tabref{nn1} shows the online throughput~($\TP$) of neural network~(NN-1) training over varying batch sizes and feature sizes using synthetic datasets.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.43\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r r r r r}
\toprule
Batch Size & Features & Trident & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T} & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C} \\
\midrule
\Block{3-1}{128}
&10 &1905.58 &5407.35 &5271.88
\\
&100 &1905.58 &5152.29 &5029.14
\\
&1000 &1904.4 &3500.89 &3443.6
\\
\midrule
\Block{3-1}{256}
&10 &1905.58 &2818.4 &2744.87
\\
&100 &1905.58 &2747.5 &2677.58
\\
&1000 &1849.78 &2195.3 &2150.43
\\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Online throughput~($\TP$) of NN-1 training~(iterations per minute) over various batch sizes and features.\label{tab:nn1}}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
We find that both $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}, \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}$ are up to $1.8 \times$ higher in $\TP$. However, as the batch size and feature size increase, both Trident and $\textsf{Tetrad}$ experience a bandwidth bottleneck. The effect of the bandwidth limitation is higher for $\textsf{Tetrad}$; hence the gain in $\TP$ over Trident decreases a bit.
\subsection{ML Inference}
\label{subsec:bench_inf}
We benchmark the inference phase of SVM and the aforementioned NNs. In addition to Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20}, we also benchmark against the 4PC robust protocol of SWIFT~\cite{USENIX:KPPS21} since it supports NN inference. Note that the best case performance of Fantastic Four~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20} when cast in the preprocessing model resembles that of SWIFT, while their worst case execution (3PC malicious) is an order of magnitude slower (cf. \S\ref{pa:fantasticfour}), as demonstrated in their paper (cf. Table 2 of~\cite{USENIX:DalEscKel20}).
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.475\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r r r r r r}
\toprule
Algorithm & Parameter & Trident & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T} & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C} & SWIFT\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{SVM}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 17.09 & 2.91 & 4.77 & 5.21\\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 17.37 & 3.19 & 5.05 & 6.04\\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 47.02 & 6.99 & 10.70 & 14.47\\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 1.36 & 2.34 & 1.25 & 1.36\\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 39.92 & 6.26 & 9.23 & 12.43\\
& $\TP$ & 898.80 & 5271.74 & 3221.29 & 2949.76\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-1}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 5.87 & 1.31 & 1.87 & 2.31\\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 6.15 & 1.58 & 2.14 & 3.13\\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 16.75 & 3.76 & 4.88 & 8.65\\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.06\\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 14.15 & 3.19 & 4.13 & 7.32\\
& $\TP$ & 2615.35 & 11734.60 & 8226.93 & 6661.00\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-2}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 5.87 & 1.31 & 1.87 & 2.31\\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 6.15 & 1.58 & 2.14 & 3.13\\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 16.75 & 3.77 & 4.88 & 8.66\\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 0.26 & 0.37 & 0.22 & 0.25\\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 14.19 & 3.24 & 4.16 & 7.35\\
& $\TP$ & 2615.35 & 11734.60 & 8226.93 & 6661.00\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-3}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 14.42 & 2.61 & 4.10 & 4.54\\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 14.71 & 2.91 & 4.39 & 5.39\\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 39.92 & 6.43 & 9.40 & 13.18\\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 5.62 & 8.42 & 4.76 & 5.39\\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 34.59 & 6.74 & 8.68 & 11.97\\
& $\TP$ & 1065.35 & 5882.44 & 3746.89 & 3384.51\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{NN-4}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ & 47.05 & 7.85 & 12.69 & 13.13\\
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf tot}$ & 47.61 & 8.44 & 13.28 & 14.33\\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ & 129.41 & 17.77 & 27.46 & 31.35\\
& ${\sf Comm}_{\sf tot}$ & 85.69 & 124.09 & 71.27 & 81.33\\
& ${\sf Cost}$ & 122.66 & 34.40 & 34.32 & 39.18\\
& $\TP$ & 326.46 & 934.34 & 891.19 & 891.19\\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Benchmarking of the inference phase of ML algorithms. Time~(in seconds) and communication~(in MB) are reported for $1$ query. Monetary cost~(USD) is reported for $1000$ queries.\label{tab:mlinf}}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
Similar to training, the time-optimized variant for inference is faster when it comes to ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$, by $4 - 6\times$ over Trident. This is also reflected in the $\TP$, where the improvement is about $2.8 - 5.5\times$, as evident from \figref{MLTP}. In inference, the communication is in the order of megabytes, while run time is in the order of a few seconds. The key observation is that communication is well suited for the bandwidth used~(40 MBps). So unlike training, the monetary cost in inference depends more on run time rather than on communication. This is evident from \tabref{mlinf} which shows that $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ saves on monetary cost up to a factor of $6$ over Trident.
Note that the cost-optimized variant under performs in terms of monetary cost compared to $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$. This is because, as mentioned earlier, run time plays a bigger role in monetary cost than communication. Hence for inference, the time-optimized variant becomes the optimal choice.
\input{bench/Bench_InfPlot}
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Comparison operations}
\tabref{compb} compares the performance of the frameworks for circuits of varying depth. At each layer of the circuits, we perform 128 comparisons where the comparison results are generated in arithmetic shared form. The idea is that each layer emulates a comparison layer in an NN with a batch size of 128.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.41\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r r r r r}
\toprule
Depth & Parameter & Trident & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T} & \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}\\
\midrule
\Block{3-1}{128}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ &3.55 &0.53 &0.93 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &9.6 &1.06 &1.85 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ &0.49 &0.05 &0.09 \\
\midrule
\Block{3-1}{1024}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ &28.42 &4.23 &7.41 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &76.79 &8.47 &14.82 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ &3.89 &0.43 &0.75 \\
\midrule
\Block{3-1}{8192}
& ${\sf PT}_{\sf on}$ &227.34 &33.87 &59.27 \\
& ${\sf CT}_{\sf tot}$ &614.3 &67.76 &118.56 \\
& ${\sf Cost}$ &31.27 &3.48 &6.03 \\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Benchmarking of comparisons over various depths. Each of the layer has 128 comparisons. Time is reported in minutes, and monetary cost in USD.\label{tab:compb}}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
Interestingly, beyond a depth of roughly 100, the time-optimized variant~($\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$) starts outperforming in every metric, especially monetary cost, over the cost-optimized one~($\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}$). This is because as the depth increases, runtime~({\sf CT}) grows at a much higher rate than the total communication. What we can infer from \tabref{compb} is that if one were to use a DNN with a depth of over 100, $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ becomes the optimal choice.
\subsection{Our Contributions}
We make several contributions towards designing a practically efficient 4PC mixed-protocol framework, tolerating at most one active corruption. It operates over the ring $\Z{\ell}$ and provides {\em end-to-end} conversions to switch between arithmetic, boolean and garbled worlds. We assume a one-time key setup phase and work in the (function-dependent) preprocessing model which paves the way for a fast online phase.
Depending on the sensitivity of the application and the underlying data, one might want different levels of security. For this, we propose two variants of the framework, covering fairness~($\textsf{Tetrad}$) and robustness~($\textsf{Tetrad-R}$) guarantees.
The fair variant improves upon the state-of-the-art {\em fair} framework of Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20}. $\textsf{Tetrad-R}$ improves communication over the best robust protocols~\cite{USENIX:KPPS21,USENIX:DalEscKel20}, while offering support for secure training of neural networks, which was not supported in previous works.
\subsubsection{Improved Arithmetic/Boolean 4PC}
In $\textsf{Tetrad}$, the multiplication protocol has a communication cost of only 5 ring elements as opposed to 6 in the state-of-the-art framework of Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20}. Security is elevated to robustness via $\textsf{Tetrad-R}$, which has a minimal overhead over the fair one, in the preprocessing. Concretely, for a 64-bit ring with 40-bit statistical security, the overhead per multiplication is 0.027 bits for a circuit containing $2^{20}$ multiplications. This means robustness essentially comes free in the case of large circuits.
A notable contribution is the design of the multiplication protocol. It gives the following benefits -- i) support for on-demand applications, ii) probabilistic truncation without overhead and iii) multi-input multiplication gates.
\noindent {\em On-demand applications:}
The design of the multiplication protocol allows $\textsf{Tetrad}$ to support on-demand applications where a preprocessing phase is not available. This variant of the protocols~(cf.~\S\ref{app:4pc}) has a round complexity that is the same as that of the online phases of the protocols in the preprocessing model and retains the same overall communication. It takes advantage of parallelization, which is often not possible in the {\em function-dependent} preprocessing model where the preprocessing and the online phases must be executed sequentially.
\noindent {\em Probabilistic truncation without any overhead:}
Multiplication (and dot product) with truncation forms an essential component while working with fixed-point values. Techniques for probabilistic truncation were proposed by~\cite{SP:MohZha17,CCS:MohRin18}. Recently, \cite{USENIX:MLRG20} gave an efficient instantiation of truncation for 4PC with abort, based on the technique of ABY3. Using that as a baseline, we demonstrate for the {\em first time} in the fair and robust settings, how multiplication (and dot-product) with truncation can be performed without any additional cost over a multiplication.
\noindent {\em Multi-input multiplication:}
Inspired by~\cite{USENIX:PSSY21, FC:OhaNui20}, we propose new protocols for 3 and 4-input multiplication, allowing multiplication of 3 and 4 inputs in one online round. Naively, performing a 4-input multiplication follows a tree-based approach, and the required communication is that of three 2-input multiplications and 2 online rounds.
Our contribution lies in keeping the communication and the round of the online phase the same as that of 2-input multiplication (i.e. invariant of the number of inputs). To achieve this, we trade off the preprocessing cost. Looking ahead, multi-input multiplication, when coupled with the optimized parallel prefix adder circuit from~\cite{USENIX:PSSY21}, brings in a $2 \times$ improvement in online rounds. It also cuts down the online communication of secure comparison, impacting PPML applications.
\subsubsection{4PC Mixed-Protocol Framework}
In addition to relying on the improved arithmetic/boolean world, we observe that a large portion of the computation in most MPC-based PPML frameworks is done over the arithmetic and boolean worlds. The garbled world is used only to perform the non-linear operations~(e.g. softmax) that are expensive in the arithmetic/boolean world and switch back immediately after. Leveraging this observation we propose tailor-made GC-based protocols with {\em end-to-end} conversion techniques.
The tailor-made GC for the fair protocols, has the following advantages over Trident -- i) no use of commitments for the inputs, and ii) no requirement of an explicit input sharing and output reconstruction phase, as explained later. The overall communication cost remains the same as Trident with 1 GC and 2 online rounds. In addition, for time-constrained applications we offer a variant that trades off 1 GC at the expense of 1 lesser online round. When it comes to robustness, the state-of-the-art for GC protocols are~\cite{C:IKKP15}, costing 12 GC and 2 rounds, and~\cite{CCS:BJPR18}, costing 2 GC and 4 rounds. We propose robust GC conversions for the first time, and they cost 2 GC and have an amortized round complexity of 1.
As mentioned earlier, the framework operates over three domains - arithmetic, boolean, and garbled~(\secref{4pcMixFrame}). For an operation that required computing over the garbled domain, the standard approach is to first switch from {\em Arithmetic to Garbled} and evaluate the garbled circuit to obtain a garbled-shared output. These shares are brought back to the arithmetic domain using a {\em Garbled to Arithmetic} conversion. Our approach instead is to modify the garbled circuit such that the output is in the arithmetic domain. This eliminates the need for an explicit {\em Garbled to Arithmetic} conversion, saving in both communication and rounds in the online phase. More generally, end-to-end conversions are of the form ``$\sf{x}$-Garbled-$\sf{x}$'' where $\sf{x}$ can be either arithmetic or boolean, and need a single round for the garbled world~(cf.~\S\ref{sec:4pcMixFrame}).
Comparison of Tetrad with actively secure PPML frameworks in 3PC and 4PC is presented in \tabref{mpcCost}. The dot product is chosen as a parameter as it is one of the most crucial building blocks in PPML applications.
\subsubsection{Benchmarking and PPML}
We demonstrate the practicality of the framework, which combines the arithmetic, boolean, garbled worlds via benchmarking. The training and inference phases of deep neural networks such as LeNet~\cite{lenet} and VGG16~\cite{vgg16} and the inference phase of Support Vector Machines are benchmarked.
The implementation section is presented through the lens of deployment scenarios with two different goals. Participants in the first scenario are interested in the shortest online runtime for the computation, whereas participants in the second one want to minimize the deployment cost. Correspondingly, there are variants of our framework that cater to both scenarios.
Considering online runtime as the metric, $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}$ is the time-optimized~(${\sf T}$) variant with the fastest online phase. $\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}$ is the cost-optimized~(${\sf C}$) variant, minimizing deployment cost. This is measured via {\em monetary cost}~\cite{C:PRTY19}, which helps to capture the effect of the total runtime of the parties, and communication together.
Both variants are compared against Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20}, and their relative performance is indicated in \tabref{Comp}. The comparison is with respect to run time, communication, monetary cost, and throughput~(\tabref{notations}).
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{NiceTabular}{r c c c c c}
\toprule
\Block{2-1}{Protocol}
& \Block[c]{1-3}{Training \& Inference\tabularnote{`Com' - Communication, `Time' - Runtime, `CT' - Cumulative Runtime, `Cost' - Monetary Cost, `$\TP_{\sf on}$' - Online Throughput, ${\sf on}$ - online, ${\sf tot}$ - total}} & &
& Training & Inference \\ \cmidrule{2-6}
& $\text{Time}_{\sf on}$\tabularnote{$\Circle$ - good, $\LEFTcircle$ - better, $\CIRCLE$ - best,~(w.r.t parameter considered)}
& $\text{Com}_{\sf tot}$ & $\text{CT}_{\sf tot}$ & Cost & $\TP_{\sf on}$\\
\midrule
\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}
& $\CIRCLE$ & $\LEFTcircle$ & $\CIRCLE$ & $\LEFTcircle$ & $\CIRCLE$ \\
\textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}
& $\LEFTcircle$ & $\CIRCLE$ & $\LEFTcircle$ & $\CIRCLE$ & $\LEFTcircle$ \\
Trident
& $\Circle$ & $\Circle$ & $\Circle$ & $\Circle$ & $\Circle$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{NiceTabular}
}
\vspace{-1mm}
\caption{\small Comparison of Trident~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20} with the versions of \textsf{Tetrad}~for deep neural networks~(cf. NN-4 in \S\ref{sec:4pcImplementation}). }\label{tab:Comp}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{table}
Trident requires $3$ parties to be active for most of the online phase, the 4th party coming in only towards the end of the computation. In Tetrad, it is brought down to $2$, having a significant impact on the monetary cost.
\tabref{Comp} shows that Tetrad is better when compared to Trident across all the parameters considered. Within Tetrad, \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf T}~fares better when it comes to online run time for both training and inference, while \textsf{Tetrad}\textsubscript{\sf C}~does better in terms of communication.
When it comes to inference, throughput is more relevant than the cost, and here, the time-optimized variant fares the best. Robust variants follow the same trends, and the reasons behind them are elaborated in \secref{4pcImplementation}.
\subsection{GC for mixed protocol framework}
\label{p:gcworld2}
The 2 GC variant has two parallel executions, each comprising of 3 garblers and 1 evaluator. $P_1, P_2$ act as evaluators in two independent executions and the parties in $\PlSet{1} = \{P_0, P_2, P_3\}$, $\PlSet{2} = \{P_0, P_1 ,P_3\}$ act as garblers, respectively. Note that it suffices for only $P_0, P_3$ to generate and $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ the GC to the evaluator.
Garbled evaluation proceeds in three phases-- i) Input phase, ii) Evaluation, and iii) Output phase. The input phase involves transferring the keys to the evaluators for every input to the GC. Note here that the function (to be evaluated via the GC) input is already $\shrB{\cdot}$-shared.
Since each share of the function input is available with two garblers in each garbling instance, the correct key transfer is ensured via $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$. The evaluation consists of GC transfer followed by GC evaluation. Lastly, in the output phase, evaluators obtain the encoded output. Preliminary details about the garbling scheme and additional details of the GC protocol are given in \S\ref{app:garbled}.
\paragraph{Input Phase}
\label{p:gbip}
Given that the function input $\vl{x}$ is already available as $\shrB{\vl{x}}$, the boolean values $\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}$, where $\av{\vl{x}} = \pad{\vl{x}}{1} \oplus \pad{\vl{x}}{2}$ and $\vl{x} = \mk{\vl{x}} \oplus \av{\vl{x}} \oplus \pad{\vl{x}}{3}$, act as the {\em new} inputs for the garbled computation, and garbled sharing ($\shrG{\cdot}$) is generated for each of these values. The semantics of $\shrB{\cdot}$-sharing ensures that each of these shares ($\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}$) is available with two garblers in each garbling instance. The keys for the shares can either be sent (using $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$) correctly to the evaluators or the inconsistency is detected. This key delivery essentially generates $\shrG{\cdot}$-sharing for each of these three values which enables GC evaluation. Thus, the goal of our input phase is to create the compound sharing, $\shrC{\vl{x}} = (\shrG{\mk{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\av{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\pad{\vl{x}}{3}})$ for every input $\vl{x}$ to the function to be evaluated via the GC. We first discuss the semantics for $\shrG{\cdot}$-sharing followed by steps for generating $\shrC{\cdot}$-sharing.
\paragraph{Garbled sharing semantics}\label{gcsemantics}
A value $\vl{v} \in \Z{}$ is $\shrG{\cdot}$-shared (garbled shared) amongst $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ if $P_i \in \{P_0, P_3\}$ holds $\shrG{\vl{v}}_{i}= (\key{{\vl{v}}}{0,1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{0,2})$, $P_1$ holds $\shrG{\vl{v}}_{1} = (\key{{\vl{v}}}{\vl{v},1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{0,2})$ and $P_2$ holds $\shrG{\vl{v}}_{2} = (\key{{\vl{v}}}{0,1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{\vl{v},2})$. Here, $\key{{\vl{v}}}{\vl{v}, j} = \key{{\vl{v}}}{0, j} \oplus \vl{v} \Delta^{j}$ for $j \in \{1, 2\}$, and $\Delta^{j}$, which is known only to the garblers in $\PlSet{j}$, denotes the global offset with its least significant bit set to $1$ and is same for every wire in the circuit.
A value $\vl{x} \in \Z{}$ is said to be $\shrC{\cdot}$-shared (compound shared) if each value from $(\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3})$, which are as defined above, is $\shrG{\cdot}$-shared. We write $\shrC{\vl{x}} = (\shrG{\mk{\vl{x}}},\shrG{\av{\vl{x}}},\shrG{\pad{\vl{x}}{3}})$.
\paragraph{Generation of $\shrG{\vl{v}}$ and $\shrC{\vl{x}}$}
Protocol $\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}, \vl{v})$~(\boxref{fig:pigsh}) enables generation of $\shrG{\vl{v}}$ where two garblers in each garbling instance hold $\vl{v}$, and proceeds as follows. Consider the first garbling instance with evaluator $P_1$ where garblers $P_k, P_l$ hold $\vl{v}$. Garblers in $\PlSet{1}$ generate $\{\key{{{\vl{v}}}}{\bitb, 1}\}_{\bitb \in \{0, 1\}}$ which denotes the key for value $\bitb$ on wire $\vl{v}$, following the free-XOR technique~\cite{ICALP:KolSch08,C:KolMohRos14}.
$P_k, P_l$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\key{{{\vl{v}}}}{\vl{v}, 1}$ to evaluator $P_1$. Similar steps carried out with respect to the second garbling instance, at the end of which, garblers in $\PlSet{2}$ possess $\{\key{\vl{v}}{\bitb, 2}\}_{\bitb \in \{0,1\}}$ while the evaluator $P_2$ holds $\key{\vl{v}}{\vl{v}, 2}$. Following this, the shares $\shrG{\vl{v}}_s$ held by $P_s \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ are defined as $\shrG{\vl{v}}_0 = \shrG{\vl{v}}_3 = (\key{\vl{v}}{0, 1}, \key{\vl{v}}{0, 2})$, $\shrG{\vl{v}}_1 = (\key{\vl{v}}{\vl{v}, 1}, \key{\vl{v}}{0, 2})$, $\shrG{\vl{v}}_2 = (\key{\vl{v}}{0, 1}, \key{\vl{v}}{\vl{v}, 2})$.
To generate $\shrC{\vl{x}}$, we need a way to generate $(\shrG{\mk{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\av{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\pad{\vl{x}}{3}})$, given $\shrB{\vl{x}}$. For this, $\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}$ is invoked for each of $\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}$.
\begin{protocolbox}{$\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}, \vl{v})$}{Generation of $\shrG{\vl{v}}$}{fig:pigsh}
\justify
\begin{enumerate}[itemsep=0mm]
\item Garblers in $\PlSet{j}$ for $j \in \{1, 2\}$ generate keys $\key{{\vl{v}}}{0, j}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{1, j}$ for wire $\vl{v}$, using free-XOR technique.
\item Let $P_k^j, P_l^j$ denote the garblers in the $j^{\text{th}}$ instance, for $j \in \{1, 2\}$, who hold $\vl{v} \in \Z{}$. $P_k^j, P_l^j$ $\ensuremath{\mathsf{jsnd}}$ $\key{\vl{v}}{\vl{v}, j}$ to evaluator $P_j$.
\item $P_i \in \{P_0, P_3\}$ sets $\shrG{\vl{v}}_i = (\key{{\vl{v}}}{0,1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{0,2})$, $P_1$ sets $\shrG{\vl{v}}_{1} = (\key{{\vl{v}}}{\vl{v},1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{0,2})$ and $P_2$ sets $\shrG{\vl{v}}_{2} = (\key{{\vl{v}}}{0,1}, \key{{\vl{v}}}{\vl{v},2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{protocolbox}
\vspace{-3mm}
\subsection{Conversions involving Garbled World}
\label{p:conv2gc}
Assume the GC is required to compute a function $f$ on inputs $\vl{x}, \vl{y} \in \Z{\ell}$ and let the output be $f(\vl{x}, \vl{y})$. All the conversions described are for the 2 GC variant. Conversions for the 1 GC variant are straightforward, hence we omit the details. The conversions are generic for fair and robust variants, where the security follows from that of the underlying primitives.
\medskip
{\em Case I: Boolean-Garbled-Boolean.} Since the inputs to the GC are available in boolean form, say $\shrB{\vl{x}}, \shrB{\vl{y}}$, parties generate $\shrC{\vl{x}}, \shrC{\vl{y}}$ by invoking the garbled sharing protocol $\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}$.
Additionally, parties $P_0, P_3$ sample $\vl{R} \in \Z{\ell}$ to mask the function output, $f(\vl{x}, \vl{y})$, and generate $\shrB{\vl{R}}$ (using the joint sharing protocol) and $\shrG{\vl{R}}$. Garblers $P_g \in \{P_0, P_2, P_3\}$ garble the circuit which computes $\vl{z} = f(\vl{x}, \vl{y}) \oplus \vl{R}$, and send the GC along with the decoding information to evaluator $P_1$. Analogous steps are performed for evaluator $P_2$. Upon GC evaluation and output decoding, evaluators obtain $\vl{z} = f(\vl{x}, \vl{y}) \oplus \vl{R}$, and jointly boolean share $\vl{z}$ to generate $\shrB{\vl{z}}$. Parties then compute $\shrB{f(\vl{x}, \vl{y})} = \shrB{\vl{z}} \oplus \shrB{\vl{R}}$.
\medskip
{\em Case II: Boolean-Garbled-Arithmetic.} This is similar to {\em Case I} except that the circuit which computes $\vl{z} = f(\vl{x}, \vl{y}) + \vl{R}$ is garbled instead. Boolean sharing of $\vl{z}$ is replaced with arithmetic, followed by computing $\shr{f(\vl{x}, \vl{y})} = \shr{\vl{z}} - \shr{\vl{R}}$.
\medskip
{\em Cases III \& IV: Input in Arithmetic Sharing.}
The function to be computed $f(\vl{x}, \vl{y})$, is modified as $f^{\prime}(\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}, \mk{\vl{y}}, \av{\vl{y}}, \pad{\vl{y}}{3}) = f(\mk{\vl{x}}-\av{\vl{x}}-\pad{\vl{x}}{3}, \mk{\vl{y}}-\av{\vl{y}}-\pad{\vl{y}}{3})$ where inputs $\vl{x}, \vl{y}$ are replaced by the triples $\{\mk{\vl{x}}, \av{\vl{x}}, \pad{\vl{x}}{3}\}, \{\mk{\vl{y}}, \av{\vl{y}}, \pad{\vl{y}}{3}\}$ and $\av{\vl{x}} = \pad{\vl{x}}{1} + \pad{\vl{x}}{2}$ and $\av{\vl{y}} = \pad{\vl{y}}{1} + \pad{\vl{y}}{2}$. The circuit to be garbled thus, corresponds to the function $f^{\prime}$. Parties generate $\shrG{\mk{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\av{\vl{x}}}, \shrG{\pad{\vl{x}}{3}}, \allowbreak \shrG{\mk{\vl{y}}}, \shrG{\av{\vl{y}}}, \shrG{\pad{\vl{y}}{3}}$ via $\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Pi}_{\mathsf{Sh}}^{\bf G}}$, following which, parties proceed with the rest of the computation whose steps are similar to {\em Case I}, and {\em II}, depending on the requirement on the output sharing.
\subsection{Other Conversions}
\label{sec:otherconv}
\paragraph{Arithmetic to Boolean} To convert arithmetic sharing of $\vl{v} \in \Z{\ell}$ to boolean sharing, observe that $\vl{v} = \vl{v}_1 + \vl{v}_2$ where $\vl{v}_1 = \mk{\vl{v}} - \pad{\vl{v}}{3}$ is possessed by parties $P_1, P_2$, while $\vl{v}_2 = -(\pad{\vl{v}}{1} + \pad{\vl{v}}{2})$ is possessed by parties $P_0, P_3$. Thus, $\shrB{\vl{v}}$ can be computed as $\shrB{\vl{v}} = \shrB{\vl{v}_1} + \shrB{\vl{v}_2}$, where $\shrB{\vl{v}_2}$ can be generated in the preprocessing phase, and $\shrB{\vl{v}_1}$ can be generated in the online phase by the respective parties executing joint boolean sharing protocol. The protocol appears in \boxref{fig:piab}. Boolean addition, when instantiated using the adder of ABY2.0~\cite{USENIX:PSSY21}, requires $\log_4(\ell)$ rounds.
\paragraph{Boolean to Arithmetic} To convert a boolean sharing of $\vl{v}$ into an arithmetic sharing, we use techniques from~\cite{NDSS:ChaRacSur20,USENIX:KPPS21}. For a value $\vl{v} \in \Z{\ell}$, note that
\begin{align*}
\vl{v} &= \sum_{i=0}^{\ell - 1} 2^{i} \vl{v}_i = \sum_{i=0}^{\ell - 1} 2^{i} ({\pd{\vl{v}}}_i \oplus {\mk{\vl{v}}}_i) \\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{\ell - 1} 2^{i} \left( \arval{{\mk{\vl{v}}}_i} + \arval{{\pd{\vl{v}}}_i} (1 - 2\arval{{\mk{\vl{v}}}_i}) \right)
\end{align*}
where $\arval{{\pd{\vl{v}}}_i}, \arval{{\mk{\vl{v}}}_i}$ denote the arithmetic value of bits ${\pd{\vl{v}}}_i, {\mk{\vl{v}}}_i$ over the ring $\Z{\ell}$.
For each bit $\vl{v}_i$ of $\vl{v}$, parties generate the arithmetic sharing of $\arval{{{\pd{\vl{v}}}}_i}$ in the preprocessing, using techniques from bit to arithmetic protocol~(cf.~\S\ref{sec:4pcTools}). During the online phase, additive shares for each bit $\vl{v}_i$ is locally computed similar to bit to arithmetic protocol. Parties then multiply the $i$th share with $2^i$ and locally add up to obtain an additive sharing of $\vl{v}$. The rest of the steps are similar to the bit to arithmetic protocol, and the formal protocol appears in \boxref{fig:piba}.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:4pcIntro}
\input{M_Introduction}
\section{Preliminaries and Definitions}
\label{sec:4pcPrelim}
\input{M_Preliminaries}
\section{4PC Protocol}
\label{sec:4pcFourPC}
\input{M_4PC}
\section{Mixed Protocol Framework}
\label{sec:4pcMixFrame}
\input{M_MixFrame}
\section{Building Blocks}
\label{sec:4pcTools}
\input{M_4PC_Tools}
\section{Implementation and Benchmarking}
\label{sec:4pcImplementation}
\input{M_Implementation}
\section*{Future Work}
\label{sec:4pcConclusion}
\input{M_Conclusion}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to acknowledge support from Google PhD Fellowship 2019, Centre for Networked
Intelligence (a Cisco CSR initiative) 2021, SERB MATRICS (Theoretical Sciences) Grant 2020 and Google India AI/ML Research Award 2020. The authors would also like to acknowledge the financial support from Google Cloud to perform the benchmarking.
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreements No. 850990~(PSOTI) and No. 803096~(SPEC)) and from the Digital Research Centre Denmark (DIREC). This work was co-funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft~(DFG) – SFB~1119 CROSSING/236615297.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section*{Introduction}
This paper is motivated by the problem of evaluation and control of the quality of three-phase electric power, which can be represented by a triangle in the Euclidean plane. The vertices of this triangle correspond to the three phases of the electric power, and the lengths of sides of the triangle correspond to the voltage between the phases, and those can be measured by standard volt-meters. So, the triangle is given up to a rotation or even isometry. The quality of electric power can be evaluated by the deviation of the triangle from a regular triangle of a given size. This motivates a mathematical problem of defining a deviation of a polygon in a $G$-space from another polygon.
This problem can be formalized as follows. Let $X$ be a metric space endowed with an action of some group $G$ whose neutral element is denoted by $1_G$. The action is a function $G\times X\to X$, $(g,x)\mapsto g\cdot x$, satisfying two conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $1_X\cdot x=x$ for any $x\in X$;
\item $g\cdot(h\cdot x)=(gh)\cdot x$ for any $g,h\in G$ and $x\in X$.
\end{itemize}
By an {\em $n$-gon} in the metric space $X$ we understand any $n$-tuple $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ of points of the space $X$. So, $n$-gons are elements of the $n$-th power $X^n$ of the space $X$. The distance between two $n$-gons $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ in $X$ is calculated by the formula
$$d(\vec x,\vec y\,)=\Big(\sum_{k=1}^n |x_k-y_k|^2\Big)^{\frac12},$$
where $|x_k-y_k|$ is the distance between the points $x_k,y_k$ in the metric space $X$.
The action $G\times X\to X$ induces the coordinatewise action
$$G\times X^n\to X^n,\quad (g,(x_1,\dots,x_n))\mapsto (gx_1,\dots,gx_n),$$of $G$ on the $n$th power $X^n$ of $X$.
\begin{definition} The {\em $G$-deviation} of an $n$-gon $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in X^n$ from an $n$-gon $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in X^n$ is defined as the real number
$$d(G\vec x,\vec y\,)=\inf\{d(g\vec x,\vec y\,):g\in G\}.$$
\end{definition}
So the $G$-deviation $d(G\vec x,\vec y)$ of $\vec x$ from $\vec y$ is the distance from $\vec y$ to the the $G$-orbit $G\vec x=\{g\vec x:g\in G\}$ of $\vec x$ in the metric space $X^n$.
In this paper we derive simple formulas for calculating deviations of $n$-gons on the complex plane $\IC$ endowed with the standard Euclidean distance and the action of some groups of affine transformations of $\IC$.
Observe that the subsets
$$\IT=\{z\in\IC:|z|=1\}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\IC^*=\{z\in\IC:z\ne0\}$$ of the complex plane $\IC$ are groups with respect to the operation of multiplication of complex numbers.
A bijective self-map $f$ of the complex plane $\IC$ is called an {\em affine transformation} of $\IC$ if there are complex numbers $a\in\IC^*$ and $b\in\IC$ such that $f(z)=az+b$ for all $z\in\IC$. Geometrically, affine maps of $\IC$ are orientation-preserving similarity transformations of the plane. An affine transformation $az+b$ of $\IC$ is called
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em linear} if $b=0$;
\item an {\em isometry} if $a\in\IT$;
\item a {\em rotation} if $a\in\IT$ and $b=0$.
\end{itemize}
It is clear that affine transformations of the complex plane form a group with respect to the operation of composition of transformations. Linear transformations, isometries and rotations form subgroups in the group $\Aff(\IC)$ of affine transformations of $\IC$. Depending on the choice of a subgroup of $\Aff(\IC)$, we distinguish four deviations of an $n$-gon $\vec x\in\IC^n$ from an $n$-gon $\vec y\in\IC^n$:
\begin{itemize}
\item the {\em rotational deviation} $d(\IT\vec x,\vec y\,)=\inf\{d(a\vec x,\vec y\,):a\in\IT\}$;
\item the {\em linear deviation} $d(\IC^*\vec x,\vec y\,)=\inf\{d(a\vec x,\vec y\,):a\in\IC^*\}$;
\item the {\em isometric deviation} $d(\IT\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=\inf\{d(a\vec x+b,\vec y\,):a\in\IT,\;b\in\IC\}$;
\item the {\em affine deviation} $d(\IC^*\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=\inf\{d(a\vec x+b,\vec y\,):a\in\IC^*,\;b\in\IC\}$.
\end{itemize}
In Sections~\ref{s2}--\ref{s4} we shall deduce simple formulas for calculating these four deviations for $n$-gons in the complex plane.
In Section~\ref{s5} we apply these formulas for calculating deviations between triangles in the complex plane.
By a {\em triangle} in a metric space $X$ we understand any triple $\vec x=(x_1,x_2,x_2)$ of points of the space $X$.
For two points $x,y\in X$ we denote by $|x-y|$ the distance between $x$ and $y$ in the metric space $X$.
A triangle $\vec x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ in a metric space $X$ is defined to be
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em equilateral} if $|x_1-x_2|=|x_2-x_3|=|x_3-x_1|$;
\item {\em singular} if $x_1=x_2=x_3$;
\item {\em regular} if it is equilateral and not singular;
\item {\em linear} if there exist pairwise distinct numbers $i,j,k\in\{1,2,3\}$ such that $|x_i-x_k|=|x_i-x_j|+|x_j-x_k|$.
\end{itemize}
Observe that a triangle is linear if and only if it is isometric to a triangle in the real line. A triangle is singular if and only if it is both linear and equilateral.
The main result of Section~\ref{s5} is Theorem~\ref{t:main} providing formulas for calculating the affine and isometric deviations of a plane triangle (given by lengths of its sides) from the regular triangle
$$\trig=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}(1,e^{i\frac{2\pi}3},e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3})$$with sides $1$. The triangle $\trig$ is oriented counter-clockwise since the move from its first vertex $1$ to the second one $e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}$ goes counter-clockwise. For a triangle $\vec z$ in the complex plane its {\em orientation} is defined as
$$\sign(\vec z\,)=\begin{cases}
-1&\mbox{if $\vec z$ is singular};\\
0&\mbox{if $\vec z$ is linear and not singular};\\
1&\mbox{if $\vec z$ is non-linear and is oriented counter-clockwise};\\
-1&\mbox{if $\vec z$ is non-linear and is oriented clockwise}.
\end{cases}
$$
According to this definition, any singular triangle has opposite orientation to the regular triangle $\triangle$. The regular triangle $\trig$ has orientation $\sign(\trig)=1$.
In Theorem~\ref{t:main} we prove that for a triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ on the complex plane,
\begin{itemize}
\item the isometric deviation $d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{1+u^2-\sqrt{2}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}$,
\item the affine deviation $d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{\frac12\big(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}$,
\end{itemize}
where $$u=\sqrt{\frac{|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2}3}\quad\mbox{and}\quad q=\frac{|z_1-z_2|^4+|z_2-z_3|^4+|z_3-z_1|^4}{(|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2)^2}.$$
If $z_1=z_2=z_3$, then we put $q=\frac12$.
The coefficient $q$ is called the {\em quadrofactor} of the triangle $\vec z$. It takes its minimal value $\frac 13$ if and only if the triangle is regular, and $q$ takes its maximal value $\frac12$ if and only if the triangle is linear, see Theorem~\ref{t:quadro}.
The number $\sqrt{3-6q}$ appearing in the above formulas has a nice geometric meaning: it is equal to $\frac{4A}{\sqrt{3}u^2}$ where $A$ is the area of the triangle $\vec z$. The fraction $\frac{4A}{\sqrt{3}u^2}=\sqrt{3-6q}$ is called the {\em normalized area} of the triangle $\vec z$. It can be considered as a measure of regularity of the triangle: the normalized are takes its
\begin{itemize}
\item maximal value $1$ if and only if the triangle is regular,
\item minimal value $0$ if and only if the triangle is linear,
\end{itemize}
see Corollary~\ref{c:quadro}.
The formula for the affine deviation and the properties of the quadrofactor imply that for a triangle $\vec z$ on the complex plane its affine deviation $d(\IC^*\!\vec z{+}\IC,\trig)$ from the regular triangle $\trig$ takes
\begin{itemize}
\item its minimal value $0$ if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is regular and oriented counter-clockwise;
\item its maximal value $1$ if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is equilateral and oriented clockwise;
\item the intermediate value $\frac1{\sqrt{2}}$ if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is linear but nor singular;
\item its value in the interval $(0,\frac1{\sqrt{2}})$ if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is not linear, not regular, and is oriented counter-clockwise;
\item its value in the interval $(\frac1{\sqrt{2}},1)$ if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is not linear, not regular, and is oriented clockwise.
\end{itemize}
We propose to use the isometric and affine deviations as characteristics of the quality of 3-phase electric power. In Section~\ref{s:K} we compare these characteristics to a standard measure of quality of electric power, which is based on positive and negative components of a triangle. Following the classical approach of Fortescue \cite{Fort}, for a triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ in the complex plane, we define three symmetric components of $\vec z$:
\begin{itemize}
\item the {\em positive component} $\frac13(z_1+z_2e^{-\frac{2\pi}3i}+z_3e^{\frac{2\pi}3i})$,
\item the {\em negative component} $\frac13(z_1+z_2e^{\frac{2\pi}3i}+z_3e^{-\frac{2\pi}3i})$, and
\item the {\em zero component} $\frac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$.
\end{itemize}
The ratio of negative to positive components
$$\unbal=\frac{|z_1+z_2e^{\frac{2\pi}3i}+z_3e^{-\frac{2\pi}3i}|}{|z_1+z_2e^{-\frac{2\pi}3i}+z_3e^{\frac{2\pi}3i}|}$$
is called the {\em unbalance factor} of the triangle $\vec z$ and is widely used in Electric Power Engineering as a number characterizing a deviation of the triangle $\vec z$ from being regular and oriented counter-clockwise. The unbalance factor $\unbal$ is equal to zero if and only if the triangle $\vec z$ is regular and is oriented counter-clockwise. In particular, the unbalance factor $\unbal$ of the model regular triangle $\trig$ is zero.
In Theorem~\ref{t:K} and Corollary~\ref{c:K} we prove that any triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC$ has unbalance factor
$$\unbal=\sqrt{\frac{1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}=\sqrt{\frac{d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}{1-d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}},$$ which implies that $\unbal$ is expressible via the affine deviation $$d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{\tfrac12(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q})}=\sqrt{\frac{\unbal^2}{1+\unbal^2}}$$ and vice versa.
On the other hand, the isometric deviation $d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)$ is a new characteristic that evaluates a deviation of a triangle $\vec z$ from $\trig$ both by the form and size.
\section{The Hilbert space structure of $\IC^n$}\label{s1}
For a complex number $z=x+iy$ we denote by $|z|=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ the absolute value of $z$. Also $\Re(z)$ and $\Im(z)$ will denote the real and imaginary parts of $z=x+iy$, which are equal to $x$ and $y$, respectively. By $\bar z:=x-iy$ we denote the conjugate to $z$. We shall often exploit the equality $|z|^2=z\bar z$ holding for any complex number $z$.
\smallskip
For two vectors $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ in the linear space $\IC^n$ by
$$\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle:=\sum_{k=1}^n{x_k\overline{y_k}}$$we denote the scalar product of the vectors $\vec x$ and $\vec y$. The real number $$\|\vec x\|:=\sqrt{\langle \vec x |\vec x\,\rangle}=\Big(\sum_{k=1}^n{|x_k|^2}\Big)^{\frac12}$$is called the {\em norm} of the vector $\vec x$ in $\IC^n$.
It is easy to see that for two $n$-gons $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ in $\IC$ we have
$$d(\vec x,\vec y\,)=\Big(\sum_{k=1}^n{|x_k-y_k|^2}\Big)^\frac12=\|\vec x-\vec y\,\|.$$
So, the distance between $n$-gons is equal to the distance between the corresponding vectors in the Hilbert space $\IC^n$.
For an $n$-gon $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ in $\IC$ and a complex number $z$ let
$$\vec x+z=(x_1+z,\dots,x_n+z)$$be the shifted $n$-gon $\vec x$ in the direction of the vector $z$.
\section{The rotational deviation}
\begin{theorem}\label{t1} The rotational deviation $d(\IT\vec x,\vec y\,)$ of any vector $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\IC^n$ from a vector $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in\IC^n$ can be calculated by the formula
$$d(\IT\vec x,\vec y\,)=\sqrt{\|\vec x\|^2+\|\vec y\,\|^2-2\cdot|\langle \vec x\,|\vec y\,\rangle|}=d(a\vec x,\vec y\,),$$
where $a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{|\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}$ if $\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle\ne 0$, and $a$ is any element of $\IT$ if $\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle=0$.\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that for any $a\in\IT$ we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(a\vec x,\vec y\,)^2=&\sum_{k=1}^n|ax_k-y_k|^2=\sum_{k=1}^n(ax_k-y_k)(\bar a\bar x_k-\bar y_k)=\\
&\sum_{k=1}^n\big(a\bar a x_k\bar x_k+y_k\bar y_k-(ax_k\bar y_k+\bar a\bar x_ky_k)\big)=\sum_{k=1}^n\big(|x_k|^2+|y_k|^2-2\Re(ax_k\bar y_k)\big)=\\
&\big(\sum_{k=1}^n|x_k|^2+|y_k|^2\big)-2\Re(a\sum_{k=1}^nx_k\bar y_k)=\|\vec x\|^2+\|\vec y\,\|^2-2\Re(a\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle).
\end{aligned}
$$
Now we see that
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(\IT\vec x,\vec y\,)=&\min\{d(a\vec x,\vec y\,):a\in\IT\}=\min\big\{\|\vec x|^2+|\vec y\,\|^2-2\Re(a\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle):a\in\IT\}=\\
&\|\vec x\|^2+\|\vec y\,\|^2-2|\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|=d(a\vec x,\vec y\,),
\end{aligned}
$$
where $a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{|\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}$ if $\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle\ne 0$, and $a$ is any element of $\IT$ if $\langle \vec x,\vec y\,\rangle=0$.\end{proof}
\section{The isometric deviation}\label{s2}
\begin{theorem}\label{t2} The isometric deviation $d(\IT\vec x+\IC,\trig)$ of any vector $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\IC^n$ from a vector $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in\IC^n$ can be calculated by the formula
$$d(\IT\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=\sqrt{\|\vec x-x_0\|^2+\|\vec y-y_0\|^2-2\cdot|\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|}=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0),$$
where $$x_0=\frac1n\sum_{k=1}^nx_k,\;\;y_0=\frac1n\sum_{k=1}^ny_k,$$ and $$a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle}}{|\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|}$$ if $\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle\ne 0$, and $a$ is any element of $\IT$ if $\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle= 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that
$$d(\IT\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)^2=\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IT,\;b\in\IC\}.$$
For any $a\in\IT$ and $b\in\IC$ we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2=\sum_{k=1}^n(a(x_k-x_0)+b-(y_k-y_0))(\bar a(\bar x_k-\bar x_0)+\bar b-(\bar y_k-\bar y_0))=\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^n\big(|a(x_k{-}x_0)-(y_k{-}y_0)|^2+|b^2|+b(\bar a(\bar x_k{-}\bar x_0)-(\bar y_k{-}y_0))+(a(x_k{-}x_0)-(y_k{-}y_0))\bar b\big)=\\
&=\|a(\vec x{-}x_0)-(\vec y{-}y_0)\|^2+|b^2|+b\bar a\sum_{i=1}^n(\bar x_k{-}\bar x_0)-b\sum_{k=1}^n(\bar y_k{-}y_0)+\bar ba\sum_{i=1}^n({x_k{-}x_0})-\bar b\sum_{k=1}^n(y_k{-}y_0)=\\
&=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2+b\bar a\cdot 0-b\cdot 0+\bar ba\cdot 0-\bar b\cdot0=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2.
\end{aligned}
$$
Applying Theorem~\ref{t1}, we obtain
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(\IT\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)^2=&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IT,\;b\in\IC\}=\\
&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2:a\in\IT,\;b\in\IC\}=\\
&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IT\}=d(\IT(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2=\\
&\|\vec x-x_0\|^2+\|\vec y-y_0\|^2-2|\langle\vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2,
\end{aligned}
$$where
$$a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_x\rangle}}{|\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|}$$ if $\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle\ne 0$, and $a$ is any element of $\IT$ if $\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle= 0$.
\end{proof}
\section{The linear deviation}
\begin{theorem}\label{t3} The linear deviation $d(\IC^*\!\vec x,\vec y\,)$ of any non-zero vector $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\IC^n$ from a vector $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in\IC^n$ can be calculated by the formula
$$d(\IC^*\vec x,\vec y\,)=\sqrt{\|\vec y\,\|^2-\frac{|\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|^2}{\|\vec x\|^2}}=d(a\vec x,\vec y\,),$$
where $$a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{\|\vec x\|^2}.$$
If $\vec x=\vec 0$, then $d(\IC^*\!\vec x,\vec y\,)=\|\vec y\|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If $\vec x=\vec 0$, then
$$d(\IC^*\!\vec x,\vec y\,)=\min\{d(a\vec 0,\vec y\,):a\in\IC^*\}=d(\vec 0,\vec y\,)=\|\vec y\,\|.$$
So, we assume that $\vec x\ne\vec 0$.
Observe that
$$d(\IC^*\!\vec x,\vec y\,)=\min\{d(tr\vec x,\vec y\,):t\in\IT,\;r\in\IR_+\},
$$where $\IR_+$ stands for the set of positive real numbers.
By Theorem~\ref{t1}, for any $r\in\IR_+$
$$
\min\{d(tr\vec x,\vec y\,)^2:t\in\IT\}=r^2\|\vec x\|^2+\|\vec y\,\|^2-2r|\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|=
\Big(r\|\vec x\|-\frac{|\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}{\|\vec x\|}\Big)^2+\|\vec y\,\|^2-\frac{|\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|^2}{\|x\|^2}.
$$
Now we see that
$$\begin{aligned}
&d(\IC^*\!\vec x,\vec y\,)^2=\|\vec y\,\|^2-\frac{|\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|^2}{\|x\|^2}=d(tr\vec x,\vec y\,)^2=d(a\vec x,\vec y\,)^2,
\end{aligned}
$$
where $r=\frac{|\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}{\|\vec x\|^2}$,
$t=\frac{\overline{\langle r\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{|\langle r\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{|\langle \vec x|\vec y\,\rangle|}
$, and $a=\frac{\overline{\langle\vec x|\vec y\,\rangle}}{\|\vec x\|^2}$.
\end{proof}
\section{The affine deviation}\label{s4}
\begin{theorem}\label{t4} The affine deviation $d(\IC^*\!\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)$ of any non-constant vector $\vec x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\IC^n$ from a vector $\vec y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in\IC^n$ can be calculated by the formula
$$d(\IC^*\!\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=\sqrt{\|\vec y-y_0\|^2-\frac{|\langle\vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|^2}{\|\vec x-x_0\|^2}}=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0),$$
where $$a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle}}{\|\vec x-x_0\|^2}.$$
If $\vec x\in\IC^n$ is a constant vector, then $d(\IC^*\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=\|\vec y-y_0\|$ for any vector $\vec y\in\IC^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that
$$d(\IC^*\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)^2=\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IC^*,\;b\in\IC\}.$$
For any $a\in\IC^*$ and $b\in\IC$ we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2=\sum_{k=1}^n(a(x_k-x_0)+b-(y_k-y_0))(\bar a(\bar x_k-\bar x_0)+\bar b-(\bar y_k-\bar y_0))=\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^n\big(|a(x_k-x_0)-(y_k-y_0)|^2+|b^2|+b(\bar a(\bar x_k-\bar x_0)-(\bar y_k-\bar y_0))+(a(x_k-x_0)-(y_k-y_0))\bar b\big)=\\
&=\|a(\vec x{-}x_0)-(\vec y{-}y_0)\|^2+|b^2|+b\bar a\sum_{i=1}^n(\bar x_k{-}\bar x_0)-b\sum_{k=1}^n(\bar y_k{-}\bar y_0)+\bar ba\sum_{i=1}^n(x_k{-}x_0)-\bar b\sum_{k=1}^n(y_k{-}y_0)=\\
&=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2+b\bar a\cdot 0-b\cdot 0+\bar ba\cdot 0-\bar b\cdot0=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2.
\end{aligned}
$$
Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(\IC^*\!\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)^2=&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0)+b,\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IC^*,\;b\in\IC\}=\\
&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2+|b|^2:a\in\IC^*,\;b\in\IC\}=\\
&\min\{d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2:a\in\IC^*\}=d(\IC^*(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)^2.
\end{aligned}
$$
If $\vec x$ is a contant vector, then $\vec x-x_0=\vec 0$ and
$$d_1(\IC^*\!\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)=d(\IC^*(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)=d(\IC^*{\cdot}\vec 0,\vec y-y_0)=\|\vec y-y_0\|.$$
If the vector $\vec x$ is not constant, then $\vec x-x_0\ne\vec 0$ and by Theorem~\ref{t3}, we obtain
$$
\begin{aligned}
d(\IC^*\!\vec x+\IC,\vec y\,)^2=d(\IC^*(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0)=\|\vec y-y_0\|^2-\frac{|\langle\vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle|^2}{\|\vec x-x_0\|^2}=d(a(\vec x-x_0),\vec y-y_0),
\end{aligned}
$$where
$a=\frac{\overline{\langle \vec x-x_0|\vec y-y_0\rangle}}{\|\vec x-x_0\|^2}$.
\end{proof}
\section{The quadrofactor and normalized area of a triangle}
By a {\em plane triangle} we understand a non-singular triangle in the complex plane.
\begin{definition} For a plane triangle $\vec z$ with sides $a,b,c$ in the plane the {\em quadrofactor} of $\vec z$ is the number
$$q=\frac{a^4+b^4+c^4}{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2}$$
and the {\em normalized area} of $\vec z$ is the number
$$\frac{4\sqrt{3}A}{a^2+b^2+c^2}$$where $A$ is the area of the triangle $\vec z$.
\end{definition}
\begin{picture}(300,250)(-50,-10)
\put(100,0){\line(1,0){100}}
\put(100,100){\line(1,0){100}}
\put(100,0){\line(0,1){100}}
\put(200,0){\line(0,1){100}}
\put(147,48){$a^2$}
\put(197,162){$b^2$}
\put(80,147){$c^2$}
\put(137,123){$A$}
\put(100,100){\line(1,2){33}}
\put(200,100){\line(-1,1){67}}
\put(200,100){\line(1,1){67}}
\put(133,167){\line(1,1){67}}
\put(267,167){\line(-1,1){67}}
\put(100,100){\line(-2,1){67}}
\put(133,167){\line(-2,1){67}}
\put(33,133){\line(1,2){33}}
\end{picture}
The normalized area can be expressed via the quadrofactor as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:Heron} For a plane triangle with sides $a,b,c$ its normalized area equals
$$\frac{4\sqrt{3}A}{a^2+b^2+c^2}=\sqrt{3-6q},$$
where $A$ is the area of the triangle and $q$ is its quadrofactor.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By Heron's formula \cite{Heron},
$$
A=\tfrac14\sqrt{2a^2b^2+2a^2c^2+2b^2c^3-a^4-b^4-c^4}=\tfrac14\sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2-2(a^4+b^4+c^4)}
$$
and hence
$$\frac{4\sqrt{3}A}{(a^2+b^2+c^2)}=\frac{\sqrt{3}\sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2-2(a^4+b^4+c^4)}}{(a^2+b^2+c^2)}=\sqrt{3-6q}
$$
\end{proof}
The following theorem describes three basic properties of the quadrofactor.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:quadro} Let $q$ be the quadrofactor of a plane triangle. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\frac13\le q\le\frac12$;
\item $q=\frac13$ if and only if the triangle is regular;
\item $q=\frac12$ if and only if the triangle is linear.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $a,b,c$ be the lengths of the sides of the triangle.
By the Power Mean Inequality \cite[3.1.1]{Hand}, we have
$$\sqrt[2]{\frac{a^2+b^2+c^2}3}\le \sqrt[4]{\frac{a^4+b^4+c^4}3}$$and hence
$$(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2\le 3(a^4+b^4+c^4),$$which implies $q\ge\frac13$. By \cite[3.1.1]{Hand} the equality is attained if and only if $a=b=c$ if and only if the triangle is regular.
Theorem~\ref{t:Heron} implies that $3-6q\ge 0$ and hence $q\le \frac12$. Moreover, $q=\frac12$ if and only if the triangle has zero area if only if the triangle is linear.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{c:quadro} Let $q$ be the quadrofactor of a plane triangle and $\sqrt{3-6q}$ be its normalized area. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sqrt{3-6q}\le 1$;
\item $\sqrt{3-6q}=1$ if and only if the triangle is regular;
\item $\sqrt{3-6q}=0$ if and only if the triangle is linear.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\section{Deviations from a regular triangle}\label{s5}
In this section we deduce formulas for calculating four deviations of a given triangle on the complex plane from the regular triangle
$$\trig=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}(1,e^{i\frac{2\pi}3},e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3})$$
with sides of length $1$. This regular triangle will model the ideal form of a 3-phase electric power.
Theorems~\ref{t1}--\ref{t4} imply the following formulas for deviations of a triangle from the regular triangle $\trig$.
\begin{theorem}\label{t5} A triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC^3$ with center $ z_0=\tfrac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$ has:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the rotation derivation $d(\IT\vec z,\trig)=\sqrt{\|\vec z\|^2+1-2\cdot|\langle \vec z|\trig\rangle|}=d\big(\frac{\overline{\langle \vec z\,|\triangle\rangle}}{|\langle \vec z\,|\triangle\rangle|}\vec z,\trig\big)$,
\item the linear deviation $d(\IC^*\vec z,\trig)=\sqrt{1-\frac{|\langle \vec z|\trig\rangle|}{\|\vec z\|^2}}=d\big(\frac{\overline{\langle \vec z\,|\triangle\rangle}}{\|\vec z\,\|^2}\vec z,\trig\big)$,
\item the isometric deviation $d(\IT\vec z{+}\IC,\trig){=}\sqrt{\|\vec z{-}z_0\|^2{+}1{-}2{\cdot}|\langle \vec z{-}z_0|\trig\rangle|}{=}d\big(\frac{\overline{\langle \vec z-z_0|\triangle\rangle}}{|\langle \vec z{-}z_0|\triangle\rangle|}(\vec z{-}z_0),\trig\big)$,
\item the affine deviation $d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{1-\frac{|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|^2}{\|\vec z-z_0\|^2}}=d\big(\frac{\overline{\langle \vec z-z_0\,|\triangle\rangle}}{\|\vec z-z_0\,\|^2}(\vec z-z_0),\trig\big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Next, we show that the isometric and affine deviations $d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)$ and $d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC)$ can be expressed via the lengths of the sides of the triangle $\vec z$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l1} For any triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC^2$ on the complex plane
and its center $z_0=\frac13(z_0,z_1,z_2)$ we have
$$\|\vec z-z_0\|^2=\tfrac13(|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $x_k=z_k-z_0$ for $k\in\{1,2,3\}$ and observe that $x_1+x_2+x_3=0$.
Observe also that $x_k-x_j=z_k-z_j$ for any $k,j\in\{1,2,3\}$. Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2=|x_1-x_2|^2+|x_2-x_3|^2+|x_3-x_1|^2=\\
&=(x_1-x_2)(\bar x_1-\bar x_2)+(x_2-x_3)(\bar x_2-\bar x_3)+(x_3-x_1)(\bar x_3-\bar x_1)=\\
&=2(x_1\bar x_1+x_2\bar x_2+x_3\bar x_3)-x_1\bar x_2-x_2\bar x_1-x_2\bar x_3-x_3\bar x_2-x_3\bar x_1-x_1\bar x_3=\\
&=2(|x_1|^2+|x_2|^2+|x_3|^2)-x_1\bar x_2+(x_1+x_3)\bar x_1-x_2\bar x_3+(x_1+x_2)\bar x_2-x_3\bar x_1+(x_2+x_3)\bar x_3=\\
&=3(|x_1|^2+|x_2|^2+|x_3|^2)-x_1\bar x_2+x_3\bar x_1-x_2\bar x_3+x_1\bar x_2-x_3\bar x_1+x_2\bar x_3=\\
&=3\cdot (|z_1-z_0|^2+|z_2-z_0|^2+|z_3-z_0|^2)+0=3\cdot\|\vec z-z_0\|^2.
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l2} Let $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ where $z_1=0$, $z_2=x_2\in\IR$ and $z_3=x_3+iy_3$. Then for the center $z_0=\frac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$ of the triangle $\vec z$ we have
$$\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle=-\frac{x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}-\frac{\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}\cdot i$$
and
$$|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|^2=\tfrac13(x_2^2+x_3^2+y_3^2-x_2x_3+\sqrt{3}x_2y_3).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It follows that $$z_0=\tfrac{x_2+x_3}{3}+\tfrac{y_3}{3}i$$and hence
$$\vec z-z_0=(-\tfrac{x_2+x_3}{3}-i\tfrac{y_3}{3}, \tfrac{2x_2-x_3}{3}-i\tfrac{y_3}{3}, \tfrac{2x_3-x_2}{3}+i\tfrac{2y_3}{3}).$$
Since
$$\trig=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}(1,e^{i\tfrac{2\pi}3},e^{-i\tfrac{2\pi}3})=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}(1, -\tfrac{1}{2}+i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}, -\tfrac{1}{2}-i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}),$$
we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}\Big((-\tfrac{x_2+x_3}{3}-i\tfrac{y_3}{3})\cdot 1+ (\tfrac{2x_2-x_3}{3}-i\tfrac{y_3}{3})(-\tfrac{1}{2}-i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2})+( \tfrac{2x_3-x_2}{3}+i\tfrac{2y_3}{3})(-\tfrac{1}{2}+i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2})\Big)\\
&=\tfrac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left(-x_2-x_3-i y_3+ (2x_2-x_3-i y_3)(-\tfrac{1}{2}-i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2})+( 2x_3-x_2+2iy_3)(-\tfrac{1}{2}+i\tfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}) \right)\\
&= \tfrac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left({-}x_2{-}x_3{-}i y_3- x_2{+}\tfrac{x_3}{2}{+}\tfrac{y_3}{2}i-\sqrt{3}x_2i {+}\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{2}x_3 i{-}\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{2}y_3- x_3{+}\tfrac{x_2}{2}{-}y_3 i+\sqrt{3}x_3i{-}\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{2}x_2 i {-} \sqrt{3}y_3\right) \\
&= \tfrac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\left(-\tfrac{3}{2}x_2-\tfrac{3}{2}x_3 - \tfrac{3\sqrt 3}{2}y_3 +i(\tfrac{-3\sqrt{3}}{2}x_2 +\tfrac{3\sqrt 3}{2}x_3-\tfrac{3}{2} y_3) \right)\\
&= \tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\left(-x_2-x_3 - \sqrt 3 y_3 +i(-\sqrt{3}x_2 +\sqrt 3x_3- y_3) \right).
\end{aligned}
$$
Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
&|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|^2=\tfrac{1}{12}\big( ( -x_2-x_3 - \sqrt 3 y_3)^2 + (- \sqrt{3}x_2 +\sqrt 3x_3- y_3)^2 \big)\\
&= \tfrac{1}{12}\big(x_2^2{+}x_3^2 {+} 3 y_3^2 {+}2x_2x_3{+}2\sqrt{3}x_2y_3{+}2\sqrt{3}x_3y_3 + 3x_2^2 {+}3x_3^2{+} y_3^2{-}6x_2x_3{+}2\sqrt{3}x_2y_3{-}2\sqrt{3}x_3y_3 \big)\\
&= \tfrac{1}{12}\big(4x_2^2+4x_3^2 + 4 y_3^2 -4x_2x_3+4\sqrt{3}x_2y_3 \big).
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l3}
For any triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC^3$ and its center $z_0=\frac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$ we have
$$
|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|=\frac{u}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}
$$
where $$u=\sqrt{\frac{|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2}3}\quad\mbox{and}\quad q=\frac{|z_1-z_2|^4+|z_2-z_3|^4+|z_3-z_1|^4}{(|z_1{-}z_2|^2+|z_2{-}z_3|^2+|z_3{-}z_1|^2)^2}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The equality in the lemma is trivial if $u=0$. So we assume that $u>0$. For every $k\in\{1,2,3\}$ write the complex number $z_k$ as $x_k+iy_k$ for some real numbers $x_k,y_k$. Since $|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|$ is invariant under isometric transformations of the triangle $\vec z$, we lose no generality assuming that $z_1=0$ and $z_2=x_2$ is a positive real number.
In this case $\sign(\vec z\,)=\sign(y_3)$.
Denote the lengths of the sides of the triangle $\vec z$ by $a=|z_1-z_2|$, $b=|z_2-z_3|$ and $c=|z_3-z_1|$. Let $\beta$ be the angle of the triangle $\vec z$ at the vertex $z_1=0$. So, $\beta$ is opposite to the side of length $b$. If $z_3=0$, then we put $\beta=0$.
It follows that $x_3=c\cdot \cos(\beta)$ and $y_2=\sign(\vec z\,)\cdot c\cdot \sin(\beta)$. By the cosine theorem, $b^2=|z_2-z_3|^2=a^2+c^2-2ac\cos(\beta)$ and hence
$$\cos(\beta) = \frac{a^2+c^2-b^2}{2ac}$$
and
$$
\begin{aligned}
\sin(\beta) &=\sqrt{1-\Big( \frac{a^2+c^2-b^2}{2ac}\Big)^2} =\\
&=\frac{ \sqrt{2a^2b^2+2a^2c^2+2b^2c^2-(a^4+b^4+c^4)}}{2ac} = \frac{ \sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2-2(a^4+b^4+c^4)}}{2ac}=\\
&=\frac{3u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{2ac}
\end{aligned}
$$
By Lemma~\ref{l2},
$$
\begin{aligned}
|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|^2&=\tfrac13\big(x_2^2+ x_3^2 + y_3^2 - x_2x_3+ \sqrt{3}x_2y_3\big) =
\tfrac13\big(a^2+c^2 -ac\cos (\beta)+\sign(\vec z\,) \sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)\big)= \\
&=\tfrac16\big(a^2+b^2+c^2+\sign(\vec z\,)3u^2\sqrt{3-6q})=\\
&=\frac{u^2}2\big(1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big).
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{proof}
Now we are able to prove the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:main} For any triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC^3$ on the complex plane
\begin{enumerate}
\item the isometric deviation $d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{1+u^2-\sqrt{2}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}$;
\item the affine deviation $d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{\frac12\big(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $$u=\sqrt{\frac{|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2}3}\quad\mbox{and}\quad q=\frac{|z_1-z_2|^4+|z_2-z_3|^4+|z_3-z_1|^4}{\big(|z_1{-}z_2|^2+|z_2{-}z_3|^2+|z_3{-}z_1|^2\big)^2}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $z_0=\frac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$. By Theorem~\ref{t5} and Lemmas~\ref{l1}, \ref{l3}, we have
$$
d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)=
\sqrt{\|\vec z-z_0\|^2+1-2\cdot|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|}=\sqrt{1+u^2-\sqrt{2}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}
$$
and
$$
d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{1-\frac{|\langle \vec z-c|\trig\rangle|^2}{\|\vec z-c\|^2}}=\sqrt{1-\frac{u^2(1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}{2u^2}}=\sqrt{\tfrac12\big(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}.
$$
\end{proof}
\section{Interplay between the affine deviation and the unbalance factor}\label{s:K}
In this section we investigate the interplay between the unbalance factor $\unbal$ of a triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ on the complex plane and the affine deviation $d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)$ of the triangle $\vec z$ from the regular triangle $\trig$.
We recall that
$$\unbal=\frac{|z_1+z_2e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3 e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}|}{|z_1+z_2e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3 e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}|}.$$
The unbalance factor $\unbal$ was introduced by Fortescue \cite{Fort} and is widely used in Electric Engineering \cite{Blac}, \cite{Das}, \cite{IEEE} for evaluation of the quality of 3-phase electric power.
\begin{theorem}\label{t:K} Any triangle $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ on the complex plane has unbalance factor
$$\unbal=\sqrt{\frac{1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}$$where $q$ is the quadrofactor of the triangle $\vec z$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $z_0=\frac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)$ be the center of the triangle $\vec z$ and $s=|z_1-z_2|^2+|z_2-z_3|^2+|z_3-z_1|^2$. Observe that
the positive component $\frac13(z_1+z_1e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_2e^{i\frac{2\pi}3})$ of $\vec z$ has length
$$
\begin{aligned}
\tfrac13|z_1+z_2e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}|&=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z\,|\trig\rangle|=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle+z_0(1+e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}+e^{i\frac{2\pi}3})|=\\
&=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle+0|=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}},
\end{aligned}
$$
according to Lemma~\ref{l3}.
For evaluation of the length of the negative component $z_1+z_1e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_2e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}$, consider the triangles
$$\cev z=(\bar z_1,\bar z_2,\bar z_3),\quad\bar\trig=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}(1,e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3},e^{i\frac{2\pi}3})$$ and observe that
$$
\begin{aligned}
\tfrac13|z_1+z_2e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}|&=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z\,|\bar\trig\rangle|=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z-z_0|\bar \trig\rangle+ z_0(1+e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}+e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3})|=\\
&=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \vec z-z_0|\bar\trig\rangle+0|=\tfrac13|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|=\tfrac1{\sqrt{3}}|\langle \cev z-\bar z_0|\trig\rangle|=\\
&=\tfrac1{\sqrt{6}}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\cev z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}=\tfrac1{\sqrt{6}}u\sqrt{1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}},
\end{aligned}
$$
according to Lemma~\ref{l3}.
Then
$$\unbal=\frac{|z_1+z_2e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}|}{|z_1+z_2e^{-i\frac{2\pi}3}+z_3e^{i\frac{2\pi}3}|}=\frac{u\sqrt{\tfrac16\big(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}}{u\sqrt{\tfrac16\big(1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big)}}=\frac{\sqrt{1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}{\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}.$$
\end{proof}
Theorems~\ref{t:K} and \ref{t:main} imply the following corollary expressing the unbalance factor of a triangle via its affine deviation for the regular triangle $\trig$ and vice versa.
\begin{corollary}\label{c:K} For any triangle $\vec z$ in the complex plane
$$\unbal=\sqrt{\frac{d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}{1-d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=\sqrt{\frac{\unbal^2}{1+\unbal^2}}.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} By Theorem~\ref{t:main},
$$
d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2=\tfrac12\big(1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}\,\big),$$
and hence $$\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}=1-2d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2.$$
After substitution of $\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}$ into the formula for $\unbal$ from Theorem~\ref{t:K}, we obtain the desired equality
$$
\unbal=\sqrt{\frac{1-\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}{1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}}}=\sqrt{\frac{d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}{1-d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2}},
$$
which implies
$$
\unbal^2\cdot\big(1-d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2\big)=d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2
$$
and finally
$$d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)^2=\frac{\unbal^2}{1+\unbal^2}.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Visualization of the isometric and affine deviations}
For applications to problems of quality control in Electric Engineering, it is important to visualize the isometric and affine deviations of a given triangle with sides $a,b,c$ from the unit triangle $\triangle$. This can be done using the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} Let $\vec z=(z_1,z_2,z_3)\in\IC^3$ be a non-singular plane triangle with sides $a=|z_1-z_2|$, $b=|z_2-z_3|$ and $c=|z_3-z_1|$.
Let $$u=\sqrt{\frac{a^2+b^2+c^2}3},\quad q=\frac{a^4+b^4+c^4}{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
z_1^\circlearrowleft&=\frac{2a^2+2c^2-b^2+3\sign(\vec z)u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{6\sqrt{3}}+\frac{c^2-a^2}{6}\cdot i,\\
z_2^\circlearrowleft&=\frac{c^2-5a^2+b^2-3\sign(\vec z)u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12\sqrt{3}}+\frac{a^2-c^2+3b^2+3\sign(z)u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12}\cdot i,\\
z_3^\circlearrowleft&=\frac{a^2-5c^2+b^2-3\sign(\vec z)u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12\sqrt{3}}-\frac{c^2-a^2+3b^2+3\sign(\vec z)u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12}\cdot i.
\end{aligned}
$$
Then
$$d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\triangle)=d(\vec z_*,\triangle)\quad\mbox{and}\quad d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\triangle)=d(\vec z_{\star},\triangle),$$
where
$$\vec z_*=\frac{1}{u^2}\cdot(z_1^\circlearrowleft,z_2^\circlearrowleft,z_3^\circlearrowleft)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\vec z_\star=
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z)\sqrt{3-6q}}}\cdot(z_1^\circlearrowleft,z_2^\circlearrowleft,z_3^\circlearrowleft).$$
If $a=b=c$ and $\sign(\vec z)=-1$, then $1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}=0$ and the last formula does not determine $\vec z_\star$. In this case we can take $\vec z_\star=a\cdot\bar\trig$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} For every $k\in\{1,2,3\}$, write the complex number $z_k$ as $x_k+iy_k$ for some real number $x_k,y_k$. Since the affine and isometric deviations of the triangle $\vec z$ from $\trig$ are invariant under isometric moves of the triangle $\vec z$, we can assume that $z_1=0$ and $z_2$ is a non-negative real number. So, $z_2=x_2\ge 0$. Let $\beta$ be the angle of the triangle $\vec z$ at the vertex $z_1$ (which is opposite to the side $|z_2-z_3=b$). It follows that $x_1=y_1=z_1=0$, $x_2=z_2=|z_2-z_1|=a$, $x_3=|z_1-z_3|\cos(\beta)=c\cos(\beta)$ and $y_3=\sign(\vec z)c\sin(\beta)$. It will be convenient to denote the number $\sign(\vec z)\in\{-1,0,1\}$ by $\pm$ and $-\sign(\vec z)$ by $\mp$. Then $y_3=\pm c\sin(\beta)$.
By the cosine theorem, $$\cos(\beta)=\frac{a^2+c^2-b^2}{2ac}.$$Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
\sin(\beta)&=\sqrt{1-\frac{(a^2+c^2-b^2)^2}{4a^2c^2}}=\frac{\sqrt{2(a^2c^2+b^2c^2+a^2b^2)-(a^4+b^4+c^4)}}{2ac}=\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^2-2(a^4+b^4+c^4)}}{2ac}=\frac{(a^2+b^2+c^2)\sqrt{1-2q}}{2ac}=\\
&=\frac{3u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{2ac}=\frac{u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{2ac}.
\end{aligned}
$$
Let $$z_0=\tfrac13(z_1+z_2+z_3)=\tfrac{x_2+x_3}3+\tfrac{y_3}3i$$be the center of the triangle $\vec z$. Then
$$\vec z-z_0=\big(-\tfrac{x_2+x_3}3-\tfrac{y_3}3i,\tfrac{2x_2-x_3}{3}-\tfrac{y_3}3i,\tfrac{2x_3-x_2}3+\tfrac{2y_3}3i\big).$$
In the proof of Lemma~\ref{l2} we have derived the formula:
$$\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle=-\tfrac{x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}\cdot i.$$
Then
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\overline{\langle z-z_0|\trig\rangle}\cdot(\vec z-z_0)=\\
&=\big(-\tfrac{x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3}{2\sqrt{3}}\cdot i\big)\cdot\big(-\tfrac{x_2+x_3}3-\tfrac{y_3}3i,\tfrac{2x_2-x_3}{3}-\tfrac{y_3}3i,\tfrac{2x_3-x_2}3+\tfrac{2y_3}3i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)(x_2+x_3)+(\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3)y_3}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)y_3-(\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3)(x_2+x_3)}{6\sqrt{3}}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{-(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)(2x_2-x_3)+\sqrt{3}x_2y_3-\sqrt 3x_3y_3+y_3^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{(\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3)(2x_2-x_3)+(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)y_3}{6\sqrt{3}}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{-(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)(2x_3-x_2)-2\sqrt{3}x_2y_3+2\sqrt 3x_3y_3-2y_3^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{(\sqrt{3}x_2-\sqrt 3x_3+y_3)(2x_3-x_2)-2(x_2+x_3+\sqrt 3 y_3)y_3}{6\sqrt{3}}i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{x_2^2+x_3^2+2x_2x_3+2\sqrt{3}x_2y_3+y_3^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{x_3^2-x_2^2+y_3^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{x_3^2-2x_2^2-x_2x_3-\sqrt 3 x_2y_3+y_3^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{2x_2^2+x_3^2-3x_2x_3+\sqrt{3}x_2y_3+y_3^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{x_2^2-2x_3^2-x_2x_3-\sqrt{3}x_2y_3-2y_3^2}{6\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{x_2^2+2x_3^2-3x_2x_3+\sqrt{3}x_2y_3+2y_3^2}{6}i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{a^2+c^2\cos(\beta)^2+2ac\cos(\beta)\pm2\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)+c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{c^2\cos(\beta)^2-a^2+c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{c^2\cos(\beta)^2-2a^2-ac\cos(\beta)\mp\sqrt 3 ac\sin(\beta)+c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{2a^2+c^2\cos(\beta)^2-3ac\cos(\beta)\pm\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)+c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{a^2-2c^2\cos(\beta)^2-ac\cos(\beta)\mp\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)-2c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{a^2+2c^2\cos(\beta)^2-3ac\cos(\beta)\pm\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)+2c^2\sin(\beta)^2}{6}i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{a^2+c^2+2ac\cos(\beta)\pm2\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{c^2-a^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{c^2-2a^2-ac\cos(\beta)\mp\sqrt 3 ac\sin(\beta)}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{2a^2+c^2-3ac\cos(\beta)\pm\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{a^2-2c^2-ac\cos(\beta)\mp\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)}{6\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{a^2+2c^2-3ac\cos(\beta)\pm\sqrt{3}ac\sin(\beta)}{6}i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{a^2+c^2+(a^2+c^2-b^2)\pm3\sqrt{3}u^2\sqrt{1-2q})}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{c^2-a^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{c^2-2a^2-\tfrac12(a^2+c^2-b^2)\mp\tfrac32\sqrt 3u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{2a^2+c^2-\tfrac32(a^2+c^2-b^2)\pm\tfrac32\sqrt{3}u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{a^2-2c^2-\tfrac12(a^2+c^2-b^2)\mp\tfrac32\sqrt{3}u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{6\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{a^2+2c^2-\tfrac32(a^2+c^2-b^2)\pm\tfrac32\sqrt{3}u^2\sqrt{1-2q}}{6}i\big)=\\
&=\big(\tfrac{2a^2+2c^2-b^2\pm3u^2\sqrt{3-6q})}{6\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{c^2-a^2}{6}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{c^2-5a^2+b^2\mp 3u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12\sqrt{3}}+\tfrac{a^2-c^2+3b^2\pm3u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12}i,\\
&\hskip20pt\tfrac{a^2-5c^2+b^2\mp3u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12\sqrt{3}}-\tfrac{c^2-a^2+3b^2\pm3u^2\sqrt{3-6q}}{12}i\big)=\\
&=(z_1^\circlearrowleft,z_2^\circlearrowleft,z_3^\circlearrowleft).
\end{aligned}
$$
Applying Theorem~\ref{t5} and Lemmas~\ref{l1}, \ref{l3}, we conclude that
$$d(\IC^*\vec z+\IC,\trig)=d(\vec z_*,\trig)\quad\mbox{and}\quad d(\IT\vec z+\IC,\trig)=d(\vec z_\star,\trig),$$
where
$$\vec z_*=\frac{\overline{\langle\vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle}(\vec z-z_0)}{\|\vec z-z_0\|^2}=\frac{(z_1^\circlearrowleft,z_2^\circlearrowleft,z_3^\circlearrowleft)}{u^2}
$$
and
$$
\vec z_\star=\frac{\overline{\langle\vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle}(\vec z-z_0)}{|\langle \vec z-z_0|\trig\rangle|}=\frac{(z_1^\circlearrowleft,z_2^\circlearrowleft,z_3^\circlearrowleft)}{\tfrac1{\sqrt{2}}u\sqrt{1+\sign(\vec z)\sqrt{3-6q}}}.
$$
If $a=b=c$ and $\sign(\vec z)=-1$, then $1+\sign(\vec z\,)\sqrt{3-6q}=0$ and the last formula does not determine $z_\star$. In this case Theorem~\ref{t2} allows us to take for $\vec z_\star$ any triangle $t(\vec z-z_0)$ where $t\in\IT$. So, we can choose $t\in\IT$ such that $\vec z_\star=t(\vec z-z_0)=a\cdot\bar \trig$.
\end{proof}
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors express their sincere thanks to the {\tt Mathoverflow} user {\tt \@bathhalf15320} for suggesting a formula connecting the quadrofactor and normalized area of a plane triangle in Theorem~\ref{t:Heron}, see {\tt https://mathoverflow.net/a/389681/61536}.
|
\section{Introduction}
With the commercialization of the fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks, the sixth generation (6G) wireless communication technology has recently attracted increasing attention by industry and academia \cite{9003618}. \textcolor{blue}{The reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS), as an
effective solution to overcome non-line-of-sight (NLoS) transmission
and coverage blind spots, can significantly improve the
spectral efficiency, energy efficiency, security, and reliability of
communication systems \cite{9326394}.} Thus, the RIS has become a promising technology for the future 6G networks. In general, the RIS is an artificial surface made of electromagnetic material and consists of a large number of square metal patches, each of which can be digitally controlled to induce different reflection amplitudes and phases on incident signals \cite{777}. By optimizing the RIS's phase shifts, the signals from different transmission paths can be aligned at the desired receiver to boost achievable rates \cite{09}.
On the other hand, due to line-of-sight (LoS) transmission and flexible mobility, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have gained widespread attention and have been applied in many applications \cite{9055054,8918497,DB}. Thanks to the low-profile and lightweight of RISs, they can be installed at proper locations to reconfigure propagation environments of air-to-ground channels, thus significantly enhancing communication quality. As shown in \cite{8959174} and \cite{glnz}, the average achievable (secrecy) rates of RIS-assisted UAV communications can be significantly increased by jointly optimizing the UAV trajectory and the RIS's phase shifts. To provide better quality-of-service (QoS) for ground nodes that locate far apart, a UAV relaying system with the aid of a RIS was proposed in \cite{tly}, where the relaying UAV forwards the received signals reflected from the RIS via intelligent phase alignment. The advantages of employing multiple RISs for enhancing the received power of the UAV-enabled communications were further investigated in \cite{cxk}. Generally, the RIS can be placed on the outer surface of a building. In this case, the RIS can only reflect incident signals towards ground nodes. When the ground nodes are located indoors or in the back side of the RIS, their achievable rates may not benefit from the deployment of the RIS.
To address the above issue, the intelligent omni-surface (IOS) has been proposed as an upgrade of the RIS to realize the dual functionality of signal reflection and transmission \cite{networks}. Similar to the RIS, the IOS is made of multiple passive scattering elements and programmable PIN diodes, which can be appropriately designed and configured to customize the propagation environment \cite{9200683}. Specifically, to realize full coverage of ground users, the IOS-assisted system was considered in \cite{9200683}, where the spectral efficiency is increased significantly by optimizing the phase shifts of the IOS. In \cite{123}, multiple indoor users obtain omni-directionally services from a small base station (SBS) with the aid of an IOS. By jointly optimizing the IOS analog beamforming and the SBS digital beamforming, the received power of multiple users is enhanced. Due to the advantages of the IOS for both reflection and transmission, it is essential to investigate whether the application of the IOS to the UAV communication system could provide higher achievable rates for ground nodes in all directions.
Motivated by the above, this paper considers a typical application scenario for UAV-enabled communications in 6G networks, where the UAV as an aerial base station (BS) provides communication services to a ground node. To achieve omini-directional rate enhancement, an IOS is installed to intelligently reflect/transmit incident signals from the UAV. We aim to maximize the average achievable rate by jointly optimizing the UAV trajectory and the phase shift design of the IOS. To resolve the non-convexity of the formulated problem, we develop an efficient algorithm to obtain a suboptimal solution. Simulation results show that significantly higher achievable rates can be obtained by replacing the RIS with the IOS in the UAV-enabled communication system. \textcolor{blue}{Note that we are the first to introduce the IOS to the UAV communication system for providing the full-dimensional rate enhancement. Furthermore, due to the complex physical characteristics and the radiation pattern of the IOS, both the formulated objective function and our proposed algorithm are different from those in the conventional the RIS-aided UAV communication system [8]-[11].}
\section{System Model and Problem Formulation}
In this paper, we consider a typical application scenario for UAV-enabled communications, where a UAV flies on a mission to provide communication services to a ground node\footnote{\textcolor{blue}{Due to the space limitation, we consider the single ground node scenario. However, it can be readily extended to the case with multiple ground nodes by optimizing the communication scheduling for multiple ground nodes, while without changing the phase shift design of the IOS and the trajectory design of the UAV.}} (G). Owing to intelligent reflection as well as transmission of arrived signals, an IOS is deployed to enhance G's achievable rate in all directions. We characterize the position of the UAV, the IOS, and G via the three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system. As such, it is assumed that the UAV flies at a fixed altitude $z_U$ to communicate with G, whose location is denoted by $\mathbf{w}_G=[x_G, y_G]$, over a duration $T$. For convenience, $T$ is divided into $N$ time slots that are equal in length, i.e. $T=N \delta_{t}$, where $\delta_{t}$ is the length of each time slot. Thus, the horizontal trajectory of the UAV can be approximated by the discrete way-points $\mathbf{q}[n]=[x[n], y[n]]$, $n \in \mathcal{N}=\{1, \cdots, N\}$.
We assume that both the UAV and G are equipped with a single omni-directional antenna. For the IOS with $M$ elements \cite{9200683}, we denote by $\mathbf{w}_m=[x_m, y_m]$, $m \in \mathcal{M}=\{1, \cdots, M\}$ and $z_m$ the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the $m$th element of the IOS, respectively. Thus, the normalized power radiation patterns of the arrival signal and the departure signal of the IOS can be expressed as \cite{9200683}
\begin{align*}
&K_{m}^{A}[n]=\left|\cos ^{3} \theta_{m}^{A}[n]\right|=\left|\left(\frac{x[n]-x_m}{d_{U, m}[n]}\right)^{3}\right|,\theta_{m}^A[n] \in (0,2\pi),\quad (1)&\nonumber
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&K^{D}_m=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\left|\cos ^{3} \theta_{m}^{D}\right|=\left|\left(\frac{x_{G}-x_{m}}{d_{m,G}}\right)^{3}\right|,\theta_{m}^D \in (0,\frac{\pi}{2}),\\
\epsilon\left|\cos ^{3}\left(\pi-\theta_{m}^{D}\right)\right|=\epsilon\left|\left(\frac{x_{G}-x_{m}}{d_{m, G}}\right)^{3}\right|, \theta_{m}^D \in (\frac{\pi}{2},2\pi),\quad(2)
\end{array}\right.&\nonumber
\end{align*}
where $\theta_{m}^{A}[n]$ is the angle of arrival (AoA) of the signal from the UAV to $m$th element of the IOS in the $n$th time slot, $\theta^{D}_m $ is the angle of departure (AoD) of the signal from the $m$th element to G, $\epsilon$ is a constant that is determined by the hardware structure of the IOS \cite{2013}, $d_{U,m}[n]=\sqrt{\left\|\mathbf{q}[n]-\mathbf{w}_{m}\right\|^{2}+(z_U-z_m)^{2}}$ and $d_{m,G}=\sqrt{\left\|\mathbf{w}_G-\mathbf{w}_{m}\right\|^{2}+z_m^{2}}$ are the distances from the $m$th element of the IOS to the
UAV and to G, respectively. Thus, the reflective or transmissive power gain from the $m$th element of the IOS to G is given by \cite{9206044}
\begin{align*}
g_{m}[n]=\sqrt{G_{m} K^{A}_m[n] K_{m}^{D} \delta_{x} \delta_{y}\left|\gamma_{m}\right|^{2}} \exp \left(-j \psi_{m}[n]\right), \tag{3}
\end{align*}
where $G_m$ is the antenna power gain of the $m$th reconfigurable unit, $\delta_y$ and $\delta_z$ are the size of each element along $Y$ and $Z$ aixs, respectively, $|\gamma_{m}|^2$ is the power ratio between the power of the signal
reflected/transmitted by the IOS and the power of the incident signal, and $\psi_{m}[n]$ denotes the phase shift of the $m$th element in time slot $n$.
In this system, the UAV communicates with G via two links: the direct path from the UAV to G and the reflective-transmissive path from the UAV to G via the IOS. It is assumed that the channel coefficients from the UAV to G follow a practical Rician channel model, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
h_{D}[n]=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} h_{D}^{\operatorname{LoS}}[n]+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} h_{D}^{N \operatorname{LoS}}[n], \tag{4}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the Rician factor. Furthermore, $h_{D}^{\operatorname{LoS}}[n]=\sqrt{G^{tx} G^{rx} d_{U, G}^{-\alpha}[n]} \exp \left(-j \frac{2\pi}{\lambda} d_{U,G}[n]\right)$ is the deterministic LoS
component, where $G^{tx}$ is the transmission antenna gain of the UAV antenna, $G^{rx}$ is the receiving antenna gain of G, $d_{U,G}[n]=\sqrt{\left\|\mathbf{q}[n]-\mathbf{w}_{G}\right\|^{2}+z_U^{2}}$ is the distance from the UAV to G, and $\alpha$ is the path-loss exponent. The NLoS component is defined as $h_{D}^{N L o S}[n]=\sqrt{G^{tx} G^{rx} d_{U, G}^{-\alpha}[n]} h_{S S}$, where $h_{S S} \sim \mathcal{C} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is the small-scale fading component modeled by a circularly symmetric complex
Gaussian (CSCG) random variable. Similarly, the channel coefficients from the UAV to G via the $m$th IOS element can also be formulated as a Rician channel, which is given by
\begin{equation}
h_{m}[n]=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} h_{m}^{\operatorname{LoS}}[n]+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} h_{m}^{ \operatorname{NLoS}}[n]. \tag{5}
\end{equation}
The LoS component of $h_m[n]$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
h_{m}^{\operatorname{LoS}}[n]&=\frac{\lambda \sqrt{G^{t x} K_{m}^{A}[n] G^{r x} K_{m}^{D}} \exp \left(\frac{-j 2 \pi\left(d_{U, m}[n]+d_{m, G}\right)}{\lambda}\right)}{(4 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}} d_{U A V, m}[n] d_{m, M U}} \times g_{m}[n]\\
&=\frac{\lambda K_{m}^{A}[n] K_{m}^{D} \sqrt{G^mG^{t x} G^{r x} \delta_{z} \delta_{y}\left|\gamma_{m}\right|^{2}}}{(4 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}} d_{U, m}[n] d_{m, G}}\times\exp \left(\frac{-j 2 \pi\left(d_{U, m}[n]+d_{m, G}+\psi_{m}[n]\right)}{\lambda}\right), \tag{6}
\end{align*}
where $\lambda$ is the carrier wavelength. The NLoS component of $h_m[n]$ can be represented as
\begin{align*}
h_{m}^{N L o S}[n]=\frac{\lambda K_{m}^{A}[n] K_{m}^{D} \sqrt{G^mG^{t x} G^{r x} \delta_{z} \delta_{y}\left|\gamma_{m}\right|^{2}}}{(4 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}} d_{U, m}[n] d_{m, G}} h_{S S}. \tag{7}
\end{align*}
Therefore, the channel coefficient from the UAV to G via the IOS in the $n$th time slot can be given by
\begin{equation}
h[n]=\sum_{m=1}^{M} h_{m}[n]+h_{D}[n]. \tag{8}
\end{equation}
It is assumed that the UAV transmits with its maximum power denoted by $P$. Then, the average achievable rate in bits/second/Hertz
(bps/Hz) at G in the $n$th time slot is given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{R}=\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\log _{2}\left(1+ \eta |h[n]|^{2}\right), \tag{9}
\end{equation}
where $\eta=\dfrac{P}{\sigma^2}$, and $\sigma^2$ is the additive white Gaussian noise power
at the corresponding receiver.
Our goal is to maximize the average achievable rate by jointly optimizing the horizontal UAV trajectory $\mathbf{Q} \triangleq\{\mathbf{q}[n], n \in \mathcal{N}\}$ and the IOS's phase shift $\mathbf{\Psi} \triangleq\{\mathbf{\psi}_m[n], n \in \mathcal{N}, m \in \mathcal{M}\}$ over the entire $N$ time slots. Therefore, the optimization problem can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\max _{\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{\Psi}}\quad &\bar{R} \tag{10a}\\
\text { s.t. }&\|\mathbf{q}[n]-\mathbf{q}[n-1]\|^{2} \leq D^{2},\forall n, \tag{10b} \\
&\mathbf{q}[N]=\mathbf{q}_{F}, \mathbf{q}[1]=\mathbf{q}_{0}, \tag{10c}\\
&0\le\psi_{m}[n]\le2\pi,\forall n,m, \tag{10d}
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{q}_0$ and $\mathbf{q}_F$ denote the initial and final horizontal positions
of the UAV, respectively, $D = v_{max}\delta_{t}$ is the maximum
distance that the UAV can move horizontally within a time slot, and $v_{max}$ is the maximum airspeed of the UAV.
Problem (10) is difficult to solve because it is a complicated non-linear fractional programming problem with an objective function that is not jointly concave with respect to its coupled optimization variables. In the following section, we will propose an alternating optimization algorithm to solve problem (10).
\section{Proposed Algorithm}
In this section, we propose an alternating optimization algorithm to solve problem (10) by alternately optimizing the IOS's phase shift $\mathbf{\Psi}$ and the UAV trajectory $\mathbf{Q}$ until the convergence of the algorithm.
\subsection{IOS Phase Shift Design}
With any feasible UAV trajectory $\mathbf{Q}$, the optimization problem of phase-shift $\Psi$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
&\max _{\mathbf{\Psi}} |h[n]|^{2} \tag{11}\\
&\quad\text{s.t. (10d).}
\end{align*}
\textcolor{blue}{Optimized $\Psi$ allows the signals from different paths to be combined coherently at $\mathrm{G}$, thereby maximizing its average achievable rate. Since $h_{m}^{\mathrm{NLoS}}[n]$ and $h_{D}^{\mathrm{NLoS}}[n]$ are both constants and both nonnegative, maximizing $|h[n]|^{2}$ is to maximize $\left|\sum_{m=1}^{M} h_{m}^{\mathrm{LoS}}[n]+h_{D}^{\mathrm{LoS}}[n]\right|^{2}$. Thus, problem (17) can be equivalently converted into the following optimization problem:
\begin{align*}
&\max _{\mathbf{\Psi}} \left|\sum_{m=1}^{M} h_{m}^{\mathrm{LoS}}[n]+h_{D}^{\mathrm{LoS}}[n]\right|^{2} \tag{12}\\
&\quad\text{s.t. (10d).}
\end{align*}}
\textbf{Proposition 1:} The optimal phase shift for the $m$th element of the IOS is
\begin{equation}
\psi_{m}[n]=\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda}\left(d_{U A V,G}[n]-d_{U A V, m}[n]-d_{m,G}\right). \tag{13}
\end{equation}
\emph{Proof:} See Appendix A. $\hfill\blacksquare$
\subsection{UAV Trajectory Optimization}
With the optimal phase shift obtained by (13), the UAV trajectory optimization problem can be expressed as
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\max _{\mathbf{Q}} &\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \log _{2}\left(1+ \eta\zeta^{2}[n]\left|\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} e^{ \dfrac{-jd_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} h_{S S}\right|^{2} \right) \tag{14}\\
&\text { s.t. } \text{(10b)-(10c)},
\end{align*}
\end{small}where $\zeta[n]=\sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{J_m\beta_{m}\left|x[n]-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{{UAV}, m}^{4}[n]} +\frac{K}{d_{{UAV},G}^{\alpha / 2}[n]}$, $J_m=\frac{\lambda \sqrt{G^{\mathrm{tx}} G^{\mathrm{rx}} G_{m} \delta_{z} \delta_{y}\left|\gamma_{m}\right|^{2}}}{(4 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$, $K=\sqrt{G^{tx}G^{rx}}$ and $\beta_m=\frac{K^D_m}{d_{m,G}^{}}$. It is observed that problem (14) is still non-convex with respect to $\mathbf{Q}$. To solve this problem, we have the following proposition to convert this problem into an equivalent problem.
\textbf{Proposition 2.} Problem (14) is equivalent to the following problem:
\begin{align*}
\max _{\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}}& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \log _{2}\left(1+\eta\left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m \beta_{m} \frac{e^{s \mid n]}}{e^{u_m[n] }}+K e^{v[n]}\right)^{2}\right) \tag{15a} \\
\text { s.t. }&e^{s[n]} \leq|x[n]|^{3}, \tag{15b} \\
&e^{u_m[n]} \geq d_{U , m}^{4}[n], \tag{15c} \\
&e^{v[n]} \leq d_{U ,G}^{-\alpha / 2}[n], \tag{15d}\\
&\text{(10b)-(10c)}.
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{s}=\{s[n]\}_{n=1}^{N}$, $\mathbf{u}={\{u_m[n]\}_{n=1}^{N}}_{m=1}^M$, and $\mathbf{v}=\{v[n]\}_{n=1}^{N}$.
\emph{Proof:} See Appendix B. $\hfill\blacksquare$
Note that, after the variable replacement, the objective function (15a) is transformed to a log-sum-exp function which is convex \cite{2004Convex}. However, constraints (15b)-(15d) are still non-convex. Since the first-order Taylor approximation of a convex function is a global underestimator, it can be applied at any local points $s^{(l)}[n]$, $u_{m}^{(l)}[n]$, $v^{(l)}[n]$ and $|x^{(l)}[n]|$ in the $l$th iteration for (15a)-(15d) i.e.,
\begin{small}\begin{align*}
\log _{2}\left(1+\eta\left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m \beta_{m} \frac{e^{s[n]}}{e^{u_m[n]}}+Ke^{v[n]}\right)^{2}\right) &\geq \log _{2} A^{(l)}[n]+\frac{B^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}\left(s[n]-s^{(l)}[n]\right)
+\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{C_{m}^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}\left(u_m[n]-u_{m}^{(l)}[n]\right)\\
&\quad+\frac{D^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}\left(v[n]-v^{(l)}[n]\right),\tag{16} \\
&\left|x^{(l)}[n]\right|^{3}+\frac{3 x^{(l)}[n]^{3}}{\left|x^{(l)}[n]\right|}\left(x[n]-x^{(l)}[n]\right)\ge e^{s[n]}, \tag{17}\\
&e^{\frac{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}{2}}+\frac{e^{\frac{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}{2}}}{2}\left(u_m[n]-u_{m}^{(l)}[n]\right) \ge d^2_{U,m}[n], \tag{18}\\
&e^{\frac{-4 v^{(l)}[n]}{\alpha}}-\frac{4 e^{\frac{-4 v^{(l)}[n]}{\alpha}}}{\alpha}\left(v[n]-v^{(l)}[n]\right) \ge d^2_{U,G}[n], \tag{19}\\\end{align*}\end{small}$\text{where}$\\
$A^{(l)}[n]=1+\eta\left(\left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m \beta_{m} {\frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}}\right)^{2}+K^{2} e^{2 v^{(l)}[n]}\right.\left.+2 K \sum_{m=1}^{M}J_m \beta_{m} {\frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]+v^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}}\right)$, \\
$B^{(l)}[n]=\eta\left(2\left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m\beta_{m} \frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}\right)^{2}+2 K \sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m\beta_{m} \frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]+v^{l}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}\right)$,\\
$C_{m}^{(l)}[n]=\eta\left(-2\left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} J_m \beta_{m}\frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}\right)^{}J_m\beta_m\dfrac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_m^{(l)}[n]}} \right.
\left.-2J_mK \beta_{m} \frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]+v^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}\right)$,\\
$ D^{(l)}[n]=\eta\left(2 K^{2} e^{2 v^{(l)}[n]}+2 K \sum_{m=1}^{M}J_m \beta_{m} \frac{e^{s^{(l)}[n]+v^{(l)}[n]}}{e^{u_{m}^{(l)}[n]}}\right).$
With (16)-(19), problem (15) can be approximated as
\begin{align*}
\max_{\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{s},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}}\quad&\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{B^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}s[n]+\sum_{m=1}^{M}\frac{C_{m}^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}u_m[n]+\frac{D^{(l)}[n]}{A^{(l)}[n] \ln 2}v[n], \tag{20} \\
\text { s.t. }&\text{(10a)-(10b), (17)-(19)}.
\end{align*}
Problem (20) is now a convex optimization problem and can therefore be efficiently solved by a standard CVX solver \cite{jj}.
\subsection{Overall Algorithm}
By using our proposed algorithm, problem (10) can be efficiently solved by alternately optimizing variables $\mathbf{\Psi}$ and $\mathbf{Q}$, while its solution converges to a preset accuracy $\mu$. \textcolor{blue}{Since the two subproblems are solved by applying CVX via the standard interior point method, their computational complexity can be obtained as $O\left((M N)^{3.5} \log (1 / \mu)\right)$ and $O\left((4 N+M N)^{3.5} \log (1 / \mu)\right)$, respectively. Besides, the computational complexity of the alternating optimization is $O(\log (1 / \mu))$. Thus, the total computational complexity of our proposed algorithm is in the order of $O\left((4 N+M N)^{3.5} \log ^{2}(1 / \mu)\right)$.}
\section{Simulation Results}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the IOS-assisted UAV-enabled communications based on the proposed algorithm (denoted by IA scheme) and compare it with the following benchmark solutions: 1) RIS-assisted UAV communications (denoted by RA scheme) proposed in \cite{8959174}, where the IOS in our proposed system is replaced by an RIS; 2) IOS-assisted UAV communications with the fixed trajectory (denoted by IA-FT scheme), where the UAV takes off from $\mathbf{q}_0$ to G at $v_{max}$, then hovers above G as long as possible, and finally flies towards $\mathbf{q}_F$ at $v_{max}$ by the end of $T$; 3) Conventional UAV communication (denoted by CUC scheme) without the aid of IOS or RIS. We assume that the IOS and G are located at (0, 0, 40) m and (-100, -20, 0) m, respectively. Other simulation parameters are set as: $\mathbf{q}_0 = [-400,20]$ m, $\mathbf{q}_F = [400,20]$ m, $v_{max} = 25 $ m/s, $\mu=0.0001$, $G_{tx}=G_{rx}=1$, $\delta_t$ = 1 s, $\kappa=3$, $P = 0.1$ W, $\alpha=5$, $\sigma^2=-80$ dBm, $\lambda=0.05$ m, $\gamma_{m}=1$, $\epsilon=3.55$ \cite{2013}.
Fig. 1(a) presents the different trajectories of the UAV by various algorithms with $T=150$ s and $M=6000$. Comparing to the RA scheme that the UAV only hovers at the location on the left side of the RIS, the UAV in the IA scheme hovers close to both sides of the IOS to gain the benefit of omni-directional rate enhancement. The reason behind this observation is that the IOS is not only able to reflect the arrived signal from the UAV like the RIS, but also to transmit the signal. This results in higher rate compared to the RA scheme, which can be verified in the following Fig. 1(b).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[UAV trajectories]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{hongjun.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[Average rates versus $T$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{xibaa.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\centering
\caption{UAV Trajectories and average achievable rates by different schemes.}
\end{figure}
Fig. 1(b) illustrates the average achievable rates by different schemes with $M=6000$ versus $T$. It is observed that the average achievable rates are significantly improved with the increase of $T$, since the UAV can fly to more favorable hovering locations to transmit more information. Particularly, the RA scheme achieves a significant rate gain over the CUC scheme, which confirms that the proper deployment of the RIS can indeed enhance the achievable rate of the system effectively. Our proposed IA scheme obtains more significant rate improvement compared to the RA scheme. This indicates that properly designing the UAV trajectory and the IOS's phase shift can benefit from the flexible mobility of the UAV as well as the full-dimensional rate enhancement with the assistance of the IOS, thus unlocking the full potential of IOS-aided UAV communications.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[UAV trajectories]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{gudong.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[Average rates versus $T$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{liudaxian.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\centering
\caption{UAV Trajectories and average achievable rates by different $M$.}
\end{figure}
Fig. 2(a) shows the different UAV trajectories by our proposed IA scheme versus $M$ for $T$ = 150 s. Note that with the increase of $M$, the UAV's trajectory and its hovering locations tend to approach the IOS due to the greater benefit that the IOS can provide from its both sides, which can be verified in Fig. 2(b). Fig. 2(b) shows the average achievable rates for different $M$ versus $T$. As expected, the rate performance is improved significantly when equipping with more elements in the IOS due to the larger passive beamforming gain.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we investigated the potential for increasing the rate performance by leveraging the novel reflective-transmissive IOS. The objective is to maximize the average achievable rate. We proposed an efficient algorithm to obtain a suboptimal solution by alternately optimizing the IOS's phase shift and the UAV trajectory. Simulation results have shown that the IOS-aided scheme achieves noteworthy gain as compared to the conventional UAV-enabled communications with/without the aid of a traditional RIS. This demonstrates the potential for using the IOS to provide the full coverage of
communication services in future 6G networks.
\appendices
\section{Proof of Proposition 1}
\textcolor{blue}{To maximize $|h[n]|$ shown in problem (12), the triangle inequality can be applied, i.e.,
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
&\left|\sum_{m=1}^{M}h_{m}^{\rm{LoS}}[n]+h_{D}^{\operatorname{L o S}}[n]\right|\overset{a}{\le}\sum_{m=1}^{M}\left|h_{m}^{\rm{LoS}}[n]\right|+\left|h_{D}^{\rm {L o S}}[n]\right|=\sum_{m=1}^{M}\bigg|\\
& \left.\frac{J_m \beta_{m}\left|x[n]-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{{U}, m}^{4}[n]}\exp \left(\frac{-j 2 \pi\left(d_{U, m}[n]+d_{m, G}[n]\right)}{\lambda}-j\psi_{m}[n]\right)\right| \\
&+\left| \frac{K}{d_{{U}, G}^{\alpha / 2}[n]}\exp \left(\frac{-j 2 \pi d_{U, G}[n]}{\lambda}\right)\right| ,\tag{21}
\end{align*}
\end{small}where $J_m=\frac{\lambda \sqrt{G^{\mathrm{tx}} G^{\mathrm{rx}} G_{m} \delta_{z} \delta_{y}\left|\gamma_{m}\right|^{2}}}{(4 \pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$, $K=\sqrt{G^{tx}G^{rx}}$ and $\beta_m=\frac{K^D_m}{d_{m,G}^{}}$. Note that (a) holds with equality if and only if
$\psi_{m}[n]+\frac{2 \pi\left(d_{U, m}[n]+d_{m,G}\right)}{\lambda}=\frac{2 \pi\left(d_{U,G}[n]\right)}{\lambda}$ \cite{9400768}. Therefore, the
optimal solution to problem (12) is
\begin{equation}
\psi_{m}[n]=\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda}\left(d_{U,\textsc{G}}[n]-d_{U, m}[n]-d_{m,G}\right).\tag{22}
\end{equation}}
\section{Proof of Proposition 2}
To solve problem (14), we first apply Euler's formula to calculate $|h[n]|^{2}$ as below
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
|h[n]|^{2} &=\zeta[n]^{2}\left|\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} \exp (\dfrac{-j d_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda})+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} h_{S S}\right|^{2} \\
&=\zeta[n]^{2}\left(\left|\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} \cos (\dfrac{-j d_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda})+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} \operatorname{Re}\left(h_{S S}\right)\right|^{2}\right.\\
&\quad\left.+|j|^{2}\left|\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}} \sin (\dfrac{-j d_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda})+\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} \operatorname{Im}\left(h_{S S}\right)\right|^{2}\right) \\
&=\frac{\zeta[n]^{2}}{1+\kappa}\left(\kappa+\left|h_{S S}\right|^{2}+2 \sqrt{\kappa} \operatorname{Re}\left(h_{S S}\right) \cos (\dfrac{ d_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda})\right.\\
&\quad\left.-2 \sqrt{\kappa} \operatorname{Im}\left(h_{S S}\right) \sin(\dfrac{ d_{U,G}[n]}{\lambda})\right), \tag{23}
\end{align*}
\end{small}where $\zeta[n]=\sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{J_m\left|x[n]-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{{U}, m}^{4}[n]} \frac{\left|x_{G}-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{m, G}^{4}}+\frac{K}{d_{{U},G}^{\alpha / 2}[n]}$. Therefore, the channel power gain from the UAV to G via IOS can be expressed as
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left(|h[n]|^{2}\right)=\sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{J_m\left|x[n]-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{\mathrm{UAV}, m}^{4}[n]} \frac{\left|x_{G}-x_{m}\right|^{3}}{d_{m, G}^{4}}+\frac{K}{d_{{UAV},G}^{\alpha / 2}[n]}, \tag{24}
\end{align*}
\end{small}
where $\mathbb{E}(\cdot)$ is the expectation operator.
With (24), problem (10) can be transformed to
\begin{small}\begin{align*}
\max _{\mathbf{Q}} &\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \log _{2}\left(1+ \eta \left(\sum_{m=1}^{M} \frac{J_m \beta_m\left|x[n]\right|^{3}}{d_{{U}, m}^{4}[n]} +\frac{K}{d_{{U}, G}^{\alpha / 2}[n]}\right)^{2}\right) \tag{25}\\
&\text { s.t. } \text{(10b)-(10c)}.
\end{align*}\end{small}
To solve this non-convex problem, we further introduce the variables $ e^{s[n]}$, $ e^{u_m[n]} $ and $e^{v[n]}$ to replace $|x[n]|^3$, $d_{{U}, m}^{4}[n]$ and $d_{{U}, G}^{4}[n]$, respectively. Then, we have problem (15) which completes the proof.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
%
%
%
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Over the past ten years, notable improvements in multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technology for wireless communications systems have been achieved. The main advantage of MIMO is that it increases the overall throughput of the system without needing additional bandwidth. For this reason, MIMO has been contemplated in diverse communications standards, such as IEEE802.11n, 3 GPP long-term evolution (LTE) and 5G \cite{Li2010,Jones2015,Parkvall2017,Shafi2017,mmimo,wence}. Nevertheless, MIMO systems are affected by multiuser interference (MUI), which degrades and limits the overall performance of the system.
To cope with the MUI, receive processing techniques in the uplink (UL) and transmit processing techniques in the downlink of MIMO system have been developed. The transmit processing usually involves the design of a precoder, which maps the symbols
4
to the transmit antennas. In this sense both linear and non-linear precoding techniques \cite{joham2005,Tomlinson1971,Harashima1972,Sung2009,gbd,wlbd,Zu2014,rthp,rmmse,bbprec,baplnc,lrcc,mwmimo,plszf,rmmsecf} have been reported in literature, where it is well known that non-linear precoders outperform their linear counterparts. Unfortunately, the design of the precoder requires the perfect knowledge of the channel state information at the transmitter (CSIT). In practice, this task is extremely difficult to perform as only imperfect or partial CSIT is available, which creates residual MUI. Therefore, the perfect CSIT assumption remains questionable.
In these circunstamces, Rate Splitting (RS) has raised as an attractive solution to deal with inaccurate CSIT \cite{Clerckx2016}. RS splits the message of each user into two different parts known as common message and private message. The common messages of all users are combined and encoded in one common stream, while the private message of each user is encoded into a private stream. At the receiver, the common stream is decoded first. Afterwards, successive interference cancellation (SIC) is performed at each user to retrieve its private stream. The common stream should be decoded by all the users, whereas the private streams are decoded only by its corresponding user. Each user reconstructs its original message by recombining the retrieved common and private message. One of the benefits of RS is that it allows us to adjust the content and the power of the common stream resulting in a more flexible and robust wireless system.
Due to its benefits, RS has been investigated under several deployments. In all cases, RS has shown a better performance than conventional precoding strategies, Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) \cite{Mao2018} and even Dirty Paper Coding (DPC) \cite{Mao2020}. Linear precoding techniques with RS have been explored in \cite{Joudeh2016}, where the sum rate performance with partial CSIT is maximized . In \cite{Hao2015,Lu2018} the effects of the imperfect CSIT caused by finite feedback are mitigated. In contrast, non-linear precoders, such as the THP, have been considered in \cite{Flores2018}. The performance of the THP algorithm is strongly related to the symbol ordering. Although the previous work explores the Tomlinson-Harashima precoder (THP) along with RS, no ordering scheme over the symbols is implemented.
In this work, we propose a multi-branch (MB) scheme for an RS MIMO system employing THP precoders, denoted as RS-MB-THP \cite{rsthp}. This technique is incorporated in two different THP deployments, namely the centralized THP (cTHP) and the descentralized THP (dTHP) architectures. The MB technique designs efficient transmit patterns to order the symbols and further enhances the performance obtained by the THP operating in an RS system. Finding the best pattern in an RS system can be computationally expensive. In this regard, suboptimal strategies are explored in order to reduce the complexity required by the evaluation of multiple patterns. Closed-form expressions to compute the SINR of the proposed schemes are also derived and numerical results illustrate the performance of the proposed RS-MB-THP against existing schemes.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the system model is described. In Section 3 the proposed RS-MB-THP is presented along with two suboptimal strategies, which reduce the computational complexity. In Section 4 the computation of the sum rate performance through closed form expressions is detailed. Section 5 presents the simulations carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme. Finally, Section 5 draws the conclusions of this work.
\section{System Model}
\label{sec:system model}
We consider the downlink (DL) of a multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) system where the BS serves $K$ users which are geographically distributed. Each user equipment (UE) has a single receive antenna. It follows that the total number of receive antennas is equal to $K$. In contrast, the Base Station (BS) is equipped with $N_t$ transmit antennas, where $N_t \geq K \geq 2$. The system employs an RS scheme, which splits the message of a single user. Let us consider for instance that the message, denoted by $m^{\left(RS\right)}$, of an arbitrary user $k$ is split into a common message $m_c$ and a private message $m_k$. All other messages $m_i$ with $i\neq k$ are not split. Once the splitting process is complete, the messages are encoded and modulated. Then the common symbol $s_c$ is superimposed to the vector of private symbols $\mathbf{s_p}$, i.e., $\mathbf{s}=\left[s_c,\mathbf{s}_p\right]\in \mathbb{C}^{K+1}$. Then, the vector of private symbols is given by $\mathbf{s}_p=\left[s_1,s_2,\cdots,s_K\right] \in \mathbb{C}^{K}$.
The symbols are mapped to the transmit antennas using a precoding matrix $\mathbf{P}=\left[\mathbf{p}_c,\mathbf{p}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{p}_K\right]\in\mathbb{C}^{N_t\times\left(K+1\right)}$. Specifically, the private precoder $\mathbf{p}_k, k=1,\cdots,K$ maps the private symbol $s_k$ to the transmit antennas. On the other hand, the precoder $\mathbf{p}_c$ maps the common symbol $s_c$. Note that the system incorporates non-linear precoders, i.e., non-linear processing is performed over the data symbols creating a random vector $\mathbf{v} \in {K+1}$. Since we consider a THP precoder, a feedback filter successively cancels the interference and a modulo operation is implemented to mitigate the effects of the power loss, leading to $\mathbb{E}\left[\lVert\mathbf{s}\rVert^2\right]\approx\mathbb{E}\left[\lVert\mathbf{v}\rVert^2\right]$. However, the modulo operation introduces a modulo loss. These losses vanish as the modulation size grows. Thus, for a moderate or large constellation we have that the power of $\mathbf{v}$ is approximately equal to the power of $\mathbf{s}$ \cite{Zu2014}. Then, the transmit vector is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{P}\mathbf{v},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_t}$. We also consider that the system follows an average transmit power constraint given by $\mathbb{E}\left[\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert^2\right]\leq E_{tr}$, where $E_{tr}$ denotes the available power.
The data is transmitted over a flat fading channel denoted by $\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}=\left[\mathbf{h}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{h}_K\right]^{\text{T}}$, whose parameters remain fixed during the transmission of a data packet. The channel $\mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}$ represents the channel between the BS and the $k$th user terminal. Remark that in real applications there always exist uncertainty in the CSIT due the channel estimation procedure \cite{Vu2007,Love2008}. This uncertainty can be modelled by an error channel matrix given by $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}^{\text{T}}=\left[\mathbf{\tilde{h}}_1,\cdots,\mathbf{\tilde{h}}_K\right]^{\text{T}}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_t\times{K}}$. The channel estimate is expressed by $\mathbf{\hat{H}}^{\text{T}}=\left[\mathbf{\hat{h}}_1,\cdots, \mathbf{\hat{h}}_K\right]^{\text{T}}$. The error matrix lead to $\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}=\mathbf{\hat{H}}^{\text{T}}+\mathbf{\tilde{H}}^{\text{T}}$. The error power induced by $\mathbf{\tilde{h}}_k$ is denoted by $\sigma_{e,k}^2=\mathbb{E}\left[\lVert\mathbf{\tilde{h}}_k\rVert^2\right], k=1,\cdots,K$. We also consider that the quality of the CSIT scales with the SNR, i.e. $\sigma_{e,k}^2=O\left(E_{tr}^{-\alpha}\right)$.
The received signal is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{P}\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{n}, \label{Receive signal complete}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{n}$ stands for the additive noise, which follows a complex Gaussian distribution $\mathbf{n}\sim\mathcal{CN}\left(\mathbf{0},\sigma_n^2\mathbf{I}\right)$. We consider that the SNR is equal to $E_{tr}/\sigma_n^2$. Furthermore we assume that the noise variance remains fixed so that the SNR scales with $E_{tr}$. From \eqref{Receive signal complete}, we obtain the received signal at each UE as expressed by
\begin{equation}
y_k=s_c\mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_c+s_k\mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_k^+\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq k}}^{K}s_i\mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_i+n_k.
\end{equation}
The average power of the received signal at the $k$th user terminal is described by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[\lvert y_k\rvert^2\right]= \lvert \mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_c\rvert^2+\lvert\mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_k \rvert^2+\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq k}}^{K}\lvert \mathbf{h}_k^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_i\rvert^2+\sigma_n^2.
\end{equation}
The receiver decodes first the common symbol by considering the private symbols as noise and then performs SIC \cite{itic,DeLamare2008,jidf,mfsic,mbdf,tds,bfidd,aaidd,listmtc,1bitidd,detmtc,dynovs} to subtract the common symbol from the receive signal. Afterwards, the private symbols are decoded. Thus, the instantaneous sum rate of a system employing RS involves two different parts, the instantaneous common rate $R_c$ related to the common stream and the instantaneous sum-private rate associated to the private streams and given by $R_p=\sum_{k=1}^{K}R_k$, where $R_k$ denotes the $k$th user private rate. The common rate at the $k$th user is given by $R_{c,k}$. Assuming Gaussian codebooks we have
\begin{align}
R_{c,k}&=\log_2\left(1+ \gamma_{c,k}\right), & R_{k}&=\log_2\left(1+ \gamma_{k}\right).\label{Rate Gaussian Codebook}
\end{align}
where $\gamma_{c,k}$ represents the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at the $k$th user when decoding the common message and $\gamma_{k}$ denotes the SINR at the $k$th user when decoding its private message. We highlight that imperfect CSIT is considered in this work and therefore the instantaneous rates are not achievable. Consequently, we employ the ergodic sum rate (ESR), which is an achievable rate as detailed in \cite{Joudeh2016}, to measure the performance of the system. The ESR is obtained from the average sum rate (ASR), which is a representation of the average performance of a given channel estimate taking into account the errors in the channel estimate. Similar to the instantaneous rate, the ASR consists of two parts. The average common rate is computed by $\bar{R}_{c,k}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}|\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}}\left[R_{c,k}|\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}\right]$, whereas the average sum private rate is given by $\bar{R}_{p}=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}|\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}\left[R_{p}|\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}\right]$. The ergodic common rate can be obtained from $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}\left[\bar{R}_{c,k}\right]$ and the ergodic private rate is equal to $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}\left[\bar{R}_p\right]$. The ESR of the system can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation}
S_r=\min_{k} \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}\left[\bar{R}_{c,k}\right]+\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}}\left[\bar{R}_p\right].
\end{equation}
Note that the $\min$ operator is employed to guarantee that all users decode the common message.
\section{Proposed RS-MB-THP Scheme}
\label{sec:RS MB THP}
The THP was originally proposed in \cite{Tomlinson1971,Harashima1972} and extended to the MIMO environment in \cite{Fischer2002}. In the proposed RS-MB-THP scheme, one specific THP operates as the private precoder in $\mathbf{P}$ and requires the implementation of three filters: a feedback filter $\mathbf{B}$ which suppresses the interference caused by previous streams, a feedforward filter $\mathbf{F}$ which partially removes the MUI and a scaling matrix $\mathbf{C}$ which assigns a weight to each private stream. Depending on the position of the scaling matrix, we can define two different THP deployments. The centralized THP (cTHP) incorporates the matrix $\mathbf{C}$ at the receiver, whereas the decentralized THP (dTHP) implements the scaling matrix at the receivers\cite{Zu2014}.
The three filters can be obtained by performing an LQ decomposition over the channel estimate which lead us to
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}=\hat{\mathbf{L}}\hat{\mathbf{Q}},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathbf{Q}}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_t\times N_t}$ is a unitary matrix. Then, we define the THP filters as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{F}&=\hat{\mathbf{Q}}^{H}\\
\mathbf{G}&=\text{diag}\left(\hat{l}_{1,1},\hat{l}_{2,2},\cdots,\hat{l}_{K,K}\right)\\
\mathbf{B}^{\left(\text{d}\right)}&=\mathbf{G}\hat{\mathbf{L}}~~ \text{and}~~ \mathbf{B}^{\left(\text{c}\right)}=\hat{\mathbf{L}}\mathbf{G}
\end{align}
The received signal at the user terminal before the SIC operation is given by
\begin{align}
\mathbf{y}^{\left(\text{d}\right)}&=s_c\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_c+\beta \mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{n},\\
\mathbf{y}^{\left(\text{c}\right)}&=s_c\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{p}_c+\beta\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{n},
\end{align}
where $\beta$ is the power scaling factor and the vector $\mathbf{v}$ is obtained using the following recursion:
\begin{equation}
v_i=s_i-\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}b_{i,j}v_j.
\end{equation}
Note that the matrix $\mathbf{B}$ increases the average power of the transmit vector, which is reflected as a power loss\footnote{Remark that $v_1=s_1$ which lead us to $\sigma_{v_1}^2=\sigma_s^2$. However this statement does not hold for $v_i$ with $i\neq 1$ and we usually have that $\sigma_{v_i}\geq \sigma_s^2$.}. Thus, a modulo operation is introduced to reduce the effects of the power loss and keep the transmit vector inside the original modulation boundary \cite{Debels2018,Zu2014}. The modulo operation can be defined element-wise by
\begin{equation}
M\left(v_i\right)=v_i-\left \lfloor{\frac{\text{Re}\left(v_i\right)}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{2}}\right\rfloor\lambda-j\left\lfloor{\frac{\text{Im}\left(v_i\right)}{\lambda}+\frac{1}{2}}\right\rfloor\lambda,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a scalar that depends on the modulation alphabet (Considering a unitary symbol variance, some typical values of $\lambda$ are $2\sqrt{2}$ and $8\sqrt{10}$ for QPSK and 16-QAM respectively). Mathematically, the modulo operation corresponds to adding a perturbation vector $\mathbf{d}$ to the transmitted data. On the other hand, the result of feedback recursion can be also obtained by using the inverse of matrix $\mathbf{B}$, leading to the following transmit vector:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{B}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{d}\right).
\end{equation}
After decoding the common symbol and removing it from the receive signal, we obtain
\begin{align}
\mathbf{y}^{\left(\text{d}\right)}&=\beta\mathbf{C}\left(\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{n}\right),\\
\mathbf{y}^{\left(\text{c}\right)}&=\beta\mathbf{H}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{F}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{n}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Power allocation}
Since we are using an RS approach, the power must be allocated to both the private streams and the common stream. Let us consider that the power of the common stream is given by $\lVert\mathbf{p}_c\rVert=\delta \sqrt{E_{tr}}$, where $\delta$ is the portion of $E_{tr}$ that is reserved for $s_c$. This parameter should be found so that the specific performance metric is maximized. Thus, the power for the private streams can be found by $\left(1-\delta\right)E_{tr}$ and, is uniformly allocated across streams. In this work, the parameter $\delta$ is chosen so that the ESR of the system is maximized. This can be expressed as follows:
\begin{align}
\delta_o=&\max_{\delta}\left(\min_{k\in \left[1,K\right]}\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}}\left[\bar{R}_{c,k}\left(\delta\right)\right]+\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}}\left[\bar{R}_p\left(\delta\right)\right]\right).\label{Power allocation SR}
\end{align}
Remark that the power constraint must be satisfied. For this purpose, a scaling factor $\beta$ is introduced into the private precoder, resulting in an average transmit power equal to $E_{tr}-\lVert\mathbf{p_c}\rVert^2$. Considering the THP as the private precoder, the value of $\beta$ is reduced to
\begin{align}
\beta^{\left(\textrm{cTHP}\right)}=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{tr}-\lVert \mathbf{p}_c\rVert^2}{\sum_{k=1}^{M}\hat{l}_{k,k}^2}} &
\beta^{\left(\textrm{dTHP}\right)}=&\sqrt{\frac{E_{tr}-\lVert \mathbf{p}_c\rVert^2}{M}}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Multi-Branch processing}
The (MB) technique was proposed in \cite{DeLamare2008} for decision feedback receivers and later extended to THP in \cite{Zu2014}. In this work, incorporate the MB concept into a RS-THP scheme and develop power allocation strategies for the proposed RS-THP-MB scheme. The MB technique employs multiple parallel branches to find the best symbol ordering for transmission. Let us suppose that $L_o$ different symbol ordering patterns originate $L_o$ transmit vectors candidates. The patterns are known to both, the transmitter and the receiver and each pattern is stored in a matrix $\mathbf{T}_{l}$ with $l\in 1,\cdots,L_o$ and $\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}_{\left(l\right)}=\mathbf{T}_l\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}$. Then, the transmitter finds the pattern that maximizes the desired metric, which in this work is the ESR performance.
The first step of the MB approach is to rearrange the users according to several transmit patterns, which are described as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{1}=&\mathbf{I}_K\\
\mathbf{T}_{i}=&\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{I}_{i-2} &\mathbf{0}_{i-2,K-i+2}\\
\mathbf{0}_{K-i+2,i-2} &\mathbf{\Pi}_i
\end{bmatrix}
,2\leq i\leq K.\label{User Order MB}
\end{align}
The matrix $\mathbf{\Pi}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{\left(K-i+2\right)\times\left(K-i+2\right)}$ is responsible for changing the order of the users. This matrix contains ones in the reverse diagonal and zeros outside the reverse diagonal.
Different form the conventional MU-MIMO, RS schemes include a common precoder besides the private precoders. The patterns created modify not only the private precoder but also the the common precoder. In this sense, the computation of the common precoder should be performed by taking into account the selected pattern. The best pattern for each channel estimate should be selected with the following criterion:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{\left(o\right)}&=\max_{l,\delta}\left(\min_{k}\bar{R}_{c,k}\left(\delta,\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}^{\text{T}} \right)+\bar{R}_p\left(\delta,\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}^{\text{T}} \right)\right).\label{Overall MB criterion}
\end{align}
Note that omitting the common rate in the selection criterion may lead us to select the wrong candidate. Once the best branch is selected, the channel estimate is rearranged accordingly, i.e., $\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(o\right)}^{\text{T}}=\mathbf{T}_{\left(o\right)}\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}$. Then, the private and common precoders are computed.
Finding the optimal arrangement using \eqref{Overall MB criterion} results in a considerable high computational cost. To reduce the computational complexity other suboptimal approaches may be used. For this purpose, let us consider the fixed power allocation (FPA) criterion, which fixes $\delta$ to $\delta_f$, which is the $\delta$ that obtains the best ESR using $\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}$ without any rearrangement. Once the power allocation is set, the best branch for each channel estimate is selected according to
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{T}_{\left(o\right)}=\max_{l}\left(\min_{k}\bar{R}_{c,k}\left(\delta_f,\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}^{\text{T}} \right)+\bar{R}_p\left(\delta_f,\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}^{\text{T}} \right)\right).\label{MB criterion 2}
\end{equation}
A simplified approach, which we term fixed branch (FB) criterion, employs $\delta_f$ and chooses the branch that leads to the highest ESR as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{\left(o\right)}&=\nonumber\\
&\max_{l}\left(\min_{k}\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}^{\text{T}}}\left[\bar{R}_{c,k}\left(\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}_{\left(l\right)}\right)\right]+\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}_{\left(l\right)}}\left[\bar{R}_p\left(\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}_{\left(l\right)} \right)\right]\right).\label{MB criterion 3}
\end{align}
The branch is selected when the system is initialized, avoiding the search at each channel estimate. Then, the value of $\delta_f$ can be adapted using \eqref{Power allocation SR}. Since we consider the initial $\hat{\mathbf{H}}^{\text{T}}$ without symbol ordering as a possible solution of \eqref{Overall MB criterion},\eqref{MB criterion 2} and \eqref{MB criterion 3}, the proposed criteria perform at least as well as the conventional RS-THP.
\section{Statistical analysis}
\label{sec:Statistical analysis}
Let us consider the $l$th branch of the proposed RS-MB-THP. The SINR expression for this branch when decoding the common stream at the $k$th user is given by
\begin{align}
\gamma^{\left(\text{d}\right)}_{c,l,k}&=\frac{\lvert\hat{\mathbf{h}}^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}_k\mathbf{p}_c\rvert^2/\beta^{\left(\text{d}\right)}}{\lvert\hat{l}_{k,k}^{\left(l\right)}+\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_{k}^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_{k}^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\rvert^2+\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\ i\neq k}}^{K}\lvert\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_k^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_i^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\rvert^{2}+\sigma_n^2/\beta^{\left(\text{d}\right)}},\label{SINR dTHP common}\\
\gamma^{\left(\text{c}\right)}_{c,l,k}&=\frac{\lvert\hat{\mathbf{h}}^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}_k\mathbf{p}_c\rvert^2/\beta^{\left(\text{c}\right)}}{\lvert 1+\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_{k}^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_{k}^{\left(\text{c}\right)}\rvert^2+\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\ i\neq k}}^{K}\lvert\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_k^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_i^{\left(\text{c}\right)}\rvert^{2}+\sigma_n^2/\beta^{\left(\text{c}\right)}}.\label{SINR cTHP common}
\end{align}
The associated SINR experienced by the $k$th user when decoding the private message with the $l$th branch can be computed by
\begin{align}
\gamma_{l,k}^{\left(\text{d}\right)}&=\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq k}}^{K}\frac{1}{\hat{l}^2_{k,k}}\lvert\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_k^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_i^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\rvert^2+\frac{K \sigma_n^2}{\left(E_{tr}-\lVert\mathbf{p}_c\rVert^2\right)\hat{l}_{k,k}^2}},\label{SINR dTHP private}\\
\gamma_{l,k}^{\left(\text{c}\right)}&=\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq k}}^{K}\lvert\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_k^{\left(l\right)^{\text{T}}}\mathbf{p}_i^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\rvert^2+\frac{\sigma_n^2\sum_j^K\left(1/\hat{l}_{j,j}\right)}{E_{tr}-\lVert\mathbf{p}_c\rVert^2}}.\label{SINR cTHP private}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{SINR cTHP common},\eqref{SINR dTHP common},\eqref{SINR cTHP private} and \eqref{SINR dTHP private} with \eqref{Rate Gaussian Codebook} and taking the expected value given $\hat{\mathbf{H}}_{\left(l\right)}$ we obtain the achievable rate of each user when employing the $l$th branch. Then, we select the best branch according the criteria established in the previous section.
\section{Simulations}
\label{sec:Simulations}
In this section, we assess the performance of the proposed RS-MB-THP and compare the results with the existing RS-THP and THP schemes \cite{Flores2018,Zu2014}. To this end, we consider the downlink of a MISO system where the BS is equipped with 8 transmit antennas. The BS establishes communication with 8 users geographically distributed. Moreover, we consider additive white Gaussian noise with $\sigma_n^2=1$. For the transmission, a flat fading Rayleigh channel is considered, which remains fix during the transmission of a packet. A total of 100 channel matrices was used to compute the ASR. On the other hand, the ESR was obtaind by averaging 100 channel estimates. An SVD was performed over the channel matrix ($\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{USV}$) and the common precoder is set to $\mathbf{p}_c=\mathbf{v}_1$. The optimal branch and the value of $\delta$ were obtained using \eqref{Overall MB criterion},\eqref{MB criterion 2} and \eqref{MB criterion 3}.
In the first simulation, we consider that the quality of the channel estimate improves with the SNR. Specifically, we consider that the variance of the error is equal to $\sigma_e^2=0.95\left(E_{tr}^{-0.6}\right)$. Note that the variance of the error is inversely proportional to the SNR since the noise variance is fixed to one. We consider 4 different branches for both THP structures. Fig. \ref{Figure9} summarizes the overall sum rate performance, where the notation ES,FPA and FB stand for the exhaustive search, fixed power allocation and fixed branch criteria. The best performance is attained by the RS-MB-dTHP-ES as expected. Remark that the performance of the RS-MB-dTHP-FPA is slightly lower than the RS-MB-dTHP-ES but the computational complexity is reduced dramatically. The RS-MB-dTHP-FB technique obtains the worst performance among the proposed techniques but it also offers the lowest computational complexity.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig2Final2.eps}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{Sum Rate Performance}
\label{Figure9}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
In the second example, we evaluate the robustness of the proposed algorithms by increasing the level in the CSIT uncertainty. We consider an SNR equal to 20dB. Fig. \ref{Figure7} shows the results obtained. The proposed strategies increase the robustness of the system across all error variances. The RS-MB-dTHP-ES is the most robust technique. Note that the RS-MB-dTHP-FPA is a suitable replacement for RS-MB-dTHP-ES with reduced computational complexity.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig1Final.eps}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\caption{Sum Rate Performance vs Error Variance}
\label{Figure7}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
In this work, we have proposed several RS-MB-THP techniques to perform symbol ordering and enhance the performance of RS-THP systems. In general, the proposed strategies exhibit greater benefits when dealing with CSIT imperfections. Results show that the proposed strategies achieve a better overall sum rate performance. Specifically, the RS-MB-dTHP-ES and RS-MB-dTHP-FPA obtain the best performance among the proposed strategies. Moreover, RS-MB-THP further enhances the robustness of the system even with a small number of branches, which demonstrates its effectiveness.
\vfill\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
Topological systems promise to be materials with various implementations \cite{Hasan2010, Xiao2011}; in condensed matter physics. These materials gained interest in recent years due to their peculiar properties like efficient transport in electronic hetero-structures \cite{HANG2021}, high thermal conductivity \cite{Platero2018}, favorable mechanical properties under strains \cite{Kane2014}, minimization of thermal noise \cite{WEBER2016}, and decoherence effects in open systems \cite{SHAOLIN2020}. \\
The property of topological robustness protects these materials from quantum fluctuations or defects in the system \cite{Guinea2009} and presents protected states, also known as zero-mode energy states \cite{Xiao2011}.\\
There are already some works that mention peculiarities of these types of materials \cite{LONG2020,Xiao2011, WEBER2016, HANG2021, SHAOLIN2020}, and in general, due to the robustness of these materials, there are more quantum correlations which allow a greater degree of efficiency in electronic transport \cite{YIXIN2010,Hauke2014}. Therefore, topological materials are expected to be suitable for quantum information processing \cite{NIU2010,JAY2010,Jun2014,YU2006}.\\
One of the topics in quantum information theory is the study of entanglement and quantum correlations involved in condensed matter systems \cite{Ping2019, Jaeyoon2017,2021TakamiT}. The origin of the relationship between quantum correlation metrics and geometric phases comes from the Fubini-Study geometrical quantum tensor of the complex projective space in the projective geometry of Hilbert space \cite{Brody2001}. The connection between topological materials in condensed matter physics and manipulating qubits with entanglement properties in quantum information theory \cite{Horodecki2009} opens a new research area to create new technology, like, topological quantum computing, cryptography, and quantum security \cite{VALERIO2009, JIAN2012, NICOLAS2012}.
In this work, we presented a characterization of the TPT via the Schmidt number metric \cite{Knight2006, Sperling2011} as a measure of entanglement in the simple \cite{Obana2019,Kuno2019} and extended \cite{CHAO2010} SSH models. Also, the relation entanglement-localization and topology are discussed.
\section{1D SSH topological insulator}
The system of study is the SSH Hamiltonian \cite{Schrieffer1980}, which is a tight-binding model of a wire with alternating single and double hopping (Fig. 1). The basis of the wire is constructed by a cell of two types of atoms A and B.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{1FIG_SSH.png}
\caption{Extended SSH model. Topological wire, with intra $v$ (black lines) and inter $w$ (orange lines) hopping and an additional second neighborhood hopping $z$ (green lines). The index $m$ (tick lines) indicates the cell number and atoms A (Red) and B (Blue), with $N=6$ unit cells.}
\end{figure}\\
The Hamiltonian in real space can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{e}&=\hat{H}_{s}+z\sum^N_{m}(\ket{m+1}\bra{m}\otimes\ket{B}\bra{A}+h.c.)\\
&= \hat{H}_{s}+z\sum^N_{m}(\ket{m+1}\bra{m}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{-}+h.c.)
\end{split},
\label{Ham}
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the second neighbor hopping and $\hat{H}_{s}=\sum^N_{m}(v\ket{m}\bra{m}\otimes\ket{A}\bra{B}+w\ket{m+1}\bra{m}\otimes\ket{A}\bra{B}) + h.c.
=v\sum^N_{m}\ket{m}\bra{m}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{x}+w\sum^N_{m}(\ket{m+1}\bra{m}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{+}+ h.c)$ is the simple SSH Hamiltonian where $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$ with $i=x,y,z$ are the Pauli matrices with $\hat{\sigma}_{+}=\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{x}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y}}{2}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{-}=\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{x}-i\hat{\sigma}_{y}}{2}$. Here "$v$" and "$w$" represents intra-cell and inter-cell hopping in 1D wire, $\ket{m}$ is the index of the cell number, $\ket{A}$ and $\ket{B}$ are the occupation type atom in a cell.
This model defines the basic form for the bipartite system of $2\otimes N$ dimension. \\
The eigenfunctions can be expanded as a superposition of the composite states, $\ket{m,\alpha}= \ket{m} \otimes\ket{\alpha}\in H_{ext}\otimes H_{int}$, here $H_{ext}\rightarrow \ket{m}$ is the external dimension or degree of freedom related to the position over the chain, while $H_{int}\rightarrow \ket{\alpha}$ represent the internal degree of freedom with $\alpha\in{(A,B)}$ related to the type of atom. \\
The eigensolution of the Hamiltonian (Eq. \ref{Ham}), $H\ket{\psi_n}=E_{n} \ket{\psi_n}$ can be expressed as a combination of the composite state, $\ket{\psi_n}=\sum^N_{m}(C^A_{m,n}\ket{m,A}+C^B_{m,n}\ket{m,B})$, where $C^{\alpha}_{m}$ are the amplitude of probability of the particle to be in cell $\ket{m} $ and atom $\ket{\alpha}$.
\section{Geometrical phases and electrical polarization}
To understand geometrical phases in our models, we characterized the phases in the k-space, and we provided a specific procedure to determine it in real space based on the calculation of electric polarization in periodic systems introduced by Resta \cite{RESTA2000}. \\
The Hamiltonian in real space can reduce to a $2\times2$ matrix in k-space as $H=\sum_k\psi^{\dagger}_kH(k)\psi_k$, where $\psi_k=(a_k, b_k)^T$ are the Nambu spinor. For the extended Hamiltonian we get,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H(k)=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & v+we^{-ik}+ze^{ik} \\
v+we^{ik}+ze^{-ik} & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which can be rewritten in terms of Pauli matrices as $H(k)=\bm{h(k)}\cdot \bm{\sigma}$, where $h(k)=(v+(w+z)\cos{k},(w-z)\sin{k},0)$ is a vector in the plane $h_x-h_y$ that maps an ellipsoid centered on $v$. Also in complex plane is $h(k)=h_x(k)+ih_y(k)$. \\
The energy in k-space is given by $\epsilon^{\pm}_k=\pm\sqrt{v^2+w^2+z^2+2v(w+z)\cos{k}+2wz\cos{2k}}$ with associated eigenvectors $\ket{u^{\pm}_k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\pm e^{-i\phi(k)},1)$ where $\phi(k)=\tan^{-1}{\frac{h_y}{h_x}}$. Using $z=0$ the simple SSH case can be recovered with $h(k)=(v+w\cos{k},w\sin{k})$ being now a circle center in $v$. Clearly, the energy spectrum is quiral and therefore we have that $E_{-}=-E_{+}$ and also have the property of chirality of the Hamiltonian $\sigma_z H\sigma_z=-H$, or $\lbrace \sigma_z, H \rbrace$=0 with $\sigma^2_z=1$.
\\
The topology of the 1D SSH model is characterized by the winding number that is related to the Berry phase or geometric phase for an adiabatic system \cite{BARRY1983}. The winding number for the extended Hamiltonian can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\zeta & =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{C}\frac{d}{dk}ln{(h(k))}\\
& =\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{C}\frac{d}{dk}ln{(v+we^{ik}+ze^{-ik})},\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the Brillouin zone $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$. We get the simple SSH model setting $z=0$ in the integral (Eq. 3); therefore, the winding number has values,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\zeta & =\begin{cases}
0, & v > w\\
1, & v < w
\end{cases} ,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the topological region (TR) is $v>w$, the trivial region $v<w$ and the singularity of the winding number occurs in $v=w$.
For the extended SSH model $z\neq0$, we obtain the winding number,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\zeta & =\begin{cases}
0, & v > w+z\\
1, & v < w+z , w > z\\
-1, & v < w+z , w < z
\end{cases} ,
\end{split}
\label{r1}
\end{equation}
when the TR happens in $v<w+z$ and trivial region in $v>w+z$.\\
For $\zeta=\pm 1$, we have a topological insulator with the sign related to the direction of the path over the curve. This topological invariant is related to the Berry phase as $\gamma=\pi\zeta$ and also with the electrical polarization $P=e\frac{\zeta}{2}$. \\
In the extended SSH model there are two points of TPT $v=w+z$ and $w=z$, the first one $v=w+z$ is related to TPT between trivial and non-trivial regions $\zeta=0\rightarrow 1$ while $w=z$ is related to TPT between TR $\zeta=\pm1\rightarrow \mp1$.
\\
However, geometrical phases are determined in k-space, where the system has periodic boundary conditions. Therefore we need to use another more convenient procedure in real space where the non-separable property of the bipartite system still remains. For this reason, we calculate the electrical polarization by the definition of Resta polarization \cite{RESTA2000, RESTA1998},
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P_n=\frac{e}{2\pi}Im\ln{[\bra{\psi_n}e^{i\delta\hat{x}}\ket{\psi_n}]}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\delta=\frac{2\pi}{Na}$ and $\hat{x}=\sum^N_{m}\hat{x}_m = \sum^N_{m}m[\ket{m,A}+\ket{m,B}]$, with the charge of electron "$e$" and the atomic distance "$a$" in natural unities $e=a=1$ and $\hat{X}=e^{i\delta\hat{x}}$. Its follows that geometrical phase is $\gamma_n=Im\ln{[\bra{\psi_n}e^{i\delta\hat{x}}\ket{\psi_n}]}$, so $P_n=\frac{e}{2\pi}\gamma_n$, electrical polarization is proportional to the geometrical phase \cite{MARTIN1994}. The idea in this formulation is consider a new operator of position for a composite system with periodic boundary conditions in real space \cite{MICHAEL2017}. For the SSH basis wavefunction can write the electric polarization \cite{balazss2021} as $P_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}Im\ln{[\sum^N_{m}e^{i\delta m}(|C^A_{m,n}|^2+|C^B_{m,n}|^2)]}$.
\section{Schmidt Number and entanglement}
For the measure of entanglement use the Schmidt number \cite{Bagdanov2007,Eberley2006} because is defined as the metric of entanglement in pure bipartite systems and can be described by bi-orthonormal wavefunctions as $\ket{\psi^{ext,int}}=\sum^k_{n=1}\sqrt{p_n}\ket{u^{ext}_n, w^{int}_n}$ \cite{Vogel2006}, where $k\leq dim[min(ext,int)]$ and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}^{ext}\otimes\mathcal{H}^{int}$, which allows to characterize the degree of entanglement through the Schmidt number $K$, defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
K = \frac{1}{\sum_{i} \lambda^2_i} = \frac{1}{Tr(\rho^2_r)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}\\
where $\rho_r$ is the density matrix of the reduced space $\rho_r=Tr_p(\rho^{ext,int})$ For non-separable system its follows that $\rho^{ext,int}\neq \rho^{ext}\otimes\rho^{int}$ with the property $Tr(\rho^{ext})=Tr(\rho^{int})=1$.
\\
The Schmidt number is also defined as the metric of entanglement for the SSH model in the reduced space of the qubit formed by the two-level system referred to as the type of atom $A$ or $B$. The total dimension of the SSH model is $2\otimes N$ with $N$ the number of sites over the chain. By doing the partial trace, we have that the reduced matrix is a $2\times 2$ matrix. \\
We considered that the hoppings are real numbers, therefore, the wave function of the eigenstate $n$ is $\ket{\psi_n}=\sum^N_{m}(C^A_{m,n}\ket{m,A}+C^B_{m,n}\ket{m,B})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\phi^A}\otimes\ket{A}+\ket{\phi^B}\otimes\ket{B})$, where $\ket{\phi^{\alpha}}=\sqrt{2}\sum^N_{m}C^{\alpha}_{m,n}\ket{m}$, expressing in this form $\ket{\psi_n}$ is clear that has a non-separable basis, where $\ket{\phi^{A}}$ and $\ket{\phi^{B}}$ are mutual orthogonal.
\\
The Schmidt number can be interpreted from a geometric point of view when the reduced density matrix represents a two dimensional system, in this condition the density matrix defines a Bloch vector of the form
$\langle \bm{r}\rangle=\langle\bm{\sigma} \rangle=Tr(\rho_n\bm{\sigma})$, where $\rho_n=\ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n}$ is the density matrix of the pure state $\ket{\psi_n}$ and $\bm{\sigma}=(\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z)$ are the Pauli matrices. For a qubit system $\rho=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{I}+ \bm{r}\cdot\bm{\sigma})$, using this notation Schmidt number can be rewritten as,
$K=\frac{d}{1+|\bm{r}|^2}$, where $d$ is the dimension of the reduced density matrix in qubit system. \\
Here we consider $d=2$, due to the internal dimension of the basis atom $\ket{\alpha}$. The ME is reached when $K=2$, this occurs for Bloch vectors where $|\bm{r}| \rightarrow 0$, on the other hand, the system becomes separable when $K=1$ such that the Bloch vector is $|\bm{r}| \rightarrow 1$. The ME states are of the hybrid Bell states for the structure of the wavefunction. \\
The hybrid entanglement is between cell sites and atoms, these must satisfy conditions; i) $ \braket{\phi^{A}|\phi^{A}}=\sum_{m}|C^A_m|^2=\frac{1}{2}$, ii) $\braket{\phi^{B}|\phi^{B}}=\sum_{m}|C^B_m|^2=\frac{1}{2}$ and iii) $\braket{\phi^{A}|\phi^{B}}=\sum_{m}(C^A_m)^{*}C^B_m=0$. Using this basis we can write Schmidt number as, $K_n=[(\sum_{m}|C^A_{m,n}|^2)^2+(\sum_{m}|C^B_{m,n}|^2)^2+2(\sum_{m}C^A_{m,n} C^B_{m,n})^2]^{-1}$.
\\
\\
An important case to analyze for entanglement aspects is the dimerized limit, the bulk in the fully dimerized limits has flat bands. These consist of even energy $E = +1$ and odd
energy $E=-1$ superposition of two sites forming a dimer. Trivial dimerized case occurs for $v=1$ and $w=0$, so, the eigenvalue equation reduce to $\hat{H}(\ket{m,A}\pm\ket{m,B})=\pm(\ket{m,A}\pm\ket{m,B})$. The topological dimerized case occurs for $v=0$ and $w=1$, therefore, the eigenvalue equation reduce to $\hat{H}(\ket{m,B}\pm\ket{m+1,A})=\pm(\ket{m,B}\pm\ket{m+1,A})$. For topological dimerized limit, the corresponding normalize states are $\psi^{max}_{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\ket{m,B}\pm\ket{m+1,A}]$ and the reduced density matrix is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho^{max}_{r,\pm}=\frac{1}{2}[\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}\ket{B}\bra{B}+\delta_{m+1,m^{\prime}+1}\ket{A}\bra{A}]
\end{split},
\end{equation}
these states has a Schmidt number,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
K^{max}=\frac{1}{Tr[(\rho^{max}_{\pm})^2]}=2
\end{split},
\label{r2}
\end{equation}
therefore, in the topological dimerized limit, there is an entangled state with a maximum Schmidt number. For other hand, trivial dimerized limit have normalize states as $\psi^{min}_{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\ket{m,A}\pm\ket{m,B}]$ and the reduced density matrix is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho^{min}_{r, \pm}&=\frac{1}{2}[\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}\ket{B}\bra{B}+\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}\ket{A}\bra{A}\\ &\pm\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}\ket{B}\bra{A}\pm\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}\ket{A}\bra{B}]
\end{split},
\end{equation}
and the corresponding Schmidt number is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
K^{min}=\frac{1}{Tr[(\rho^{min}_{\pm})^2]}=1
\end{split}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, in the trivial dimerized limit, the system becomes disentangled. In both fully dimerized limits, the energy eigenvalues are independent of the wavenumber, $E(k) = 1$. In this so-called flat-band limit, the group velocity is zero, which again shows that as the chain falls apart to dimers, a particle input into the bulk will not spread along the chain. In k-space trivial and topological dimerized limits are $\hat{H}(k)=\hat{\sigma}_x$ and $\hat{H}(k)=\hat{\sigma}_x\cos{k}+\hat{\sigma}_y\sin{k}$.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Simple SSH $z=0$}
For the simple SSH model, two kinds of eigenstates can be distinguished: i) edge states, in the region $v\leq w$ with the property of zero energy, $E=0$ and ii) bulk states, in the region $w\leq v$, these becomes exponentially and the energy gap increase (Fig. \ref{ZCEROO}(a)). Using the Resta definition for the electric polarization for the nearest states to the edge state $\ket{\psi_1}$ is shown in Fig. \ref{ZCEROO}(b).
The SSH model has a spectrum of $2N$ eigenvalues $\lbrace -E_N,...,-E_1,-E_0, E_0, E_1,..., E_N \rbrace$, where $\pm E_0$ would be the edge state in the topological regimen. To get a general picture and observe the behavior of each state, we study the bulk states$\ket{\psi_1}$, $\ket{\psi_{20}}$, $\ket{\psi_{50}}$ and one of the edge states $\ket{\psi_{edge}}$, for the case with $N=80$ unit cells.
We observe that the TPT occurs in the singular point $v=w$ according to the geometrical phase definition Eq.4. The eigenstate $\psi_{1}$ characterizes the relationship between the quantum entanglement and topology just in the TPT.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=8.65cm]{ZCERO.png}
\caption{(a) Energy spectrum in the simple SSH model for $N=40$ unit cells and the inter-hopping is $w=0.5$ and the second neighbor hopping $z=0$. (b) Resta polarization for the quantum state $\ket{\psi_1}$. (c) Schmidt Number as a function of the intra-hopping parameter $K(v)$, the inter-hopping is $w=0.5$. The red vertical line specifies the transition point between the trivial $(v<w)$ and non-trivial $(w>v)$ zones. The Schmidt number for the bulk quantum states $\ket{\psi_1}$, $\ket{\psi_{20}}$, $\ket{\psi_{50}}$ and $\ket{\psi_{edge}}$ related to one of the edge state are plotted. (d) we see that in the TPT point $v=w$ the quantum state $\ket{\psi_1}$ related to the nearest zero energy is ME.}
\label{ZCEROO}
\end{figure}
The Schmidt number as function of $v$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{ZCEROO}(c) for fixed $w=0.5$. The red vertical line indicates the singularity point $v=w=0.5$, and the curves correspond to eigenstates $\ket{\psi_{edge}}$ (black line), $\ket{\psi_{1}}$ (blue solid line), $\ket{\psi_{20}}$ (blue dashed line) and $\ket{\psi_{50}}$ (blue pointed line). In the simple SSH Hamiltonian case, we see for the quantum states a direct relation between entanglement and geometrical phases in the TPT $v=w$.\\
The edge state is the most robust in the region $v<w$ with a maximal Schmidt number $K=2$. For the state $\ket{\psi_1}$ in the singular point $v=w$ of the winding number have a ME state. $\ket{\psi_1}$ is the nearest state to the edge state and has a narrow peak of a ME state. For the higher energy eigenstates,$\ket{\psi_{20}}$ and $\ket{\psi_{50}}$, the peak is broadened and shifted to small values for $v$. The case $v=0$ calculated in Eq. 9 which is the topological dimerized limit has ME.\\
In Fig. \ref{ZCEROO}(d) is shown the entanglement diagram of eigenstate $\ket{\psi_1}$ as a function of $v$ and $w$. The state $\ket{\psi_1}$ for all the values that satisfy the critical point condition $v=w$ has maximum Schmidt number and has a peak with as mall broaden. Away from this region, the system becomes disentangled.\\
Therefore, $\ket{\psi_1}$ is maximally localized as $\delta(v-w)$. In the region $v=w$, the Schmidt number is ME, but an increment in hoppings $v$ and $w$ produce that the localization of wavefunction becomes to broaden; however, always center in $v=w$ as a Gaussian distribution.
\subsection{Extended SSH $z\neq 0$}
For the extended SSH model, the energy spectrum is similar to the simple case; however, edge states appear in the region $v<w+z$ (Fig. \ref{S_ext}(a)).
The Fig. \ref{S_ext}(b) shows the electric polarization for the nearest states to the edge state $\ket{\psi_1}$, non-trivial geometrical phase occurs in the region $v<w+z$. From Eq. \ref{r1}, this has three distinct values for the geometrical phase. For $\zeta=0$ is a trivial insulator and therefore the electric polarization $P_1=0$, while, for the topological cases $\zeta=\pm 1$ has $P_1=\pm\frac{e}{2}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{S_ext.png}
\caption{(a) Energy spectrum in the extended SSH model as function of $v$ for $N=40$ unit cells and $w=0.5$ and $z=0.3$. (b) Resta polarization for the quantum state $\ket{\psi_{1}}$. Schmidt number in extended SSH as function of $z$ for $N=300$ unit cell, for $\ket{\psi_1}$ with (c) $v=0.3$, $w=0.5$ and (d) $v=0.5$, $w=0.3$. For $\ket{\psi_{20}}$ with (e) $v=0.3$, $w=0.5$ and (f) $v=0.5$, $w=0.3$. }
\label{S_ext}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{S_ext}(c) for $\ket{\psi_1}$, the Schmidt number has a TPT $\zeta=1\rightarrow -1$ when $w=z$ for $v=0.3$ and $w=0.5$. Also the Schmidt number as function of $z$ is characterized by the instantaneous lost of the ME. It is important to remark that in the region $w>z$ (red) reaches ME $K_1=2$ when $v<w+z$, and in the region $w<z$ (blue) always have ME states.
On the other hand, in Fig. \ref{S_ext}(d) for $v=0.5$ and $w=0.3$, three regions can be distinguished. The region $v>w+z$ (green) has $\zeta=0$ and $K_1=1$, therefore, the state is separable. For $v<w+z$ and $w>z$ (red), $\zeta=1$ and $\ket{\psi_1}$ tends to a ME. In the region $v<w+z$ and $w<z$ (blue) $\zeta=-1$ also has a ME behavior. \\
Note that the TPT points $v=w+z$ and $w=z$ represent a different kind of degeneracy. This difference is visible looking at the Schmidt number. The point $v=w+z$ is ME singularity, and the state tends to reach hybrid Bell state, while $w=z$ is a disentanglement point, and the system becomes separable.
For higher energy states like $\ket{\psi_{20}}$, Schmidt number has more energy fluctuations in both topological phases $\zeta=\pm1$ (Fig. \ref{S_ext}(e)-(f)), therefore, topological protection does not prevent quantum fluctuations in higher energy levels. Note however that $\ket{\psi_{20}}$ also characterizes the critical points $v=w+z$ and $w=z$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{ssh_extended.png}
\caption{Schmidt number and electric polarization diagrams in the extended SSH model as function of $w$ and $z$ for $v=0.4$ and $N=300$ unit cells. For $\ket{\psi_1}$ (a) $K_1(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$ and (b) $P_1(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$. For $\ket{\psi_{20}}$ (c) $K_{20}(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$ and (d) $P_{20}(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$. }
\label{SPz}
\end{figure}
To obtain a general picture of the whole parameters space influence on entanglement for the extended SSH model the diagram of the electric polarization $P(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$ and the Schmidt number $K(\frac{w}{v},\frac{z}{v})$ with an intra-hopping of $v=0.4$ is shown in fig. \ref{SPz} (a)-(d).
For $\ket{\psi_{1}}$, the presence of topological phases indicates states with ME; however, note that not the entire region $v<w+z$ presents states with ME. The Schmidt number presents disentangled states in $w=z$ and entangled states in $v=w+z$ just in singularities of the winding number, which are also related to the transition feature of the topological insulator and with the broken chiral symmetry.
For $\frac{z}{v}<1$ there is a trivial electric polarization $P_1=0$ while $\frac{z}{v}>1$ has a non-trivial electric polarization $P_1=-\frac{1}{2}$.
When $z=0$, we recover the simple SSH model, and the critical transition point remains for $w=v$. The entanglement behavior for both topological phases $\zeta=\pm1$ is the same, and between there is a singular behavior that generates disentanglement. For eigenstate, $\ket{\psi_{20}}$, the singularities of winding number are still preserved.
\\
\section{Conclusions}
We studied the one-dimensional Su-Schrieffer-Heeger(SSH) topological insulator with first and second neighbor-hoppings. In the simple SSH model, the TPT $v=w$ have states with ME $K\rightarrow 2$ that satisfy hybrid Bell conditions. The topological region $v<w$ always presents ME states, and the trivial region becomes disentangled $K\rightarrow 1$. \\
The extended SSH model with second neighbor hopping interaction $z\neq 0$ generates more ME states. The states with ME are contained in the topological region $v<w+z$ according to the winding numbers $\zeta=\pm1$.\\
The chiral Hamiltonian for the SSH model presents a robust relationship between TPT and states with ME. More importantly, the Schmidt number as a metric of entanglement allows us to characterize the winding number as a topological invariant in the SSH model.\\
|
\section*{Introduction}
Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a frequent complication of diabetes, remains the leading cause of new cases of blindness, among working-age adults in the United States\cite{CDC}, and it is expected to affect approximately 14.6 million people in United States by the year 2050\cite{NIHwebpage}. DR results in pathological alterations in both neural and microvascular structures and can damage any part of the central or peripheral retina~\cite{antonetti2021current}. Based on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity scale, eyes with DR progress through a severity spectrum of DR from non-proliferative DR (NPDR)\cite{early2020grading}. Classification of these severity stages is performed by evaluating certain clinical features of the retina, such as microaneurysms (MAs), intraretinal hemorrhages, hard exudates, cotton wool spots, intraretinal microvascular abnormalities and venous beading\cite{wilkinson2003proposed}. Advanced and vision-threatening stages of DR are characterized by neovascularization and by the presence of vessels that may leak fluid and eventually cause diabetic macular edema (DME), which is manifested as thickening of the central retinal\cite{Wong2016DiabeticR}.
Fundus photography, a conventional and non-invasive imaging modality, has been widely used since the 1960's to access the severity of DR on the basis of the presence and severity of retinal vascular lesions\cite{paing2016detection,yan2020deep,mitani2020detection}. In fundus images (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(a)), MAs appear as red circular dots with sharp margins whereas intraretinal hemorrhages, which also display as red dots or blots, may be larger and more irregularly shaped than MAs\cite{kwan2019imaging}. MAs and intraretinal hemorrhages are frequently not able to be distinguished on fundus images as the standard fundus photographs do not provide microscopic details of these lesions or allow determination of vascular perfusion. Indeed, the ETDRS severity scale lumps the grading of these lesions into a single ``H/MA" category. In contrast, more advanced imaging modalities, such as optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA)~\cite{borrelli2019vivo,kaizu2020microaneurysm} and adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO)~\cite{dubow2014classification,bernabeu2018estimation}, is capable of providing higher resolution details of these abnormalities and address the presence or absence of blood flow, thereby allowing differentiation hemorrhages from MAs~\cite{fenner2018advances}. AOSLO provides retinal imaging with the highest resolution of all the available retinal imaging techniques on human retina (down to the cellular level (2 $\mu m$)) and thus has been used to identify and quantify the morphology of individual MA~\cite{dubow2014classification} (see Figs.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(b-e)) and to measure blood flow at the capillary level~\cite{de2016rapid}.
Recent OCTA and AOSLO-based studies have suggested a possible correlation between the morphology of retinal MAs and their tendency to leak fluid, rupture or form thrombus~\cite{schreur2019morphological, bernabeu2018estimation, li2020predictive}. These findings imply that accurate identification of the shapes of MAs might be useful in the future to improve prediction of DR worsening or improvement. However, existing models for MA segmentation and classification have been trained on standard fundus photographs and therefore can only predict the number of MAs and their locations~\cite{ehlers2017automated, sreng2017automated, tavakoli2020automated, kou2019microaneurysms, murugan2019automatic, xie2020sesv}, because the resolution of standard fundus photography is not sufficient to analyse the shape of individual MAs. In contrast, the AOSLO imaging technique provides ultra-high resolution retinal images that can be used to classify MA morphologies~\cite{dubow2014classification}. To date, AOSLO retinal images have been analyzed manually by specially trained personnel~\cite{dubow2014classification,lammer2018association,bernabeu2018estimation,schreur2019morphological} as no model has been developed to automatically process these images.
Emerging interest in automated analysis of retinal images has been sparked by the rapidly increasing prevalence of diabetes worldwide and the consequent need for scalable approaches to screen and triage patients at risk for vision loss from DR~\cite{vujosevic2020screening,rajalakshmi2020impact,he2020artificial}. With the recent advances in the computational power of graphics processing units (GPUs), deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) have become a widely used tool for efficient DR screening~\cite{grzybowski2019artificial}. DCNNs are more generic compared to conventional methods that rely on hand-crafted features because the deep layers in the network act as a set of increased levels of feature extractors that can learn directly from the input images~\cite{pratt2016convolutional,fischbacher2021modular,liskowski2016segmenting}. Moreover, DCNN models are highly discriminative in automated DR severity grading and thus have achieved higher screening accuracy than conventional methods~\cite{vujosevic2020screening}. In particular, UNet, combining an encoder and a decoder to form a “U-shape” structure, is a specially designed CNN architecture for biomedical image segmentation tasks. UNet is very effective in few-shot prediction with only a few labeled images when combined with data augmentation~\cite{ronneberger2015u} and it has outperformed the plain DCNN in segmenting biomedical images, particularly for those with complex subtleties~\cite{ronneberger2015u,xiao2018weighted,bao2021segmentation}. Recent development of UNet has given rise to a number of variants, such as deformable UNet~\cite{jin2019dunet}, residual UNet~\cite{alom2019recurrent}, recurrent residual UNet~\cite{alom2019recurrent} and iterNet~\cite{li2020iternet}, which further improved the segmentation accuracy on fundus images.
We have noted several features from the AOSLO image dataset that pose challenges for the existing automatic segmentation models. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(b), (i) the contrast between the MA body and background is low whereas the level of the background noise is high; (ii) the boundary of the MA is not clearly defined; (iii) a typical AOSLO image may contain one or multiple MAs with different shapes and sizes; (iv) there are numerous background blood vessels in the images, some of which are even at similar size as the MAs. These background vessels may interfere with the segmentation of the feeding or draining vessels of the MAs, which are crucial to determine MA morphology. In this work, we design the first deep neural network model, or AOSLO-net (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Flowchart}), to perform automatic segmentation of MAs from AOSLO images and quantify their shape metrics that can be used for classification of MAs into different types, such as focal bulging, saccular, fusiform, mixed saccular/fusiform, pedunculated and irregular-shaped MAs~\cite{dubow2014classification}. This model is trained and tested by using 87 AOSLO MA images with masks generated manually by trained graders, the largest published AOSLO image dataset for this kind of effort thus far. We evaluated the performance of this model by comparing the model predictions with nnUNet~\cite{isensee2021nnu}, a state-of-the-art (SOTA) UNet model whose superiority has been demonstrated for dozens of publicly available databases.
\section*{Data}
\subsection*{Demographic Information}
In this study, 87 MAs were imaged from 28 eyes of 20 subjects with varying severity of DR (56\% NPDR and 44\% PDR). Sixteen (80\%) subjects had type 1 diabetes, 7 (35\%) of the subjects are female and average age is $41.9\pm10.4$ years old, with mean diabetes duration 23.9±8.4 years, and mean HbA1c is $8.2\pm1.1$\%. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant prior to the performance of any study procedures at a single visit in Beetham Eye Institute, a tertiary referral center for diabetes care. This study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review board of the Joslin Diabetes Center.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/figure1.png}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}. Multi-modality AOSLO images and multi-fidelity mask sets are employed to train and test the AOSLO-net.} (a) Five MAs imaged by AOSLO (highlighted by boxes in different colors) superimposed on a digital fundus photograph from an eye with diabetic retinopathy. (b-e) Examples of four sets of AOSLO images with different modalities employed to train and test the AOSLO-net: (b) raw images extracted from the AOSLO videos; (c) perfusion maps (also see Fig. 1 in supporting material (SI)); (d) preprocessed AOSLO images with enhancement; (e) two-modality images which are generated by concatenating perfusion maps (c) and enhanced AOSLO images (d). Details of how multi-modality AOSLO images are generated can be found in the Method section. These images illustrate that a varied number of MAs can be detected in a single AOSLO image. Images in row 1-3 contain multiple MAs, whereas images in row 4-5 contain a single MA with complicated background vessels whose size may be comparable to the MA. (f-h) Three sets of masks are generated independently to examine the robustness of the AOSLO-net to mask sets with different qualities. \textbf{Normal set} (f): masks are created based on both the AOSLO videos and perfusion maps to illustrate the body of MAs and their feeding and draining vessels. \textbf{Short set} (g): masks are designed to show shorter feeding and draining vessels of MAs compared to the normal set, while the thickness of the vessels remains similar to the normal masks. \textbf{Thick set} (h): masks are designed to show thicker feeding and draining vessels of MAs compared to the normal set, while the length of the vessels remains similar to the normal masks. }\label{Figure:Data_Type_Input}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Data Set}
87 MAs from the eyes of adult study participants with diabetes underwent AOSLO imaging. All MAs were located within $\sim$\ang{20} of the foveal center. The AOSLO system has been previously described in detail by Lu et al.~\cite{lu2016computational}. This system uses confocal and multiply scattered light (MSL) imaging modes, and achieves a field size of $\sim$\ang{1.75} $\times$~$\sim$\ang{1.75} with lateral resolution of $\sim$2.5 $\mu$m on the retina. Moreover, 75-frame videos of each MA were aligned and averaged (MATLAB, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). The magnification factor on AOSLO images was determined by eye axial length measurement or derived from the spherical equivalent of the eye. For this exploratory study, we included MAs with high quality AOSLO images (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(b)), where the 2D MSL images and corresponding perfusion maps (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(c)) provided sufficient detail to identify the full extent of MAs’ bodies and their parent vessels’ boundaries.
The masks in our dataset, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(f-h), are considered as the ground truth for training the AOSLO-net and they are created manually by ophthalmologists and skilled trainees using ImageJ~\cite{schneider2012nih}. Both the AOSLO images (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(b)) and the corresponding perfusion map (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(c)) are referred when masks are generated. Moreover, different groups of MA masks, as shown in Figs.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(g-h), are created by varying the length and thickness of the parent vessels to test the robustness of AOSLO-net to masks with different qualities. The normal mask set (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(f)), which is generated by ophthalmologists, intends to represent the true geometries of the parenting vessels illustrated on the AOSLO images. The short mask set (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(g)) is designed to show shorter feeding and draining vessels of MAs compared to the normal mask set, while the thickness of the vessels remains similar to the normal masks. The thick mask set (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(h)) is designed to show thicker feeding and draining vessels of MAs compared to the normal set, while the length of the vessels remains similar to the normal masks. This examination also demonstrates the human ability of segmentation when comparing one kind of masks with another, as they equivalently represent the MAs.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/figure2.png}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Flowchart}. Overview of the architecture of AOSLO-net.} The MA segmentation is performed through the following steps: data pre-processing, deep neural network training and inference, post-processing and output ensembling. (a) Pre-processing AOSLO images for training the AOSLO-net. We first created the perfusion map by computing the deviations from the AOSLO video. Moreover, we created another set of enhanced AOSLO images from the AOSLO video. These two sets of images are concatenated to generate a third set of two-channel MA images. Data augmentation was performed on the two-channel MA images to increase the diversity of the training set (see examples in Fig. 2 in SI). (b) Detailed modular components of the AOSLO-net, i.e., preprocessed multi-modality images produced from (a) is fed into the AOSLO-net, which consists of an EfficientNet-b3 encoder (c) and the regular UNet decoder. We then perform post-processing and ensembling on the output images of the AOSLO-net to generate the segmentation map. (c) A zoom-in view of the EfficientNet-b3, which works as the encoder in the AOSLO-net.
}\label{Figure:Flowchart}
\end{figure}
\section*{Results}
First, we train the AOSLO-net and nnUNet using perfusion map (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(c)), enhanced AOSLO (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(d)) and two-channel images (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(e)), respectively, to examine which image modality can optimize the model performance. The normal mask set (Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(f)) is used as the target in these training processes. Our results in Figs.~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}(a-c,f-h) and Fig.3 in SI show that higher Dice and IoU scores are achieved for both nnUNet and AOSLO-net models when two-channel images are used, suggesting that two-channel images could provide more MA geometrical information to the segmentation models than the other two image modalities. Therefore, in the following section, we use the two-channel image set as the input of segmentation models to assess the model performance on different mask sets, including normal mask set, short mask set and thick mask set. The performance of AOSLO-net and nnUNet on these three mask sets is summarized in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}, which shows that based on Dice and IoU, AOSLO-net achieves more high-quality predictions and fewer low-quality predictions for these three groups of masks. Specifically, when models are trained with the normal and short mask sets, as shown in Figs.~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}(c,d), AOSLO-net achieves mean Dice scores of 0.7816 and 0.8412, respectively, which are higher than 0.7686 and 0.8378 of nnUNet. Additionally, the performance of AOSLO-net appears to be more stable than nnUNet, given smaller standard deviations in the results of AOSLO-net. When these two models are trained with thick mask set (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}(e)), although the mean Dice scores of AOSLO-net and nnUNet are the same, AOSLO-net preserves a stable performance with a relatively smaller standard deviation in Dice score. In addition to nnUNet, as shown in Fig.4 in SI, we specifically compare the performance of AOSLO-net with other popular CNN-based models, i.e., Deformable UNet\cite{jin2019dunet}, ResUNet\cite{Zhang2017ResUNet,Yakubovskiy:2019} and Deformable ResUNet\cite{dai2017deformable,Zhang2017ResUNet,Yakubovskiy:2019}, using the normal mask dataset. The statistics of the Dice scores listed in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}(k) suggest that AOSLO-net outperforms these models significantly in mean Dice score and standard deviation.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.88\linewidth]{figures/figure3.png}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Results_Statistics}. Performance metrics of AOSLO-net and nnUNet as well as other deep-learning models on segmenting the AOSLO images.} Histogram and density distribution of Dice score (a-e) and IoU (f-j) obtained from AOSLO-net and nnUNet when they are trained using (a,f) perfusion map and normal mask set, (b,g) enhanced AOSLO images and normal mask set, (c,h) two-channel MA images and normal mask set, (d,i) two-channel MA images and short mask set, (e,j) two-channel MA images and thick mask set.
The result of AOSLO-net is denoted by cyan color whereas the result of nnUNet is denoted by red color. The \textbf{dash lines} denote the mean values of the Dice or IoU distributions.
\textbf{(k)} The overall performance (mean value), performance stability (standard deviation), the worst and best case performance (minimal and maximum value) of Dice score of different AI models in segmenting AOSLO images.}\label{Figure:Results_Statistics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/figure4.png}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Results_Normal_MoreMAs}. Typical examples of AOSLO-net outperforming nnUNet on detecting (a) the MA body and (b) parenting vessels of MAs when they are trained using normal mask set (n-Mask)}. \textbf{First column}: enhanced AOSLO images. \textbf{Second column}: normal masks used to train the models. \textbf{Third column}: segmentation results of nnUNet. \textbf{Fourth column}: segmentation results of AOSLO-net. Numbers in images are the Dice scores.
\textbf{(a)} For images with IDs 036, 043, 048, 062, and 092, the AOSLO-net is able to detect MAs, which are missed by nnUNet (marked in red circles).
For images with IDs 013 and 048, the AOSLO-net can better reconstruct the full shape of MAs compared to those of nnUNet (marked in yellow circles). We also note that in cases of IDs 013, 043 and 092, the segmentation models can even detect some potential MAs, which are not marked in the masks. \textbf{(b)} For images with IDs 015, 055, 082, 088, 094 and 102, the AOSLO-net is capable of detecting both feeding and draining vessels connected to the MAs, while the nnUNet may miss one or both of the parenting vessels (marked in yellow circles). These results show that the AOSLO-net is more reliable in detecting MA parenting vessels from the input images, which are essential in the MA classification --- a downstream task for disease diagnosis. }\label{Figure:Results_Normal_MoreMAs}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Morphology of MA body and its feeding and draining vessels}
To further examine the capabilities of AOSLO-net and nnUNet in extracting the detailed MA features, we perform image-wise analysis by comparing individual pairs of masks and model predictions. We focus on the model performance on detecting MA bodies and their feeding and draining vessels, respectively. Typical examples of the comparisons between nnUNet and AOSLO-net on detecting MA bodies are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Normal_MoreMAs}(a). We note that AOSLO-net can identify the targeted MAs and extract MA bodies that are comparable with the masks, particularly for images containing multiple MAs, like IDs 036, 048, 062 and 092. In contrast, nnUNet fails to detect some of the MAs (highlighted in red circle). As for the vessel detection, Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Normal_MoreMAs}(b) shows that nnUNet may ignore one or both of the parenting vessels of MAs (highlighted in yellow circle), while AOSLO-net can segment out these missed vessels (from complicated background with numerous vessels), which is essential for further morphological analysis.
Next, we use another two sets of masks: one with shorter vessels compared to the normal dataset and one with thicker vessels, as learning targets to train AOSLO-net and nnUNet and compare their performance on detecting the feeding and draining vessels of MAs. We first train the model with short vessel mask dataset. The predictions from the two models in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Short_Vessels_Diff}(a) show that the performances of nnUNet and AOSLO-net on detecting feeding and draining vessels are both compromised, as the shorter vessel masks provide less vessel end information. However, the AOSLO-net still can detect correct vessels in these four cases whereas nnUNet fails to predict some of the vessel ends (highlighted in yellow circle). These comparisons indicate that AOSLO-net is more robust against vessel length of the training masks.
When trained with thick vessel mask set, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Short_Vessels_Diff}(b), AOSLO-net outperforms the nnUNet although the predictions of nnUNet have improved in detecting the feeding and draining vessels of MAs. Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Short_Vessels_Diff}(b) shows that while nnUNet misses the MA bodies and vessel ends connected to MAs (highlighted in yellow circle), AOSLO-net can detect these feeding and draining vessels. These results again demonstrate the robustness of AOSLO-net when trained with varying vessel thickness.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{figures/figure5.png}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Results_Short_Vessels_Diff}. Typical examples of AOSLO-net outperforming nnUNet on detecting the parenting vessels of MAs when they are trained using (a) short mask set and (b) thick mask set.} \textbf{First column}: enhanced AOSLO images. \textbf{Second column}: normal masks used to train the models. \textbf{Third column}: segmentation results of nnUNet. \textbf{Fourth column}: segmentation results of AOSLO-net. Numbers in images are the Dice scores.
(a) AOSLO-net are capable of detecting the parenting vessel of MAs in images with \textbf{ID 055, 082, 088 and 094}, whereas nnUNet misses one of the parenting vessels(marked in yellow circles). Particularly, nnUNet again mistakenly predicts the vessel on the upper left for the case of \textbf{ID 055}. (b) AOSLO-net are capable of detecting the parenting vessel of MAs in images with \textbf{ID 038, 046, 055 and 102}, whereas nnUNet misses one of the parenting vessels(marked in yellow circles). In case of \textbf{ID 055}, implementation of thick mask set improves the segmentation results of AOSLO-net, but not for nnUNet.}\label{Figure:Results_Short_Vessels_Diff}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Morphology Quantification for the MA segmentation maps}
In order to better evaluate the MA segmentation performance of AOSLO-net and nnUNet, we compute three important MA morphological indices (``largest caliber'' - $LC$, ``narrowest caliber'' - $NC$ and the ``body-to-neck ratio'' - $BNR$) defined in~\cite{bernabeu2018estimation} to quantify the specific morphological characteristics for the segmented MAs. Specifically, we first compute the MA skeleton (or medial-axis) for every single MA using the ``Scikit-image'' package~\cite{van2014scikit}, and then apply the Euclidean distance transformation to compute the medial radius distances $D = \{d_i| i = 1,2,..., N\}$ ($N$ is the number of points on the MA skeleton) from all points of the MA skeleton to the background pixels (i.e., pixels of each MA contour). Consequently, the $LC$ value for each single MA corresponds to twice of the largest distance value in the sorted distance list $D_{sorted}$. Due to the varied vessel lengths of different MAs, we calculate the NC value for each single MA by selecting the 10 smallest medial radius distances from $D_{sorted}$, and double the average medial radius distances as the final $NC$ value. Based on the $LC$ and $NC$ values, the BNR value for each MA can be computed by using $LC/NC$. Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params} gives some examples of the LC and NC quantification results for the segmented MAs predicted by AOSLO-net and nnUNet trained with three different MA masks (normal, short and thick mask sets). From Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}(a) and (c), we can find that the AOSLO-net trained with thick MA ground truth masks attains the best MA segmentation performance; the NC quantification results (red curve) as shown in the third row of Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}(c) are very close to the reference NC values (black dashed line) obtained from the thick masks. More details about the corresponding examples of the enhanced MA perfusion maps and the MA segmentation results using AOSLO-net and nnUNet are, respectively, shown in columns 1-3 of Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}(b). AOSLO-net can effectively detect the important small vessels for the heterogeneous MAs (see the 2nd column in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}(b)), which play a very important role in different downstream tasks, e.g., MA morphological parameter quantification (NC, BNR, convexity), MA severity stratification, and in hemodynamics simulations. The three blue dots with very high NC values in different rows of Fig.~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}(c) are the same MAs for which nnUNet fails to detect the small vessels. Quantification results for the BNR of MAs based on the analysis of NC and LC is summarized in Fig.9 in SI.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{figures/Results_Morph_Params.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Figure~\ref{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}. Quantification results for the largest caliber and narrowest caliber factors for the segmented MAs predicted by AOSLO-net and nnUNet trained with three sets of MA masks (normal, short and thick masks).} \textbf{(a)} The largest caliber (LC) results for the segmented MAs. The black dashed lines represent the reference MA LC values for different MAs, while the red and blue curves are the MA LC quantification results based on the segmentation maps from AOSLO-net and nnUNet using three different masks (from top to the bottom row). \textbf{(b)} Examples for the original enhanced perfusion maps (1st column), segmented MAs using AOSLO-net (2nd column) and nnUNet (3rd column) trained with different MA masks. The MA segmentation results in yellow and green bounding boxes correspond to the images in \textbf{(c)} marked with yellow and green arrows. \textbf{(c)} Narrowest caliber (NC) quantification results for segmented MAs using AOSLO-net and nnUNet trained with three different MA masks; the black dashed lines represent the reference MA NC values computed using the original 3 types of MA masks; the red and blue curves represent the NC quantification results using segmentation maps obtained by AOSLO-net and nnUNet using three different masks (from top to the bottom row).}\label{Figure:Results_Morph_Params}
\end{figure}
\section*{Discussion and Summary}
Although 2D fundus photography has been primarily employed for DR screening and severity grading, other advanced imaging modalities, such as AOSLO, which is currently used for disease investigation and primarily for research purposes, can provide additional information regarding the retinal microvascular pathology, such as monitoring of variations in blood flow rates~\cite{couturier2015capillary}, detection and identification of the MA morphologies~\cite{dubow2014classification}, enhanced visualization of MA thrombus status~\cite{bernabeu2018estimation}, etc. The information from this imaging technique could be potentially used not only to improve the future accuracy of DR screening, but also to better predict the rate of DR worsening, with the goal of eventually providing individualized management and treatment intervention plans~\cite{goh2016retinal}. Due to the rapidly rising global prevalence of diabetes and shortage of skilled graders for retinal images, implementation of automatic screening techniques is desirable to accommodate the corresponding increasing need to screen and evaluate patients with diabetes ocular complications~\cite{he2020artificial,rajalakshmi2020impact}. Development of an automated segmentation technique for AOSLO images, which are at much smaller scale than fundus photographs, represents a unique challenge and provides the opportunity to elucidate the steps of \textit{in vivo} worsening and regression of MAs, a key lesion in DR.
In the last decade, DCNN has become the state-of-the-art technique in processing retinal images. Although existing DCNN models have achieved high accuracy in analyzing fundus images, they have not been tested on retinal images from other modalities. In this work, we design AOSLO-Net to automatically segment MA bodies with their feeding and draining vessels from AOSLO images. We use a very deep model to extract high-level features to understand the MA morphology, which can vary substantially in shape and size between individual MAs, and to create segmentation based on that information. Our results show that the deep network structure can segment MAs from AOSLO images with high accuracy for both metrics and morphology.
Our AOSLO dataset has a limited size, containing less than 100 videos, so the deep structure of AOSLO-net may cause overfitting, and it can be hard to train. Therefore, it is necessary to perform data augmentation according to specific dataset. Moreover, the MAs are of different shapes and many of them are not similar to others. This requires the AOSLO segmentation to be a composition of many few-shot problems. Therefore, data augmentation is necessary to train the deep network and fully utilize the data. To optimize the data augmentation, we use horizontal and vertical flip, rotation in uniformly distributed angles and scaling to achieve maximum space configuration of MAs. As a result, the AOSLO-net can learn MA geometric information very effectively from the limited dataset. In addition, transfer learning is desirable for training large and deep networks. In the current study, we use EfficientNet-b3~\cite{tan2020efficientnet} as the feature extractor (encoder), and pretrain AOSLO-net with ImageNet dataset~\cite{deng2009imagenet}, which is believed to accelerate the training convergence and is widely deployed in transfer learning based image analysis.
The relationship between model performance metrics and morphological features of MAs is also investigated carefully in our work. Accurate detection of feeding and draining vessels of MAs is critical to determine MA morphology, which is important to predict blood flow characteristics and estimate the likelihood of thrombosis within the MA~\cite{dubow2014classification}. Since the areas of the end of the parenting vessels are much smaller compared to the areas of the whole MAs, regional loss, like Dice and IoU, possibly ignore these vessel ends, and place too much emphasis on the MA bodies. However, correct segmentation of MA bodies alone is not sufficient for further classification. Thus, metrics like Dice and IoU are important but should not be the only metrics to evaluate the performance of MA segmentation. Our results demonstrate that AOSLO-net not only achieves high scores on these two metrics, but also captures the detailed features of the feeding and draining vessels of MAs, and therefore promises to be an effective MA segmentation method in the clinic.
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{Image pre-processing}
\label{Section:Image_Preprocessing}
As shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(b), the raw AOSLO images are featured with intense background noise and low contrast. Thus, we perform imaging pre-processing on these raw images and generate multi-modality images to improve the effectiveness of the training. First, we generate a set of perfusion maps by tracing the blood flow in the MAs and micro-vessels using the pixel-by-pixel standard deviation method on different frames of the AOSLO video~\cite{bernabeu2018estimation}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(c), the vessels with blood motion appear bright in the perfusion map, while static tissue shows up as dark background. To improve the quality of the perfusion maps, we apply the following methods to denoise and enhance the images: (1) we employ \textbf{fast non-local means method} to remove the background noise; (2) use \textbf{normalization} to make the pixel value lie in the interval \([0, 1]\); (3) apply contrast limits adaptive histogram equalization (\textbf{CLAHE}) to enhance image contrast without over stretching the contrast in specific areas and balance the overall contrast; (4) apply \textbf{Gamma Correction} to remove some bright stripes on the background surrounding tissues caused by CLAHE. The impact of each of these four pre-processing steps on the raw perfusion maps is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Appendix_Method_Preprocessing} in SI.
Perfusion maps may not be able to accurately illustrate the geometries for all MAs as thrombosis may occur in some of the MAs, which leads to presence of nonperfused areas~\cite{bernabeu2018estimation,li2020predictive}. Therefore, we have developed enhanced AOSLO images to provide more details on the boundaries of each MA, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(d). The procedure of creating enhanced AOSLO images follows three main steps: (i) taking the average over all the frames in MA video; (ii) reversing image colour; (iii) performing local mean filtering. We note that in some enhanced AOSLO images, the boundaries of MAs and their parenting vessels are not clearly illustrated due to the low quality of the AOSLO images. Therefore, we further generate a two-channel image set by concatenating perfusion map and enhanced AOSLO images (see Fig.~\ref{Figure:Data_Type_Input}(e)), which use the information of the blood flow inside MAs to compensate the missing information of the MA boundaries.
Due to the limited size of the AOSLO data set, we employ data augmentation to increase the number of images for training the AOSLO-net. We apply three types of transformations, including flip, rotate and scaling, to the AOSLO images (perfusion map, enhance AOSLO and two-channel images) and their corresponding masks. The augmentation procedure follows three steps: (1) images are \textbf{flipped horizontally and vertically} with probability of 0.5; (2) flipped images are \textbf{rotated} with angles in the set
\begin{equation*}
\{0, \frac{2\pi}{N}, \frac{4\pi}{N}, \ldots, \frac{2(N-1)\pi}{N}\}
\end{equation*}
where \(N\) is selected to be 32. (3) The rotated images are \textbf{scaled} with a factor randomly selected between 0.7 and 1.4 to improve the robustness of AOSLO-net on segmenting MAs with varying sizes. Typical examples of augmented images are shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Appendix_Method_Augmentation} in SI.
\subsection*{Architecture of AOSLO-net and network training}
Inspired by the popular UNet structure~\cite{ronneberger2015u}, AOSLO-net is composed of two key parts: encoder and decoder. The function of the encoder is to extract the features of MAs at different levels whereas the decoder integrates these extracted features to compose the segmentation results. Since the role of the encoder is critical to the performance of the segmentation model, we adopt the current SOTA image classification network EfficientNet-b3~\cite{tan2020efficientnet} with a depth of 5 as the encoder in the AOSLO-net. We also apply transfer learning in AOSLO-net through pre-training the EfficientNet-b3 using ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} to achieve quick convergence during training. The evolution of the loss in the training process can be found in Figs.~\ref{Figure:Appendix_Model_Loss_Record} and~\ref{Figure:Appendix_Model_Scheduler} in SI.
The pre-processed AOSLO images are split into 5 folds. While one fold is reserved as test data, the rest 4 folds are used to train and validate the AOSLO-net. We perform a 10-fold cross-validation using these 4 folds of images, meaning that these images are further separated into 10 folds, with 9 folds used for training after augmentation and one fold used for validation. Overall, 1600 augmented images are used to train the AOSLO-net. 10 images are used for validation and 17 images are used to test the model performance.
The loss function is a combination of binary cross-entropy and Dice loss,
\begin{equation*}
Loss = BCE + \alpha \times Dice,
\end{equation*}
where BCE and Dice are defined as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
BCE & = \sum_n\left[ y_n \cdot \ln x_n + (1 - y_n) \cdot \ln (1 - x_n) \right] \\
Dice & = \frac{2|X\cap Y|}{|X|+|Y|}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Here, \(|X|,\ |Y|\) are model prediction and target respectively, \(x_n,\ y_n\) are pixel values in \(|X|\) and \(|Y|\); \(\alpha \) is set to 0.2 to equalize the contribution of BCE and Dice to the loss. We also introduce Hausdorff distance, which is commonly used to describe the contour difference of two shape, into the loss function, but it does not improve the segmentation results (see Fig.6 in SI).
We use the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 0.001 and weight decay of~$10^{-8}$. During training, a Plateau scheduler is specified such that once the validation loss does not decrease for \(5\) epochs, the learning rate is decreased to \(1/10\) of the current value to facilitate the convergence of the AOSLO-net.
The training is initially set to last 200 epochs, but it may end earlier due to the implementation of Plateau scheduler. The batch size is set to 16.
\subsection*{Post-Processing and Ensembling}
\noindent
\textbf{Binarization.} The pixel value of the outputted images from AOSLO-net lies within range [0, 1] resulting from employing the sigmoid activation function in the last layer of AOSLO-net. To quantify the geometries of MAs, we convert these pixel values into a binary form, meaning that the pixel value is either 1 (belongs to an MA), or 0 (not MA). A threshold of 0.5 is applied to binarize the segmented images in the current study.
\\
\textbf{Clearing.} We note that some segmented images contain small fragments that are mistakenly predicted as MAs. Thus, we specify an area threshold of 1024 pixels, below which the fragments are removed from the segmented images. \\
\textbf{Ensembling.} Following the work of~\cite{isensee2021nnu}, we employ ensembling method by selecting three best models, out of the 10 trained models, based on their performance on the validation set and perform a union of their outputs to improve the model performance. Some examples illustrating the effect of post-processing are shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure:Appendix_PostProc_BinClean} in SI.
\subsection*{Performance metrics}
We evaluate the segmentation performance of AOSLO-net and other segmentation models using the Dice coefficient and intersection of union (IoU), defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Dice & = \frac{2|X\cap Y|}{|X|+|Y|}, \\
IoU & = \frac{|X\cap Y|}{|X\cup Y|},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where \(|X|\) and \(|Y|\) denote the matrix representations of the target image and the corresponding prediction image, respectively.
\subsection*{Data availability}
The dataset used in the current study is not currently available publicly, but it will be released upon request.
\subsection*{Code availability}
The code is not currently available publicly but could be released upon publication of this manuscript.
\paragraph{Duality of Interest.} No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
\paragraph*{Acknowledgements.} Q.Z., M.X., S.C., Y.D., H.L. and G.E.K. acknowledge the support from R01 HL154150 and U01 HL142518. K.S. and J.K.S. acknowledge the support by NEI 5R01EY024702-04 as well as grants from Research to Prevent Blindness, JDRF 3-SRA-2014-264-M-R, and the Massachusetts Lions Eye Research Fund. High Performance Computing resources were provided by the Center for Computation and Visualization at Brown University and the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant numbers ACI-1053575, TG-DMS140007 and TG-MCB190045.
\paragraph*{Author Contribution.} Q.Z., K.S., M.X., S.C., Y.D., H.L., J.K.S. and G.E.K. contributed to the study concept and design. Q.Z., K.S., S.C., Y.D. and H.L. contributed to acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. Q.Z., K.S., M.X., S.C., Y.D., H.L., J.K.S. and G.E.K. contributed to drafting of the manuscript. Q.Z., M.X., S.C., Y.D., H.L. and G.E.K. contributed to algorithm development. Q.Z. and M.X. performed hardware implementation. Q.Z. and M.X. contributed to statistical analysis. J.K.S. and G.E.K supervised the project.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $(X,Y)$ be a bivariate normal random vector with zero mean vector, variances $(\sigma_X^2,\sigma_Y^2)$ and correlation coefficient $\rho$. The distribution of the product $Z=XY$ arises in numerous applications, with recent examples including statistics of Lagrangian power in two-dimensional turbulence (Bandi and Connaughton \cite{bandi}), product confidence limits for indirect effects (MacKinnon et al.\ \cite{mac2}) and statistical mediation analysis (MacKinnon \cite{mac1}). The mean $\overline{Z}_n=n^{-1}(Z_1+Z_2+\cdots+Z_n)$, where $Z_1, Z_2,\ldots, Z_n$ are independent and identical copies of $Z$, has also found application in areas such as electrical engineering (Ware and Lad \cite{ware}), astrophysics (Mangilli, Plaszczynski and Tristram \cite{mpt15}, Watts et al.\ \cite{watts}) and quantum cosmology (Grishchuk \cite{g96}).
The exact distribution of the product $Z=XY$ has been studied since 1936 (Craig \cite{craig}), with subsequent contributions coming from Aroian \cite{aa1}, Aroian, Taneja and Cornwell \cite{aa2}, Bandi and Connaughton \cite{bandi}, Haldane \cite{hh1}, Meeker et al$.$ \cite{mm1}; see Nadarajah and Pog\'{a}ny \cite{np16} for an overview of these and further contributions. Recently, Nadarajah and Pog\'{a}ny \cite{np16} used characteristic functions to find exact formulas for the probability density function (PDF) of the product $Z$ and more generally the mean $\overline{Z}_n$; these formulas are starting to become well-known and have found many recent applications. Independently, in the physics literature, Grishchuk \cite{g96} had obtained the formula for the PDF of $Z$ and \gr{Mangilli, Plaszczynski and Tristram \cite{mpt15}} then obtained the more general formula for the PDF of $\overline{Z}_n$. Much earlier, a formula for PDF of $Z$ was given in the book of Springer \cite[equation (4.8.22)]{springer}, but there was an unfortunate typo.
Despite the interest in the distributions of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$, many important distributional properties beyond the PDF are not recorded in the literature. \gr{Recent} work of Gaunt \cite{gaunt prod} identified $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ as variance-gamma (VG) random variables (leading to a simple independent derivation of their PDFs), which means that some of their distributional properties can be inferred from results for the VG distribution; see, for example, Chapter 4 of the book of Kotz, Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kkp01}. However, searching through the VG literature \gr{can be difficult}; it is tedious to convert results for the VG distribution to results for the distributions of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$;
and results that exploit the special structure of the random variables $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ are not available.
In this \gr{review}, we aim to fill a gap in the literature by providing the basic distributional theory for the product of two zero mean correlated normal random variables. We present results for the more general mean $\overline{Z}_n$, with results for the product $Z$ following on setting $n=1$. The end result is that many of the most important distributional properties of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ are now collected in a single reference. \gr{Most results are already explicitly stated in the literature or can be readily deduced from the fact that $\overline{Z}_n$ has a VG distribution, in which case we provide references. Other results stated in this paper have to the best knowledge of the author not appeared in the literature, in which case we provide straightforward and concise derivations.}
The \gr{distributional} properties covered include: formulas for the PDF (Section \ref{sec2.1}), list of related distributions (Section \ref{sec2.3}), the cumulative distribution function (Section \ref{sec2.2}), generating functions and infinite divisibility (Section \ref{sec2.4}), representations in terms of other random variables (Section \ref{sec2.5}), Stein characterisation (Section \ref{sec2.6}), moments and cumulants (Section \ref{sec2.7}), and mode and median (Section \ref{sec2.8}). \gr{This list covers some of the most basic and important properties of a probability distribution, but is not comprehensive; we do not cover multivariate extensions, connections to the Wishart distribution or inference methods, to name a few topics. In Section \ref{sec3}, we review the topic of the role of the distributions of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ as limiting distributions, in which there has been recent interest. In particular, we present some quantitative limit theorems concerning the distributional approximation of double Wiener-It\^{o} integrals.} Basic properties of the modified Bessel function of the second kind will be needed throughout the paper, and are collected in Appendix \ref{appa}.
\vspace{3mm}
\gr{\noindent{\emph{Notation}.} To simplify formulae, we define $s_n:=\sigma_X\sigma_Y/n$ and $s:=s_1=\sigma_X\sigma_Y$.}
\section{Distributional theory for the product of zero mean correlated normal random variables}
\subsection{Probability density function}\label{sec2.1}
For derivations of the following formulas for the PDFs of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ we refer the reader to \gr{Mangilli, Plaszczynski and Tristram \cite{mpt15}}, Nadarajah and Pog\'{a}ny \cite{np16} and Gaunt \cite{gaunt prod, gaunt prod2}. The formula for the PDF of $Z$ was also earlier derived by Grishchuk \cite{g96} and Springer \cite{springer}, with the latter reference having a typo in the formula.
For $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{pdf1}f_Z(x)=\frac{1}{\pi s\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}\exp\bigg(\frac{\rho x}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)K_0\bigg(\frac{|x|}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg),
\end{equation}
and, for $n\geq1$,
\begin{equation}\label{pdf2}f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\frac{2^{(1-n)/2}|x|^{(n-1)/2}}{s_n^{(n+1)/2}\sqrt{\pi(1-\rho^2)}\Gamma(n/2)}\exp\bigg(\frac{\rho x}{s_n(1-\rho^2)} \bigg)K_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{ |x|}{s_n(1-\rho^2)}\bigg).
\end{equation}
Here $K_\nu(x)$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind; see Appendix \ref{appa} for a definition and some standard properties.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.2in]{PNGraph1crop.pdf}
\caption{PDFs of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ with $s=1$}
\end{figure}
The modified Bessel function in the PDFs (\ref{pdf1}) and (\ref{pdf2}) make them difficult to parse on first inspection. We can gain some understanding from the following limiting forms. Using the limiting form (\ref{Ktend0}), we have that
\begin{equation}\label{pmutend}f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\sim\begin{cases}\displaystyle -\frac{1}{\pi s\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}\log|x|, & x\rightarrow0,\: n=1, \\
\displaystyle \frac{(1-\rho^2)^{n/2-1}}{2\sqrt{\pi}s_n}\frac{\Gamma((n-1)/2)}{\Gamma(n/2)}, & x\rightarrow0,\:n\geq2. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
We see that the density has a singularity at the origin if $n=1$. In fact, for all parameter values ($n\geq1$, $-1<\rho<1$, $\sigma_X,\sigma_Y>0$) the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ is unimodal; see Section \ref{sec2.8} for further details. For $n\geq2$, the density is bounded. As observed by Watts et al.\ \cite{watts}, the tail behaviour of the density is obtained by applying the limiting form (\ref{Ktendinfinity}):
\begin{equation}\label{tail1}
f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\sim \frac{1}{(2s_n)^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2)}x^{n/2-1}\exp\bigg(-\frac{x}{s_n(1+\rho)}\bigg), \quad x\rightarrow\infty,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{tail2}
f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\sim \frac{1}{(2s_n)^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2)}(-x)^{n/2-1}\exp\bigg(\frac{x}{s_n(1-\rho)}\bigg), \quad x\rightarrow-\infty.
\end{equation}
We observe that the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ has semi-heavy tails.
In the case that $n$ is even, we can take advantage of a standard simplification of the modified Bessel function of the second kind (see (\ref{special})) to obtain a representation of the PDF in terms of elementary functions:
\begin{align}f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)&=\frac{1}{(2s_n)^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2)}|x|^{n/2-1}\exp\bigg(\frac{\rho x-|x|}{s_n(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
\label{nsimp}&\quad\times\sum_{j=0}^{n/2-1}\frac{(n/2-1+j)!}{(n/2-1-j)!j!}\bigg(\frac{s_n(1-\rho^2)}{2|x|}\bigg)^j, \quad x\in\mathbb{R},\:n\in 2\mathbb{Z}^+.
\end{align}
\subsection{Related distributions}\label{sec2.3}
\noindent{1.} Setting $n=2$ in (\ref{nsimp}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{lapd}f_{\overline{Z}_2}(x)=\frac{1}{s}\exp\bigg(\frac{2(\rho x-|x|)}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg),
\end{equation}
which is the PDF of the asymmetric Laplace distribution (see Chapter 3 of Kotz, Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kkp01} for a comprehensive account of its distributional theory).
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{2.} As $\rho\uparrow1$, $\overline{Z}_n$ converges in distribution to a scaled chi-square random variable: $\overline{Z}_n\rightarrow_d s_nV$, where $V\sim \chi_{(n)}^2$, the chi-square distribution with $n$ degrees of freedom. \gr{This fact was observed by Watts et al.\ \cite{watts}.} By symmetry, $\overline{Z}_n\rightarrow_d -s_nV$, as $\rho\downarrow-1$. This is hardly surprising given the definition of $\overline{Z}_n$, and can be confirmed rigorously by letting $\rho\rightarrow\pm1$ in the formula (\ref{cfcf}) below for the characteristic function of $\overline{Z}_n$ and comparing to the chi-square characteristic function using L\'evy's continuity theorem.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{3.} By the central limit theorem, $\sqrt{n}(\overline{Z}_n-\rho s)\rightarrow_d N(0,s^2(1+\rho^2))$, as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Here, $\mathbb{E}[Z]=\rho s$ and $\mathrm{Var}(Z)=s^2(1+\rho^2)$ (see (\ref{mean}) and (\ref{var})).
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{4.} The variance-gamma (VG) distribution with parameters $r > 0$, $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\sigma >0$, $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ has PDF
\begin{equation}\label{vgdef}f_{\mathrm{VG}}(x) = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\theta (x-\mu)/\sigma^2}}{\sigma\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(r/2)} \bigg(\frac{|x-\mu|}{2\sqrt{\theta^2 + \sigma^2}}\bigg)^{\frac{r-1}{2}} K_{\frac{r-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{\theta^2 + \sigma^2}}{\sigma^2} |x-\mu| \bigg), \quad x\in\mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
If a random variable $V$ has PDF (\ref{vgdef}), we write $V\sim \mathrm{VG}(r,\theta,\sigma,\mu)$. This parametrisation was given in Gaunt \cite{gaunt vg}. It is similar to the parametrisation given by Finlay and Seneta \cite{finlay} and other parametrisations are given by Eberlein and Hammerstein \cite{eberlein} and Kotz, Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kkp01}, with Chapter 4 of the latter reference giving the most comprehensive account of the distributional theory of the VG distribution in the literature. The VG distribution is also known as the Bessel function distribution or the McKay Type II distribution (McKay \cite{m32}), as well as the generalized Laplace distribution (Kotz, Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kkp01}).
It was noted in the thesis of Gaunt \cite{gaunt thesis} that $Z\sim\mathrm{VG}(1,\rho s,s\sqrt{1-\rho^2},0)$ and later by Gaunt \cite{gaunt prod} that also
\begin{equation}\label{vgrep}\overline{Z}_n\sim\mathrm{VG}(n,\rho s_n,s_n\sqrt{1-\rho^2},0).
\end{equation}
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{5.} \gr{The following rather complicated exact formula for the PDF of the product of correlated normal random variables with non-zero means was derived by Cui et al.\ \cite{cui}. Let $(X,Y)$ be a bivariate normal random vector with mean vector $(\mu_X,\mu_Y)$, variances $(\sigma_X^2,\sigma_Y^2)$ and correlation coefficient $\rho$. Then, for $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align*}f_{Z}(x)&=\exp\bigg\{-\frac{1}{2(1-\rho^2)}\bigg(\frac{\mu_X^2}{\sigma_X^2}+\frac{\mu_Y^2}{\sigma_Y^2}-\frac{2\rho(x+\mu_X\mu_Y)}{\sigma_X\sigma_Y}\bigg)\bigg\}\\
&\quad\times\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{m=0}^{2n}\frac{x^{2n-m}|x|^{m-n}\sigma_X^{m-n-1}}{\pi(2n)!(1-\rho^2)^{2n+1/2}\sigma_Y^{m-n+1}}\binom{2n}{m}\bigg(\frac{\mu_X}{\sigma_X^2}-\frac{\rho \mu_Y}{\sigma_X\sigma_Y}\bigg)^m\\
&\quad\times\bigg(\frac{\mu_Y}{\sigma_Y^2}-\frac{\rho \mu_X}{\sigma_X\sigma_Y}\bigg)^{2n-m}K_{m-n}\bigg(\frac{|x|}{(1-\rho^2)\sigma_X\sigma_Y}\bigg).
\end{align*}
The following exact formula for the PDF of the product $Z_k=\prod_{j=1}^k X_j$ of independent normal random variables $X_j\sim N(0,\sigma_{X_j}^2)$, $j=1,\ldots,k$, was obtained by Springer and Thompson \cite{springer2}. Let $\sigma_k=\sigma_{X_1}\sigma_{X_2}\cdots \sigma_{X_k}$. Then, for $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation*}f_{Z_k}(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma_k}G_{0,k}^{k,0}\bigg(\frac{x^2}{2^k\sigma_k^2} \; \bigg| \;0,\ldots,0\bigg),
\end{equation*}
where $G_{0,k}^{k,0}(x\;|\;0,\ldots,0)$ is a Meijer $G$-function (for a definition and basic properties, see Chapter 16 of Olver et al.\ \cite{olver}).}
\gr{Now, suppose $\rho=0$, and let $\overline{Z}_{n,1},\ldots,\overline{Z}_{n,k}$ be independent copies of $\overline{Z}_{n}$. A formula for the PDF of the product $Z_{n,k}=\prod_{j=1}^k\overline{Z}_{n,j}$ can be read off from a formula of Gaunt, Mijoule and Swan \cite{gms}. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation*}f_{Z_{n,k}}(x)=\frac{n}{2^k\pi^{k/2}s^k(\Gamma(n/2))^k}G_{0,2k}^{2k,0}\bigg(\frac{n^2x^2}{2^{2k}s^k} \; \bigg| \;\frac{n-1}{2},\ldots,\frac{n-1}{2}, 0,\ldots,0\bigg),
\end{equation*}
where there are $k$ entries of $(n-1)/2$ and $k$ entries of $0$ in the Meijer $G$-function.} An exact formula for the PDF of the product of three or more correlated normal random variables is not available in the literature.
\subsection{Cumulative distribution function}\label{sec2.2}
For general parameter values $n\geq1$, $-1<\rho<1$ and $\sigma_X,\sigma_Y>0$, a closed-form formula for the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of $\overline{Z}_n$ is not available. We record some cases for which exact formulas are available. Let $F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\mathbb{P}(\overline{Z}_n\leq x)$.
Suppose $\rho=0$. Then, by the symmetry of the PDF of $\overline{Z}_n$, it follows that its CDF is given by $F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=1/2+\mathrm{sgn}(x)\int_0^{|x|}f_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$, where $\mathrm{sgn}(x)$ denotes the sign of $x$. On calculating the integral using (\ref{besint}), we have that, for $x\in\mathbb{R}$,
\begin{align*}F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{x}{2s_n}\bigg[K_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{|x|}{s_n}\bigg)\mathbf{L}_{\frac{n-3}{2}}\bigg(\frac{|x|}{s_n}\bigg)+\mathbf{L}_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{|x|}{s_n}\bigg)K_{\frac{n-3}{2}}\bigg(\frac{|x|}{s_n}\bigg)\bigg],
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{L}_\nu(x)$ is a modified Struve function of the first kind.
By using the fact that $\overline{Z}_n$ follows the McKay Type II distribution (a VG distribution), other formulas for the CDF in the case $\rho=0$ can be obtained from results of Jankov Ma\v{s}irevi\'c and Pog\'any \cite{jp} and Nadarajah, Srivastava and Gupta \cite{nsg07}.
Now suppose that $n\in 2\mathbb{Z}^+$ and $-1<\rho<1$. Then, making use of the formula (\ref{nsimp}) for the PDF of $\overline{Z}_n$ and calculating $F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\int_{-\infty}^xf_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$ for $x\leq0$, and $F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=1-\int_{x}^\infty f_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$ for $x>0$, yields the following formulas. For $x\leq0$,
\begin{align*}F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\frac{(1-\rho)^{n/2}}{2^{n/2}(n/2-1)!}\sum_{j=0}^{n/2-1}\frac{(n/2-1+j)!}{(n/2-1-j)!j!}\bigg(\frac{1+\rho}{2}\bigg)^j\Gamma\bigg(\frac{n}{2}-j,\frac{-x}{s_n(1-\rho)}\bigg),
\end{align*}
and, for $x>0$,
\begin{align*}F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=1-\frac{(1+\rho)^{n/2}}{2^{n/2}(n/2-1)!}\sum_{j=0}^{n/2-1}\frac{(n/2-1+j)!}{(n/2-1-j)!j!}\bigg(\frac{1-\rho}{2}\bigg)^j\Gamma\bigg(\frac{n}{2}-j,\frac{x}{s_n(1+\rho)}\bigg),
\end{align*}
where $\Gamma(a,x)=\int_x^\infty t^{a-1}\mathrm{e}^{-t}\,\mathrm{d}t$ is the upper incomplete gamma function.
Nadarajah, Srivastava and Gupta \cite{nsg07} also gave an analogue of these formulas for the case $\rho=0$ for the CDF of the McKay Type II distribution.
Suppose now that we are in the general setting $n\geq1$, $-1<\rho<1$ and $\sigma_X,\sigma_Y>0$. As a closed-form formula is not available for the CDF, the following asymptotic approximations for the tail probabilities are of interest. Let $\bar{F}_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=1-F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)=\mathbb{P}(\overline{Z}_n> x)$. Then, from (\ref{pdf2}) and the limiting form (\ref{kintap}), we get that
\begin{align}\label{barbar}\bar{F}_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\sim\frac{(1+\rho)}{2^{n/2}s_n^{n/2-1}\Gamma(n/2)}x^{n/2-1}\exp\bigg(-\frac{x}{s_n(1+\rho)}\bigg), \quad x\rightarrow\infty,
\end{align}
and, by symmetry,
\begin{align*}F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\sim\frac{(1-\rho)}{2^{n/2}s_n^{n/2-1}\Gamma(n/2)}(-x)^{n/2-1}\exp\bigg(\frac{x}{s_n(1-\rho)}\bigg), \quad x\rightarrow-\infty.
\end{align*}
Upper and lower bounds on $F_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)$ and $\overline{F}_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)$ can also be obtained by using bounds for the integral $\int_x^\infty\mathrm{e}^{\beta t}t^\nu K_{\nu}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t$, $x>0$, $-1<\beta<1$, $\nu>-1/2$, given in Gaunt \cite{gaunt ineq1, gaunt ineq3}. \gr{As an example, inequality (2.10) of Gaunt \cite{gaunt ineq1} states that $\int_x^\infty\mathrm{e}^{\beta t}t^\nu K_{\nu}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t< (1-\beta)^{-1}\mathrm{e}^{\beta x}x^\nu K_\nu(x)$, for $x>0$, $0\leq\beta<1$, $-1/2<\nu<1/2$. Applying this bound with $\beta=\rho$ and $\nu=0$ gives that, for $0\leq\rho<1$, $x>0$,
\begin{align}\bar{F}_{Z}(x)&=\int_{x}^\infty \frac{1}{\pi s\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}\exp\bigg(\frac{\rho t}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)K_0\bigg(\frac{t}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)\,\mathrm{d}t\nonumber\\
&=\int_{x/(s(1-\rho^2))}^\infty \frac{\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}{\pi}\mathrm{e}^{\rho u}K_0(u)\,\mathrm{d}u\nonumber\\
\label{cumbd}&< \frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{1+\rho}{1-\rho}}\exp\bigg(\frac{\rho x}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)K_0\bigg(\frac{x}{s(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)=s(1+\rho)f_Z(x).
\end{align}
Applying the limiting form (\ref{Ktendinfinity}) to the upper bound (\ref{cumbd}) and comparing to (\ref{barbar}) shows that the upper bound (\ref{cumbd}) is tight as $x\rightarrow\infty$.
}
\subsection{Generating functions and infinite divisibility}\label{sec2.4}
The moment generating function of $Z$ was obtained by Craig \cite{craig}
and the moment generating (and characteristic) function of $\overline{Z}_n$ can then be deduced from basic properties of moment generating (and characteristic) functions (see Nadarajah and Pog\'{a}ny \cite{np16}):
\begin{align*}M_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)=\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{e}^{t\overline{Z}_n}]=\big(1-2\rho s_nt-s_n^2(1-\rho^2)t^2\big)^{-n/2},
\end{align*}
which exists if $-1/(1-\rho)<s_n t<1/(1+\rho)$ (see (\ref{tail1}) and (\ref{tail2})). The characteristic function is
\begin{equation}\label{cfcf}\varphi_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)=\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}t\overline{Z}_n}]=\big(1-2\rho s_n\mathrm{i}t+s_n^2(1-\rho^2)t^2\big)^{-n/2}.
\end{equation}
Alternatively, given the formula (\ref{pdf2}) for the PDF of $\overline{Z}_n$, the moment generating function is obtained from a simple integration of $M_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\mathrm{e}^{tx}f_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$; see, for example, Eberlein and Hammerstein \cite{eberlein} for a calculation for the more general generalized hyperbolic distribution (which includes the VG distribution as a limiting case).
The \gr{cumulant} generating function $K_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)=\log\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{e}^{t\overline{Z}_n}]$, defined for $-1/(1-\rho)<s_n t<1/(1+\rho)$, is given by
\begin{align}\label{kfkf}K_{\overline{Z}_n}(t)&=-\frac{n}{2}\log\big(1-2\rho s_nt-s_n^2(1-\rho^2)t^2\big) \nonumber \\
&=-\frac{n}{2}\log\big(1-s_n(\rho+1)t\big)-\frac{n}{2}\log\big(1-s_n(\rho-1)t\big).
\end{align}
\gr{The distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ is infinitely divisible. This is easily seen, because $\overline{Z}_n$ follows a VG distribution, and the VG distribution is a special case of the generalized hyperbolic distribution which is infinitely divisible (see Barndorff-Nielsen and Halgreen \cite{bh77}). That the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ is infinitely divisible can also be inferred from the representation of $\overline{Z}_n$ given in part 3 of Section \ref{sec2.5}}.
\subsection{Representation in terms of other random variables}\label{sec2.5}
\noindent{1.} Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ and $W_1,\ldots,W_n$ be independent $N(0,1)$ random variables. Then
\begin{equation*}\overline{Z}_n=_d s_n\sum_{j=1}^n\big(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}X_jW_j+\rho X_j^2\big).
\end{equation*}
It suffices to show that $Z=_d s(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}X_1W_1+\rho X_1^2\gr{)}$\gr{; this was done in Gaunt \cite{gaunt prod} and we repeat the simple steps here.} For ease of notation, we suppose that $s=1$, with the general case following by rescaling. It is straightforward to verify that $X$ and $W=(Y-\rho X)/\sqrt{1-\rho^2}$ are independent $N(0,1)$ random variables. Thus, $Z=XY=X(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}W+\rho X)=\sqrt{1-\rho^2}XW+\rho X^2$, as required.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{2.} Suppose that $S\sim \chi_{(n)}^2$ and $T\sim N(0,1)$ are independent. Then
\begin{equation}\label{rep2}\overline{Z}_n=_d \rho s_n S+s_n\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\sqrt{S}T.
\end{equation}
The representation (\ref{rep2}) follows from the representation (\ref{vgrep}) of $\overline{Z}_n$ as a VG random variable and Proposition 4.1.2 of Kotz, Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kkp01}, which states that if $S'\sim \Gamma(r/2,1/2)$ and $T'\sim N(0,1)$ are independent, then $\theta S'+\sigma \sqrt{S'}T'\sim \mathrm{VG}(r,\theta,\sigma,0)$.
\vspace{3mm}
\gr{\noindent{3.} For any $m\geq1$, we can write $\overline{Z}_n=_dS_1+S_2+\cdots+S_m$, where $S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_m$ are independent $\mathrm{VG}(n/m,\rho s_n,s_n\sqrt{1-\rho^2},0)$ random variables.
This follows from the representation (\ref{vgrep}) of $\overline{Z}_n$ as a VG distribution and the convolution property that if $V_1\sim\mathrm{VG}(r_1,\theta,\sigma,0)$ and $V_2\sim\mathrm{VG}(r_2,\theta,\sigma,0)$ are independent then $V_1+V_2\sim\mathrm{VG}(r_1+r_2,\theta,\sigma,0)$ (Bibby and S{\o}rensen \cite{bibby}), which is easily verified by using the fact that $\varphi_V(t)=(1-2\theta t+\sigma^2t^2)^{-r/2}$ is the characteristic function of $V\sim\mathrm{VG}(r,\theta,\sigma,0)$.}
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{4.} Suppose that $V$ and $V'$ are independent $\chi_{(n)}^2$ random variables. Then
\begin{equation}\label{gamrep}\overline{Z}_n=_d\frac{s_n}{2}(1+\rho)V-\frac{s_n}{2}(1-\rho)V'.
\end{equation}
This representation of $\overline{Z}_n$ is easily proved using a standard characteristic function argument with the formula (\ref{cfcf}) for the characteristic function of $\overline{Z}_n$ and the standard formula for the characteristic function of the $\chi_{(n)}^2$ distribution, $\varphi_V(t)=(1-2\mathrm{i}t)^{-n/2}$.
From the representation (\ref{gamrep}) and the representation of the $\chi_{(n)}^2$ distribution as the sum of the squares of $n$ independent $N(0,1)$ random variables, it follows that
\[\overline{Z}_n=_d\rho s+\sum_{j=1}^{2n}\lambda_j(N_j^2-1),\]
where $N_1,\ldots,N_{2n}$ are independent $N(0,1)$ random variables, and $\lambda_1=\ldots=\lambda_n=s_n(1+\rho)/2$ and $\lambda_{n+1}=\ldots=\lambda_{2n}=s_n(\rho-1)/2$. Thus, $\overline{Z}_n$ is a member of the second Wiener chaos (see Section 2.2 of Nourdin and Peccati \cite{np12}).
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{5.} If $n\in 2\mathbb{Z}^+$, then the independent random variables $V\sim\chi_{(n)}^2$ and $V'\sim\chi_{(n)}^2$ can be expressed in terms of independent uniform $U(0,1)$ random variables $U_1,\ldots,U_{n}$ as $V=_d\sum_{j=1}^{n/2}\log U_j$ and $V'=_d\sum_{j=n/2+1}^{n}\log U_j$. Therefore, from (\ref{gamrep}),
\begin{equation}\label{unifrep}\overline{Z}_n=_d\frac{s_n}{2}(1+\rho)\sum_{j=1}^{n/2}\log U_j-\frac{s_n}{2}(1-\rho)\sum_{j=n/2+1}^{n}\log U_j.
\end{equation}
The representation (\ref{unifrep}) is convenient for simulating the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ when $n\in 2\mathbb{Z}^+$. If $n$ is an odd integer, the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ can be simulated using the representation (\ref{gamrep}) and simulating the chi-square distributions of $V$ and $V'$ using methods for simulating gamma distributions, as given in Chapter 9, Section 3 of Devroye \cite{d86}.
\subsection{Stein characterisation}\label{sec2.6}
Let $W$ be a real-valued random variable. Then $W=_d\overline{Z}_n$ if and only if
\begin{align}\label{char1}\mathbb{E}\big[s_n^2(1-\rho^2)Wg''(W)+(ns_n^2(1-\rho^2)+2\rho s_n W)g'(W)
+(\rho s-W)g(W)\big]&=0
\end{align}
for all twice differentiable $g:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that the expectations $\mathbb{E}|g(\overline{Z})|$, $\mathbb{E}|\overline{Z}g(\overline{Z})|$, $\mathbb{E}|g'(\overline{Z})|$, $\mathbb{E}|\overline{Z}g'(\overline{Z})|$ and $\mathbb{E}|\overline{Z}g''(\overline{Z})|$ are all finite.
Necessity of the Stein characterisation (\ref{char1}) was established by Gaunt \cite{gaunt prod2} (here we have corrected a typo in the characterising equation (\ref{char1})). Let us give a simple proof of sufficiency. Suppose $W$ is a real-valued random variable. To simplify notation, we set $s=1$, with the general case following by rescaling. Taking $g(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tx}$ (which is twice differentiable and bounded) in (\ref{char1}) and setting $\varphi(t)=\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tW}]$ yields the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{odee}\bigg(\frac{(1-\rho^2)}{n^2}t^2-\frac{2\rho\mathrm{i}}{n}t+1\bigg)\varphi'(t)+\bigg(\frac{(1-\rho^2)}{n}t-\rho\mathrm{i}\bigg)\varphi(t)=0.
\end{equation}
Note that $g(x) = \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tx}$ is a complex-valued function; here we applied the characterising equation to the real and imaginary parts of $g$, which are real-valued functions. Solving (\ref{odee}) subject to the condition $\varphi(0)=1$ gives that $\varphi(t)=(1-2\rho\mathrm{i}t/n+(1-\rho^2)t^2/n^2)^{-n/2}$, which is the characteristic function (\ref{cfcf}) of $\overline{Z}_n$. Thus, $W=_d\overline{Z}_n$, which proves sufficiency.
Stein characterisations are most commonly used as part of Stein's method (Stein \cite{stein}) to prove quantitative limit theorems in probability theory; however, they can also be used to derive distributional properties. For example, setting $g_1(x)=x^k$ and $g_2(x)=(x-\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n])^k=(x-\rho s)^k$ in (\ref{char1}) yields the following recursions for the $k$-th raw moment $\mu_k'=\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n^k]$ and the $k$-th central moment $\mu_k=\mathbb{E}[(\overline{Z}_n-\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n])^k]$:
\begin{align}\label{rec1}\mu_{k+1}'=(n+2k)\rho s_n\mu_k'+k(n+k-1)s_n^2(1-\rho^2)\mu_{k-1}', \quad k\geq1,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\mu_{k+1}&=2k\rho s_n\mu_k+ks_n^2\big(n+k-1+(n-k+1)\rho^2\big)\mu_{k-1}\nonumber\\
\label{rec2}&\quad+k(k-1)ns_n^3\rho(1-\rho^2)\mu_{k-2}, \quad k\geq2.
\end{align}
These recurrences allow for the efficient computation of lower order raw (central) moments given just the first raw (first and second central) moments.
\subsection{Moments and cumulants}\label{sec2.7}
The mean and variance of $\gr{\overline{Z}_n}$ can be easily calculated through several approaches; for example, using the standard method of extracting lower order moments via moment generating functions.
We have
\begin{align}\label{mean}\mathbb{E}[\gr{\overline{Z}_n}]&=\rho s, \\
\label{var}\mathrm{Var}(\gr{\overline{Z}_n})&=ns_n^2(1+\rho^2).
\end{align}
Lower order raw and central moments are then readily obtained from the recurrences (\ref{rec1}) and (\ref{rec2}). The first four raw moments are given by
\begin{align*}\mu_1'&=\rho s, \\
\mu_2'&=ns_n^2\big(1+(n+1)\rho^2\big), \\
\mu_3'&=n\rho s_n^3\big(3(n+2)+(n+1)(n+2)\rho^2\big), \\
\mu_4'&=ns_n^4\big(3(n+2)+6(n+2)(n+3)\rho^2+(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)\rho^4\big),
\end{align*}
and the first four central moments are given by
\begin{align*}\mu_1&=0,\\
\mu_2&=ns_n^2(1+\rho^2), \\
\mu_3&=2n\rho s_n^3(3+\rho^2), \\
\mu_4&=3ns_n^4\big((n+2)+2(n+6)\rho^2+(n+2)\rho^4\big).
\end{align*}
We thus deduce that the skewness $\gamma_1=\mu_3/\mu_2^{3/2}$ and kurtosis $\beta_2=\mu_4/\mu_2^2$ are given by
\begin{align*}\gamma_1=\frac{2\rho(3+\rho^2)}{\sqrt{n}(1+\rho^2)^{3/2}}, \quad
\beta_2=\frac{3(n+2)+6(n+6)\rho^2+3(n+2)\rho^4}{n(1+\rho^2)^2},
\end{align*}
whilst the excess kurtosis $\gamma_2=\mu_4/\mu_2^2-3$ is
\[\gamma_2=\frac{6+36\rho^2+6\rho^4}{n(1+\rho^2)^2}.\]
\gr{Formulas} for the skewness \gr{and kurtosis} of the product of two correlated normal variables with possibly non-zero means \gr{are} given by \gr{Seijas-Mac\'{i}as et al.\ \cite{sym2020} and} Ware and Lad \cite{ware}. \gr{Formulas for the first four central moments of the product of two correlated normal variables with possibly non-zero means are given by Haldane \cite{hh1}.}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{PNGraph2crop.pdf}
\caption{Skewness $\gamma_1$ (left panel) and excess kurtosis $\gamma_2$ (right panel) with $n=1$}
\end{figure}
Higher order moments are easily calculated using the representation (\ref{gamrep}) of $\overline{Z}_n$ and the moment formula $\mathbb{E}[V^k]=2^k\Gamma(n/2+k)/\Gamma(n/2)=n(n+2)(n+4)\cdots(n+2k-2)$, $k\geq1$, for $V\sim\chi_{(n)}^2$. For $k\geq1$,
\begin{align*}\mu_k'&=\frac{s_n^k}{2^k}\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}(\rho+1)^j(\rho-1)^{k-j}\mathbb{E}[V^j]\mathbb{E}[V^{k-j}] \\
&=\frac{s_n^k}{(\Gamma(n/2))^2}\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}\Gamma\Big(\frac{n}{2}+j\Big)\Gamma\Big(\frac{n}{2}+k-j\Big)(\rho+1)^j(\rho-1)^{k-j}.
\end{align*}
In the case $n=1$, the following formula is available (see Kan \cite{k08}):
\begin{equation*}\mu_k'=\begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{s^k(k!)^2}{2^k}\sum_{j=0}^{k/2}\frac{(2\rho)^{2j}}{((k/2-j)!)^2(2j)!}, & \quad \text{if $k$ is even}, \\
\displaystyle \frac{s^k(k!)^2}{2^k}\sum_{j=0}^{(k-1)/2}\frac{(2\rho)^{2j+1}}{((k/2-1/2-j)!)^2(2j+1)!}, & \quad \text{if $k$ is odd}. \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Returning to the general case $n\geq1$, the raw moments of $\overline{Z}_n$ can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric function (see Chapter 15 of Olver et al.\ \cite{olver}).
For $k\geq1$,
\begin{align*}\mu_k'&=\frac{s_n^k(n+k-1)!k!}{(1-\rho^2)^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2+k+1)\Gamma(n/2)}\times\\
&\quad\times\bigg[(-1)^k(1-\rho)^{n+k}\,{}_2F_1\bigg(n+k,\frac{n}{2};\frac{n}{2}+k+1;-\frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}\bigg)\\
&\quad\quad\quad+(1+\rho)^{n+k}\,{}_2F_1\bigg(n+k,\frac{n}{2};\frac{n}{2}+k+1;-\frac{1+\rho}{1-\rho}\bigg)\bigg].
\end{align*}
This formula is a re-parameterisation (using (\ref{vgrep})) of the result of Theorem 2 of Holm and Alouini \cite{ha04}, which gives formulas for the raw moments of the Mckay Type II distribution (a VG distribution). The proof of Holm and Alouini \cite{ha04} involves writing $\mu_k'=\int_{-\infty}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x=\int_{-\infty}^0 x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{0}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x=(-1)^k\int_{0}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(-x)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{0}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$, calculating the latter two integrals using (\ref{hyint}) and then simplifying. The absolute moments can be calculated similarly by writing $\mathbb{E}|\overline{Z}_n^k|=\int_{0}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(-x)\,\mathrm{d}x+\int_{0}^\infty x^kf_{\overline{Z}_n}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x$. This gives that, for $k\geq1$,
\begin{align*}\mathbb{E}|\overline{Z}_n^k|&=\frac{s_n^kn+k-1)!k!}{(1-\rho^2)^{n/2}\Gamma(n/2+k+1)\Gamma(n/2)}\times\\
&\quad\times\bigg[(1-\rho)^{n+k}\,{}_2F_1\bigg(n+k,\frac{n}{2};\frac{n}{2}+k+1;-\frac{1-\rho}{1+\rho}\bigg)\\
&\quad\quad\quad+(1+\rho)^{n+k}\,{}_2F_1\bigg(n+k,\frac{n}{2};\frac{n}{2}+k+1;-\frac{1+\rho}{1-\rho}\bigg)\bigg].
\end{align*}
Higher order central moments of $\overline{Z}_n$ can be calculated using the representation (\ref{gamrep}) of $\overline{Z}_n$ and the formula $\mathbb{E}[(V-\mathbb{E}[V])^k]=2^kU(-k,1-k-n/2,-n/2)$, where $U(a,b,x)$ is a confluent hypergeometric function of the second kind (see Weisstein \cite{mathworld}). We note that in the case $a=-m$, $m=0,1,2,\ldots$, the function $U(a,b,x)$ is a polynomial:
$U(-m,b,x)=(-1)^m\sum_{j=0}^m\binom{m}{j}(b+j)_{m-j}(-x)^j$, and the Pochhammer symbol is $(a)_0=0$ and $(a)_j=a(a+1)(a+2)\cdots(a+j-1)$, $j\geq1$ (see Section 13.2(i) of Olver et al.\ \cite{olver}). We have, for $k\geq1$,
\begin{align*}\mu_k&=\frac{s_n^k}{2^k}\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}(\rho+1)^j(\rho-1)^{k-j}\mathbb{E}[(V-\mathbb{E}[V])^j]\mathbb{E}[(V-\mathbb{E}[V])^{k-j}] \\
&=s_n^k\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}U\bigg(-j,1-j-\frac{n}{2},-\frac{n}{2}\bigg)U\bigg(j-k,1+j-k-\frac{n}{2},-\frac{n}{2}\bigg)\times\\
&\quad\times(1+\rho)^j(\rho-1)^{k-j}.
\end{align*}
Suppose now that $\rho=0$. Then, from (\ref{rep2}), $\overline{Z}_n=_d s_n\sqrt{S}T$, where $S\sim\chi_{(n)}^2$ and $T\sim N(0,1)$ are independent. If $k\geq1$ is odd then $\mathbb{E}[T^k]=0$, whilst for any $\alpha>0$, $\mathbb{E}|T^\alpha|=\pi^{-1/2}2^{\alpha/2}\Gamma((\alpha+1)/2)$ and $\mathbb{E}|S^\alpha|=\Gamma(n/2+\alpha)/\Gamma(n/2)$. Therefore, for $k\geq1$,
\begin{equation*}\mu_k'=\begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{2^{k/2}s_n^k}{\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma((n+k)/2)\Gamma((k+1)/2)}{\Gamma(n/2)}, & \quad \text{if $k$ is even}, \\
\displaystyle 0, & \quad \text{if $k$ is odd}. \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Suppose now that $-1<\rho<1$ and $n\geq1$. The cumulants of $\overline{Z}_n$ are readily calculated by either Taylor expanding the logarithms in (\ref{kfkf}), or by working with the representation (\ref{gamrep}) of $\overline{Z}_n$. In the latter approach, one uses the standard properties that for independent random variables $S_1$ and $S_2$ and constant $c$, the $k$-th cumulant satisfies $\kappa_k(cS_1)=c^k\kappa_k(S_1)$ and $\kappa_k(S_1+S_2)=\kappa_k(S_1)+\kappa_k(S_2)$, and $\kappa_k(V)=2^{k-1}(k-1)!\,n$ for $V\sim\chi_{(n)}^2$. For $k\geq1$,
\begin{align*}\kappa_k=\frac{n s_n^k}{2}(k-1)!\big[(1+\rho)^k+(\rho-1)^k\big].
\end{align*}
In particular,
\begin{align*}\kappa_1&=\rho s, \\
\kappa_2&=ns_n^2(1+\rho^2), \\
\kappa_3&=2\rho n s_n^3(3+\rho^2), \\
\kappa_4&=6ns_n^4(1+6\rho^2+\rho^4),\\
\gr{\kappa_5}&\gr{=24\rho ns_n^5(5+10\rho^2+\rho^4),} \\
\gr{\kappa_6}&\gr{=120n s_n^6(1+\rho^2)(1+14\rho^2+\rho^4)}.
\end{align*}
\gr{A general formula for the cumulants of the product of two correlated normal variables with possibly non-zero means is given by Craig \cite{craig}.}
\subsection{Mode and median}\label{sec2.8}
A detailed study of the mode and median of the generalized hyperbolic and VG distributions was recently carried out by Gaunt and Merkle \cite{gm21}; here we provide a synthesis of this work in the case of the product of correlated zero mean normal random variables.
The distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$ is unimodal. This follows because $\overline{Z}_n$ is self-decomposable (it is infinitely divisible) and self-decomposable distributions are unimodal (Yamazato \cite{y78}). Let $M_n$ denote the mode of $\overline{Z}_n$. It is clear from (\ref{pmutend}) and (\ref{lapd}) that
\begin{equation}\label{mode0}M_1=M_2=0.
\end{equation}
Suppose now that $n\geq3$. Then, by applying the differentiation formula (\ref{ddbk}) to the PDF (\ref{pdf2}), we deduce that $M_n=\mathrm{sgn}(\rho)\cdot x^*$, where $x^*$ is the unique positive solution of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{xstar}K_{\frac{n-3}{2}}\bigg(\frac{x}{s_n(1-\rho^2)}\bigg)=|\rho|K_{\frac{n-1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{x}{s_n(1-\rho^2)}\bigg).
\end{equation}
In the cases $n=4$ and $n=6$, we can apply the formulas in (\ref{special2}) to (\ref{xstar}) to obtain simple algebraic equations for $x^*$ which when solved yield the exact expressions
\begin{equation*}M_4=\frac{\rho s}{4}(1+|\rho|), \quad M_6 =\frac{\rho s}{12}(1+|\rho|)\bigg(3-\frac{1}{|\rho|}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{\rho^2}+\frac{6}{|\rho|}-3}\bigg).
\end{equation*}
For $n=8$ and $n=10$, we can apply the formula (\ref{special}) to (\ref{xstar}) to obtain cubic and quartic equations for $x^*$, although the solutions to these equations are too complicated to be worth reporting. For other values of $n$, exact formulas for $M_n$ are not available, except for the case $\rho=0$ in which case the mode is equal to zero.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.0in]{PNGraph3crop.pdf}
\caption{Plots of $M_4$, $M_6$ and $M_8$ when $s=1$}
\end{figure}
Whilst exact formulas are not available for $M_n$ for general $n\geq3$, simple and accurate upper and lower bounds can be derived.
In what follows, we fix $\rho>0$; bounds for the case $\rho<0$ follow by symmetry. Applying the lower and upper bounds of (\ref{seg1}) to (\ref{xstar}) leads to simple algebraic equations for $x^*$ which when solved lead to the upper and lower bounds of the following two-sided inequality, respectively:
\begin{equation}\label{mode1}\rho s(1-3/n)<M_n<\rho s(1-2/n), \quad n\geq3.
\end{equation}
There is equality in the upper bound when $n=2$ (see (\ref{mode0})). Applying inequality (\ref{seg3}) to (\ref{xstar}) yields that, for $n\geq4$,
\begin{equation}\label{mode2}M_n\geq\frac{\rho s}{2}\bigg[1-\frac{2}{n}+\sqrt{\rho^2\Big(1-\frac{2}{n}\Big)^2+(1-\rho^2)\Big(1-\frac{4}{n}\Big)^2}\bigg],
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $n=4$. Inequality (\ref{mode2}) is more accurate than the lower bound in (\ref{mode1}) for $n\geq4$. The bounds in (\ref{mode1}) and (\ref{mode2}) were derived by Gaunt and Merkle \cite{gm21} by similar considerations.
If $\rho=0$, the median of $\overline{Z}_n$ is equal to zero. The median of $\overline{Z}_2$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{medform}\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_2)=\begin{cases} \displaystyle\frac{s}{2}(1+\rho)\log(1+\rho), & \quad \rho\geq0, \\
\displaystyle-\frac{s}{2}(1-\rho)\log(1-\rho), & \quad \rho<0, \end{cases}
\end{equation}
which follows from the well-known formula for the median of the asymmetric Laplace distribution (see Kozubowski and Podg\'{o}rski \cite{kp01}). Otherwise, an exact closed-form formula is not available for $\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)$, $n\geq1$. Moreover, unlike for the mode, accurate upper and lower bounds for the median have yet to be worked out in the literature. Gaunt and Merkle \cite{gm21} have, however, conjectured accurate bounds for the median of the VG distribution. As $\overline{Z}_n$ follows the VG distribution (see (\ref{vgrep})), we can present conjectured bounds for $\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)$. The numerical results of Table \ref{table1} support the conjectured bounds\gr{, in that each entry in the table lies between the conjectured lower and upper bounds}. The results were obtained with \emph{Mathematica} via the same simple numerical procedure for numerically computating medians as described in pp.\ 16--17 of Gaunt and Merkle \cite{gm21}.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj3}Suppose $\rho>0$. Then it is conjectured that
\begin{equation*}\bigg(1-\frac{1}{n}\bigg)\rho s<\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)<\rho s \mathrm{e}^{-2/3n}<\bigg(1-\frac{2}{3n}+\frac{2}{9n^2}\bigg)\rho s, \quad n\geq1,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation}\label{concon}\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)\leq\bigg(1-\frac{2(1-\log2)}{n}\bigg)\rho s, \quad n\geq2.
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\normalsize{Median of $\overline{Z}_n$ with $s=1$.}}
\label{table1}
{\normalsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|rrrrr|}
\hline
\backslashbox{$n$}{$\rho$} & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.9 \\
\hline
1 & 0.0198 & 0.0813 & 0.164 & 0.265 & 0.386 \\
3 & 0.0674 & 0.210 & 0.364 & 0.528 & 0.700 \\
5 & 0.0802 & 0.245 & 0.416 & 0.594 & 0.777 \\
7 & 0.0859 & 0.260 & 0.439 & 0.623 & 0.812 \\
10 & 0.0901 & 0.272 & 0.457 & 0.646 & 0.838 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
We end by noting that because $\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n]=\rho s$, it follows from (\ref{mode0}) and (\ref{mode1}) that, if $\rho>0$, then $M_n<\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n]$ for all $n\geq1$. In fact, we have the two-sided inequality $2\rho s_n<\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n]-M_n<3\rho s_n$, $n\geq3$, with equality in the lower bound if $n=2$. If the conjectured median bounds hold, then it would follow that, for $\rho>0$, $M_n<\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)<\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n]$, meaning that $\overline{Z}_n$ would satisfy the mean-median-mode inequality (Groeneveld and Meeden \cite{gm77} and van Zwet \cite{v79}). We also note that as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $M_n$ and $\mathrm{Med}(\overline{Z}_n)$ converge to $\mathbb{E}[\overline{Z}_n]=\rho s$, which is to be expected given that $\overline{Z}_n$ is approximately normally distributed (for which the mean, median and mode are equal) for large $n$.
\gr{\section{Application as a limiting distribution}\label{sec3}
In Section \ref{sec2.5}, we saw that the distributions of $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ have simple representations in terms of independent standard normal, chi-square and variance-gamma random variables. This feature means that $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ are natural candidates for limiting distributions.
In this section, we shall see that $Z$ and $\overline{Z}_n$ are limiting distributions for sequences of double Wiener-It\^{o} integrals. Variance-gamma approximations for double Wiener-It\^{o} integrals have been studied by Azmoodeh, Eichelsbacher and Th\"ale \cite{aet21}, Eichelsbacher and Th\"ale \cite{eichelsbacher} and Gaunt \cite{gaunt vgiii}. Here we present a synthesis of the results in the case of the product of correlated mean zero normal random variables.
\subsection{A six moment theorem for double Wiener-It\^{o} integrals}
We first introduce some notation and terminology. Let $\mathfrak{H}$ be a real separable Hilbert space and let $\mathfrak{H}^{\odot 2}$ denote the second symmetric tensor product of $\mathfrak{H}$. For $f\in \mathfrak{H}^{\odot 2}$, the double Wiener-It\^{o} integral is denoted by $I_2(f)$ (see Definition 2.7.1 of Nourdin and Peccati \cite{np12}). Some of the most important properties of multiple Wiener-It\^{o} integrals can be found in Section 2.7 of Nourdin and Peccati \cite{np12}. If $f\in L^2([0,T]^2,\mathrm{d}t)$ is symmetric then
\[I_2(f)=\int_{[0,T]^2}f(t_1,t_2)\,\mathrm{d}B_{t_1}\,\mathrm{d}B_{t_2},\]
where $B=(B_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ is a standard two-dimensional Brownian motion (see Exercise 2.7.6 of Nourdin and Peccati \cite{np12}).
Consider also the Wasserstein distance $d_{\mathrm{W}}(F,G)$ and smooth Wasserstein distance $d_{2}(F,G)$ between the distributions of two random elements $F$ and $G$, defined by
\begin{align*}d_{\mathrm{W}}(F,G):&=\sup_{h\in\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{W}}}|\mathbb{E}h(F)-\mathbb{E}h(G)|, \\
d_{2}(F,G):&=\sup_{h\in\mathcal{H}_2}|\mathbb{E}h(F)-\mathbb{E}h(G)|,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{W}}&=\{h:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\,|\,\text{$h'$ is Lipschitz, $\|h'\|_\infty\leq1$}\},\\\mathcal{H}_2&=\{h:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\,|\,\text{$h'$ is Lipschitz, $\|h'\|_\infty\leq1$, $\|h''\|_\infty\leq1$}\}.
\end{align*}
Note that $d_{2}(F,G)\leq d_{\mathrm{W}}(F,G)$ for any random elements $F$ and $G$ for which $d_{\mathrm{W}}(F,G)$ is well-defined.
Let $F_m=I_2(f_m)$ with $f_m\in \mathfrak{H}^{\odot 2}$, $m\geq1$. Let $\overline{Z}_{n,c}$ be a random variable equal in distribution to $\overline{Z}_{n}-\rho s$, so that $\overline{Z}_{n,c}$ has mean zero. Then recasting Theorem 5.8 of Eichelsbacher and Th\"ale \cite{eichelsbacher} in terms of the distribution of $\overline{Z}_n$, we have that, as $m\rightarrow\infty$, the sequence $(F_m)_{m\geq1}$ converges in distribution to $\overline{Z}_{n,c}$ if and only if $\kappa_i(F_m)\rightarrow\kappa_i(\overline{Z}_{n,c})$, $i=2,3,4,5,6$. The cumulants $\kappa_i(\overline{Z}_{n,c})=\kappa_i(\overline{Z}_{n}-\rho s)$ can be calculated using the formulas of Section \ref{sec2.7} and the standard formula $\kappa_j(S+c)=\kappa_j(S)$, $j\geq2$, for any $c\in\mathbb{R}$. This ``six moment" theorem tells us that the convergence of a sequence of double Wiener-It\^{o} integrals to the distribution of the centered random variable $\overline{Z}_{n,c}$ is determined only by the behaviour of the first six cumulants (equivalently first six moments). This is a product of correlated normal random variables analogue of the celebrated ``fourth moment" theorem for normal approximation of multiple Wiener-It\^{o} integrals of Nualart and Peccati \cite{np05}.
Moreover, quantitative ``six moment" theorems are available. Define
\[\mathbf{M}(F_m)=\max\{|\kappa_i(F_m)-\kappa_i(\overline{Z}_{n,c})|\,:\,i=2,3,4,5,6\}.\]
Then there exists a constant $C$ only depending on $n$, $\rho$ and $s$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{optvg0}d_{\mathrm{W}}(F_m,\overline{Z}_{n,c})\leq C\sqrt{\mathbf{M}(F_m)}
\end{equation}
(see Eichelsbacher and Th\"ale \cite{eichelsbacher} and Gaunt \cite{gaunt vgiii}), and there exist constants $C_1,C_2>0$ only depending on $n$, $\rho$ and $s$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{optvg}C_1\mathbf{M}(F_m)\leq d_{2}(F_m,\overline{Z}_{n,c})\leq C_2\mathbf{M}(F_m)
\end{equation}
(see Azmoodeh, Eichelsbacher and Th\"ale \cite{aet21}). The upper bound in (\ref{optvg}) improves the bound (\ref{optvg0}) by removing the square root factor, with the improvement coming at the expense of being given with respect to the weaker $d_2$ metric. The rate of convergence in (\ref{optvg}) is optimal, and represents an analogue of the optimal fourth moment theorem for normal approximation of Nourdin and Peccati \cite{np15}.
\subsection{The generalized Rosenblatt process at extreme critical
exponent}
In this section, we see how the bounds (\ref{optvg0}) and (\ref{optvg}) can be applied to obtain bounds on the rate of convergence for one of the main results of Bai and Taqqu \cite{bt17}. Consider the generalized Rosenblatt process $Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(t)$, introduced by Maejima and Tudor \cite{mt12} as the double Wiener-It\^{o} integral
\begin{equation*}Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}^{\prime}\bigg(\int_0^t(s-x_1)_+^{\gamma_1}(s-x_2)_+^{\gamma_2}\,\mathrm{d}s\bigg)\,\mathrm{d}B_{x_1}\,\mathrm{d}B_{x_2},
\end{equation*}
where the prime $\prime$ indicates exclusion of the diagonals $x_1=x_2$ in the stochastic integral, $B_{x}$ is standard Brownian motion and $\gamma_i\in(-1,-1/2)$, $i=1,2$, and $\gamma_1+\gamma_2>-3/2$.
The Rosenblatt process (see Taqqu \cite{t75}) is the special case $Z_\gamma(t)=Z_{\gamma,\gamma}(t)$, $-3/4<\gamma<-1/2$. It is readily seen that $Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(t)=_d t^{2+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1)$ (see, for example, Gaunt \cite{gaunt vgiii}), and so, for simplicity, we will work with the random variable $Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1)$; results for general $t>0$ follow from a rescaling.
For $\phi\in(0,1)$, we define the random variable $Y_\phi$ by
\begin{equation*}Y_\phi=\frac{a_\phi}{\sqrt{2}}(X_1-1)-\frac{b_\phi}{\sqrt{2}}(X_2-1),
\end{equation*}
where $X_1$ and $X_2$ are independent $\chi_{(1)}^2$ random variables and
\begin{align*}a_\phi=\frac{(2\sqrt{\phi})^{-1}+(\phi+1)^{-1}}{\sqrt{(2\phi)^{-1}+2(\phi+1)^{-2}}}, \quad b_\phi=\frac{(2\sqrt{\phi})^{-1}-(\phi+1)^{-1}}{\sqrt{(2\phi)^{-1}+2(\phi+1)^{-2}}}.
\end{align*}
Suppose $\gamma_1\geq\gamma_2$ and that $\gamma_2=(\gamma_1+1/2)/\phi-1/2$. Then, it was shown by Bai and Taqqu \cite{bt17} that $Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1)\rightarrow_d Y_\phi$ as $\gamma_1\rightarrow-1/2$. (Observe that if $\gamma_1\rightarrow-1/2$, then $\gamma_2\rightarrow-1/2$.)
We now observe that by the representation (\ref{gamrep}) we have that $Y_\phi$ is distributed as the product of two correlated normal random variables with $s=(1+\phi)/\sqrt{1+6\phi+\phi^2}$ and $\rho=2\sqrt{\phi}/(\phi+1)$ (here we solved $s(1+\rho)/2=a_\phi/\sqrt{2}$ and $s(1-\rho)/2=b_\phi/\sqrt{2}$). Now, Arras et al.\ \cite{aaps17} showed that, for any $i\geq2$, as $\gamma_1\rightarrow-1/2$,
\begin{equation*}\kappa_i(Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1))=\kappa_i(Y_\phi)+O\Big(-\gamma_1-\frac{1}{2}\Big).
\end{equation*}
Inserting this asymptotic relation into (\ref{optvg0}) and (\ref{optvg}) implies that, as $\gamma_1\rightarrow-1/2$,
\begin{align*}d_{\mathrm{W}}(Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1),Y_\phi)&\leq C_\phi\sqrt{-\gamma_1-\frac{1}{2}}, \\
d_{2}(Z_{\gamma_1,\gamma_2}(1),Y_\phi)&\leq C_\phi'\Big(-\gamma_1-\frac{1}{2}\Big).
\end{align*}
where the absolute constants $C_\phi$ and $C_\phi'$ only depend on $\phi$.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Suicide has been identified as one of the leading causes of deaths and approximately $1.5\%$ of people die by suicide every year \cite{worldsuicide,fazel2020suicide}. Despite years of clinical research on suicide, researoners have concluded that suicide cannot be predicted using the standard clinical practice of asking patients about their suicidal thoughts \cite{mchugh2019association}.
Recently, \citet{coppersmith2018natural} and \citet{nock2019advancing} discuss the opportunities of using social media combined with natural language processing (NLP) techniques
to complement traditional clinical records and help
in suicide risk analysis and early suicide intervention.
To facilitate further research on automatic suicide risk assessment, \citet{zirikly2019clpsych} proposed a shared task, where they collected user data from r/SuicideWatch subreddit and annotated it with user-level suicide risk: no-risk, low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk. By comparing the results of the participating teams in this shared task, \citet{zirikly2019clpsych} conclude that one of the major challenges comes from the insufficient data for intermediate suicide risk levels (i.e., low risk and medium risk) rather than extreme risk levels (i.e., no risk and high risk). \citet{matero2019suicide} find that using a dual BERT-LSTM-Attention model to separately extract information from both SuicideWatch and Non-SuicideWatch posts together with feature engineering that includes emotion features, personality scores, user's anxiety and depression scores are important for model performance.
In this paper, instead of feature engineering or complex model architectures, we explore whether weakly supervised methods and data augmentation techniques based on clinical psychology research can help improve model performance.
We explore several weakly-supervised methods, and show that a simple approach based on insights from clinical psychology research \cite{o2014psychology} obtains the best performance. This model uses pseudo-labeling (PL) on data from the subreddits r/Anxiety and r/depression, which are considered important risk factors for suicide.
We also present a potential application of our model for studying the suicide risk among people who use drugs, opening the door for using NLP methods to deepen our understanding between opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental health.
The code for this paper can be found at \url{https://github.com/yangalan123/WM-SRA}.
\section{Methods}
We focus on Task A from the CLPsych 2019 shared task ``Predicting the Degree of Suicide Risk in Reddit Posts" \cite{zirikly2019clpsych}.
The goal of the task is to predict the user-level suicide risk category based on their posts in the r/SuicideWatch subreddit. Specifically, a user $u_{i}$ is associated with a collection of $n(i)$ posts $C_i=\{x_{i, 1}, x_{i, 2}, \dots, x_{i, n(i)}\}$, where each post $x_{i, k} (1\leq k \leq n)$ has $m(i, k)$ sentences $x_{i, k} = [s_{ik, 1}, s_{ik, 2}, \dots, s_{ik, m(i, k)}]$. We need to predict $y_i \in \{a, b, c, d\}$ using $C_i$, where $a, b, c, d$ represent no-risk, low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk, respectively.
In the original dataset, there are $496$ users in the training set and $125$ users in the test sets. We further split $100$ users from the training set to create the validation set. The sizes for the train/valid/test sets are 746, 173, and 186 respectively.
\paragraph{Data Pre-processing}
Following the advice in \cite{zirikly2019clpsych}, we replace all human names and URLs in the Reddit posts with special tokens "\_PERSON\_" and "\_URL\_", respectively. We also remove punctuation and stop words besides lowercasing. Due to the limitation of GPU memory, we split those large posts to be passages with no more than $128$ words\footnote{The $128$ maximum passage length is tuned based on the validation set for both GPU memory and better computational efficiency for large posts. We do not observe a significant performance drop without a larger passage length.} and make sure that the split point is not in the middle of the sentence\footnote{We use a limited-size stack and greedily add each sentence into the stack. If adding a new sentence will make the sum of lengths of all sentences in the stack exceed $128$, we pop out all sentences, concatenate them to a new passage and then add this new sentence to the stack. For sentences having more than $128$ words, we treat them as individual posts.}. Such passages are treated as separate posts.
\paragraph{Model Architecture} Our architecture is a BERT \cite{devlin2019bert} model. We also experimented with other state-of-the-art pre-trained language models (PLMs), including RoBERTa~\cite{liu2019roberta} and XLNET~\cite{yang2019xlnet}, but found BERT to work the best and thus consider it as our baseline architecture (more details can be found in Appendix \ref{sec: comp_plms}).
Each post $x_{i, k}$
is fed into BERT~\cite{devlin2019bert} and we get post embedding $\vec{e}_{i, k} = \text{BERT}(x_{i, k})$.
Then we do simple mean-pooling to obtain the user embedding $\vec{u}_{i} = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{n(i)} \vec{e}_{i, k} }{n(i)}$.
Finally, we feed $\vec{u}_{i}$ to a fully-connected layer
and use the Softmax layer to predict the risk level probability $\tilde{P}(y_i|C_i)$. The label with the largest probability is picked as the final prediction $\hat{y}_{i}$.
For training, the cross entropy loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{clf}}$ is applied to optimize our model.
\subsection{Weakly-supervised Methods}
\paragraph{Task-Adaptive Pre-training}
Recent works \cite{lee2020biobert,gururangan2020don} point out that task-adaptive pre-training (TAP) can help pre-trained language models better adapt to the target domains and can bring improvement, especially in data-poor scenarios. Specifically, we continue pre-training (e.g., masked language modeling for BERT) on a task-relevant \textit{unlabeled corpus} and then do normal fine-tuning on the task. Our unlabeled corpus consists of all r/SuicideWatch posts (aggregated per user) from the training sets of all the tasks (A, B, C) in the shared task \cite{zirikly2019clpsych}.
There are $621$ users and $138,057$ posts in this unlabeled corpus.
We do continued pre-training for $2$ to $3$ epochs and do early stopping.
\paragraph{Multi-view Learning}
Multi-view learning \cite{xu2013survey} (MVL) is one of the widely recognized semi-supervised methods.
\citet{clark2018semi} provides a successful example of utilizing MVL in sequential labeling tasks. The idea is to create perturbations by masking words in certain positions and requiring the model to learn the similar distribution over the complete labeled examples and the corresponding masked examples besides normal classification training. However, since ours is a user-level classification task, we cannot directly borrow the same strategy from \cite{clark2018semi} as it mainly works on sequence labeling. We propose to create perturbations $\tilde{C}_i$ based on four strategies.\footnote{The masking proportions for \textbf{Word-mask} and \textbf{Sent-Mask} are tuned empirically on the validation set.
First, for each sentence, we will randomly mask $10\%$ of tokens (\textbf{Word-Mask}). Second, considering that users may have posts of many words, we also propose a sentence-level masking strategy (\textbf{Sent-Mask}). For each post of a single user in the training set, we would randomly mask $10\%$ of tokens. Third, we only keep the beginning and ending sentences in each passage (\textbf{BegEd}). Usually these sentences convey the main purpose of the posts and should preserve important semantics. Forth, we use Bert-extractive-summarizer
\cite{miller2019leveraging} to extract the summary for each passage (\textbf{K-Sum}). It works mainly by first encoding each sentence $s_{ik, j}$ using a PLM to a continuous-valued representation $\vec{s}_{ik, j}$ and then training a K-means clustering over $\vec{s}_{ik, j}$.
Finally it will pick $K$ sentences for each passage that are closest to the center. Empirically, we set $K=5$.
In training, we use KL-divergence to enforce the constraint that the predicted probability on perturbed examples $\tilde{P}(y_i| \tilde{C}_i)$ should be close to the one on complete examples (i.e., $\tilde{P}(y_i| {C}_i)$). The loss incurred by KL-divergence is simply added to the classification loss and these two losses are optimized together for each training instance.
\paragraph{Clinical Psychology Inspired Pseudo-labeling}
According to the analysis of the shared task report \cite{zirikly2019clpsych}, the main challenge for the 4-way classification comes from insufficient data for the intermediate classes (i.e., low-risk and medium-risk). A straightforward solution is to collect data for these two classes. Recent clinical psychological research \cite{o2014psychology} points out that mental health issues such as depression and anxiety can be important risk factors for suicide. Inspired by this study, we collect data from r/Anxiety
and r/depression
from Reddit. The time range of all collected data is from December 1, 2008 to September 30, 2020.
We sample a small proportion of the collected data from both subreddits and after manual verification, we decided to assign \emph{low-risk} labels to all r/Anxiety users in the sample and \emph{medium-risk} labels to all r/depression users in the sample. Since we do not have experts to label these posts, adding too much pseudo-labeling data might introduce too much noise.
Based on preliminary experiments on the \emph{validation set}, the number of added pseudo-labeling data is $8\%$ of the suicide risk assessment training data. The only difference between these experiments and the main experiments is that we only train the model for $10$ epochs rather than full $20$ epochs. Table \ref{tab:ratio_added_PL} show results for different sizes of added pseudo-labeled data from r/depression on the validation set. All pseudo-labeling data follows roughly the same pattern with the best proportion being $8\%$.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$\frac{\#(\text{r/depression})}{\#(\text{Training})}$ & Macro-F1 on Validation set \\ \hline
$2\%$ & $0.408$ \\ \hline
$8\%$ & $0.471$ \\ \hline
$16\%$ & $0.442$ \\ \hline
$32\%$ & $0.408$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of different proportions of added pseudo-labeling data from r/depression.}
\label{tab:ratio_added_PL}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|HHHHc|}
\hline
No. & Approach & Setup & a & b & c & d & Macro (P/R/F1)\\ \hline
1 & Baseline & BERT & 0.742/0.719/0.730 & 0.077/0.077/0.077 & 0.400/0.286/0.333 & 0.525/0.615/0.566 & 0.436 / 0.424 / 0.427 \\ \hline
2 & TAP & BERT & 0.774/0.750/0.762 & 0.143/0.154/0.148 & 0.250/0.107/0.150 & 0.588/0.769/0.667 & 0.439 / 0.445 / 0.432 \\ \hline
3 & MVL & Word-Mask & 0.788/0.812/0.800 & 0.111/0.077/0.091 & 0.391/0.321/0.353 & 0.567/0.654/0.607 & 0.464 / 0.466 / 0.463 \\
4 & MVL & Sent-Mask & 0.551/0.844/0.667 & 0.091/0.077/0.083 & 0.294/0.179/0.222 & 0.583/0.538/0.560 & 0.380 / 0.409 / 0.383 \\
5 & MVL & BegEd & 0.686/0.750/0.716 & 0/0/0 & 0.320/0.286/0.302 & 0.531/0.654/0.586 & 0.384 / 0.422 / 0.401\\
6 & MVL & K-Sum & 0.686/0.750/0.716 & 0/0/0 & 0.320/0.286/0.302 & 0.531/0.654/0.586 & 0.384 / 0.422 / 0.401\\
\hline
7 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Depression
\\
(medium-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.913/0.656/0.764 & 0.333/0.231/0.273 & 0.333/0.321/0.327 & 0.561/0.712/0.627 & \textbf{0.535} / \textbf{0.480} / \textbf{0.498}\\
8 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Anxiety\\
(low-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.808/0.656/0.724 & 0.167/0.154/0.160 & 0.440/0.393/0.415 & 0.565/0.673/0.614 & 0.495 / 0.469 / 0.478\\
9 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Depression \\+ Anxiety
\end{tabular}
& 0.821/0.719/0.767 & 0.133/0.154/0.143 & 0.385/0.357/0.370 & 0.554/0.596/0.574 & 0.473 / 0.456 / 0.463 \\
\hline
10 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Task C\\
(low-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.774/0.750/0.762 & 0.083/0.077/0.080 & 0.438/0.250/0.318 & 0.606/0.769/0.678 & 0.475 / 0.462 / 0.460 \\
11 & - & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Task C\\ (crowd-\\labeled)\end{tabular}
& 0.760/0.594/0.667 & 0/0/0 & 0.357/0.357/0.357 & 0.556/0.673/0.609 & 0.418 / 0.406 / 0.408 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results Task A test set.
For each of tasks 7-11, the size of added data is 8\% of training data. Metrics are all reported on macro-average.
}
\label{tab:exp-res}
\end{table}
\section{Experiments and Results}
We implement our BERT model based on huggingface Transformer \cite{wolf-etal-2020-transformers}. Due to the limitation of GPU memory, we only use the \textit{base} version
We split $20\%$ of original training data to be the validation set and fix the split for all models. The model selection is made by early stopping and we train all models for $20$ epochs with the batch size $32$. For users with too many posts and words, we only sample $100$ passages for them. Table \ref{tab:exp-res} shows our results on Macro-F1.
\paragraph{Task-Adaptive Pre-training} After applying task-adaptive pre-training on BERT, we see small performance gains over BERT (i.e., from $0.427$ to $0.432$). That might be because even we use the whole corpus provided by the shared task, it is still not large enough.
\paragraph{Multi-view Learning}
Word-Mask strategy improves over the BERT baseline. Compared with the adaptive pre-training results on BERT, which also do word-level masking but only trained on language modeling, we can see that MVL provides a more efficient way to utilize a small training corpus and bring $3.1\%$ gain on Macro-F1. However, all the other MVL approaches hurt the performance when compared to the BERT baseline.
This might be because the proposed sentence-level perturbation strategy can seriously break the semantics of each post and thus influence the overall performance, and random sampling over sentences hurts most.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|HHc|c|c|c|cH|}
\hline
No. & Approach & Setup & a & b & c & d & Macro\\ \hline
1 & Baseline & Baseline & 0.730 & 0.077 & 0.333 & 0.566 & 0.427 \\ \hline
7 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Depression
\\
(medium-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.764 & 0.273 & 0.327 & 0.627 & 0.498\\
8 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Anxiety\\
(low-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.724 & 0.160 & 0.415 & 0.614 & 0.478\\
9 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Depression \\+ Anxiety
\end{tabular}
& 0.767 & 0.143 & 0.370 & 0.574 & 0.463 \\
\hline
10 & PL & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Task C\\
(low-risk)
\end{tabular}
& 0.762 & 0.080 & 0.318 & 0.678 & 0.460 \\
11 & - & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Task C\\ (crowd-\\labeled)\end{tabular}
& 0.667 & 0 & 0.357 & 0.609 & 0.408 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Class-wise performance (F1) for PL-based methods (a=no-risk; b=low-risk; c=medium-risk; d=high-risk).
}
\label{tab:PL-class-decomp-res}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Clinical Psychology Inspired Pseudo-labeling}
Exp 7, 8 and 9 in Table \ref{tab:exp-res} achieve the Top-3 Macro-F1 scores. This indicates that although our psychology-inspired pseudo-labeling technique is simpler than other weakly-supervised methods, adding meaningful pseudo-label data from relevant domains helps mitigate the problem of insufficient data in the intermediate classes (b and c).
To verify this point, we show the class-wise classification results for PL-based models in Table \ref{tab:PL-class-decomp-res} where we can see improvements on b and c classes. Due to space constraints, we present the class-wise performance for all models in Appendix \ref{sec:class-wise-decomp}.
The investigation over the confusion matrix of the best model (shown in Section \ref{sec: human study}) further supports our hypothesis.
However, when we try to combine different pseudo-labeling data together (see Exp 9, where we add users from r/depression and r/Anxiety following the proportion of $1:2$\footnote{See Supplemental material \ref{app: mixing_prop} for detailed experiments over different mixing proportions}
and still keep the added user number the same), we observe a slight performance drop. The reason might be that users in these two PL datasets might be at the boundary of the low-risk and medium-risk and simply mixing them together will make the model confuse between these two classes (see Supplemental material \ref{app:confusion_matrix} for all confusion matrices).
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{baseline_conf_mat.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{best_model_conf_mat.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Visualization of the confusion matrices for the baseline model (Exp 1)
and the best model (Exp 7)
.
}
\label{fig:Confusion_Matrix}
\end{figure*}
Furthermore, we wanted to test the role of the \emph{clinical psychology} aspect of our pseudo-labeling approach. Does the gain come from the meaningful domains (anxiety and depression) or just by adding additional data?
To answer this, we use additional data provided by Task C of the shared task that contains posts from random subreddits (e.g., sports). We do two experiments: 1) assign low-risk to all such users and 2) assign the gold labels provided by the task via crowdsourcing. We add the same size as for the other pseudo-label experiment ($8\%$ of training data).
The results (Exp 10 \& 11 in Table \ref{tab:exp-res}) show that the clinical psychology inspired PL outperforms these models by meaningfully addressing the intermediate classes insufficient data problem.
\section{Error Analysis}
\label{sec: human study}
In this section, we take a closer look at the prediction results of our best model (clinical psychology inspired pseudo labeling using r/depression as medium risk) by looking at the confusion matrix and sampled error cases.
We plot the confusion matrices for the baseline model (Exp 1 in Table \ref{tab:exp-res}) and the best model (Exp 7 in Table \ref{tab:exp-res}) in Figure \ref{fig:Confusion_Matrix}. We can see that, the best model achieves the improvement mainly by fixing error cases wrongly predicted as no-risk (where the true labels are ``b'', ``c'' and ``d'', with greater error reduction for "d") and low-risk (where the true labels are ``c'' and ``d''). As \citet{o2014psychology} point out, depression is a serious mental issue and has become one of the most important risk factors of suicide. Adding posts from r/depression can help the model understand better what is ``medium-risk'' and ``high-risk'' and thus raise the alert for the signals of similar or related mental issues.
We can also see that the main problem of our best model, is still the confusion between ``b'' (low-risk) and ``c'' (medium-risk). In addition, the problem of wrongly predicting the examples belonging to intermediate classes to high-risk ones still exists. By manual investigation, we find that both problems require expertise in mental health to make the subtle distinctions.
For example, the following text comes from a low-risk example\footnote{Based on ethical consideration, we drop out many sensitive and private content of this example.} that is wrongly predicted as high-risk by our best model:
\begin{quote}
``
\textit{
\textcolor{red}{sadness has taken me}\dots
\textcolor{red}{i am sad , lonely , and i have no interest in living anymore}\dots
\textcolor{blue}{i didnt want to die}\dots
\textcolor{red}{my mind is diseased , unable to take happiness}\dots
\textcolor{red}{i have no interest in forming any more.}
}\dots
\textcolor{blue}{i dont think ill do it}\dots
''
\end{quote}
It can be seen that there are many negative or even desperate expressions (marked as \textcolor{red}{red}) in this examples, mixed with some short signals (marked as \textcolor{blue}{blue}) possibly indicating a person
considered at low-risk.
The model can be fooled by the massive negative expressions and make the wrong predictions if the model is not aware of the true intent of the person. Therefore, reliable intent identification that could consider user posts across time and other information would be a powerful tool to help the model prevent mistakes like this.
\section{Application: Predicting Suicide Risk of People Who Use Drugs}
In order to further verify the effectiveness of our model in real-world applications, we create a simulation scenario: we apply our best model (Exp 7) over the data that is collected for $612$ users who post on both r/opiates
and r/SuicideWatch. r/opiates is a subreddit where people discuss topics around opioid usage (e.g., drug doses, withdrawal anguish, daily experiences, harm reduction).
This community members could often be at a high suicide risk \cite{aladaug2018detecting, yao2020detection}. We apply our model over their $1,176$ posts on r/SuicideWatch and find that our model predicts that $15.52\%$ of them are no-risk, while $84.48\%$ of them are of low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk. The results on sampled $2,863$ r/opiate posts are $30.56\%$ for no-risk and $69.44\%$ for at least some risk. The predicted outputs are highly aligned with reported results using crowdsourcing annotation of suicidal or not-suicidal by \citet{yao2020detection} and show the effectiveness of our model in this simulated scenario.\footnote{The original Mturk annotation dataset is not open-sourced and thus
we can only do rough trend matching on our own collected data.} We hope this will open the door of using NLP methods to investigate the link between suicidal ideation and fatal overdoses among people who use drugs.
\section{Conclusions}
We investigated a series of weakly-supervised methods and find that pseudo-labeling on data related to risk factors for suicide (depression, anxiety) can help improve model performance. This provides an alternative way to use theoretically-grounded models (e.g., compared to feature engineering). We also show a potential use case of this work for understanding suicidal ideation among users who use drugs (e.g., opiates).
\section*{Ethical Considerations}
The dataset for suicide risk assessment was obtained from the organizers of the 2019 Clinical Psychology Shared Task on Suicide Risk Assessment, by filling in a participant application where we affirmed that we would follow the shared task’s rules. We have obtained IRB approval (exempt) from Columbia University to use the data as it consists of publicly available and anonymous posts extracted from Reddit. For the application part, we also obtained Columbia IRB approval (exempt) for the data publicly available and anonymous data from r/opiates. All data is kept secure and online userIDs are not associated to the posts.
Our intention of developing and improving suicide risk assessment models is to help health professionals and/or social workers identify people that might be at risk of committing suicide. We emphasize our intention that suicide risk assessment models such as the ones developed here to be used responsibly, with a human in the loop --- for example a medical professional, a mental health specialist, who can look at the predicted labels and offer explanations and decide whether or not they seem sensible. We would urge any user of suicide risk assessment technology to carefully control who may use the system.
Currently, the presented models may fail in two ways: they may either mislabel an at-risk user as no-risk (our current models are particularly designed to minimize this risk), or classify a no-risk user with some level of risk. Obviously, there is some potential harm to a person who is truly in need if a system based on this work fails to detect their suicidal ideation, and it is possible that a person who is not truly in need may be irritated or offended if someone reaches out to them because of a mistake. That is why, this system needs only to be used as additional help for health professionals.
We note that because most of our data were collected from Reddit, a website with a known overall demographic skew (towards young, white, American men\footnote{\url{https://social.techjunkie.com/demographics-reddit}}), our conclusions about what expressions of different suicide risk levels look like and how to detect them cannot necessarily be applied to broader groups of people. This might be particularly acute for vulnerable populations such as people with opioid use disorder (OUD). We hope that this research stimulates more work by the research community to consider and model ways in which different groups express suicidal ideation.
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
|
\section{Experimental setup}
\label{appendix: experiment}
This section provides the experimental setup details of Section 3 in the main text, including hyper-parameters, optimizers, code snippets, total amount of computational resource, as well as more experimental results.
Code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the results are included in the released code under this anonymous link \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/conditional_infonce-4232}.
\subsection{Speech Representation Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of speech representation learning in Section 3.1 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We use the Librispeech~\citep{panayotov2015librispeech} dataset. The dataset is available at the link: \url{https://www.openslr.org/12}. It is a corpus of approximately $1,000$ hours on English speech with sampling rate of $16$ kHz. There are three training splits, containing $100$, $360$, $500$ hours of speech sequences, respectively. We use the $100$ hour training split. There are also separate evaluation and test sets provided. The license of the dataset is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. The dataset does not contain identifiable personality information.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Model}
We use the $100$-hour split from Librispeech to pretrain and fine-tune the models, and we use the predefined test set in the dataset to evaluate the models. We follow the baseline implemented in ~\citet{riviere2020unsupervised}, an implementation of InfoNCE on speech.
In particular, given an input signal $x_{1:T}$ with $T$ being the time steps, we first pass it through an encoder $\phi_{\theta}$ parametrized by $\theta$ to produce a sequence of hidden representations $\{h_{1:T}\}$ where $h_t = \phi_{\theta}(x_t)$. Then, we obtain the contextual representation $c_t$ at time step $t$ with a sequential model $\psi_{\rho}$ parametrized by $\rho$: $\mathbf{c}_{t}=\psi_{\rho}(h_1, \ldots, h_t)$, where $c_t$ contains context information before time step $t$.
For unsupervised pretraining, we select a multi-layer convolutional network as the encoder $\phi_{\theta}$, and we select a two-layer transformer with hidden dimension $256$ as the sequential model $\psi_{\rho}$. Here, the positive pair is $(h_{t+k}, c_t)$ where $k$ is the number of time steps ahead, and the negative pairs are $(h_i, c_t)$, where $h_i$ hidden representations of a batch of random hidden representations assumed to be unrelated to $c_t$. The scoring function $f$ based on Equation (1) in the main text at step $t$ with $k$ steps ahead is $f_k = f_k(h, c_t) = \exp((h)^\top W_k c_t)$, where $W_k$ is a learnable linear transformation defined separately for each $k\in\{1,...,K\}$ and $K$ is predetermined as $12$ time steps. The loss will then be formulated as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:infonce_speech}
\ell^{\mathrm{InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_i, c_t)))}]
\end{equation}
After the pretraining step, we then evaluate the network by the following: we first fix the pretrained model and add one additional linear classifier on top. We then fine-tune the linear classifier with samples from the training split, but this time with labels. After fine-tuning, we fix both the pretrained model and the fine-tuned classifier, and report the top-1 accuracy on the corresponding evaluation set (which in this case would be the ``test-clean'' split in Librispeeh.)
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
To implement the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) and the Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE), for each update of the objective function, we sample a batch of sequences that comes from the same outcome of the conditioned variable $Z$ to calculate the loss function using C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE. For instance, if we condition on speaker ID being Speaker 1, we first find all sequences that come from Speaker 1, and sample a batch of sequences from Speaker 1 to perform calculation of C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE. All positive and negative pairs would then be from Speaker 1. After we calculate C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE and update the network parameters, we condition on a new outcome of speaker ID, say Speaker 2, and repeat the steps above. Which sequences are coming from which speakers are known as meta-data in the dataset and the mapping from sequences to speakers is established at the beginning of training. For details, please refer to Line 361 to Line 408 in this file: \url{https://github.com/facebookresearch/CPC_audio/blob/master/cpc/dataset.py}.
In C-InfoNCE, we also need to include $z$, the speaker ID (or the sequence ID) in the network $f(\cdot)$. Since speaker or sequence IDs are indices, we convert the indices into an eight-dimension vector containing either $0$ or $1$ in each position for the speaker ID, or a sixteen-dimension vector for the sequence ID. Essentially, we convert the digital number of each speaker ID or sequence ID into its binary form and treat that as the $z$ vector. We then replace $f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t)$ with $f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)$, and $f_k(h_{t_i}, c_t)$ with $f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)$ in Equation \ref{eq:infonce_speech}, which results in the following formulation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cinfonce_speech}
\ell^{\mathrm{C-InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{i}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)))}]
\end{equation}
where $W_{hz}$ and $W_{cz}$ are two learnable linear transformations. For WC-InfoNCE, on the other hand, it follows the same loss function in Equation \ref{eq:infonce_speech}, as it does not require $z$ for $f(\cdot)$:
\begin{equation}
\ell^{\mathrm{WeaC-InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_i, c_t)))}]
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We pretrain the network using the sequences in the $100-$hour training set for $200$ epochs. We set the batch size per GPU as $16$, and sample $128$ negative samples in each batch. We use the Adam optimizer~\citep{kingma2014adam}, with a learning rate of $2e-4$, $\beta_1 = 0.9, \beta_2=0.999,$ and $\epsilon=1e-8$. We use a learning rate warm-up of 10. We fix all setups, including architecture, learning rate, and optimizer for InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. For evaluation, we run $100$ epochs using the pretrained model and the training sequences with labels; and we evaluate the fine-tuned model on the test split of Librispeech.
\subsubsection{Computational Resource} The models are trained and evaluated on 4 RTX-$2080$Ti GPUs. $200$ epochs of pretraining take 2 days.
\subsection{Fair Representation Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of fair representation learning in Section 3.2 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We train our models on UCI German~\citep{Dua:2019}, UCI Adult~\citep{Dua:2019} and Health Heritage~\citep{kaggle} datasets, where we do not report the results for the third dataset in the main text.
Health Heritage \footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/c/hhp} comprises $60,000$ patient samples and over 20 attributes. We consider the Cartesian product of nine age values and two gender values (thus eighteen groups in total) as sensitive attributes, and the task is to predict whether an index of patient morality is positive or negative as the downstream task. We split the Health dataset into a 80\% part for training and a 20\% part for testing, following ~\citet{song2019learning}. It grants entrants of competition a right to use for his/her/its own patient management or other internal business purposes, but may not grant or otherwise transfer to any third party (which is not applicable in our case, since we will not publicize the dataset).
UCI German\footnote{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/statlog+(german+credit+data)} has a total of $10,00$ samples. We follow the split in ~\citet{song2019learning}, where there are $900$ samples in the training set, and $100$ samples in the test set. It has the Database Contents License v1.0.
UCI Adult\footnote{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/adult} has a total of $48,842$ samples, with a pre-determined training split of $32,561$ samples and a test split of $16,281$ samples. It has the CC0: Public Domain License.
For all three datasets, no personally identifiable information is available.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Methods}
In the fair representation learning experiment, we first train models without labels by using contrastive self-supervised objectives: MIFR~\citep{song2019learning}, L-MIFR~\citep{song2019learning}, InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation}, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. In this section, we first briefly introduce how MIFR and L-MIFR work.
MIFR and L-MIFR aim to maximize the expressiveness of representations while satisfying certain fairness constraints. This is done by ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)\,\,{\rm s.t.\,\, MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$. ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ aims to learn an expressive representation $Y$ that maximally preserves information in $X$; and by conditioning on $Z$, information in $X$ that is correlated with $Z$ will be discarded~\citep{song2019learning}. On the other hand, ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$ controls the maximum amount of the mutual information between $Y$ and $Z$ (to be $\epsilon$), to ensure a controllable level of fairness.
For the optimization process for MIFR and L-MIFR,~\citet{song2019learning}
optimize ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ via its variational lower bound $\max \mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Y, Z)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X \mid Y, Z)\right]$, where $q_{\phi}$ and $p_{\theta}$ are two neural networks parameterized by $\phi \in \Phi$ and $\theta \in \Theta$. $q_{\phi}$ is used to approximate $P_{X, Y, Z}$ and $p_{\theta}$ is used to parameterize $P_{X | Y, Z}$. Furthermore, to ensure the optimization satisfies the constraint ${MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$,~\citet{song2019learning} performs Lagrangian dual relaxation, where MIFR and L-MIFR consider different approaches to search for the Langrangian multipliers. The detailed discussion of this optimization is out of the scope in our paper, and readers can refer to the original paper for more clarification.
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
The difference between the proposed C-InfoNCE/WeaC-InfoNCE and MIFR/L-MIFR from ~\citet{song2019learning} is the maximization of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$. Unlike MIFR or L-MIFR~\citet{song2019learning} which maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Y, Z)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X \mid Y, Z)\right]$, C-InfoNCE maximizes ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg]$, and WeaC-InfoNCE maximizes ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg]$, respectively. In specific, for C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE, we consider the same Lagrangian dual optimization process as L-MIFR, and we only change how we maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$.
An implementation difference between C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE is that the function $f(\cdot)$ in C-InfoNCE considers $Z$ as an input, while the function $f(\cdot)$ in WeaC-InfoNCE does not consider $Z$ as an input. Now, we discuss how we represent $Z$. For UCI German dataset, $Z$ is a binary age indicator, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}$. For UCI Adult dataset, $Z$ is an indicator of male and female, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}$. For Health Heritage dataset, $Z$ is the Cartesian product of $9$ age values and $2$ genders, which in total we have $18$ discrete values for $Z$. We use the binary representations for $Z$, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}^5$ (a $5$-dimensional vector).
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We assume the model does not have access to labels during training; instead it takes in the input and sensitive attributes. We follow ~\citet{song2019learning}, where we consider maximizing the conditional mutual information given the fairness constraint. All neural networks for approximating distributions in MIFR and L-MIFR are two-layer neural networks. The $f(\cdot)$s in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are also two-layer networks. After pretraining, we use logistic regression classifiers over the representation $Y$ for prediction tasks. We use $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$ for optimization in MIFR, initialize $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$ for L-MIFR and allow a range of $(0.01, 100)$, and fix $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0.1$ for all experimental settings. We use the Adam optimizer with learning rate $1e-3$ and $\beta_1 = 0.5$ where the learning rate is multiplied by $0.98$ every 1000 optimization iterations. For Adult and Health we optimize for 2000 epochs; for German we optimize for 10000 epochs.
\subsubsection{Additional Results}
Table \ref{tab:fair_health} presents the new results for ROC-AUC on Health dataset. Note that we do not provide the $\Delta_{DP}$ results since $\Delta_{DP}$ is only defined for binary attributes, while the Health dataset considers $18$ sensitive attributes. We find our methods (C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE) work the best and C-InfoNCE outperforms WeaC-InfoNCE.
Next, on the UCI Adult dataset, we provide new results for other fairness criteria. Following~\citet{song2019learning}, we consider three fairness criteria: Demographic Parity, Equalized Odds, and Equalized Opportunity. Specifically, we consider these notions in terms of mutual information measurements, constructed by the corresponding definition of each notion.
For example, Demographic Parity requires that the representation $Y$ and sensitive attribute $Z$ are independent. From a mutual information perspective, that means $Y$ and $Z$ should have low mutual information, which is $I_{DP} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)$. The second fairness criterion, the Equalized Odds, requires a classifier predicts labels equally well for all values of the sensitive attribute. In this case, the requirement is equivalent to $Y$ and $Z$ have low mutual information given the label, which is $I_{EO} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z | label)$. The third criteria, the Equalized Opportunity, considers $y=1$ as a preferred label (a label that confers an advantage or benefit), and requires a classifier predicts the preferred label equally well for all values of the sensitive attribute. That is to say, we require that $Y$ and $Z$ have low mutual information given label$=1$, which is $I_{EOpp} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z | label=1)$. Readers can refer to ~\citep{song2019learning} for more details.
From Table \ref{tab:fair_mi}, C-InfoNCE achieves the lowest level of mutual information measurements on different fairness criteria, suggesting the representation learned through C-InfoNCE satisfies different fairness criteria better than other baselines when we measure different criteria using mutual information. We also notice that in both cases WeaC-InfoNCE performs close to C-InfoNCE, achieving competitive downstream performance while preserving almost the same level of fairness as C-InfoNCE.
\subsubsection{Computational Resource}
We use one RTX-2080Ti GPU for training these datasets, and training $10,000$ epochs on German, the longest among three datasets, takes six hours.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.84}{
\begin{tabular}{C{0.35\textwidth}C{0.55\textwidth}}
\toprule
Objective & Health Heritage ( ROC AUC $(\uparrow)$) \\ [1mm]
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Unconditional Self-supervised Learning $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\ \midrule \midrule
\text {InfoNCE}~\citep{oord2018representation} & 0.57 \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Conditional Self-supervised Learning ($Z=$ Age $\times$ Gender) $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\\midrule \midrule
\text { L-MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.63 \\ [1mm]
\text { MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.56 \\ [1mm]
\text{C-InfoNCE (ours)} & \textbf{0.66} \\ [1mm]
\text{WeaC-InfoNCE (ours)} & 0.65 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{ Results for the area under the ROC curve (ROC AUC, higher means better downstream performance) for fair representation learning on Health datasets. The conditioned variable ($Z$, the sensitive attributes) is the Cartesian product of two gender choices and nine age values. $X$ are the input and $Y$ are the learned representations.
}
\label{tab:fair_health}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.84}{
\begin{tabular}{C{0.3\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}}
\toprule
\multirow{1}{Objective} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{UCI Adult}\\ [1mm]
& $I_{DP}={\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)\,(\downarrow)$ & $I_{EO}$ $(\downarrow)$ & $I_{EOpp},(\downarrow)$ \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\it Unconditional Self-supervised Learning $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\ \midrule \midrule
\text {InfoNCE}~\citep{oord2018representation} & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.07 \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\it Conditional Self-supervised Learning ($Z=$ Age or Gender) $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\\midrule \midrule
\text { L-MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.04 \\ [1mm]
\text { MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.13 & 0.11 & 0.09 \\ [1mm]
\text{C-InfoNCE (ours)} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.08} & 0.04 \\ [1mm]
\text{WeaC-InfoNCE (ours)} & 0.07 & \textbf{0.08} & 0.04 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{ Results for mutual information measurements of different fairness notions: Demographic Parity, Equalized Odds, and Equalized Opportunity (lower means better fairness) for fair representation learning on Adult datasets. The conditioned variable ($Z$, the sensitive attributes) is the gender attribute. $X$ are the input and $Y$ are the learned representations.}
\label{tab:fair_mi}
\end{table}
\subsection{Multi-domain Visual Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of multi-domain visual representation learning in Section 3.3 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We train our models on CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet~\citep{le2015tiny} and SUN 397 ~\citep{xiao2010sun}. CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} is an object detection dataset with $60,000$ $32 \times 32$ images in 10 classes. The test sets includes $10,000$ images. Tiny ImageNet~\citep{le2015tiny} is a scaled-down version of ImageNet dataset for object detection, with $100,000$ $64 \times 64$ images in 200 classes for training, and $10,000$ test images for evaluation. SUN 397 dataset~\citep{xiao2010sun} is a scene understanding dataset with $108,753$ images of 397 categories. We randomly partition the dataset into $76,128$ images for training, $10,875$ images for validation, and $21,750$ images for testing. All three datasets are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
\subsubsection{Training Setups}
We consider four different experimental settings: 1) uni-domain unconditional self-supervised learning using InfoNCE, 2) multi-domain unconditional self-supervised learning using InfoNCE, 3) multi-domain conditional self-supervised learning using C-InfoNCE, and 4) multi-domain conditional self-supervised learning using WeaC-InfoNCE. All the experiments are provided in \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/conditional_infonce-4232}.
\paragraph{Uni-domain Unconditional Self-supervised Learning using InfoNCE.} This setting considers the exact same setup as SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple}. In particular, we perform pretraining on a single dataset and then evaluates on the same dataset. ResNet-50~\citep{he2016deep} is chosen as the backbone model for performing the self-supervised pretraining. Note that we remove the last classifier layer in ResNet-50, and we consider $2048$-$2048$-$128$ multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) with ReLU non-linearity as the projection head in InfoNCE ($g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot)$ in InfoNCE).
After the pretraining, we consider the linear evaluation protocol~\cite{chen2020simple}, which fixes the pretrained encoder, removes the projection head, and adopts a linear classifier on top of the pretrainined encoder. The linear classifier is fine-tuned with the downstream labels. Note that both the pretraining and the fine-tuning steps are performed on the training samples.
For evaluation, we fix the pretrainined encoder as well as the linear classifier. We then report the evaluation accuaracy on the test samples.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Unconditional Self-supervised Learning using InfoNCE.} This setting is similar to the previous setting with two differences: 1) the composition of the data batch and 2) the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.} Under the uni-domain setting, we consider the data only from a single dataset within a data batch. On the contrary, under the multi-domain setting, we consider the data from the three datasets within a data batch. Note that we ensure the same data batch size for both the uni-domain and the multi-domain setting. Particularly, for the uni-domain setting, we consider the data batch size $960$. For the multi-domain setting, we consider the data batch size $320$ for each dataset, resulting in $960$ data batch size in total.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We select the ResNet-50 as the feature encoder model. Nonetheless, under the multi-domain setting, images from different datasets can be of different sizes. Hence, for the few building blocks of the ResNet-50, we consider three separate blocks of $CONV-BN-RELU-MAXPOOL$ to handle various image sizes. The rest of the ResNet-50 model is shared for all the three datasets.
Same as the uni-domain setting, the multi-domain setting considers the projection head on top of the multi-dataset $960$-batched data after the feature encoder. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Conditional Self-supervised Learning using C-InfoNCE.} We also make the discussions based on the composition of the data batch and the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.}
The multi-domain conditional setting considers the domain specification (the dataset ID) as the conditioned variable, and hence each batch of the input data comes from the same conditioned value. In specific, the data within a data batch are always from the same dataset, not mixing the data from three datasets as in the multi-domain unconditional setting. In particular, we first sample the dataset ID (randomly choosing among CIFAR-10, Tiny ImageNet, and SUN 397), and then we sample $960$ images from the selected dataset to form a data batch.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We consider the same design of the feature encoder model as the design under the multi-domain unconditional setting.
The difference between the multi-domain unconditional setting and the multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE is the projection head. In particular, the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in representations $x,y$ as the input under multi-domain unconditional setting, while the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in representations $x,y$ as well as the conditional value $z$ as input under multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE. For the latter setting, we design $f(x,y,z)$ as $f(x,y,z) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g(x,z), g(y, z) \Big) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g_z(x), g_z(y) \Big)$. $g_z(\cdot)$ represents the projection head considers for the conditioned value $z$ (in our case $Z$ is the dataset specification). Hence, we consider different projection heads for different datasets. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Conditional Self-supervised Learning using WeaC-InfoNCE.}
We also make the discussions based on the composition of the data batch and the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.}
The composition of the data batch for input is exactly the same between multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We consider the same design of the feature encoder model as the design under the multi-domain unconditional setting.
Different from the the multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE, we share the same projection head among datasets for WeaC-InfoNCE. The reason is that the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in only the representations $x,y$ as input for WeaC-InfoNCE. Hence, we design $f(x,y)$ as $f(x,y) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g(x), g(y) \Big)$. $g(\cdot)$ represents the projection head that is shared among all datasets. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
Following the settings in \citep{chen2020simple}and ~\citep{tsai2021note}, we deploy distributed parallel training, with a batch size of 960. We use the LARS optimizer \citep{you2017large} with momentum $0.9$. The learning rate is set to $1.5$. The projection heads (e.g., $g(\cdot)$) are two-layer MLP layers with hidden dimension $2,048$ and batch normalization.
We train the model for $500$ epochs. We only tune one hyper-parameter, the temperature parameter $\tau$ in the contrastive objectives, by grid search, and the optimal value we found is $0.5$.
\subsubsection{Computationl Resource}
We use four RTX-2080Ti GPUs for pretraining, and the slowest setting, multi-domain conditional training via C-InfoNCE, takes $2.5$ days to train for 500 epochs.
\subsection{Conditional Mutual Information Estimation}
\label{subsec:cmi_exp}
In this section, we seek to understand if the proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE can estimate the conditional mutual information accordingly, as both of them are lower bounds of conditional mutual information. We compare the two with other different conditional mutual information estimators: classifier based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi} and difference based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}. InfoNCE estimates ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z)$ but not the conditional mutual information, ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, thus we do not compare with it here. We base our implementation on prior work~\citep{tsai2020neural, mukherjee2020ccmi}.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
Following ~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}, we generate two separate datasets based on two linear models, with three random variables $X, Y$ and $Z$, where $X$ and $Y$ is 1-dimensional while dimension $d_Z$ can scale. The two datasets are the following:
\[\text{Dataset I: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(Z_{1}, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
\[\text{Dataset II: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)^{d_{Z}}; U=w^{T} Z,\|w\|_{1}=1; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(U, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
where $\mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}$ means each coordinate of $Z$ is drawn i.i.d from a uniform distribution between $-0.5$ and $0.5$. $Z_1$ is the first dimension of $Z$. We set $\sigma_{\epsilon}^{2} = 0.1$ (the same as \cite{mukherjee2020ccmi}) and obtain unit norm random vector $w$ from $\mathcal{N}\left(0, I_{d_{Z}}\right)$ and keep it constant. In Dataset I, $Y$ only depends on $Z_1$, while in Dataset II the variables $Y$ depends on all dimensions in $Z$. For both setting we vary \textit{either} the number of samples \textit{or} dimension $d_Z$. For both these datasets, the sample size is varied as $n \in\{5000,10000,20000,50000\}$ keeping $d_{z}$ fixed at 20. We also vary $d_{z} \in$ $\{1,10,20,50,100\}$, keeping sample size fixed at $n=$ $20000$. To split the dataset into the train set and the test set, the first two-thirds of the synthetic samples will be in the train set, and the rest will be in the test set. The dataset can be generated by the codebase we provide, and is open for public usage.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Models}
We discuss briefly on how the two baselines, classifier-based and difference-based estimation work. Classifier-based estimation~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi} is to train a classifier that could distinguish points from different distributions. To start with, recall the definition of conditional mutual information:
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)&:= \int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y|Z}\|P_{X|Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z} =\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z}
\end{split}
\label{eq:cmi}
\end{equation}
Classifier-based method use $\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z}$ to estimate conditional mutual information. To be specific, given $n$ i.i.d samples $\left\{x_{i}, y_{i}, z_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}, (x_{i}, y_i, z_i) \sim P_{X, Y, Z}$, ~\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} use the generative model GAN~\citep{goodfellow2014generative}
to model the conditional distribution $P(Y|Z)$. For notation simplicity, we refer the GAN model as $\hat{P}^{\rm GAN}(Y|Z)$. Given samples from the joint distribution, $P_{X, Y, Z}$, and samples from $P_{X,Z} \hat{P}^{\rm GAN}_{Y|Z}$, classifier-based method labels the points drawn from $P_{(X, Y, Z)}$ as $label=1$ and the points from $\hat{P}_{X,Z} P^{\rm GAN}_{Y|Z}$ as $label=0$. Then, it trains a binary classifier for predicting the assigned binary label. Then the point-wise likelihood ratio $\frac{p(x,y,z)}{p(x,z) p(y|z)}\approx \frac{p(x,y,z)}{p(x,z) p^{\rm GAN}(y|z)}$ of each data point $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ can be calculated by $\frac{Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i))}{1 - Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i))}$, where $Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ is the predicted probability of data point has $label=1$ from the classifier. Using the point-wise likelihood, we can obtain $\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z}) {\rm d}P_Z$ by plugging the point-wise likelihood into a lower bound of KL-divergence. Further discussions of this classifier-based estimation method is out of the scope of our discussion, and readers could refer to~\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} for more details.
\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} further presents the difference-based method that represents the conditional mutual information as the difference between two mutual information quantities: $I(X ; Y | Z)=I(X ; Y, Z)-I(X ; Z)$. Then, it considers the classifier-based estimation for both $I(X ; Y, Z)$ and $I(X ; Z)$.
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
On the other hand, the proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are different. Given the formulations of C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE: \begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm C-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg]
\leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)
\end{split}
\label{eq:wc_infonce}
\end{equation}
Given samples $(x,y,z)$ from the joint distribution $P_{X, Y, Z}$, we want to sample from the conditional distribution $P_{X,Y|Z}$ and from the product of conditional marginals $P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}$. To be able to sample from $P_{X,Y|Z}$ and $P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}$, we first cluster the value of $Z \in (-0.5, 0.5)$ to $K$ clusters, $\{C_1, C_2, ..., C_k\}$ by performing K-mean clustering on it, with corresponding cluster centers $\{z_1, z_2, ..., z_k\}$. In our deployment, we set $K=10$. We can then sample the data points $(x, y, z) \sim P_{X,Y|Z=z_m}$ by sampling from the set $\{(x,y,z) | z \text{ in cluster } C_m\}$. To sample from $P_{X|Z=z_m}P_{Y|Z=z_m}$, we sample from the set $\{(x_i,y_{j \neq i},z) | z \text{ in cluster } C_m\}$ where $x_i$ and $y_j$ comes from different data point. For C-InfoNCE, we plug in the point $(x, y, z)$ into Equation 9 using $f(x, y, z) = g_x(x)W_{xz}z \cdot g_y(y)W_{yz}z$ where $W_{xz}$ and $W_{yz}$ are learnable transformations, and $g_x(\cdot)$ and $g_y(\cdot)$ are two-layer fully connected neural networks with hidden dimension 64. For WeaC-InfoNCE, we plug in the point $(x, y, z)$ into Equation 10 using $f(x, y) = g_x(x) \cdot g_y(y)$ as $Z$ is not an input of WeaC-InfoNCE.
\input{fig_tex/cmi}
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We use two-layer neural networks for the classifier in the classifier-based or difference-based methods, and also for $g(\cdot)$ in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. The hidden dimension is 64. We use a batch size of 64, an Adam optimizer with $\beta_1=0.5$ and $\beta_2 = 0.9$, with a learning rate of $1e-4$. We train for $100$ epochs and use ReLU as the activation function.
\subsubsection{Results and Discussions}
In Figure \ref{fig:cmi_estimate} we show the conditional mutual information estimation results. The proposed conditional methods can estimate mutual information better than classifier or difference-based methods under the same dimension of $Z$ in sub-figure (a) and (c), and the estimations degrade less severely compared to other methods when we vary the dimension of $Z$ to as large as 200 (sub-figure (b) and (d)). We show that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE can be good tools towards conditional mutual information estimation.
\subsubsection{Computationl Resource}
We use one RTX-2080Ti GPU for training on the two datasets, and training $20$ epochs takes less than one hour.
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
This section provides the theoretical analysis of Proposition 2.3 and Proposition 2.4 in the main text. The full set of assumptions of all theoretical results and complete proofs of all theoretical results are presented below.
\subsection{Lemmas before Proof}
We first present the following lemmas, which will be later used in the proof:
\begin{lemma}[\citet{nguyen2010estimating} with two variables] Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be the sample spaces for $X$ and $Y$, $f$ be any function: $(\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be the probability measures on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$. Then,
$$
D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim\mathcal{P}} [f(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f(x,y)}] + 1.
$$
\begin{proof}
The second-order functional derivative of the objective is $-e^{f(x,y)}\cdot d\mathcal{Q}$, which is always negative. The negative second-order functional derivative implies the objective has a supreme value.
Then, take the first-order functional derivative and set it to zero:
\begin{equation*}
d \mathcal{P} - e^{f(x,y)}\cdot d \mathcal{Q} = 0.
\end{equation*}
We then get the optimal $f^*(x,y) = {\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}$. Plug in $f^*(x,y)$ into the objective, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [f^*(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f^*(x,y)}] + 1 = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [{\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}] = D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:kl}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[\citet{nguyen2010estimating} with three variables] Let $\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{Y}$, and $\mathcal{Z}$ be the sample spaces for $X$, $Y$, and $Y$, $f$ be any function: $(\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \times \mathcal{Z}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be the probability measures on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y} \times \mathcal{Z}$ . Then,
$$
D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim\mathcal{P}} [f(x,y, z)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f(x,y, z)}] + 1.
$$
\begin{proof}
The second-order functional derivative of the objective is $-e^{f(x,y, z)}\cdot d\mathcal{Q}$, which is always negative. The negative second-order functional derivative implies the objective has a supreme value.
Then, take the first-order functional derivative and set it to zero:
\begin{equation*}
d \mathcal{P} - e^{f(x,y, z)}\cdot d \mathcal{Q} = 0.
\end{equation*}
We then get the optimal $f^*(x,y, z) = {\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}$. Plug in $f^*(x,y, z)$ into the objective, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [f^*(x,y, z)] - \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{Q}} [e^{f^*(x,y, z)}] + 1 = \mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{P}} [{\rm log}\,\frac{d\mathcal{P}}{d\mathcal{Q}}] = D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:kl_3}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Immediate results following Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl}}
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) & = D_{\rm KL} \Big( P_{X,Y} \,\|\, \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \Big)
\\
& = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim P_{X,Y}} [f(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]} [e^{f(x,y)}] + 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be $P_{X,Y}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$ in Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl}.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:wc_infonce}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
$
\begin{proof}
$\forall f$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{split}
D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) & = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big) \Bigg]
\\
& \geq \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[ \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}} \Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{Q}} \Big[ \frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] + 1 \Bigg] \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Bigg[ \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}} \Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}} \Big] - 1 + 1 \Bigg] \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The first line comes from the fact that $D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big)$ is a constant. The second line comes from Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl}. The third line comes from the fact that $(x, y_1)$ and $(x, y_{2:n})$ are interchangeable when they are all sampled from $\mathcal{Q}$.
To conclude, since the inequality works for all $f$, and hence
$$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL} \Big( \mathcal{P} \,\|\, \mathcal{Q} \Big).
$$
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:infonce_like}
\end{lemma}
Note that Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like} does not require $n \rightarrow \infty$, which is a much more practical setting compared to the analysis made only when $n\rightarrow \infty$. And a remark is that the equality holds in Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like} when $n\rightarrow \infty$.
\subsubsection{Immediate results following Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl_3}}
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z) & = \mathbb {E} _{P_Z}\Big[D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z})\Big]
\\
& = D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y,Z} \,\|\,P_Z P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z})
\\
& = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim P_{X,Y,Z}} [f(x,y,z)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y,z)\sim P_ZP_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}} [e^{f(x,y,z)}] + 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be $P_{X,Y,Z}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ be ${P_Z}P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}$ in Lemma~\ref{lemm:kl_3}.
\end{proof}
\label{lemm:c_infonce}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Showing ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ }
\begin{proposition}
${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$.
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma~\ref{lemm:wc_infonce},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) & = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim P_{X,Y}} [f(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y)\sim \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]} [e^{f(x,y)}] + 1 \\
& = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim P_{X,Y,Z}} [f(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y,z)\sim P_ZP_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}} [e^{f(x,y)}] + 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let $f_1^*(x,y)$ be the function when the equality for ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ holds, and let $f_2^*(x,y,z) = f_1^*(x,y)$ ($f_2^*(x,y,z)$ will not change $\forall z \sim P_Z$):
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim P_{X,Y,Z}} [f_1^*(x,y)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y,z)\sim P_ZP_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}} [e^{f_1^*(x,y)}] + 1 \\
& = \mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim P_{X,Y,Z}} [f_2^*(x,y,z)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y,z)\sim P_ZP_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}} [e^{f_2^*(x,y,z)}] + 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Comparing the above equation to Lemma~\ref{lemm:c_infonce},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z) & = \underset{f}{\rm sup} \,\mathbb{E}_{(x, y, z)\sim P_{X,Y,Z}} [f(x,y,z)] - \mathbb{E}_{(x, y,z)\sim P_ZP_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}} [e^{f(x,y,z)}] + 1,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
we conclude ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$.
\end{proof}
\label{prop:wc_leq_c_mi}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition 2.3 in the Main Text}
\begin{proposition}[Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) for conditional contrastive learning, restating Proposition 2.3 in the main text]
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm C-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg] \\
& \leq \mathbb {E} _{P_Z}\Big[D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z})\Big] = {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{proof}
Given a $z\sim P_Z$, we let $\mathcal{P} = P_{X,Y|Z=z}$ and $\mathcal{Q} = P_{X|Z=z}P_{Y|Z=z}$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j, z)}}\Big] & = \mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The only variables in the above equation are $X$ and $Y$ with $Z$ being fixed at $z$, and hence the following can be obtained via Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like}:
$$
\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big] \leq D_{\rm KL}\,(\mathcal{P} \,\|\,\mathcal{Q}) = D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z=z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z=z}P_{Y|Z=z}).
$$
The above inequality works for any function $f(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot)$ and any $z\sim P_Z$, and hence
$$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg] \leq \mathbb {E} _{P_Z}\Big[D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z})\Big].
$$
\end{proof}
\label{prop:c_infonce}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition 2.4 in the Main Text}
\begin{proposition}[Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE) for conditional contrastive learning, restating Proposition 2.4 in the main text]
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \\
& \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \Big) = {\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{proof}
By defining $\mathcal{P} = P_{X,Y}$ and $\mathcal{Q} = \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$, we have
$$
\mathbb{E}_{(x, y_1)\sim \mathcal{P}, (x, y_{2:n})\sim \mathcal{Q}^{\otimes (n-1)}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x, y_1)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x, y_j)}}\Big] = \mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg].
$$
Via Lemma~\ref{lemm:infonce_like}, we have
$$
\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \Big).
$$
Combing with Proposition~\ref{prop:wc_leq_c_mi} that ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\label{prop:wc_infonce}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Showing WeaC-InfoNCE is a lower bound of C-InfoNCE}
\begin{proposition}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \\
\leq \quad \quad {\rm C-InfoNCE} &:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{proof}
Let $f_1^*(x,y)$ be the function when the equality holds in WeaC-InfoNCE, and let $f_2^*(x,y,z)=f_1^*(x,y)$ \Big( $f_2^*(x,y,z)$ will not change $\forall z \sim P_Z$ \Big):
$$
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE} :=\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f_2^*(x_i, y_i,z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f_2^*(x_i, y_j,z)}}\Big]\Bigg].
$$
Since the equality holds with the supreme function in C-InfoNCE, and hence
$$
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE} \leq {\rm C-InfoNCE}.
$$
\end{proof}
\label{prop:wc_leq_c_infonce}
\end{proposition}
\section{Experimental setup}
\label{appendix: experiment}
This section provides the experimental setup details of Section 3 in the main text, including hyper-parameters, optimizers, code snippets, the total amount of computational resource, as well as more experimental results.
Code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the results are included in the released code under this anonymous link \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/conditional_infonce-4232}.
\subsection{Speech Representation Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of speech representation learning in Section 3.1 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We use the Librispeech~\citep{panayotov2015librispeech} dataset. The dataset is available at the link: \url{https://www.openslr.org/12}. It is a corpus of approximately $1,000$ hours on English speech with a sampling rate of $16$ kHz. There are three training splits, containing $100$, $360$, $500$ hours of speech sequences, respectively. We use the $100$ hour training split. There are also separate evaluation and test sets provided. The license of the dataset is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. The dataset does not contain identifiable personality information.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Model}
We use the $100$-hour split from Librispeech to pretrain and fine-tune the models, and we use the predefined test set in the dataset to evaluate the models. We follow the baseline implemented in ~\citet{riviere2020unsupervised}, an implementation of InfoNCE on speech.
In particular, given an input signal $x_{1:T}$ with $T$ being the time steps, we first pass it through an encoder $\phi_{\theta}$ parametrized by $\theta$ to produce a sequence of hidden representations $\{h_{1:T}\}$ where $h_t = \phi_{\theta}(x_t)$. Then, we obtain the contextual representation $c_t$ at time step $t$ with a sequential model $\psi_{\rho}$ parametrized by $\rho$: $\mathbf{c}_{t}=\psi_{\rho}(h_1, \ldots, h_t)$, where $c_t$ contains context information before time step $t$.
For unsupervised pretraining, we select a multi-layer convolutional network as the encoder $\phi_{\theta}$, and we select a two-layer transformer with hidden dimension $256$ as the sequential model $\psi_{\rho}$. Here, the positive pair is $(h_{t+k}, c_t)$ where $k$ is the number of time steps ahead, and the negative pairs are $(h_i, c_t)$, where $h_i$ hidden representations of a batch of random hidden representations assumed to be unrelated to $c_t$. The scoring function $f$ based on Equation (1) in the main text at step $t$ with $k$ steps ahead is $f_k = f_k(h, c_t) = \exp((h)^\top W_k c_t)$, where $W_k$ is a learnable linear transformation defined separately for each $k\in\{1,...,K\}$ and $K$ is predetermined as $12$ time steps. The loss will then be formulated as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:infonce_speech}
\ell^{\mathrm{InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_i, c_t)))}]
\end{equation}
After the pretraining step, we then evaluate the network by the following: we first fix the pretrained model and add one additional linear classifier on top. We then fine-tune the linear classifier with samples from the training split, but this time with labels. After fine-tuning, we fix both the pretrained model and the fine-tuned classifier and report the top-1 accuracy on the corresponding evaluation set (which in this case would be the ``test-clean'' split in Librispeeh.)
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
To implement the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) and the Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE), for each update of the objective function, we sample a batch of sequences that comes from the same outcome of the conditioned variable $Z$ to calculate the loss function using C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE. For instance, if we condition on speaker ID being Speaker 1, we first find all sequences that come from Speaker 1, and sample a batch of sequences from Speaker 1 to perform the calculation of C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE. All positive and negative pairs would then be from Speaker 1. After we calculate C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE and update the network parameters, we condition on a new outcome of speaker ID, say Speaker 2, and repeat the steps above. Which sequences are coming from which speakers are known as meta-data in the dataset, and the mapping from sequences to speakers is established at the beginning of training. For details, please refer to Line 361 to Line 408 in this file: \url{https://github.com/facebookresearch/CPC_audio/blob/master/cpc/dataset.py}.
In C-InfoNCE, we also need to include $z$, the speaker ID (or the sequence ID) in the network $f(\cdot)$. Since speaker or sequence IDs are indices, we convert the indices into an eight-dimension vector containing either $0$ or $1$ in each position for the speaker ID, or a sixteen-dimension vector for the sequence ID. Essentially, we convert the digital number of each speaker ID or sequence ID into its binary form and treat that as the $z$ vector. We then replace $f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t)$ with $f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)$, and $f_k(h_{t_i}, c_t)$ with $f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)$ in Equation \ref{eq:infonce_speech}, which results in the following formulation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cinfonce_speech}
\ell^{\mathrm{C-InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{i}W_{hz}z, c_tW_{cz}z)))}]
\end{equation}
where $W_{hz}$ and $W_{cz}$ are two learnable linear transformations. For WC-InfoNCE, on the other hand, it follows the same loss function in Equation \ref{eq:infonce_speech}, as it does not require $z$ for $f(\cdot)$:
\begin{equation}
\ell^{\mathrm{WeaC-InfoNCE}}_{t} = - \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \big[{\rm log}\frac{{\rm exp}(f_k(h_{t+k}, c_t))}{\sum_{h_i\in \mathcal{N}}{\rm exp}(f_k(h_i, c_t)))}]
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We pretrain the network using the sequences in the $100-$hour training set for $200$ epochs. We set the batch size per GPU as $16$, and sample $128$ negative samples in each batch. We use the Adam optimizer~\citep{kingma2014adam}, with a learning rate of $2e-4$, $\beta_1 = 0.9, \beta_2=0.999,$ and $\epsilon=1e-8$. We use a learning rate warm-up of 10. We fix all setups, including architecture, learning rate, and optimizer for InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. For evaluation, we run $100$ epochs using the pretrained model and the training sequences with labels; and we evaluate the fine-tuned model on the test split of Librispeech.
\subsubsection{Computational Resource} The models are trained and evaluated on 4 RTX-$2080$Ti GPUs. $200$ epochs of pretraining take 2 days.
\subsection{Fair Representation Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of fair representation learning in Section 3.2 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We train our models on UCI German~\citep{Dua:2019}, UCI Adult~\citep{Dua:2019} and Health Heritage~\citep{kaggle} datasets, where we do not report the results for the third dataset in the main text.
Health Heritage \footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/c/hhp} comprises $60,000$ patient samples and over 20 attributes. We consider the Cartesian product of nine age values and two gender values (thus eighteen groups in total) as sensitive attributes, and the task is to predict whether an index of patient mortality is positive or negative as the downstream task. We split the Health dataset into an 80\% part for training and a 20\% part for testing, following ~\citet{song2019learning}. It grants entrants of competition a right to use for his/her/its own patient management or other internal business purposes, but may not grant or otherwise transfer to any third party (which is not applicable in our case, since we will not publicize the dataset).
UCI German\footnote{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/statlog+(german+credit+data)} has a total of $10,00$ samples. We follow the split in ~\citet{song2019learning}, where there are $900$ samples in the training set and $100$ samples in the test set. It has the Database Contents License v1.0.
UCI Adult\footnote{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/adult} has a total of $48,842$ samples, with a pre-determined training split of $32,561$ samples and a test split of $16,281$ samples. It has the CC0: Public Domain License.
For all three datasets, no personally identifiable information is available.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Methods}
In the fair representation learning experiment, we first train models without labels by using contrastive self-supervised objectives: MIFR~\citep{song2019learning}, L-MIFR~\citep{song2019learning}, InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation}, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. In this section, we first briefly introduce how MIFR and L-MIFR work.
MIFR and L-MIFR aim to maximize the expressiveness of representations while satisfying certain fairness constraints. This is done by ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)\,\,{\rm s.t.\,\, MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$. ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ aims to learn an expressive representation $Y$ that maximally preserves information in $X$; and by conditioning on $Z$, information in $X$ that is correlated with $Z$ will be discarded~\citep{song2019learning}. On the other hand, ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$ controls the maximum amount of the mutual information between $Y$ and $Z$ (to be $\epsilon$), to ensure a controllable level of fairness.
For the optimization process for MIFR and L-MIFR,~\citet{song2019learning}
optimize ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ via its variational lower bound $\max \mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Y, Z)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X \mid Y, Z)\right]$, where $q_{\phi}$ and $p_{\theta}$ are two neural networks parameterized by $\phi \in \Phi$ and $\theta \in \Theta$. $q_{\phi}$ is used to approximate $P_{X, Y, Z}$ and $p_{\theta}$ is used to parameterize $P_{X | Y, Z}$. Furthermore, to ensure the optimization satisfies the constraint ${MI}\,(Y;Z) < \epsilon$,~\citet{song2019learning} performs Lagrangian dual relaxation, where MIFR and L-MIFR consider different approaches to search for the Langrangian multipliers. The detailed discussion of this optimization is out of the scope in our paper, and readers can refer to the original paper for more clarification.
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
The difference between the proposed C-InfoNCE/WeaC-InfoNCE and MIFR/L-MIFR from ~\citet{song2019learning} is the maximization of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$. Unlike MIFR or L-MIFR~\citet{song2019learning} which maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Y, Z)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X \mid Y, Z)\right]$, C-InfoNCE maximizes ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg]$, and WeaC-InfoNCE maximizes ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$ by $\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg]$, respectively. In specific, for C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE, we consider the same Lagrangian dual optimization process as L-MIFR, and we only change how we maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y | Z)$.
An implementation difference between C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE is that the function $f(\cdot)$ in C-InfoNCE considers $Z$ as an input, while the function $f(\cdot)$ in WeaC-InfoNCE does not consider $Z$ as an input. Now, we discuss how we represent $Z$. For the UCI German dataset, $Z$ is a binary age indicator, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}$. For the UCI Adult dataset, $Z$ is an indicator of male and female, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}$. For the Health Heritage dataset, $Z$ is the Cartesian product of $9$ age values and $2$ genders, which in total we have $18$ discrete values for $Z$. We use the binary representations for $Z$, and therefore $Z\in \{0,1\}^5$ (a $5$-dimensional vector).
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We assume the model does not have access to labels during training; instead, it takes in the input and sensitive attributes. We follow ~\citet{song2019learning}, where we consider maximizing the conditional mutual information given the fairness constraint. All neural networks for approximating distributions in MIFR and L-MIFR are two-layer neural networks. The $f(\cdot)$s in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are also two-layer networks. After pretraining, we use logistic regression classifiers over the representation $Y$ for prediction tasks. We use $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$ for optimization in MIFR, initialize $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1.0$ for L-MIFR and allow a range of $(0.01, 100)$, and fix $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0.1$ for all experimental settings. We use the Adam optimizer with learning rate $1e-3$ and $\beta_1 = 0.5$ where the learning rate is multiplied by $0.98$ every 1000 optimization iterations. For the Adult and the Health dataset, we optimize for 2000 epochs; we optimize for 10000 epochs for the German dataset.
\subsubsection{Additional Results}
Table \ref{tab:fair_health} presents the new results for ROC-AUC on Health dataset. Note that we do not provide the $\Delta_{DP}$ results since $\Delta_{DP}$ is only defined for binary attributes, while the Health dataset considers $18$ sensitive attributes. We find our methods (C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE) work the best and C-InfoNCE outperforms WeaC-InfoNCE.
Next, on the UCI Adult dataset, we provide new results for other fairness criteria. Following~\citet{song2019learning}, we consider three fairness criteria: Demographic Parity, Equalized Odds, and Equalized Opportunity. Specifically, we consider these notions in terms of mutual information measurements constructed by the corresponding definition of each notion.
For example, Demographic Parity requires that the representation $Y$ and sensitive attribute $Z$ are independent. From a mutual information perspective, that means $Y$ and $Z$ should have low mutual information, which is $I_{DP} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)$. The second fairness criterion, the Equalized Odds, requires a classifier to predict labels equally well for all sensitive attribute values. In this case, the requirement is equivalent to $Y$ and $Z$ have low mutual information given the label, which is $I_{EO} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z | label)$. The third criteria, the Equalized Opportunity, considers $y=1$ as a preferred label (a label that confers an advantage or benefit) and requires a classifier to predict the preferred label equally well for all sensitive attribute values. That is to say, we require that $Y$ and $Z$ have low mutual information given label$=1$, which is $I_{EOpp} = {\rm MI}\,(Y;Z | label=1)$. Readers can refer to ~\citep{song2019learning} for more details.
From Table \ref{tab:fair_mi}, C-InfoNCE achieves the lowest level of mutual information measurements on different fairness criteria, suggesting the representation learned through C-InfoNCE satisfies different fairness criteria better than other baselines when we measure different criteria using mutual information. We also notice that in both cases, WeaC-InfoNCE performs close to C-InfoNCE, achieving competitive downstream performance while preserving almost the same level of fairness as C-InfoNCE.
\subsubsection{Computational Resource}
We use one RTX-2080Ti GPU for training these datasets, and training $10,000$ epochs on German, the longest among three datasets, takes six hours.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.84}{
\begin{tabular}{C{0.35\textwidth}C{0.55\textwidth}}
\toprule
Objective & Health Heritage ( ROC AUC $(\uparrow)$) \\ [1mm]
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Unconditional Self-supervised Learning $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\ \midrule \midrule
\text {InfoNCE}~\citep{oord2018representation} & 0.57 \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\it Conditional Self-supervised Learning ($Z=$ Age $\times$ Gender) $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\\midrule \midrule
\text { L-MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.63 \\ [1mm]
\text { MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.56 \\ [1mm]
\text{C-InfoNCE (ours)} & \textbf{0.66} \\ [1mm]
\text{WeaC-InfoNCE (ours)} & 0.65 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{ Results for the area under the ROC curve (ROC AUC, higher means better downstream performance) for fair representation learning on Health datasets. The conditioned variable ($Z$, the sensitive attributes) is the Cartesian product of two gender choices and nine age values. $X$ are the input, and $Y$ are the learned representations.
}
\label{tab:fair_health}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.84}{
\begin{tabular}{C{0.3\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}C{0.24\textwidth}}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Objective} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{UCI Adult}\\ [1mm]
& $I_{DP}={\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)\,(\downarrow)$ & $I_{EO}$ $(\downarrow)$ & $I_{EOpp},(\downarrow)$ \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\it Unconditional Self-supervised Learning $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\ \midrule \midrule
\text {InfoNCE}~\citep{oord2018representation} & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.07 \\
\midrule \midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\it Conditional Self-supervised Learning ($Z=$ Age or Gender) $\Rightarrow$ max ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ s.t. ${\rm MI}\,(Y;Z)< 0.1$}
\\\midrule \midrule
\text { L-MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.04 \\ [1mm]
\text { MIFR }~\citep{song2019learning} & 0.13 & 0.11 & 0.09 \\ [1mm]
\text{C-InfoNCE (ours)} & \textbf{0.06} & \textbf{0.08} & 0.04 \\ [1mm]
\text{WeaC-InfoNCE (ours)} & 0.07 & \textbf{0.08} & 0.04 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{ Results for mutual information measurements of different fairness notions: Demographic Parity, Equalized Odds, and Equalized Opportunity (lower means better fairness) for fair representation learning on Adult datasets. The conditioned variable ($Z$, the sensitive attributes) is the gender attribute. $X$ are the input, and $Y$ are the learned representations.}
\label{tab:fair_mi}
\end{table}
\subsection{Multi-domain Visual Learning}
In this subsection, we provide experimental details of multi-domain visual representation learning in Section 3.3 in the main text.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
We train our models on CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, Tiny ImageNet~\citep{le2015tiny} and SUN 397 ~\citep{xiao2010sun}. CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning} is an object detection dataset with $60,000$ $32 \times 32$ images in 10 classes. The test sets includes $10,000$ images. Tiny ImageNet~\citep{le2015tiny} is a scaled-down version of ImageNet dataset for object detection, with $100,000$ $64 \times 64$ images in 200 classes for training, and $10,000$ test images for evaluation. SUN 397 dataset~\citep{xiao2010sun} is a scene understanding dataset with $108,753$ images of 397 categories. We randomly partition the dataset into $76,128$ images for training, $10,875$ images for validation, and $21,750$ images for testing. All three datasets are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
\subsubsection{Training Setups}
We consider four different experimental settings: 1) uni-domain unconditional self-supervised learning using InfoNCE, 2) multi-domain unconditional self-supervised learning using InfoNCE, 3) multi-domain conditional self-supervised learning using C-InfoNCE, and 4) multi-domain conditional self-supervised learning using WeaC-InfoNCE. All the experiments are provided in \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/conditional_infonce-4232}.
\paragraph{Uni-domain Unconditional Self-supervised Learning using InfoNCE.} This setting considers the exact same setup as SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple}. In particular, we perform pretraining on a single dataset and then evaluates the pretrained model on the same dataset. ResNet-50~\citep{he2016deep} is chosen as the backbone model for performing the self-supervised pretraining. Note that we remove the last classifier layer in ResNet-50, and we consider $2048$-$2048$-$128$ multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) with ReLU non-linearity as the projection head in InfoNCE ($g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot)$ in InfoNCE).
After the pretraining, we consider the linear evaluation protocol~\cite{chen2020simple}, which fixes the pretrained encoder, removes the projection head, and adopts a linear classifier on top of the pretrainined encoder. The linear classifier is fine-tuned with the downstream labels. Note that both the pretraining and the fine-tuning steps are performed on the training samples.
For evaluation, we fix the pretrainined encoder as well as the linear classifier. We then report the evaluation accuracy on the test samples.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Unconditional Self-supervised Learning using InfoNCE.} This setting is similar to the previous setting with two differences: 1) the composition of the data batch and 2) the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.} Under the uni-domain setting, we consider the data only from a single dataset within a data batch. On the contrary, under the multi-domain setting, we consider the data from the three datasets within a data batch. Note that we ensure the same data batch size for both the uni-domain and the multi-domain setting. Particularly, for the uni-domain setting, we consider the data batch size $960$. For the multi-domain setting, we consider the data batch size $320$ for each dataset, resulting in $960$ data batch size in total.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We select the ResNet-50 as the feature encoder model. Nonetheless, under the multi-domain setting, images from different datasets can be of different sizes. Hence, for the few building blocks of the ResNet-50, we consider three separate blocks of $CONV-BN-RELU-MAXPOOL$ to handle various image sizes. The rest of the ResNet-50 model is shared for all three datasets.
Same as the uni-domain setting, the multi-domain setting considers the projection head on top of the multi-dataset $960$-batched data after the feature encoder. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Conditional Self-supervised Learning using C-InfoNCE.} We also make the discussions based on the composition of the data batch and the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.}
The multi-domain conditional setting considers the domain specification (the dataset ID) as the conditioned variable, and hence each batch of the input data comes from the same conditioned value. In specific, the data within a data batch are always from the same dataset, not mixing the data from three datasets as in the multi-domain unconditional setting. In particular, we first sample the dataset ID (randomly choosing among CIFAR-10, Tiny ImageNet, and SUN 397), and then we sample $960$ images from the selected dataset to form a data batch.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We consider the same design of the feature encoder model as the design under the multi-domain unconditional setting.
The difference between the multi-domain unconditional setting and the multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE is the projection head. In particular, the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in representations $x,y$ as the input under multi-domain unconditional setting, while the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in representations $x,y$ as well as the conditional value $z$ as input under multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE. For the latter setting, we design $f(x,y,z)$ as $f(x,y,z) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g(x,z), g(y, z) \Big) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g_z(x), g_z(y) \Big)$. $g_z(\cdot)$ represents the projection head considers for the conditioned value $z$ (in our case $Z$ is the dataset specification). Hence, we consider different projection heads for different datasets. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\paragraph{Multi-domain Conditional Self-supervised Learning using WeaC-InfoNCE.}
We also make the discussions based on the composition of the data batch and the network designs.
\underline{\it The composition of the data batch for input.}
The composition of the data batch for input is exactly the same between multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE.
\underline{\it The network designs.} We consider the same design of the feature encoder model as the design under the multi-domain unconditional setting.
Different from the the multi-domain conditional setting using C-InfoNCE, we share the same projection head among datasets for WeaC-InfoNCE. The reason is that the function $f(\cdot)$ takes in only the representations $x,y$ as input for WeaC-InfoNCE. Hence, we design $f(x,y)$ as $f(x,y) = {\rm cosine\,\,similarity\,\,with\,\,temperature} \Big( g(x), g(y) \Big)$. $g(\cdot)$ represents the projection head that is shared among all datasets. The projection head is considering in the pretraining stage that uses InfoNCE. The fine-tuning stage considers different linear classifiers for different datasets.
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
Following the settings in \citep{chen2020simple}and ~\citep{tsai2021note}, we deploy distributed parallel training, with a batch size of 960. We use the LARS optimizer \citep{you2017large} with momentum $0.9$. The learning rate is set to $1.5$. The projection heads (e.g., $g(\cdot)$) are two-layer MLP layers with hidden dimension $2,048$ and batch normalization.
We train the model for $500$ epochs. We only tune one hyper-parameter, the temperature parameter $\tau$ in the contrastive objectives by grid search, and the optimal value we found is $0.5$.
\subsubsection{Computationl Resource}
We use four RTX-2080Ti GPUs for pretraining, and the setting with the slowest speed, the multi-domain conditional training via C-InfoNCE, takes $2.5$ days to train for 500 epochs.
\subsection{Conditional Mutual Information Estimation}
\label{subsec:cmi_exp}
In this section, we seek to understand if the proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE can estimate the conditional mutual information accordingly, as both of them are lower bounds of conditional mutual information. We compare the two with other different conditional mutual information estimators: classifier-based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi} and difference-based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}. InfoNCE estimates ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z)$ but not the conditional mutual information, ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, thus we do not compare with it here. We base our implementation on prior work~\citep{tsai2020neural, mukherjee2020ccmi}.
\subsubsection{Dataset, Splits, and License}
Following ~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}, we generate two separate datasets based on two linear models, with three random variables $X, Y$ and $Z$, where $X$ and $Y$ is 1-dimensional while dimension $d_Z$ can scale. The two datasets are the following:
\[\text{Dataset I: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(Z_{1}, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
\[\text{Dataset II: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)^{d_{Z}}; U=w^{T} Z,\|w\|_{1}=1; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(U, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
where $\mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}$ means each coordinate of $Z$ is drawn i.i.d from a uniform distribution between $-0.5$ and $0.5$. $Z_1$ is the first dimension of $Z$. We set $\sigma_{\epsilon}^{2} = 0.1$ (the same as \cite{mukherjee2020ccmi}) and obtain unit norm random vector $w$ from $\mathcal{N}\left(0, I_{d_{Z}}\right)$ and keep it constant. In Dataset I, $Y$ only depends on $Z_1$, while in Dataset II the variables $Y$ depends on all dimensions in $Z$. For both setting we vary \textit{either} the number of samples \textit{or} dimension $d_Z$. For both these datasets, the sample size is varied as $n \in\{5000,10000,20000,50000\}$ keeping $d_{z}$ fixed at 20. We also vary $d_{z} \in$ $\{1,10,20,50,100\}$, keeping sample size fixed at $n=$ $20000$. To split the dataset into the train set and the test set, the first two-thirds of the synthetic samples will be in the train set, and the rest will be in the test set. The dataset can be generated by the codebase we provide, and is open for public usage.
\subsubsection{Training Setups and Baseline Models}
We discuss briefly on how the two baselines, classifier-based and difference-based estimation work. Classifier-based estimation~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi} is to train a classifier that could distinguish points from different distributions. To start with, recall the definition of conditional mutual information:
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)&:= \int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y|Z}\|P_{X|Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z} =\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z}
\end{split}
\label{eq:cmi}
\end{equation}
Classifier-based method use $\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z}$ to estimate conditional mutual information. To be specific, given $n$ i.i.d samples $\left\{x_{i}, y_{i}, z_{i}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}, (x_{i}, y_i, z_i) \sim P_{X, Y, Z}$, ~\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} use the generative model GAN~\citep{goodfellow2014generative}
to model the conditional distribution $P(Y|Z)$. For notation simplicity, we refer the GAN model as $\hat{P}^{\rm GAN}(Y|Z)$. Given samples from the joint distribution, $P_{X, Y, Z}$, and samples from $P_{X,Z} \hat{P}^{\rm GAN}_{Y|Z}$, classifier-based method labels the points drawn from $P_{(X, Y, Z)}$ as $label=1$ and the points from $\hat{P}_{X,Z} P^{\rm GAN}_{Y|Z}$ as $label=0$. Then, it trains a binary classifier for predicting the assigned binary label. Then the point-wise likelihood ratio $\frac{p(x,y,z)}{p(x,z) p(y|z)}\approx \frac{p(x,y,z)}{p(x,z) p^{\rm GAN}(y|z)}$ of each data point $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ can be calculated by $\frac{Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i))}{1 - Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i))}$, where $Pr(label=1|(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ is the predicted probability of data point has $label=1$ from the classifier. Using the point-wise likelihood, we can obtain $\int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y,Z}\|P_{X,Z} P_{Y|Z}) {\rm d}P_Z$ by plugging the point-wise likelihood into a lower bound of KL-divergence. Further discussions of this classifier-based estimation method is out of the scope of our discussion, and readers could refer to~\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} for more details.
\citet{mukherjee2020ccmi} further presents the difference-based method that represents the conditional mutual information as the difference between two mutual information quantities: $I(X ; Y | Z)=I(X ; Y, Z)-I(X ; Z)$. Then, it considers the classifier-based estimation for both $I(X ; Y, Z)$ and $I(X ; Z)$.
\subsubsection{C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE}
On the other hand, the proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are different. Given the formulations of C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE: \begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm C-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg]
\leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)
\end{split}
\label{eq:wc_infonce}
\end{equation}
Given samples $(x,y,z)$ from the joint distribution $P_{X, Y, Z}$, we want to sample from the conditional distribution $P_{X,Y|Z}$ and from the product of conditional marginals $P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}$. To be able to sample from $P_{X,Y|Z}$ and $P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}$, we first cluster the value of $Z \in (-0.5, 0.5)$ to $K$ clusters, $\{C_1, C_2, ..., C_k\}$ by performing K-mean clustering on it, with corresponding cluster centers $\{z_1, z_2, ..., z_k\}$. In our deployment, we set $K=10$. We can then sample the data points $(x, y, z) \sim P_{X,Y|Z=z_m}$ by sampling from the set $\{(x,y,z) | z \text{ in cluster } C_m\}$. To sample from $P_{X|Z=z_m}P_{Y|Z=z_m}$, we sample from the set $\{(x_i,y_{j \neq i},z) | z \text{ in cluster } C_m\}$ where $x_i$ and $y_j$ comes from different data point. For C-InfoNCE, we plug in the point $(x, y, z)$ into Equation 9 using $f(x, y, z) = g_x(x)W_{xz}z \cdot g_y(y)W_{yz}z$ where $W_{xz}$ and $W_{yz}$ are learnable transformations, and $g_x(\cdot)$ and $g_y(\cdot)$ are two-layer fully connected neural networks with hidden dimension 64. For WeaC-InfoNCE, we plug in the point $(x, y, z)$ into Equation 10 using $f(x, y) = g_x(x) \cdot g_y(y)$ as $Z$ is not an input of WeaC-InfoNCE.
\input{fig_tex/cmi}
\subsubsection{Hyper-parameters and Optimization}
We use two-layer neural networks for the classifier in the classifier-based or difference-based methods and also for $g(\cdot)$ in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. The hidden dimension is 64. We use a batch size of 64 and an Adam optimizer with $\beta_1=0.5$ and $\beta_2 = 0.9$, with a learning rate of $1e-4$. We train for $100$ epochs and use ReLU as the activation function.
\subsubsection{Results and Discussions}
In Figure \ref{fig:cmi_estimate} we show the conditional mutual information estimation results. The proposed conditional methods can estimate mutual information better than classifier or difference-based methods under the same dimension of $Z$ in sub-figure (a) and (c), and the estimations degrade less severely compared to other methods when we vary the dimension of $Z$ to as large as 200 (sub-figure (b) and (d)). We show that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE can be good tools for conditional mutual information estimation.
\subsubsection{Computationl Resource}
We use one RTX-2080Ti GPU for training on the two datasets, and training $20$ epochs take less than one hour.
\section{Appendix}
\end{document}
\section{Method}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{sec:method}
In this section, we introduce conditional contrastive learning methods to remove undesirable information in self-supervised learning. In Subsection~\ref{subsec:uncond_cl}, we discuss the technical background - unconditional contrastive learning and the corresponding InfoNCE objective~\citep{oord2018representation} under the conventional self-supervised learning setup. Next, Subsection~\ref{subsec:cond_cl} presents the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) objective, and in Subsection~\ref{subsec:weak_cond_cl} we discuss the higher computational cost of C-InfoNCE (compared to InfoNCE) and then introduce the Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE) as a more computationally efficient variant of C-InfoNCE.
{\bf Notation.} We use uppercase letters (e.g., $X$) to denote random variables and lowercase letters (e.g., $x$) to denote outcomes from the random variables. In this work, we denote $X$ and $Y$ as the learned representations of data. For instance, in visual self-supervised learning~\citep{chen2020simple,chen2020big}:
\begin{equation*}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{$X={\rm Feature\_Encoder\Big(Augmentation\_1\big(Data\_1\big)\Big)}\,\,{\rm and}\,\,Y={\rm Feature\_Encoder\Big(Augmentation\_2\big(Data\_2\big)\Big)}$}.
\end{equation*}
where ${\rm Data\_1 }$ and ${\rm Data\_2 }$ could be augmented views from the same image or different images~\citep{tschannen2019mutual}. Next, we denote $Z$ as the conditioned variable between $X$ and $Y$. In other words, $Z$ is a variable that contains undesirable information we hope to remove from our representations.
We use $P_X$ as the distribution of $X$ and $D_{\rm KL}\,\big(\cdot \,\|\,\cdot \big)$ as the Kullback–Leibler divergence between distributions.
\subsection{Unconditional Contrastive Learning}
\label{subsec:uncond_cl}
Unconditional contrastive learning~\citep{bachman2019learning,he2020momentum,chen2020simple} aims at learning similar representations for correlated data and dissimilar representations for unrelated data. Examples of the correlated data could be different crops~\citep{bachman2019learning} or distortions~\citep{he2020momentum,chen2020simple} of the same image or the cross-modality pair (image-caption pair)~\citep{tsai2021multiview} of a sample. Examples of the unrelated data include different images~\citep{he2020momentum,chen2020simple} or an image and a caption from another image~\citep{tsai2021multiview}. Below we briefly review a probabilistic interpretation of unconditional contrastive learning.
We refer to the representation $(x,y)$ from correlated data as $(x,y) \sim P_{X,Y}$, where $P_{X,Y}$ is the joint distribution on $X\times Y$. Similarly, we use $(x,y) \sim P_{X}P_Y$ to mean that the representations $(x,y)$ are from uncorrelated data, where $P_{X}P_Y$ is the product of marginal distributions.~\citet{tschannen2019mutual,poole2019variational} and ~\citet{tsai2021self} have shown that the unconditional contrastive learning is essentially maximizing the divergence between $P_{X,Y}$ and $P_{X}P_Y$. For instance, a common contrastive approach, the InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation} method, is maximizing $D_{\rm KL}\,\big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\, P_{X}P_Y)$ as follows:
\begin{definition}[InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation} for unconditional contrastive learning]
\begin{equation}
\small
{\rm InfoNCE}:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\leq D_{\rm KL}\,\big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,P_{X}P_Y \big) = {\rm MI}\,(X; Y),
\label{eq:infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
where $\{(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ represents $n$ independent copies of $(x,y)\sim P_{X,Y}$, $f(x,y)$ is any critic function that considers the input $(x,y)$ and output a scalar, and ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ is the mutual information (MI) between $X$ and $Y$. A common choice of $f(x,y)$ is to consider the cosine similarity $f(x,y) = \cos{ \Big( g(x), g(y) \Big)} / \tau$ with $\tau$ being the temperature hyper-parameter and $g(\cdot)$ being a shallow network (usually a two-layer fully connected neural network~\citep{he2020momentum,chen2020simple}). At a high-level, InfoNCE is maximizing similarities for $(x_i, y_i)\sim P_{X,Y}$ and minimizing similarities for $(x_i, y_j)\sim P_XP_Y$ ($i \neq j$). As shown in Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}, InfoNCE is a lower bound of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$, and ~\citet{arora2019theoretical,tsai2021multiview,tosh2021contrastive} have shown that maximizing lower bounds of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ often leads to better representations for downstream tasks.
\subsection{Conditional Contrastive Learning}
\label{subsec:cond_cl}
We now discuss one idea to remove undesirable information from a variable from the self-supervised representations: conditioning on it~\citep{cover1999elements}. Intuitively, conditioning on a variable means fixing the variations of this variable, and hence its effect can be removed.
Our conditional contrastive learning hence aims at learning similar representations for {\em conditionally}-correlated data and dissimilar representations for {\em conditionally}-unrelated data.
For instance, let us consider an example of conditional speech self-supervised learning, where we choose the speaker ID to be the conditioned variable and let the outcome of this variable be speaker \# 1. Then, the {\em conditionally}-correlated data are two representations learned from the \textit{same} sequence of speaker \# 1, and the {\em conditionally}-unrelated data are two representations learned from \textit{different} sequences of speaker \# 1. In both cases, \textit{all} sequences are from speaker \# 1 because we condition on it. We update the representations by calculating the contrastive objective from the constructed data pairs. Then we condition on another speaker ID outcome, say speaker \# 2, and construct new data pairs and update the representations using the new data pairs. In this example, the conditional contrastive learning method is learning representations by taking data pairs from the same speaker in each update step and different speakers across the update steps. We hope that such a paradigm can exclude the information about speakers' identity in the representations (assuming the information regarding the speakers is undesirable information). Similar to the last section, below, we also provide a probabilistic interpretation of conditional contrastive learning.
We refer to the representation $(x,y)$ from the conditionally-correlated data as $(x,y)\sim P_{X,Y|z}$, where $P_{X,Y|z}$ is the joint distribution on $X \times Y$ conditioned on the undesirable variable $Z=z$. And we refer to the representation $(x,y)$ from the conditionally-unrelated data pair as $(x,y)\sim P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}$, where $P_{X|z}P_{Y|z}$ is the product of conditional marginal distributions. Recall that the unconditional contrastive learning aims to maximize the probability divergence between $P_{XY}$ and $P_XP_Y$, resulting in a connection with mutual information ${\rm MI}(X;Y)$. Similarly, the conditional contrastive learning aims to maximize the divergence between $P_{XY|z}$ and $P_{X|z} P_{Y|z}$ for all $z\sim P_Z$, leading to a connection with conditional mutual information ${\rm MI}(X;Y|Z)$:
\begin{definition}[Conditional Mutual Information]
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)&:= \mathbb {E} _{z\sim Z}[D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y|Z=z}\|P_{X|Z=z} P_{Y|Z=z})] = \int _{\mathcal {Z}}D_{\mathrm {KL} }(P_{X,Y|Z}\|P_{X|Z} P_{Y|Z})\,{\rm d}P_{Z} \\
& = \int _{\mathcal {Z}}p_{Z}(z)\int _{\mathcal {Y}}\int _{\mathcal {X}}p_{X,Y|Z}(x,y|z)\log {\frac {p_{X,Y|Z}(x,y|z)}{p_{X|Z}(x|z)p_{Y|Z}(y|z)}}{\rm d}x {\rm d}y {\rm d}z.
\end{split}
\label{eq:cmi}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The conditional mutual information measures the expected mutual information of $X$ and $Y$ given $Z$. In other words, it measures the averaged shared information between $X$ and $Y$ conditioning on $Z$, and by conditioning on $Z$, we fix its variations and exclude its effect.
Inspired by InfoNCE for unconditional contrastive learning, we present the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) objective for conditional contrastive learning:
\begin{proposition}[Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) for conditional contrastive learning]
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm C-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i, z)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j, z)}}\Big]\Bigg]
\leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z),
\end{split}
\label{eq:c_infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
where $\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ represents $n$ independent copies of $(x,y) \sim P_{X,Y|z}$ and $f(x,y,z)$ takes in the input $(x,y,z)$ and outputs a scalar. We leave the derivations and proofs in Appendix. We design $f(x,y,z)$ as the cosine similarity $f(x,y,z) = \cos \Big( g(x,z), g(y,z) \Big) / \tau$ with $\tau$ being the temperature hyper-parameter and $g(\cdot, \cdot)$ being a shallow network. As shown in Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce}, C-InfoNCE is a lower bound of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, and hence learning representation using C-InfoNCE results in conditional mutual information maximization within representations.
\subsection{Weak-Conditional Contrastive Learning}
\label{subsec:weak_cond_cl}
Compared to InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}), a disadvantage of C-InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce}) is the need to consider three variables (i.e., $X$, $Y$, and $Z$) instead of two (i.e., $X$ and $Y$) in $f(\cdot)$. In particular, introducing a third variable $Z$ increases computational cost since the function $f(\cdot)$ becomes more complex.
To alleviate this problem, we introduce the following Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE) objective to avoid having $Z$ as an extra input variable:
\begin{proposition}[Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE) for conditional contrastive learning]
\begin{equation}
\small
\begin{split}
{\rm WeaC-InfoNCE}&:=\underset{f}{\rm sup}\,\,\mathbb{E}_{z\sim P_Z}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{(x_i, y_i)\sim {P_{X,Y|z}}^{\otimes n}}\Big[ {\rm log}\,\frac{e^{f(x_i, y_i)}}{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n e^{f(x_i, y_j)}}\Big]\Bigg] \\
& \leq D_{\rm KL}\,\Big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \Big) = {\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \leq {\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z),
\end{split}
\label{eq:wc_infonce}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
where $f(x,y)$ takes in the input $(x,y)$ and outputs a scalar, instead of $f(x,y,z)$ which takes in $(x,y,z)$ in C-InfoNCE. Same as InfoNCE, we consider $f(x,y)$ in WeaC-InfoNCE as the cosine similarity $f(x,y) = \cos \Big( g(x), g(y) \Big) / \tau$ with $\tau$ being the temperature hyper-parameter and $g(\cdot)$ being a shallow network. ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ represents the weak-conditional mutual information, which is the KL-divergence between $P_{X,Y}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$. The notion of the weak-conditional mutual information comes from weak-conditional independence~\citep{daudin1980partial, fukumizu2004dimensionality,fukumizu2007kernel}, which is defined as the case when $P_{X,Y} = \mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big]$.
We highlight the differences between the weak-conditional mutual information (i.e., ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$) and the standard conditional mutual information (i.e., ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$). First, ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ measures $D_{\rm KL}\,\big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \big)$ and ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ measures $\mathbb {E} _{Z} \big[D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z} )\big]$, where $D_{\rm KL}\,\big(P_{X,Y} \,\|\,\mathbb{E}_{P_Z}\big[P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z}\big] \big) \leq \mathbb {E} _{Z} \big [D_{\rm KL}\,(P_{X,Y|Z} \,\|\,P_{X|Z}P_{Y|Z} ) \big ]$. Hence, ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ is a lower bound on ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ and can be seen as a more ``conservative'' measurement of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, capturing only part of information in ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$. Second, ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z) = 0$ is a sufficient condition for ${\rm Weak-MI}\,(X;Y|Z) = 0$, which suggests that conditional independence implies weak-conditional independence. See detailed derivations and proofs in Appendix.
To conclude, WeaC-InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:wc_infonce}) objective is a surrogate for C-InfoNCE objective (Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce}), with the additional benefit of considering only two variables instead of three in $f(\cdot)$.
Since WeaC-InfoNCE is also a lower bound on ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$ (looser than C-InfoNCE), learning representations using WeaC-InfoNCE results in conditional mutual information maximization within representations, just like C-InfoNCE.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The prevalence of data has created many opportunities for machine learning systems to leverage information from it, especially for self-supervised learning (SSL). This unsupervised learning paradigm requires neither labels nor prior task knowledge to learn good representations. Nonetheless, the data may contain undesirable information that we should exclude.
For example, protected attributes such as gender or ethnicity are present in many datasets~\citep{mehrabi2019survey}. Without careful intervention, a conventional SSL process will inevitably also learn from these attributes. As a result, the learned representations may lead to unfair decisions on the downstream tasks, which should not have taken these protected attributes into account~\citep{madras2018learning}.
Another case of undesirable information is the presence of meta-information in datasets. For example, in a speech recognition setting, speaker ID is often presented as meta-information, but speech representations, in general, should be independent of the concrete speaker identity. There are two reasons: the speaker's information should not be leaked, and good representations of the speech signals should generalize well to new speakers. Hence, we should consider removing task-irrelevant meta-information in SSL.
In the domain generalization setting, we may want to learn representations from multiple domains and expect the learned representations to generalize well across domains. This setup is related to Domain Adaptation~\citep{pan2010domain}, where the trained classifiers~\citep{wang2016learning} or the learned features~\citep{tzeng2017adversarial} are expected to be domain-invariant. From a practical perspective, we may want to remove the domain-specific information for better generalization when considering SSL data in new domains.
One way to remove undesirable information in SSL is by adding a second objective to minimize the mutual information between the self-supervised representations and the underlying undesirable variable~\citep{song2019learning}, or minimize the prediction ability from the representations to the variable~\citep{zemel2013learning}. However, these are not ideal due to the challenge of optimizing multiple objectives together and balancing the trade-off between the downstream performance and the undesirable variable's effect~\citep{zhao2019inherent}. In this work, to remove the undesirable information in SSL, we present a conditional SSL method that uses only a single objective. In particular, our SSL method removes the effect of variations of the undesirable variable by conditioning on its value. Intuitively, since the variations are fixed, the effect of the variable will not be accounted for in SSL.
For the conditional SSL, we present the conditional contrastive learning objectives given that the contrastive objectives~\citep{tschannen2019mutual, tsai2021multiview,chen2020simple} are most widely used in conventional SSL. One representative contrastive objective is InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation}, which aims to learn similar representations for correlated data pairs
and dissimilar representations for unrelated data pairs.
Inspired by InfoNCE, we develop the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) objective, which learns similar representations for {\em conditionally}-correlated data pairs and dissimilar representations for {\em conditionally}-unrelated data pairs. For example, if we choose the speaker ID and condition on speaker ID being \# 1, the {\em conditionally}-correlated data pairs are representations of the \textit{same} sequence from speaker \# 1, and {\em conditionally}-unrelated data pairs are representations of \textit{different} sequences from speaker \# 1. In this example, both conditionally-correlated and -unrelated data come from the speaker \# 1, which in other words, the part of the information for speaker identification is fixed.
From an information-theoretical perspective, we show that learning representations using C-InfoNCE relates to conditional mutual information maximization within representations. In particular, conditional mutual information measures the shared information between representations when removing the effect of the conditioned variable, which in our case is the undesirable variable. Since recent theoretical studies show that mutual information maximization within representations can result in representations that perform well on the downstream tasks~\citep{arora2019theoretical,tsai2021multiview}, C-InfoNCE learned representations (using conditional mutual information maximization) might also enjoy competitive downstream performance with the additional benefit of removing undesirable information.
However, C-InfoNCE requires the conditioned variable as input, resulting in extra computational cost compared to InfoNCE. To address this issue, we introduce a second objective, the Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE), as a simplified form of C-InfoNCE, which does not require the conditioned variable as input like C-InfoNCE. We show that WeaC-InfoNCE is a lower bound of C-InfoNCE. Hence, learning representations using WeaC-InfoNCE also relates to the conditional mutual information maximization within representations.
To verify the effectiveness of our method, we conduct several experiments.
First, we consider the speaker ID and sequence ID as the conditioned variables for self-supervised speech representation learning. The speaker and the sequence ID are the meta-information for human speech. We find removing this meta-information in the representations leads to better downstream performance on phoneme classification. Second, we consider age and gender as the conditioned variable for fair representation learning. We observe our methods can effectively remove a greater level of sensitive information compared to baseline methods. Finally, we consider the domain specification when performing self-supervised representation learning on data from multiple domains. We find removing the domain-specific information in learned representation leads to better downstream performance. To conclude, we find learning representations using either C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE achieve competitive downstream task performance while successfully removing a significant level of the effect of the conditioned variable compared to conventional self-supervised representation baselines.
\subsection{Fair Representation Learning: Removing Effect from Sensitive Attributes}
\label{subsec:fair_exp}
Typical fairness representation learning often concerns multiple fairness notions over one specific task~\citep{hardt2016equality}. Nevertheless, under the self-supervised setting, downstream tasks are often unknown during training, but the representations should still preserve fairness in subsequent tasks~\citep{madras2018learning, song2019learning}. In other words, the representation should contain enough information from data for unknown downstream tasks, but minimal information from the sensitive attributes~\citep{zemel2013learning}. {\color{red} Not clear here; explain why we can achieve the goal by max the conditional mutual information}. Given input $X$, sensitive attributes $A$ and representation $Z$, \cite{song2019learning} achieves the aforementioned goal by
$\max {\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A)$ subject to a fairness constraint ${\rm MI}\,(Z,A) < \epsilon$~\citep{song2019learning}. The hyper-parameter $\epsilon > 0$
ensures a fairness constraint to the extent that the representation and the sensitive attributes can share a maximum level of information bounded by $\epsilon$. The constrained optimization of $\max {\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A), \text{ s.t. } {\rm MI}\,(Z,A) < \epsilon$ is performed by a minimax optimization. We attach the details in Appendix.
To maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A)$, \cite{song2019learning} use the following lower bound: ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Z, A)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X | Z, A) \right]$, which requires two separate networks $q_{\phi}$ and $p_{\theta}$ to model distributions. Here we seek a more effective approach by using the proposed C-InfoNCE (Equation \ref{eq:c_infonce}) and WeaC-InfoNCE (Equation \ref{eq:wc_infonce}) to maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A)$, each of which only use a single network $f$. The difference between ours and \cite{song2019learning} is how ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A)$ is maximized. (Note that we do not condition on $Z$ anymore, because $Z$ is a representation and not undesirable information) {\color{red} keep consistent notations; talk about we are the same; keep consistent writing with 3.1 and 3.3; should not look like a new setting}.
We evaluate on the three datasets. UCI \textit{German} credit~\citep{Dua:2019} contains 1000 individuals with 20 attributes, and a sensitive attribute, age, converted to binary and indicating whether the age of an individual exceeds a threshold. The downstream task is to predict whether an individual is offered a credit. UCI $Adult$~\citep{Dua:2019}, contains information of $48,842$ individual with 14 attributes, and a sensitive attribute gender. The downstream task is to predict whether an adult makes \$50K per year. Heritage \textit{Health}\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/c/hhp}, contains over $60,000$ patients and over 20 attributes, and a sensitive attribute by pairing age and gender, constructed by the Cartesian product of nine age values and two gender values, a total of eighteen pairs~\citep{song2019learning}. The downstream task is to predict whether the Charlson Index, an estimation of patient morality, is greater than zero.
We first train the model without label supervision using the following objectives: MIFR and L-MIFR from \cite{song2019learning}, InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE, and WeaC-InfoNCE, and then we evaluate the model on downstream prediction tasks. We use logistic regression classifiers for prediction tasks. MIFR is a class of approaches that requires manual hyper-parameter tuning to satisfy the fairness constraint ${\rm MI}\,(Z,A) < \epsilon$, while L-MIFR guarantees the fairness constraint to be satisfied, sometimes at the cost of representation expressiveness. For InfoNCE we only maximize ${\rm MI}\,(X,Z)$ as InfoNCE cannot perform estimation of conditional mutual information ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z|A)$. We fix hyper-parameters, set $\epsilon=0.1$, and perform three types of comparisons. Appendix includes the other details of experimental implementations. The first type considers the demographic parity criterion~\citep{madras2018learning}, and we measure the results by $\Delta_{DP}$, the demographic parity distance which is the absolute expected difference in classifier outcomes between two sensitive groups (e.g. male group and female group from gender). The lower the distance, the fairer the representation is. $\Delta_{DP}$ comparisons are performed on the German and Adult dataset, as Health dataset has 18 groups and $\Delta_{DP}$ is not defined. The second type compares the representation quality based on the area under the ROC curve (AUC) on downstream tasks for all three datasets. The last type is comparing different mutual information measurements described by different fairness criteria (see Appendix for details). The lower the mutual information measurements, the fairer a representation is. The mutual information measurements are performed on the Adult dataset.
\input{tbl_tex/fair}
From Table \ref{tab:fair}, when we fix the fairness constrain hyper-parameter $\epsilon$ for all experiments, the proposed conditional C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE not only have a higher level of fairness ($\Delta_{DP}$ and mutual information measurements) compared to unconditional baseline InfoNCE and baselines MIFR and L-MIFR, but also better downstream prediction performances. We attribute the improvement to the fact that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE alleviates a minimax optimization in MIFAR and L-MIFR. The results demonstrate that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE effectively removes a greater level of sensitive information by conditioning on sensitive attributes, compared to baseline methods.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The prevalence of data has created many opportunities for machine learning systems to leverage information from it, especially as in self-supervised learning (SSL). This kind of unsupervised learning paradigm requires neither labels nor prior task knowledge to learn good representations. Nonetheless, the data may contain undesirable information that we should exclude.
For example, protected attributes such as gender or ethnicity are present in many datasets~\citep{mehrabi2019survey}. Without careful intervention, a conventional SSL model will inevitably also learn from these attributes. As a result, the learned representations may lead to unfair decisions on the downstream tasks, which should not take these protected attributes into account~\citep{madras2018learning}.
Another case of undesirable information is the meta-information in datasets. For example, in speech recognition, speaker ID is often presented as meta-information, but speech representations, in general, should be independent of concrete speaker identity. There are two reasons: a good representation of speech signals should not leak the speakers' information, and it should generalize well to new speakers. Hence, we should consider removing task-irrelevant meta-information in SSL.
A third example will be in the domain generalization setting, where we may want to learn representations from multiple domains and expect the learned representations to generalize well across domains. This setup is related to Domain Adaptation~\citep{pan2010domain}, where the trained classifiers~\citep{wang2016learning} or the learned features~\citep{tzeng2017adversarial} are expected to be domain-invariant. Practically, we may want to remove the domain-specific information in the SSL representations for better generalization across domains.
One way to remove undesirable information in SSL is by adding a second objective to minimize the mutual information between the self-supervised representations and the underlying undesirable variable~\citep{song2019learning}, or minimize the prediction ability from the representations to the variable~\citep{zemel2013learning}. However, these are not ideal due to the challenge of optimizing multiple objectives together and balancing the trade-off between the downstream performance and the undesirable variable's effect~\citep{zhao2019inherent}.
This paper presents conditional contrastive learning objectives:
two conditional SSL methods, each using only a single objective to remove the undesirable information in SSL. In particular, our SSL methods remove the effect of variations from the undesirable variable by conditioning on its value. Since the variations are fixed, the effect from the variable will not be accounted for in SSL.
Both proposed methods are based on the popular contrastive SSL objective, InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation}. InfoNCE aims to learn similar representations for correlated data pairs
and dissimilar representations for unrelated data pairs.
Our first proposed method is the Conditional InfoNCE (C-InfoNCE) objective, which learns similar representations for {\em conditionally}-correlated data pairs and dissimilar representations for {\em conditionally}-unrelated data pairs, and take the data pairs and the conditioned variable as input. For example, if we choose speaker ID and conditioning on speaker ID being \# 1, the {\em conditionally}-correlated data pairs are representations of the \textit{same} sequence from speaker \# 1, and {\em conditionally}-unrelated data pairs are representations of \textit{different} sequences from speaker \# 1. Both conditionally-correlated and conditionally-unrelated pairs come from the same speaker because we condition on it.
Next, we introduce a second method, the Weak-Conditional InfoNCE (WeaC-InfoNCE) objective, which does not take the conditioned variable as input like C-InfoNCE, and could alleviate extra computation costs comparing to C-InfoNCE.
From an information-theoretical perspective, learning representations using C-InfoNCE relates to conditional mutual information maximization within representations. In particular, conditional mutual information measures the shared information between representations while excluding the effect from the conditioned variable, which in our case is the undesirable variable. We show that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are lower bounds of conditional mutual information. Recent theoretical study suggests that mutual information maximization within representations can result in representations that perform well on downstream tasks~\citep{arora2019theoretical,tsai2021multiview}. C-InfoNCE or WeaC-InfoNCE learned representations, using conditional mutual information maximization, might also enjoy good downstream performances with the additional benefit of removing the undesirable information.
To verify the effectiveness of our method, we study three experimental scenarios.
First, we condition on the speaker ID and the sequence ID for self-supervised speech representation learning. The speaker ID and the sequence ID are the meta-information that is unlikely to be useful for speech recognition. We find removing meta-information in the representations leads to better downstream performance on phoneme classification. Second, we condition on the age and the gender attributes for fair representation learning, as they are sensitive attributes we want to protect. We observe that our methods can effectively remove a greater level of sensitive information compared to baseline methods. Finally, we consider the domain specifications as an individual variable and condition on it when performing self-supervised representation learning jointly from multiple visual domains. We hope to remove domain-specific information for better generalization. We find removing the domain-specific information in learned representations leads to better downstream performance. We find learning representations using either C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE achieve competitive downstream task performance while successfully removing a significant level of effect from the undesirable variable compared to conventional self-supervised representation baselines.
\section{Conclusion and Discussions}
\label{sec:conclu}
In this paper, we developed conditional contrastive learning methods to remove the effect of an undesirable variable in self-supervised learning by conditioning on it. The proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE objectives lead to representations that perform better in downstream tasks and exclude a greater level of information of undesirable variables compared to baseline models in speech representation learning, fairness representation, and multi-domain visual representation learning.
Nevertheless, we do recognize the limitations of the approach. First, it is not always easy to know which exact variables to condition when we want to remove certain undesirable information. Moreover, conditioning on the incorrect information may lead to suboptimal representations for downstream tasks. In terms of the potential broader impact of this work, the methods in the paper can bring a positive social impact by removing privacy-related information from representations. For example, in medical applications, our approach can be used to help protect patient information from being leaked out in learned representations. However, if the conditioned variable in a machine learning system also contains vital information useful for the downstream task, removing its effect may result in a performance drop and thus affect users of the system.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:rela}
\paragraph{Self-Supervised Learning} Self-supervised learning takes pre-defined tasks from unlabeled samples for pretraining representations~\citep{jaiswal2021survey} and uses the learned representations for downstream tasks, such as visual object detection~\citep{chen2020big, he2020momentum}, language understanding and Question Answering~\citep{devlin2018bert, lan2019albert}, and automatic speech recognition~\citep{oord2018representation, riviere2020unsupervised}. One major way of self-supervised learning is contrastive learning~\citep{oord2018representation, he2020momentum, chen2020simple}, which tries to construct pairs of related data (termed positive pairs) and pairs of unrelated samples (termed negative pairs) and learn a model that scores the positive and negative pairs differently~\citep{kipf2019contrastive}. Prior works~\citep{oord2018representation, chen2020simple, tsai2021multiview} construct the correlated pairs and unrelated pairs from the unconditional joint and the product of marginal distributions. Meanwhile, the proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE consider the conditionally-correlated pairs and conditionally-unrelated pairs from the conditional joint and the product of conditional marginal distributions, respectively. Both distributions are conditioned on the same outcome of an undesirable variable.
\paragraph{Fair Representation Learning} Fair representation learning~\citep{mcnamara2019costs} considers different measures to quantify algorithm's fairness, including statistical parity~\citep{dwork2012fairness}, equality of opportunity~\citep{hardt2016equality}, equalized odds~\citep{hardt2016equality}, and individual fairness~\citep{dwork2012fairness}. While most of the study focuses on a supervised setup~\citep{dwork2012fairness, hardt2016equality, mcnamara2019costs}, this paper studies the self-supervised setup where downstream tasks are unknown, but the learned representations still need to preserve fairness criterion~\citep{calmon2017optimized, madras2018learning}. \citet{song2019learning} presents a suitable framework that maximizes the expressiveness of the representation while satisfying controllable levels of fairness using conditional mutual information. The difference between \cite{song2019learning} and the proposed method is how we construct and maximize the lower bound of conditional mutual information.
\paragraph{Multi-Domain Learning} Domain adaptation~\citep{patel2015visual, wang2018deep} aims to solve a distribution shift~\citep{zhang2013domain} or domain change~\citep{gopalan2011domain} between two domains that could degrade performance. Domain adaptation methods can achieve domain-invariant representations by minimizing the probability divergences ~\citep{zhuang2015supervised, long2017deep, shrivastava2017learning} between source and target data domains. Our approach, on the other hand, reduces the effect of domain specifications to achieve domain-invariant representation by conditioning on the domain specifications (domain ID).
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
We evaluate the proposed conditional contrastive learning on several tasks.
In Section~\ref{subsec:speech_exp}, we study self-supervised speech representation learning and consider the meta-information such as the speaker ID and sequence ID as the conditioned variable. We study whether removing the meta-information in the learned representations impacts downstream performance. In Section~\ref{subsec:fair_exp}, we examine fair representation learning and consider the sensitive attributes, age and gender, as the conditioned variable. We hope to reduce the amount of sensitive information in our learned representations. In Section~\ref{subsec:multi_domain_exp}, we investigate multi-domain self-supervised learning and consider the domain specification (domain ID) as the conditioned variable. We aim to reduce domain-specific information in the representations so that they can transfer well across different domains.
In practice, the expectations in InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}), C-InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce}), and WC-InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:wc_infonce}) are replaced by the empirical mean of a batch of samples. For a fair comparison, when comparing InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE, and WC-InfoNCE, we will only alter the training objectives and leave the network design and the optimization procedure identical. The small difference is the design of the critic function $f(\cdot)$, and we ensure $g(\cdot)$ in $f(\cdot)$ has similar size across different objectives. We leave the details for the networks, the optimizers, the hyper-parameters, and more details for the datasets in Appendix.
\subsection{Speech Representation Learning: Removing Effect from Meta-Information}
\label{subsec:speech_exp}
For the first set of experiments, we consider learning self-supervised speech representations on Librispeech-100h dataset~\citep{panayotov2015librispeech}, which contains 100 hours of English speech from $251$ speakers and $28,538$ sequences. Following prior work~\citep{oord2018representation,riviere2020unsupervised}, we first pretrain the model using self-supervised objectives without downstream label access. Then, we fix the pretrained model, add an additional linear classifier on top of the pretrained representations, and fine-tune the linear classifier with labels. Note that the above steps are performed on the training set. For evaluation, we fix both the pretrained model and the linear classifier, and we report the top-1 accuracy metric on the evaluation set.
\input{tbl_tex/speech}
We consider the unconditional (conventional setup, InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation} in Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}) and the conditional (ours, C-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce} and WeaC-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:wc_infonce}) contrastive learning methods as the self-supervised objectives. And we select the meta-information, including the speaker and sequence ID, as the conditioned variable $Z$ in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. Note that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE aim to remove the effect of the conditioned variable in the resulting representations.
Hence, our goal is to see whether removing the meta-information will affect the representation's performance on the downstream tasks, including Phoneme Classification and Speaker Classification.
We follow~\citet{oord2018representation,riviere2020unsupervised} for the experimental setup, where they consider InfoNCE as the objective. In particular, the correlatedly-paired representations $(x,y^+)\sim P_{X,Y}$ in InfoNCE are a pair of past and future states of a sequence. And unrelatedly-paired representations $(x,y^-)\sim P_{X}P_{Y}$ are two random states from different sequences. InfoNCE aims to learn similar correlatedly-paired representations and dissimilar unrelatedly-paired representations. Hence, this process is regarded as forward modeling, i.e., predicting the future states of a sequence from its past. Next, we discuss C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE's deployments. Different from InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE consider the conditionally-correlatedly-paired representations (e.g., $(x, y^+)\sim P_{X,Y|Z=z}$) and the conditionally-unrelatedly-paired representations (e.g., $(x, y^-)\sim P_{X|Z=z}P_{Y|Z=z}$) given the conditioned outcome $z\sim P_Z$. Take $Z$ as the speaker ID as an example and assume its outcome $z$ is speaker $1$, then $(x, y^+)$ are a pair of past and future states of a speech sequence for speaker $1$, and $(x, y^-)$ are two random states from different sequences for speaker $1$.
If $Z$ is the sequence ID, then both $(x, y^+)$ and $(x, y^-)$ are from the same sequence. Comparing to InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE also perform the forward modeling but have different unrelatedly-pairs construction.
Table~\ref{tab:speech_res} shows results. First, we observe a performance improvement on phoneme classification by comparing C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE with InfoNCE. Since C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE aim to remove the meta-information (speaker and sequence ID) in the self-supervised representations, the improvement suggests that the meta-information should be irrelevant to the phoneme classification.
Second, on speaker classification, we see an over 20\% performance deterioration from 93.4\% of InfoNCE to C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. This suggests that by conditioning on the speaker or sequence ID, the C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE successfully remove a decent amount of speaker information. Note that the sequence ID implicitly contains speaker information because each sequence must be from only one single speaker. Last, we compare C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE and find that WeaC-InfoNCE performs in between InfoNCE and C-InfoNCE. The result suggests that C-InfoNCE is better at removing the effect from the conditioned variable than WeaC-InfoNCE. Yet, as discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:weak_cond_cl}, WeaC-InfoNCE is more computationally efficient than C-InfoNCE.
\subsection{Fair Representation Learning: Removing Effect from Sensitive Attributes}
\label{subsec:fair_exp}
For our second set of experiments, we consider removing sensitive information in self-supervised fair representation learning. We follow the setting in prior work~\citep{song2019learning}, which learns the representations to maximally preserve information from data while removing the information from the sensitive attributes. In particular, let the input data be $X$, the learned representations be $Y$, and the sensitive attributes be $Z$, ~\citet{song2019learning} presents the pretraining stage as maximizing the conditional mutual information ${\rm MI}(X;Y|Z)$ under the constraint ${\rm MI}\,(Y,Z) < \epsilon$ (we set $\epsilon=0.1$ in our experiments). Then, we fix the pretrained network and fine-tune the representations using logistic regression classifiers on top of the learned representations. The above steps are performed on the training set.
For evaluation, the reported metrics are the demographic parity distance $\Delta_{DP}$ ~\citep{madras2018learning} and the representation quality based on the area under the ROC curve (AUC) on downstream tasks. Specifically, the demographic parity distance $\Delta_{DP}$ ~\citep{madras2018learning} is defined as the absolute expected difference in classifier outcomes between two sensitive groups (e.g., the male group and the female group from gender), and a lower $\Delta_{DP}$ suggests a fairer representation.
We consider two datasets: UCI German credit~\citep{Dua:2019} and Adult~\citep{Dua:2019} datasets. The German credit dataset contains $1,000$ samples with $20$ attributes, a binary age indicator variable as the sensitive attribute, and predicting credit approval as the downstream task. The Adult dataset includes $48,842$ samples with $14$ attributes, gender as the sensitive attribute, and predicting whether an adult makes $50K$ per year as the downstream task. We consider the unconditional contrastive learning (i.e., ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y)\,\,{\rm s.t.\,\, MI}\,(Y;Z) < 0.1$) and the conditional contrastive learning (i.e., ${\rm \,\,max\,\, MI}\,(X;Y|Z)\,\,{\rm s.t.\,\, MI}\,(Y;Z) < 0.1$) approaches. All the comparing methods are adapted from the L-MIFR framework described in prior work~\citep{song2019learning}, and here we only highlight the differences: the self-supervised learning part, particularly ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$ and ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$. More details about L-MIFR's optimization process can be found in Appendix.
The first baseline is having InfoNCE (Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}) as the lower bound of ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y)$. In particular, a correlated-pair $(x,y^+)\sim P_{X,Y}$ in InfoNCE is a pair of input and its learned representation. And an unrelated pair $(x,y^-)\sim P_{X}P_{Y}$ is a pair of input and a representation learned from another input. InfoNCE is learning representations to preserve the information from the input, while it does not remove the effect from the sensitive attributes. Next, our methods (C-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce} and WeaC-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:wc_infonce}) are the lower bounds of ${\rm MI}(X;Y|Z)$. Different from InfoNCE, C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE consider the conditionally-correlated pair (e.g., $(x, y^+)\sim P_{X,Y|Z=z}$) and the conditionally-unrelated pair (e.g., $(x, y^-)\sim P_{X|Z=z}P_{Y|Z=z}$) given the conditioned outcome $z\sim P_Z$. For instance, let $Z$ be gender, and we condition on the gender is female. Then the conditionally-correlated pair would be the data from a female and the learned representation from the same female. The conditionally-unrelated pair would be the data from a female and the learned representation from the data of another female. Lastly, we have the MIFR and the L-MIFR methods~\citep{song2019learning} to be the baselines. These two methods variationally lower-bound the conditional mutual information: ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z) \geq \mathbb{E}_{q_{\phi}(X, Y, Z)}\left[\log p_{\theta}(X | Y, Z) \right]$, with $q_{\phi}$ and $p_{\theta}$ being two separate networks modeling different distributions. MIFR and L-MIFR consider the same objective but different optimization processes. To conclude, L-MIFR, MIFR, C-InfoNCE, and WeaC-InfoNCE belong to conditional learning objectives, which consider removing the sensitive information from the data representations.
Table~\ref{tab:fair} presents our results. First, we find the unconditional (InfoNCE) self-supervised method has lower fairness and lower downstream task performance than the conditional (L-MIFR, MIFR, C-InfoNCE, WeaC-InfoNCE) self-supervised methods. For instance, on UCI Adult dataset, InfoNCE has lower $\Delta_{DP}$ (0.23 v.s. 0.06) and lower ROC AUC (0.62 v.s. 0.69) than C-InfoNCE. Note that both unconditional and conditional methods aim to preserve more information from the data in the representation, but the conditional methods additionally consider removing the effect from the sensitive attributes. The result suggests that the conditional methods can achieve better fairness and would not sacrifice downstream performances. Second, we find that our methods (C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE) achieve at par or even better fairness and downstream performances compared to the strong baselines, L-MIFR and MIFR. The result suggests that our methods can be competitive for self-supervised fair representation learning.
\input{tbl_tex/fair}
\subsection{Multi-domain Representation Learning: Removing Effect from Domain Specification}
\label{subsec:multi_domain_exp}
\input{tbl_tex/multi_domain}
For the third set of experiments, we consider learning self-supervised representations from multiple domains. While more domains provide more information, we argue that domain-invariant information particularly can effectively be shared across domains. Hence, we aim to improve the generalization by removing domain-specific information in the representations. To this end, we consider applying the conditional contrastive learning objectives by conditioning on the domain specification (i.e., the domain id). For our experiments, we select the following three visual datasets: 1) CIFAR-10~\citep{krizhevsky2009learning}, an object detection dataset with $60,000$ $32 \times 32$ images in 10 classes; 2) Tiny ImageNet~\citep{le2015tiny}, a scaled-down version of ImageNet dataset for object detection, with $100,000$ $64 \times 64$ images in 200 classes; and 3) SUN 397 dataset~\citep{xiao2010sun}, a scene understanding dataset with $108,753$ images of 397 categories. We regard each dataset as a domain since the datasets have different image sources and tasks (object detection v.s. scene understanding). Following prior work~\citep{chen2020simple,he2020momentum}, we first pretrain the model using self-supervised objectives without access to downstream labels. Then, we freeze the pretrained model, add an additional linear classifier, and fine-tune the linear classifier with labels. Both steps are performed on the training set. For evaluation, we report the top-1 accuracy metric on the evaluation set. We select the ResNet-50~\citep{he2016deep} as our pretrained feature model.
We now discuss the implementations of C-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:c_infonce} and WeaC-InfoNCE in Equation~\eqref{eq:wc_infonce}, as well as various baseline methods.
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:visual_exp}.
First, the uni-domain unconditional contrastive learning is SimCLR~\citep{chen2020simple} - a standard visual contrastive representation learning approach which considers InfoNCE~\citep{oord2018representation} (Equation~\eqref{eq:infonce}) as its objective. Note that it performs pretraining on a single dataset and then evaluates on the same dataset. In particular, the correlated-paired representations $(x,y^+)\sim P_{X,Y}$ in InfoNCE are the learned representations from augmented variants of an image and the unrelated-paired representations $(x,y^-)\sim P_{X}P_Y$ are the representations of two random images in the dataset.
The multiple-domain unconditional contrastive learning represents the same setting as the previous one except that we perform pretraining on the mixture of the three selected datasets. Hence, the unrelated-paired representations $(x,y^-)\sim P_{X}P_Y$ can be the representations from different datasets (e.g., $x$ from CIFAR-10 and $y^-$ from Tiny ImageNet). Finally, the multiple-domain conditional contrastive learning considers C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE as the pretraining objectives on the mixed datasets, with the domain specification being the conditioned variable $Z$. Thus, in C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE, the conditionally-correlatedly-paired representations (e.g., $(x, y^+)\sim P_{X,Y|Z=z}$) and the conditionally-unrelatedly-paired representations (e.g., $(x, y^-)\sim P_{X|Z=z}P_{Y|Z=z}$) are always from the same dataset.
We consider the same batch size across all settings for a fair comparison.
Let us first consider CIFAR-10's performance in Table~\ref{tab:visual_exp}. First, we see the performance drop from uni-domain unconditional contrastive learning ($92.67$) to multi-domain unconditional contrastive learning ($91.13$), where both methods use InfoNCE as the objective. Note that multi-domain unconditional one considers all data from the three datasets for the pretraining. In contrast, the uni-domain unconditional one only considers the data from a single dataset. The performance drop suggests that merely increasing the data in self-supervised learning may not result in better performance, especially when the data come from multiple domains. Second, we see the performance improvement from the uni-modal and multi-modal unconditional methods ($92.67$ and $91.13$) to the multi-domain conditional methods ($93.54$ and $94.23$), where the conditional methods consider removing domain-specific information in the learned representations. The performance improvement suggests that the domain-specific information may be irrelevant to the downstream task. Third, we observe no obvious performance differences between C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE. For instance, C-InfoNCE achieves worse performance than WeaC-InfoNCE on CIFAR-10 ($93.54$ v.s. $94.23$), while it performs better on Tiny ImageNet ($57.46$ v.s. $57.01$). Since WeaC-InfoNCE is computationally more efficient than C-InfoNCE, it may be a better choice for multi-domain self-supervised learning.
\subsection{Conditional Mutual Information Estimation}
\label{subsec:cmi_exp}
The proposed C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE are directly related to conditional mutual information, and in this section we compare the two with other different conditional mutual information estimators: classifier based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi} and difference based estimator~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}. InfoNCE estimates ${\rm MI}\,(X;Z)$ but not the conditional mutual information, ${\rm MI}\,(X;Y|Z)$, thus we do not compare with it here. We base our implementation on prior works ~\citep{tsai2020neural, mukherjee2020ccmi} and include the details of the experiments in the Appendix. Following ~\citep{mukherjee2020ccmi}, we generate two separate datasets based on two linear models, with three random variables $X, Y$ and $Z$, where $X$ and $Y$ is 1-dimensional while dimension $d_Z$ can scale. The two datasets are the following:
\[\text{Dataset I: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(Z_{1}, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
\[\text{Dataset II: } X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1); Z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)^{d_{Z}}; U=w^{T} Z,\|w\|_{1}=1; \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}\left(U, \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}\right); Y \sim X+\epsilon\]
where $\mathcal{U}(-0.5,0.5)^{d_{Z}}$ means each co-ordinate of $Z$ is drawn i.i.d from a uniform distribution between $-0.5$ and $0.5$. $Z_1$ is the first dimension of $Z$. We set $\sigma_{\epsilon}^{2} = 0.1$ (the same as \cite{mukherjee2020ccmi}) and obtain unit norm random vector $w$ from $\mathcal{N}\left(0, I_{d_{Z}}\right)$ and keep it constant. In Dataset I, $Y$ only depends on $Z_1$, while in Dataset II the variables $Y$ depends on all dimensions in $Z$. For both setting we vary \textit{either} the number of samples \textit{or} dimension $d_Z$.
\input{fig_tex/cmi}
In Figure \ref{fig:cmi_estimate} we show the conditional mutual information estimation results. The proposed conditional methods can estimate mutual information better than classifier or difference based methods under the same dimension of $Z$ in sub-figure (a) and (c), and the estimations degrade less severely compared to other methods when we vary the dimension of $Z$ to as large as 200 (sub-figure (b) and (d)). We show that C-InfoNCE and WeaC-InfoNCE can be good tools towards conditional mutual information estimation.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:model}
Manipulation of heat at the nanoscale, particularly thermal rectification by heat diodes, is currently a subject of intense theoretical~\cite{PhysRevLett.88.094302, classical1, PhysRevLett.93.184301, spin_boson_thermal_rectifier, PhysRevB.74.214305, Scheibner_2008, PhysRevLett.100.105901, PhysRevE.80.041103, PhysRevB.79.144306, PhysRevLett.102.095503, PhysRevB.80.172301, PhysRevB.81.205321, PhysRevB.74.214305, PhysRevLett.104.154301, PhysRevLett.107.173902, RevModPhys.84.1045, PhysRevB.88.094427, doi:10.1063/1.4817258, Zhang_2013, Thingna_2013, XXZ2, PhysRevE.89.062109, PhysRevB.92.045309, PhysRevE.94.042135, PhysRevE.94.042122, Newexp_1,lindblad_equation, PhysRevE.96.012114, PhysRevB.98.035414, PhysRevLett.120.200603, Motz_2018,lab,Newt_3, segmentedchain, Muhammad, PhysRevB.99.035129, PhysRevE.99.032126, PhysRevE.99.032116, PhysRevResearch.2.033285, PhysRevE.102.062146, PhysRevE.101.062122, PhysRevB.103.104304, PhysRevE.103.052130, PhysRevB.103.155434, PhysRevApplied.15.054050, PhysRevE.103.012134, PhysRevB.103.115413, tupkary2021} and experimental~\cite{experiment4, JWJing_experiment, Chen2014, Martinez15, Seif2018, Newexp_3, Senior2020, Maillet2020} research. The theoretical studies explain the change of heat current direction and magnitude when the thermal bias is reversed due to inherent asymmetry and non-linearity in the physical models ~\cite{RevModPhys.84.1045, dhar}. The most common naturally occurring interaction used in such quantum models is the Heisenberg exchange interaction~\cite{segmentedchain,lindblad_equation,XXZ2} where the asymmetry stems from either the different on-site magnetic fields~\cite{lindblad_equation} or from the different coupling constants of the subsystem with their respective baths~\cite{spin_boson_thermal_rectifier}.
Recently, an artificially designed system containing inherent asymmetry in the Hamiltonian itself has also been proposed to operate under symmetric system-bath couplings and resonant (identical) subsystems, which allows for the rectification of large heat currents~\cite{Muhammad}. The model is based upon coupling $z$-component of a spin to $x$-component of the other spin in a two-qubit system. The coupling is, therefore, asymmetric under the exchange of the spins. This artificial model takes only one of the two terms of the $y$ component of the two spins' cross product. Intriguingly, there is a naturally existing, entirely physical interaction depending on the cross product of the spins, known as Dzyaloshinskii Moriya (DM) interaction~\cite{dzyaloshinsky_thermodynamic_1958, moriya_anisotropic_1960}. It is antisymmetric under the exchange of spins due to its cross-product dependence. Accordingly, we ask whether DM interaction's anti-symmetry is sufficient per se to generate heat rectification and, even if it is not, how it influences the heat conduction properties. To answer this question, we take a simple system of two DM-coupled spin-$1/2$ particles (qubits) with the DM field along $z$ direction and analytically derive the quantum master equation and heat current expression for our model. We also derive an analytical expression for the {rectification} factor and discuss the behavior of our model under various parameter limits, providing possible physical mechanisms for the same. We provide the possible configuration for optimizing the working of our {\it heat rectifier}. Finally, we explore the role of change of anisotropy field direction on the heat current and rectification ability.
Some effects of DM interaction on heat transport in spin chains have been studied \cite{Hui_Ping_2006,Li2012}. In particular, possible control of heat rectification using DM interaction in a system of two quantum dots has been proposed \cite{CHEN201558}. Another study of magnetic thermal rectification in a single molecule magnet concluded that thermal rectification is possible due to anti-symmetry of DM interaction \cite{XU2016107}. On the other hand, these studies include the exchange interaction next to the DM interaction, as such an interaction is naturally occurring. However, this may not reveal the role of the DM interaction on heat current per se. Here, we present a more systematic analysis by focusing on the DM interaction alone and investigate symmetry in heat flow in various parameter regimes. In addition, our analysis based on the derivation of a global master equation \cite{Levy_2014,PhysRevA.98.052123} and analytical results for both heat currents and rectification reveals the underlying mechanism that leads to thermal rectification. Based on the analytical results of rectification, we find the parameters regime for higher rectification factors, thereby guiding further development of thermal devices based on DM interaction. We believe such systematic analysis has not been done in previous studies of DM interaction-based heat rectifiers. Such a methodological examination of the DM interaction can also be experimentally feasible ~\cite{NatureDMexperiment}. Finally, we study the possible effects of the stationary quantum correlations between the qubits on the performance of the thermal rectifier. We find coherences are asymmetrical under the change of temperature bias, and this asymmetry is sufficient for the emergence of thermal rectification.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=0]{ModelFig.png}
\caption{\label{model}(Color online) A schematic of the model consisting of two qubits coupled by the Dzyaloshinskii Moriya (DM) interaction with on-site (local) magnetic fields. Each qubit is attached to its own local bath.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. {In Sec.~\ref{sec::model},} we introduce our model and physical system. Section~\ref{sec:MasterEq} gives the derivation of the master equation describing the open system dynamics of the model. In Sec.~ \ref{section: Results}, we discuss the analytical solution of the master equation in a series of subsections. First, Sec.~\ref{subsection::Current Results} presents the heat currents, followed by the rectification abilities of the model system in Sec.~\ref{subsection::Rectification Results}. Sec.~\ref{subsection::Effect of anisotropy} compares the models with anisotropy fields in different directions. In Sec.~\ref{section::coherences}, we investigate the possible role of the quantum correlations on heat rectification. We conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}. Additional details of the derivation of the master equation and the heat currents are provided in Appendices~\ref{section:Appendix A} and~\ref{App:Appendix:B}, respectively.
\section{The Model}\label{sec::model}
Our physical system consists of two spin-$1/2$ particles (qubits) coupled via the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction in the presence of on-site magnetic fields, which is effectively realizable in {nuclear magnetic resonance} (NMR) experiments~\cite{NatureDMexperiment}. Each qubit interacts with its {own} (local) bath at different temperatures, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{model}. The Hamiltonian of the system is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{system}
H_S=H_0+H_\text{DM},
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_0$ is the Hamiltonian of the non-interacting qubits, ({we} take reduced Planck constant as $\hbar=1$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}_0&=&\frac{\omega_L}{2} \hat{\sigma}_L^z\otimes \hat{I}_R+\hat{I}_L\otimes\frac{\omega_R}{2} \hat{\sigma}_R^z,
\end{eqnarray}
and the DM interaction is described by
the Hamiltonian,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DMmodel}
H_\text{DM}= g(\hat{\sigma}_L^x \hat{\sigma}_R^y-\hat{\sigma}_L^y\hat{\sigma}_R^x).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\hat{\sigma}_i^\alpha$'s denote the $\alpha=x,y,z$ components of the Pauli spin-$1/2$ operators for
the left ($i=L$) and right ($i=R$) qubits. The unit operators are denoted by $\hat{I}_i$. We assume on-site magnetic fields can be used for locally distinct frequencies $\omega_L$ and $\omega_R$ for the left and right qubits, respectively. The DM coupling coefficient $g$ corresponds to the case where the DM anisotropy field is aligned in the $z$-direction so that the general DM interaction $\bm{D}\cdot (\bm{\sigma}_L\times\bm{\sigma}_R)$
reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq:DMmodel}) with $\bm{D}=g\bm{\hat{z}}$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=0]{energylevels.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:engylev}(Color online) Energy transitions induced by left (solid lines) and right (dashed lines) baths for weakly coupled (a) off-resonant qubits, and (b) for nearly-resonant qubits.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We take the
{spin-boson} model to describe dissipative coupling of each qubit to its respective local bath. Free Hamiltonian of each bath $B_i$
{is given by}
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{B_i}=\sum_{n} \omega _n \hat{a}_{i,n}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{i,n},
\end{equation}
where {$\hat{a}_{i,n}^{\dagger}\text{ }(\hat{a}_{i,n})$} are the bosonic creation (annihilation) operators of the $n$-th mode of the $i^{th}$ bath.
The {system-bath} interaction is described by
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{SB}=\sum_{i,n} g_{i,n}\hat{\sigma}_x^i\otimes (\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{i,n}+\hat{a}_{i,n}),
\end{equation}
where $g_{i,n}$ represents the coupling coefficient of the $n$-th mode of
the bath $B_i$ to the qubit labeled with $i$. We assume symmetric couplings between the baths and the qubits such that $g_{L,n}=g_{R,n}\equiv g_{n}$.
\section{Master Equation}
\label{sec:MasterEq}
In this section, we outline the derivation of master equation for our model.
The eigenvalues of the system Hamiltonian~(\ref{system}) are given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eigenvalues}
\pm\omega_S&:=&\pm\frac{\omega_L+\omega_R}{2},\nonumber\\
\pm\Omega &:=&\pm\sqrt{4 g^2+ \omega_D^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_D:=(\omega_L-\omega_R)/2$ is introduced for brevity of notations.
The sign of $\omega_D$ tells us which qubit is at higher frequency.
The eigenvectors in computational basis associated with the eigenvalues are expressed as
\begin{align}
&|1\rangle:=|\omega_S\rangle=|++\rangle, \nonumber\\
&|2\rangle:=|\Omega\rangle=\cos{\theta}|+-\rangle+i \sin{\theta}|-+\rangle, \nonumber\\
&|3\rangle:=|-\Omega\rangle=i \sin{\theta}|+-\rangle+\cos{\theta}|-+\rangle, \nonumber\\
&|4\rangle:=|-\omega_S\rangle=|--\rangle,
\end{align}
where the parameter $\theta$ is defined as
\begin{align}\label{sine_cosine_define}
\cos{\theta}=\frac{2g}{\sqrt{4g^2+(\omega_D-\Omega)^2}},\text{ }\sin{\theta}=\frac{\omega_D-\Omega}{\sqrt{4g^2+(\omega_D-\Omega)^2}}.
\end{align}
Energy transitions induced by left and right baths are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:engylev}, which shows all possible transitions that can be induced by the thermal baths.
The master equation for our model is derived under the {usual Born-Markov and secular approximations,} and can be written in the interaction picture as~\cite{breuer2002} (see Appendix~\ref{section:Appendix A})
\begin{equation}\label{local}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat{\rho}(t)=\mathcal{L}_{L}\hat{\rho}(t)+\mathcal{L}_{R}\hat{\rho}(t),
\end{equation}
where the Liouvillian superoperators are given by
\begin{align}\label{Master}
\mathcal{L}_{L}\hat{\rho}(t)&=
\cos{^2\theta}(G_L(\omega_+) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^-)+G_L(-\omega_+) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^+))\nonumber\\&+\sin{^2\theta}(G_L(\omega_-) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^z\tilde{\sigma}_R^-)+G_L(-\omega_-) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^z\tilde{\sigma}_R^+)), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}_{R}\hat{\rho}(t)&=\cos{^2\theta} (G_R(\omega_-) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_R^-)+G_R(-\omega_-) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_R^+))\nonumber\\&+\sin{^2\theta}(G_R(\omega_+) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^-\tilde{\sigma}_R^z)+G_R(-\omega_+) \mathcal{D}(\tilde{\sigma}_L^+\tilde{\sigma}_R^z)),
\end{align}
here, $\omega_\pm = \omega_{S}\pm\Omega$, and $\hat{\rho}(t)$ is the density matrix of the system of interest, and $\tilde{\sigma}^{\pm}_i(\omega)$ are the jump operators in basis which diagonalize the system Hamiltonian. The explicit form of these jump operators is given in Appendix~\ref{section:Appendix A}.
Furthermore, $G_{i}(\omega)$ denotes the spectral response function of the $i^{th}$ bath, and it is given by
\begin{align}
G_i(\omega)=
\begin{cases}
\gamma_{i}(\omega)(1+N_i(\omega) & \omega>0, \\
\gamma_{i}(\omega)N_i(|\omega|) & \omega<0,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
here, $N_i(\omega)$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function (we take the Boltzmann constant as $k_B=1$),
\begin{align}\label{eq:bose-einstein}
N_i(\omega)=\frac{1}{e^{\omega/T_i}-1},
\end{align}
and coefficients $\gamma_{i}(\omega)$ are described by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{i}(\omega) = 2\pi\hbar\frac{f_{i}(\omega)g_{i}(\omega)^2}{\omega},
\end{equation}
here $f_{i}(\omega)$ and $g_{i}(\omega)$ are density of modes of the baths and their interaction strengths to corresponding qubit, respectively. In the following, we consider thermal baths with flat density of modes, which makes $\gamma_{i}(\omega)$ independent of $\omega$ and can be denoted by $\gamma_{i}(\omega):=\kappa_{i}$. In the rest of the paper, we consider both baths have equal coupling strengths $\kappa_{L}=\kappa_{R}=\kappa$.
In Eq.~(\ref{Master}), the Lindblad dissipator for a jump operator $\hat A$ is defined by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{D}(\hat{A})=\hat{A}\hat{\rho}\hat{A}^{\dagger}-\frac{1}{2}(\hat{A}^{\dagger}\hat{A}\hat{\rho}+\hat{\rho}\hat{A}^{\dagger}\hat{A}).
\end{align}
We have ignored the dephasing term in Eq.~(\ref{Master}) because it does not influence the diagonal elements of the density matrix, consequently, it does not affect the steady-state heat currents~\cite{PhysRevE.85.061126}.
We note that, in Eq.~(\ref{Master}) non-local jump operators are present, for example, $\tilde{\sigma}_L^z\tilde{\sigma}_R^-$, which means both baths have access to both qubits. Such a master equation is referred to global master equation which is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics~\cite{Levy_2014,PhysRevA.98.052123,Cattaneo_2019}. On contrary, a derivation based on neglecting the interaction term between the qubits leads to a local master equation which may not be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics~\cite{Levy_2014,PhysRevE.89.062109}.
\section{Results} \label{section: Results}
We find that heat rectification in our system can be characterized simply by using a single asymmetry parameter that can be introduced as
\begin{align}\label{epsilon}
\epsilon=\frac{|\omega_D|}{2g} .
\end{align}
It measures the relative strength of detuning between the qubits compared to the DM interaction and controls the heat diode action. Significance of $\epsilon$ can be seen by expressing
\begin{align}\label{cos-sine-define}
\cos{^2\theta}&=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}(\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}-\frac{|\omega_D|\epsilon}{\omega_D})}, \nonumber \\ \sin{^2\theta}&=\frac{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}-\frac{|\omega_D|\epsilon}{\omega_D}}{2\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}}
\end{align}
and recognizing that $\epsilon$ controls the weight factors of different heat transfer channels described in Eq.~(\ref{Master}). Hence we deduce that $\epsilon$ can be envisioned as a valve to turn on or turn off
various heat channels between the baths. For large values of $\epsilon$, depending on the sign of $\omega_D$ either $\cos{^2\theta}$ or $\sin{^2\theta}$ is very small and other tends to $1$, while for small values of $\epsilon$ both the function are almost equal and tend to $1/2$.
\subsection{Heat flow analysis}\label{subsection::Current Results}
Heat flux between a bath and the system is given by~\cite{Muhammad,e15062100}
\begin{equation}\label{current_define}
I_i=Tr[\mathcal{L}_{i}\hat{\rho}_S \tilde{H}_S],
\end{equation}
where $I_i$ represents the left $I_L$ or right bath $I_R$ current, with the sign convention of positive heat current if the heat flows from the bath to the system and vice versa. According to energy conservation, left and right steady-state heat currents must be the same but with opposite signs. Consequently, the evaluation of steady-state right bath current $I_R$ suffices for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of heat flow and thermal rectification. The right bath heat current $I_{R}$ evaluates to (see Appendix~\ref{App:Appendix:B} for details)
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}\label{current_analytical}
I_R(T_L,T_R)=&\ {\frac{\kappa}{4(1+\epsilon^2)}}\bigg[\frac{\omega_+(N_R(\omega_+)-N_L(\omega_+))}{D(T_L,T_R,\omega_+)}+\frac{\abs{\omega_-}(N_R(\abs{\omega_-})-N_L(\abs{\omega_-}))}{D(T_R,T_L,\abs{\omega_-})}\bigg],
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where,
\begin{align}
D(T_i,T_j,\omega)=\cos{^2\theta}(2 N_i(\omega)+1)+\sin{^2\theta}(2 N_j(\omega)+1),
\end{align}
and $I_R(T_L,T_R)$ indicates that the left bath temperature $T_L$ is greater than right bath temperature $T_R$ ( it is vice versa for $I_R(T_R,T_L)$).
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Currents_analytical_numerical.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Currents_with_T.pdf}}
\subfigure []
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Current_Saturation.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Currents_with_g.pdf}}
\caption{(Color online) {Steady-state right heat bath current $I_{R}$ as a function of temperature $T$ and coupling strength $g$. (a) Comparison between the analytical (blue solid line) and numerical (red circles) results of heat current $I_{R}$ evaluated via Eq.~(\ref{current_analytical}) and Eq.~(\ref{current_define}), respectively. We take $T_{\text{ref}}=1$ being reference temperature, and $T_R\equiv T,T_L=T_{\text{ref}}$ describes forward-biased configuration. (b) Forward-biased (blue solid line) and reverse-biased (red dashed line) heat current $I_{R}$, where reverse-biased (RB) configuration is described by $T_R=T_{\text{ref}},T_L\equiv T$. (c) Forward-biased (FB) heat current for g=0.01 (blue solid line), g=0.1 (red dashed line), g=1.0 (green dotted line), and (d) $I_{R}$ as a function of DM interaction strength $g$ for RB current (blue solid line), and FB current (red dashed line). In both cases, we consider $T_{\text{High}}=10$, and $T_{\text{Low}}=1$. Rest of the parameters are given as $\omega_L=1$, $\omega_R=0.1$, $\kappa=0.0001$, and $g=0.01$. All the parameters are scaled with the left qubit frequency $\omega_{L}=2\pi\times10$ GHz.}}
\label{current_figure}
\end{figure}
In Eq.~(\ref{current_analytical}), the heat current $I_R$ depends on the square of DM interaction strength $g$, accordingly the direction of heat current is independent of the anti-symmetric nature of DM interaction. In Fig.~\ref{current_figure}, heat current $I_R$ is plotted as a function of temperature and coupling strength $g$. Since our model contains two heat baths, we set either one of the bath temperatures (left or right) as reference temperature and $T_{\text{ref}}=1$ unless otherwise specified. In Fig.~\ref{current_figure}(a), we verify the analytical result of heat current given in Eq.~(\ref{current_analytical}) by comparing it with the result obtained from the numerical solution of Eq.~(\ref{Master}). From Fig.~\ref{current_figure}, we conclude that (i) The sign of heat current $I_R(T_L,T_R)$ is independent of the system parameters ($\omega_{S}$, $\Omega$, and $g$), it only changes with the interchange of bath temperatures. It is in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. (ii) For $T_{R}>T_{L}$, heat current $I_R$ is positive, which indicates that heat current flows from right to left irrespective of the system parameters, and for $T_{L}>T_{R}$ it is vice versa. (iii) For weak coupling $g$, heat current $I_R(T_L,T_R)<I_R(T_R,T_L)$, which indicates that heat flow is suppressed from left to right, and it can be seen in Fig~\ref{current_figure}(b). (iv) Higher temperature gradients are associated with larger asymmetric heat flow (Fig.~\ref{current_figure}(c)). (v) Heat current vanishes for $g=0;\infty$, accordingly there exists a critical value of $g$ for which heat current is maximum.
To examine the possible physical mechanism behind these observations, we refer to equation~\eqref{Master}. There are two heat transfer channels associated with the decay processes at $\omega_\pm$. For $g=0$, qubits are uncoupled, and there is no heat flow, which can be verified by Eq.~(\ref{current_analytical}). As we increase the coupling strength $g$, the dressed energy gap $\omega_{p}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:engylev}) increases so that the phonon transfer channel $\omega_+$ acts at higher energy. Consequently, the heat current initially increases with $g$. However, once the energy levels are too far apart for the bath phonons to couple them, the current starts to decrease and eventually becomes zero. Taking the high temperature limit of \eqref{current_analytical} for the right bath, $T_R>>>(T_L,\omega_+)$), we get,
\begin{align}\label{current_limit}
I_R(T_L,T_R)\approx&{\frac{\kappa}{4(1+\epsilon^2)}}T_R
\nonumber\\&\bigg[\frac{1}{\cos{^2\theta}(2 N_L(\omega_+)+1)+\sin{^2\theta}(2\frac{T_R}{\omega_+})}+\nonumber\\&\frac{1}{\sin{^2\theta}(2 N_L(|\omega_-|)+1)+\cos{^2\theta}(2\frac{T_R}{|\omega_-|})}\bigg].
\end{align}
This indicates that $I_R(T_L,T_R)$ linearly increases with $T_R$ and eventually saturates if $\cos{^2\theta}$, and $\sin{^2\theta}$ are small. For weakly coupled qubits, either $\cos{^2\theta}$ or $\sin{^2\theta}$ is small. Consequently, heat flow saturates for larger temperature gradients. On the contrary, heat flow saturates at lower temperature gradients for larger coupling strength $g$, because both $\cos{^2\theta}$, and $\sin{^2\theta}$ have larger values in the strong coupling regime. If the baths are sufficiently hot, the maximum saturation current we can derive in our system is
\begin{align}\label{current_max}
I_R^{\text{max}}(T_L,T_R)\propto\frac{\kappa}{4(1+\epsilon^2)}
\end{align}
We can see that the saturation current is larger for the case with {lower $\epsilon$}. We will see that this is in contrast with how the rectification behaves in the next section.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth,angle=0]{resonantschem.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:engylev2}{(Color online) Examples of the processed that transfer heat between the baths for the weakly interacting resonant qubits $\omega_{L}=\omega_{R}=\omega\gg g$. The separation between energy levels $\ket{2}$, and $\ket{3}$ becomes $4g$, and $\omega_{\pm}$ transitions reduce to $\omega\pm 2g$. Solid, and dashed arrows indicate the transitions induced by the left and right baths, respectively, and the thickness of the arrows reflects the magnitudes of the decay rates between the states. In addition, dot-dashed arrows point the direction of the heat flow. For resonant qubits, all transition rates become symmetrical under the change in temperature bias due to which rectification becomes zero.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Heat rectification}\label{subsection::Rectification Results}
Out of the heat current results, it is straightforward to calculate the rectification factor, which is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rectification}
\mathcal{R}=\frac{ I_R(T_R,T_L)+I_R(T_L,T_R)}{\text{Max}[| I_R(T_L,T_R)|,| I_R(T_R,T_L) |]}.
\end{equation}
We note that here rectification factor $\mathcal{R}$ is based on the heat current $I_R$. However, identical results can be obtained by replacing $I_R$ with the left bath current $I_{L}$. The rectification factor $\mathcal{R}$ can take any value between -1 and 1, where $\mathcal{R}=1,-1$ describes perfect rectification, and $\mathcal{R}=0$ shows no asymmetry in the heat flow. In addition, $\mathcal{R}>0$ means heat flow is suppressed from left to right, and $\mathcal{R}<0$ identifies the opposite case. To explain the physical mechanism behind rectification, we write the rate equation for population dynamics from the master equation~\eqref{Master} (for $\omega_s>\Omega$),
{\fontsize{8pt}{12pt}
\begin{align}\label{rate equation}
\frac{d }{d t} \begin{bmatrix}
\rho_{11}\\\rho_{22}
\\\rho_{33}\\\rho_{44}
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
-(r_3+r_4)& r_1& r_2&0\\r_3& -(r_1+r_4)& 0&r_2\\r_4& 0& -(r_2+r_3)&r_1\\0& r_4& r_3&-(r_1+r_2)
\end{pmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
\rho_{11}\\\rho_{22}
\\\rho_{33}\\\rho_{44}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align}}
where $r_1, r_3$ are the transitions rates in $\omega_-$ channel and $r_2, r_4$ are the transitions rates in $\omega_+$ channel given as
\begin{align}\label{eq:decayrate}
r_1&=\kappa\big[\sin{^2\theta} N_L(|\omega_-|)+\cos{^2\theta}N_R(|\omega_-|)\big], \nonumber \\
r_2&=\kappa\big[\cos{^2\theta} N_L(\omega_+)+\sin{^2\theta}N_R(\omega_+)\big], \nonumber \\
r_3&=\kappa\big[\sin{^2\theta} e^{\frac{|\omega_-|}{T_L}} N_L(|\omega_-|)+\cos{^2\theta} e^{\frac{|\omega_-|}{T_R}}N_R(|\omega_-|)\big],\nonumber\\
r_4&=\kappa\big[\cos{^2\theta} e^{\frac{\omega_+}{T_L}} N_L(\omega_+)+\sin{^2\theta} e^{\frac{\omega_+}{T_R}}N_R(\omega_+)\big].
\end{align}
For $\omega_s<\Omega$ we exchange $r_1$ and $r_3$ in the above equations.
Heat rectification in our model can be explained by possible four-wave mixing cycles responsible for heat flow between the left and right baths. In these cycles, the decay rates between two same dressed states of the qubits become significantly different when the thermal bias is reversed. Consequently, this causes an asymmetry in the heat flow. To elaborate more on this, let us look carefully at the rates given in equation \eqref{eq:decayrate}. The rates depend not only on the temperatures but also on $\cos{^2\theta}$, and $\sin{^2\theta}$, whose magnitudes [see Eq.~(\ref{cos-sine-define})] differ significantly for large $\epsilon$. For appropriate system parameters, we can exploit this large dissimilarity to make some of the coupling strengths between the dressed states weaker than the others.
These weak transitions can only be induced if coupled to a sufficiently hot bath. Accordingly, heat flow is suppressed in case of coupling the weak transitions with the weak field (cold bath)~\cite{Muhammad}, due to which heat flow has preferential direction in our model. As an example, for weakly coupled off-resonant qubits with $\omega_{D}\gg g> 0$, the transition rates associated with the left (right) bath $\omega_{-} (\omega_{+})$ decay channel becomes weaker because of the relative magnitude of $\cos{^2\theta}\gg\sin{^2\theta}$ [see Eqs.~(\ref{Master}) and (\ref{eq:decayrate})]. Consequently, for positively detuned qubits, $\omega_{-}$ channel is responsible for left to right heat flow suppression and it is vice versa for $\omega_{+}$. Hence, these two channels compete and have opposite signs in the rectification, which is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:rect}
\mathcal{R}\propto I_R(T_R,T_L) + I_R(T_L,T_R) ,
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{Rectification_analytical}
\mathcal{R}\propto &{\frac{\frac{|\omega_D|}{\omega_D} \epsilon}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}}}\bigg[\frac{\omega_+(N_R(\omega_+)-N_L(\omega_+))^2}{D(T_L,T_R,\omega_+)D(T_R,T_L,\omega_+)}\nonumber\\&-\frac{|\omega_-|(N_R(|\omega_-|)-N_L(|\omega_-|))^2}{D(T_R,T_L,|\omega_-|)D(T_L,T_R,|\omega_-|)}\bigg].
\end{align}
Here, the first and second terms are associated with $\omega_{+}$ and $\omega_{-}$ channels, respectively. For $\omega_{D}>0$, if the right bath is cold, it may not be able to induce weak $\omega_{+}$ high energy transition. Accordingly, heat flow is suppressed from left to right, and rectification becomes positive due to the larger contribution of the first positive term compared to the second negative term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rect}). This can also be verified from Eq.~(\ref{Rectification_analytical}), which shows that rectification is positive for $\omega_{D}>0$.
Similarly, negative detuning $\omega_{D}<0$ results in negative rectification, i.e., heat flow is suppressed from right to left.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{R_with_T_wr.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{R_with_T_g.pdf}}
\subfigure []
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{R_with_g_wr.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Rdmz_reverse_T.pdf}}
\caption{(Color online) {Variation of rectification ($\mathcal{R}$) with temperature $T$ (top row)} for \textbf{(a)} $\omega_R$=0.005 (blue solid line), $\omega_R$=0.05 (red dashed line), $\omega_R$=0.4 (green dotted line), $\omega_R$=0.8 (black dot-dashed line), for \textbf{(b)} g=0.005 (blue solid line), g=0.05 (red dashed line), g=0.4 (green dotted line), g=0.8 (black dot-dashed line). Variation of $\mathcal{R}$ with $g$ for \textbf{(c)} $\omega_R$=0.005 (blue solid line), $\omega_R$=0.05 (red dashed line), $\omega_R$=0.4 (green dotted line), $\omega_R$=0.8 (black dot-dashed line) with $T_R=10$ and $T_L=1$. \textbf{(d)} Shows the direction of rectification can be controlled by detuning $\omega_{D}$. Here, $\omega_D>0$ (blue solid line), $\omega_D<0$ (red dashed line). For all the cases, the values of parameters if not otherwise specified are $\omega_L= T_{\text{ref}}=1$, $\omega_R=0.1$, $g=0.01$, and $\kappa=0.0001$.}
\label{Rectification_figure}
\end{figure}
For weakly interacting resonant qubits, i.e., $\omega_{L}=\omega_{R}=\omega\gg g$, an example of a process that transfers heat between the baths is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:engylev2}. For resonant qubits, under the reversal of temperature gradient, the decay rates are given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:decayrate}) become invariant, due to which asymmetry in the heat flow vanishes. To emphasize this point, we explain the zero rectification for resonant qubits using Eq.~(\ref{eq:rectification}), heat flow becomes symmetric if
\begin{align}
I_R(T_L,T_R)=-I_R(T_R,T_L),
\end{align}
by simple manipulation this translates to
\begin{align}
D(T_L,T_R,\omega)=D(T_R,T_L,\omega),
\end{align}
which happens when
\begin{align}\label{eq:AsymCond}
\cos{^2\theta}-\sin{^2\theta}=0, \nonumber \\
{\epsilon=0}.
\end{align}
Here, we note that from Eq.~\eqref{epsilon} this implies that the rectification is zero for resonant qubits. This is an expected result because we have already noted that the asymmetry of the cross product is not enough, and there is no other asymmetry in our model apart from the off-resonant qubits. Hence, there should be a direct relationship between the rectification and that off-resonance.
Fig.~\ref{Rectification_figure} shows variations in the rectification $\mathcal{R}$ as a function of temperature $T$, and coupling strength $g$ for different detunings $\omega_{D}$. Higher rectification factors can be achieved for larger magnitudes of temperature gradients and detunings as shown in Fig.~\ref{Rectification_figure}(a). This is because according to Eq.~(\ref{Master}), the transition rates between the dressed states become more asymmetric for large detunings and temperature gradients. According to Eq.~(\ref{epsilon}), asymmetry in the heat flow decreases with the increase in the coupling strength $g$, and this is graphically represented in Figs.~\ref{Rectification_figure}(b) and \ref{Rectification_figure}(c). In our model, the direction of rectification can be controlled by the sign of detuning [see Eq.~(\ref{Rectification_analytical})], which is confirmed in Fig.~\ref{Rectification_figure}(d).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{paramtericplot.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{Currents_comparison_anisotropy.pdf}}
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{R_direction_T.pdf}}\hfill
\subfigure []
{\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{R_direction_inverse_T.pdf}}
\caption{\label{aniso}(Color online) {\textbf{(a)} Parametric curve between rectification ($\mathcal{R}$)
and $I_R$ for $\omega_R$=0.01 (blue solid line), $\omega_R$=0.05 (red dashed line), $\omega_R$=0.1 (green dotted line), $\omega_R$=0.5 (black dot-dashed line) with $T_R=10,$ $T_L=1$}. Variation of $I_R$ with $T$ for \textbf{(b)} DM along $x$ (blue solid line), along $y$ (red dashed line), along $z$ (green dotted line). Variation of
$\mathcal{R}$ with T for \textbf{(c)} DM along $x$ (blue solid line), along $y$ (red dashed line), along $z$
(green dotted line). \textbf{(d)} Changing the sign of $\mathcal{R}$ by exchange of qubit frequencies for DM along $x$ (blue solid line, green dotted line) and for DM along $y$ (red dashed line, black dot-dashed line). For all the cases the values of parameters if not otherwise specified are $\omega_R=0.1$, $g=0.05$, $\kappa=0.0001$,
$\omega_L=1$, $T_{\text{ref}}=1.$ }
\label{anisotropy_figures}
\end{figure}
Finally, from equation \eqref{Rectification_analytical} we see that the rectification is proportional to the constant
\begin{align}\label{rectification_max}
\mathcal{R}&\propto {\frac{\frac{|\omega_D|}{\omega_D} \epsilon}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}}}
\end{align}
We have analytical results on the amount of detuning we need between the qubits in our model for getting significant rectification. We get high values of rectification when $\epsilon \to \infty$ or $\omega_D\gg2g$. Physically, this is so because the rectification arises due to the asymmetry in the energy levels of our system, determined by $\omega_D$; however, if $g$ is large compared to $\omega_D$, the asymmetry in energy levels is insufficient, and the rectification decreases. This is in line with the features we see in Fig.~\ref{Rectification_figure}.
This constant also gives us an idea about the maximum rectification we can extract from our system, to understand why that is so we recall that the two heat transfer channels work against each other in rectification but for high values of rectification the $\omega_-$ channel is of very low energy in comparison to the $\omega_+$ channel, hence the heat flow is completely dominated by the later. As a result, the rectification is also dominated by it. Looking again at the expression \eqref{Rectification_analytical}, we can see that if the $\omega_-$ channel is ignored the maximum achievable rectification is proportional to the constant given in \eqref{rectification_max}.
Equations~\eqref{current_max} and~\eqref{rectification_max} reveal that there is a trade-off between the current and rectification as the saturation current is large for small $\epsilon$, whereas rectification diminishes, and vice versa. As pointed out earlier, this leads to a possibility of optimization, where we can get large heat currents without compromising the rectification, as can be seen in Fig. \ref{aniso}(a), where there is a region of stable rectification while current is increasing before sharply falling. Ideally, such a region should be targeted for the best performance of the thermal diode. The behavior of the curve further verifies that the saturation of rectification depends on the detuning between qubits.
\subsubsection{Effect of Anisotropy Field Direction}\label{subsection::Effect of anisotropy}
From Fig. \ref{anisotropy_figures}(b,c,d), we can see that for low temperature regions ,the models containing the DM anisotropy field along $x$ and $y$ directions outperform the one with DM anisotropy field along $z$ direction in terms of both the current flow and rectification. This may be because there are more phonon transfer channels available for these models as their Hamiltonian does not preserve total magnetisation. These channels are of relatively smaller energies allowing even the colder baths to induce sufficient transitions in them. However, again for higher temperature regions, the DM along $z$ model performs better. We also see that the anisotropy field direction does not influence the fundamental features in our diode as again the rectification changes sign on exchanging qubit frequencies and is zero for resonant qubits.
\section{Quantumness of correlations and rectification}\label{section::coherences}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Coherence_and_rectification.pdf}}
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Concurrence_and_rectification.pdf}}
\caption{\label{coherence_Fig} (Color online) {\textbf{(a)} Variation of rectification and coherence with $g$ for $T_R=5$ (blue solid line for $\mathcal{R}$) and (green dotted line for coherence) and $T_R=10$ (red dashed line for $\mathcal{R}$) and (black dot-dashed line for coherence) } and {\textbf{(b)}} Variation of rectification and concurrence with $g$ for $T_R$=5 (blue solid line for $\mathcal{R}$) and $($green dotted line for $C(\rho_{\text{ss}}))$ and $T_R$=10 $($red dashed line for $\mathcal{R}$) and $($black dot-dashed line $C(\rho_{\text{ss}}))$. The values of the parameters are $\omega_R=0.1$, $g=0.05$, $\kappa=0.0001$, $\omega_L=1$, $T_{\text{ref}}=1.$ }
\label{coherence_fig}
\end{figure}
Finally, we investigate any possible interplay between stationary quantum correlations and heat rectification in our model. The dissipative dynamics under Eq.~(\ref{Master}) imposes only two of the off-diagonal elements of the steady-state matrix in the computational basis remain non-zero. In the two qubits computational basis $\{|++\rangle, |+-\rangle, |-+\rangle, |--\rangle\}$, the steady-state density matrix $\rho_\text{ss}$ is given by a two-qubit X state (for $\omega_S>\Omega$)
{\fontsize{8.5pt}{6pt}\begin{align}\label{computational_basis_matrix}
\rho_\text{ss} =
\begin{pmatrix}
d_1& 0& 0&0\\0&d_2& c &0\\0& c^{*}&d_3 &0\\0& 0& 0&d_4
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}}
The steady-state diagonal elements (populations) are given by
\begin{align}
d_{1} & = \frac{r_1r_2}{D^{*}} & d_{2} = \frac{r_2r_3+r_1r_4+(r_2r_3-r_1r_4)\cos{(2\theta)}}{2 D^*}\\ \nonumber
d_{3} & = \frac{r_1r_2}{D^{*}} & d_{4} = \frac{r_2r_3+r_1r_4+(r_1r_4-r_2r_3)\cos{(2\theta)}}{2 D^*},
\end{align}
For $\omega_s<\Omega$, exchange $r_1$ and $r_3$ in the above equations. The off-diagonal term (coherence) is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:c}
c = -i\frac{(r_2r_3-r_1r_4)\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta}}{D^*},
\end{align}
and for $ 4g^2<\omega_L\omega_R$ its absolute value is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:CohAsym}
|c| & = \frac{\cos^2{\theta}(N^{-}_R-N^{+}_L)+\sin^2{\theta}(N^{-}_L-N^{+}_R)}{2 \sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}D^*}, \nonumber \\ &\text{ and for } 4g^2>\omega_L\omega_R\nonumber\\
|c| & = \frac{\cos^2{\theta}(N^{-}_R + N^{+}_L)+\sin^2{\theta}(N^{-}_L + N^{+}_R)+1}{2 \sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}D^*},
\end{align}
for convenience, we have used the following notations
\begin{align}
N^{\pm}_{R(L)} & = N_{R(L)}(\omega_{\pm}) \nonumber \\ D^* &=D(T_R,T_L,|\omega_-|)D(T_L,T_R,\omega_+).
\end{align}
As expected, for the uncoupled qubits, the coherences vanish because of $\text{cos}\theta=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c}), and the coherences are purely imaginary for any set of system parameters. For very large $g$ in comparison to $\omega_S$, $\omega_D$ and temperatures, the coherences saturate to
\begin{align}
|c|_{s} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}},
\end{align}
which reflects that coherences are inversely proportional to $\epsilon$. We note that the coherence is necessary for the steady-state $\rho_\text{ss}$ to be in an entangled state; however, only coherence is not sufficient for its emergence. The precise condition for the two qubits to be in an entangled state is given by the positivity-of-the-partial-transpose separability criterion~\cite{PhysRevLett.77.1413}
\begin{align}
|c|>\frac{1}{2}\frac{d_{1}+d_4}{d_1-d_4}.
\end{align}
This condition is satisfied in the limit $g\gg\{\omega_{L}, \omega_{R}\}$.
To quantify the entanglement, we use concurrence as a measure of entanglement between the two qubits, and it is given by~\cite{Wootters}
\begin{equation}\label{con}
C({\rho}_\text{ss})=\text{max}[0, ~\lambda_1-\lambda_2-\lambda_3-\lambda_4].
\end{equation}
Here $\lambda$'s are the eignevalue in decreasing order of the matrix
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}=\sqrt{\sqrt{{\rho}_\text{ss}} \tilde{\rho}_\text{ss}\sqrt{{\rho}_\text{ss}}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho}=(\hat{\sigma}_y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_y) {\rho}_\text{ss}^*(\hat{\sigma}_y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_y),
\end{equation}
here complex conjugate operation is denoted by $*$.
Fig.~\ref{coherence_fig} shows that both the stationary coherence $|c|$ and concurrence $C(\rho_{\text{ss}})$ are monotonically increasing functions of the interqubit coupling $g$, and both saturate to their maximum values in the limit $g\gg 1$. This is in contrast with the qualitative behavior of rectification, as larger value of $g$, is associated
with lower rectification [see Fig.~\ref{Rectification_figure}(c)]. Accordingly, strong quantum correlations and coherences are detrimental to the performance of our quantum thermal rectifier.
It is interesting to note that similar to heat currents, coherences are also asymmetrical under the reversal of temperature bias [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:CohAsym})]. Recall that the asymmetry in heat flow vanishes for $\epsilon = 0$ [given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:AsymCond})], which is possible for: (i) resonant qubits $\omega_{L}=\omega_{R}$, and (ii) $g\gg \{\omega_{L}, \omega_{R}\}$, in this limit $\text{sin}^2\theta \approx \text{cos}^2\theta$. Remarkably, the asymmetry in the coherences under the reversal of temperature bias also vanishes for these same conditions. Accordingly, similar to heat current rectification, we define asymmetry in coherences
\begin{align}\label{coherence_asymmetry}
\mathcal{A} :=\frac{ |c(T_R,T_L)|-|c(T_L,T_R)|}{\text{Max}[| c(T_L,T_R)|,| c(T_R,T_L) |]}.
\end{align}
To investigate the possible interplay between the asymmetry in the coherences and heat rectification, we plot both heat rectification $\mathcal{R}$ and asymmetry in coherence $\mathcal{A}$ as a function of the control parameter $g$ in Fig.~\ref{coherenceRect_Fig}.
In the limit of weak inter qubits coupling, $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ have similar qualitative behavior, and it becomes quantitatively identical as well for $g>\{\omega_{L}, \omega_{R}\}$. The increase in the temperature bias results in an increased asymmetry in the coherences. Accordingly, the quality of heat rectification also improves, which indicates that asymmetry in the coherences and heat rectification are associated. Asymmetry in the coherences is sufficient for the emergence of thermal rectification in our model.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Coherneces_Rectification.pdf}}
\caption{\label{coherenceRect_Fig} (Color online) {\textbf{(a)}} Variation of rectification $\mathcal{R}$ and asymmetry in the coherences $\mathcal{A}$ as a function of $g$ for $T_\text{high}=5$ (blue solid line for $\mathcal{R}$) and (green dotted line for $\mathcal{A}$) and $T_\text{high}= 10$ (red dashed line for $\mathcal{R}$) and (black dot-dashed line $\mathcal{A}$).
Parameters: $\kappa=0.0001$, $\omega_L=1$, and $\omega_{R}=0.01$.}
\end{figure}
All the preceding analysis shows that the quantumness of correlations established between the qubits and heat rectification are related. We note that (i) the emergence of entanglement between the qubits kills the asymmetry in heat flow, and (ii) asymmetry in the coherence is required for the asymmetry in the heat flow and vice versa.
Along with the previously reported sources of asymmetry for thermal rectification~\cite{Muhammad}, we find that asymmetry in the coherences appears to be the fundamental resource for a thermal rectifier.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
We investigate the heat rectification ability of a two-qubit thermal diode in which the qubits interact via the DM interaction with the DM exchange field in the quantization axis. We find that thermal diode action is controlled by the relative strength of the detuning between the qubits compared to the DM field. We find that a single asymmetry parameter can be used to characterize the rectification in our system. We also see that there is a trade off between current and rectification in our system and larger current leads to a decrease in rectification but a possibility of optimization exists.
We identify the high stability regions of the diode operation in terms of the bath temperatures and DM field amplitude. Furthermore, the direction of rectification can be controlled by the sign of the detuning of the qubits. Similar features arise when we change the direction of the anisotropy field, though such DM thermal diodes operate more efficiently at lower temperatures. For higher temperatures, the DM exchange field along the quantization direction gives the optimum results.
The heat rectification is found to be related to the stationary quantum correlations established between the qubits. The asymmetry in the heat flow vanishes with the emergence
of entanglement between the qubits. However, asymmetry in the coherences is found to be a fundamental resource for the performance of a quantum thermal rectifier. Correlation properties of the environment may result in more efficient quantum thermal
diodes; however, it requires further investigation.
\section{acknowledgement}
RM gratefully acknowledges financial support from Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, under the Core Research Grant (Project No. CRG/2020/000620).
We also thank Rafael S\'anchez of the Autonomous University of Madrid for his valuable feedback on our manuscript.
|
\section{Introduction}
Many systems change involving slow and fast components in the natural world. For instance, dynamics of chemical reaction networks often take place on notably different times
scales, from the order of nanoseconds ($10^{-9}$ s) to the order of several days; When you are looking at the interaction between temperature and climate, it is found that
the daily temperature changes more rapidly, while climate changes are relatively slow. People always call this kind of system as the multiscale system or slow-fast system.
Multiscale models have wide applications in various fields, such as nonlinear oscillations, chemical kinetics, biology, climate dynamics, see e.g. \cite{BR, WTRY16} and the references therein.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Multiscale systems often show characteristics that do not conform to common sense, and the complexity of this kind system makes the traditional single theory no longer applicable,
so the study of multiscale models system becomes inevitable and necessary. The mathematical methods people use are often referred to as the methods of averaging and of homogenization,
see e.g. \cite{FW,PS} and the references therein.
\vspace{0.2cm}
The averaging principle for multiscale models describes the asymptotic behavior of the slow component as the scale parameter ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. Bogoliubov and
Mitropolsky \cite{BM} first studied the averaging principle for the deterministic systems. Khasminskii \cite{K1} established an averaging principle for the stochastic differential
equations driven by Wiener noise. Since these pioneering works, many people have studied averaging principles for various stochastic systems, see e.g. \cite{GKK,GJ,HL,KY2,Ki,L1,LRSX1,RSX2,V0,ZHWWD}
for stochastic differential equations (SDEs), and see e.g. \cite{B1, B3, C1,C2,CL,DSXZ,FLL,FWLL,GP4,GP5,PXY,SXX1,WR,XML1} for stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs).
\vspace{0.2cm}
In this paper, we consider the following slow-fast stochastic system on a Hilbert space $H$:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{main equation}
\displaystyle
dX^{{\varepsilon}}_t=\left[AX^{{\varepsilon}}_t+B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t)\right]dt+dL_t,\quad X^{{\varepsilon}}_0=x\in H,\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle dY^{{\varepsilon}}_t=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}[AY^{{\varepsilon}}_t+F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t)]dt+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}dZ_t,\quad Y^{{\varepsilon}}_0=y\in H,\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon >0$ is a small parameter describing the ratio of time scales between the slow component $X^{\varepsilon}$ and fast component $Y^{\varepsilon}$.
$A$ is a selfadjoint operator, measurable functions $B,F:H\times H\rightarrow H$ satisfy some appropriate conditions, and $\{L_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ and $\{Z_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ are
mutually independent cylindrical $\alpha$-stable process with $\alpha\in (1,2)$, which are defined on a complete filtered probability space
$(\Omega,\mathscr{F},\{\mathscr{F}_{t}\}_{t\geq0},\mathbb{P})$.
\vspace{2mm}
The strong averaging principle for such stochastic systems \eref{main equation} has attracted some attention recently. For instance, Bao et al. \cite{BYY} proved
the strong averaging principle for two-time scale SPDEs driven by $\alpha$-stable noise. The authors have proved the strong averaging principle for stochastic Ginzburg-Landau equation,
stochastic Burgers equations and a class of SPDEs with H\"{o}lder coefficients in \cite{SZ}, \cite{CSS} and \cite{SXXZ} respectively. However, the key technique used in these mentioned papers
was based on the Khasminskii's time discretization, thus no satisfactory convergence order was obtained. Meanwhile, studying the convergence rate is an interesting and important topic
in multiscale system. For instance, Br\'{e}hier \cite{B2,B3} used the convergence rate to construct the efficient numerical schemes, based on the Heterogeneous Multiscale Methods.
\vspace{2mm}
The order of convergence for slow-fast stochastic systems has been studied extensively.
The technique of Khasminskii's time discretization is frequently used to study the strong convergence rate (see e.g. \cite{B1, GD, L1, RSX2}),
while the method of asymptotic expansion of solutions of Kolmogorov equations in the parameter ${\varepsilon}$ is used to study the weak convergence rate (see e.g. \cite{B1,DSXZ, FWLL,KY2,ZFWL}).
Recently, the technique of Poisson equation is widely used to study the strong and weak convergence rates, see e.g. \cite{B3,GSX,RSX2,RXY,SXX,XY}. For more applications of Poisson equation,
see e. g. \cite{PV1,PV2,RX} and references therein.
\vspace{2mm}
The aim of this paper is first establish the strong convergence rates of stochastic system \eref{main equation}. More precisely, for any $(x,y)\in H^{\eta}\times H$ with $\eta\in (0,1)$, $T>0$
and $1\leqslant p<\alpha$, one tries to prove that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{E}|X^{{\varepsilon}}_t-\bar{X}_t|^p\leqslant C{\varepsilon}^{\left(1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)p},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C$ is a constant depending on $T, \|x\|_{\eta}, |y|, p$ and $\bar{X}$ is the solution of the corresponding averaged equation (see Eq. \eref{1.3} below).
Secondly, we continuous to study the weak convergence rates of stochastic system \eref{main equation}. More precisely, for some fixed test function $\phi$, then for any $(x,y)\in H \times H$,
$T>0$ and $r\in (0,1)$, one tries to prove that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\mathbb{E}\phi(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t)-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}_t)|\leqslant C{\varepsilon}^{1-r},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C$ is a constant depending on $T, |x|, |y|, r$.
\vspace{2mm}
In contrast to the existing works \cite{B3, GSX}, due to the Wiener noise is considered there, thus the solution has finite second moment usually.
However the solution here does not has finite second moment due to the $\alpha$-stable noise, hence some methods developed there do not work in this situation.
In order to overcome this difficulty, we shall estimate the solution of the corresponding Poisson equation more carefully, meanwhile the accurate treatment of the
$\alpha$-stable process is provided in the proof.
\vspace{2mm}
In contrast to the existing work \cite{SXX}, the strong and weak convergence rates for slow-fast SDEs driven by $\alpha$-stable noise are obtained there,
we here extend the case of finite dimension to infinite dimension essentially. However, we have to overcome some non-trivial difficulties in the infinite dimensional case.
For example the presentation of term $AX^{{\varepsilon}}_t$, the method of Galerkin approximation and the smoothing properties of the semigroup $e^{tA}$ will be used to deal with
a serious of difficulties arising from the unbounded operator $A$.
\vspace{2mm}
Another contribution of this paper is to fill a gap in \cite{BYY} partially. As stated in \cite[Remark 3.3]{BYY}, \emph{"for the technical reason, it seems hard to show
Theorem 3.1 without the uniform boundedness of the nonlinearity"}, where \emph{"Theorem 3.1"} means the strong averaging principle holds and \emph{"the nonlinearity"} means the coefficient $B$.
In fact, the essential reason is that the method used in \cite{BYY} is the classical Khasminskii's time discretization, which highly depends on the square calculation in the
proof, hence the finite second moment of the solution $X^{{\varepsilon}}_t$ is required usually. But the solution $X^{{\varepsilon}}_t$ for system \eref{main equation} only has finite $p$-th moment
($0<p<\alpha$), the uniform boundedness of $B$ is used to weaken the finite second moment to finite first moment. However, the technique of Poisson equation is used to remove
the condition of uniform boundedness of $B$, but some bounded conditions of second and third derivatives for the coefficients are assumed. Moreover,
the optimal strong averaging convergence order is obtained here.
\vspace{2mm}
The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, some notations and assumptions are introduced. Then we state our main results.
Section 3 is devoted to study the regularity of the solution of the corresponding Poisson equation. The detailed proofs of strong and weak convergence rates are provided
in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. The final section is the appendix, where we give some a-priori estimates of the solution, and study the Galerkin approximation of the system
\eref{main equation} and the finite dimensional approximation of the frozen equation.
\vspace{0.2cm}
We note that throughout this paper $C$, $C_p$, $C_{T}$ and $C_{p,T}$ denote positive constants which may change from line to line, where the subscript $p,T$
are used to emphasize that the constants depend on $p,T$.
\section{Notations and main results} \label{Sec Main Result}
\subsection{Notations and assumptions}
We introduce some notation used throughout this paper. $H$ is Hilbert space with inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and norm $|\cdot|$.
$\mathbb{N}_{+}$ stands for the collection of all the positive integers.
\vspace{2mm}
$\mathcal{B}(H)$ denotes the collection of all measurable functions $\varphi(x): H\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
For any $k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$,
\begin{align*}
C^k(H):=&\{\varphi\in \mathcal{B}(H): \varphi \mbox{ and all its Fr\'{e}chet derivatives up to order } k \mbox{ are continuous}\},\\
C^k_b(H):=&\{\varphi\in C^k(H): \mbox{ for } 1\le i\le k, \mbox{ all $i$-th Fr\'{e}chet derivatives of } \varphi \mbox{ are bounded} \}.
\end{align*}
For any $\varphi\in C^3(H)$, by the Riesz representation theorem, we often identify the first Fr\'{e}chet derivative $D\varphi(x)\in \mathcal{L}(H, \mathbb{R})\cong H$,
the second derivative $D^2\varphi(x)$ as a linear operator in $\mathcal{L}(H,H)$ and the third derivative $D^3\varphi(x)$ as a linear operator in $\mathcal{L}(H,\mathcal{L}(H,H))$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&D\varphi(x) \cdot h_1 = \langle D\varphi(x), h_1 \rangle,\quad h_1\in H,\\
&&D^2\varphi(x) \cdot (h_1,h_2) = \langle D^2\varphi(x)\cdot h_1, h_2 \rangle, \quad h_1,h_2 \in H,\\
&&D^3\varphi(x) \cdot (h_1,h_2,h_3)= [D^3\varphi(x)\cdot h_1]\cdot (h_2,h_3),\quad h_1,h_2,h_3\in H,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $D^k\varphi(x) \cdot h$ is the $k$-th directional derivative of $\varphi$ in the direction $(h_1,\ldots,h_k)$, for $k=1,2,3$.
A selfadjoint operator $A$ satisfies $Ae_n=-\lambda_n e_n$ with $\lambda_n>0$ and $\lambda_n\uparrow \infty$, as $n\uparrow \infty$, where $\{e_n\}_{n\geq1}\subset \mathscr{D}(A)$
is a complete orthonormal basis of $H$. For any $s\in\mathbb{R}$, we define
$$H^s:=\mathscr{D}((-A)^{s/2}):=\left\{u=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}u_ke_k: u_k\in \mathbb{R},~\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}\lambda_k^{s}u_k^2<\infty\right\}$$
and
$$(-A)^{s/2}u:=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\lambda_k^{s/2} u_ke_k,~~u\in\mathscr{D}((-A)^{s/2})$$
with the associated norm $\|u\|_{s}:=|(-A)^{s/2}u|=\left(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}\lambda_k^{s} u^2_k\right)^{1/2}$. It is easy to see $\|\cdot\|_0=|\cdot|$.
\vspace{2mm}
The following smoothing properties of the semigroup $e^{tA}$ (see \cite[Proposition 2.4]{B1}) will be used quite often later in this paper:
\begin{eqnarray}
\|e^{tA}x\|_{\sigma_2}\leqslant C_{\sigma_1,\sigma_2}t^{-\frac{\sigma_2-\sigma_1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\lambda_1 t}{2}}\|x\|_{\sigma_1},\quad x\in H^{\sigma_2},\sigma_1\leqslant\sigma_2, t>0,\label{P3}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
|e^{tA}x-x|\leqslant C_{\sigma}t^{\frac{\sigma}{2}}\|x\|_{\sigma},\quad x\in H^{\sigma},\sigma>0, t\geqslant 0.\label{P4}
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\{L_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ and $\{Z_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ be mutually independent cylindrical $\alpha$-stable processes, where $\alpha\in(1,2)$, i.e.,
$$
L_t=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\beta_{k}L^{k}_{t}e_k,\quad Z_t=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\gamma_{k}Z^{k}_{t}e_k,\quad t\geqslant 0,
$$
where $\{\beta_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}$ and $\{\gamma_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}$ are two given sequence of positive numbers, $\{L^n_t\}_{n\geq1}$ and $\{Z^n_t\}_{n\geq1}$
are two sequences of independent one dimensional rotationally symmetric $\alpha$-stable processes with $\alpha\in(1,2)$ satisfying for any $k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$ and $t\geq0$,
$$\mathbb{E}[e^{i L^k_{t}h}]=\mathbb{E}[e^{i Z^k_{t}h}]=e^{-t|h|^{\alpha}}, \quad h\in \mathbb{R}.$$
For $t>0$, $k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$ and $\Gamma\in\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\})$, the Poisson random measure associated with $L^{k}$ and $Z^k$ are defined by
$$N^{1,k}([0,t],\Gamma)=\sum_{0\leqslant s\leqslant t}1_{\Gamma}(L^{k}_s-L^{k}_{s-}),\quad N^{2,k}([0,t],\Gamma)=\sum_{0\leqslant s\leqslant t}1_{\Gamma}(Z^{k}_s-Z^{k}_{s-})$$
and the corresponding compensated Poisson random measures are given by
$$\widetilde{N}^{i,k}([0,t],\Gamma)=N^{i,k}([0,t],\Gamma)-t\nu(\Gamma),\quad i=1,2,$$
where $\nu(dy)=\frac{c_{\alpha}}{|y|^{1+\alpha}}dy$ is the L\'evy measure with $c_{\alpha}>0$.
\vspace{2mm}
By L\'evy-It\^o's decomposition and the symmetry of the L\'{e}vy measure $\nu$, one has
$$L^{k}_{t}=\int_{|x|\leqslant c}x\widetilde{N}^{1,k}([0,t],dx)+\int_{|x|>c}x N^{1,k}([0,t],dx),$$
$$Z^{k}_{t}=\int_{|x|\leqslant c}x\widetilde{N}^{2,k}([0,t],dx)+\int_{|x|>c}x N^{2,k}([0,t],dx),$$
where $c>0$. We also assume that $\{L^n_t\}_{n\geq1}$ and $\{Z^n_t\}_{n\geq1}$ are independent.
\vspace{0.2cm}
Now, we assume the following conditions on the coefficients $B, F: H\times H \rightarrow H$ throughout the paper:
\begin{conditionA}\label{A1}
$B$ and $F$ are Lipschitz continuous, i.e., there exist positive constants $L_{F}$ and $C$ such that for any $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2\in H$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left|B(x_1,y_1)-B(x_2,y_2)\right|\leqslant C(|x_1-x_2|+|y_1-y_2|),\\
&&\left|F(x_1,y_2)-F(x_2,y_2)\right|\leqslant C|x_1-x_2|+L_{F}|y_1-y_2|.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{conditionA}
\begin{conditionA}\label{A2} Assume that $\lambda_{1}-L_{F}>0$, $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\alpha-1}_k<\infty$ and $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\gamma^{\alpha}_k<\infty$.
\end{conditionA}
\begin{conditionA}\label{A3}
Assume that there exists $\kappa_1\in (0,2)$ such that the following directional derivatives are well-defined and satisfy:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{aa}
\displaystyle
|D_{x}B(x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C |h| \quad \text{and} \quad |D_{y}B(x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C |h|,\quad \forall x,y, h\in H ,\vspace{0.2cm} \\
|D_{xx}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C |h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1},\quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in H^{\kappa_1},\vspace{0.2cm} \\
|D_{yy}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C |h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1},\quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in H^{\kappa_1} ,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
|D_{xy}B(x,y)\cdot (h,k)|\leqslant C |h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in H^{\kappa_1},\vspace{0.2cm}\\
|D_{xy}B(x,y)\cdot (h,k)|\leqslant C \|h\|_{\kappa_1}|k|, \quad \forall x,y, k\in H, h\in H^{\kappa_1},\vspace{0.2cm}\\
|D_{xyy}\!B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\|l\|_{\kappa_1}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in H^{\kappa_1},\vspace{0.2cm}\\
|D_{yyy}\!B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\|l\|_{\kappa_1}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in H^{\kappa_1} ,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
|D_{xxy}\!B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\|l\|_{\kappa_1}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in H^{\kappa_1} ,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $D_{x}B(x,y)\cdot h$ is the directional derivative of $B(x,y)$ in the direction $h$ with respective to $x$,
other notations can be interpreted similarly. The above properties in \eref{aa} also hold for operator $F$.
\end{conditionA}
\begin{remark}\label{Re1} Suppose that the assumption \ref{A1} holds, $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\beta^{\alpha}_k/\lambda_k<\infty$ and
$\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\gamma^{\alpha}_k/{\lambda_k}<\infty$. As \cite{PZ} did, we have that, for $\varepsilon>0$ and $(x,y)\in H\times H$,
the system \eref{main equation} admits a unique mild solution $(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t)\in H\times H$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{A mild solution}
\displaystyle
X^{\varepsilon}_t=e^{tA}x+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}B(X^{\varepsilon}_s, Y^{\varepsilon}_s)ds+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
\displaystyle
Y^{\varepsilon}_t=e^{tA/\varepsilon}y+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}F(X^{\varepsilon}_s,Y^{\varepsilon}_s)ds
+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}dZ_s.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{Re2}
The condition $\lambda_{1}-L_{F}>0$ in assumption \ref{A2} is called the strong dissipative condition, which is used to prove the existence and uniqueness of the invariant measures
and the exponential ergodicity of the transition semigroup of the frozen equation. The condition
$\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\gamma^{\alpha}_k<\infty$ in assumption \ref{A2} are necessary when applying It\^o's formula for the solution $(X^{\varepsilon}, Y^{\varepsilon})$.
While the condition $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\beta^{\alpha}_k \lambda^{\alpha-1}_k<\infty$ is used to control $\mathbb{ E}\|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d L_s\|_2$.
For a more general result see \cite[Lemma 4.1]{PSXZ}, i.e., if $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\alpha\theta/2}_k}<\infty$ holds for some
$\theta\geqslant 0$, then we have for any $0<p<\alpha$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\geqslant 0}\mathbb{ E}\left\|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d L_s\right\|^p_{\theta}\leqslant C_{\alpha,p}\left(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\alpha\theta/2}_k}\right)^{p/\alpha}.\label{LA}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{EA3}
Here we give a example that the conditions in assumption \ref{A3} hold.
Let $H:=\{g\in L^2(\mathcal{D}): g(\xi)=0, \xi\in \partial\mathcal{D}\}$, where $\mathcal{D}=(0,1)^d$ for $d=1,2,3$, $\partial\mathcal{D}$ is the boundary of domain $\mathcal{D}$ and
$A:=\Delta:=\sum^d_{i=1}\partial^2_{\xi_i}$ be the Laplacian operator. The coefficient $B$ is defined to be the Nemytskii operator associated with a function
$b:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, i.e., $B(x,y)(\xi):=b(x(\xi),y(\xi))$. Then the following directional derivatives are well-defined and belong to $H$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&D_{x}B(x,y)\cdot h=\partial_x b(x,y)h \quad \text{and} \quad D_{x}B(x,y)\cdot h=\partial_y b(x,y)h ,\quad \forall x,y, h\in H ,\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{xx}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k)=\partial_{xx}b(x,y)hk,\quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in L^{\infty}(0,1) ,\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{yy}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k)=\partial_{yy}b(x,y)hk,\quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in L^{\infty}(0,1),\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{xy}B(x,y)\cdot (h,k)=\partial_{xy}b(x,y)hk, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k\in L^{\infty}(0,1) ,\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{xyy}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)=\partial_{xyy}b(x,y)hkl, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in L^{\infty}(0,1) ,\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{yyy}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)=\partial_{yyy}b(x,y)hkl, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in L^{\infty}(0,1) ,\vspace{2mm}\\
&&D_{xxy}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)=\partial_{xxy}b(x,y)hkl, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in L^{\infty}(0,1),
\end{eqnarray*}
where all the partial derivatives of $b$ appear above are uniformly bounded by assumption.
\vspace{2mm}
Note that $H^{d/2+\eta}\subset L^{\infty} (\mathcal{D})$ for any $\eta>0$(see \cite[(6)]{B3}), thus it is easy to see that $B$ satisfy assumption \ref{A3}
with any $\kappa_1\in (1/2,2)$ for $d=1$, $\kappa_1\in (1,2)$ for $d=2$ and $\kappa_1\in (3/2,2)$ for $d=3$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Main results}
Let $\mu^{x}$ be the unique invariant measure of the transition semigroup of the frozen equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{FZE}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
&dY_{t}=\left[AY_{t}+F(x,Y_{t})\right]dt+d Z_{t},\vspace{2mm}\\
&Y_{0}=y\in H
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
and define $\bar{B}(x):=\int_{H}B(x,y)\mu^{x}(dy)$. Let $\bar{X}$ be the solution of the corresponding averaged equation:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle d\bar{X}_{t}=\left[A\bar{X}_{t}+\bar{B}(\bar{X}_{t})\right]dt+d L_{t},\vspace{2mm}\\
\bar{X}_{0}=x\in H. \end{array}\right. \label{1.3}
\end{equation}
Here we state our main results.
\begin{theorem} (\textbf{Strong convergence rate})\label{main result 1}
Suppose that assumptions \ref{A1} and \ref{A3} hold. Then for any initial values $(x,y)\in H^{\eta}\times H$ with $\eta\in(0,1)$, $T>0$, $1\leqslant p<\alpha$ and small enough ${\varepsilon},\delta>0$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}_{t}|^{p}\leqslant C_{p,T,\delta}\left[1+\|x\|^{(1+\delta)p}_{\eta}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p}\right]{\varepsilon}^{\left(1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)p}. \label{ST}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The result \eref{ST} above implies that the strong convergence order is $1-\frac{1}{\alpha}$, which is the optimal order in the strong sense usually (see \cite[Example 2.2]{SXX}).
Meanwhile, when $\alpha\uparrow2$, this order $1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\uparrow \frac{1}{2}$, which is in accord with the optimal order $1/2$ in the case of Wiener noise (see \cite{B3,GSX,RXY}).
Note that we do not assume the boundedness of $B$, thus it gives a positive answer to \cite[Remark 3.3]{BYY}.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}(\textbf{Weak convergence rate})\label{main result 2}
Suppose that assumptions \ref{A1}-\ref{A3} hold. Moreover, $\sup_{x,y}|B(x,y)|<\infty$ and there exists $\kappa_2\in (0,2)$ such that the following directional derivatives are well-defined and satisfy:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!|D_{xxx}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_2}\|l\|_{\kappa_2}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in H^{\kappa_2}, \label{ThirdDer F4}\vspace{2mm}\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!|D_{xxx}F(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_2}\|l\|_{\kappa_2}, \quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in H^{\kappa_2}. \label{ThirdDer F5}
\end{eqnarray}
Then for any test function $\phi\in C^3_b(H)$, initial values $(x,y)\in H\times H$, $T>0$, $r\in (0,1)$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left|\mathbb{E}\phi(X_{t}^{{\varepsilon}})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}_{t})\right|\leqslant C_{r,T,\delta}\left[1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta}\right]{\varepsilon}^{1-r}, \label{WC}
\end{align}
where $C_{r,T,\delta}$ is a constant depends on $r, T, \delta$ and $\lim_{r\downarrow 0}C_{r,T,\delta}=\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The result \eref{WC} implies that the weak convergence rate is $1-r$ with any $r\in (0,1)$. Comparing with the theorem \ref{main result 1}, the stronger regularity of the coefficients
$B,F$ are assumed, while initial value $x\in H$ and the improved convergence order is obtained. It is worthy to point that the boundedness of the $B$ is assumed for the reason of the
solution does not has finite second moment. Meanwhile, it fails to obtain the expected weak convergence order 1 (see \cite{SXX}).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Here we give a example that some additional conditions in Theorem \eref{main result 2} hold. Recall the notations in Remark \ref{EA3}. Obviously $\sup_{x,y\in H}|B(x,y)|<\infty$ by
assuming $\sup_{x,y\in \mathbb{R}}|b(x,y)|<\infty$. Next we check the condition \eref{ThirdDer F5}. Assume that $\sup_{x,y\in \mathbb{R}}|\partial_{xxx}b(x,y)|<\infty$. Then the following directional
derivatives are well-defined and belong to $H$,
$$
D_{xxx}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)=\partial_{xxx}b(x,y)hkl,\quad \forall x,y, h\in H, k,l\in L^{\infty}(0,1).
$$
Note that $H^{d/2+\eta}\subset L^{\infty} (\mathcal{D})$ for any $\eta>0$, thus it is easy to see that
$$
|D_{xxx}B(x,y)\cdot(h,k,l)|=|\partial_{xxx}b(x,y)hkl|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_2}\|l\|_{\kappa_2},
$$
where $\kappa_2\in (1/2,2)$ for $d=1$, $\kappa_2\in (1,2)$ for $d=2$ and $\kappa_2\in (3/2,2)$ for $d=3$. The assumption \eref{ThirdDer F5} can be handled similarly.
\end{remark}
\section{The Poisson equation for nonlocal operator}
Since the drift coefficient $B$ may not be bounded and the solution $X^{{\varepsilon}}_t$ does not has finite second moment, the classical Khasminskii's time discreatization dose not work in
this situation (see \cite[Remark 3.3]{BYY}). We shall use the technique of Poisson equation to obtain the strong and weak convergence rates for system \eref{main equation}.
Meanwhile, note that the operator $A$ is not a bounded operator and $H\ni x$ may not belong to $\mathscr{D}(-A)$, we use Galerkin approximation to reduce the infinite dimensional
problem to a finite dimension firstly, then we will take the limit finally, i.e., considering
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{Ga mainE}
\displaystyle
dX^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t=[AX^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t+B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t)]dt+d\bar L^m_t,\ X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_0=x^{m}\in H_m,\vspace{2mm}\\
\displaystyle
dY^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}[AY^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t+F^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t)]dt+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}d\bar Z^m_t,\quad Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_0=y^m\in H_m,\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $m\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$, $H_{m}:=\text{span}\{e_{k};1\leqslant k \leqslant m\}$, $\pi_{m}$ is the orthogonal projection of $H$ onto $H_{m}$, $x^{m}:=\pi_m x, y^m:=\pi_m y$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& B^{m}(x,y):=\pi_m B(x,y),\quad F^{m}(x,y):=\pi_m F(x, y),\\
&&\bar L^{m}_t:=\sum^m_{k=1}\beta_{k}L^{k}_{t}e_k,\quad \bar Z^{m}_t:=\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma_{k}Z^{k}_{t}e_k.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, we consider the following approximation to the averaged equation \eref{1.3}:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle d\bar{X}^m_{t}=\left[A\bar{X}^m_{t}+\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right]dt+d \bar{L}^m_{t},\vspace{2mm}\\
\bar{X}^m_{0}=x^m,\end{array}\right. \label{Ga 1.3}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{B}^m(x):=\int_{H_m}B^m(x,y)\mu^{x,m}(dy)$, and $\mu^{x,m}$ is the unique invariant measure of the transition semigroup of the following frozen equation:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle dY^{x,y,m}_t=[AY^{x,y,m}_t+F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)]dt+d\bar{Z}^m_t,\vspace{2mm}\\
Y^{x,y,m}_0=y\in H_m.\end{array}\right. \label{Ga FZE}
\end{equation}
Before we use the technique of Poisson equation, we need to do some preparations.
\subsection{The frozen equation}
For fixed $x\in H$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}_{+}$, we recall the finite dimensional frozen equation \eref{Ga FZE}.
Note that $F^m(x,\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous, then it is easy to show that for any initial value $y\in H_m$,
equation $(\ref{Ga FZE})$ has a unique mild solution $\{Y_{t}^{x,y,m}\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ in $H_m$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y_{t}^{x,y,m}=e^{tA}y+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}F^m(x,Y_{s}^{x,y,m})ds+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}d\bar{Z}^m_s.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, the solution $\{Y_{t}^{x,y,m}\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ is a time homogeneous Markov process. Let $\{P^{x,m}_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ be its transition semigroup, i.e., for any bounded
measurable function $\varphi: H_m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
$$
P^{x,m}_t\varphi(y):=\mathbb{ E}\varphi(Y_{t}^{x,y,m}), \quad y\in H_m, t\geqslant 0.
$$
Before studying the asymptotic behavior of $\{P^{x,m}_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$, we prove the following lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{L3.2}
For any $p\in [1,\alpha)$, there exists $C_p>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\mathbb{ E}|Y_{t}^{x,y,m}|^p\leqslant e^{-\lambda_1 pt}|y|^p+C_p(1+|x|^p).\label{FEq2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a straightforward computation, it is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray*}
|Y^{x,y,m}_t|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{-\lambda_1 t}|y|+\int^t_0e^{-\lambda_1(t-s)}|F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_s)|ds+\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& e^{-\lambda_1 t}|y|+\int^t_0e^{-\lambda_1(t-s)}\left(L_F|Y^{x,y,m}_s|+C|x|+C\right)ds+\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by Minkowski's inequality, we have for any $p\in (1,\alpha)$ and $t\geqslant 0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,y,m}_t|^p\right)^{1/p}\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{-\lambda_1 t}|y|+\int^t_0e^{-\lambda_1(t-s)}\left[L_F\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,y,m}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}+C|x|+C\right]ds\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& e^{-\lambda_1 t}|y|+\frac{C(1+|x|)}{\lambda_1}+\frac{L_F}{\lambda_1}\sup_{s\in[0,t]}\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,y,m}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}+\left(\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|^p\right)^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By condition $L_F<\lambda_1$ in assumption \ref{A2}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,y,m}_t|^p
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& e^{-\lambda_1 pt}|y|^p+C_p(1+|x|^p)+C_p\sup_{t\geqslant 0}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|^p.\label{F3.13}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that condition $\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k<\infty$ implies $\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k }{\lambda_k}<\infty$. Then by \eref{LA}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\geqslant 0}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|^p
\leqslant C_{\alpha,p}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k }{\lambda_k} \right)^{p/\alpha}.\label{F3.14}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, \eref{F3.13} and \eref{F3.14} implies that \eref{FEq2} holds. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{L3.6}
For any $t>0$ and $x_1,x_2\in H, y_1,y_2\in H_m$, there exists $C>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t|\leqslant e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}|y_1-y_2|+C|x_1-x_2|.\label{increase Y}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $x_1,x_2\in H, y_1,y_2\in H_m$, note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}(Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&A(Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t)+\left[F^m(x_1, Y^{x_1,,y_1,m}_t)-F^m(x_2, Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t)\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Multiplying $2(Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t)$ in both sides, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t|^2=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t\|^2_1\\
&&+2\langle F^m( x_1,Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t)-F^m(x_2, Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t), Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t\rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by $L_F<\lambda_1$ in assumption \ref{A2} and Young's inequality, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t|^2\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&-2\lambda_1|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t|^2+2L_F\left|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t\right|^2\\
&&+C|x_1-x_2|\left|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t\right|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& -(\lambda_1-L_F)\left|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t\right|^2+C|x_1-x_2|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
By comparison theorem, we have for any $t> 0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
|Y^{x_1,y_1,m}_t-Y^{x_2,y_2,m}_t|^2\leqslant e^{-(\lambda_1-L_F)t}|y_1-y_2|^2+C|x_1-x_2|^2.\label{increase Y^2}
\end{eqnarray}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Under the condition $\lambda_1-L_F>0$, it is well known that the transition semigroup $\{P^{x,m}_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$ admits a unique invariant measure $\mu^{x,m}$ (see e.g.
\cite[Theorem 1.1]{WJ}). Using \eref{FEq2}, it is easy to check that for any $p\in [1,\alpha)$ and $x\in H$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\int_{H_m}|z|^p\mu^{x,m}(dz)\leqslant C_p(1+|x|^p).\label{E3.20}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, we shall prove the following exponential ergodicity for the transition semigroup $\{P^{x,m}_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$, which plays an important role in studying the regularity of the
solution of the Poisson equation.
\begin{proposition} \label{ergodicity in finite}
For any Lipschitz continuous function $G: H\rightarrow H$, then we have for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x\in H,m\geqslant 1}\left| P^{x,m}_tG(y)-\mu^{x,m}(G)\right|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\|G\|_{Lip} e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}(1+|x|+|y|), \label{ergodicity1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C>0$ and $\|G\|_{Lip}:=\sup_{x\neq y\in H}\frac{|G(x)-G(y)|}{|x-y|}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of invariant measure $\mu^{x,m}$ and \eref{increase Y}, we have for any $t> 0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| P^{x,m}_tG(y)-\mu^{x,m}(G)\right|=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left| \mathbb{ E} G( Y^{x,y,m}_t)-\int_{H_m}G(z)\mu^{x,m}(dz)\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \left|\int_{H_m}\left[\mathbb{ E} G(Y^{x,y,m}_t)-\mathbb{ E} G(Y^{x,z,m}_t)\right]\mu^{x,m}(dz)\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \|G\|_{Lip}\int_{H_m} \mathbb{ E}\left| Y^{x,y,m}_t-Y^{x,z,m}_t\right|\mu^{x,m}(dz)\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \|G\|_{Lip} e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}\int_{H_m}|y-z|\mu^{x,m}(dz)\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \|G\|_{Lip}e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}\left[|y|+\int_{H_m}|z|\mu^{x,m}(dz)\right]\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C \|G\|_{Lip}e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}(1+|x|+|y|),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality is a consequence of \eref{E3.20}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The regularity of solution of the Poisson equation}
By the preparation in above subsection, this subsection is devoted to study the following Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}
-\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(x)\Phi_m(x,y)=B^m(x,y)-\bar{B}^m(x),\quad x,y\in H_m,\label{PE2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(x)$ is the infinitesimal generator of the transition semigroup of the finite dimensional frozen equation \eref{Ga FZE}, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(x)\Phi_m(x,y)\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&D_y\Phi_m(x,y)\cdot (Ay+F^m(x,y))\nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k \int_{\mathbb{R}}\!\!\Phi_m(x,y+e_k z)\!-\!\Phi_m(x,y)\!-\!\langle D_y\Phi_m(x,y), e_k z\rangle 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}\nu (dz).\label{L_2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\mathscr{L}_{2}(x)$ is the infinitesimal generator of the transition semigroup of the frozen process $\{Y^{x,y,m}_t\}_{t\geqslant 0}$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_m(x,y):=\int^{\infty}_{0}\left[\mathbb{ E} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)-\bar{B}^m(x)\right]dt.\label{SPE}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check \eref{SPE} solves equation \eref{PE2}. The following is the regularity of the solution $\Phi_m(x,y)$ with respect to parameters, which will play an important
role in the proof of our main results. The regularity of the solution of the Poisson equation with respect to parameters have been study in some references, see e.g. \cite{PV2,RSX2,SXX}.
\begin{proposition}\label{P3.6}
For any $\delta\in (0,1]$, there exists $C, C_{\delta}>0$ such that for any $x,y, h,k\in H_m$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{m\geq1}|\Phi_m(x,y)|\leqslant C(1+|x|+|y|); \label{E1}\\
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1}|D_y \Phi_m(x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C|h|;\label{E21}\\
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1}|D_x \Phi_m(x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C_{\delta}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|;\label{E2}\\
&& \sup_{m\geqslant 1}| D_{xx}\Phi_m(x, y)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C_{\delta}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1},\label{E3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa_1$ is the constant in assumption \ref{A3}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
It is crucial that the parameter $\delta>0$ in \eref{E2} and \eref{E3}, which plays a key role in solving the difficulty cased by the solution does not has finite second moment.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
The proof is divided into three steps.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Step 1.}
By Proposition \ref{ergodicity in finite}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Phi_m(x,y)|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^{\infty}_{0}| \mathbb{ E} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)-\bar{B}^m(x)|dt\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C(1+|y|)\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}dt\leqslant C(1+|y|).
\end{eqnarray*}
So the first estimate in \eref{E1} holds.
For any $h\in H_m$, we have
$$D_y \Phi_m(x,y)\cdot h=\int^{\infty}_0 \mathbb{ E}[D_y B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^h_y Y^{x,y,m}_t]dt,$$
where $D^h_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_t$ is the derivative of $Y^{x,y,m}_t$ with respect to $y$ in the direction $h$, which satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{partial y}
\displaystyle
dD^h_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_t=AD^h_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_tdt+D_y F^m(x,Y^{x,y}_{t})\cdot D^h_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_tdt,\vspace{2mm}\\
D^h_{y} Y^{x,y}_0=h.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Then by $\lambda_1-L_F>0$ and condition \eref{aa}, it is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x,y\in H_m}|D^h_y Y^{x,y,m}_t|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}|h|,\label{partial yY}
\end{eqnarray}
and for any $\eta\in (0,2)$ and $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x,y\in H_m}\|D^h_y Y^{x,y,m}_t\|_{\eta}\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}(1+t^{-\eta/2})|h|.\label{Hpartial yY}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus it follows
$$\sup_{x,y\in H_m}|D_y \Phi_m(x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C|h|.$$
So \eref{E2} holds.
Now, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde B^m_{t_0}(x, y, t):=\hat{B}^m(x,y, t)-\hat{B}^m(x, y, t+t_0),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\hat{B}^m(x, y, t):=\mathbb{ E} B^m(x, Y^{x, y}_t)$. Note that \eref{ergodicity1} implies
$$
\lim_{t_0\rightarrow \infty} \tilde{B}^m_{t_0}(x, y, t)=\mathbb{ E}[B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)]-\bar{B}^m(x).
$$
So in order to prove \eref{E2} and \eref{E3}, it suffices to show that there exists $C>0$ such that for any $\delta\in (0,1]$, $t_0>0$, $ t\geqslant 0$, $x,y\in H$,
\begin{eqnarray}
|D_{x}\tilde{B}^m_{t_0}(x,y,t)\cdot h|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1 \delta}{2}})(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|,\label{E21}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|D_{xx} \tilde{B}^m_{t_0}(x,y,t)\cdot(h,k)\right|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1 \delta}{2}})(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\label{E22},
\end{eqnarray}
which will be proved in step 2 and step 3 respectively.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\textbf{Step 2.} In this step, we intend to prove \eref{E21}. It follows from the Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{B}^m_{t_0}(x,y, t)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \hat{B}^m(x, y, t)-\mathbb{ E} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t+t_0})\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \hat{B}(x,y, t)-\mathbb{ E} \{\mathbb{ E}[B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t+t_0})|\mathscr{F}_{t_0}]\}\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \hat{B}(x, y, t)-\mathbb{ E} \hat{B}^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{x}\tilde{B}^m_{t_0}(x,y, t)\cdot h=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& D_{x} \hat{B}^m(x, y, t)\cdot h-\mathbb{ E} D_{x}\hat{B}^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot h\nonumber\\
&&- \mathbb{ E} \left[D_y\hat{B}^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0} \right],\label{5.8}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t$ is the derivative of $Y^{x,y,m}_t$ with respect to $x$ in the direction $h$, which satisfies
\begin{equation*}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{V}
\displaystyle
dD^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t=\left[AD^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t+D_{x} F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot h+D_y F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t\right]dt,\vspace{2mm}\\
D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_0=0.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
By \eref{P3} and \eref{aa}, we can easily obtain for any $\eta\in [0,2)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\geqslant 0, x,y\in H_m} \|D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t\|_{\eta}\leqslant C|h|.\label{HS0}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
$$D_y\hat{B}^m(x, y, t)\cdot h=\mathbb{ E}\left[D_y B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^h_y Y^{x,y,m}_t\right],$$
$$D_x\hat{B}^m(x, y, t)\cdot h=\mathbb{ E}\left[D_x B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot h+ D_y B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^h_x Y^{x,y,m}_t\right].$$
Then by \eref{aa}, \eref{HS0} and \eref{partial yY}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x, y\in H_m}|D_y\hat{B}^m(x, y, t)\cdot h|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}|h|,\label{S1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\geqslant 0, x, y\in H_m}|D_x\hat{B}^m(x, y, t)\cdot h|\leqslant C|h|.\label{S11}
\end{eqnarray}
Next if we can prove that for any $t> 0, h,k\in H_m$,
\begin{equation}\label{rs}
\sup_{x,y\in H_m}|D_{xy}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot (h,k)|\leqslant C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|,
\end{equation}
which combins with \eref{S11} and \eref{FEq2} we obtain for any $\delta\in (0,1]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&|D_{x} \hat B^m(x, y, t)\cdot h-\mathbb{ E} D_{x}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot h|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C|h|^{1-\delta}|D_{x} \hat B^m(x, y, t)\cdot h-\mathbb{ E} D_{x}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot h|^{\delta}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C|h|^{1-\delta}\left[\mathbb{ E}\left |\int^1_0 D_{xy}\hat B^m( x, \xi y+(1-\xi)Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0}, t)\cdot (h, y-Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0})d\xi\right|\right]^{\delta}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1 \delta}{2}})\mathbb{ E}|y-Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0}|^{\delta}|h|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1 \delta}{2}})(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|.\label{S2}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus by \eref{S1} and \eref{S2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
|D_{x}\tilde B^m_{t_0}( x, y, t)\cdot h|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{2}}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|+Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}|h|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta t}{2}}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|,
\end{eqnarray*}
which proves \eref{E21}.
Now, we are in a position to prove \eref{rs}. Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&|D_{xy}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot (h,k)|=|D_{xy} \left[\mathbb{ E} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\right]\cdot (h,k)|\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& |D_y\left[\mathbb{ E} D_{x} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)+\mathbb{ E} D_{y} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t\right]\cdot (h,k)|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \left|\mathbb{ E} \left[D_{xy} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(D^h_{y}Y^{x,y,m}_t,k)\right]\right|+\left|\mathbb{ E} \left[D_{y} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xy} Y^{x,y,m}_t\right]\right|\\
&&+\left|\mathbb{ E} \left[D_{yy} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t, D^k_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_t)\right]\right|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_t$ is the second
order derivative of $Y^{x,y,m}_{t}$ in the direction $(h,k)\in H_m\times H_m$ (once with respect to $x$ in the direction $h\in H_m$ and once with respect to $y$ in the direction $k\in H_m$),
which satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{Sxy DY}
\displaystyle
d D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}=\left[AD^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}+D_{xy}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot (h,D^k_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\right.\nonumber\\
\displaystyle\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+D_{yy}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot (D^{h}_{x}Y^{x,y,m}_{t},D^{k}_{y}Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\nonumber\\
\displaystyle\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.+D_{y}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}\right]dt.\nonumber\\
\displaystyle D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_{0}=0.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
By \eref{aa}, \eref{Hpartial yY}, \eref{HS0} and $\lambda_1-L_F>0$ , it is easy to prove for any $\eta\in [0,2)$ and $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x,y\in H_m}\|D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_t\|_{\eta}\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|.\label{Hpartial xyY}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, \eref{rs} holds by assumption \ref{A3}, \eref{HS0}, \eref{Hpartial yY} and \eref{Hpartial xyY}.
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{Step 3.} In this step, we intend to prove \eref{E22}. Recall that
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{x}\tilde B^m_{t_0}(x,y, t)\cdot h=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& D_{x} \hat B^m(x, y, t)\cdot h-\mathbb{ E} D_{x}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot h\\
&&- \mathbb{ E} \left[D_y\hat B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0} \right].\label{5.8}
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&D_{xx}\tilde B^m_{t_0}(x,y, t)\cdot (h,k)\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \left[D_{xx} \hat B^m(x, y, t)\cdot(h,k)-\mathbb{ E} D_{xx}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot(h,k)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\mathbb{ E} \left[D_{xy}\hat B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot (h, D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0})+D_{yx}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t)\cdot(D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},k)\right]\\
&&-\mathbb{ E}\left[D_{yy}\hat B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t) \cdot (D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0})\right]\\
&&-\mathbb{ E} \left[ D_{y}\hat B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0},t) \cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xx} Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0} \right]:=\sum^4_{i=1} J_i,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}$ is the second derivative of $Y^{x,y,m}_{t}$
with respect to $x$ towards the direction $(h, k) \in H\times H$, which satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{SDY}
\displaystyle
d D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}\!\!=\!\!\left[AD^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}\!+\!D_{xx}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot(h,k)\!+\!D_{xy}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot (h,D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\right.\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad+D_{yx}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot(D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t},k)+D_{yy}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot (D^{h}_{x}Y^{x,y,m}_{t},D^{k}_{x}Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left.D_{y}F^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}\right]dt,\\
D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{0}=0.\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
For the term $J_1$, note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{x}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot h=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{ E} \left[D_x B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot h\right]+\mathbb{ E}\left[D_{y}B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot D^h_{x}Y^{x,y,m}_t \right],
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&D_{xx}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot(h,k)\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \mathbb{ E} \left[D_{xx}B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(h,k)\right]+\mathbb{ E} \left[D_{xy} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (h,D^k_x Y^{x,y,m}_t)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+ \mathbb{ E} \left[D_{yx} B^m(x, Y^{x, y}_t)\cdot (D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t},k)\right]+ \mathbb{ E} \left[D_{yy} B^m(x, Y^{x, y}_t)\cdot(D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t}, D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\right]\\
&&+ \mathbb{ E} \left[D_{y} B^m(x, Y^{x, y}_t)\cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t} \right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&D_{xxy}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot(h,k,l)\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \mathbb{ E} \Big[D_{xxy}B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(h,k,D^l_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})+D_{xyy} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (h,D^k_x Y^{x,y,m}_t,D^l_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\nonumber\\
&&+D_{xy} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (h,D^{(k,l)}_{xy} Y^{x,y,m}_t)\!+\!D_{yxy} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot (D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t},k, D^l_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\\
&&+D_{yx} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (D^{(h,l)}_{xy} Y^{x,y,m}_t, k)\!+\!D_{yyy} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(D^h_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t}, D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t},D^l_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\\
&&+D_{yy} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (D^{(h,l)}_{xy} Y^{x,y,m}_t, D^k_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\!+\!D_{yy} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t) \cdot (D^{h}_{x} Y^{x,y,m}_t, D^{(k,l)}_{xy} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\\
&&+D_{yy} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot (D^{(h,k)}_{xx}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}, D^l_{y} Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\!+\!D_{y} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^{(h,k,l)}_{xxy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t} \Big],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $D^{(h,k,l)}_{xxy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}$ is the
third order derivative of $Y^{x,y,m}_{t}$ (twice with respect to $x$ in the direction $(h,k)\in H_m\times H_m$ and once with respect to $y$ in the direction $l\in H_m$).
\vspace{2mm}
By assumption \ref{A3}, \eref{HS0} and \eref{Hpartial yY}, it is easy to prove that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{t\geqslant 0,x,y\in H_m}|D^{(h,k)}_{xx} Y^{x,y,m}_t|\leqslant C|h||k|,\label{EDxx}
\end{eqnarray}
$$\sup_{ x,y\in H_m}|D^{(h,k,l)}_{xxy}Y^{x,y,m}_{t}|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k||l|.$$
which combine with \eref{Hpartial yY} , \eref{HS0}, \eref{Hpartial xyY} and assumption \ref{A3} , we get
\begin{eqnarray}
|D_{xx}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1},\label{DxxhatB}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
|D_{xxy}\hat B^m(x,y, t)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}|l|.\label{DxxyhatB}
\end{eqnarray}
Then by \eref{DxxhatB}, \eref{DxxyhatB} and similar as we did in proving \eref{S2}, we obtain for any $\delta\in (0,1]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
J_1\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\mathbb{ E}|y-Y^{x,y,m}_{t_0}|^{\delta}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta}).\label{J1}
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $J_2$, note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{xy}\hat B^m(x,y,t)\cdot(h,k)
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \mathbb{ E} \left[ D_{xy}B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot(h,D^k_{y}Y^{x,y,m}_t)\right]\\
&&+\mathbb{ E} \left[ D_{y}B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_t)\cdot D^{(h,k)}_{xy}Y^{x,y,m}_t\right]\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\left[D_{yy}B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_{t})\cdot(D^h_{x}Y^{x,y,m}_t, D^k_{y}Y^{x,y,m}_t)\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by assumption \ref{A3}, \eref{Hpartial yY}, \eref{HS0} and \eref{Hpartial xyY}, we have
$$
\sup_{x,y\in H}|D_{xy}\hat B^m(x,y,t)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|.
$$
Thus it follows
\begin{eqnarray}
J_2\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|.\label{J2}
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $J_3$, by a similar argument as in estimating $J_2$, we have
$$
\sup_{x,y\in H_m}|D_{yy}\hat B^m(x,y,t)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|.
$$
Hence, it is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray}
J_3\leqslant C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{4}}(1+t^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2}})|h||k|.\label{J3}
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $J_4$, by \eref{EDxx} and \eref{S1},
we easily get
\begin{eqnarray}
J_4\leqslant C e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}|h||k|.\label{J4}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, \eref{E22} can be easily obtained by combining \eref{J1}-\eref{J4}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Strong convergence order}
This section is devoted to prove Theorem \ref{main result 1}. We first study the well-posedness of equation \eref{Ga 1.3} which approximates to the averaged equation.
Then we give the detailed proof of Theorem \ref{main result 1}.
\begin{lemma} \label{barX}
Equation \eref{Ga 1.3} exists a unique mild solution $\bar{X}^m_{t}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar X^m_t=e^{tA}x^m+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A} \bar B^m(\bar X^m_s)ds+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d\bar{L}^m_s.\label{3.22}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for any $x\in H$, $T>0$ and $1\leqslant p< \alpha$, there exists a constant $C_{p,T}>0$ such that
\begin{align} \label{Control X}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1,t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|\bar{X}^m_{t} |^p\leqslant C_{p,T}(1+ |x|^p).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to check that the $\bar{B}^m$ is Lipschitz continuous, then \eref{Ga 1.3} admits a unique mild solution $\bar{X}^m_{t}$. The estimate \eref{Control X} can be proved by
the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{GA1} in the appendix.
\vspace{2mm}
Indeed, for any $x_1,x_2\in H_m$ and $t>0$, by Proposition \ref{ergodicity1} and \eref{increase Y}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\bar{B}^m(x_1)-\bar{B}^m(x_2)|
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\int_{H_m} B^m(x_1,y)\mu^{x_1,m}(dy)-\int_{H_m} B^m(x_2,y)\mu^{x_2,m}(dy)\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\mathbb{ E} B^m(x_1, Y^{x_1,0,m}_t)-\int_{H_m} B^m(x_1,z)\mu^{x_1,m}(dz)\right|\\
&&+\left|\mathbb{ E} B^m(x_2, Y^{x_2,0,m}_t)-\int_{H_m} B^m(x_2,z)\mu^{x_2,m}(dz)\right|\\
&&+\left|\mathbb{ E} B^m(x_1, Y^{x_1,0,m}_t)-\mathbb{ E} B^m(x_2, Y^{x_2,0,m}_t)\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}+C\left(|x_1-x_2|+\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x_1,0,m}_t-Y^{x_2,0,m}_t|\right)\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F) t}{2}}+C|x_1-x_2|.
\end{eqnarray*}
As a result, the proof is completed by letting $t\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{R4.2}
By a similar argument above, it is easy to prove that the averaged coefficient $\bar{B}$ is also Lipschitz continuous. As a consequence, equation \eref{1.3} admits a unique mild solution $\bar{X}_{t}$.
\end{remark}
Now we are in a position to prove Theorem \ref{main result 1}.
\vspace{0.1cm}
\noindent
\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{main result 1}}. It is easy to see that for any $T>0$, $p\in [1,\alpha)$ and $m\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}_{t}|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-X_{t}^{{\varepsilon}}|^p+C_p\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^m_{t}-\bar{X}_{t}|^p\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemmas \ref{GA1} and \ref{GA2}, it follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-X_{t}^{{\varepsilon}}|^p=0,\quad \lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^m_{t}-\bar{X}_{t}|^p=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus it is sufficient to prove the for any $(x,y)\in H^{\eta}\times H$ with $\eta\in (0,1)$, $T>0$ and small enough ${\varepsilon},\delta>0$, there exists a positive constant $C_{p,T,\delta}$
independent of $m$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p\leqslant C_{p,T,\delta}(1+\|x\|^{(1+\delta)p}_{\eta}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p}){\varepsilon}^{p\left(1-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)},\label{M1}
\end{eqnarray}
which will proved by the following three steps.
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{Step 1.}
Using the formulation of the mild solutions $X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}$ and $\bar{X}^{m}_{t}$, we have for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}\!-\!\bar{X}^{m}_{t}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}\left[B^m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})-\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^{m}_{s})\right]ds\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int_{0}^{t}\!\!\!e^{(t-s)A}\!\!\left[B^m( X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\!-\!\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right]ds+\!\int_{0}^{t}\!\!\!e^{(t-s)A}\!\!
\left[\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\!-\!\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_{s})\right]ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the averaged coefficient $\bar{B}^m$ has been proved that it is Lipschitz continuous in Lemma \ref{barX}. Then we get for any $T>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}\left[B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})
-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right]ds\right|^p\\
&&+C_{p,T}\mathbb{ E}\int_{0}^{T}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p dt .
\end{eqnarray*}
By Gronwall's inequality, it follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p\leqslant C_{p,T}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}\left[B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})
-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right]ds\right|^p.\label{ID1}
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition \ref{P3.6}, the following Poisson equation
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(x)\Phi_m(x,y)=B^m(x,y)-\bar{B}^m(x)\label{PE}
\end{eqnarray}
exists a solution $\Phi_m(x,y)$ satisfies \eref{E1}-\eref{E3}.
\vspace{2mm}
By applying It\^o's formula,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{tA}\Phi_m(x^m,y^m)+\int^t_0 (-A)e^{(t-s)A}\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\nonumber\\
&&+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds+M^{m,{\varepsilon},1}_{t}+M^{m,{\varepsilon},2}_{t}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds,\label{ID3}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(y)$, $M^{m,{\varepsilon},1}_{t}$ and $M^{m,{\varepsilon},2}_{t}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(y)\Phi_m(x,y):=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&D_x\Phi_m(x,y)\cdot(Ax+B^m(x,y))\\
&&+\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \int_{\mathbb{R}}\Phi_m(x+e_k z,y)-\Phi_m(x,y)- D_x\Phi_m(x,y)\cdot (e_k z) 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}\nu (dz)
\end{eqnarray*}
$$M^{m,{\varepsilon},1}_{t}:=\sum^m_{k= 1}\int^t_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{(t-s)A}\left[\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}+z\beta_k e_k, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_{s-})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})\right]\tilde{N}^{1,k}(ds,dz),$$
$$M^{m,{\varepsilon},2}_{t}:=\sum^m_{k= 1}\int^t_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{(t-s)A}\left[\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}+{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z\gamma_k e_k)
-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})\right]\tilde{N}^{2,k}(ds,dz).$$
Then it follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int^t_0 -e^{(t-s)A}\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}) ds\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&{\varepsilon}\Big[e^{tA}\Phi_m(x^m,y^m)-\Phi_m(X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})+\int^t_0 (-A)e^{(t-s)A}\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\nonumber\\
&&+M^{m,{\varepsilon},1}_{t}+M^{m,{\varepsilon},2}_{t}+\int^t_0 \!\!e^{(t-s)A}\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\Big].\label{ID4}
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{ID1}, \eref{PE} and \eref{ID4}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\mathbb{ E}|X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}}-\bar{X}^m_{t}|^p
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}{\varepsilon}^{p}\Bigg\{\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|e^{tA}\Phi_m(x^m,y^m)-\Phi_m(X_{t}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})|^p\nonumber\\
&&+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 (-A)e^{(t-s)A}\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|M^{m,{\varepsilon},1}_{t}|^p+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|M^{m,{\varepsilon},2}_{t}|^p\nonumber\\
&&+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\Phi(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\right|^p\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
:=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}{\varepsilon}^{p}\sum^5_{k=1}\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_k(T).\label{F5.4}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Step 2.} In this step, we first estimate the terms $\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_1(T)$-$\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_4(T)$.
By \eref{E1}, \eref{Xvare} and \eref{Yvare}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_1(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\left(1+|x|^p+|y|^p+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p\right)\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T(1+|x|^p+|y|^p).\label{F5.5}
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{E1}, \eref{Xvare}, \eref{Yvare} and Lemma \ref{L6.3}, for any $\eta\in (0,1)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_2(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 (-A)e^{(t-s)A}\left[\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})
-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right]ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 (-A)e^{(t-s)A}\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 (t-s)^{-1}\left[\mathbb{ E}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})|^p\right]^{1/p}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 (t-s)^{-1}\left[\mathbb{ E}\left((1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^{\delta p}
+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p})|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}-X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p\right)\right]^{1/p}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 (t-s)^{-1}\left[\mathbb{ E}|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}-Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p\right]^{1/p}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}(1+|x|^{p(1+\delta)}+|y|^{p(1+\delta)})\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 (t-s)^{-1}(t-s)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,T}(1+|x|^p+|y|^{p})\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 (t-s)^{-1}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,T}(1+|x|^p+|y|^{p})\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_{p,T}(1+|x|^{p(1+\delta)}+|y|^{p(1+\delta)}){\varepsilon}^{-\frac{\eta p}{2}}.\label{F5.6}
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_3(T)$. By Burkholder-Davis-Gundy's inequality, it follows for any $p\in [1,\alpha)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_3(T)
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!z\beta_k e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{1,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|\leqslant \beta^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!z\beta_k e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{1,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|>\beta^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}+z\beta_k e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{1,k}(ds,dz)\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left[\mathbb{ E}\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|\leqslant \beta^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!z\beta_k e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{1,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|>\beta^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}+z\beta_k e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^p N^{1,k}(ds,dz)\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|\leqslant 1}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+z e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})
-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|^2 \nu(dz)ds\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|> 1}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+z e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|^p \nu(dz)ds.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{E2}, for any $\delta\in (0,1]$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+z e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\int^1_0 D_x\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+\xi z e_k, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot (z e_k) d\xi \right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{\delta}\int^1_0(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+\xi z e_k|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta})d \xi |z e_k|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{\delta}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|z|^{\delta})|z|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that for small enough $\delta<\frac{\alpha}{p}-1$, it easy to see
$$
\int_{|z|\leqslant 1}|z|^2\nu(dz)<\infty,\quad \int_{|z|>1}|z|^{p(1+\delta)} \nu(dz)<\infty,
$$
which combing with the condition $\sum^{\infty}_{k=1} \beta^{\alpha}_k<\infty$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_3(T)
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\int^T_0 \int_{|z|\leqslant 1}\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{2\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{2\delta}+|z|^{2\delta})|z|^2 \nu(dz)ds\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,\delta}\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|> 1}\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{p\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{p\delta}+|z|^{p\delta})|z|^p \nu(dz)ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^{p\delta}+|y|^{p\delta}).\label{F5.7}
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_4(T)$. Similar as we did in estimating $\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_3(T)$. It is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_4(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\int^T_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}\gamma_k z e_k)\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{2,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\!\!\int^T_0 \!\!\int_{|z|\leqslant \gamma^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}\gamma_k z e_k)\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{2,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\!\!\int^T_0 \int_{|z|>\gamma^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}\gamma_k z e_k)\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{2,k}(ds,dz)\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left[\mathbb{ E}\sum^m_{k=1}\!\!\int^T_0\!\int_{|z|\leqslant \gamma^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}\gamma_k z e_k)\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^2 N^{2,k}(ds,dz)\!\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_p\mathbb{ E}\sum^m_{k=1}\!\!\int^T_0 \int_{|z|>\gamma^{-1}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-}\!+\!{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}\gamma_k z e_k)\!
-\!\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s-})|^p N^{2,k}(ds,dz)\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0\! \int_{|z|\leqslant 1}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z e_k)
-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|^2 \nu(dz)ds\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_p\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|> 1}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z e_k)-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|^p \nu(dz)ds.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{E21}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z e_k)-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\int^1_0 D_y\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+\xi{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z e_k)\cdot ({\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}z e_k) d\xi \right|\leqslant C{\varepsilon}^{-1/\alpha}|z|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by condition $\sum^{\infty}_{k=1} \gamma^{\alpha}_k<\infty$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_4(T)
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p{\varepsilon}^{-p/\alpha}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k\int^T_0 \int_{|z|\leqslant 1}|z|^2 \nu(dz)ds\right]^{p/2}\nonumber\\
&&+C_p{\varepsilon}^{-p/\alpha}\sum^m_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 \int_{|z|> 1}|z|^p \nu(dz)ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}{\varepsilon}^{-p/\alpha}.\label{F5.8}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Step 3.} In this step, we estimate the term $\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_5(T)$. It is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_5(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\left[D_x\Phi_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot AX_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}\right]ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}\left[D_x\Phi_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot B^m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right] ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{(t-s)A}\big[\Phi_m(x+e_k z,y)-\Phi_m(x,y)\right.\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.-D_x\Phi_m(x,y)\cdot( e_k z)\big]\nu (dz)ds\right|^p:=\sum^3_{i=1}\Lambda_{5i}(T).
\end{eqnarray*}
By \eref{Xvare2}, \eref{E2}, \eref{LA}, \eref{Xvare}, \eref{Yvare} and Minkowski's inequality, we get for any $\gamma\in (0,1)$ and $\eta\in (0,1)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_{51}(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 \|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}\|_{2}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta} ) ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 \left[\mathbb{ E}\left(\|X^{m,\varepsilon}_s\|^p_{2}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}
+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p} ) \right)\right]^{1/p}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 \left[\mathbb{ E}\|X^{m,\varepsilon}_s\|^{p'}_{2}\right]^{1/p'}\left[\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\frac{\delta pp'}{p'-p}}
+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\frac{\delta pp'}{p'-p}} )\right]^{\frac{p'-p}{pp'}}ds\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+\|x\|^{(1+\delta)p}_{\gamma}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p})\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int^t_0 s^{-1+\frac{\gamma}{2}}ds+{\varepsilon}^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+\|x\|^{(1+\delta)p}_{\gamma}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p}){\varepsilon}^{-\frac{\eta p}{2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $p<p'<\alpha$ and $\delta$ is small enough such that $\frac{\delta p'}{p'-p}\leqslant 1$.
By a similar argument above, we have for $\delta$ is small enough such that $\delta<\frac{\alpha}{p}-1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_{52}(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 |B^m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|^p (1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}) ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,\delta}\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0(1+|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}|^p+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^p)(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta p}) ds\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^{(1+\delta)p}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p}).
\end{eqnarray*}
By \eref{E2} and \eref{E3}, we have for $\delta$ is small enough such that $\delta<\alpha-1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_{53}(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}\Big[\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\int^T_0\int_{|z|\leqslant \tilde{c}_k}
|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+e_k z,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad-D_x \Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot(e_k z)|\nu(dz)ds\Big]^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_{p}\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\int^T_0\int_{|z|> \tilde{c}_k}|\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}+e_k z,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\Phi_m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})|\nu(dz)ds\right]^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p}\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\frac{\kappa_1}{2}}_k\int^T_0\int_{|z|\leqslant \tilde{c}_k}|z|^2\nu(dz)(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|)ds\right]^p \nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,\delta}\mathbb{ E}\left[\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\int^T_0\int_{|z|> \tilde{c}_k}|z|^{1+\delta}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|^{\delta})\nu(dz)ds\right]^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\frac{\kappa_1}{2}}_k\tilde{c}^{2-\alpha}_k\right)^p\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^T_0(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|)ds\right|^p \nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,\delta}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\tilde{c}^{\delta-\alpha+1}_k\right)^p\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^T_0(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|^{\delta})\nu(dz)ds\right|^p,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{c}_k:=\lambda^{-\frac{\kappa_1}{2(1-\delta)}}_k$. Then by $\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}_{+}}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\alpha}_k}<\infty$, it follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_{53}(T)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|+|y|)\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\frac{\kappa_1 (\alpha-\delta-1)}{2(1-\delta)}}_k\right)^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\frac{\alpha-\delta-1}{(1-\delta)}}_k\right)^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\lambda^{\alpha-1}_k\right)^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p).\label{F5.6}
\end{eqnarray*}
As a result, for small enough $\delta>0$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda^{{\varepsilon},m}_{5}(T)\leqslant C_{p,T,\delta}(1+|x|^{(1+\delta)p}+|y|^{(1+\delta)p}). \label{Gamma3}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, \eref{M1} holds by combining \eref{F5.5}-\eref{Gamma3}. The proof is complete.
\section{Weak convergence order}
This section is devoted to prove Theorem \ref{main result 2}. We still consider the problem in finite dimension firstly, then passing the limit to the infinite dimensional case.
For a test function $\phi \in C_{b}^{3}(H)$, we have for any $t\geqslant 0$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ephix}
\left|\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t\right)
-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}_t)\right|
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
\left|\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t\right)
-\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t\right)\right|+\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi (\bar{X}^m_t)-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}_t)\right| \nonumber\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&+\left|\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t\right)-\mathbb{ E}\phi (\bar{X}^m_t)\right|.
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemmas \ref{GA1} and \ref{GA2} in the appendix, it is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\left|\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t\right)
-\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t\right)\right|=0,\\
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi (\bar{X}^m_t)-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}_t)\right|=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then the proof will be completed if we can show that there exists a positive constant $C$ independent of $m$ such that
$$
\sup_{t\in [0, T]}\left|\mathbb{E}\phi\left(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t\right)-\mathbb{ E}\phi (\bar{X}^m_t)\right|\leqslant C{\varepsilon}.
$$
Now we are in a position to prove Theorem \ref{main result 2}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent
Proof of Theorem \ref{main result 2}. We will divided the proof into three steps.
\vspace{2mm}
\textbf{Step 1.} We first introduce the following Kolmogorov equation in finite dimension:
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{KE}
\displaystyle
\partial_t u_m(t,x)=\bar{\mathscr{L}}^m_1 u_m(t,x),\quad t\in[0, T], \vspace{2mm}\\
u(0, x)=\phi(x),\quad x\in H_m,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\phi\in C^{3}_b(H)$ and $\bar{\mathscr{L}}^m_1$ is the infinitesimal generator of the transition semigroup of the averaged equation \eref{Ga 1.3}, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{\mathscr{L}}^m_{1}\phi(x):=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& D_x\phi(x)\cdot [Ax+\bar{B}^m(x)]\nonumber\\
&&+\sum^{m}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \int_{\mathbb{R}}\left[\phi(x+e_k z)-\phi(x)-\langle D_x\phi(x), e_k z\rangle 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}\right]\nu (dz).
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that
$$\bar{B}^m(x):=\int_{H_m}B^m(x,y)\mu^{x,m}(dy)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{ E} B^m(x, Y^{x,y,m}_t).$$
By assumptions \ref{A3}, conditions \eref{ThirdDer F4} and \eref{ThirdDer F5}, then through a straightforward computation, it is easy to check that
$$|D\bar{B}^m(x)\cdot h|\leqslant C |h| \quad \forall x, h\in H_m ,$$
$$|D^2\bar{B}^m(x)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant C |h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1},\quad \forall x, h, k\in H_m,$$
$$|D^3\bar{B}^m(x)\cdot(h,k,l)|\leqslant C|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}\|l\|_{\kappa_1}, \quad \forall x,h,k,l\in H_m,$$
where $\kappa_1$ is the constant in assumption \ref{A3}. As a consequence, \eref{KE} has a unique solution $u_m$ given by
$$
u_m(t,x)=\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_t(x)),\quad t\in [0,T].
$$
Furthermore, for any $h,k,l\in H_m$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|D_{x} u_m(t,x)\cdot h|\leqslant C_T |h|,\quad t\in [0,T],\label{UE3}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|D_{xx} u_m(t,x)\cdot (h,k)|\leqslant C_T |h||k|,\quad t\in[0,T].\label{UE4}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|D_{xxx} u_m(t,x)\cdot (h,k,l)|\leqslant C_T|h||k||l|,\quad t\in[0,T],\label{UE1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}|\partial_t(D_x u_m(t,x))\cdot h|\leqslant C_T t^{-1}(1+|x|)|h|,\quad x\in H_m, t\in(0,T].\label{UE2}
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, note that for any $h,k,l\in H_m$,
$$D_x u_m(t,x)\cdot h=\mathbb{ E}[D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \eta^{h,m}_t(x)],$$
$$D_{xx} u_m(t,x)\cdot (h,k)=\mathbb{ E}\left[D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x),\eta^{k,m}_t(x))\right]+\mathbb{ E}\left[D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x)\right],$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{xxx} u_m(t,x)\cdot (h,k,l)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\mathbb{ E}\left[D^3\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x),\eta^{k,m}_t(x),\eta^{l,m}_t(x))\right]\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\left[D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\zeta^{h,l,m}_t(x),\eta^{k,m}_t(x))+D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x),\zeta^{k,l,m}_t(x))\right]\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\left[D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x), \eta^{l,m}_t(x))+D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \chi^{h,k,l,m}_t(x)\right],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\eta^{h,m}_t(x):=D_x \bar{X}^m_t(x)\cdot h$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
d\eta^{h,m}_t(x)\!=\!A\eta^{h,m}_t(x)dt+D\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \eta^{h,m}_t(x)dt,\nonumber\\
\eta^{h,m}_0(x)=h,\nonumber
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
$\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x):=D_{xx} \bar{X}^m_t(x)\cdot (h,k)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
d\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x)=\left[A\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x)+\!\!D\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x)+D^2\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x), \eta^{k,m}_t(x))\right]\!\!dt,\nonumber\\
\zeta^{h,k,m}_0(x)=0\nonumber
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and $\chi^{h,k,l,m}_t(x):=D_{xxx} \bar{X}^m_t(x)\cdot (h,k,l)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
d\chi^{h,k,l,m}_t(x)=\left[A\chi^{h,k,m}_t(x)+\!\!D\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \chi^{h,k,l,m}_t(x)+D^2\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x), \eta^{l,m}_t(x))\right.\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad +D^2\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\zeta^{h,l,m}_t(x),\eta^{k,m}_t(x))+D^2\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x),\zeta^{k,l,m}_t(x))\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\left.D^3\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x), \eta^{k,m}_t(x), \eta^{l,m}_t(x))\right]dt,\nonumber\\
\chi^{h,k,l,m}_0(x)=0.\nonumber
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
By a straightforward computation, we obtain for any $t\in(0,T]$ and $\theta\in [0,2)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\|\eta^{h,m}_t(x)\|_{\theta}\leqslant C_T t^{-\theta/2}|h|, \quad \|\eta^{h,m}_t(x)\|_{2}\leqslant C_T t^{-1}(1+|x|)|h|,\label{D barX}\\
&&|\zeta^{h,k,m}_t(x)|\leqslant C_T |h||k|,\label{Dxx barX}\\
&&|\chi^{h,k,l,m}_t(x)|\leqslant C_T|h||k||l|.\label{Dxxx barX}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, it is easy to see \eref{D barX}-\eref{Dxxx barX} imply \eref{UE3}-\eref{UE1} hold.
By It\^{o}'s formula and taking expectation, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{ E}[D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \eta^{h,m}_t(x)]=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&D\phi(x)\cdot h+\int^t_0 \mathbb{ E}\left[ D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_s)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_s(x), A\bar{X}^m_s+\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_s))\right]ds\\
&&+\int^t_0 \mathbb{ E} \langle D\phi(\bar{X}^m_s), A\eta^{h,m}_s(x)+D\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_s)\cdot \eta^{h,m}_s(x)\rangle ds\\
&&+\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \mathbb{ E}\Big[\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{R}} \langle D\phi(\bar{X}^m_s+e_k z)-D\phi(\bar{X}^m_s)\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad-\left(D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_s)\cdot e_k z\right) 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}, \eta^{h,m}_s(x)\rangle\nu(dz)ds\Big],
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t(D_x u_m(t,x))\cdot h=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& \mathbb{ E}\left[D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot (\eta^{h,m}_t(x), A\bar{X}^m_t+\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t))\right]\\
&&+\mathbb{ E} \langle D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t), A\eta^{h,m}_t(x)+D\bar{B}^m(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot \eta^{h,m}_t(x)\rangle\\
&&+\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \mathbb{ E}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{R}}\langle D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t+e_k z)-D\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\\
&&\quad\quad\quad-\left[D^2\phi(\bar{X}^m_t)\cdot e_k z\right] 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}, \eta^{h,m}_t(x)\rangle\nu(dz)\Big].
\end{eqnarray*}
By \eref{Control X}, \eref{D barX} and \eref{X_theta}, we get for any $t\in (0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\partial_t(D_x u_m(t,x))\cdot h|\leqslant \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C\mathbb{ E}\left[\|\eta^{h,m}_t(x)\|_2+|\eta^{h,m}_t(x)|(\|\bar{X}^m_t\|_2+|\bar{X}^m_t|+1)\right]\\
&&+C\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \mathbb{ E}|\eta^{h,m}_t(x)|\left[\int_{|z|\leqslant 1}|z|^2\nu(dz)+\int_{|z|>1}|z|\nu(dz)\right]\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_T t^{-1}|h|(1+|x|),
\end{eqnarray*}
which proves \eref{UE2}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Step 2.} Let $\tilde{u}^t_m(s,x):=u_m(t-s,x)$, $s\in [0,t]$, by It\^{o}'s formula, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{u}^t_m(t, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t)=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\tilde{u}^t_m(0,x)+\int^t_0 \partial_s \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )ds+\int^t_0 \mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)\tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)ds
+\tilde{M}^m_t,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{M}^m_t$ is defined as follows,
$$
\tilde{M}^m_t:=\sum^{m}_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k \int^t_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde{u}^t_m(s,X_{s-}^{m,{\varepsilon}}+z e_k)-\tilde{u}^t_m(s,X_{s-}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\tilde{N}^{1,k}(dz,ds).
$$
Note that
$$\tilde{u}^t_m(t, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t)=\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t),\tilde{u}^t_m(0, x)=\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_t(x)),\partial_s \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )=-\bar{\mathscr{L}}^m_1 \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s).$$
It follows for any $t\in[0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right|=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^t_0 -\bar{\mathscr{L}}^m_1 \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )ds
+\mathbb{ E}\int^t_0 \mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)\tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)ds\right|\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^t_0 D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )\cdot [B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)] ds \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
Define $\rho({\varepsilon}):={\varepsilon}^{1-r}$ for $r\in (0,1)$. If $t\leqslant 2\rho({\varepsilon})$, then by \eref{UE3} and the boundedness of $B$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right|\leqslant C_T\rho({\varepsilon}). \label{Small t}
\end{eqnarray}
If $t>2\rho({\varepsilon})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )
\cdot [B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)]ds \right|\nonumber\\
&&+\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^{t}_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})} D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )\cdot [B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)] ds \right|\nonumber\\
&&+\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^{\rho({\varepsilon})}_0 D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )\cdot [B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)]ds \right|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s )\cdot [B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-\bar{B}^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)] ds \right|\nonumber\\
&&+C_T\rho({\varepsilon}).\label{F5.11}
\end{eqnarray}
For any $s\in [0,t], x,y\in H_m$, define
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&G^t_m(s,x,y):=D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, x)\cdot B^m(x,y)\\
&&\bar{G}^t_m(s,x):=\int_{H_m} G^t_m(s,x,y)\mu^{x,m}(dy)=D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, x)\cdot \bar{B}^m(x).
\end{eqnarray*}
By an argument similar to that used in the proof of Proposition \ref{P3.6}, we construct
$$
\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, x,y):=\int^{\infty}_0 \mathbb{ E} G^t_m(s,x,Y^{x,y,m}_r)-\bar{G}^t_m(s,x) dr, \quad s\in [0,t], x,y\in H_m,
$$
which is a solution of the following Poisson equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mathscr{L}^m_{2}(x)\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x,y)=G^t_m(s,x,y)-\bar{G}^t_m(s,x).\label{WPE}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for any $T>0$, $t\in [0,T]$, $\delta\in (0,1]$, there exists $C_T,C_{T,\delta}>0$ such that the following estimates hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1}|\partial_s \tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x,y)|\leqslant C_{T,\delta}(t-s)^{-1}(1+|x|)(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta}),\quad s\in (0,t];\label{E120}\\
&&\sup_{s\in [0, t],x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x,y)|\leqslant C_T(1+|x|+|y|);\label{E121}\\
&&\sup_{s\in [0, t],x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|D_x \tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x,y)\cdot h|\leqslant C_{T,\delta}(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})|h|;\label{E122}\\
&&\sup_{s\in [0, t],x\in H_m,m\geqslant 1}|D_{xx}\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x, y)\cdot(h,k)|\leqslant \!\!C_{T}(1+|x|+|y|)|h|\|k\|_{\kappa_1}. \label{E221}
\end{eqnarray}
We here only give the proof of \eref{E120}, and the proofs of \eref{E121}-\eref{E221} are omitted since it follows almost the same argument in Proposition \ref{P3.6}.
In fact, by \eref{ergodicity1}, \eref{UE2} and the boundedness of $B$, we have for small enough $\delta>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\partial_s \tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s,x,y)|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^{\infty}_{0} \partial_s D_x \tilde{u}^t_m(s, x)\cdot \left[\mathbb{ E} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_r)-\bar{B}^m(x)\right] dr\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T(t-s)^{-1}(1+|x|)\int^{\infty}_{0}|\mathbb{ E} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_r)-\bar{B}^m(x)|dr\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T(t-s)^{-1}(1+|x|)\int^{\infty}_{0}|\mathbb{ E} B^m(x,Y^{x,y,m}_r)-\bar{B}^m(x)|^{\delta}dr\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_T(t-s)^{-1}(1+|x|)(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta})\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)\delta r}{2}}dr\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_{T,\delta}(t-s)^{-1}(1+|x|)(1+|x|^{\delta}+|y|^{\delta}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{Step 3.}Applying It\^o's formula and taking expectation, we get for any $t\in [2\rho({\varepsilon}),T]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{ E}\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(t-\rho({\varepsilon}), X_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})})=\mathbb{ E}\tilde \Phi^t_m(\rho({\varepsilon}),X_{\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{\rho({\varepsilon})})
+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \partial_s \tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})}\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\tilde\Phi^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds
+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \mathscr{L}^m_{2}(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds,
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \mathscr{L}^m_{2}(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\tilde\Phi^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\nonumber\\
=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&{\varepsilon}\big[\mathbb{ E}\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(\rho({\varepsilon}),X_{\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{\rho({\varepsilon})})
-\mathbb{ E}\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(t-\rho({\varepsilon}), X_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})})
+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \partial_s \tilde{\Phi}^{t}_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})}\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\tilde{\Phi}^{t}_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\big].\label{F3.39}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eref{F5.11}, \eref{WPE} and \eref{F3.39}, we get for any $t\in [2\rho({\varepsilon}),T]$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right|\leqslant C_T\rho({\varepsilon})+\left|\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \mathscr{L}^m_{2}(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}})\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})ds\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T\rho({\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}\Bigg[\mathbb{ E}|\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(\rho({\varepsilon}),X_{\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{\rho({\varepsilon})})|+\left|\mathbb{ E}\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(t-\rho({\varepsilon}), X_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t-\rho({\varepsilon})})\right|\nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \left|\partial_s \tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right|ds+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_{\rho({\varepsilon})}\left|\mathscr{L}^m_{1}(Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(s, X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right|ds\Bigg]\nonumber\\
:=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T\rho({\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}\sum^4_{k=1}\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_k(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
For the terms $\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_1(t)$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_2(t)$. By estimates \eref{E121} and \eref{Yvare}, it is easy to get
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_1(t)+\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_2(t)\leqslant C_{T}\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|)\leqslant C_T(1+|x|+|y|).\label{Lambda12(T)}
\end{eqnarray}
For the terms $\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_3(t)$. By \eref{E120}, \eref{Xvare} and \eref{Yvare}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_3(t)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_{T,\delta}\int^{t-\rho({\varepsilon})}_0(t-s)^{-1}\mathbb{ E}\left[(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|)(1+|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta})\right]ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T,\delta} \ln\left(\frac{T}{\rho({\varepsilon})}\right)(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta}).\label{Lambda3(T)}
\end{eqnarray}
For the terms $\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_4(t)$. It is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_4(t)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^t_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \mathbb{ E}\left|D_x\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot AX_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}} \right|ds\nonumber\\
&&+\int^t_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \mathbb{ E}\left|D_x\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot B^m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}) \right|ds\nonumber\\
&&+\int^t_0\mathbb{ E}\left|\sum^m_{k=1}\beta^{\alpha}_k\int_{\mathbb{R}}\big[\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}+e_k z,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\left.-D_x\tilde{\Phi}^t_m(X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})\cdot( e_k z) 1_{\{|z|\leqslant 1\}}\big]\nu (dz)\right|ds
:=\sum^3_{i=1}\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{4i}(t).\label{Lambda4(T)}
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{E122} and \eref{Xvare2}, it is easy to see for any $r\in (0,1)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{41}(t)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T,\delta}\mathbb{ E}\int^T_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}\|_{2}(1+|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}|^{\delta}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta})ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T,\delta}\int^T_{\rho({\varepsilon})} \left[\mathbb{ E}\|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}\|^p_{2}\right]^{1/p}\left[\mathbb{ E}(1+|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}|^{\frac{\delta p}{p-1}}+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\frac{\delta p}{p-1}})\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p}}ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T}\int^{T}_{\rho({\varepsilon})} (s^{-1}+{\varepsilon}^{-r})(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta})ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T \left[\ln\left(\frac{T}{\rho({\varepsilon})}\right)+{\varepsilon}^{-r}\right](1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta}).
\end{eqnarray}
By \eref{E122}, \eref{E221}, \eref{Xvare} and \eref{Yvare}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{42}(t)\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T}\mathbb{ E}\int^T_0 (1+|X_{s}^{m,{\varepsilon}}|+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|)(1+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}|^{\delta})ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T}(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta}).
\end{eqnarray}
By following the same argument in the estimating $\Lambda^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{53}(T)$, we have for any $\delta<\alpha-1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\Lambda}^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{43}(t)\leqslant C_{\delta,T}(1+|x|+|y|).\label{F5.22}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, combining estimates \eref{Small t}, \eref{F5.11}, \eref{Lambda12(T)}-\eref{F5.22}, we final obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{t\in[0,T],m\geqslant 1}\left|\mathbb{ E}\phi(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})-\mathbb{ E}\phi(\bar{X}^m_{t})\right|\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T{\varepsilon}^{1-r}(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta})+C_T{\varepsilon} \ln\left(\frac{T}{{\varepsilon}^{1-r}}\right)(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta})\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{T,r}{\varepsilon}^{1-r}(1+|x|^{1+\delta}+|y|^{1+\delta}).
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof is complete.
\section{Appendix}
In this section, we give some a priori estimates of the solution $(X_{t}^{\varepsilon}, Y_{t}^{\varepsilon})$ (see Lemma \ref{L6.1}), which is used to study the Galerkin approximation of the system \eref{main equation} (see Lemma \ref{GA1}). Then we study the increment of the time of solution $(X_{t}^{\varepsilon}, Y_{t}^{\varepsilon})$ (see Lemma \ref{L6.3}). Finally, the finite dimensional approximation of the frozen equation \eref{FZE} is given (see Lemma \ref{GA2}).
\begin{lemma} \label{L6.1}
For any $x,y\in H$, $1\leqslant p<\alpha$ and $T>0$, there exist constants $C_{p,T},\ C_{T}>0$ such that the solution $(X^{{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t)$ of system \eref{main equation} satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{\varepsilon}|^p \leqslant C_{p,T}(1+ |x|^p+|y|^p),\quad \forall {\varepsilon}>0,\label{AXvare}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E} |Y_{t}^{\varepsilon} |^p\leqslant C_{p}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p ),\quad \forall {\varepsilon}>0.\label{AYvare}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $\tilde Z_t:=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/ \alpha}}Z_{t{\varepsilon}}$, which is also a cylindrical $\alpha$-stable process. Then by \cite[(4.12)]{PZ}, for any $p\in (1,\alpha)$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}dZ_s\right|^p=&\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^{t/{\varepsilon}}_0 e^{(t/{\varepsilon}-s)A}d\tilde Z_s\right|^{p}\\
\leqslant&C\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\gamma^{\alpha}_k \frac{1-e^{-\alpha \lambda_k t/{\varepsilon}}}{\alpha \lambda_k} \right)^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant&C\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k }{\alpha \lambda_k} \right)^{p/\alpha}<\infty.
\end{align*}
Then by Minkowski's inequality, we get for any $p\in (1,\alpha)$ and $0<t\leqslant T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{\varepsilon}_t|^p\right)^{1/p}
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|e^{tA/{\varepsilon}}y|+\left[\mathbb{ E}\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_0|e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{{\varepsilon}}}F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|ds\right)^p\right]^{1/p}\nonumber\\
&&+\left[\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}dZ_s\right|^p\right]^{1/p}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|y|+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_0|e^{\frac{-\lambda_1(t-s)}{{\varepsilon}}}\left[C+C\left(\mathbb{ E}|X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}+L_F\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}\right]\nonumber\\
&&+C\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k }{\alpha \lambda_k} \right)^{1/\alpha}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C(1+|y|)+\frac{L_{F}}{\lambda_1}\sup_{0\leqslant t\leqslant T}\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{\varepsilon}_t|^p\right)^{1/p}+C\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\left(\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{\varepsilon} |^p\right)^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by $L_F<\lambda_1$, it follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_t|^p
\leqslant C_p(1+|y|^p)+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{\varepsilon} |^p.\label{F6.3}
\end{eqnarray}
For any $1<p<\alpha$, by \eref{F6.3} and \eref{LA} in Remark \ref{Re2}, we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{\varepsilon} |^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x|^p\!+\!C_p\int^T_0 \!\mathbb{ E}|X^{\varepsilon}_s|^p ds\!+\!C_p\int^T_0\!\mathbb{ E}|Y^{\varepsilon}_s|^pds\!+\!C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)+C_p\int^T_0 \sup_{r\leqslant s}\mathbb{ E}|X^{\varepsilon}_r|^p ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by Gronwall's inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{\varepsilon}|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p),
\end{eqnarray*}
which also implies that \eref{AYvare} holds easily. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Recall the Galerkin approximation \eref{Ga mainE} of system \eref{main equation}. We have the following approximation.
\begin{lemma} \label{GA1}
For any ${\varepsilon}>0, (x,y)\in H\times H$ and $m\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$, system \eref{Ga mainE} has a unique mild solution $(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t, Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t)\in H\times H$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.,
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{A mild solution of F}
\displaystyle
X^{m,\varepsilon}_t=e^{tA}x^m+\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A}B^m(X^{m,\varepsilon}_s, Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s)ds+\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d\bar {L}^m_s,\nonumber\vspace{2mm}\\
Y^{m,\varepsilon}_t=e^{tA/\varepsilon}y^m+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int^t_0e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}F^m(X^{m,\varepsilon}_s,Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s)ds
+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}d\bar {Z}^m_s.\nonumber
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for any $1\leqslant p<\alpha$ and $T>0$, there exist constants $C_{p,T},\ C_{T}>0$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1, t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|X_{t}^{m,\varepsilon}|^p \leqslant C_{p,T}(1+ |x|^p+|y|^p);\label{Xvare}\\
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1, t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{E}|Y_{t}^{m,\varepsilon} |^p\leqslant C_{p,T}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p);\label{Yvare}\\
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t|^p=0, \quad \forall{\varepsilon}>0.\label{FA1}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Under the assumptions \ref{A1} and \ref{A2}, it is easy to show that the existence and uniqueness of the mild solution of system \eref{Ga mainE} . The estimates \eref{Xvare} and \eref{Yvare} can be proved by following the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{L6.1}. Next, we prove the approximation \eref{FA1}.
It is easy to see that for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{tA}(x^m-x)+\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A}(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)ds\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A}\left[B^{m}(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-B^{m}(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)\right]ds\!+\!\left[\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Then for any $T>0$, $p\in [1,\alpha)$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x^m-x|^p+C_p\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\int^{T}_{0}|B^{m}(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-B^{m}(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|ds\right]^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x^m-x|^p+C_p\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left(\int^{T}_{0}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|+|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s|ds\right)^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p.\label{X^m-X}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{tA/{\varepsilon}}(y^m-y)+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)ds \nonumber\\ &&+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}[F^{m}(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-F^{m}(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)]ds\\
&&+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is clear that for any $T>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int^T_0|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t|dt\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C|y^m-y|+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^{T}_{0}\int^{t}_{0}e^{-\frac{\lambda_1(t-s)}{{\varepsilon}}}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|dsdt\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^T_0\int^{t}_{0}e^{-\frac{\lambda_1(t-s)}{{\varepsilon}}}|F^{m}(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)-F^{m}(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|dsdt\\
&&+\int^T_0\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|dt\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T|y^m-y|+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^{T}_{0}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|\int^{T}_{s}e^{-\frac{\lambda_1(t-s)}{{\varepsilon}}}dtds\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^T_0\left(C|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|+L_F|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s|\right)\int^{T}_{s}e^{-\frac{\lambda_1(t-s)}{{\varepsilon}}}dtds\\
&&+\int^T_0\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|dt\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C|y^m-y|+\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\int^{T}_{0}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|ds\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{L_F}{\lambda_1}\int^T_0|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s|ds+\frac{C}{\lambda_1}\int^T_0|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|ds\\
&&+\int^T_0\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|dt.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the condition $\lambda_1>L_F$ in assumption \ref{A2}, it follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\int^T_0|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-Y^{{\varepsilon}}_t|dt
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C|y^m-y|+\frac{C}{\lambda_1}\int^{T}_{0}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|ds+\frac{C}{\lambda_1}\int^T_0|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|ds\nonumber\\
&&+C\int^T_0\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|dt.\label{Y^m-Y}
\end{eqnarray}
Then by \eref{X^m-X} and \eref{Y^m-Y}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x^m-x|^p+C_{p}|y^m-y|^p+C_{p,T}\mathbb{ E}\int^{T}_{0}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{{\varepsilon}}_s|^p ds\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_{p,T}\!\int^{T}_{0}\!\!\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds\!+\!C_{p,T}\!\int^{T}_{0}\!\!\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^p ds\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_{p,T}\int^T_0\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|^pdt\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
The Gronwall's inequality implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}(|x^m-x|^p+|y^m-y|^p)+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\!\!\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^p ds\!+\!C_{p,T}\!\int^T_0\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 \!\!e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s\!-\!\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0\!\! e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|^pdt\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!+C_{p,T}\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is clear that as $m\rightarrow\infty$,
$$
|x^m-x|^p\rightarrow 0,\quad |y^m-y|^p\rightarrow 0.
$$
By the a prior estimate of $(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)$ and the dominated convergence theorem,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds=\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}|(\pi_m-I)B(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^pds=0,\\
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^p ds=\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}|(\pi_m-I)F(X^{{\varepsilon}}_s, Y^{{\varepsilon}}_s)|^p ds=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
By assumption \ref{A2} and Remark \ref{Re2}, as $m\rightarrow\infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p\leqslant C_{p}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=m+1}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda_k}\right)^{p/\alpha}\!\!\!\rightarrow 0,\\
&&\int^T_0\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d \bar{Z}^m_s-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/{\varepsilon}}d Z_s\right|^pdt\leqslant C_{p,T}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=m+1}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda_k}\right)^{p/\alpha}\!\!\!\rightarrow 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence by the discussion above, we final get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{{\varepsilon}}_t|^p=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{L6.3}
For any $ (x,y)\in H\times H$, $m\in \mathbb{N}_{+}$, $p\in [1,\alpha)$ and $T>0$, there exist constants $C_{p,T}, C_{T}>0$ such that any ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1], \eta\in (0,1)$ and $0<s\leqslant t<T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\left(\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}\leqslant C_T(t-s)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}(1+|x|+|y|),\quad\label{THXvare}\\
&&\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\left(\mathbb{ E}|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t-Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s|^p\right)^{1/p}\leqslant C_T\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}(1+|x|+|y|).\label{THYvare}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \eref{P3}, \eref{LA} and Minkowski's inequality, we get for any $p\in (1,\alpha)$, $\eta\in (0,1)$ and $0<t\leqslant T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{ E}\|X^{m,\varepsilon}_t\|^p_{\eta}
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\|e^{tA}x\|^p_{\eta}+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left(\int^t_0\|e^{(t-s)A}B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)\|_{\eta}ds\right)^p
+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left\|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d\bar{L}^m_s\right\|^p_{\eta}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p t^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}|x|^p+C_p\left[\int^t_0(t-s)^{-\eta/2}\left[\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p+|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p)\right]^{1/p}ds\right]^p+C_p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T} t^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p).\label{X_theta}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
$$
X^{m,\varepsilon}_t=e^{(t-s)A}X^{m,\varepsilon}_s+\int^t_s e^{(t-r)A}B^m(X^{m,\varepsilon}_r, Y^{m,\varepsilon}_r)dr+\int^t_s e^{(t-r)A}d\bar {L}^{m}_r
$$
It follows from \eref{P4} that for any $0<s\leqslant t\leqslant T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{ E}|X^{m,\varepsilon}_t-X^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&& C_p(t-s)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}\mathbb{ E}\|X^{m,\varepsilon}_s\|^p_{\eta}+C_p\left(\int^t_s \left[\mathbb{ E}|B^m(X^{m,\varepsilon}_r, Y^{m,\varepsilon}_r)|^p\right]^{1/p}dr\right)^p\\
&&+C_p\left[\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k(1-e^{-\lambda_k (t-s)})}{\lambda_k}\right]^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}(t-s)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)+C(t-s)^p(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)\\
&&+C_p(t-s)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}\left[\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\eta\alpha/2}_k}\right]^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}(t-s)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p).
\end{eqnarray*}
Define $\tilde Z_t:=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/ \alpha}}Z_{t{\varepsilon}}$, which is also a cylindrical $\alpha$-stable process. Then by \eref{LA} , for any $\eta\in(0,1)$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{ E}\left\|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A/\varepsilon}dZ_s\right\|^p_{\eta}=&\mathbb{ E}\left\|\int^{t/{\varepsilon}}_0 e^{(t/{\varepsilon}-s)A}d\tilde Z_s\right\|^p_{\eta}\\
\leqslant&C\left(\sum_{k}\gamma^{\alpha}_k \frac{1-e^{-\alpha \lambda_k t/{\varepsilon}}}{\alpha \lambda^{1-\alpha\eta/2}_k} \right)^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant&C\left(\sum_{k}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k }{\alpha \lambda^{1-\alpha\eta/2}_k} \right)^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant&C_{\alpha}\left(\sum_{k}\gamma^{\alpha}_k \right)^{p/\alpha}\leqslant C_{\alpha,p}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, by \eref{P3} and Minkowski's inequality, we get for any $\eta\in (0,1)$ and $0<t\leqslant T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{ E}\|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_t\|^p_{\eta}
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\|e^{tA/{\varepsilon}}y\|^p_{\eta}+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_0\|e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{{\varepsilon}}}F^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s)\|_{\eta}ds\right)^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left\|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_0 e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{{\varepsilon}}}d\bar{Z}^{m}_s\right\|^p_{\eta}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left(\frac{t}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}|y|^p+C\left[\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_0\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}e^{-\frac{(t-s)\lambda_1}{2{\varepsilon}}}\left[\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p+|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p)\right]^{1/p}ds\right]^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_{\alpha,p}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T t^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p).\label{Y_theta}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y^{m,\varepsilon}_t=e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{{\varepsilon}}}Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_s e^{\frac{(t-r)A}{{\varepsilon}}}F^m(X^{m,\varepsilon}_r, Y^{m,\varepsilon}_r)dr+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_s e^{\frac{(t-r)A}{{\varepsilon}}}d\bar {Z}^{m}_r.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by \eref{P4}, it follows that for any $0<s<t\leqslant T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{ E}|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_t-Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\mathbb{ E}|e^{\frac{(t-s)A}{{\varepsilon}}}Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s-Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s|^p +C_p\mathbb{ E}\left[\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_s \left|e^{\frac{(t-r)A}{{\varepsilon}}}F^m_2(X^{m,\varepsilon}_r, Y^{m,\varepsilon}_r)\right|dr\right]^p\\
&&+C_p\mathbb{ E}\left|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{1/\alpha}}\int^t_s e^{\frac{(t-r)A}{{\varepsilon}}}d\bar {Z}^{m}_r\right|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}\mathbb{ E}\|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_s\|^p_{\eta}+C_p\left[\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\int^t_s e^{-\frac{(t-r)\lambda_1}{{\varepsilon}}}
\left[\mathbb{ E}(1+|X^{m,\varepsilon}_r|^p+|Y^{m,\varepsilon}_r|^p)\right]^{1/p}dr\right]^p\nonumber\\
&&+C_p\left[\sum^{\infty}_{k=1} \frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k(1-e^{-\alpha \lambda_k(t-s)/{\varepsilon}})}{\lambda_k}\right]^{p/\alpha}\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)+C_{p,T}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p)\\
&&+C_{p,T}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}\left(\sum^{\infty}_{k=1} \frac{\gamma^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\alpha\eta/2}_k}\right)^{p/\alpha}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{p\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{p\eta}{2}}(1+|x|^p+|y|^p),
\end{eqnarray*}
where we use the fact that $1-e^{-x}\leqslant Cx^{\alpha\eta/2}$, for any $x>0$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{L6.4}
For any $(x,y)\in H^{\gamma}\times H$ with $\gamma\in[0,1)$, $\eta\in (0,1)$, $T>0$ and $p\in [1,\alpha)$, there exists a constant $C_{T}$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}\in (0,1]$ and $t\in(0,T]$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\left[\mathbb{E}\|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t\|^p_2\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}
\leqslant Ct^{-1+\frac{\gamma}{2}}\|x\|_{\gamma}+C_T{\varepsilon}^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}(1+|x|+|y|). \label{Xvare2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that for any $t>0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_t=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{tA}x+\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})ds\nonumber\\
&&+\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}\left[B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right]ds+\int_{0}^{t}e^{(t-s)A}d\bar{L}^{m}_s \nonumber\\
:=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\sum^4_{i=1}I_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the term $I_{1}$, using \eqref{P3}, for any $\gamma\in (0,1)$ we have
\begin{align} \label{ABarX1}
\|e^{tA}x\|_2
\leqslant C t^{-1+\frac{\gamma}{2}}\|x\|_{\gamma}.
\end{align}
For the term $I_{2}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*} \label{ABarX4}
\left[\mathbb{E}\|I_{2}\|^p_2\right]^{1/p}=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left(\mathbb{E}\left|(e^{tA}-I)B^m(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\left[1+\left(\mathbb{E}|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p\right)^{1/p}+\left(\mathbb{E}|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}|^p\right)^{1/p}\right]\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_T(1+|x|+|y| ).
\end{eqnarray*}
For the term $I_{3}$, using Minkowski's inequality and Lemma \ref{L6.3}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ABarX5}
\left[\mathbb{E} \| I_{3}\|^p_2\right]^{1/p}
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C\int_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{t-s}\left[\mathbb{E}\left|F^m_1(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s,Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s})-F^m_1(X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t},Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t})\right|^p\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}ds \nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
C\int_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{t-s}\left[\mathbb{E}\left|X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_s-X^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}\right|^p+\mathbb{ E}\left|Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{s}-Y^{m,{\varepsilon}}_{t}\right|^p\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}ds \nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C(1+|x|+|y|)\int_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{t-s}(t-s)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}ds\nonumber\\
&&+C(1+|x|+|y|)\int_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{t-s}\left(\frac{t-s}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{\eta}{2}}s^{-\frac{\eta}{2}}ds\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C{\varepsilon}^{-\eta/2}(1+|x|+|y|) .
\end{eqnarray}
For the term $I_{4}$, by \eref{LA} and assumption \ref{A2}, we easily have
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\mathbb{E} \| I_{4}\|^p_2\right]^{1/p}\leqslant C_{p}\left(\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{+}}\frac{\beta^{\alpha}_k}{\lambda^{1-\alpha}_k}\right)^{1/\alpha}\leqslant C_p.\label{ABarX6}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eref{ABarX1}-\eref{ABarX6} yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
By the same argument above, we can easily prove that for any $(x,y)\in H\times H$, $T>0$ and $p\in [1,\alpha)$, there exists a constant $C_{T}$ such that for any $t\in(0,T]$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{m\geqslant 1}\left[\mathbb{E}\|\bar{X}^{m}_t\|^p_2\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}
\leqslant C_T t^{-1}(1+|x|). \label{barXvare2}
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\vspace{0.3cm}
Recall the approximate equation \eref{Ga 1.3} to the averaged equation \eref{1.3}.
Note that $\bar{X}^m$ is not the Galerkin approximation of $\bar{X}$, hence we have to check its approximation carefully.
\begin{lemma} \label{GA2}
For any $x\in H$, $T>0$ and $p\in (1,\alpha)$, we have
\begin{align}
\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^{m}_t-\bar{X}_t|^p=0. \label{FA2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{X}^{m}_t-\bar{X}_t=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{tA}(x^m-x)+\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A}(\pi_m-I)\bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)ds\nonumber\\
&&+\int^{t}_{0}e^{(t-s)A}\left[\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}^{m}_s)-\pi_m \bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)\right]ds+\left[\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Then for any $T>0$ and $p\in [1,\alpha)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^{m}_t-\bar{X}_t|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x^m-x|^p+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)\bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}^{m}_s)-\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds\\
&&+C_{p,T}\mathbb{ E}\int^{T}_{0}|\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}_s)-\pi_m \bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_p|x^m-x|^p+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)\bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds+C_{p,T}\int^T_0 \mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^{m}_t-\bar{X}_t|^pdt\\
&&+C_{p,T}\mathbb{ E}\int^{T}_{0}|\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}_s)-\pi_m \bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds+C_p\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Gronwall's inequality, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}|\bar{X}^{m}_t-\bar{X}_t|^p\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&C_{p,T}|x^m-x|^p+C_{p,T}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)\bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds\nonumber\\
&&+C_{p,T}\mathbb{ E}\int^{T}_{0}|\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}_s)-\pi_m \bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^p ds+C_{p,T}\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the a prior estimate of $\bar{X}$ and the dominated convergence theorem,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\int^{T}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)\bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds=0,\label{AT2.1}\\
&&\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\sup_{t\in [0,T]}\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar L^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dL_s\right|^p=0.\label{AT2.2}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus if we can prove for any $x\in H$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}|\bar{B}^{m}(x)-\pi_m \bar{B}(x)|=0,\label{AT2.3}
\end{eqnarray}
Then by dominated convergence theorem, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{ E}\int^{T}_{0}|\bar{B}^{m}(\bar{X}_s)-\pi_m \bar{B}(\bar{X}_s)|^pds=0.\label{AT2.4}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, \eref{FA2} holds by combining \eref{AT2.1}, \eref{AT2.2} and \eref{AT2.4}.
In fact, for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,0,m}_t-Y^{x,0}_t|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^{t}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(x, Y^{x,0}_s)|ds+\int^{t}_{0}|F^{m}(x,Y^{x,0,m}_s)-F^m(x,Y^{x,0}_s)|ds \nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar Z^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\int^{t}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(x, Y^{x,0}_s)|ds+\mathbb{ E}\int^{t}_{0}|Y^{x,0,m}_s-Y^{x,0}_s|ds \nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar Z^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Gronwall's inequality,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,0,m}_t-Y^{x,0}_t|
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&e^{Ct}\left[\int^{t}_{0}\mathbb{ E}|(\pi_m-I)F(x, Y^{x,0}_s)|ds+\mathbb{ E}\left|\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}d \bar Z^{m}_s-\int^t_0 e^{(t-s)A}dZ_s\right|\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
As a consequence, it is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,0,m}_t-Y^{x,0}_t|=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
By \eref{ergodicity1}, we have for any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\bar{B}^{m}(x)-\pi_m \bar{B}(x)|\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&|\bar{B}^{m}(x)-\mathbb{ E}\pi_m B(x,Y^{x,0,m}_t)|+|\mathbb{ E}\pi_m B(x,Y^{x,0}_t)-\pi_m \bar{B}(x)| \nonumber\\
&&+|\mathbb{ E}\pi_m B(x,Y^{x,0,m}_t)-\mathbb{ E}\pi_m B(x,Y^{x,0}_t)|\nonumber\\
\leqslant\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&Ce^{-\frac{(\lambda_1-L_F)t}{2}}+\mathbb{ E}|Y^{x,0,m}_t-Y^{x,0}_t|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then by taking $m\rightarrow \infty$ firstly, then $t\rightarrow\infty$, we finally get \eref{AT2.3}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowledgment}. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11771187, 11931004, 12090011) and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Though deep neural networks (DNNs)~\cite{simonyan2014very,he2016deep} have revolutionized various computer vision tasks~\cite{chen2017deeplab,ren2015faster, simonyan2014very,he2016deep}, they often generalize poorly to new domains due to \textit{domain gaps}. Unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) aims to mitigate the domain gaps by exploiting unlabelled target-domain data. To this end, researchers have designed different unsupervised losses on target data for learning a well-performed model in target domain ~\cite{kang2019contrastive,tsai2018learning, tzeng2017adversarial, luo2019taking,vu2019advent,chen2018domain,xiao2022unsupervised}. The existing unsupervised losses can be broadly classified into three categories: 1) \textit{adversarial loss} that enforces source-like target representations in the feature, output or latent space~\cite{ long2016unsupervised,tzeng2017adversarial, luo2019taking, tsai2018learning,saito2018maximum,vu2019advent,tsai2019domain}; 2) \textit{image translation loss} that translates source images to have target-like styles and appearance \cite{ chen2019crdoco,li2019bidirectional,huang2021rda,yang2020fda,zhang2021spectral}; and 3) \textit{self-training loss} that re-trains networks iteratively with confidently pseudo-labelled target samples \cite{zou2018unsupervised,zou2019confidence, li2019bidirectional,guan2021domain}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{figures/fig_2.pdf}
\caption{
The proposed Category Contrast trains an unsupervised domain adaptive encoder by matching a query $q$ (from an unlabelled target sample $x^q\in X_t$) to a dictionary of keys via a category contrastive loss $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{CatNCE}$. The dictionary keys are domain-mixed from both source domain $X_s$ (in red with labels) and target domain $X_t$ (in blue with pseudo labels), which allows to learn invariant representations within and across the two domains. They are also category-ware and category-balanced allowing to learn category-discriminative yet category-unbiased representations. Note the \textit{category-balanced} means that each query $q$ is compared with all the dictionary keys (in loss computation) that are evenly distributed over all data categories which mitigates data imbalance issue.
}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure*}
Unsupervised representation learning~\cite{noroozi2016unsupervised,pathak2016context,zhang2016colorful,zhang2017split,wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised,he2020momentum, tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple} addresses a related problem, $i.e.$, unsupervised network pre-training which aims to learn discriminative embeddings from unlabelled data. In recent years, instance contrastive learning~\cite{wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised,he2020momentum, oord2018representation, tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple} has led to major advances in unsupervised representation learning.
Despite different motivations, instance contrast methods can be thought of as a dictionary look-up task~\cite{he2020momentum} that trains a visual encoder by matching an encoded query $q$ with
a dictionary of encoded keys $k$:
the encoded query should be similar to the encoded positive keys and dissimilar to encoded negative keys.
With no labels available for unlabelled data, the positive keys are often the augmentation of the query sample, and all the rest are negative keys.
In this work, we explore the idea of instance contrast
in UDA. Considering contrastive learning as a dictionary look-up task, we hypothesize that a UDA dictionary should be category-aware and domain-mixed with keys from both source and target domains. Intuitively, a category-aware dictionary with category-balanced keys will encourage to learn category-discriminative yet category-unbiased representations, while the keys from both source and target domains will allow to learn invariant representations within and across the two domains, both being aligned with the objective of UDA.
With above motivation, this paper presents \textit{Category Contrast} (CaCo) as a way of building category-aware and domain-mixed dictionaries with corresponding contrastive losses for UDA. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:framework}, the dictionary consists of keys that are evenly sampled in both categories and domains, where each target key comes with a predicted pseudo category. Take the illustrative dictionary ${\tens{K}} = \{k^{c}_{m}\}_{1 \leq c \leq C, 1 \leq m \leq M}$ as an example. Each category $c$ will have $M$ keys while each domain has $(C\times M)/2$ keys. The network learning will thus strive to minimize a \textit{category contrastive loss} $\mathcal{L}_{\text{CatNCE}}$ between target queries and dictionary keys: samples of the same category are pulled close while those of different categories are pushed away.
This naturally leads to category-discriminative yet domain-invariant representations, which is perfectly aligned with the objective of UDA.
With the category-aware and domain-mixed dictionary together with the category contrastive loss, the proposed Category Contrast tackles the UDA challenges with three desirable features: 1) It concurrently minimizes the intra-category variation and maximizes the inter-category distance with the \textit{category-aware} dictionary design; 2) It achieves inter-domain and intra-domain alignment simultaneously thanks to the \textit{domain-mixed} dictionary design by including both source and target samples; 3) It greatly mitigates the data balance issue due to the \textit{category-balanced} dictionary design which allows to compute contrast losses evenly across all categories during learning.
The contributions of this work can be summarized in three aspects.
\textit{First}, we investigate instance contrast for unsupervised domain adaptation, aiming to learn discriminative representation for unlabelled target-domain data.
\textit{Second}, we propose Category Contrast that builds a category-aware and domain-mixed dictionary with a category contrastive loss. It encourages to learn category-discriminative yet domain-invariant representation which is naturally aligned with the objective of UDA. \textit{Third}, extensive experiments show that the proposed CaCo achieves superior UDA performance consistently as compared with state-of-the-art methods.
Additionally, CaCo is complementary with existing UDA methods and generalizable to other learning setups that involves unlabeled data.
\section{Related Works}
Our work is closely related to two main branches of research, namely, unsupervised learning in unsupervised domain adaptation and instance contrast in unsupervised representation learning.
\textbf{Unsupervised domain adaptation} aims to leverage unlabelled target data to improve network performance in target domain. To learn from unlabelled target data, most existing works propose different unsupervised losses which can be broadly classified into three categories. The first category is \textit{adversarial loss} that enforces source-like target representation in the feature~\cite{long2016unsupervised,tzeng2017adversarial,chen2018domain,guan2021uncertainty,saito2019strong,zhang2021detr}, output~\cite{saito2018adversarial,luo2019taking,tsai2018learning,saito2018maximum,huang2022multi} or latent space~\cite{vu2019advent,tsai2019domain,huang2020contextual}. The second category is \textit{image translation loss} that generates source data with target-like styles and appearance via GANs~\cite{chen2019crdoco, li2019bidirectional,cui2021genco} and spectrum matching~\cite{yang2020fda,huang2021fsdr}. The third category is \textit{self-training loss} that re-trains the network iteratively with pseudo-labelled target samples \cite{zou2018unsupervised, zou2019confidence,li2019bidirectional,guan2021scale,huang2021model,yang2020fda,huang2021cross,wang2021domain}.
We tackle UDA from a new perspective of instance contrastive learning, and propose a novel Category Contrast (CaCo) that introduces a generic category contrastive loss that can work for various UDA tasks.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that explores instance contrastive learning for UDA.
\textbf{Instance Contrastive Learning}~\cite{wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised, he2020momentum, oord2018representation, tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple} aims to learn an embedding space where positive samples are pulled close to an anchor and negative samples are pushed away. Despite different motivations, instance contrastive learning can be viewed as a dictionary look-up task~\cite{he2020momentum} that trains a visual encoder by matching an encoded query $q$ with a dictionary of encoded keys $k$: $q$ should be similar to positive $k$ and dissimilar to negative $k$. Three typical dictionary creation strategies have been proposed. The first builds a \textit{memory bank}~\cite{wu2018unsupervised} that stores the keys of all samples in the previous epoch. The second creates an \textit{end-to-end} dictionary~\cite{ye2019unsupervised, tian2019contrastive, chen2020simple} that generates keys from samples of the current mini-batch. The third employs a \textit{momentum encoder}~\cite{he2020momentum} that encodes samples on-the-fly by a momentum-updated encoder. Instance contrastive learning with various dictionaries helps to learn better unsupervised representations clearly.
On the other hand, existing instance contrastive learning methods~\cite{wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised,he2020momentum,oord2018representation,tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple} were designed for unsupervised representation, which has two main limitations in UDA: 1). With little category priors, existing instance contrast techniques learn rich low-level features without capturing much high-level semantic information. This is sub-optimal to many visual recognition tasks ($e.g.$, segmentation, detection and classification) that require discriminative semantic features. Recent studies~\cite{tschannen2019mutual,saunshi2019theoretical} verify this issue; 2). Most existing instance contrastive learning methods~\cite{wu2018unsupervised, ye2019unsupervised,he2020momentum,oord2018representation,tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple} employ a super-large/category-agnostic dictionary that could introduce category collision~\cite{saunshi2019theoretical}, where negative pairs share the same semantic category but are undesirably pushed away in the feature space. This impairs most learning setups that require semantic-level discrimination including various visual UDA tasks. The proposed CaCo introduces a categorical domain-mixed dictionary which introduces category priors and addresses the two problems effectively.
\textbf{Other recent related contrastive learning works.} \cite{li2021semantic} explores contrastive learning with semantic distributions and proposes semantic distribution-aware contrastive adaptation that contrasts each sample with estimated category centroids. \cite{wang2021exploring,alonso2021semi} explore pixel-level contrast with a memory bank for supervised and semi-supervised semantic segmentation.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Task Definition}
This work focuses on the task of unsupervised domain adaptation. Given labeled source-domain data \{$X_{s}$, $Y_{s}$\} and unlabeled target-domain data $X_{t}$, the goal is to learn a model $G$ that performs well over $X_{t}$. The \textit{baseline} model is trained with the labeled source data only:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_{sup} = l(G(X_{s}), Y_{s}),
\end{split}
\label{eq_baseline}
\end{equation}
where $l(\cdot)$ denotes an accuracy-related loss, $e.g.$, the standard cross-entropy loss.
\subsection{Preliminaries of Instance Contrastive Learning}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
The idea of instance contrastive learning \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality} can be considered as training an encoder (feature extractor) for a \emph{dictionary look-up} task.
Given a query $q$ and a dictionary that consists of a number of keys $\{k_{0}, k_{1}, ..., k_{N}\}$, instance discriminative representations are learnt with an instance contrastive loss \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality} ($e.g.$, InfoNCE \cite{oord2018representation}), minimization of which will pull $q$ close to its positive key and push it away from all other keys (considered negative for $q$):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{InfoNCE}} = \sum_{x_{q} \in X} -\log \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{N} \mathbbm{1} (k_{i} \in q) \exp(q{\cdot}k_{i} / \tau)}{\sum_{i=0}^{N}\exp(q{\cdot}k_i / \tau)}
\label{eqn:infoNCE}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbbm{1} (k_{i} \in q) = 1$ if $k_{i}$ is the positive key of $q$ and $ \mathbbm{1} (k_{i} \in q) = 0$ otherwise. Parameter $\tau$ is a temperature parameter \cite{wu2018unsupervised}. In general, the query representation is $q=f_\textrm{q}(x^q)$ where $f_\textrm{q}$ is an encoder network and $x^q$ is a query sample (likewise in $k=f_\textrm{k}(x^k)$).
\subsection{Category Contrast for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation}
We tackle UDA from a perspective of instance contrastive learning. Specifically, we design Category Contrast that builds a category-aware and domain-mixed dictionary to learn category-discriminative yet domain-invariant representations under the guidance of a category contrastive loss.
\textbf{Overview.} For \textit{supervised training} over a labelled source domain, we feed source samples $\{X_{s}, Y_{s}\}$ to a model $G$ and optimize $G$ with Eq.~\ref{eq_baseline}. In this work, $G$ consists of an encoder $f_{q}$ and a classifier $h$ that classifies the encoded embeddings into pre-defined categories, $i.e.$, $G(\cdot)=h(f_{q}(\cdot))$. For \textit{unsupervised training} over an unlabelled target domain, the training involves a query \textit{encoder} $f_{q}$ and a key \textit{momentum encoder} $f_{k}$ (the momentum update of $f_{q}$, $i.e.$, $\theta_{f_{k}} = b\theta_{f_{k}} + (1- b)\theta_{f_{q}}$, and $b$ is a momentum coefficient) as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:framework}. During the training, we evenly sample the key $x_{k}$ from both source and target domains ($i.e.$, $X_{s}$ and $X_{t}$) and feed them to the key encoder $f_{k}$ to build a category-aware dictionary ${\tens{K}}$. We sample query $x_{q}$ from the target domain (i.e. $X_{t}$) only and feed them to the query encoder $f_{q}$ for category contrastive learning with the category-aware dictionary ${\tens{K}}$.
\textbf{Categorical domain-mixed dictionary.} One key component in the proposed CaCo is a category-aware and domain-mixed dictionary with keys from both source and target domains. The dictionary allows to perform category contrastive learning: the embeddings of the \textit{same category} are pulled close together while those of \textit{different categories} are pushed apart. The category awareness encourages the network to learn category-discriminative embeddings. This feature is critical to various visual tasks ($e.g.$, segmentation, classification and detection) that require to learn discriminative features and classify them to pre-defined categories. In addition, the dictionary is domain-mixed which encourages to learn invariant representations within and across domains as category contrast is computed between target queries and keys from both source and target domains.
As stated in the Overview, given an encoded key $k = f_{k}(x_k)$ ($x_{k} \in X_{s} \cup X_{t}$), the classifier $h$ predicts a category label $\hat{y}_{k}$ and converts $k$ into a categorical key $k^{c}$ which is further queued into the categorical dictionary ${\tens{K}}$. These processes are carried out in parallel for a mini-batch of inputs, and the formal definition of the categorical dictionary ${\tens{K}}$ is presented in Definition.~\ref{CaCo-definition}.
\begin{Definition}
\label{CaCo-definition} A Categorical Dictionary ${\tens{K}}$ with $C$-category is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{CaCo-Dict}
{\tens{K}} = \{k^{1}, k^{2}, ..., k^{C}\},
\end{equation}
where the categorical key $k^{c} \in {\tens{K}}$ is defined as the key $k$ that belongs to the $c$-th semantic category ($c = \argmax_{i}\hat{y}_{k}^{(i)}$) and the predicted category label $\hat{y}_{k}$ of $k = f_{k}(x_{k})$ is derived by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pseudo_label}
\argmax_{\hat{y}_{k}} \sum_{c = 1}^{C} \hat{y}_{k}^{(c)} \log p(c;k, \theta_{h}), \ s.t. \ \hat{y}_{k} \in \Delta^{C}, \forall k,
\end{equation}
where $h$ is the category classifier that predicts $C$-category probabilities for each embedding ($e.g.$, $k$), and $\hat{y} = (\hat{y}^{(1)}, \hat{y}^{(2)}, ..., \hat{y}^{(C)})$ is the predicted category label. The key $x_{k}$ is sampled from a training dataset $X$ and encoded by the momentum encoder $f_{k}$ to get the encoded key $k = f_{k}(x_{k})$.
$\Delta^C$ denotes a probability simplex, with which a point can be represented by $C$ non-negative numbers that add up to $1$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
\label{rm-on-CaCo-definition}
It is worth highlighting that Eq.~\ref{CaCo-Dict} only shows one group of categorical keys for the simplicity of illustration and theoretic proof. In practice, we take the same strategy as \cite{he2020momentum} and maintain a dynamic categorical dictionary with $M$-size queue ($i.e.$, $\{k^{c}_{m}\}_{1 \leq c \leq C, 1 \leq m \leq M}$), where the categorical keys are progressively updated in a category-wise manner. Specifically, for the queue of each category, we have $\{k^{c}_{1}, k^{c}_{2}, ..., k^{c}_{M}\}$, in which the oldest key is dequeued and the currently sampled key (belongs to $c$-th semantic category) is enqueued.
\end{Remark}
\textbf{Category contrastive loss.} Given the categorical dictionary ${\tens{K}} = \{k^{c}_{m}\}_{1 \leq c \leq C, 1 \leq m \leq M}$ defined in Definition.~\ref{CaCo-definition}, the proposed CaCo performs contrastive learning on unlabeled target data $X_{t}$ via a category contrastive loss CatNCE that is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Cat_NCE}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{CatNCE} = &\sum_{x_{q} \in X_{t}} -\bigg(\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M \log \\ & \frac{\sum_{c=1}^{C} \exp(q \cdot k_{m}^{c}/\tau^{c}_{m}) (\hat{y}_{q} \times \hat{y}_{k_{m}^{c}})}{\sum_{c=1}^{C} \exp(q\cdot k_{m}^{c}/\tau^{c}_{m})} \bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $q=f_{q}(x_q)$, $(\hat{y}_{q} \times \hat{y}_{k_{m}^{c}})$ is equal to 1 if both refer to the same category and 0 otherwise, $\tau^{c}_{m}$ is a temperature hyper-parameter and the $\cdot$ denotes the inner (dot) product. For each group of categorical keys $\{k^{1}_{m}, k^{2}_{m}, ..., k^{C}_{m}\}$, only one key is positive for the current query $q$ ($i.e.$, $(\hat{y}_{q} \times \hat{y}_{k_{m}^{c}}) = 1$) as every sample belongs to a single category. This loss is thus the log loss of a $C$-way softmax-based classifier that strives to classify $q$ as the positive key (of same category).
\begin{Remark}
\label{rm-on-Cat_NCE}
Note that the CatNCE loss in Eq.\ref{eqn:Cat_NCE} has a similar form as the InfoNCE loss in Eq.\ref{eqn:infoNCE}.
Therefore,
InfoNCE can be interpreted as a special case of CatNCE,
where each instance (with its augmentations) itself is a category and the temperature is fixed ($i.e.$, $\tau^{c}_{m} = \tau, \forall c,m$). For CaCo, we assign different temperatures to different keys as their predicted labels have different uncertainties, $i.e.$, scaled by the prediction entropy $\mathcal{H}(\cdot)$.
The adjustable temperature parameter has also been explored in \cite{gunel2020supervised,khosla2020supervised,chen2020simple}.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}
\label{rm-on-CaCo}
Note that our category contrastive loss serves as an unsupervised objective function for training the encoder networks that represent the queries and keys \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality}. In general, the query representation is $q=f_\textrm{q}(x^q)$ where $f_\textrm{q}$ is an encoder network and $x^q$ is a query sample (likewise, $k=f_\textrm{k}(x^k)$).
Their instantiations depend on the specific pretext task.
The input $x^q$ and $x^k$ can be images \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality,wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised}, patches \cite{oord2018representation} or context consisting of a set of patches \cite{oord2018representation}, etc.
The networks $f_\textrm{q}$ and $f_\textrm{k}$ can be identical \cite{hadsell2006dimensionality,wang2015unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised}, partially shared \cite{oord2018representation,bachman2019learning}, or different \cite{tian2019contrastive,he2020momentum}.
\end{Remark}
\textbf{Relations to existing instance contrast methods}. Beyond instance-discriminative representations as learnt by instance contrast~\cite{wu2018unsupervised,ye2019unsupervised, he2020momentum, oord2018representation, tian2019contrastive,chen2020simple}, CaCo learns category-discriminative yet domain-invariant representation.
\subsection{Theoretical Insights}
The category contrast (CaCo) is inherently connected with some probabilistic models. Specifically, CaCo can be modeled as an example of Expectation Maximization (EM):
\begin{Proposition} The category contrastive learning can be modeled as a maximum likelihood (ML) problem optimized via Expectation Maximization (EM).
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Proposition} The categorical contrastive learning is convergent under certain conditions.
\end{Proposition}
The proofs of \textbf{Propositions 1} and \textbf{2} are provided in the Appendix.
\section{Experiments}
This section presents experimental results.
Sections \ref{exp_dataset} and \ref{exp_impl} describe the dataset and implementation details. Sections \ref{exp_uda_seg}, \ref{exp_uda_obj} and \ref{exp_uda_cla} present the UDA experiments in segmentation, detection and classification, respectively. Section \ref{exp_discussion} discusses different features of the proposed method.
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccccccccccc|c}
\hline
Method & Road & SW & Build & Wall & Fence & Pole & TL & TS & Veg. & Terrain & Sky & PR & Rider & Car & Truck & Bus & Train & Motor & Bike & mIoU\\
\hline
Baseline \cite{chen2017deeplab} &75.8 &16.8 &77.2 &12.5 &21.0 &25.5 &30.1 &20.1 &81.3 &24.6 &70.3 &53.8 &26.4 &49.9 &17.2 &25.9 &6.5 &25.3 &36.0 &36.6\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo-S} &91.1 &54.4 &79.6 &27.0 &22.9 &36.9 &40.2 &33.4 &83.7 &36.3 &65.2 &59.7 &22.4 &83.5 &37.5 &49.3 &10.1 &23.3 &31.8 &46.8
\\
\textbf{CaCo-T} &92.0 &53.5 &81.6 &28.9 &26.3 &36.5 &42.7 &36.3 &81.8 &37.2 &75.5 &59.8 &26.5 &84.9 &40.0 &44.9 &11.6 &27.0 &29.9 &48.3
\\
\textbf{CaCo} &91.9 &54.3 &82.7 &31.7 &25.0 &38.1 &46.7 &39.2 &82.6 &39.7 &76.2 &63.5 &23.6 &85.1 &38.6 &47.8 &10.3 &23.4 &35.1 &49.2
\\\hline
AdaptSeg~\cite{tsai2018learning} &86.5 &36.0 &79.9 &23.4 &23.3 &23.9 &35.2 &14.8 &83.4 &33.3 &75.6 &58.5 &27.6 &73.7 &32.5 &35.4 &3.9 &30.1 &28.1 &42.4\\
CBST~\cite{zou2018unsupervised} &91.8 &53.5 &80.5 &32.7 &21.0 &34.0 &28.9 &20.4 &83.9 &34.2 &80.9 &53.1 &24.0 &82.7 &30.3 &35.9 &16.0 &25.9 &42.8 &45.9\\
CLAN~\cite{luo2019taking} &87.0 &27.1 &79.6 &27.3 &23.3 &28.3 &35.5 &24.2 &83.6 &27.4 &74.2 &58.6 &28.0 &76.2 &33.1 &36.7 &{6.7} &{31.9} &31.4 &43.2\\
AdvEnt~\cite{vu2019advent} &89.4 &33.1 &81.0 &26.6 &26.8 &27.2 &33.5 &24.7 &{83.9} &{36.7} &78.8 &58.7 &30.5 &{84.8} &38.5 &44.5 &1.7 &31.6 &32.4 &45.5\\
IDA~\cite{pan2020unsupervised} &90.6 &37.1 &82.6 &30.1 &19.1 &29.5 &32.4 &20.6 &85.7 &40.5 &79.7 &58.7 &31.1 &86.3 &31.5 &48.3 &0.0 &30.2 &35.8 &46.3\\
BDL~\cite{li2019bidirectional} &91.0 &44.7 &84.2 &34.6 &27.6 &30.2 &36.0 &36.0 &85.0 &43.6 &83.0 &58.6 &31.6 &83.3 &35.3 &49.7 &3.3 &28.8 &35.6 &48.5\\
CrCDA~\cite{huang2020contextual} &92.4 &55.3 &82.3 &31.2 &29.1 &32.5 &33.2 &35.6 &83.5 &34.8 &84.2 &58.9 &32.2 &84.7 &40.6 &46.1 &2.1 &31.1 &32.7 &48.6 \\
SIM~\cite{wang2020differential} &90.6 &44.7 &84.8 &34.3 &28.7 &31.6 &35.0 &37.6 &84.7 &43.3 &85.3 &57.0 &31.5 &83.8 &42.6 &48.5 &1.9 &30.4 &39.0 &49.2\\
TIR~\cite{kim2020learning} &92.9 &55.0 &85.3 &34.2 &31.1 &34.9 &40.7 &34.0 &85.2 &40.1 &87.1 &61.0 &31.1 &82.5 &32.3 &42.9 &0.3 &36.4 &46.1 &50.2\\
\hline
CRST~\cite{zou2019confidence} &91.0 &55.4 &80.0 &33.7 &21.4 &37.3 &32.9 &24.5 &85.0 &34.1 &80.8 &57.7 &24.6 &84.1 &27.8 &30.1 &26.9 &26.0 &42.3 &47.1\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &93.0 &58.4 &83.1 &34.0 &29.3 &37.0 &47.1 &42.9 &84.6 &41.5 &82.8 &61.8 &32.2 &86.9 &39.2 &48.0 &22.4 &31.1 &45.7 &52.7
\\\hline
FDA~\cite{yang2020fda} &92.5 &53.3 &82.4 &26.5 &27.6 &36.4 &40.6 &38.9 &82.3 &39.8 &78.0 &62.6 &34.4 &84.9 &34.1 &53.1 &16.9 &27.7 &46.4 &50.5\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &93.2 &54.5 &84.6 &32.9 &29.3 &39.7 &46.9 &42.7 &84.4 &40.1 &83.7 &61.1 &32.2 &85.6 &41.7 &51.2 &19.2 &35.6 &45.9 &52.9
\\\hline
ProDA~\cite{zhang2021proda} &87.8& 56.0& 79.7 &46.3& 44.8& 45.6& 53.5& 53.5& 88.6& 45.2& 82.1& 70.7& 39.2& 88.8& 45.5& 59.4& 1.0& 48.9& 56.4& 57.5\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &93.8 &64.1 &85.7 &43.7 &42.2 &46.1 &50.1 &54.0 &88.7 &47.0 &86.5 &68.1 &2.9 &88.0 &43.4 &60.1 &31.5 &46.1 &60.9 &58.0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Experiments over UDA-based semantic segmentation task GTA5 $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes: CaCo-S, CaCo-T and CaCo construct the category-aware dictionary by sampling key samples $x_{k}$ from the source dataset $X_{s}$ only, the target dataset $X_{t}$ only, and both datasets, respectively.}
\label{table:gta2city}
\end{table*}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{0.9\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccccccccc|c|c}
\hline
Method & Road & SW & Build & Wall\textsuperscript{*} & Fence\textsuperscript{*} & Pole\textsuperscript{*} & TL & TS & Veg. & Sky & PR & Rider & Car & Bus & Motor & Bike & mIoU & mIoU\textsuperscript{*}\\
\hline
Baseline \cite{chen2017deeplab} &55.6 &23.8 &74.6 &9.2 &0.2 &24.4 &6.1 &12.1 &74.8 &79.0 &55.3 &19.1 &39.6 &23.3 &13.7 &25.0 &33.5 &38.6\\ \hline
PatAlign~\cite{tsai2019domain} &82.4 &38.0 &78.6 &8.7 &0.6 &26.0 &3.9 &11.1 &75.5 &84.6 &53.5 &21.6 &71.4 &32.6 &19.3 &31.7 &40.0 &46.5\\
AdaptSeg~\cite{tsai2018learning} &84.3 &42.7 &77.5 &- &- &- &4.7 &7.0 &77.9 &82.5 &54.3 &21.0 &72.3 &32.2 &18.9 &32.3 &- &46.7\\
CLAN~\cite{luo2019taking} &81.3 &37.0 &{80.1} &- &- &- &{16.1} &{13.7} &78.2 &81.5 &53.4 &21.2 &73.0 &32.9 &{22.6} &30.7 &- &47.8\\
AdvEnt~\cite{vu2019advent} &85.6 &42.2 &79.7 &{8.7} &0.4 &25.9 &5.4 &8.1 &{80.4} &84.1 &{57.9} &23.8 &73.3 &36.4 &14.2 &{33.0} &41.2 &48.0\\
IDA~\cite{pan2020unsupervised} &84.3 &37.7 &79.5 &5.3 &0.4 &24.9 &9.2 &8.4 &80.0 &84.1 &57.2 &23.0 &78.0 &38.1 &20.3 &36.5 &41.7 &48.9\\
CrCDA~\cite{huang2020contextual} &86.2 &44.9 &79.5 &8.3 &0.7 &27.8 &9.4 &11.8 &78.6 &86.5 &57.2 &26.1 &76.8 &39.9 &21.5 &32.1 &42.9 &50.0\\
TIR~\cite{kim2020learning} &92.6 &53.2 &79.2 &- &- &- &1.6 &7.5 &78.6 &84.4 &52.6 &20.0 &82.1 &34.8 &14.6 &39.4 &- &49.3\\
SIM~\cite{wang2020differential} &83.0 &44.0 &80.3 &- &- &- &17.1 &15.8 &80.5 &81.8 &59.9 &33.1 &70.2 &37.3 &28.5 &45.8 &- &52.1\\
BDL~\cite{li2019bidirectional} &86.0 &46.7 &80.3&-&-&- &14.1 &11.6 &79.2 &81.3 &54.1 &27.9 &73.7 &42.2 &25.7 &45.3 &- &51.4\\
\hline
CRST~\cite{zou2019confidence} &67.7 &32.2 &73.9 &10.7 &1.6 &37.4 &22.2 &31.2 &80.8 &80.5 &60.8 &29.1 &82.8 &25.0 &19.4 &45.3 &43.8 &50.1\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &88.8 &48.0 &79.5 &6.9 &0.3 &36.9 &28.0 &22.1 &83.5 &84.1 &63.9 &31.0 &85.8 &38.1 &29.4 &49.1 &48.5 &56.2
\\\hline
FDA~\cite{yang2020fda} &79.3 &35.0 &73.2 &- &- &- &19.9 &24.0 &61.7 &82.6 &61.4 &31.W1 &83.9 &40.8 &38.4 &51.1 &- &52.5\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &86.4 &43.3 &78.7 &9.0 &0.1 &28.5 &26.7 &29.7 &81.7 &82.9 &59.3 &28.1 &82.9 &38.6 &35.7 &50.0 &47.6 &55.7
\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo} &87.4 &48.9 &79.6 &8.8 &0.2 &30.1 &17.4 &28.3 &79.9 &81.2 &56.3 &24.2 &78.6 &39.2 &28.1 &48.3 &46.0 &53.6
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Experiments over UDA-based semantic segmentation task SYNTHIA $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes.
}
\label{table:synthia2city}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Datasets}
\label{exp_dataset}
\textbf{Adaptation for semantic segmentation:} It involves three public datasets over two challenging UDA tasks, $i.e.$, GTA5 \cite{richter2016playing} $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes \cite{cordts2016cityscapes} and SYNTHIA \cite{ros2016synthia} $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes. Specifically, GTA5 is a synthesized dataset with $24,966$ images and $19$ common categories with Cityscapes. SYNTHIA is a synthesized dataset with $9,400$ images and $16$ common categories with Cityscapes. Cityscapes is a real-image dataset with $2975$ training images and $500$ validation images.
\textbf{Adaptation for object detection:} It involves three public datasets over two adaptation tasks, $i.e.$, Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ Foggy Cityscapes~\cite{sakaridis2018semantic} and Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ BDD100k~\cite{yu2018bdd100k}. Specifically, Foggy Cityscapes is a synthesized dataset that applies simulated fog on Cityscapes images. BDD100k is a real dataset with $70k$ training images, $10k$ validation images and $7$ common categories with Cityscapes. As in~\cite{xu2020exploring,saito2019strong,chen2018domain}, we only use a subset of BDD100k ``\textit{daytime}'' in experiments.
\textbf{Adaptation for image classification:} It involves two adaptation benchmarks VisDA17~\cite{peng2018visda} and Office-31~\cite{saenko2010adapting}. VisDA17 consists of a source domain with $152,409$ synthesized images of $12$ categories and a target domain with $55,400$ real images. Office-31 consists of images of $31$ categories which were collected from Amazon (2817 images), Webcam (795 images) and DSLR (498 images), respectively.
The evaluation is on every
pair of them as in~\cite{zou2019confidence, saenko2010adapting, sankaranarayanan2018generate}.
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{0.6\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
Method & person & rider & car & truck & bus & train & mcycle & bicycle & mAP \\
\hline
Baseline \cite{ren2015faster} & 24.4 & 30.5 & 32.6 & 10.8 & 25.4 & 9.1 & 15.2 & 28.3 & 22.0 \\ \hline
MAF~\cite{he2019multi} & 28.4 & 39.5 & 43.9 & 23.8 & 39.9 & 33.3 & 29.2 & 33.9 & 34.0 \\
SCDA~\cite{zhu2019adapting} & 33.5 & 38.0 & 48.5 & 26.5 & 39.0 & 23.3 & 28.0 & 33.6 & 33.8 \\
DA~\cite{chen2018domain} &25.0 &31.0 &40.5 &22.1 &35.3 &20.2 &20.0 &27.1 &27.6\\
MLDA~\cite{Xie_2019_ICCV} &33.2 &44.2 &44.8 &28.2 &41.8 &28.7 &30.5 &36.5 &36.0\\
DMA~\cite{kim2019diversify} &30.8 &40.5 &44.3 &27.2 &38.4 &34.5 &28.4 &32.2 &34.6\\
CAFA~\cite{hsu2020every} &41.9 &38.7 &56.7 &22.6 &41.5 &26.8 &24.6 &35.5 &36.0 \\
\hline
SWDA~\cite{saito2019strong} &36.2 &35.3 &43.5 &30.0 &29.9 &42.3 &32.6 &24.5 &34.3\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &39.3 &46.1 &48.0 &32.4 &45.7 &38.7 &31.3 &35.3 &39.6
\\\hline
CRDA~\cite{xu2020exploring} & 32.9 & 43.8 & 49.2 & 27.2 & 45.1 & 36.4 & 30.3 & 34.6 & 37.4 \\
\textbf{+CaCo} &39.4 &47.4 &47.9 &32.5 &46.4 &39.9 &32.7 &35.4 &40.2
\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo} &38.3 &46.7 &48.1 &33.2 &45.9 &37.6 &31.0 &33.0 &39.2
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Experiments over UDA-based object detection task Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ Foggy Cityscapes.}
\label{table:det_city2fog}
\end{table*}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{0.56\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\hline
Method & person & rider & car & truck & bus & mcycle & bicycle & mAP \\
\hline
Baseline \cite{ren2015faster} & 26.9 & 22.1 & 44.7 & 17.4 & 16.7 & 17.1 & 18.8 & 23.4 \\
DA~\cite{chen2018domain} & 29.4 & 26.5 & 44.6 & 14.3 & 16.8 & 15.8 & 20.6 & 24.0 \\
\hline
SWDA~\cite{saito2019strong} & 30.2 & 29.5 & 45.7 & 15.2 & 18.4 & 17.1 & 21.2 & 25.3 \\
\textbf{+CaCo} &32.1 &32.9 &51.6 &20.5 &23.7 &20.1 &25.6 &29.5
\\\hline
CRDA~\cite{xu2020exploring} & 31.4 & 31.3 & 46.3 & 19.5 & 18.9 & 17.3 & 23.8 & 26.9 \\
\textbf{+CaCo} &32.5 &34.1 &51.1 &21.6 &25.1 &20.5 &26.5 &30.2
\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo} &32.7 &32.2 &50.6 &20.2 &23.5 &19.4 &25.0 &29.1
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Experiments over UDA-based object detection tasks Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ BDD100k.
}
\label{table:det_city2BDD}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{exp_impl}
\textbf{Semantic segmentation:}
As in~\cite{tsai2018learning,zou2018unsupervised}, we utilize DeepLab-V2~\cite{chen2017deeplab} with ResNet101 \cite{he2016deep} as the segmentation backbone. We employ SGD~\cite{bottou2010large} as the optimizer with momentum $0.9$, weight decay $1e-4$ and learning rate $2.5e-4$. The learning rate is decayed by a polynomial annealing policy~\cite{chen2017deeplab}.
\textbf{Object detection:} Following~\cite{xu2020exploring, saito2019strong, chen2018domain}, we employ Faster R-CNN~\cite{ren2015faster} with VGG-16~\cite{simonyan2014very} as the detection backbone. We adopt SGD optimizer \cite{bottou2010large} with momentum $0.9$ and weight decay $5e-4$. The learning rate is $1e-3$ for first $50k$ iterations and then decreased to $1e-4$ for $20k$ iterations \cite{xu2020exploring,saito2019strong,chen2018domain}. The image shorter side is set to 600 and RoIAlign is employed for feature extraction.
\textbf{Image classification:} Following ~\cite{zou2019confidence, saenko2010adapting,sankaranarayanan2018generate}, we employ ResNet-101 and ResNet-50~\cite{he2016deep} as the classification backbones for VisDA17 and Office-31, respectively. We adopt SGD as the optimizer \cite{bottou2010large} with momentum $0.9$, weight decay $5e-4$, learning rate $1e-3$ and batch size $32$.
We set the length of dictionary queue $M$ at $100$ in all experiments except in parameter analysis. In addition, we set the momentum update coefficient $b$ at $0.999$ and the basic temperature $\tau$ at $0.07$ as in \cite{he2020momentum}.
\subsection{UDA for Semantic Segmentation}
\label{exp_uda_seg}
Table~\ref{table:gta2city} reports semantic segmentation results on the task GTA5 $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes. It can be seen that the proposed CaCo achieves comparable performance with
state-of-the-art methods.
In addition, CaCo is complementary to existing UDA approaches that exploit adversarial loss, image translation loss and self-training loss.
As shown in Table~\ref{table:gta2city}, incorporating CaCo as denoted by ``+CaCo'' boosts the performance of state-of-the-art methods clearly and consistently. Fig.~\ref{fig:results} presents the qualitative comparisons.
\textbf{Ablation studies.} We perform ablation studies over a widely adopted \textit{Baseline}~\cite{he2016deep} as shown on the top of Table~\ref{table:gta2city}, where \textit{CaCo-S}, \textit{CaCo-T} and \textit{CaCo} mean that the category-aware dictionary is built with keys from source domain, target domain and both, respectively. It can be seen that \textit{CaCo-S} and \textit{CaCo-T} both outperform the \textit{Baseline} by large margins. \textit{CaCo-S} and \textit{CaCo-T} provide orthogonal self-supervision signals, where \textit{CaCo-S} focuses on inter-domain category contrastive learning between target samples and source keys and \textit{CaCo-T} focuses on intra-domain category contrastive learning between target samples and target keys. In addition, \textit{CaCo} performs clearly the best, showing that the keys from the source and target domains are complementary.
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\resizebox{0.92\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccccccc|c}
\hline
Method & Aero & Bike & Bus & Car & Horse & Knife & Motor & Person & Plant & Skateboard & Train & Truck & Mean\\
\hline
Baseline \cite{he2016deep} & 55.1 & 53.3 & 61.9 & 59.1 & 80.6 & 17.9 & 79.7 & 31.2 & 81.0 & 26.5 & 73.5 & 8.5 & 52.4\\ \hline
MMD \cite{long2015learning} & 87.1 & 63.0 & 76.5 & 42.0 & 90.3 & 42.9 & 85.9 & 53.1 & 49.7 & 36.3 & 85.8 & 20.7 & 61.1\\
DANN \cite{ganin2016domain} & 81.9 & 77.7 & 82.8 & 44.3 & 81.2 & 29.5 & 65.1 & 28.6 & 51.9 & 54.6 & 82.8 & 7.8 & 57.4\\
ENT \cite{grandvalet2005semi} & 80.3 & 75.5 & 75.8 & 48.3 & 77.9 & 27.3 & 69.7 & 40.2 & 46.5 & 46.6 & 79.3 & 16.0 & 57.0\\
MCD \cite{saito2018maximum} & 87.0 & 60.9 & {83.7} & 64.0 & 88.9 & 79.6 & 84.7 & {76.9} & {88.6} & 40.3 & 83.0 & 25.8 & 71.9\\
ADR \cite{saito2018adversarial} & 87.8 & 79.5 & {83.7} & 65.3 & {92.3} & 61.8 & {88.9} & 73.2 & 87.8 & 60.0 & {85.5} & {32.3} & 74.8\\
SimNet-Res152 \cite{pinheiro2018unsupervised} & {94.3} & 82.3 & 73.5 & 47.2 & 87.9 & 49.2 & 75.1 & 79.7 & 85.3 & 68.5 & 81.1 & 50.3 & 72.9\\
GTA-Res152 \cite{sankaranarayanan2018generate} & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 77.1\\
\hline
CBST~\cite{zou2018unsupervised} &87.2 & 78.8 & 56.5 & 55.4 & 85.1 & 79.2 & 83.8 & 77.7 & 82.8 & 88.8 & 69.0 & 72.0 & 76.4\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &90.7 &80.8 &79.4 &57.0 &89.2 &88.6 &82.4 &79.0 &87.9 &87.9 &87.0 &65.9 &81.3
\\\hline
CRST~\cite{zou2019confidence} & 88.0 & 79.2 & 61.0 & 60.0 & 87.5 & 81.4 & 86.3 & 78.8 & 85.6 & 86.6 & 73.9 & 68.8 &78.1\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &91.4 &80.6 &80.0 &56.5 &89.5 &89.4 &82.8 &79.9 &88.8 &86.8 &87.3 &66.0 &81.6
\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo} &90.4 &80.7 &78.8 &57.0 &88.9 &87.0 &81.3 &79.4 &88.7 &88.1 &86.8 &63.9 &80.9
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Experiments over domain adaptive image classification task VisDA17.
}
\label{table:visda17}
\end{table*}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{0.98\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccc|c}
\hline
Method & A$\rightarrow$W & D$\rightarrow$W & W$\rightarrow$D & A$\rightarrow$D & D$\rightarrow$A & W$\rightarrow$A & Mean\\
\hline
Baseline \cite{he2016deep} & 68.4 & 96.7 & 99.3 & 68.9 & 62.5 & 60.7 & 76.1\\\hline
DAN \cite{long2015learning} & 80.5 & 97.1 & 99.6 & 78.6 & 63.6 & 62.8 & 80.4\\
RTN \cite{long2016unsupervised} & 84.5 & 96.8 & 99.4 & 77.5 & 66.2 & 64.8 & 81.6\\
DANN \cite{ganin2016domain} & 82.0 & 96.9 & 99.1 & 79.7 & 68.2 & 67.4 & 82.2\\
ADDA \cite{tzeng2017adversarial} & 86.2 & 96.2 & 98.4 & 77.8 & 69.5 & 68.9 & 82.9\\
JAN \cite{long2017deep} & 85.4 & 97.4 & 99.8 & 84.7 & 68.6 & 70.0 & 84.3\\
GTA \cite{sankaranarayanan2018generate} & {89.5} & 97.9 & 99.8 & 87.7 & 72.8 & 71.4 & 86.5\\
\hline
CBST~\cite{zou2018unsupervised} & 87.8 & 98.5 & {100.0} & 86.5 & 71.2 & 70.9 & 85.8\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &90.3 &98.6 &100.0 &92.4 &73.2 &72.8 &87.9
\\\hline
CRST~\cite{zou2019confidence} & 89.4 & {98.9} & {100.0 } & 88.7 & 72.6 & 70.9 & 86.8\\
\textbf{+CaCo} &90.4 &98.9 &100.0 &92.8 &73.7 &72.5 &88.1
\\\hline
\textbf{CaCo} &89.7 &98.4 &100.0 &91.7 &73.1 &72.8 &87.6
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Experiments over domain adaptive image classification task Office-31.
}
\label{table:office}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{table:synthia2city} reports semantic segmentation results on the task SYNTHIA $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes. It can be observed that CaCo achieves comparable performance with the highly-optimized state-of-the-art methods, and it boosts their performance (denoted by ``+CaCo'') as well.
\subsection{UDA for Object Detection}
\label{exp_uda_obj}
Tables~\ref{table:det_city2fog} and~\ref{table:det_city2BDD} report object detection experiments on Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ Foggy Cityscapes and Cityscapes $\rightarrow$ BDD100k, respectively. It can be observed that CaCo outperforms the highly-optimized state-of-the-art methods~\cite{saito2019strong,xu2020exploring} clearly. In addition, incorporating CaCo into state-of-the-art methods boosts the detection performance consistently across the two tasks.
\subsection{UDA for Image Classification}
\label{exp_uda_cla}
Tables~\ref{table:visda17} and ~\ref{table:office} report image classification experiments on VisDA17 and Office-31, respectively. It can be observed that CaCo outperforms state-of-the-art methods clearly. In addition, incorporating CaCo into state-of-the-art methods boosts the image classification consistently in both tasks.
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{exp_discussion}
\textbf{Generalization across visual recognition tasks:} We study the generalization of the proposed CaCo by evaluating it over three representative visual UDA tasks on \textit{segmentation}, \textit{detection} and \textit{classification}. Experimental results in Tables~\ref{table:gta2city}-~\ref{table:office} show that CaCo achieves competitive performance consistently across all the visual tasks.
\textbf{Complementarity studies:} We study the synergetic benefits of the proposed CaCo by incorporating it into existing UDA methods. Experiments in Tables~\ref{table:gta2city}-~\ref{table:office} (the rows with `+CaCo’) show that CaCo when incorporated improves all existing methods consistently across different visual tasks.
\textbf{Comparisons with existing unsupervised representation learning methods:} We compared CaCo with unsupervised representation learning methods over the UDA task. Most existing methods achieve unsupervised representation learning through certain pretext tasks, such as instance contrastive learning~\cite{chen2020simple,hadsell2006dimensionality,oord2018representation, ye2019unsupervised,bachman2019learning,henaff2020data,wu2018unsupervised,he2020momentum,chen2020improved}, patch ordering~\cite{noroozi2016unsupervised}, rotation prediction~\cite{gidaris2018unsupervised}, and denoising/context/colorization auto-encoders ~\cite{pathak2016context,zhang2016colorful,zhang2017split}. The experiments (shown in Appendix) over the UDA task GTA$\rightarrow$Cityscapes show that existing unsupervised representation learning does not perform well in the UDA task. The major reason is that these methods were designed to learn instance-discriminative representations without considering semantic priors and domain gaps. CaCo also performs unsupervised learning but works for UDA effectively, largely because it learns category-discriminative yet domain-invariant representations which is essential to various visual UDA tasks.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{tabular}{p{3.66cm}p{3.66cm}p{3.66cm}p{3.66cm}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_gtFine_color.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit_color_advent.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit_color_crst.png}}
\\
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{Ground Truth}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{ADVENT}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{CRST}\vspace{0.5mm}
\\
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit_color_baseline.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit_color_fda.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_071781_leftImg8bit_color_caco.png}}
\\
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{Target Image}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{Baseline}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{FDA}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\textbf{CaCo(Ours)}}\vspace{1mm}
\\
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_gtFine_color.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit_color_advent.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit_color_crst.png}}
\\
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{Ground Truth}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{ADVENT}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{CRST}\vspace{0.5mm}
\\
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit.png}}
&\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit_color_baseline.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit_color_fda.png}}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth,height=0.55\linewidth]{figures/qualitativeR/frankfurt_000001_068772_leftImg8bit_color_caco.png}}
\\
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{Target Image}
&\raisebox{-0.5\height}{Baseline}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{FDA}
& \raisebox{-0.5\height}{\textbf{CaCo(Ours)}}\vspace{1mm}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Qualitative comparisons over domain adaptive semantic segmentation task GTA5 $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes.
}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Parameter studies:} The parameter $M$ (in the proposed CaCo) controls the length (or size) of the categorical dictionary. We studied $M$ by changing it from $50$ to $150$ with a step of $25$. The experiments (shown in Appendix) over the UDA segmentation task GTA $\rightarrow$ Cityscapes demonstrate that $M$ does not affect UDA clearly while it changes from $50$ to $150$.
\textbf{Generalization across different learning setups:} We studied the scalability of the proposed CaCo from the view of learning setups. Specifically, we evaluated CaCo over a variety of tasks that involve unlabeled data learning and certain semantic priors such as \textit{unsupervised model adaptation}, \textit{partial-set UDA} and \textit{open-set UDA}. Experiments (in Appendix) show that CaCo achieve competitive performance consistently across all the tasks.
\textbf{Category-aware dictionary:} We studied three variant designs of the proposed category-aware dictionary: 1) Assign all keys with the same temperature; 2) Using two individual dictionaries (for source and target data) instead of a single domain-mixed dictionary; 3) Update the dictionary by memory bank~\cite{wu2018unsupervised} or current mini-batch~\cite{chen2020simple}. Experiments (in Appendix) verify the superiority of the design as described in this paper.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents CaCo, a category contrast technique that introduces a generic category contrastive loss that can work for various visual UDA tasks effectively. We construct a semantics-aware dictionary with samples from both source and target domains where each target sample is assigned a (pseudo) category label based on the category priors of source samples. This allows category contrastive learning (between target queries and the category-level dictionary) for category-discriminative yet domain-invariant feature representations: samples of the same category (from either source or target domain) are pulled close together while those of different categories are pushed away simultaneously. Extensive experiments over multiple visual tasks ($e.g.$, segmentation, classification and detection) show that the simple implementation of CaCo achieves superior performance as compared with highly-optimized state-of-the-art methods. In addition, we demonstrate that CaCo is also complementary to existing UDA methods and generalizable to other learning setups such as unsupervised model adaptation, open-/partial-set adaptation etc.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This research was conducted at Singtel Cognitive and Artificial Intelligence Lab for Enterprises (SCALE@NTU), which is a collaboration between Singapore Telecommunications Limited (Singtel) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) that is supported by A*STAR under its Industry Alignment Fund (LOA Award number: I1701E0013).
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
Secure Multi-Party Computation (MPC) is a powerful tool for achieving Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning (PPML). For example, instantiating PPML based on Secure Multi-Party Computation \cite{CDN2015} enables multiple parties to work together to train an ML model over their combined data, without any of the parties learning anything about each other's data.
Recent advances in MPC-based protocols for \textit{training} of ML models over distributed data are primarily focused on secure
training of neural network architectures \cite{mohassel2017secureml,wagh2019securenn,idash,guo2020secure}. While deep learning is state-of-the-art for tasks that relate to perception, such as computer vision and natural language processing, in domains with structured information, the best results are often obtained with tree ensemble methods, such as random forests and boosted decision trees \cite{dietterich2000ensemble}. The latter also have the advantages of being faster to train and being easier to interpret. Advances on MPC-based training of tree based classifiers are fairly limited. While there is work on \textit{secure inference} with pre-trained tree ensembles \cite{fritchman2018privacy}, work on \textit{secure training} itself is limited to the training of individual decision trees (DTs). Several authors have proposed a secure version of Quinlan's ID3 algorithm \cite{quinlan1986induction} for training DTs with \textit{categorical} features (features) \cite{lindell2000privacy,vaidya2005privacy,samet2008privacy,de2014practical}.
Existing proposals for training DTs with \textit{continuous} features \cite{xiao2006privacy,shen2009privacy,behera2011privacy,escudero2020}
are based on Quinlan's C4.5 algorithm \cite{quinlan2014c4}, an algorithm that involves sorting, a time-consuming operation in the {MPC} setting.
Secure DT learning with {MPC} is challenging for a variety of reasons. For algorithms in general to be secure in MPC, measures must be taken to ensure that the number of executions of instructions is not dependent on specific values of the input, because that in itself could leak information. In the context of ML algorithms, where models are trained privately and not revealed to the parties, this means for instance that one should not rely on early stopping conditions, or on control flow logic. Furthermore, for efficiency considerations, dependency on previous multiplication results should be minimized, and operations like division, analytic function evaluation, and integer logic should be avoided where possible.
All of these Achilles' heels of MPC are inherent requirements of traditional DT training algorithms. Indeed, trees are grown recursively, which implies several layers of dependency on previous results. Furthermore, the ``decision'' component of a tree indicates a stopping condition has been met (thereby potentially revealing information, if one is not careful), and the information gain metric for greedy selection of splitting features requires computing division and analytic functions. In this paper, we introduce novel methods to contend with these requirements.
We propose three alternative strategies for secure training of tree based models over data with continuous feature values, none of which requires sorting of feature values. Two of our approaches rely on privacy-preserving discretization of the range of feature values. After this step, any of the existing algorithms for secure training of a DT over categorical data can be used. In our case, we use the SID3T training algorithm proposed by de Hoogh et al.~\cite{de2014practical}. This constitutes our first approach.
Next, we present a novel protocol for secure training of a random forest (RF) over data with categorical values, by extending de Hoogh et al.'s secure DT training algorithm with a protocol for privacy-preserving random feature selection. Combined with the secure discretization protocol from approach 1, this allows us to securely train RFs over data with continuous values, constituting our second approach.
When growing a tree for data with continuous features (e.g.~\textit{price}), the standard ``in the clear'' C4.5 algorithm sorts the feature values to look for a cut-off point (e.g.~$\leq 100\$$) that will reduce class label impurity the most at the next level of the tree. To circumvent expensive secure sorting operations, as our third approach, we propose secure training of tree ensembles based on randomized choices for the cut-off points. In the clear, this idea, combined with randomized feature selection, is known as \textit{extremely randomized trees}. Such ``extra-trees classifiers'' achieve state-of-the-art accuracy and are fast to train over data sets with numerical features \cite{geurts2006extremely}.
Summarizing, in this paper:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]
\item We propose an {MPC}-based protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace for privacy-preserving discretization of a range of continuous feature values, in scenarios where the feature values are distributed across different parties.
\item We present the first {MPC}-based protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace for training of a random forest (RF).
\item We propose the first {MPC}-based protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace for training of an extra-trees classifier (XT).
\item As a side result, we propose several improvements and optimizations to important building blocks of privacy-preserving machine learning protocols such as secure comparisons.
\end{itemize}
Combined, these protocols allow to train tree based models over distributed data with continuous values in a variety of ways: (1) secure discretization of the data with \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace, followed by secure training of a DT over the discretized data with the \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace protocol from de Hoogh et al.~\cite{de2014practical}; (2) secure discretization of the data with \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace, followed by secure training of a random forest over the discretized data with \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace; and (3) secure training of extremely randomized trees on the original data with \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace.
All our approaches accommodate scenarios in which the trained ML models have to remain private, i.e.~secret shared across the parties, as well as scenarios in which the trained ML models are disclosed at the end. Furthermore, all our approaches work in scenarios where the data is horizontally partitioned (each party has some of the rows or instances), scenarios where the data is vertically partitioned (each party has some of the columns or features), and even in scenarios where each computing party only has secret shares of the data to begin with.
We compare the accuracy and the runtime of the proposed approaches on publicly available benchmark data sets with 1000s of instances or features. Our solutions are simple, and, for the most part, use building blocks that already exist in the literature. Importantly, our solutions work. We obtain accuracies that are at par with those that can be obtained with existing sorting based MPC protocols for training of tree based models, while being much faster. Our results show that a full sort is not necessary for MPC-based training of tree based models.\\
\noindent
\textbf{Related Work.}
The majority of the existing work on the training of DTs is for categorical data only \cite{lindell2000privacy,vaidya2005privacy,samet2008privacy,de2014practical}.
In a preliminary attempt to extend MPC-based privacy-preserving DT training algorithms to continuous variables, Xiao et al.~\cite{xiao2006privacy} proposed a straightforward adaptation of the C4.5 algorithm
with a privacy-preserving bubble sort algorithm, which is not practical. Moreover, the authors did not give security proofs for their proposed protocols. Shen et al.~\cite{shen2009privacy} extended the result presented in \cite{xiao2006privacy} to vertically partitioned data.
More recently, Abspoel et al.~\cite{escudero2020} proposed a new MPC-based adaptation of the C4.5 algorithm, using sorting networks to obliviously presort the feature values. Subsequently they consider each feature value as a candidate cut-off point, and compute the Gini index for each. They estimate that training one DT of depth 4 on a data set with 8192 instances and 11 features would take slightly over 8 min when run on three m5d.2xlarge EC2 instances connected via a LAN. They extrapolate from this that training an ensemble of 200 such trees, each over a sample of 8192 instances and 11 features drawn from a much larger data set of training instances and features, could be done in less than 28 hours. Their solution does not include a mechanism for performing bagging (selection of the instances used in each tree) and subspace sampling (selection of the features used in each tree) in a privacy-preserving manner. In this paper, we propose MPC protocols to this end in what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first end-to-end protocol for MPC-based training of random forests. We also present a working implementation that allows to train accurate tree ensembles over data sets with 1000s of instances or features in a matter of minutes, i.e.~our solution is much faster than the existing ones. These improvements in efficiency stem from the fact that we do not sort feature values, and from the fact that we need to perform far less Gini index computations, because we perform a much more straightforward discretization of the data, while maintaining high accuracy.
Our work on MPC protocols for privacy-preserving training of random forests (RFs) and extra-trees classifiers (XTs) was carried out independently from simultaneous work on MPC-based training of gradient boosted decision tree models (XGBoost) \cite{cryptoeprint:2021:432}. RFs and XTs are inherently different from XGBoost. Whereas for XGBoost an ensemble of trees is trained in sequence by adding, at each step, the tree with the greatest accuracy improvement, for RFs and XTs, many trees are trained independently on different random subsamples of the data. RFs, XTs, and XGBoost are all popular tree ensemble methods in data science that may outperform one another in predictive accuracy depending on the data set and the task at hand.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{SEC:PRELIM}
\noindent
\textbf{Security setting.}
We consider \textit{honest-but-curious, static adversaries}, as is common in {MPC}-based PPML (see e.g.~\cite{de2014practical,IEEETDSC:CDHK+17}).
An honest-but-curious adversary (also known as passive or semi-honest adversary) follows the instructions of the protocol, but tries to gather additional information. Secure protocols prevent the latter. A static adversary chooses the parties that he wants to corrupt before the protocol execution. Our security model and proofs are in Appendix \ref{sec:security}.\\
\noindent
\textbf{Fixed point representation.}
The protocols proposed in this paper are designed for training of DT based models on data with continuous feature values. The training data consists of a set $S$ of training examples $\langle(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_f),y\rangle$.
The feature values $x_1, x_2,\ldots,x_f$ are real numbers, while the class label $y$ is categorical. The goal is to learn a function from the data that maps previously unseen feature values to a corresponding class label, e.g.~to determine whether a patient has a disease or not based on blood pressure, temperature etc. The kind of functions that we consider in this paper are DT based models. Our assumption is that, instead of residing in one place, the data set $S$ is distributed across multiple data owners.
During the execution of the protocols however, operations are performed on additive shares in a ring $\mathbb{Z}_q$, for some appropriately chosen integer $q$. In this work we mostly use $q=2^\lambda$. The feature values $x$ in $\mathbb{R}$ first need to be converted into values $Q(x)$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$ by the data owners. To this end we use a fixed point representation with two's complement for negative numbers:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fixedpoint}
Q(x) =
\begin{cases}
2^\lambda - \left \lfloor{ 2^a \cdot |x| }\right \rfloor & \mbox{if\ } x < 0 \\
\left \lfloor{ 2^a \cdot x }\right \rfloor & \mbox{if\ } x \geq 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
When converting $Q(x)$ into its bit representation, it consists of $\lambda$ bits in total. The first $a$ bits from the right hold the fractional part of $x$, the next $b$ bits represent the non-negative integer part of $x$, and the most significant bit (MSB) represents the sign (positive or negative). It is important to choose $\lambda$ large enough to be able to represent the largest numbers produced during the protocols. When multiplying fixed point numbers, the number of fractional bits doubles and must be truncated to remain in the proper range. Therefore, $\lambda$ should be chosen to be at least $2(a+b)$.
It is also important to choose $b$ large enough to represent the maximum possible value of the integer part of all $x$'s.
After the conversion, each data owner secret shares the feature values on its end. In general, a number $z$ in $\mathbb{Z}_q$ is split in $m$ shares by picking $z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_m \in \mathbb{Z}_q$ uniformly at random subject to the constraint that $z = \sum_{i}z_i \mod{q}$.
All computations are modulo $q$ and the modular notation is henceforth omitted for conciseness.
We denote this secret sharing by $[\![z]\!]_q$, which can be thought of as a shorthand for $(z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_m)$. For the case of $q=2^\lambda$, we simplify the notation to $[\![z]\!]$. Note that no information about the secret value $z$ is revealed by any proper subset of the $m$ shares, but the secret shared value can be trivially revealed by combining all shares. The class label of training examples is secret shared in the same manner as the feature values.\\
\noindent
\textbf{Operations on secret shared values.}
For ease of explanation we will from now on focus on the case of $m=2$ and refer to the computing parties that receive the respective shares as \textit{Alice} and \textit{Bob}. Figure~\ref{fig:diagram} illustrates this scenario where $n$ data owners secret share their data with $m=2$ computing parties. It should be noted that the techniques proposed in this paper can be extended to work for $m > 2$ computing parties with adequate substitutions for the 2PC-exclusive subprotocols \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace (see below), \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{EQ}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace (see Section \ref{SEC:COMP}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{images/SecureTreeBased.png}
\caption{Overview of MPC based secure decision tree (DT) based model training.
Each of $n$ data owners secret shares their own training data between two computing parties. The computing parties engage in computations and communications to train a DT based model, which is at the end revealed to the data owners. As an alternative to Step (3), our protocols also allow for the learned model to remain hidden, i.e.~secret shared between the computing parties. In this case, when a new instance has to be classified, the new instance is secret shared across the computing parties also, who then work together to each obtain secret shares of the class label.}
\label{fig:diagram}
\end{figure*}
Given secret shared values $[\![x]\!]_q$ and $[\![y]\!]_q$, and a constant $c$, Alice and Bob can trivially perform the following operations locally:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]
\item Addition ($z=x+y$): Alice and Bob just add their local shares of $x$ and $y$. This operation will be denoted by
$[\![z]\!]_q \leftarrow[\![x]\!]_q+[\![y]\!]_q$.
\item Subtraction ($z=x-y$): Alice and Bob subtract their local shares of $y$ from that of $x$. This operation will be denoted by $[\![z]\!]_q\leftarrow[\![x]\!]_q-[\![y]\!]_q$.
\item Multiplication by a constant ($z=cx$):
Alice and Bob multiply their local shares of $x$ by $c$. This operation will be denoted by
$[\![z]\!]_q\leftarrow c[\![x]\!]_q$.
\item Addition of a constant ($z=x+c$): Alice adds $c$ to her share $x$, while Bob keeps the same share of $x$. This operation will be denoted by $[\![z]\!]_q\leftarrow[\![x]\!]_q + c$.
\end{itemize}
It is a well-known fact that secure computations are impossible in a two-party setting unless additional (computational and/or setup) assumptions are in place. We work on the commodity-based cryptographic model, where a trusted initializer (TI) pre-distributes correlated randomness to the parties participating in the protocol. In particular, we make extensive use of pre-distributed multiplication triples. This \textit{multiplication triples} technique was originally proposed by Beaver \cite{beaver1997commodity} and is regularly used to enable very efficient solutions in the context of PPML (see e.g.~\cite{david2015efficient,AISec:CDNN15,mohassel2017secureml,guo2020secure}).
The TI additionally generates random values in $\mathbb{Z}_q$ and delivers them to Alice so that she can use them to secret share her inputs. If Alice wants to secret share an input $x$, she picks an unused random value $r$ (note that Bob does not know $r$), and sends $c=x-r$ to Bob.
Her share $x_A$ of $x$ is then set to $x_A=r$, while Bob's share $x_B$ is set to $x_B=c$. The secret sharing of Bob's inputs is done similarly using random values that the TI only delivers to him. After the setup phase, the TI is not involved in any other part of the execution and does not learn any data from the parties. In case a TI is not available or desirable, Alice and Bob can simulate the role of the TI, at the cost of additional pre-processing time and computational assumptions.
We use the same protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DMM}}}\xspace$ for secure (matrix) multiplication of secret shared values as in \cite{IEEETDSC:CDHK+17} and denote by $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DM}}}\xspace$ the protocol for the special case of multiplication of scalars. The notation $[\![Z]\!]_q \leftarrow[\![X]\!]_q \cdot [\![Y]\!]_q$ is used to denote the multiplication of two secret shared matrices $X$ and $Y$, and the notation $[\![v]\!]_q * [\![w]\!]_q$ is used to denote the element wise product of two secret shared vectors $v$ and $w$.
When working with fixed-point representations over $\mathbb{Z}_q$ with $a$ fractional bits, every multiplication generates an extra $a$ bits of unwanted fractional representation. Having a secure way to ``chop off'' the extra fractional bits generated by multiplication is a requirement to efficiently work with fixed-point secret shares. In the two-party scenario with shares in $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$, it is possible to perform this truncation with a local probabilistic protocol -- hereafter, \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace -- that with overwhelming probability in the security parameter $\lambda - (a + b)$ introduces an error of at most 1 in the least significant bit \cite{mohassel2017secureml}. Since all operations to compute \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace are local, the performance overhead of truncating all multiplication results with this method is essentially zero.
Often in MPC, there are problems that are best solved with integer arithmetic performed over $\mathbb{Z}_q$ (for a large $q$), while others (such as secure comparisons) are best solved over $\mathbb{Z}_2$. We work using a combination of these two techniques. Thus, it is necessary to be able to convert secret shares from one modulus to the other. For example, to determine if $\ensuremath{ [\![ } a \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$ is equal to $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$, one would first convert $\ensuremath{ [\![ } a \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$ and $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$ into bitwise sharings over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and then confirm that each bit is identical using binary operations. The result, itself a bit shared over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, needs to be converted back to a sharing over $\mathbb{Z}_q$ for use in subsequent computations with integers. A quite efficient protocol for converting from $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$ shares to bitwise sharings over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, denoted \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{decomp}}}\xspace, can be found in \cite{idash}. \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{decomp}}}\xspace is not fully described in this paper because novel methods for computing control flow logic are developed in the following section that do not require a full decomposition into $\mathbb{Z}_2$ shares.
Regarding the opposite direction, the conversion from a bit shared over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ to a sharing of 0 or 1 over $\mathbb{Z}_q$, hereafter \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace \cite{NeurIPS2019}, is still necessary for our purposes. The intuition for \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace is that for a bit $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2$ shared over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ between two parties, there are four possible secret shares of which three are valid $\mathbb{Z}_q$ sharings and one is not. If $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 = b_0 + b_1 \mod 2= 1$, then $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are the only possible sharings. Similary, if $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 = b_0 + b_1 \mod 2 = 0$, then $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ are the only possible sharings. In the case of secret shares $(0, 0)$, $(0, 1)$, and $(1, 0)$, it holds automatically that $b_0 + b_1 \mod 2 = b_0 + b_1 \mod q$ for all $q > 2$. However, the problematic sharing $(1,1)$ -- which encodes $0$ -- sums to $2$ when regarded as a $\mathbb{Z}_q$ sharing. Hence, the problem of converting from $\mathbb{Z}_2$ to $\mathbb{Z}_q$ is reduced to mapping a secret sharing of $2$ to a secret sharing of $0$ as described in Protocol \ref{prot:2toq}.\\
\begin{procedure}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{ $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \; := \; (b_0, \; b_1)$ }
\Output{$\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$ }
Alice creates the sharing $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b_0 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q = (b_0, 0 )$ \\
Bob creates the sharing $\ensuremath{ [\![ } b_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q = (0, b_1)$ \\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } b_0 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q + \ensuremath{ [\![ } b_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q - 2 \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } b_0 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } b_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$
\KwRet{$\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q$}
\caption{Secure Protocol() $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace$ converts a secret bit from a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ sharing to a $\mathbb{Z}_q$ sharing.}
\label{prot:2toq}
\end{procedure}
\noindent
\textbf{Protocol for secure DT training.}
Each internal node in a DT tests the value of a particular feature and branches out accordingly, while each leaf node contains a class label. In the clear, training of a DT is done by growing the tree from the root to the leaf nodes in a recursive manner. For each internal node, the feature is selected that splits the set of training instances that have reached that node in subsets that are as homogeneous as possible regarding the class label value. MPC protocols for secure training of DTs commonly use the Gini impurity to this end (the lower the impurity, the higher the homogeneity). As a sub-protocol for performing the secure training of a DT with categorical data we use protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace that is a slightly modified version of the protocol SID3T of De Hoogh et al. \cite{de2014practical}. The differences are the following:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,topsep=0pt]
\item De Hoogh et al.~\cite{de2014practical} used secret shares in a prime field because their multiplication protocol required the existence of modular inverses. We instead perform multiplications using multiplication triples and can work with shares in $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$.
\item For stopping criteria, De Hoogh et al.~\cite{de2014practical} used: (1) no features remain in the training set in the node at hand, (2) all remaining instances in the node have the same class label, and (3) the number of remaining instances in the node is less than a cutoff threshold. We use only (2) and (3), and additionally work with a pre-specified maximum allowed tree depth.
\item Their solution grows the DT recursively and leaks the shape of the tree. Our version grows DT's iteratively (by depth, up to a max depth) and adds dummy nodes where needed to hide true path lengths. We call the last non-dummy node on each path a \textit{classifying node}. We keep track of such nodes by cascading a secret shared bit representing whether or not an early stopping condition was already reached on the path during training.
\item For each leaf node, De Hoogh et al. \cite{de2014practical}'s protocol returns a secret-shared one-hot-encoded vector denoting the class label. In contrast, for each classifying node, our algorithm returns secret shared frequencies of each of the class labels in the subset of training instances that have reached that node. Such secret shared frequency values are inexpensive to compute because additions can be done locally by the computing parties, and the frequencies allow for weighted aggregation of class label votes of trees in an ensemble, leading to more accurate classifications.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
The DT is output as an array of secret shared one-hot-encodings of the split feature at each node, in addition to the value(s) to be compared against.
\section{Secure Comparison Protocol}\label{SEC:COMP}
Secure comparison of integers is a well-studied problem in this domain. Specifically, many solutions exist to compute the output of non-linear functions of the form
\[ \ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \geq^? \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \; : \; \ensuremath{ [\![ } 1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \;\; \mathbf{else} \;\; \ensuremath{ [\![ } 0 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2, \]
\[ \ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q =^? \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \; : \; \ensuremath{ [\![ } 1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \;\; \mathbf{else} \;\; \ensuremath{ [\![ } 0 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2. \]
The most common solutions involve first converting the inputs to their corresponding bitwise sharings $\ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \rightarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } x_\lambda \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \cdots \ensuremath{ [\![ } x_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2$ and $\ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_q \rightarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } y_\lambda \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \cdots \ensuremath{ [\![ } y_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2$ for $\lambda \geq \lceil \log(q) \rceil$ such that $\sum x_i 2^i = x$ and $\sum y_i 2^i = y$. Afterward, a series of bitwise operations are carried out to determine which of the two bit strings is greater than or equal to the other. The efficiency of a given protocol depends on the constraints of the secure computational environment for which it is designed. We direct the reader to \cite{DBLP:journals/ieicet/AttrapadungHKMS19}
for a comprehensive discussion of comparison protocol design. For the computational environment used in this work, (i.e. 2PC, semi-honest security setting, linear secret sharing modulo $2^\lambda$), the most similar protocol to our work is proposed by Bogdanov et al. for the Sharemind framework \cite{10.1007/978-3-540-88313-5_13}, though this framework is designed for 3PC.
Our work and that of \cite{10.1007/978-3-540-88313-5_13} rely on observations that hold for two's complement representations in $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$, and work for numbers $x$ and $y$ such that $|x-y| < 2^{\lambda-1}$ holds, which can be easily enforced by only using a sub-range which is less than half of the available range $2^\lambda-1$. This is a relatively weak limitation because any desired range can be injected into a larger integer ring. However, it fails for applications that rely on other MPC protocols for which the existence of modular inverses must be guaranteed.
The key insight we use to compute $x \geq^? y$ securely is the following: for $x, \; y$ in two's complement form and such that $|x-y| < 2^{\lambda-1}$, we have that $y >x \iff 0 > x - y \iff \mathsf{MSB}(x-y) = 1$, where $\mathsf{MSB}(\cdot)$ denotes the \textit{most significant bit} of a value.
Hence $x \geq y \iff \mathsf{MSB}(x-y) = 0$.
Similar logic can be used to derive an equality check $x =^? y$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
x = y &\iff (x \geq y) \land (y \geq x) \\
&\iff \mathsf{MSB}(x-y)=\mathsf{MSB}(y-x)=0\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Note that due to the two's complement format, it is not possible to have $\mathsf{MSB}(x-y)=\mathsf{MSB}(y-x)=1$.
The above shows that the efficiency of computing $x \geq^? y$ and $x =^? y$ is limited only by our ability to extract the most significant bit of a secret-shared value. Bogdanov et al. use a recursive carry look-ahead construction to decompose the difference $x-y$ into its bitwise sharing. Other solutions designed for sharing over prime fields use a similar approach but take advantage of the fact that $\mathsf{MSB}(x) = \mathsf{LSB}(2x \mod q)$ for odd $q$ \cite{10.1007/978-3-540-71677-8_23}, where $\mathsf{LSB}(\cdot)$ denotes the least significant bit.
In this section, we propose protocols for comparison and equality tests over $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$ -- \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{EQ}}}\xspace, respectively -- that circumvent a full-blown bit decomposition by extracting only the most significant bit -- causing a significant reduction to the total data transfer. Our approach is based on a modification of the optimized bit decomposition protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{decompOPT}}}\xspace$ presented in \cite{idash}.
Note that when working with a two's complement fixed-point representation over $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$, all bits outside of an injected ring $\mathbb{Z}_{2^{a+b}}$, where $a$ is the number of fractional bits and $b$ is the number of integer bits, are equivalent to the most significant bit. It follows in this case that extracting the $(a+b+1)$-th bit is equivalent to extracting the most significant bit which further reduces the depth of the arithmetic circuit.
\begin{procedure}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{ $\ensuremath{ [\![ } x\ensuremath{ ]\!] },\; \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ such that $|x-y| < 2^{\lambda-1}$, $\alpha $ := the lowest bit position guaranteed to be equal to the MSB.}
\Output{$\ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \geq^? \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \; : \; [\![1]\!]_{2} \;\mathbf{else} \; [\![0]\!]_{2}$}
Let $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{diff} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] } - \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
Let $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{MSB} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{BTX}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{diff} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \alpha )$\\
\KwRet{$1 \oplus [\![ \mathsf{MSB} ]\!]_2$}
\caption{Secure Protocol() $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace$ computes the integer comparison.}
\label{prot:geq}
\end{procedure}
\begin{procedure}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{ $\ensuremath{ [\![ } x\ensuremath{ ]\!] },\; \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ such that $|x-y| < 2^{\lambda-1}$, $\alpha $ := the lowest bit position guaranteed to be equal to the MSB.}
\Output{$\ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] } =^? \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \; : \; [\![1]\!]_{2} \;\mathbf{else} \; [\![0]\!]_{2}$}
Let $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{d}_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] } - \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ and $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{d}_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } y \ensuremath{ ]\!] } - \ensuremath{ [\![ } x \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
Let $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{MSB}_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{BTX}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{d}_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \alpha )$
and $ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{MSB}_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{BTX}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{d}_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \alpha )$// run in parallel \\
\KwRet{$1 \oplus \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{MSB}_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \oplus \ensuremath{ [\![ } \mathsf{MSB}_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2$}
\caption{Secure Protocol() $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{EQ}}}\xspace$ computes the integer equality test.}
\label{prot:eq}
\end{procedure}
The two-party protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{decompOPT}}}\xspace$ for performing a full decomposition of a $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$-shared secret into bitwise sharings over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is, to our knowledge, the most efficient in the literature. It is based on a \textit{matrix composition network} that computes the difference between each bitwise sum of two secret shares and the corresponding ``actual'' bit of the secret value in $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$. See \cite{idash} for a complete description. An important aspect of this approach is that computing the difference for the $\alpha$-th bit depends only on $\lceil \log(\alpha - 1) \rceil$ rounds of matrix composition, where each matrix composition requires 4 bits of data transfer. In addition, the difference for the $\alpha$-th bit is independent of all results for lower order bits.
In Protocols \ref{prot:geq} and \ref{prot:eq}, we make use of a straightforward modification of $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{decompOPT}}}\xspace$ for extracting the $\alpha$-th bit from a $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$-shared secret between two parties, hereafter \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{BTX}}}\xspace (see Appendix \ref{sec:btx} for details). The total number of communication rounds to extract the $\alpha$-th bit is $\lceil \log(\alpha-1) \rceil + 1$ with total data transfer of $ 2(\alpha-1) + 4 \lceil \log(\alpha-1) \rceil$ bits.
\section{Secure Discretization}
Discretization or ``binning'' is a common form of data preprocessing, aimed at grouping continuous or numerical values into a smaller number of bins (buckets). In a data set with information about social media users, the feature \textit{age} could for instance be discretized into the bins 0-24, 25-34, 35-49, 50+. The threshold values for the bins are typically derived from the data in an unsupervised manner. We use \textit{equal-width binning}, which means that the range of feature values is divided into a predefined number of bins of the same width.
Let $D$ be a vector containing the original feature values (e.g.~the ages of all the users in the data set). The range of $D$ is bounded by the smallest and the largest value occurring in $D$, i.e.~$\min(D)$ and $\max(D)$. To divide this range into $p$ bins of the same width, thresholds need to be placed at
\begin{equation}\label{eq:thresholds}
h_i = \min(D) + i \cdot \frac{\max(D)-\min(D)}{p}
\end{equation}
for $i = 1,\ldots,p-1$. The challenge is that neither Alice nor Bob may have direct access to $\min(D)$ and $\max(D)$ because they each may only have shares of the values of $D$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:diagram}). This means that they need to jointly execute a secure protocol, hereafter $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace$, for computing the minimum and the maximum values of $D$.
\begin{procedure}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{$\ensuremath{ [\![ } D \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$, number $n$ of elements in $\ensuremath{ [\![ } D \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$}
\Output{ $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$, $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$}
Let $\ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^? \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace ( \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } ) )$ \\
Let $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^? \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + (1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^? \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
Let $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^? \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_2 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + (1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^? \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
\For{$i\gets 3$ \KwTo $n$} {
$ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } ) ) $ \\
$ \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace( \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } ) ) $ \\
$ \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + (1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } ) \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
$ \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + (1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } \geq^?_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } ) \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $ \\
}
\KwRet{$ \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \; \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } $}
\caption{Secure Min/Max-Finding Protocol() \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace \label{prot:minmax}}
\end{procedure}
To compute secret sharings of min($D$) and max($D$) without revealing any information about $D$, a secure protocol can be formulated similarly to a naive sequential search solution in the clear. That is, start by comparing the first and second elements of $D$ to determine an initial estimate of the max and min. Next, iterate through all remaining elements and adjust the max and min estimates when a new largest or smallest element is found. After the $n$-th element of $D$ is checked, the estimates are guaranteed to be the global min and max. The only necessary adaptation for this algorithm to act as an oblivious protocol is to require that the comparisons between the current estimates and each new element of $D$ are performed with $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace$ and that the reassignments are handled with multiplication rather than control flow logic. For example, the comparison based branch operation ``$\textbf{if } a \geq b \textbf{ then } b = a$'' can be rephrased as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{ [\![ } c \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \gets \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{ [\![ } a \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] })) \\
\ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \gets \ensuremath{ [\![ } c \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } a \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + (1- \ensuremath{ [\![ } c \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } b \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is 1 or 0, depending on the outcome of the comparison $a \geq b$. This form of conditional assignment doesn't allow Alice nor Bob to learn anything about which branch of the control flow sequence was followed to arrive at the outcome. An additional detail is that because \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace returns secret shares over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, the result must first be converted to a ring representation with \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace before the multiplication can be carried out.
Protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace has a linear number of communication rounds when carried out in the naive formulation that is described in Protocol \ref{prot:minmax}. However, it can be improved straightforwardly with the same optimisation technique used for securely computing the repeated product over a vector of values in which pairwise products are taken until only one value remains \cite{IEEETDSC:CDHK+17}. The protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace is analogous to repeated multiplication because both multiplication and the max/min functions are associative. So, the sequence of many repeated applications can be altered to reduce the total number of consecutive, mutually dependent applications. The basic observation is that the global minimum of $D$ is contained in the set of all pairwise minima of $D$. Moreover, if the minimum is computed between each pair of entries, and this process is repeated until only one pair remains, the result of the final pairwise comparison is min($D$). The same principle extends to finding the global maximum.
See Figure~\ref{fig:minmax} for an illustration.
As a result, \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace can be computed in a circuit of depth $\lceil \log(n) \rceil$, where at each layer there are $\lceil \log(a + b) \rceil + 1$ rounds of communication, where $a$, $b$ are the number of fractional and integer bits, respectively, used in the representation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{images/minmax_optimisation_diagram.PNG}
\caption[width=\columnwidth]{Optimized $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace$:
An example circuit to compute \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace on an input vector of size $n=4$}
\label{fig:minmax}
\end{figure}
At the end of this protocol, Alice and Bob have secret sharings of $\min(D)$ and $\max(D)$, which they can then securely combine to compute secret sharings of each of the $h_i$ thresholds in Equation (\ref{eq:thresholds}). For example, if $\min(D) = 0$, $\max(D)=150$, and $p=6$, then Alice and Bob would compute secret shares of the thresholds $25, 50, 75, 100,$ and $125$. We assume that $p$ is publicly known, i.e.~Alice and Bob know how many bins need to be created. As explained above, they may however not know the value of $\min(D)$ or of $\max(D)$ in the clear, and our discretization protocol does not leak this value.
After they have computed shares of the $h_i$ thresholds, Alice and Bob can map each value $d_j$ from $D$ into its correct bin number $bin(d_j)$ by executing protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ (described in Protocol \ref{prot:disc}). Note that Alice and Bob each only have a share of $d_j$, and a share of each threshold $h_i$. They could run the secure comparison protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace(d_j,h_i)$ for each of the threshold values $h_i$ and count in how many cases the comparison yielded a ``true'' response. For example, for value $d_j=80$ and thresholds $25, 50, 75, 100,125$, the first 3 comparison tests with $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace$
would result in secret shares of $1$, while the remaining 2 tests would result in secret shares of $0$. Adding those up securely, Alice and Bob would derive shares of $3$, which is the correct bin number of $d_j=80$, assuming that we start counting bins at 0.
However, in order to expedite the process of converting this discretized data into the required format used by the decision tree learning protocols that follow, we choose to output a one-hot-encoding of $bin(d_j)$ where the $bin(d_j)$-th bit position (with lowest order on the left) is a secret sharing of 1 and all other bits are secret sharings of 0. Building from the previous example where $p=6$ and $bin(d_j) = 3$, \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace outputs secret shares of the vector $(0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0)$.
\begin{procedure}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{$[\![D]\!]$, number $n$ of elements in $[\![D]\!]$, public number of buckets $p$}
\Output{$[\![D']\!]_2$ := one-hot-encoding of the bucket membership of each $d \in D$}
The parties call \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace on $\ensuremath{ [\![ } D \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ and receive $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$, $\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ \\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{range} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{max} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } - \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ \\
\For{$i\gets 1$ \KwTo $p-1$} {
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } h_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{min} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } + \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace( \frac{i}{p} \cdot \ensuremath{ [\![ } d_\mathsf{range} \ensuremath{ ]\!] })$ \\
}
\For{$i\gets 1$ \KwTo $n$} {
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } e_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \gets \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{ [\![ } d_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } h_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) $ for $j \in 1, \ldots, p-1$\\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } d'_{i,(0)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \gets 1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } e_1 \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 $\\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } d'_{i,(j)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \gets \ensuremath{ [\![ } e_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \cdot (1 - \ensuremath{ [\![ } e_{j + 1} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2)$ for $j \in 1, \ldots, p-2$ \\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } d'_{i,(p-1)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2 \gets \ensuremath{ [\![ } e_{p-1} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }_2$ \\
}
\KwRet{$[\![D']\!]_2$}
\caption{Secure Equal-Width Discretization Protocol() \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace \label{prot:disc}}
\end{procedure}
This conversion to one-hot-encoding is carried out by noting that any value compared against a set of $p-1$ increasing thresholds will return $0 \leq k \leq p-1$ true results followed by $p-k-1$ false results. The position of the 1 in the one-hot-encoding vector is determined by the position of the first false result. In the protocol that follows, the notation $d'_{i,(j)}$ means the j-th bit of the one-hot-encoding vector for $d_i$.
Protocol \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace (detailed in Protocol \ref{prot:disc}) adds only additional $\lceil \log(a+b)\rceil + 2$ communication rounds after \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace, where $a, b$ are the fractional and integer precision of the injected fixed point subring, respectively. All calls to \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace are mutually independent (Line 7), so they are computed in a single batch in $\lceil \log(a+b)\rceil + 1$ rounds. Similarly, all products $e_j \cdot (1-e_{j+1})$ (Line 9) are mutually independent and require one round. Computing the range and thresholds $\ensuremath{ [\![ } h_i \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ (Line 2-5) is entirely comprised of local operations as all constants $i/p$ are public and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace is a local protocol in the 2PC scenario.
\section{Secure Random Forest Training}\label{SEC:RF}
DT ensembles gained much popularity during the 2000s and have remained state-of-the-art methods for many classification tasks to date. A DT ensemble consists of a set of DTs that each infer a class label for a new instance; the final label is determined through (weighted) majority voting. DT ensembles differ from each other in the way they are trained. A successful approach, known as random forest (RF), combines \textit{bagging} and \textit{subspace sampling} to make the DTs in the ensemble sufficiently different from each other \cite{breiman2001random}.
\textit{Bagging} refers to the fact that, given a training data set $S$ with $n$ examples, for each DT a bootstrap replica of $S$ is created by sampling $n$ times with replacement from the data set $S$. In this paper, we present a slight adaptation of the traditional RF training algorithm in which we sample only $s \leq n$ times. Working with a smaller data set allows to train a RF more efficiently in case $n$ is very large.
\textit{Subspace sampling} refers to the fact that for each DT, only $k < f$ randomly selected features of the original feature set are retained.
The resulting RF training algorithm -- in the clear -- is presented in Algorithm \ref{prot:rfclear}. Note that the use of ID3 \cite{quinlan1986induction} on Line 4 indicates that the feature values are assumed to be categorical; otherwise one would typically use C4.5 \cite{quinlan2014c4} instead.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{A set $S$ with $n$ training samples (each sample has $f$ features and one class label),
the number $m$ of trees in an ensemble, the number of features $k$ used in each tree, the number of samples $s$ used in each tree, the depth $d$ of each tree.}
\Output{An ensemble of trees $T = t_{1}, t_{2}, \ldots, t_{m}$} \For{$j\gets 1$ \KwTo $m$}
{
Randomly select $k$ of the $f$ features of $S$.\\
Randomly select with replacement $s$ samples $S' = i_{1}, i_{2}, \ldots, i_{s}$ among all samples of $S$ after features are selected.\\
Train a decision tree $t_{i}$ of depth $d$ on $S'$ using ID3.\\
}
\KwRet{$T = t_{1}, t_{2}, \ldots, t_{m}$}
\caption{Algorithm for Training a Random Forest Classifier.}\label{prot:rfclear}
\end{algorithm}
Our approach for training a RF in a privacy-preserving manner over data with continuous feature values is to first discretize the feature values using $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$.
Next we need techniques for randomly selecting features and samples in a secure manner, similar to Line 2 and 3 in Algorithm \ref{prot:rfclear}. Finally, we train DTs as in Line 4, using the secure protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ adapted from de Hoogh et al.~\cite{de2014practical}.
$\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ assumes that the input data is presented in a one-hot-encoded (OHE) format, because that allows for efficient calculation of the Gini index which is needed to select split features while training a DT. That is the reason why we designed $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ to already output one-hot-encodings. Note that after a discretization of all feature values of the data set $S$, using $p$ bins per feature, the secret shared data set $[\![S_{\mathsf{disc}}]\!]_2$ consists of
a matrix $S_{\mathsf{disc}}$ of size $n \times f \cdot p$ containing the one-hot-encodings. For oblivious selection of $k$ features we use a $f \cdot p \times k \cdot p$ selection matrix $FS$ that is generated by the TI and secret shared with the parties. In $FS$, identity submatrices of size $p \times p$ are used to indicate that a feature is selected, and the remaining positions are filled with $p \times p$ submatrices of zeroes. Since each feature is selected at most once, no identity submatrices are aligned horizontally or vertically. Note that $m$ such matrices are randomly populated in this manner by the TI, with $m$ the total number of DTs in the RF. In order to extract the desired features, the secure protocol for random feature selection
calls the secure matrix multiplication protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DMM}}}\xspace$ to
multiply the OHE-style data set $[\![S_{\mathsf{disc}}]\!]_2$ with a feature selection matrix $FS$ that is secret shared by the TI. For example, if $f=3$, $p=3$ and $k=2$, the matrix
\begin{equation*}
{
FS =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}
}
\end{equation*}
will retain the first 3 and the last 3 columns of $S_{\mathsf{disc}}$, thereby effectively selecting the one-hot-encodings corresponding to the first and third features of $S$.
The procedure used to sample the $s$ instances with replacement is similarly done by a multiplication with a $s \times n$ matrix $SS$ that is secret shared by the TI. The only difference is that the identity matrices used for selecting can be aligned, as the choice is with replacement.
\begin{procedure}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{A secret shared set $[\![S]\!]$ with $n$ training samples (each sample has $f$ features), the number $m$ of trees in an ensemble, the number of buckets $p$ for each feature, the number of features $k$ used in each tree, the number of samples $s$ used in each tree, the depth $d$ of each tree.}
\Output{A random forest model $[\![RF]\!]=[\![t_{1}]\!], \ldots, [\![t_{m}]\!]$.}
(Offline Phase) The TI generates and secret shares $m$ 0/1 valued feature selection matrices
$[\![FS^{(1)}]\!]_2, \ldots, [\![FS^{(m)}]\!]_2$ of size $f \cdot p \times k \cdot p$, and $m$ 0/1 valued sample selection
matrices $[\![SS^{(1)}]\!]_2, \ldots, [\![SS^{(m)}]\!]_2$ of size $s \times n$\\
Discretize each feature of $[\![S]\!]$ into $p$ bins using protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ to get
$[\![S_{\mathsf{disc}}]\!]_2$\\
\For{$i\gets 1$ \KwTo $m$}{
$[\![S_{\mathsf{FS}}]\!]_2 \leftarrow [\![S_{\mathsf{disc}}]\!]_2 \cdot [\![FS^{(i)}]\!]_2$. \\
$[\![S_{\mathsf{SR}}]\!]_2 \leftarrow [\![SS^{(i)}]\!]_2 \cdot [\![S_{\mathsf{FS}}]\!]_2$. \\
Use $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ to securely train a decision tree $[\![t_{i}]\!]$ of depth $d$ with the data set $[\![S_{\mathsf{SR}}]\!]_2$.
}
\KwRet{$[\![RF]\!]=[\![t_{1}]\!], \ldots, [\![t_{m}]\!]$.}
\caption{Secure Protocol() $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ for Training a Random Forest with Continuous Data. \label{PROT:RF}}
\end{procedure}
Protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ for secure training RFs is described in Protocol \ref{PROT:RF}. The loop in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ can be executed in parallel. The original ID3 protocol will not grow a tree to pre-specified depth $d$ if an early termination condition is satisfied (e.g.~all training examples in a branch have the same class label). We have modified it in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ such that the secure trees will always grow to depth $d$ by adding dummy nodes where necessary. If a node satisfies an early termination condition, then the node will override the classifications of all of its child nodes (dummy nodes) in an oblivious manner. This has the security advantage of not revealing the true depth of each sub-tree, while concealing which nodes actually classify.
\section{Secure Extra Trees Training}
\label{SEC:PROT}
Besides the RF training algorithm from the previous section, several other successful algorithms exist for training ensembles of decision trees. One of these algorithms, used to train so-called ``Extremely Randomized Trees'', or ``extra-trees'' (XT) for short, was developed specifically for data with numerical features \cite{geurts2006extremely}. In addition to randomly selecting subsets of features during the tree construction process, the XT training algorithm also randomly selects a threshold $\alpha_j$ for each feature $a_j$ to effectively turn the numerical feature $a_j$ into a binary feature, based on whether the feature value is greater than or equal to $\alpha_j$, or not.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{A training set $S$ with continuous data and $n$ samples (each sample has $f$ features), the number $k$ of features to consider in each tree, the number $m$ of trees in the ensemble, the depth $d$ of each tree.}
\Output{An ensemble of trees $XT=t_{1}, \ldots, t_{m}$.}
For each feature $j$, find its minimum and maximum values, $\text{min}_j$ and $\text{max}_j$. \\
\For{$i\gets 1$ \KwTo $m$}{
Select $k$ random indices $j_1, \ldots, j_k \in \{1,\ldots,f\}$.\\
\For{$\ell \gets 1$ \KwTo $k$}{
For a uniformly random $r \in (0,1)$, $\alpha_{\ell} \gets r\cdot(\text{max}_{j_\ell} - \text{min}_{j_\ell}) + \text{min}_{j_\ell}$. \\
\For{$s\gets 1$ \KwTo $n$}{
\eIf{$S[s,j_\ell] \geq \alpha_{\ell}$}{
$S'[s,\ell] \leftarrow 1$
}{
$S'[s,\ell] \leftarrow 0$
}
}
}
Train a decision tree $t_i$ of depth $d$ on $S'$ using ID3.
}
\KwRet{$XT=t_{1}, \ldots, t_{m}$.}
\caption{Algorithm for Training an Extra-Trees Classifier.
\label{FIGEXTRATREESALG}}
\end{algorithm}
An algorithm for training an XT classifier in the clear, adapted from \cite{geurts2006extremely}, is presented in Algorithm \ref{FIGEXTRATREESALG}. It constructs an ensemble of $m$ decision trees. As before, $S$ can be thought of as an $n \times f$ matrix in which the rows correspond to instances and the columns to features. As in Section \ref{SEC:RF}, each decision tree is trained over a randomly chosen subset of $k$ of the $f$ available features. Moreover, each continuous feature $a_j$ is binarized by choosing a random threshold $\alpha_j$ in the range of possible values of $a_j$, and replacing the feature value by 1 if it meets the threshold, and 0 otherwise. Each such binarization is specific for a particular feature in a particular tree of the ensemble; for another tree in the ensemble the same feature $a_j$ might be reused with a different random binarization. Note that all loops in the algorithm can be executed in parallel. Algorithm \ref{FIGEXTRATREESALG} differs from the original extremely randomized trees algorithm \cite{geurts2006extremely} in the sense that in the latter the random choices for the features and the random choices for the cut-off points are made for each node in each decision tree, whereas in Algorithm \ref{FIGEXTRATREESALG} they are made once for each decision tree. We have observed that the difference between the two approaches can have some detrimental effect on the accuracy. To remedy this, we can sample the subspace of $S$ with replacement, potentially choosing multiple splits per feature. So for example, if we have a data set where $f = 30$, we can let $k = 60$, thus increasing the diversity of the data set. In our tests, this approach seems to close the gap in accuracy caused by discretizing per tree instead of per node.
\begin{procedure}[t]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{A secret shared training set $[\![S]\!]$ with continuous data and $n$ samples (each sample has $f$ features), the number $k$ of features to consider in each tree, the number $m$ of trees in the ensemble, the depth $d$ of each tree.}
\Output{A secret shared ensemble of trees $[\![XT]\!]=[\![t_{1}]\!], \ldots, [\![t_{m}]\!]$.}
(Offline Phase) The TI secret shares $m$ random 0/1-valued feature selection matrices $\ensuremath{ [\![ } FS^{(1)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ldots, \ensuremath{ [\![ } FS^{(m)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ of size $f\times k$, where each column contains a single 1, and no rows have more than a single 1. The TI also distributes $k \cdot m$ uniformly random ratios $\ensuremath{ [\![ } r^{(1)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ldots, \allowbreak \ensuremath{ [\![ } r^{(k \cdot m)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \allowbreak \in [1, 2^a - 1]$ (which approximates $r \in (0,1)$ in $\mathbb{R}$).\\
Compute the vectors $\ensuremath{ [\![ } min \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$ and $\ensuremath{ [\![ } max \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$, by using $(\ensuremath{ [\![ } min_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ensuremath{ [\![ } max_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) \gets \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{ [\![ } S_j \ensuremath{ ]\!] },n)$ for each column $S_j$ ($j=1,\ldots,f$) of $S$. \\
\For{$i\gets 1$ \KwTo $m$}{
$[\![S_{\mathsf{FS}}]\!] \gets [\![S]\!] \cdot [\![FS^{(i)}]\!]$\\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } \boldsymbol{r} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \gets (\ensuremath{ [\![ } r^{((i-1)k+1)}\ensuremath{ ]\!] }, \ldots, \ensuremath{ [\![ } r^{(ik)}\ensuremath{ ]\!] })$\\
$\ensuremath{ [\![ } \boldsymbol{\alpha} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \leftarrow
\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{trunc}}}\xspace(\ensuremath{ [\![ } \boldsymbol{r} \ensuremath{ ]\!] } * ((\ensuremath{ [\![ } max \ensuremath{ ]\!] } - \ensuremath{ [\![ } min \ensuremath{ ]\!] }) \cdot [\![FS^{(i)}]\!])) \allowbreak + \ensuremath{ [\![ } min \ensuremath{ ]\!] } \cdot [\![FS^{(i)}]\!] $
\For{$\ell \gets 1$ \KwTo $k$}{
\For{$p\gets 1$ \KwTo $n$}{
$[\![D[p,\ell,1]]\!]_2\gets \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace([\![S_{\mathsf{FS}}[p,\ell]]\!],[\![\boldsymbol{\alpha}[\ell]]\!])$\\
$[\![D[p,\ell,0]]\!]_2\gets 1 - [\![D[p,\ell,1]]\!]_2$
}
}
Let $[\![t_i]\!]$ be the decision tree of depth $d$ trained using $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ with the data set $[\![D]\!]_2$.
}
\KwRet{$[\![XT]\!]=[\![t_{1}]\!], \ldots, [\![t_{m}]\!]$.}
\caption{Protocol() $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ for Securely Training an Extra-Trees Classifier.
\label{protxt}}
\end{procedure}
Our Protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ for securely training an XT classifier is given in Protocol \ref{protxt}. As with the RF approach from Section \ref{SEC:RF}, at the start of the secure XT training protocol, Alice and Bob have secret shares of the training data set $S$.
At the end of the protocol, they have secret shares of an XT classifier $XT=t_{1}, \ldots, t_{m}$.
Protocol $\ref{protxt}$ uses several building blocks that have already been introduced and explained before.
In the offline phase, the TI generates and secret shares feature selection matrices $FS^{(1)}$, $FS^{(2)}$, \ldots, $FS^{(m)}$. The feature selection in Line 4 of Protocol \ref{protxt} is based upon the secure matrix multiplication protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DMM}}}\xspace$, in the same way as in Section \ref{SEC:RF}. Note that here the feature selection matrices are of size $f \times k$ (with 1's representing the selections), as the features are not represented using one-hot-encodings at this point. The TI also generates the equivalent of the $r$ values from Line 5 in Algorithm \ref{FIGEXTRATREESALG} that are used for random selection of cut-off points. Note that, while in Algorithm \ref{FIGEXTRATREESALG}, each $r$ is a real number between 0 and 1, in Line 1 of Protocol \ref{protxt}, the randomly chosen values are integers between 1 and $2^a$, where $a$ is the number of fractional bits in the fixed-point representation that we use throughout this paper (see Section \ref{SEC:PRELIM}).
In Line 2 in Protocol \ref{protxt}, the parties use Protocol \ref{prot:minmax} ($\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace$) to compute the minimum and maximum value of each feature. In Line 5, we select a subset of the random ratios of size $k$ which will be used to calculate the vector $\ensuremath{ [\![ } \boldsymbol{\alpha} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$. This vector is calculated on Line 6, and will retain secret shared values whose sum is a random value between the minimum and maximum associated to all features that are dictated by the feature selection matrix $\ensuremath{ [\![ } FS^{(i)} \ensuremath{ ]\!] }$. Note that on Line 6, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$, $\boldsymbol{r}$ are $1 \times k$ vectors,
$max$ and $min$ are $1 \times f$ vectors, while $FS^{(i)}$ is a $f \times k$ matrix.
The loop on Line 7-12 creates an one-hot-encoding of the binarized version of the data set. Each continuous feature value $S_{\rm FS}[p, \ell]$ is compared with the threshold $\alpha[\ell]$ using the secure comparison protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace$. The result, which is the binarized version of the data set encoded as OHE, is stored in the matrix $[\![D]\!]_2$, which is secret shared among the parties. Finally, the parties execute the secure ID3 decision tree training protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ to jointly train a decision tree over $[\![D]\!]_2$. Similarly to Section \ref{SEC:RF}, our version of $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ grows each tree to the same specified depth $d$, to hide the true structure of the tree.
The two main differences between $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ are: (1) that the $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ uses (a modified version of) \textit{all} training examples for each tree, rather than using bootstrap replicas generated with bagging, and (2) that $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ splits the range of feature values by randomly selecting a single threshold. This reduces the computational complexity with respect to $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$, as $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ trains $p$-nary trees while $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ only trains binary trees.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|c|r|r|r|}
Data set & \#instances & \#features & Model & Sklearn Acc & Secure Acc & Secure Time\\
\hline
BC & 569 & 30 & DT & 93.1\% & 90.2\% & 5.3 sec\\
& & & RF & 93.7\% & 93.2\% & 18.5 sec\\
& & & XT & 96.3\% & 96.5\% & 35.2 sec\\
\hline
ECG & 14,552 & 140 & DT & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 5.7 sec\\
& & & RF & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 79.6 sec\\
& & & XT & 100.0\% & 100.0\% & 43.6 sec\\
\hline
BACK & 310 & 12 & DT & 79.0\% & 70.0\% & 3.1 sec\\
& & & RF & 82.3\% & 68.0\% & 9.8 sec\\
& & & XT & 83.4\% & 81.3\% & 39.2 sec\\
\hline
IV-GSE & 225 & 12,634 & DT & 64.9\% & 59.6\% & 91.1 sec \\
& & & RF & 63.6\% & 62.3\% & 12.6 sec\\
& & & XT & 63.4\% & 63.5\% & 12.6 sec\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy and runtime results for tree based models. All results are obtained with 5-fold cross-validation.}
\label{tab:mainresults}
\end{table*}
We implemented the proposed protocols in Rust\footnote{A link to the bitbucket repository is omitted to respect the double-blind review process. It will be added in the final version of the paper.}
and performed accuracy and runtime experiments on 4 different data sets, shown in Table \ref{tab:mainresults}, namely
the Breast Cancer\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/uciml/breast-cancer-wisconsin-data} data set (BC),
the ECG Heartbeat\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/shayanfazeli/heartbeat} data set (ECG),
the Lower Back Pain Symptoms\footnote{https://www.kaggle.com/sammy123/lower-back-pain-symptoms-data set} data set (BACK) and the Track IV-GSE 2034 data set (IV-GSE) from the iDASH 2019 competition on secure genome analysis.\footnote{http://www.humangenomeprivacy.org/}
All data sets are for binary classification problems. As shown in Table \ref{tab:mainresults}, the data sets vary in the number of continuous valued input features, as well as in the number of instances. The original ECG data set had several columns that mostly contained a value of 0, and were unhelpful to train on. We removed every feature that contained 80\% or more values of zero, reducing the ECG data set from 188 features to 140. All results in Table \ref{tab:mainresults} are obtained with 5-fold cross-validation, i.e.~the accuracies and runtimes are all averages obtained over 5 folds.
\subsection{Accuracy Results}
The ``Sklearn Acc'' column in Table \ref{tab:mainresults} contains accuracy results obtained by training tree based models over each data set in the clear, with the well known Scikit-learn library \cite{scikit-learn}. This library has state-of-the-art implementations of non privacy-preserving versions of the ML algorithms considered in Table \ref{tab:mainresults}. We used grid search to find hyperparameter values that yield good accuracy results, in line with those reported in the literature for each of the data sets; see Table \ref{tab:optimized} and below for more details. As can be observed in the Sklearn Acc column, for some data sets (e.g.~\textbf{IV-GSE}) it is substantially harder to obtain very high accuracy than for others (e.g.~\textbf{ECG}).
The ``Secure Acc'' column in Table \ref{tab:mainresults} contains accuracy results obtained with our MPC protocols for training tree based models when the data sets are secret shared among two computing parties. The DT and RF results were obtained by running $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ followed by respectively $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$. The XT results were obtained by running $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$. For the ring $\mathbb{Z}_{2^\lambda}$ we used $\lambda=64$, using $a=10$ bits for the fractional part and $b=22$ bits for the integer part in the fixed point representation (see Section \ref{SEC:PRELIM}).
Computations on fixed point numbers can cause accuracy loss, particularly when products of small numbers are computed in succession. The effect is equivalent to rounding all intermediate results of a long product to some number of decimal places instead of rounding the final result. We contend with this issue by scaling the data set by a factor of 1000 before converting it to fixed point which avoids small values without requiring prior knowledge of the data. We note that scaling values in this manner does not have any effect on trees learned by ID3 in the clear.
During classification, to tally votes amongst the trees in the RF and XT classifiers trained with our secure protocols, we apply the same soft voting mechanism as what is used in Sklearn (alternative methods could be used as well, if desired). To this end, as explained in Section \ref{SEC:PRELIM}, for each classifying node, our decision tree learning protocol returns secret shared frequencies of each of the class labels in the subset of training instances that have reached that node.
In soft voting each tree returns a probability distribution of the class labels as its vote.
So for example, if the active classifying node in a tree has 70 positive examples, and 30 negative examples, then it would return a vote for 70\% positive, and 30\% negative.
These proportions are then added up amongst all trees, and the class label with the most votes wins.
As we explained in prior sections, we made a variety of adaptations to the original tree model training algorithms (as implemented in Sklearn) to create MPC-friendly versions. The main high level distinction is that our protocols for DT, RF, and XT all rely on a round of discretization that creates a data set for each tree, while in Sklearn's implementations such discretization is performed for each node. In our protocols for DT and RF, our static discretization step is very explicit, as the computing parties first run $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ to discretize the data with equal-width binning, and subsequently train a DT or a RF on the
discretized data with $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ or $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$. In our protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ for XT, discretization is performed once for each tree, by randomly choosing feature thresholds that remain fixed for the entire tree, while in Sklearn such thresholds are randomly chosen per node. This explains most of the differences between the ``Sklearn Acc'' and ``Secure Acc'' column results in Table \ref{tab:mainresults}, along with the fact that the implementations in Sklearn are refined with some bells and whistles that we did not include in our secure version. For example, the implementation of tree learning in Sklearn has an additional stopping criterion that stops growing a tree branch if the feature values are constant across the training instances in that branch.
Not including this stopping criterion in our protocol was a deliberate choice to reduce communication and memory usage, but it also impacts accuracy. Despite these differences, Table \ref{tab:mainresults} convincingly shows that our protocols are competitive with the in the clear algorithms in Sklearn in terms of accuracy.
A notable exception is the \textbf{BACK} data set, on which $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ clearly under-perform in terms of accuracy.
The cause for this degradation in accuracy is that in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ the data is first discretized with equal-width binning, and then a DT and RF are trained on the discretized data, respectively. In Sklearn on the other hand, the models are trained directly on the original, undiscretized data, with binning performed dynamically by looking for an optimal split point in each node.
To verify this hypothesis we manually discretized the \textbf{BACK} data set with equal-width binning, and re-ran the tests with Sklearn, which gave us the same level of accuracy as obtained with $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$, and even lower accuracy than $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$. It's clear that the \textbf{BACK} data set benefits greatly from dynamic discretization. As explained in Section \ref{SEC:PROT}, \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace offers a way to compensate for this lack of dynamic discretization by sampling the feature space more extensively and with replacement.
The accuracy of \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace on BACK is nevertheless still somewhat lower than the algorithms in the clear, but this is likely, as mentioned above, because the implementation of tree learning in Sklearn stops growing a branch when all feature values are constant. This stopping condition is likely to be satisfied for small data sets, and deep tree depths, and our tests on \textbf{BACK} satisfies both of these conditions (see Table \ref{tab:optimized}). On \textbf{BC} and \textbf{IV-GSE}, $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ were able to classify within $\pm 1.3\%$ of Sklearn, while $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ under-performed.
Lastly, on \textbf{ECG}, all protocols were able to learn the decision boundaries to perfectly separate
the positive from the negative instances.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\multicolumn{7}{|c||}{Sklearn Results} &
\multicolumn{7}{c|}{Secure Protocol Results}\\\hline
\hline
Data & & sel.feat. & trees & depth & $\epsilon$ & Acc & bins & sel.feat. & sel.inst. & trees & depth & Time & Acc \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}\textbf{BC} & DT & -- & 1 & 4 & 5\% & 93.1\% & 5 & --& -- & 1 & 4 & 5.3 s & 90.2\% \\
inst: \phantom{00,}569 & RF & 17 & 70 & 4 & 5\% & 93.7\% & 6 & 30 & 200 & 100 & 3 & 18.5 s & 93.2\% \\
feat: \phantom{00,0}30 & XT & 19 & 90 & 5 & 5\% & 96.3\% & -- & 128 & -- & 50 & 5 & 35.2 s & 96.5\% \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}\textbf{ECG}
& DT & -- & 1 & 1 & 5\% & 100.0\% & 2 & -- & -- & 1 & 1 & 5.7 s & 100.0\%\\
inst: 14,552 & RF & 120 & 20 & 1 & 5\% & 100.0\% & 2 & 120 & 100 & 20 & 1 & 79.6 s & 100.0\% \\
feat: \phantom{00,}140 & XT & 120 & 20 & 1 & 5\% & 100.0\% & -- & 256 & -- & 20 & 1 & 43.6 s & 100.0\% \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}\textbf{BACK}
& DT & -- & 1 & 4 & 1\% & 79.0\% & 5 & -- & -- & 1 & 4 & 3.1 s & 70.0\% \\
inst: \phantom{00,}310 & RF & 8 & 90 & 5 & 1\% & 82.3\% & 5 & 10 & 30 & 100 & 5 & 9.8 s & 68.0\% \\
feat: \phantom{00,0}12 & XT & 10 & 120 & 6 & 1\% & 83.4\% & -- & 64 & -- & 50 & 6 & 39.2 s & 81.3\% \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}\textbf {IV-GSE}
& DT & -- & 1 & 1 & 5\% & 64.9\% & 5 & -- & -- & 1 & 1 & 91.1 s & 59.6\% \\
inst: \phantom{00,}225 & RF & 1000 & 20 & 1 & 1\% & 63.6\% & 2 & 128 & 20 & 20 & 1 & 12.6 s & 62.3\% \\
feat: 12,634 & XT & 112 & 10 & 3 & 1\% & 63.4\% & -- & 128 & -- & 90 & 5 & 12.6 s & 63.5\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy and runtime results (in seconds) for tree based models, along with the hyperparameter values that yielded these results. We used the exact same $\epsilon$ values for the secure protocols as for the Sklearn results. All results are obtained with 5-fold cross-validation,}
\label{tab:optimized}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Runtime Results}
The experiments to obtain the accuracy (Secure Acc) and runtime (Secure Time) results were run on Microsoft Azure Lv48s\_vs machines with 48 vCPUs, 384.0 GiB Memory. Each of the parties ran on a separate machine (connected via Gigabit Ethernet network)
which means that the results in Table \ref{tab:mainresults} cover communication time in addition to computation time. All reported runtimes are for the online phases of the protocols. As can be seen, our protocols are very fast, even on data sets with 1000s of instances or features.
We repeat the accuracy and runtime results from Table \ref{tab:mainresults} in Table \ref{tab:optimized}, along with our choices for the hyperparameter values. We obtained these hyperparameter values by performing grid search while aiming for state-of-the-art accuracies on the respective data sets. The attentive reader will notice that the hyperparameter values differ between the algorithms as implemented in Sklearn, and our MPC-based protocols. As we explain in more detail below, the incentive to choose hyperparameter values differently for the MPC-based protocols goes hand in hand with the adaptations made to make the original ML algorithms more MPC-friendly.
For the Sklearn results in Table \ref{tab:optimized}, the hyperparameter \textit{sel.~feat.} denotes how many random features were selected for each tree in the RF and XT classifiers (the original number of features for each data set is recalled in the first column of Table \ref{tab:optimized}). \textit{Trees} and \textit{depth} denote how many trees were trained in each ensemble, and to what depth each tree was to be trained to. Finally, $\epsilon$ denotes what fraction of training instances needed to remain in a node for that node to branch out further. For example, if we have a data set of 1000 instances, and $\epsilon = 5\%$, then if the number of training instances that have reached a node during tree construction is $50$ instances or less, the growing stops in that branch and the node becomes a classifying node. We used the same $\epsilon$ values for the secure protocols as for Sklearn (not repeated in the table for conciseness).
There are two additional columns of hyperparameters in Table \ref{tab:optimized} for the secure protocols, namely \textit{bins}, which is the number of buckets of equal width that $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace$ generates for DT and RF, and \textit{sel.~inst.}, which denotes how many random instances where selected, per tree and with replacement, from each discretized set by $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$. For the Sklearn implementation, we followed the convention of choosing \textit{sel.~inst.} equal to the total number of instances (which is recalled for each data set in the first column of Table \ref{tab:optimized}) while for $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ we systematically chose a smaller value for \textit{sel.~inst.} for efficiency reasons, as explained in Section \ref{SEC:RF}.
Our runtimes for DT are far shorter than those of XT and RF on the data sets with a small number of features, namely \textbf{BC}, \textbf{ECG}, and \textbf{BACK}, and much longer on data set \textbf{IV-GSE}, which has +12K features. This is entirely with expectations, as $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ have a built-in mechanism for random feature selection, which can greatly reduce the number of features that need to be considered per tree without harming the accuracy, while $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{SID3T}}}\xspace$ has to consider all features.
On the flip-side, this random feature selection in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ does not come for free, and neither does the random instance selection in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{RF}}}\xspace$. As explained in Section \ref{SEC:RF} and \ref{SEC:PROT}, such oblivious extraction of subsets of the data is realized through secure matrix multiplication.
This matrix multiplication only requires a single round of communication, but the local complexity is quite high. Further optimization could be done by offloading the work onto a GPU.
Recall from Section \ref{SEC:PROT} that to compensate for the static discretization per tree, in $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ the parties jointly
select features \textit{with replacement}, and choose a different split for each. This explains why \textit{sel.~feat.} for XT in the secure protocol results columns in Table \ref{tab:optimized} can exceed the total amount of features in the data set. This design choice benefits \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace greatly, making it fast and the most competitive with Sklearn's implementation in terms of accuracy. Given our choice to select a pool of random features per tree as opposed to per node, we also save valuable computation time. Take our \textbf{BC} results for XT as an example. In Sklearn's implementation, each node must generate 19 unique features. If each of their trees are fully grown, as ours must be to protect from side channel attacks, they would have to generate $(2^5 - 1) \cdot 19 = 589$ total features and cut-off points. In contrast, we generate a pool of 128 features up-front, saving us an immense amount of time, without harming accuracy.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\# of elements & $10^6$ & $10^7$ & $10^8$ & $10^9$ \\
\hline
\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace & 0.1 sec & 0.4 sec & 3.7 sec & 58.1 sec \\
\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace & 0.4 sec & 2.0 sec & 17.0 sec & 152.2 sec \\
\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace & 1.9 sec & 7.1 sec & 50.1 sec & 572.7 sec \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Runtimes of protocol executions on varying input sizes. \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace compares two vectors of size \# elements while \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace perform operations on one vector of size \# elements. }
\label{tab:vecRuntimes}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c||c|c|c|}
\hline
&
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Instances} \\
\hline
Bins & $10^3$ & $10^4$ & $10^5$ \\
\hline
2 & 2.3 sec & 13.6 sec & 106.5 sec \\
3 & 2.8 sec & 19.9 sec & 139.6 sec \\
5 & 3.3 sec & 24.1 sec & 199.0 sec \\
8 & 9.2 sec & 28.8 sec & 374.1 sec \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Runtime of \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace for a varying number of instances and bins, and a fixed amount of 1,000 features}
\label{tab:discRuntimes}
\end{table}
Tables \ref{tab:vecRuntimes} and \ref{tab:discRuntimes} show the time it takes to perform the subprotocols for multiple input lengths. Table \ref{tab:vecRuntimes} shows the runtimes of \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace, and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace up to $10^9$ elements, where \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{2toQ}}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{minmax}}}\xspace performed their operations on a single vector of that length, and \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{GEQ}}}\xspace performed operations between two vectors of that length. We stop at $10^9$ because that is the point our virtual machines run out of RAM. Table \ref{tab:discRuntimes} shows the runtimes for \ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{DISC}}}\xspace for a varying number of bins and instances, where the amount of features is fixed at 1,000. These runtimes are quite fast compared to previous iterations and are notably sublinear over certain ranges. This is the result of optimized multithreading and socket-level parallelization.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we have presented several cryptographic protocols that enable two or more parties to train decision trees or decision tree ensemble classifiers over their joint continuous valued data, while keeping the data private, i.e.~neither of the parties has to show their data to anyone in the clear. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to efficiently train tree-based models with good accuracy while completely avoiding a full private sorting, by performing various forms of discretization in a privacy-preserving manner instead.
The results of our protocols demonstrate competitive accuracy with their state-of-the-art, in the clear counterparts. Beyond accuracy, each one of our protocols demonstrated high efficiency in terms of runtime, and is fast enough to be used in practice. Our MPC protocol for extra-trees classifiers is the clear winner among our three secure approaches for training tree based models on continuous valued data, as it is both accurate and fast. When confronted with the need to securely train a tree-based model over data that is distributed across different parties, we therefore recommend protocol $\ensuremath{\pi_{\mathsf{XT}}}\xspace$ as the method of choice.
An important question during such deployment is which values to choose for the hyperparameters, such as the number of trees and the number of randomly selected features per tree. Given the high efficiency of our protocols, it would be feasible to train multiple models with multiple different hyperparameters jointly amongst the parties. Then, in conjunction with protocols for privacy-preserving inference \cite{IEEETDSC:CDHK+17,fritchman2018privacy}, we could perform a secure comparison of all of the results, obliviously select the most accurate model with the best hyperparameters, and use that to classify new, unseen instances.
The accuracy of machine learning algorithms can be highly dependent on specific properties of data sets. Thus, it is important to have a portfolio of privacy-preserving machine-learning algorithms readily available for use. The presented protocols fill an important gap in the literature, presenting the first protocols for trees and tree ensembles that can handle continuous data without relying on a full sorting of the data set.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{ver} the past a few years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs), invented by LeCun {\it et al.} three decades ago \cite{lecun1989backpropagation}, have achieved great success in solving many computer vision problems. Without using handcrafted features, a CNN takes an image in pixels as input and extracts features automatically to accomplish a certain task, and the entire process can be trained end-to-end. Different CNN architectures have been proposed \cite{Krizhevsky2012ImageNet, Simonyan2014Very, He2016Deep, Huang2017Densely, Szegedy2014Going, xie2016aggregated} and the performance is getting better and better.
In history, CNN has got many benefits from neuroscience. For instance, the two standard operations in CNN, convolution and pooling, can date back to Hubel and Wiesel's discovery of simple cells and complex cells in the primary visual cortex (Vl) of cats \cite{Hubel1959Receptive, hubel1962receptive}. A predecessor of CNN is Neocognitron \cite{Fukushima1980Neocognitron} which also uses the two operations. Several years ago, inspired by abundant recurrent synapses within the same visual area such as V1 \cite{Dayan2001Theoretical}, a recurrent CNN (RCNN) \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent} was invented, and the main idea is to incorporate recurrent connections between neurons within the same convolutional layer. The resulting layer is called recurrent convolutional layer (RCL). Its structure is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}a.
A neuron receives inputs from its neighboring neurons in the same layer besides the neurons in the
preceding layer. For clarity, only recurrent connections in the
same feature map are plotted, but in practice every neuron
receives recurrent inputs from all feature maps in the current
layer. Similarly, every neuron receives feedforward inputs
from all feature maps in the preceding layer.
Due to the recurrent connections, object recognition becomes a dynamic process though the input is static. Since neurons in the same layer can exchange information, the receptive field (RF) of every neuron, defined as the region in the input which can influence the activity of the neuron, will become larger than that of the neuron in a conventional convolutional layer (Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}). This agrees with neuroscience findings to some extent, as a biological neuron's activity can be modulated, either suppressed or facilitated, by stimuli outside the neuron's classical RF \cite{nelson1978orientation, jones2002spatial, cavanaugh2002nature}. In this sense, the RF induced by the feedforward connections in Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}a, {\it i.e.,} the red square projected to the input space, can be called {\it classical RF} while the RF induced by both feedforward and recurrent connections can be called {\it non-classical RF}. In what follows, if not specified, the RF in a model with recurrent connections refers to the non-classical RF.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/motivation}
\caption{Illustration of the RCL and GRCL. (a) Structures of the RCL and GRCL. The black dots denote neurons. The red and green
arrows denote the feedforward and recurrent connections, respectively. With the gates denoted by triangles operating on the
recurrent connections, the figure illustrates a GRCL; otherwise, it illustrates an RCL.
(b) Desired RFs in the GRCL in recognizing the pear and blueberry. \emph{Left:} The red squares and green squares denote the classical RF and the desired non-classical RF of a neuron. \emph{Right:} Desired strength of the non-classical RF. For clarity, only the x coordinate of RF is shown. The threshold $\rho$ determines the size of the
effective RF, {\it i.e.}, only regions in the RF where the strength is larger than $\rho$
are counted.}
\label{fig:motivation}
\end{figure}
However, there is no restriction on this RF expanding process in the RCL. With a large number of recurrent iterations, all neurons in an RCL would ``see'' the whole input image and the contents captured in different iterations are equally fed to the neuron, which is neither consistent with biological facts nor advantageous for visual perception. Intuitively, to recognize the pear and the blueberry in Fig.~\ref{fig:motivation}b, it is better to use different RF sizes. However, in the RCL, the RF sizes of neurons increase with recurrent iterations regardless of the input. We need a mechanism to automatically control the sizes of RFs, or at least the strengths at different locations inside the RFs, to better ``understand'' the input.
Towards this goal, we propose to add gates onto the recurrent connections to modulate the RFs of neurons in the RCL, denoted by the triangles in Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}a. The resulting module is called gated RCL (GRCL). The outputs of the gates are between 0 and 1, and the value is determined by the input to the GRCL, as well as the states of the neurons in the previous recurrent iteration. Therefore the outputs of the gates in different iterations could be different. The recurrent contribution to the activities of neurons is multiplied with the corresponding outputs of the gates before adding to the feedforward contribution. If the gates always output 1 during recurrent iterations, the GRCL degenerates to the RCL.
It is expected that the gates could learn to modulate the RFs such that the neurons focus on regions with appropriate sizes for different inputs. Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}b \emph{left} shows desired RFs (green squares) for recognizing the pear and the blueberry. This goal can be achieved if all gates in the former case are open while some gates in later iterations in the latter case are closed (output 0). It can be partially achieved if all gates are open in the two cases but the gates output smaller values in the latter case than in the former case, because such a setting makes the recurrent contributions diminish along with iterations faster in the latter case. Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}b \emph{right} illustrates the desired strengths of the RFs in the two cases. Every green rectangle denotes the expansion of the RF in one recurrent iteration. Here, uniform feedforward kernels and recurrent kernels are assumed. That is why the strengths are step functions instead of smooth curve functions. If a threshold $\rho$ (dashed blue line) is used to determine the size of the effective RF, the size of the effective RF would be smaller in the latter case.
The GRCL is a basic building block, and multiple GRCLs can be stacked into a deep network called {\it gated recurrent CNN} or GRCNN. This paper presents the implementation and experiments of GRCNN.
Some preliminary results have been presented at a conference \cite{jianfeng2017deep}. The present work extends the previous work in several aspects. First, we integrate some advanced techniques developed in recent years into the model to further improve its performance. Second, to determine the states of the neurons in the current iteration, we integrate recurrent contributions in all previous iterations instead of only the last iteration.
Third, we allow the recurrent weights to be different in different recurrent iterations. This relaxation allows us to use more parameters for fair comparison with the state-of-the-art models on certain computer vision tasks. In other words, some models presented in the paper are actually not {\it recurrent} networks.
In this case, the recurrent connections become feedforward connections. The function of the gates on them will be elaborated in later sections.
Fourth, in the previous work, we only evaluated the model on the optical character recognition (OCR) task, but in this work we in addition evaluated the model on object recognition and object detection tasks. Extensive experiments showed that GRCNN obtained very good results in these tasks.
The remaining contents of the paper are organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:related}, some closely related works are introduced. In section \ref{sec:model}, the architectures of RCNN and GRCNN are described. Sections \ref{sec:object-recognition}, \ref{sec:OCR} and \ref{sec:detection} present experimental results on object recognition, OCR and object detection, respectively. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\subsection{CNNs with Skip-Layer Connections}
Here we briefly review CNNs with skip-layer or shortcut connections because the proposed model can be viewed as such a model when unfolded through time.
The highway network \cite{Srivastava2015Training} is one of the earliest CNNs with skip-layer connections. The main idea is to add a bypassing path to the convolutional layer such that the output of the layer has two parts: one nonlinear transformation part (conventional convolution and nonlinear activation) and one bypassing part (the input of the layer). The two parts are modulated by a gate, usually implemented as the logistic sigmoid function whose output is between 0 and 1. When the gate on the bypassing path is 1, the input is directly added to the output of the layer without attenuation. In contrast, the residual network (ResNet) \cite{He2016Deep} advocates bypassing paths in CNN without gates. The argument is that without input attenuation, the convolutional layer learns the residual between the ideal mapping and the identity mapping from input to output. The strategy turns out to be very effective and ResNet has been applied to numerous applications. In addition, many improved versions have been proposed. For example, a more efficient model ResNeXt \cite{xie2016aggregated} is obtained by mainly substituting the conventional convolution in ResNet with the grouped convolution.
The densely connected network (DenseNet) \cite{Huang2017Densely} consists of multiple blocks and in each block every layer has direct paths from all layers below (this is the origin of its name) besides the nonlinear transformation path. In contrast to the highway network and ResNet which integrate two paths by summing their outputs, DenseNet integrates multiple paths by the concatenation operation. This modification ensures that the upper layers in a block do not lose the information of the input to the block. The squeeze-and-excitation network (SENet) \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} proposes to scale the feature maps of a convolutional layer using a squeeze-and-excitation operation. The squeeze-and-excitation path and the direct path between the original convolutional layer are integrated by feature map-wise product. An extension of SENet is the Gather-Excite network (GENet) \cite{hu2018gather}, which uses a different product operation for integrating the two paths.
\subsection{CNNs with Adaptive Receptive Fields}
There are a few works investigating adaptive RF in neural networks. A typical model refers to the Deformable CNN \cite{dai2017deformable}. Unlike the traditional CNN, the Deformable CNN has a changeable grid in the sense that each point in it can be moved by a learnable offset, and then the convolution filters operate on these moved grid points, resulting in the deformable convolution. The objective is to encourage the new convolutional block to learn features from the best location in the previous layer. The Saliency Network \cite{recasens2018learning} performs input distortions to ``zoom-in'' salient regions, which resembles deformable RF on input images. In the active convolution \cite{jeon2017active}, the RF does not have a fixed shape and can take diverse forms for convolutions. Inspired by the human visual system, a novel module is proposed to be integrated into CNN, named Receptive Field Block \cite{liu2018receptive}. It utilizes multi-branch pooling with varying kernels corresponding to RFs of different sizes, and then uses dilated convolution to control their eccentricities, and reshapes them to generate final representation.
Self-attention is considered to be an alternative to the convolutional layer \cite{cordonnier2020relationship}. The multi-head self-attention layer can also implement a dynamic receptive field, since each head can attend a value at any pixel shift and form different grid patterns.
The Selective Kernel Network (SKNet) \cite{Xiang2019SKNet} consists of several "selective kernel" (SK) convolutions. The SK convolution is also inspired by the adaptive RF sizes of neurons, which is implemented by three operators, i.e., \textit{Split}, \textit{Fuse} and \textit{Select}. Our method implements adaptive RFs in a different way, {\it i.e.}, using gates to control the strength of different points in RFs of the RCNN \cite{Liang2015Recurrent}.
\subsection{Recurrent Neural Networks}
RNNs are often used to model sequential data such as handwriting recognition \cite{Graves2009A} and speech recognition \cite{Graves2013Speech}. Simple RNN has a notorious property, namely ``gradient vanishing'', which makes it difficult to train the RNN. To circumvent this drawback, the long short term memory (LSTM) \cite{Hochreiter1997Long} and the gated recurrent unit (GRU) \cite{Cho2014Learning} are proposed. Both LSTM and GRU adopt gates to control the information flow and determine the memory that should be kept.
There are not many RNNs proposed to process images, because it is not apparent how the build-in sequential process of an RNN could be used to process static images. In 2015, a recurrent CNN (RCNN) was proposed to perform object recognition \cite{Liang2015Recurrent}. The main idea is to introduce recurrent connections between neighboring neurons in the same convolutional layer, and the resulting layer is called RCL. Then the neurons' activities are no longer static because the neurons interact with others at each recurrent iteration. This is consistent with biological neurons whose firing rates are not constants over time given a stimulus \cite{kandel2000principles}. The model was shown to be more robust to occlusions in object recognition than feedforward models \cite{spoerer2017recurrent}. It was extended to a multi-scale version for scene labeling \cite{Ming2015Recurrent}. It was also used in other applications including speech recognition \cite{Zhao2017Recurrent}, action recognition \cite{Wang2016Deep} and OCR \cite{Lee2016Recursive}.
When unfolded through time, RCNN becomes a feedforward network with many skip-layer connections. In the unfolded RCL, such skip-layer connections represent identity mappings from the input to every layer above. Every layer integrates the convolutional path and the identity mapping path using summation. GRCNN differs from RCNN by introducing gates to control information flow in the convolutional path, and it differs from the highway network \cite{Srivastava2015Training} by not using gates on the identity mapping path.
Another method to integrate RNN and CNN is to introduce recurrent connections between different layers rather than within the same layer. The convolutional deep belief network (CDBN) \cite{Lee+etal09:convDBN} is an earlier attempt. Every pair of adjacent layers has both bottom-up and top-down connections. Instead of using recurrent connections between adjacent layers, one can also use recurrent connections from the top layer to the bottom layer of a deep model \cite{Pinheiro2014Recurrent}.
\section{Model}\label{sec:model}
Since the proposed model is based on the RCNN model \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent}, for better understanding, we first briefly introduce the architecture of RCNN, then describe the proposed GRCNN in detail. As the RCNN and the GRCNN only replace the convolutional layer in conventional CNN with the RCL and the GRCL, respectively, we mainly describe the RCL and the GRCL. Note that the RCL described below slightly differs from its original version \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent} as we incorporate some later proposed techniques into it.
\subsection{Recurrent Convolutional Layer and RCNN}\label{sec:RCNN}
The RCL \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent} is a module with recurrent connections in the convolutional layer (Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}a without the gates). The states of the neurons $x(t)$ evolve as follows
\begin{align}\label{eqn:RCL}
&x(t)=f( w^\text{F}*u(t) + w^\text{R}*x(t-1))
\end{align}
for $t\ge 0$, where ``*'' denotes convolution, $u(t)$ and $x(t-1)$ denote the feed-forward input and recurrent input to the RCL, respectively, $w^\text{F}$ and $w^\text{R}$ denote feed-forward weight and recurrent weights, respectively, and $f(\cdot)$ denotes the activation function (usually the ReLU function). We stress that $t$ indexes the processing steps in the model and it does not suggest that the image is moving or in other dynamic modes. Throughout the paper, we assume $x(t)=0$ for $t<0$. Therefore, when $t=0$ in \eqref{eqn:RCL}, we only have the first term in $f(\cdot)$.
Because any neuron's activity is influenced by the neighboring neurons' activities through recurrent weights $w^\text{R}$, as the recurrent computation continues, the neuron would ``see'' larger and larger area in the input. In other words, the sizes of RFs of neurons would increase unboundedly.
To learn the parameters, one needs to unfold the recurrent computation through time in the RCL to construct a feedforward architecture where the weights between layers are identical, {\it i.e.}, all are $w^\text{R}$. The number of recurrent iterations is a hyper-parameter and task-dependent. In addition, the input $u(t)$ is present in each recurrent iteration, {\it i.e.}, in each layer of the time-unfolded architecture (Fig. \ref{fig:GRCL}a). Note that unfolding an RCNN with multiple RCLs has different methods, which lead to different feedforward architectures \cite{Ming2015Recurrent}. Here, we adopt the method in which RCLs are unfolded one by one in the bottom-up direction. In other words, we unfold an RCL through time and use the output in the last iteration as input to the layer above, while the outputs in other iterations are not directly inputted to the layer above. In this method, $u(t)$ does not change over time, and in what follows, we will drop $t$ in the input.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/model}}
\caption{Time-unfolded version of the RCL (a) and the GRCL (b) with $T=3$. The diagram in (b) without the red arrows corresponds to the model presented in the preliminary work \cite{jianfeng2017deep}. }
\label{fig:GRCL}
\end{figure}
To improve the performance of the RCNN, two modifications are made in this work. First, we incorporate recently proposed batch normalization (BN) \cite{Ioffe2015Batch} and pre-activation techniques \cite{He2016Identity}. The former is proposed to reduce the so-called {\it internal covariate shift} (but a recent study suggests that its actual effect is to smooth the landscape of the loss function \cite{santurkar2018does}). The latter advocates to apply BN \cite{Ioffe2015Batch} and ReLU before each convolution, instead of ``Conv-BN-ReLU'' which is often used in prior works. Both techniques have been proved very effective in deep neural networks. Then the states of the neurons evolve as follows
\begin{align}\label{eqn:RCL1}
&x(t)= w^\text{F}*f(\text{BN}(u)) + w^\text{R}(t-1)*f(\text{BN}(x(t-1))).
\end{align}
In the original proposal \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent}, $w^\text{R}(t)$ was identical for different $t$.
Second, as explained in Introduction, we remove the weight sharing constraint in the time-unfolded architecture. In other words, different $w^\text{R}(t)$ are used for different $t$. This is to use more parameters for fair comparison with other models on certain tasks. However, no matter whether $w^\text{R}(t)$ is shared or not across time steps, the statistics and the parameters used for the affine transformation in BN are not shared throughout this paper since $x(t-1)$ is not identical with different $t$. Note that $w^\text{F}$ does not depend on $t$ and it still remains the same across $t$.
From the perspective of time-unfolded network, the RF size of neurons always increases along the hierarchy, say, higher layer neurons have larger RFs, no matter $w^\text{R}$ is shared or not. The only difference is that in the weight sharing case, the increase can be viewed as a dynamic process of the same set of neurons, while in the weight unsharing case we do not have this view.
RCL \eqref{eqn:RCL1} can be rewritten in a more general form,
\begin{align}\label{eqn:RCL2}
&x(t)= \mathcal{T}^\text{F}(u; w^\text{F})+\mathcal{T}^\text{R}(x(t-1);w^\text{R}(t-1)),
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{T}^\text{F}$ and $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ denote the feed-forward transformation with parameters $w^\text{F}$ and recurrent transformation with parameters $w^\text{R}$ using the pre-activation technique, respectively. For simplicity, BN and ReLU are omitted in equation~(\ref{eqn:RCL2}), and
$\mathcal{T}^\text{F}$ is still implemented by a simple "BN-ReLU-Conv" layer throughout the paper. As for $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$, it can be implemented by different blocks, such as a simple ``BN-ReLU-Conv'', a general 3-layer bottleneck block \cite{He2016Deep, He2016Identity}, or a 3-layer bottleneck block with SK convolution \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Test Error Rates of RCNN and GRCNN on CIFAR-10 (\%). }
\footnotesize
\label{tab:compare-cifar10}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Iterations} & \multirow{2}{*}{Feature maps} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Tied weights}&&\multicolumn{3}{c}{Untied weights}\\
\cline{3-5}\cline{7-9}
&&RCNN &Original GRCNN& Improved GRCNN && RCNN & Original GRCNN & Improved GRCNN \\
\toprule
(2,2,2) & (128,128,128)&5.81 $\pm$ 0.13 & 5.92 $\pm$ 0.10&5.83 $\pm$ 0.13 && 5.55 $\pm$ 0.11 &5.71 $\pm$ 0.11 & 5.65 $\pm$ 0.04\\
(3,3,3) &(128,128,128)&5.65 $\pm$ 0.09 &5.80 $\pm$ 0.12 & 5.76 $\pm$ 0.07 && 5.39 $\pm$ 0.05 & 5.53 $\pm$ 0.12 &5.46 $\pm$ 0.10\\
(4,4,4) &(128,128,128)& 5.76 $\pm$ 0.06& 5.69 $\pm$ 0.11& 5.65 $\pm$ 0.07&& 5.51 $\pm$ 0.14 & 5.30 $\pm$ 0.13 & 5.24 $\pm$ 0.07 \\
(5,5,5) & (128,128,128)&5.88 $\pm$ 0.11 & 5.57 $\pm$ 0.08&5.49 $\pm$ 0.12 && 5.62 $\pm$ 0.09& 5.23 $\pm$ 0.09 & 5.16 $\pm$ 0.10 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Original GRCL and GRCNN}\label{sec:originalGRCNN}
In an RCL, the RF size of neurons increases unboundedly with recurrent computation. Our primary goal is to introduce a mechanism to alleviate this problem. The basic idea is to modulate the recurrent term by a gate before adding it to the input term, and the resulting module is called gated RCL (GRCL). Integrated with the pre-activation technique, the original GRCL in our previous work \cite{jianfeng2017deep} can be described as follows (Fig. \ref{fig:GRCL}b, without the red arrows).
\begin{align}\label{eqn:GRCL-nips}
&x(t)= \mathcal{T}^\text{F}(u; w^\text{F})+G(t)\odot\mathcal{T}^\text{R}(x(t-1);w^\text{R}(t-1))
\end{align}
for $t\ge0$, where $\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication, and $G(t)$ is a gate whose outputs have the same dimension as $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}(x(t-1);w^\text{R}(t-1))$ and $x(t)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:gate}
G(t)= \sigma( \mathcal{T}_\text{g}^\text{F}(u; w^\text{F}_\text{g})+\mathcal{T}_\text{g}^\text{R}(x(t-1); w^\text{R}_\text{g}(t-1)) )
\end{equation}
for $t\ge 0$ with $\sigma$ being the logistic sigmoid function: $\sigma(x)=1/(1+\exp(-x))$. In the equation, $\mathcal{T}^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}_\text{g}$ denote the feed-forward transformation and recurrent transformation using the pre-activation technique, respectively, for determining the output of the gate, and they have their own parameters $w^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$.
Note that $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$ can be shared across $t$ or not. For simplicity, $w^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$ are implemented by a simple ``BN-ReLU-Conv'' separately throughout the paper. The convolutional layers in $w^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$ are a set of $1\times1$ convolutional filters in order to make the dimensions of the transformed $u$ and $x(t-1)$ consistent with $G(t)$.
If tied weights across layers are used (as in \cite{jianfeng2017deep}), \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips} and \eqref{eqn:gate} describe the dynamics of a set of neurons. As explained before, the expansion of the RFs of neurons is incurred by recurrent computation. By comparing \eqref{eqn:RCL2} and \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips}, we can see that the gate $G(t)$ weakens the recurrent contribution, which comes from a larger area in the input than from the RF in the previous recurrent iteration, because $G(t)<1$.
If $G(t)\ne 0$ and a threshold is used to delineate the effective RF, the size of the effective RF will depend on the value of $G(t)$ (Fig. \ref{fig:motivation}b).
In the case of untied weights, the effect of $G(t)$ is to modulate the RFs of neurons in different layers, allowing them to be adjusted adaptively according to the input. It should be noted that, for an untied GRCL, the feedforward weights are still shared across the time steps.
Multiple GRCLs together with other types of layers such as pooling layers can be stacked into a deep model. Hereafter, a CNN that contains a GRCL described in \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips} is called an original GRCNN.
\subsection{Improved GRCL and GRCNN}\label{sec:revisedGRCNN}
However, the introduction of gates causes a new problem: the recurrent contribution to the states of the neurons could be very small. According to \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips}, only the recurrent contribution in the last iteration is explicitly added to the feedforward contribution, and the result is propagated to the next layer. In one extreme case, all gates in the last iteration output zeros, then only the feedforward contribution is propagated to the next layer, which is clearly not what we want. Even if none of the gates outputs zero, the recurrent contributions in previous iterations are likely to decay quickly. This is mainly due to the recursive computation of gates \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips} whose outputs fall into an interval ranging from 0 to 1.
To circumvent this deficiency, we propose to explicitly add recurrent contributions in all previous iterations to the feedforward contribution:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:GRCL}
x(t)= \mathcal{T}^\text{F}(u; w^\text{F})+\sum_{n=1}^{t} {G(n)\odot\mathcal{T}^\text{R}(x(n-1); w^\text{R}(n-1))}
\end{equation}
for $t\ge1$, where $G(n)$ is defined in \eqref{eqn:gate}. For $t=0$, $x(t)= \mathcal{T}^\text{F}(u; w^\text{F})$. If the gates are closed at certain time steps, the recurrent information computed at other time steps still contributes to the state at the current time step $t$. It is easy to verify that this modification corresponds to adding a few connections to the structure of the original GRCL (Fig.~\ref{fig:GRCL}b). Moreover, to save the number of parameters, the convolutional layer in $w^\text{F}$, $w^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$ are implemented by the grouped convolution. This new version of GRCL is called {\it improved GRCL}.
Hereafter, a CNN that contains an improved GRCL is called an {\it improved GRCNN}.
\section{Object Recognition}\label{sec:object-recognition}
The first application of the proposed GRCNN is object recognition. We first designed models for three small datasets and performed detailed analyses on one of them, then designed models for a large dataset.
\subsection{Datasets}
{\bf CIFAR:} We conducted experiments on two CIFAR datasets \cite{Krizhevsky2009Learning} which consist of colored natural images with $32 \times 32$ pixels. The images in the two datasets are the same but the labels are different. The CIFAR-10 dataset has 10 classes and the CIFAR-100 dataset has 100 categories. The training and test sets have 50,000 images and 10,000 images, respectively.
{\bf SVHN:} The street view house numbers (SVHN) dataset \cite{Netzer2011Reading} consists of $32\times32$ colored digit images. There are 73257 images in the training set, 26032 images in the test set and 531131 images in the extra set. We followed the common practice \cite{He2016Deep, Huang2016Deep, Huang2017Densely, Lee2014Deeply} that the training set and the extra set were combined to train the network.
{\bf ImageNet:} The ILSVRC 2012 dataset \cite{Deng2009ImageNet, russakovsky2015imagenet} contains around 1.2 million images for training, and 50,000 images for validation. Those images cover 1000 different classes. We report the classification errors on the validation set.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Test Error Rates of Various Models on CIFAR and SVHN (\%).}
\label{tab:compare-cifar10-svhn}
\begin{tabular}{cc ccccc}
\toprule
Model &Depth & Params & CIFAR10& CIFAR100& SVHN \\
\toprule
All-CNN \cite{springenberg2014striving} &- & - & 7.25& 33.71& - \\
Deeply Supervised Net \cite{Lee2014Deeply} &- & - & 7.97& 34.57& 1.92 \\
Highway Network \cite{Srivastava2015Training} &19 & 2.3 M & 7.72& 32.39& - \\
FractalNet \cite{Larsson2017FractalNet} &21& 38.6M & 5.22& 23.30& 2.01 \\
FractalNet+Dropout+Drop-path \cite{Larsson2017FractalNet} &21& 38.6M & 4.60& 23.73& 1.87 \\
ResNet with Stochastic Depth \cite{Huang2016Deep} &110& 1.7M &5.23& 24.58& 1.75 \\
ResNet with Stochastic Depth \cite{Huang2016Deep} &1202& 10.2M &4.91& -& -\\
Wide ResNet \cite{zagoruyko2016wide} &16& 11.0M &4.81& 22.07& -\\
Wide ResNet with Dropout \cite{zagoruyko2016wide} &16& 2.7M &-& -& 1.64 \\
ResNet (pre-activation) \cite{He2016Identity} &164& 1.7M &5.46& 24.33& -\\
ResNet (pre-activation) \cite{He2016Identity} &1001& 10.2M &4.62& 22.71& -\\
DenseNet (k = 12) \cite{Huang2017Densely} &100 & 7.0M & 4.10& 20.20& 1.67 \\
DenseNet-BC (k = 12) \cite{Huang2017Densely} &100 & 0.8M &4.51& 22.27& - \\
DenseNet (k = 24) \cite{Huang2017Densely} &100 & 27.2M & 3.74& 19.25& 1.67 \\
ResNet \cite{He2016Deep} &110& 1.7M & 6.61& -& - \\
ResNet (reported in \cite{Huang2016Deep}) &110& 1.7M &6.41& 27.22& 2.01 \\
SE-ResNet-110 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 110 & 1.9M &5.21 & 23.85 & - \\
SE-ResNet-110 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 110 & 10.2M & 4.44 & 22.48 & 1.78 \\
SENet-29\cite{Hu2017Squeeze}& 29 & 35.0M &3.68 &17.78& - \\
ResNeXt-29, 16$\times$32d \cite{xie2016aggregated} & 29 & 25.2M & 3.87 & 18.56 & - \\
ResNeXt-29, 8$\times$64d \cite{xie2016aggregated} &29& 34.4M &3.65 &17.77& - \\
SKNet-29 \cite{Xiang2019SKNet} &29& 27.7M & 3.47 & 17.33 & - \\
SKNet-110* \cite{Xiang2019SKNet} &110& 25.3M & 3.56$\pm$0.08 & 18.34$\pm$0.06 & 1.56$\pm$0.03 \\
\hline
GRCNN-56 &56 & 5.8M & 4.01$\pm$0.11 & 19.97$\pm$0.08 & 1.63$\pm$0.05 \\
GRCNN-110 &110& 10.6M & 3.82$\pm$0.10 & 19.45$\pm$0.07 & 1.61$\pm$0.04 \\
SK-GRCNN-110 &110 & 25.7M & {\bf3.42$\pm$0.04} & 18.18$\pm$0.09 & {\bf1.55$\pm$0.02} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
\quad{\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \it * denotes our re-implementation.}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Inference time of different models on the test set of CIFAR-10 (seconds).}
\label{tab:cifar10-time}
\begin{tabular}{cc ccccc}
\toprule
Model &Depth & Params & Time \\
\toprule
ResNet \cite{He2016Deep} &110& 1.7M & 10.87 \\
SE-ResNet-110 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 110 & 1.9M & 11.47 \\
SE-ResNet-110 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 110 & 10.2M & 17.97 \\
DenseNet (k = 12) \cite{Huang2017Densely} &100 & 7.0M & 29.10 \\
DenseNet-BC (k = 12) \cite{Huang2017Densely} &100 & 0.8M & 24.38 \\
GRCNN-110 &109& 10.6M & 22.82 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Implementation Details on CIFAR and SVHN}\label{sec:implement_small}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/GRCNN_object}
\caption{Left: GRCNN with three GRCL blocks for object Recognition on CIFAR and SVHN. The adjacent blocks are connected by a transition layer that is responsible for downsampling. Right: The transition layer which is similar to the bottleneck layer used for downsampling in \cite{He2016Deep, He2016Identity}. For clarity, batch normalization layers and activation layers are omitted.}
\label{fig:smallnet}
\end{figure*}
The overall network architecture for the three small datasets, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and SVHN, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:smallnet}. The input image with size $32\times32$ was fed into the first convolutional layer which consisted of 64 convolutional kernels with size $3\times3$ and stride 1. It followed three GRCLs interleaved with two ``transition layers''. As Fig.~\ref{fig:smallnet} shows, each transition layer is also implemented by a 3-layer bottleneck block, which is similar to the bottleneck blocks used for downsampling in \cite{He2016Deep, He2016Identity}.
The last layer preceding the output layer was a global average pooling layer. For RCNN, the GRCL blocks were replaced with the corresponding RCL blocks.
We trained the models using the conventional stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with batch size 64. The training epochs were 40 and 300 on SVHN and CIFAR, respectively. The learning rate was 0.1 initially, and it was multiplied by 0.1 at 50\% and 75\% of the total training epochs. For preprocessing, we normalized the input data by using channel mean and standard deviation. On the CIFAR datasets, we evaluated the models under the data augmentation protocol. The augmentation techniques were mirroring and translation, which have been broadly used \cite{He2016Deep, Huang2016Deep, Larsson2017FractalNet, Huang2017Densely, Lee2014Deeply}. As for SVHN, no data augmentation was used. To avoid over-fitting, following previous works \cite{Huang2016Deep, zagoruyko2016wide} we inserted a dropout layer in GRCNN. Similar to \cite{Huang2017Densely}, the models saved at the end of training were evaluated. Five independent runs were performed for every model we investigated, and the mean error rates will be reported.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\caption{GRCNN Configuration for ImageNet Classification.}
\label{tab:arch-imagenet}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Layer & Output size & GRCNN-55 & GRCNN-109& SK-GRCNN-55 & SK-GRCNN-109\\
\toprule
Convolution & $112\times112$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$7\times7$ conv, stride 2, feature maps: 64} \\
\hline
Pooling & $56\times56$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$3\times3$ max pooling, stride 2} \\
\hline
Convolution & $56\times56$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$3\times3$ conv, stride 1, feature maps: 64} \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GRCL \#1}& \multirow{4}{*}{$56\times56$}&Iterations: 3&Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3\\
& & \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 64 \\ $3\times3$, 64 \\ $1\times1$, 256} \Bigg]& \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 64 \\ $3\times3$, 64 \\ $1\times1$, 256} \Bigg] &
\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 128 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 128 \\ $1\times1$, 256} \Bigg]
& \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 128 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 128 \\ $1\times1$, 256} \Bigg]\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Transition \#1}& \multirow{2}{*}{$28\times28$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Transition Layer, output feature maps: 256}} \\
& & \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GRCL \#2}& \multirow{4}{*}{$28\times28$}&Iterations: 3& Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3 \\
& &\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 128 \\ $3\times3$, 128 \\ $1\times1$, 512} \Bigg]&\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 128 \\ $3\times3$, 128 \\ $1\times1$, 512} \Bigg] & \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 256 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 256 \\ $1\times1$, 512} \Bigg] &\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 256 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 256 \\ $1\times1$, 512} \Bigg] \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Transition \#2}& \multirow{2}{*}{$14\times14$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Transition Layer, output feature maps: 512}} \\
& & \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GRCL \#3}& \multirow{4}{*}{$14\times14$}&Iterations: 4&Iterations: 22 & Iterations: 4 & Iterations: 22 \\
& &\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 256 \\ $3\times3$, 256 \\ $1\times1$, 1024} \Bigg]& \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 256 \\ $3\times3$, 256 \\ $1\times1$, 1024} \Bigg]& \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 512 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 512 \\ $1\times1$, 1024} \Bigg]&\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 512 \\SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 512 \\ $1\times1$, 1024} \Bigg]\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Transition \#3}& \multirow{2}{*}{$7\times7$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Transition Layer, output feature maps: 1024}} \\
& & \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GRCL \#4}& \multirow{4}{*}{$7\times7$} &Iterations: 3&Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3 & Iterations: 3\\
& &\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 512 \\ $3\times3$, 512 \\ $1\times1$, 2048} \Bigg] & \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 512 \\ $3\times3$, 512 \\ $1\times1$, 2048} \Bigg]&\Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 1024 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 1024 \\ $1\times1$, 2048} \Bigg] & \Bigg[ \tabincell{c}{$1\times1$, 1024 \\ SK[M=2, G=32, r=16], 1024 \\ $1\times1$, 2048} \Bigg]\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Classification} & $1\times1$ &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$7\times7$ global average pooling}\\
& &\multicolumn{4}{c}{1000 dimensional fully-connected, softmax}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
\quad\quad {\it Note that, as for each transition layer in SK-GRCNNs, the $3\times3$ convolutional layer is replaced by a SKConv \cite{Xiang2019SKNet} with stride 2 for fair comparison.}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Model Analyses on CIFAR-10}\label{sec:model-analyses}
To investigate the effects of components or hyper-parameters of the proposed model on the classification performance on the CIFAR-10 dataset, a couple of architectures were designed differing in the number of iterations $T$, with and without gates, and so on (See Table~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10}). The recurrent transformation $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ of GRCL in each iteration is implemented by a simple ``BN-ReLU-Conv''.
Therefore,
in Table~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10}, $(a,b,c)$ in the first column indicates that the three GRCLs in Fig. \ref{fig:smallnet} had $a, b$ and $c$ iterations, respectively. $(a,b,c)$ in the second column indicates that the three GRCLs in Fig. \ref{fig:smallnet} had $a, b$ and $c$ feature maps, respectively. The group number of grouped convolution layers used in the improved GRCNN is set to 16. For simplicity, here the same $T$ was used in all three GRCLs or RCLs. Table \ref{tab:compare-cifar10} reports the mean and standard deviation of the test error rates in percentage over five independent runs for each architecture.
{\bf Effect of the gates.} We first compared the original GRCNN described in Section \ref{sec:originalGRCNN} with the RCNN described in Section \ref{sec:RCNN}. Both models used tied weights, {\it i.e.}, $w^\text{R}(t)$ and $w^\text{R}_\text{g}(t)$ were identical across $t$. The only difference is that the former had gates on the recurrent connections while the latter did not. When the number of iterations $T$ in each original GRCL increased from 2 to 5, the test error rate of the original GRCNN decreased gradually (Table \ref{tab:compare-cifar10}). However, this trend was only observed in the RCNN when $T\le3$. When $T>3$, the test error rate of the RCNN increased. These results indicated that increasing RF may not always help the RCNN, and sometimes it may even hurt the performance of the RCNN. Due to the adaptive control of RF in GRCL, increasing $T$ always helped the original GRCNN.
The training loss curves and test error rate curves of the RCNN and the original GRCNN with $T = 3, 4, 5$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:training-cifar10}. With larger $T$, RCNN converged slower and the final loss became higher. However, the original GRCNN with different iterations had similar training curves and the converged losses were all lower than those of RCNN. The results indicated that the original GRCNN had better training performance than the RCNN in terms of speed and accuracy. The test error rate curves indicated that, with the same $T$, the original GRCNN always achieved lower test error than RCNN.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/cifar10}
\caption{Loss curves (upper) and test error rate curves (lower) of the RCNN with weight sharing and the original GRCNN with weight sharing. The horizontal axis represents the training epoch. }
\label{fig:training-cifar10}
\end{figure}
{\bf Effect of the accumulated contributions over iterations.}
The original GRCL \eqref{eqn:GRCL-nips} uses the gated recurrent contribution in the last iteration while the improved GRCL (equation \eqref{eqn:GRCL}) uses the gated recurrent contributions in all iterations.
With the same number of iterations in each GRCL, the improved GRCNN achieved lower accuracies than the original GRCNN (Table~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10}), which indicated the advantage of the accumulated contributions over all iterations.
{\bf Effect of the number of recurrent iterations.}
When the number of iterations increased from 2 to 5, the mean test error rate of the original GRCNN decreased gradually from 5.92\% to 5.57\%, and the mean test error rate of the improved GRCNN decreased gradually from 5.83\% to 5.49\%. The results suggested that more iterations are more advantageous for both models.
{\bf Effect of weight sharing.}
We then trained and tested the RCNN, the original GRCNN and the improved GRCNN with untied weights, {\it i.e.}, $w^\text{R}(t)$ and $w^\text{R}_\text{g}(t)$ were different for different $t$. The conclusions about the effects of the gates, the accumulated contributions over iterations and the number of iterations drew on the recurrent networks were also valid (Table~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10}). In addition, the architectures with untied weights always achieved lower test errors than their counterparts with tied weights. This is reasonable because without weight sharing, the model has much more parameters and therefore higher capability to model the mapping from images to labels.
{\bf Behavior of the gates.}
Given an input image, how do these gates collaborate with each other to give an output? We then analyzed the output values of the gates in the GRCNN in the last row of Table \ref{tab:compare-cifar10}. Since there were three GRCLs and each one had five iterations, the model had 15 gated layers. Note that every feature map had one gate, then we had $128\times15$ gates in total. Fig. \ref{fig:gate-output}a,b show the output values of some gates given two sample input images. It is seen that the gates in GRCL1 tended to output larger values while the gates in GRCL3 tended to output smaller values. Statistical results over 10,000 input images verified this point, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gate-output}c. This makes sense as neurons in lower layers had small RFs and they tended to incorporate more context for better understanding of the context, while neurons in higher layers already had large RFs and they tended to focus on local regions that help the model to recognize specific objects. In addition, Fig. \ref{fig:gate-output}c shows that the variances of the outputs increased from GRCL1 to GRCL3, which indicates that the gates were more and more selective to inputs.
The stripe pattern in Fig. \ref{fig:gate-output}a,b indicates that the five gates in the same GRCL, especially GRCL1 and GRCL2, at the same location (same index over 128 gates in a layer) had similar outputs. But this pattern was less prominent in GRCL3. To provide a quantitative measure, we calculated the variance of the outputs of the five gates with the same index in each GRCL given an input image, then averaged over all 128 gates and 10,000 input images. The average in GRCL3 was much larger than the average in GRCL1 and GRCL2 (Fig. \ref{fig:gate-output}d). The results
indicate that the gates in GRCL1 and GRCL2 in different iterations had similar modulation effects to their inputs while the gates in GRCL3 had different modulation effects to their inputs.
To sum up, the observations in these experiments are summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item The improved GRCNN performed better than the original GRCNN and the RCNN.
\item More iterations in the improved GRCL led to better results.
\item The improved GRCNN performed better without weight sharing than with weight sharing.
\end{itemize}
In order to compete with existing models in terms of accuracy, we need to build deep GRCNNs which have many iterations. To save the number parameters, for each GRCL, we only untie the parameters in the recurrent path, say, $w^R$, but share the parameters of gates, say, $w_\text{g}^R$ in \eqref{eqn:gate}, among different iterations. Hereafter, without specification, GRCNN refers to this particular model.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/gate}}
\caption{Outputs of the gates in GRCNN given CIFAR-10 images. (a,b) The output values of the gates in different layers given two sample input images. Every layer had 128 gates but for clarity only the first 32 gates in every layer are shown. The 15 layers belong to three GRCLs (five per GRCL). Other layers in the model including intermediate layers between GRCLs are not shown. Note that the gates with the same index over 128 in different GRCLs do not have a direct relation. That is why the strips break at the boundaries of different GRCLs. (c) The mean output of the gates over 128 gates and 10,000 training images. Error bars indicate the standard deviation. (d) The mean of the variance of the gate outputs within each GRCL.}
\label{fig:gate-output}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Top-1 and Top-5 Error Rates on the ImageNet-2012 Validation with Different Popular Architectures (Single-Crop Test Error Rates) (\%). }
\label{tab:imgnet}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Model & {\footnotesize GFLOPS} & Param &Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\toprule
ResNet-50 \cite{He2016Deep}& 3.80 &25.6M &24.70 & 7.80 \\
ResNet-101 \cite{He2016Deep}& 7.60 &44.6M &23.60 & 7.10 \\
ResNet-152 \cite{He2016Deep}& 11.3 &60.2M &23.00 & 6.70 \\
DenseNet-121 \cite{Huang2017Densely} & 2.90 &8.4M &25.02 & 7.71 \\
DenseNet-169 \cite{Huang2017Densely} & 3.44 &14.2M &23.80 & 6.85 \\
DenseNet-201 \cite{Huang2017Densely} & 4.39 &20.0M &22.58 & 6.34 \\
SE-ResNet-50 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 4.25 &27.7M &23.29 & 6.62 \\
SE-ResNet-101 \cite{Hu2017Squeeze} & 8.00 &49.2M &22.38 & 6.07\\
SKNet-50 \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}& 4.47 &27.5M & 20.79 & - \\
SKNet-100 \cite{Xiang2019SKNet} & 8.46 &48.9M & 20.19 & - \\
\hline
RCNN-24 (our implem.) & 2.51 &25.6M &29.43 & 10.08 \\
RCNN-55 (our implem.) & 3.36 &25.8M &32.92 & 13.64 \\
GRCNN-55 & 3.73 &24.9M & 23.12 & 6.52 \\
GRCNN-109 & 7.80 &45.1M & 21.95 & 5.95 \\
SKNet-50 (our implem.)& 4.47 &27.5M & 20.88 & 5.11 \\
SKNet-100 (our implem.)& 8.46 &48.9M & 20.27 & 4.89 \\
SK-GRCNN-55 & 4.39 &27.4M & 20.68 & 5.02 \\
SK-GRCNN-109 & 8.45 &50.0M & {\bf20.09} & {\bf 4.86} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{2mm}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Compared with Two Models Having Adaptive Receptive Fields in Terms of Error Rate
on the ImageNet-2012 Validation Set with Single-Crop Protocol (\%). }
\label{tab:deform}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
Model & Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\toprule
Saliency Network ResNet-50 \cite{recasens2018learning} & 23.52 & 6.92 \\
Deformable ResNet-50 \cite{dai2017deformable} & 23.40 & 6.80 \\
GRCNN-55 & 23.12 & 6.52 \\
Deformable GRCNN-55 & 22.91 & 6.48 \\
Deformable v2 GRCNN-55 & {\bf21.63} & {\bf6.19} \\
\hline
Saliency network ResNet-101 \cite{recasens2018learning} & 22.32 & 6.19 \\
Deformable ResNet-101 \cite{dai2017deformable} & 21.60 & 5.80 \\
GRCNN-109 & 21.95 & 5.95 \\
Deformable GRCNN-109 & 21.35 & 5.74 \\
Deformable v2 GRCNN-109 & {\bf20.62} & {\bf5.38} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{flushleft}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with Existing Methods on Small Datasets}\label{sec:cifar-sota}
In order to compare GRCNN with existing models, we experimented with three deeper architectures as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:smallnet}:
\begin{itemize}
\item GRCNN-56: The number of iterations (3, 5, 7), the number of feature maps (128, 160, 192).
\item GRCNN-110: The number of iterations (6, 9, 18), the number of feature maps (128, 160, 192).
\item SK-GRCNN-110: The number of iterations (6, 9, 18), the number of feature maps (192, 320, 448).
\end{itemize}
The number in the name of each architecture denotes the depth. Unlike the settings in Sections \ref{sec:model-analyses}, the $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ of GRCL in each iteration was implemented by a general 3-layer bottleneck block \cite{He2016Deep, He2016Identity} or a 3-layer bottleneck block with SKConv \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}, in order to build deep models.
The depth of each architecture can be calculated accordingly. For example, with $T=3, 5$ and $7$, the three GRCLs in Fig. \ref{fig:smallnet} had $1+3\times 3$, $1+5\times 3$ and $1+7\times 3$ layers, respectively. There were two 3-layer transition layers and one convolutional layer between the input and GRCLs as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:smallnet}, plus one output layer. Therefore, the depth of the first architecture was 56. The depth of the other two architectures can be calculated in the same way.
For each architecture, the three numbers of feature maps listed above denote the number of $3\times3$ convolutional filters in bottleneck blocks of each GRCL respectively. We defined the ``expansion rate'' of a 3-layer bottleneck block as the ratio of the number of the third $1\times1$ convolutional filters to the number of the first $1\times1$ convolutional filters. The expansion rate of the bottleneck block was set to 4 and 2 for GRCNN and SK-GRCNN, respectively. The group number of $w^\text{F}$, $w^\text{F}_\text{g}$ and $w^\text{R}_{\text{g}}(t)$ in GRCNN and SK-GRCNN were all set to 16.
The hyper-parameters of SKConv in SK-GRCNN-110 were exactly the same
as those used in the CIFAR experiment in \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}.
The results of the three architectures on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and SVHN are presented in Table \ref{tab:compare-cifar10-svhn}.
The mean and standard deviation of the test error rates over five runs are reported. GRCNN-110 outperformed GRCNN-56 on CIFAR and SVHN and SK-GRCNN-110 outperformed GRCNN-110. In addition, SK-GRCNN-110 outperformed SKNet-110 on the CIFAR datasets, indicates the usefulness of the proposed gating mechanism. Finally, the SK-GRCNN achieved competitive results compared with the state-of-the-art models.
Table~\ref{tab:cifar10-time} presents the inference time of GRCNN-110 and several popular networks with similar depth listed in Table~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10-svhn} on the CIFAR-10 test set (tested on a single GeForce GTX TITAN X GPU with PyTorch \cite{NEURIPS2019_9015}). The models were run with batch size 64 and the total time on the test set was reported. From Tables~\ref{tab:compare-cifar10-svhn} and \ref{tab:cifar10-time}, it is seen that though the GRCNN and DenseNet can achieve lower error rates, they are not as efficient as the ResNet and its variants. This is a shortage of both GRCNN and DenseNet.
\begin{table*}
\caption{The Configuration of GRCNN in Scene Text Recognition.}
\label{Network Settings-ocr-large}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule
Conv & GRCL & Conv &GRCL & Conv &GRCL & Conv & GRCL & Conv & GRCL & Conv \\
\toprule
$3\times3$& $3\times3$ &$2\times2$ &$3\times3$ & $2\times2$ & $3\times3$&$2\times2$& $3\times3$ & $2\times2$& $3\times3$& $2\times2$\\
num: 32 & num: 32 & num: 32 &num: 64 & num: 64 & num: 128 & num: 128 & num: 256 & num: 256 & num: 512 &num: 512\\
sh:1 sw:1 & sh:1 sw:1 &sh:2 sw:2 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:2 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:1 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:1 & sh:1 sw:1&sh:2 sw:1 \\
ph:1 pw:1 & ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:0 &ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:0 & ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:1 & ph:1 pw:1& ph:0 pw:1& ph:1 pw:1&ph:0 pw:1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
sh and sw: {\it the strides of the kernel along the height and width respectively}; ph and pw: {\it the padding values of height and width respectively}; num: {\it the number of convolutional filters}.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Implementation Details on ImageNet}\label{sec:implem_imagenet}
To verify the generalization of the proposed gating mechanism, we designed GRCNN based frameworks with 4 GRCLs, including GRCNNs and SK-GRCNNs. The input image size was $224\times224$. The first layer was a convolutional layer that had 64 convolutional kernels of size $7\times7$ with stride 2 and zero-padding 3. It was followed by a max pooling layer with size $3\times 3$ and stride 2, and another convolutional layer that had 64 convolutional kernels of size $3\times3$ with stride 1 and zero-padding 1. Then four GRCLs were used in sequence. Each of the first three GRCLs was followed by a transition layer.
In GRCNNs, $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ in each iteration and the transition layer are implemented by the general 3-layer bottleneck block \cite{He2016Deep, He2016Identity} (See the descriptions in sec.\ref{sec:implement_small}). As for SK-GRCNNs, $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ and the transition layer are implemented by the 3-layer bottleneck block with SK convolution \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}. The group number of grouped convolution layers used in the GRCNNs and SK-GRCNNs are all set to 32.
See Table~\ref{tab:arch-imagenet} for details.
For comparison, we also evaluated two versions of RCNN with 55 and 24 layers, respectively. The RCNN-55 was obtained by replacing GRCLs in the GRCNN-55 with RCLs using general 3-layer bottleneck blocks. The RCNN-24 had a similar architecture, but the iteration number of every RCL was 2, and only one ``BN-ReLU-Conv'' layer with $3\times3$ convolutional filters was used to implement $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$. The number of output feature maps for the four RCLs were 128, 256, 512 and 1024, respectively.
During training, the input size is $224\times224$ and we use the same data augmentation method as \cite{Hu2017Squeeze}. The batch size was set to 256 and the models were trained for 100 epochs. Top-1 and Top-5 error rates were reported. The learning rate was set to 0.1 initially, and it was multiplied by 0.1 after every 30 training epochs.
Note that we cannot reproduce the results of SKNets reported in the original paper \cite{Xiang2019SKNet}. To achieve the comparable results in the original paper, our reproduced SKNets were trained for 120 epochs by using
cosine learning rate decay and Mixup \cite{Hongyi2018}, and SK-GRCNNs also follow this setting. According to previous works \cite{Sutskever2013On}, the weight decay and Nesterov momentum were set to 10$^{-4}$ and 0.9, respectively. The label smoothing strategy \cite{Szegedy2015Rethinking} was used, and the network was initialized using the method in \cite{He2015Delving}.
During testing, we performed single-crop testing, and the input size is $224\times224$. To be specific, for the single-crop protocol, the center crop of a test image was used as the input.
\subsection{Results on ImageNet}\label{sec:results_imagenet}
The test error rates of the GRCNNs and RCNNs are presented in Table \ref{tab:imgnet}. First, RCNN-55 performed worse than a shallower mode RCNN-24. This observation is consistent with the results on CIFAR-10 (See Table \ref{tab:compare-cifar10}). Second, the three GRCNNs performed much better than RCNN-55.
Table \ref{tab:imgnet} also lists the results of some popular models including ResNet, DenseNet, SE-ResNet and SK-Net. GRCNN outperformed other models which also used the general 3-layer bottleneck block, i.e., ResNet and SE-ResNet. Note that the performance gap between ResNet and GRCNN is remarkable, which verifies the effectiveness of the proposed gating method since GRCNN is similar to ResNet equipped with the proposed gates.
When the SK convolution was introduced, SK-GRCNN achieved a little bit higher accuracy than SK-Net as well.
Note that some models including ResNet with pre-activation \cite{He2016Identity}, Inception-V3 \cite{Szegedy2015Rethinking}, Inception-ResNet-v1 \cite{Szegedy2016Inception}, and Inception-V4 \cite{Szegedy2016Inception} used different test settings, e.g., larger input crops than $224\times224$ and 144-crop testing, and therefore are not compared in the table.
Finally, we compared the GRCNN with two models, the Deformable CNN \cite{dai2017deformable} and the Saliency Network \cite{recasens2018learning}, which also have adaptive RFs, and Table~\ref{tab:deform} presents the results. The GRCNN-55 and the GRCNN-109 obtained slightly better results than the Saliency Network ResNet-50 and the Saliency Network ResNet-101, respectively. The GRCNN-55 performed better than the Deformable ResNets-50 while the GRCNN-109 performed worse than the Deformable ResNets-101. The performance of GRCNN was boosted by using the deformable convolutional layers (Table~\ref{tab:deform}). We built a deformable GRCNN by introducing deformable convolution layers into the bottleneck of stage GRCL\#4 in GRCNN. As for deformable v2 GRCNN, we followed \cite{zhu2019deformable} by applying deformable convolution layers at the bottleneck of stages GRCL\#2$\sim$GRCL\#4 in GRCNN. The improved performance indicates that our method and the deformable convolution are complimentary for implementing adaptive RFs to improve the performance. This phenomenon was also observed in \cite{zhu2019deformable}, which introduces sigmoid layers to obtain the modulation scalars for achieving effective RFs.
\iffalse
\begin{table*}
\caption{GRCNN Configuration in Model Analyses}
\label{Network Settings-ocr}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
Conv & MaxPool & Conv &GRCL & MaxPool &GRCL & MaxPool & GRCL & MaxPool & Conv \\
\toprule
$3\times3$&$2\times2$& $3\times3$ &$3\times3$ & $2\times2$ & $3\times3$&$2\times2$& $3\times3$ & $2\times2$& $2\times2$\\
num: 64 & & num: 64 &num: 64 & & num: 128 & & num: 256 & & num: 512\\
sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:2 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:2 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:1 & sh:1 sw:1 & sh:2 sw:1 &sh:1 sw:1\\
ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:0 & ph:1 pw:1 &ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:0 & ph:1 pw:1 & ph:0 pw:1 & ph:1 pw:1& ph:0 pw:1 &ph:0 pw:0\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\fi
\section{Scene Text Recognition}\label{sec:OCR}
The second application of the proposed GRCNN is OCR. In this application, there are multiple characters in one image to be recognized (Fig. \ref{fig:IC_example}). Sometimes, the gap between characters is large and sometimes the gap is small. It is desired that a model can automatically adjust its focus to the characters.
We expect that GRCNN suits this application because its built-in gates enable it to do so.
Unlike object recognition, for which a backbone CNN alone suffices to obtain good results, OCR requires additional techniques to process the character sequences. Many sophisticated pipelines have been proposed \cite{Shi2016An, shi2018aster}, where CNN backbones play an important role. Since our aim was to examine the usefulness of the GRCNN in this application, we replaced the original backbone CNNs with the GRCNN in these frameworks and compared the results.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/IC_example}
\caption{Two sample images from the ICDAR2003 dataset. In the first example, for recognizing the character ``h'', the classical RF (red square) and desired non-classical RF (green) of GRCNN are shown. If the non-classical RF covers unrelated information, such as the characters
``p'' and ``i'', it will distract the model.}
\label{fig:IC_example}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Scene Text Recognition Accuracies of Different Models.}
\label{tab:ocr}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
Method & Data & SVT-50 & SVT & IIIT5K-50 & IIIT5K-1k & IIIT5K & IC03-50 & IC03-Full & IC03 \\
\toprule
ABBYY \cite{Wang2012End} & - & 35.0\% & - & 24.3\% & - & - & 56.0\% & 55.0\% & - \\
wang et al. \cite{Wang2012End}& - & 57.0\% & - & - & - & - & 76.0\% & 62.0\% & - \\
Mishra et al. \cite{Mishra2013Scene}& - & 73.2\% & - & - & - & - & 81.8\% & 67.8\% & - \\
Novikova et al. \cite{Novikova2012Large}&- & 72.9\% & - & 64.1\% & 57.5\% & - & 82.8\% & - & - \\
wang et al. \cite{Wang2013End}&- & 70.0\% & - & - & - & - & 90.0\% & 84.0\% & - \\
Bissacco et al. \cite{Bissacco2014PhotoOCR}&- & 90.4\% & 78.0\%& - & - & - & - & - & - \\
Goel et al. \cite{Goel2013Whole}&- & 77.3\% & - & - & - & - & 89.7\% & - & - \\
Alsharif \cite{Alsharif2013End}&- & 74.3\% & - & - & - & - & 93.1\% &88.6\% & - \\
Almazan et al. \cite{Almaz2014Word}&- & 89.2\% & - & 91.2\% & 82.1\% & - & - &- & - \\
Lee et al. \cite{Lee2014Region}&- & 80.0\% & - & - & - & - & 88.0\% & 76.0\% & - \\
Yao et al. \cite{Yao2014Strokelets}&- & 75.9\% & - & 80.2\% & 69.3\% & - & 88.5\% & 80.3\% & - \\
Rodriguez et al. \cite{Rodriguez2015Label}&- & 70.0\% & - & 76.1\% & 57.4\% & - & - & - & - \\
Jaderberg et al. \cite{Jaderberg2014Deep}&90k & 86.1\% & - & - & - & - & 96.2\% & 91.5\% & - \\
Su and Lu et al. \cite{Su2014Accurate}&- & 83.0\% & - & - & - & - & 92.0\% & 82.0\% & - \\
Gordo \cite{Gordo1998Supervised}& &90.7\% & - & 93.3\% & 86.6\% & - & - & - & - \\
Jaderberg et al. \cite{Jaderberg2014Deep1}&90k & 93.2\% & 71.1\% & 95.5\% & 89.6\% & - & 97.8\% & 97.0\% & 89.6\% \\
Baoguang et al. \cite{Shi2016An}&90k & {\bf 96.4\%} & 80.8\% & 97.6\% & 94.4\% & 78.2\% & 98.7\% & 97.6\% & 89.4\% \\
Chen-Yu et al. \cite{Lee2016Recursive}&90k & 96.3\% & 80.7\% & 96.8\% & 94.4\% & 78.4\% & 97.9\% & 97.0\% & 88.7\% \\
\hline
ResNet-BLSTM \cite{jianfeng2017deep}&90k & 96.0\% & 80.2\% & 97.5\% & 94.9\% & 79.2\% & 98.1\% & 97.3\% & 89.9\% \\
Original GRCNN-BLSTM \cite{jianfeng2017deep}&90k & 96.3\% & 81.5\% & 98.0\% & 95.6\% & 80.8\% & {\bf98.8\%} & {\bf97.8\%} & 91.2\% \\
GRCNN-BLSTM&90k & {\bf 96.4\%} & {\bf 82.1\%} & {\bf 98.2\%} & {\bf 95.9\%} & {\bf 81.8\%} & {\bf 98.8\%} & {\bf 97.8\%} & {\bf 91.7\%} \\
\toprule
FAN \cite{cheng2017focusing} &90k + ST & 97.1\% & 85.9\% & 99.3\% & 97.5\% & 87.4\% & {\bf99.2\%} & 97.3\% & 94.2\% \\
AON \cite{cheng2018aon}&90k + ST & 96.0\% & 82.8\% & 99.6\% & 98.1\% & 87.0\% & 98.5\% & 97.1\% & 91.5\% \\
SAM \cite{liao2019mask}& 90k + ST & {\bf98.6\%} & {\bf90.6\%} & 99.4\% & 98.6\% & 93.9\% & 98.8\% & 98.0\% & 95.2\% \\
ESIR \cite{zhan2019esir} & 90k + ST & 97.4\% & 90.2\% & {\bf 99.6\%} & {\bf98.8\%} & 93.3\% & - & - & - \\
SE-ASTER \cite{qiao2020seed} & 90k + ST & - & 89.6\% & - & - & 93.8\% & - & - & - \\
\hline
ASTER with ResNet \cite{shi2018aster} &90k + ST & 97.4\% & 89.5\%& {\bf 99.6\%} & {\bf 98.8\%} & 93.4\% & 98.8\% & 98.0\%& 94.5\% \\
ASTER with GRCNN &90k + ST & 97.8\% & {\bf 90.6\%} & 99.5\% & {\bf 98.8\%} & {\bf 94.0\%} & 98.8\% & {\bf 98.2\%} & {\bf 95.6\%} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\begin{flushleft}
\quad{\it "50","1k" and "Full" appended to the dataset names
denote the lexicon size used for the lexicon-based recognition task.
The dataset name without a lexicon size indicates the unconstrained text
recognition task.}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Datasets}
{\bf ICDAR2003:} ICDAR2003 \cite{Lucas2003ICDAR} contains 251 scene images and there are 860 cropped images of the words. We performed
unconstrained text recognition and constrained text recognition on this dataset.
Each image is associated with a 50-word lexicon defined by wang et al. \cite{Wang2012End}.
The full lexicon is composed of all per-image lexicons.
{\bf IIIT5K:} This dataset has 3000 cropped testing word images and 2000 cropped training
images collected from the Internet \cite{Shi2013Scene}. Each image has a lexicon of 50 words and a lexicon
of 1000 words.
{\bf Street View Text (SVT):} This dataset has 647 cropped word images from Google street view \cite{Wang2012End}. The 50-word lexicon defined by Wang et al \cite{Wang2012End} was used in our experiment.
{\bf Synth90k:} This dataset contains around 7 million training images, 800k validation
images and 900k test images \cite{Jaderberg2014Synthetic}. All of the word images were generated by a synthetic text
engine and are highly realistic.
{\bf SynthText:} This dataset was initially designed for text detection. However, it has been widely used for scene text recognition task by cropping text image patches according to ground-truth boxes. We followed \cite{shi2018aster} and cropped 7 million patches for training.
When evaluating the performance of our model on those benchmark
datasets, we followed the evaluation protocol in \cite{Wang2012End}. We performed recognition
on the words that contain only alphanumeric characters (A-Z and 0-9) and at
least three characters. All recognition results were case-insensitive.
\subsection{Pipelines}\label{sec:pipeline_OCR}
We conducted experiments on two prevalent scene text recognition frameworks. One is the Convolutional-Recurrent Neural Network (CRNN), and it consists of three parts: feature extraction, feature map splitting and sequence modeling. The feature extraction part can be performed by any CNN backbone to learn visual features from the input image. The second part slices the feature maps from left to right by column to form a feature sequence, which is then processed by the feature modeling part. The other one is ASTER framework \cite{shi2018aster} which is proposed to deal with the irregular scene text. It can be regarded as introducing a text rectification module before the CRNN and attentional LSTM decoders after the CRNN.
Both frameworks are supervised by Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC) \cite{Graves2006Connectionist} loss during training. More details about these two frameworks can be found in their original papers.
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{sec:implement_OCR}
The configuration of the GRCNN used in OCR is shown in Table~\ref{Network Settings-ocr-large}. Note that the backbones of CRNN, both ResNet and the original GRCNN, in \cite{jianfeng2017deep} had 20 parameterized layers while the ResNet backbone in ASTER \cite{shi2018aster} had 50 parameterized layers. Therefore, in our experiment, we built GRCNNs by keeping their depth comparable to those of backbones in these two pipelines for fairly comparison.
To construct a GRCNN-based CRNN, the feature extraction part was performed by the GRCNN and sequence modeling was performed by a Bidirectional LSTM with 256 units without dropout. The time steps for the GRCLs are set to 1, 3, 3, 3 and 3 separately, and only one ``BN-ReLU-Conv'' layer with $3\times3$ convolutional filters was used to implement $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ in each GRCL. The number of feature maps
is shown in Table~\ref{Network Settings-ocr-large}. The group number of grouped convolution layers used in GRCNN is set to 8.
The input was a gray-scale image with size 100$\times$32. Before inputting to the network, the pixel values were rescaled to the range (-1, 1). No further data augmentation methods were used. The ADADELTA method \cite{Zeiler2012ADADELTA} was used for training with the parameter $\rho$=0.9. The batch size was set to 128 and training stopped after 300k iterations. In order to fairly compare with our preliminary work \cite{jianfeng2017deep} and most other previous methods, all CRNN related models are only trained on Synth90k.
As for the ASTER pipeline \cite{shi2018aster}, the time steps of the GRCLs were 1, 2, 4, 4 and 3. To construct a deep GRCNN, we used the general 3-layer bottleneck block to implement $\mathcal{T}^\text{R}$ in each GRCL. Bottleneck blocks in each GRCL contained 32, 64, 128, 256, and 512 $3\times3$ convolutional filters separately, and the expansion rate of those bottleneck blocks was set to 2. The group number of grouped convolution layers used in GRCNN is set to 8.
The batch size was 64. The same ADADELTA method as described above was used for training, but a global learning rate was initially set to 1.0, and decayed to 0.1 and 0.01 at 0.6M and 0.8M iterations, respectively. This pipeline was trained on a combination of Synth90k and SynthText.
\iffalse
\begin{table}
\caption{Test Accuracies of Different Models on IIIT5K and SVT (\%).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
Model & IIIT5K & SVT\\
\toprule
RCNN*($T=1$) \cite{jianfeng2017deep} & 77.64$\pm$0.58 & 78.23$\pm$0.56 \\
RCNN*($T=2$)\cite{jianfeng2017deep}& 78.17$\pm$0.56 & 79.11$\pm$0.63 \\
RCNN*($T=3$)\cite{jianfeng2017deep} & 78.94$\pm$0.61 & 79.76$\pm$0.59 \\
Original GRCNN*($T=1$)\cite{jianfeng2017deep}& 77.92$\pm$0.57 & 78.67$\pm$0.53 \\
Original GRCNN*($T=2$)\cite{jianfeng2017deep}& 79.42$\pm$0.63 & 79.89$\pm$0.64 \\
Original GRCNN*($T=3$)\cite{jianfeng2017deep}& 80.21$\pm$0.57 & 80.98$\pm$0.60 \\
\hline
Plain CNN & 77.47$\pm$0.46 & 77.88$\pm$0.51 \\
RCNN($T=1$)& 78.32$\pm$0.65 & 78.78$\pm$0.54 \\
RCNN($T=2$)& 78.96$\pm$0.61 & 79.71$\pm$0.59 \\
RCNN($T=3$) & 79.53$\pm$0.53 & 80.13$\pm$0.63 \\
GRCNN($T=1$)& 78.63$\pm$0.44 & 79.25$\pm$0.56 \\
GRCNN($T=2$)& 80.24$\pm$0.59 & 80.23$\pm$0.73 \\
GRCNN($T=3$)& 81.01$\pm$0.70 & 81.36$\pm$0.59 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ablation_ocr}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{flushleft}
{\it RCNN with asterisk indicates the model without using untied weights among time steps and pre-activation while GRCNN with asterisk refers that the model does not perform untied weights among time steps, pre-activation and accumulated contributions over GRCL iterations.}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\fi
\iffalse
\subsection{Model Analyses}\label{sec:ocr_model_analysis}
\hu{I suggest delete this subsection. There is not much reason to do the model analysis again considering that it was performed in object recognition. It's too tedious.}
We investigated the effect of some components of the proposed model on this OCR task. Note that the GRCNN based CRNN models were only trained on the training set of Synth90k, and we choose the model according to their performance on the validation set of Synth90k for testing without finetuning with respect to any other testing dataset. To ensure robust comparison, for each configuration, after convergence during training, a different model is saved at every 3000 iterations. We selected ten models which performed the best on the validation set of Synth90k. The mean $\pm$ standard deviation of the accuracies over those ten models are reported in Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr}.
Note that in the second part of Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr}, RCL and RCNN refer to the models using pre-activation technique as described in Section \ref{sec:RCNN}, and GRCL and GRCNN refer to the improved models as described in Section \ref{sec:revisedGRCNN}. In addition both RCL and GRCL used untied weights. Therefore these models are different from the corresponding versions of results in our preliminary work \cite{jianfeng2017deep}, which are also listed in the first part of Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr}.
First, to verify the effect of recurrent connections, we compared the GRCNN with a standard CNN. We replaced each GRCL in Table~\ref{Network Settings-ocr} with two convolutional layers to ensure that the plain CNN had the same depth as the GRCNN with $T=1$. To make this CNN have approximately the same number of parameters as the GRCNN and RCNN, the numbers of feature maps in the two convolutional layers were the same as those in the corresponding GRCLs. The CNN achieved lower accuracy than both RCNN and GRCNN.
Second, to investigate the effect of the gates to the RCL, we compared GRCNN and RCNN.
RCNN was constructed by replacing GRCL in Table~\ref{Network Settings-ocr} with RCL. Each RCL had the same
number of feature maps as the corresponding GRCL. Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr} shows that with the same $T$, GRCNN always performed better than RCNN on both IIIT5K and SVT.
Third, we investigated the effect of the number of iterations $T$ in GRCL. Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr} shows that more iterations were beneficial to GRCL. The increments in accuracy between iterations were 1.61\%, 0.77\% on IIIT5K and 0.98\%, 1.13\% on SVT, respectively, which were regarded as large.
Forth, according to the comparison among the corresponding version of models in Table~\ref{tab:ablation_ocr}, the new techniques introduced in the improved GRCNN including pre-activation, untied weights, accumulated contributions over GRCL iterations, are beneficial to improving the performance.
In summary, the conclusions about the effect of the above three components drew on the OCR task were consistent with those drew on the object recognition task (Section \ref{sec:model-analyses}).
\fi
\subsection{Comparison with Existing Methods}
We evaluated GRCNN on several benchmark text recognition datasets in terms of the two pipelines mentioned in sec.\ref{sec:pipeline_OCR}, and we only pick the model which performs the best on the validation set of Synth90k for testing.
Table~\ref{tab:ocr} presents the results based on the CRNN pipeline. It is clear that the GRCNN-based CRNN outperformed most previous methods. In addition, with the comparable number of feature maps and depth, the GRCNN-based CRNN outperformed the ResNet-based CRNN. The GRCNN-based CRNN outperformed previous state-of-the-art methods which are only trained on Synth90k as well for both lexicon-based and lexicon-free based recognition.
Table~\ref{tab:ocr} also presents the results based on the ASTER pipeline. It is seen that the ResNet-based model performed worse than the GRCNN-based model. Moreover, the GRCNN-based ASTER achieved competitive results
when compared with previous state-of-the-art results.
\section{Object Detection}\label{sec:detection}
The third application of the proposed model is object detection. In this application, an image has multiple objects to be detected, and they may differ significantly in scale. See examples in Fig. \ref{fig:COCO_example}. The GRCNN may suit this application because its neurons have adaptive RFs.
\subsection{Datasets}
The Microsoft common objects in context (MS COCO) \cite{lin2014microsoft} dataset contains 91 common object categories
and 82 categories have more than 5,000 labeled instances. The dataset consists of 2,500,000 labeled
instances in 328,000 images in total. Instances are segmented individually to aid in precise object localization. Several examples are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:COCO_example}. Following the evaluation protocol of MS COCO, we used the trainval35k set for training and evaluated the results on the \textit{test-dev} set.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Detection Results of Anchor-based One-stage Detectors on MS COCO \textit{Test-dev} Set.}
\label{tab:detect}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc c cc c c c}
\toprule[1pt]
Method & Backbone network & AP & AP$_{50}$ & AP$_{75}$ & AP$_{S}$ & AP$_{M}$ & AP$_{L}$ \\
\toprule[1pt]
YOLOv2 \cite{redmon2017yolo9000} & DarkNet-19 & 21.6 & 44.0 & 19.2 & 5.0 & 22.4 & 35.5 \\
SSD512 \cite{liu2016ssd} & VGG-16 & 28.8 & 48.5 & 30.3 & 10.9 & 31.8 & 43.5 \\
SSD513 \cite{fu2017dssd} & ResNet-101 & 31.2 & 50.4 & 33.3 & 10.2 & 34.5 & 49.8 \\
DSSD513 \cite{fu2017dssd} & ResNet-101 & 33.2 & 53.3 & 35.2 & 13.0 & 35.4 & 51.1 \\
STDN513 \cite{zhou2018scale} &DenseNet-169 & 31.8 &51.0& 33.6 &14.4 &36.1 &43.4 \\
FPN-Reconfig \cite{kong2018deep} & ResNet-101& 34.6 &54.3 &37.3 &- &- &- \\
RefineDet512 \cite{zhang2018single} &ResNet-101 & 36.4 &57.5 &39.5 &16.6 &39.9 &51.4 \\
GHM SSD \cite{li2019gradient} & ResNeXt-101 & 41.6 &62.8 &44.2& 22.3 &45.1 &55.3 \\
CornerNet511 \cite{law2018cornernet} & Hourglass-104 & 40.5 &56.5& 43.1 &19.4 &42.7& 53.9 \\
M2Det800 \cite{zhao2019m2det}& VGG-16 & 41.0 &59.7 &45.0 &22.1 &46.5 &53.8 \\
ExtremeNet \cite{zhou2019bottom} &Hourglass-104& 40.2 &55.5 &43.2& 20.4 &43.2 &53.1 \\
CenterNet \cite{zhou2019objects} &Hourglass-104 &42.1 &61.1 &45.9 &24.1 &45.5 &52.8\\
FSAF \cite{zhu2019feature}& ResNeXt-101 & 42.9 &63.8& 46.3 &26.6 &46.2& 52.7 \\
CenterNet511 \cite{duan2019centernet}& Hourglass-104 & 44.9& 62.4 & 48.1 &25.6 &47.4 &{\bf57.4} \\
\hline
RefineDet512 \cite{zhang2018single} &ResNet-101 & 36.4 &57.5 &39.5 &16.6 &39.9 &51.4 \\
RefineDet512 & Deformable ResNet-101 & 37.9 & 58.1 & 40.2 & 18.5 & 40.4 & 51.6 \\
RefineDet512 & GRCNN-109 & 37.6 & 58.7 & 40.5 & 18.0 & 41.3 & 52.1 \\
RefineDet512 & Deformable GRCNN-109 & 38.4 & 59.4 & 41.0 & 18.5 & 42.1 & 52.3 \\
RefineDet512 & SKNet-100 & 38.9 & 59.7 & 41.2 & 18.9 & 42.7 & 53.3 \\
RefineDet512 & SK-GRCNN-109 & 39.5 & 59.9 & 41.9 & 19.8 & 43.4 & 53.7 \\
\hline
RetinaNet800\cite{lin2018focal} & ResNet-101 & 39.1 & 59.1 & 42.3 & 21.8 & 42.7 & 50.2 \\
RetinaNet800 & Deformable ResNet-101 & 40.8 & 59.6 & 42.7 & 22.7 & 43.3 & 51.0 \\
RetinaNet800 & GRCNN-109 & 40.3 & 60.4 & 43.2 & 22.4 & 44.0 & 51.0 \\
RetinaNet800 & Deformable GRCNN-109 & 41.2 & 60.8 & 44.3 & 23.3 & 44.3 & 51.8 \\
RetinaNet800 & SKNet-100 & 41.6 & 61.5 & 44.7 & 23.5 & 45.1 & 52.3 \\
RetinaNet800 & SK-GRCNN-109 & 42.3 & 61.8 & 45.4 & 23.9 & 46.0 & 52.9\\
\hline
FreeAnchor \cite{zhang2019freeanchor} & ResNet-101 & 43.1& 62.2 &46.4 &24.5 &46.1& 54.8 \\
FreeAnchor & Deformable ResNet-101 & 43.5 & 64.0 &47.1 & 25.5 & 46.9 &55.7 \\
FreeAnchor& GRCNN-109 & 44.3 & 64.5 &47.6 & 26.0 & 47.6 &56.4 \\
FreeAnchor & Deformable GRCNN-109 & 44.8 &64.5 &47.9 &26.7 & 48.5 &56.8 \\
FreeAnchor & SKNet-100 & 45.2 & 64.8 &48.4 & 27.5 & 48.3 & 56.6 \\
FreeAnchor & SK-GRCNN-109 & \bf{45.6} &\bf{65.5} &\bf{48.7} &{\bf27.9} & {\bf48.8} & 57.0 \\
\bottomrule[1pt]
\end{tabular}\\
\begin{flushleft}
\it
The AP, AP$_{50}$ and AP$_{75}$ indicate the average precision for IoU $\in \{0.50:0.05:0.95\}$, at 0.5 and at 0.75, respectively. The AP$_{S}$, AP$_{M}$ and AP$_{L}$ denote the average precision for small sized, medium sized and large sized objects defined in \cite{lin2014microsoft} in terms of IoU $\in \{0.50:0.05:0.95\}$.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figs/COCO_example}
\caption{Sample images from MS COCO dataset. The objects are cluttered together and differ significantly in scale. For example, in the first example, the baseball bat is very small compared with the player.}
\label{fig:COCO_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pipelines}\label{sec:pipeline_Det}
To further evaluate GRCNN, we selected three popular frameworks, RefineDet \cite{zhang2018single}, RetinaNet \cite{lin2018focal}, and FreeAnchor \cite{zhang2019freeanchor}, which are categorized as ``anchor-based one-stage detectors''. The RefineDet consists of two inter-connected modules named Anchor Refinement Module (ARM) and Object Detection Module (ODM). The RetinaNet consists of a backbone network responsible for computing feature maps over an entire input image and two task-specific networks. The FreeAnchor introduces a detection customized likelihood function into the loss function to supervise the training of RetinaNet. More details about these frameworks can be found in their original papers. One common property of these frameworks is that all of them have a backbone network (usually a pretrained ResNet-101) for feature extraction. We were interested in whether the performance would be boosted by substituting GRCNN based models with their original backbone networks.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
In the publicly released codes of the three frameworks, we replaced the backbone network ResNet-101 with the GRCNN-109 and the SK-GRCNN-109 respectively, whose network configurations are both described in Table~\ref{tab:arch-imagenet}. In addition, we also evaluated Deformable GRCNN-109 on the three frameworks. All GRCNN based models were pre-trained on the ImageNet classification task as described in Section \ref{sec:implem_imagenet}. Then it was fine-tuned using the SGD algorithm with weight decay 0.0005 and momentum 0.9. The multi-scale testing strategy was not used. The training scale range of the FreeAnchor \cite{zhang2019freeanchor} framework was set to \{640, 672, 704, 736, 768, 800\}.
The other training hyper-parameters were set according to the original papers of the three frameworks \cite{zhang2018single, zhang2019freeanchor, lin2018focal}.
\subsection{Comparison with Existing Methods}
Table~\ref{tab:detect} presents the results of the three frameworks, as well as some other anchor-based one-stage models which do not perform multi-scale testing.
First, we compared Deformable ResNet-101 and GRCNN-109 with ResNet-101, which were trained as described in Section~\ref{sec:results_imagenet}. The GRCNN and Deformable ConvNet obtained similar performance gains on the detection task.
Second, the three Deformable GRCNN-109-based object detection frameworks consistently performed better than the GRCNN-109-based and Deformable ResNet-101-based counterparts, indicating that the proposed gating mechanism and Deformable convolutions are complementary with respect to improving the detection performance.
Third, by using the SKConv, the performance of the GRCNN-109 was further improved. Finally, the SK-GRCNN based FreeAnchor achieved the best results among the anchor-based one-stage detectors compared in this study.
\section{Concluding Remarks}\label{sec:conclusion}
The proposed model in this work is built on a previous model called recurrent convolutional neural network (RCNN) \cite{Liang2015Recurrent, Ming2015Recurrent}, which incorporates recurrent connections between neurons in the same layer. Our main idea is to introduce gates on the recurrent connections in RCNN, and the resulting model is called gated RCNN (GRCNN). The gates control the amount of information flow from neighboring neurons into each neuron according to the context. The unrelated context information coming from the recurrent connections is inhibited by the gates. Extensive experiments were carried out on some benchmark datasets for object recognition, scene text recognition and object detection. The results showed that GRCNN outperformed RCNN on all these datasets. The results verified the effectiveness of the proposed gating function. In addition, on these tasks, the proposed GRCNN often attained accuracy on par with (and sometimes, e.g., on scene text recognition, even slightly better than) the state-of-the-art models.
It is well-known that a deep neural network with more parameters has better capability to model the input-output mapping. To compete with existing models, we had to use more parameters. This was done by removing the weight sharing constraint of recurrent networks. Then the recurrent connections became conventional feedforward connections. Note that these connections determine the RFs of neurons in the resulting feedforward model, and the gates operating on these connections modulate the RFs of neurons. The effect turned out to be very good in terms of accuracy.
If accuracy is not the main concern, one does not need to break the tied weights, thus significantly reduces the number of parameters, which is favored in applications where the memory of the equipment is limited. More interestingly, one can explore to what extent the neurons in this recurrent model resemble biological neurons by measuring their non-classical RFs (e.g., \cite{nelson1978orientation, jones2002spatial, cavanaugh2002nature}). If the properties of artificial neurons and biological neurons do not match well, one can develop new ideas based on the proposed model to make them match better. This may lead to more brain-like and powerful computer vision models. It may also shed light on the computational mechanism of visual neurons in the brain.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61621136008 and 61836014.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{submission}
Lossy compression is a fundamental problem in modern digital world for efficient transmission and storage of image, video and audio data. Recently, due in part to the roaring success of deep learning, the research of deep neural networks (DNNs) based compression has attracted much attention and shown promising results in image, audio, and video compression \cite{2017RealTime, 2018DeepGenerative, 2019Extreme, 2016Variable, 2017FullResolution, 2016End2end, 2017End2end, 2018Variational, 2017Soft2hard, 2018JointAutoregressive, 2018Learning, 2018Conditional, 2018Improved, 2017DeepGenerative, 2018Generative, 2018Deformation}. For lossy compression, Shannon’s rate-distortion theory is a theoretical cornerstone, which characterizes the tradeoff between the bit rate of compressed representation and the distortion in reconstructing the data \cite{1959Coding, ThomasCover2nd}.
Typically, lossy compression algorithms are designed based on the rate-distortion theory to achieve the lowest possible distortion at a given bit rate. In this context, lower distortion is desired, e.g., lower mean square error (MSE), higher peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), or higher structural similarity (SSIM) \cite{2004ImageQuality}. However, recent studies have demonstrated that these distortion measures are not fully consistent with human’s perception \cite{2016Perceptual, 2018Unreasonable, 2018PDtradeoff, 2019Rethinking, 2019Extreme, 2017DeepGenerative, 2018Generative, 2017LearningAnoreference}. Specifically, minimizing distortion alone does not necessarily lead to good perceptual quality. In fact, it has been shown that pursuing high perceptual quality would lead to increase of the lowest achievable distortion (e.g., MSE). Generally, there exist two methods to improve perceptual quality. The first is to incorporate a perceptual loss measuring the difference between deep features \cite{2016Perceptual, 2015VeryDeep, 2016ImageStyle, 2017Photographic, 2016Generating}. The second is to incorporate an adversarial loss by using generative adversarial networks (GAN) \cite{2014GAN}. Noteworthily, using an adversarial loss, the second method has shown remarkable effectiveness in achieving high perceptual quality \cite{2017RealTime, 2019Extreme, 2017PhotoRealistic, 2019ESRGAN, 2020AGANbased, 2020Fidelity, 2020HighFidelity}.
For perceptual reconstruction, new insights from recent studies have revealed that distortion and perceptual quality are at odds with each other. It can be well characterized by a perception-distortion tradeoff \cite{2018PDtradeoff}, in which perceptual quality is defined in terms of the deviation between the distributions of the source and the reconstructed data. More recently, this result has been extended to the lossy compression problem, resulting in a rate-distortion-perception tradeoff \cite{2018IntroducingPD2RD, 2018RDPtradeoff, 2019Rethinking}. The three-way tradeoff indicates that imposing a high perceptual quality constraint on the lossy compression problem would lead to an elevation of the rate-distortion curve. Hence, a sacrifice in either rate or distortion is necessary to achieve high perceptual quality. The works \cite{2018PDtradeoff, 2019Rethinking} have paved the way for understanding the perception-distortion tradeoff.
While it has become increasingly accepted that high perceptual quality can be achieved with some increase of the lowest achievable distortion, there lacks quantitative analysis on such an increase of distortion. This work is motivated by the following two open questions:
1. Is it possible to quantitatively characterize the effect of\\
\hspace*{0.35cm}perceptual constraint on the rate-distortion tradeoff?\\
2. How to build a framework for perfect perception\\
\hspace*{0.35cm}reconstruction in lossy compression?
Toward answering these two questions, the main contributions of this work are as follows.
First, we derive a nontrivial result theoretically revealing that, at a given bit rate, the cost of achieving perfect perceptual quality is exactly a doubling of the lowest achievable MSE distortion. Our analysis also shows that an encoder optimized in terms of MSE is also an optimal encoder under perfect perception constraint. This result implies that the commonly used adversarial loss in state-of-the-art works \cite{2019Rethinking, 2019Extreme, 2020Fidelity} is in fact unnecessary for optimizing the encoder.
Second, based on the analysis, we propose a training framework that can achieve the lowest MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint at a given bit rate. This framework uses a GAN with its discriminator conditioned on an encoder optimized in terms of MSE, which is superior over the traditional distortion plus adversarial loss (DAL) based framework.
Finally, experimental results on the MNIST dataset are provided to verify the theoretical finding and demonstrate the superiority of the proposed training framework. Particularly, extensive experimental results show that the effect of perception constraint on the rate-distortion tradeoff accords well with our theoretical result, i.e., a doubling of the MSE distortion in achieving high perceptual quality.
Though our result is restricted to the lossy compression problem, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first quantitative result on the lowest degradation of distortion in achieving perceptual reconstruction. Note that the work \cite{2019Rethinking} has shown that perfect perceptual quality can be attained at a sacrifice of no more than 2-fold increase in MSE distortion. Our analysis is fundamentally different from \cite{2019Rethinking} in three aspects. \textit{1}) We obtain a different result deterministically shows that the increase is exactly 2-fold. \textit{2}) The result in \cite{2019Rethinking} is derived through analyzing a constructed encoder-decoder pair that achieves perfect perceptual quality by concatenating a post-processing perceptual mapping. In contrast, our analysis follows a different line via directly analyzing the perception constrained lossy compression formulation itself. \textit{3}) Our analysis also provides a new insight that, to achieve high perceptual quality, perceptual loss is unnecessary for training an encoder. Besides, distortion loss, either on pixels or deep features, is unnecessary for training a decoder. We show that an adversarial loss, with the discriminator conditioned on an encoder optimized in terms of MSE distortion, is enough to achieve perfect perceptual quality. A more detailed comparison is provided in Section 4.2.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Perceptual Quality}
In image processing, peak signal to noise rate (PSNR), MSE and SSIM/MS-SSIM \cite{2003Multiscale, 2004ImageQuality} are commonly used distortion measures. However, recent studies have shown that these measures are not fully consistent with human’s perception \cite{2016Perceptual, 2018Unreasonable, 2019Extreme, 2017DeepGenerative, 2018Generative}. An image with lower distortion does not necessarily have better perceptual quality. In practice, it has been empirically shown that high perceptual property can be achieved at the cost of increased distortion. This behavior can be theoretically characterized as a perception-distortion tradeoff, which has been put forward in \cite{2018PDtradeoff}. It reveals that minimizing distortion would cause the distribution of reconstructed outputs deviating from that of the (ground-truth) source, which leads to worse perceptual quality.
The perceptual quality of a restored sample is the extent to which it looks like a natural sample from human’s perception, regardless its similarity to any reference sample. It can be conveniently defined in terms of the deviation of the distribution of restored outputs $\hat{X}$ from that of natural samples $X$ as \cite{2018PDtradeoff}
\begin{align}
d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}),
\end{align}
which is some divergence (e.g., the Kullback-Leibler divergence or Wasserstein distance) satisfying $d(p,q) \ge 0$ and
$d(p,q) = 0 \Leftrightarrow p = q$ for any distributions $p$ and $q$. Such a definition conforms with the common practice of quantifying perceptual quality through real-versus-fake questionnaire studies \cite{2018Unreasonable, 2016Colorful, 2016ImprovedTech}. Basically, this definition of perceptual quality is based on the deviation from natural sample statistics, which correlates well with human subjective score and has been widely used in designing no-reference image quality measures.\cite{2013Making, 2005Reduced}
\subsection{Rate-Distortion-Perception Tradeoff}
Shannon’s rate-distortion theory characterizes the fundamental tradeoff between the rate (bits per symbol) and the expected distortion. Specifically, the relation between the input $X\sim{p_X}$ of the encoder and the output $\hat X\sim{p_{\hat X}}$ of the decoder can be viewed as a mapping defined by a conditional distribution $p_{{\hat X}|X}$. The information rate-distortion function is defined as \cite{ThomasCover2nd}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{R^{(I)}}(D) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{\hat X|X}}} I(X;\hat X)\\&\text{s.t.}\quad \mathbb{E}{\rm{[}}\Delta {\rm{(}}X,\hat X{\rm{)]}} \le D, \label{RDfunction}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $I$ stands for mutual information, and $\Delta$ is a distortion measure such as MSE or hamming distance.
It has been well established that ${R^{(I)}}(D)$ is a convex and non-increasing function of $D$, which demonstrates the rate-distortion tradeoff.
The rate-distortion function \eqref{RDfunction} does not take into account the perceptual quality of reconstruction. To take the perceptual quality into consideration, the traditional rate-distortion tradeoff has been extended to a three-way tradeoff model including rate, distortion, and perception as \cite{2019Rethinking}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{R^{(I)}}(D,P) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{\hat X|X}}} I(X;\hat X)\\&\text{s.t.}\quad \mathbb{E}{\rm{[}}\Delta {\rm{(}}X,\hat X{\rm{)]}} \le D,\ d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}) \le P, \label{IRDPfunction}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}})$ is a divergence between the distributions of the source and the reconstruction output, typically measured by Kullback-Leibler divergence or Jensen-Shannon divergence.
When $P = + \infty $, the perception constraint is invalid and \eqref{IRDPfunction} degenerates to the traditional rate-distortion function \eqref{RDfunction}. When $P = 0 $, the distributions of $X$ and $\hat X$ are constrained to be identical, which defines a rate-distortion function under perfect perceptual quality constraint. It has been shown in the work \cite{2019Rethinking} that, the rate-distortion curve necessarily elevates when imposing the perfect perceptual quality constraint, but the elevation is bounded. Specifically, for the MSE distortion, the rate-distortion function under perfect perception constraint, i.e., $R^{(I)}(D,0)$, is upper bounded by a scaled version of the rate-distortion curve under no perception constraint as
\begin{align}
R^{(I)}(D,0) \le R^{(I)}\left( {\frac{1}{2}D, + \infty } \right).
\end{align}
It implies that, at a given bit rate, the increase of the MSE distortion incurred by perfect perceptual quality constraint is no more than 2-fold the MSE distortion in the case without any perception constraint. However, how much is the elevation of the rate-distortion curve incurred by the perfect perceptual quality constraint is still unclear.
\subsection{Adversarial Loss for Perceptual Reconstruction}
To improve the perceptual quality of reconstruction, a natural way is to minimize the deviation from the distribution of natural samples. As GAN is very effective in aligning distributions, the GAN-based methods have shown remarkable improvement in perceptual quality \cite{2018Unreasonable, 2019Extreme}. For the lossy compression problem, a typical formulation incorporating an adversarial loss to optimize the encoder $E$ and the decoder $G$ through adversarial training is given by
\begin{align}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{E,G} {{\cal L}_{rec}}{\rm{ + }}\lambda {{\cal L}_{adv}}{\rm{ + }}\beta H,
\end{align}
where ${\cal L}_{rec}$ is a distortion loss (e.g., MSE, $L_1$ norm, or distance between feature maps), ${\cal L}_{adv}$ is an adversarial (perception) loss which is measured by a discriminator, and $H$ is the entropy of the compressed representation. $\lambda $ and $\beta$ are positive parameters which balance the three terms. Although adversarial training helps to improve the perceptual quality, such a training framework has limitations. Specifically, if the value of $\lambda $ is not large enough, the resulting perceptual quality would not be satisfactory. On the other hand, when $\lambda $ is a relatively large value, the distortion of the system cannot be well optimized and would finally result in excessive increase in distortion, as will be shown later in experiments. Hence, it is difficult to achieve the lowest distortion under perfect perception constraint by simply balancing the distortion loss ${\cal L}_{rec}$ and the adversarial loss ${\cal L}_{adv}$.
To address these limitations, we propose a training framework that can achieve the lowest distortion under perfect perception constraint. It is also based on GAN but avoids the balance between the distortion and adversarial losses.
\section{Main Results and Proposed Training Framework}
\subsection{Analysis on the Rate-Distortion Tradeoff Under Perfect Perception Constraint}
Suppose that $X$ is a discrete source with a finite alphabet $\chi {\rm{ = \{ }}{x_i} \in {\mathbb{R}^N}:{\rm{1}} \le i \le m{\rm{\} }}$, e.g., $m = {256^{3N}}$ for 8-bit RGB image with $N$ pixels. From \eqref{IRDPfunction}, the information rate-distortion function under perfect perception constraint is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{R^{(I)}}(D,P) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{\hat X|X}}} I(X;\hat X)\\&\text{s.t.}\quad \mathbb{E}{\rm{[}}\Delta {\rm{(}}X,\hat X{\rm{)]}} \le D,\ d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}) \le 0. \label{IRDP0function}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Under the constraint that the distributions of $X$ and $\hat X$ are identical, $\chi$ is also the alphabet of $\hat X$.
Before proceeding to the analysis, we present some definitions. Define a joint distribution matrix ${\bf{B}} \in {\mathbb{R}^{m \times m}}$, of which the elements are given by
\begin{align}
{b_{ij}}: = p(X = {x_i},\hat X = {x_j}), {\rm{1}} \le i,j \le m.
\end{align}
Meanwhile, define a distortion matrix ${\bf{W}} \in {\mathbb{R}^{m \times m}}$, of which the elements are given by
\begin{align}
{w_{ij}}: = \Delta ({x_i},{x_j}), {\rm{1}} \le i,j \le m.
\end{align}
Then the distortion constraint in \eqref{IRDP0function} can be rewritten as $\left\langle {{\bf{W}},{\bf{B}}} \right\rangle \le D$. Moreover, let ${G_{{p_X}}}({\bf{B}})$ denote the objective function of \eqref{IRDP0function}, then under perfect perception constraint, it follows that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
{G_{{p_X}}}({\bf{B}}): &= I(X;\hat X)\\
&= H(X) + H(\hat X) - H(X,\hat X)\\
&= 2H(X) + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^m {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^m {{b_{ij}}} \log {b_{ij}}},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the last equaity follows from the fact that $X$ and $\hat X$ have the same distribution under the constaint $d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}) \le 0$. For fixed $p_X$, $p_{{\hat X}|X}$ can be equivalently represented by ${\bf{B}}$. Thus, the formulation \eqref{IRDP0function} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
{R^{(I)}}(&D,0) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{\bf{B}} {G_{{p_X}}}({\bf{B}})\\
\text{s.t.}\quad &\left\langle {{\bf{W}},{\bf{B}}} \right\rangle \le D,\\
&\sum\limits_{i = 1}^m {{b_{ij}}} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^m {{b_{ji}}} = p(X = {x_j}),{\rm{1}} \le j \le m \label{IRDP0FinM}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that the perception constraint $d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}) \le 0$ in \eqref{IRDP0function}, which means ${p_X}={p_{\hat X}}$, has been rewritten as the equivalence constraint between the row summation and column summation of ${\bf{B}}$, which are the distributions of $X$ and $\hat X$, respectively. Based on \eqref{IRDP0FinM}, we have the following result (proof is given in the supplimentary material).
\textbf{Lemma 1.} \textit{Suppose that} $\Delta$ \textit{is symmetric, then any optimal solution} $\bf{B}^*$ \textit{to} \eqref{IRDP0FinM} \textit{is a symmetric matrix.}
Lemma 1 shows that when the distortion measure is symmetric (e.g., squared-error), for any optimal encoder-decoder pair to \eqref{IRDP0FinM} (equivalently \eqref{IRDP0function}), the joint distribution of $X$ and $\hat X$ is also symmetric as
\begin{align}
p(X = {x_i},\hat X = {x_j}) = p(X = {x_j},\hat X = {x_i}).
\end{align}
Since the achievability of the information rate-distortion-perception function ${R^{(I)}}(D,P)$ has not been proved yet, we analyze the relation between the rate-distortion functions $R(D,\infty )$ and $R(D,0)$. Assume a discrete memoryless stationary source $X$, let $Y = ({X_1},{X_2},...,{X_t})$ be a source sequence with length $t$. Consider a compression task $Y \to Z \to \hat Y$, where $Z$ is the output of the encoder and $\hat Y$ is the output of the decoder. As defined in \cite{ThomasCover2nd}, $R(D,\infty )$ is the infimum of rates $R$ for a given distortion $D$, such that $(R,D)$ is achievable. Hence, $R(D,\infty )$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}
R(D,\infty ) = \mathop {\inf }\limits_t {F_t}(D,\infty ),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,\infty ): = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}},{p_{\hat Y|Z}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\quad \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}\mathbb{E}[\Delta (Y,\hat Y)] \le D.\label{tRDfunction}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Considering the condition of perfect perception constraint, $R(D,0)$ can be similarly expressed as \cite{2018RDPtradeoff}
\begin{align}
R(D,0) = \mathop {\inf }\limits_t {F_t}(D,0),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,0): = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}},{p_{\hat Y|Z}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\quad \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}\mathbb{E}[\Delta (Y,\hat Y)] \le D,\ d({p_Y},{p_{\hat Y}}) \le 0.\label{tRDP0function}
\end{split}
\end{align}
For the MSE distortion measure, we have the following result (proof is given in the supplementary material).
\textbf{Theorem 1.} \textit{Let $X$ be a discrete memoryless stationary source and $Y = ({X_1},{X_2},...,{X_t})$ be a source sequence with length $t$. For a compression task $Y \to Z \to \hat Y$, where $Z$ and $\hat Y$ are the outputs of the encoder and decoder, respectively. Then, to any $t$, if $\Delta$ is the squared-error distortion, there exists an optimal encoder-decoder pair to \eqref{tRDP0function} satisfying}
\begin{align}
{p_{Y|Z}} = {p_{\hat Y|Z}}.\label{theorem1}
\end{align}
Theorem 1 indicates that when the distortion measure is MSE, replacing the perfect perception constraint $d({p_X},{p_{\hat X}}) \le 0$ in \eqref{tRDP0function} with the conditional distribution constraint \eqref{theorem1} does not change the optimal objective value. This is because under the condition that the data source is memoryless and stationary, it follows from theorem 1 that there exists an optimal solution to \eqref{tRDP0function} satisfying \eqref{theorem1}, under which the distributions of $X$ and $\hat X$ are the same. Therefore, analyzing the relation between ${F_t}(D,\infty )$ and ${F_t}(D,0)$ is equivalent to analyzing the relation between ${F_t}(D,\infty )$ and
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,0) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}},{p_{\hat Y|Z}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\quad \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}\mathbb{E}[\Delta (Y,\hat Y)] \le D,\ {p_{Y|Z}} = {p_{\hat Y|Z}}.\label{FtD02}
\end{split}
\end{align}
For any encoder-decoder pair satisfying \eqref{theorem1}, the MSE distortion between $Y$ and $\hat Y$ can be expressed as (proof is given in the supplementary material)
\begin{align}
\frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \hat Y} \right\|}^2}} \right] = \frac{{\rm{2}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right],
\end{align}
which substituted into \eqref{FtD02} yields
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,0) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}},{p_{\hat Y|Z}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\quad \frac{{\rm{2}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right] \le D,\ {p_{Y|Z}} = {p_{\hat Y|Z}}.\label{FtD03}
\end{split}
\end{align}
It can be seen that the objective value of \eqref{FtD03} is independent on the decoder ${p_{\hat Y|Z}}$. Hence, with MSE distortion, the encoder of \eqref{FtD02} can be optimized separately as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,0) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\ \frac{{\rm{2}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right] \le D.\label{FtD04}
\end{split}
\end{align}
In \eqref{FtD04}, the constraint ${p_{Y|Z}} = {p_{\hat Y|Z}}$ is removed since it does not affect the objective under the constraint $\frac{{\rm{2}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right] \le D$.
Next, we consider the lossy compression task without perception constraint. Given a compressed representation $z$ and when the distortion measure is MSE, the output of an optimal decoder is $\mathbb{E}[Y|z]$. Accordingly, the expected distortion can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\Delta (Y,\mathbb{E}[Y|Z])] = \frac{1}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right],
\end{align}
with which formulation \eqref{tRDfunction} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{F_t}(D,\infty) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{{p_{Z|Y}}} \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}H(Z)\\
&\text{s.t.}\quad \frac{{\rm{1}}}{t}\mathbb{E}\left[ {{{\left\| {Y - \mathbb{E}[Y|Z]} \right\|}^2}|Z} \right] \le D.\label{FtD2}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Then, it follows from \eqref{FtD04} and \eqref{FtD2} that ${F_t}(D,0) = {F_t}(D/2,\infty )$ for any $t$, which implies
\begin{align}
\mathop {\inf }\limits_t {F_t}(D,0) = \mathop {\inf }\limits_t {F_t}(D/2,\infty ).
\end{align}
Thus, we have the following result.
\textbf{Theorem 2.} \textit{Suppose that $\Delta$ is the squared-error distortion, then $R(D,P)$ satisfies}
\begin{align}
R(D,0) = R\left( {\frac{1}{2}D, + \infty } \right).\label{theorem2}
\end{align}
Theorem 2 indicates that, when the distortion is measured by MSE, and for fixed bit rate, the lowest achievable distortion under perfect perception constraint is 2-fold that under no perception constraint. In other words, the cost of attaining perfect perceptual quality is exactly a doubling of the lowest achievable MSE distortion.
Moreover, \eqref{FtD04} and \eqref{FtD2} also imply that, with distortionconstrained by $D/2$, an optimal encoder under no perception constraint is also an optimal encoder under perfect perception constraint with distortion constrained by $D$.
\textbf{Theorem 3.} \textit{When the distortion is measured by MSE, an optimal encoder to \eqref{tRDfunction} (without perception constraint) with distortion constrained by $D/2$ is also an optimal encoder to \eqref{tRDP0function} (with perfect perception constraint) with distortion constrained by $D$.}
Theorem 3 implies that the rate-distortion function with perfect perception constraint is achievable. Besides, it sheds some light on how to optimize an encoder-decoder pair under perfect perception constraint. Specifically, the encoder can be independently optimized without considering perception constraint. In light of this, we can first optimize an encoder with only MSE constraint, and then fix the encoder and optimize the decoder to satisfy \eqref{theorem1}, which would double the MSE distortion and has been proven to be an optimal decoder that can achieve the bound in Theorem 2. Such a framework is detailed in the next subsection.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{TrainingFramework.png}}
\caption{\textbf{The proposed trianing framework.} First, the encoder-decoder pair $(E,G_1)$ is trained by MSE loss. Then $G_2$ is trained by adversarial loss conditioned on $E$.}
\label{TrainingFramework}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\subsection{A Framework for Perfect Perceptual Reconstruction in Lossy Compression}
Based on the above results, we further propose a framework for training an encoder-decoder pair to achieve perfect perceptual reconstruction in lossy compression. The overall architecture is shown in Figure~\ref{TrainingFramework}, which includes an encoder $E$, two decoders $G_1$, $G_2$, and a discriminator $J$. The desired encoder-decoder pair is $(E,G_2)$, which is obtained by a training procedure with two steps:
\setlength{\hangindent}{1em}
\textit{i) Encoder optimization:} $(E,G_1)$ are optimized only in terms of MSE distortion, e.g. by minimizing MSE loss without considering the perception constraint. From Theorem 3, such an optimized encoder $E$ is also an optimal encoder under perfect perception constraint.
\setlength{\hangindent}{1em}
\textit{ii) Decoder optimization:} Fixing the optimized encoder $E$ in the first step, the decoder $G_2$ is optimized via adversarial training, e.g. iteratively optimize $G_2$ and the discriminator $J$. In this step, the goal is to minimize the divergence between ${p_{Y|Z}}$ and ${p_{{\hat Y}|Z}}$. To achieve this, we use a conditional discriminator \cite{2014ConGAN} which takes both the data $(Y$ or $\hat Y)$ and the bit stream $Z$ as the input.
Our proposed framework is different from traditional DAL framework as follows. As discussed in Section 2.3, DAL involves a balance between the distortion and adversarial losses, and is difficult to achieve the lowest distortion under perfect perception constraint. Unlike the discriminator in DAL method being used to discriminate whether its input is real, the discriminator in our framework not only discriminate whether input data is real but also discriminate whether the input data is consistent with the bit stream $Z$. By this, though without distortion constraint, $G_2$ is trained to decode data consistent with the input rather than randomly generate a realistic output. This results in an advantage that the proposed framework avoids the balance between the distortion and adversarial losses in DAL, and can achieve the lowest MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint.
To optimize the decoder to satisfy \eqref{theorem1}, we add a random noise input in the decoder $G_2$. This is a commonly used trick to achieve high perceptual quality \cite{2019Rethinking, 2019Extreme}, In our framework, \eqref{theorem1} holds when $(G_2,J)$ are optimal, which means the output of the decoder would have perfect perceptual quality.
\section{Experimental Illustration}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure3.png}}
\caption{Empirically fitted rate-distortion functions in the cases with or without perception constraint.}
\label{EmpiricalRDP}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
We demonstrate the theoretical finding and the effectiveness of the proposed framework on the MNIST dataset \cite{1998Gradient}. Note that the rate-distortion-perception function does not have an analytical expression for a general data distribution, here we empirically demonstrate the 2-fold relation in Theorem 2 by experiment. As the compression task on the MNIST data is relatively simple, and the proposed framework can theoretically achieve the lowest MSE distortion with perfect perceptual quality as discussed in Section 3.2, an implemantation using DNN can be expected to closely approach the rate-distortion curve under perception constraint. In this context, we can compare the empirical rate-distortion curve of the proposed framework with that under no perception constraint to demonstrate the derived 2-fold relation. Moreover, we demonstrate the superiority of the proposed framework by comparing it with the DAL method. The code is available online\footnote{https://github.com/ZeyuYan/Perceptual-Lossy-Compression}.
In the proposed framework, $E$, $G_1$, $G_2$ and $J$ are convolutional neural networks (CNN). The encoder $E$ maps a $32 \times 32$ image into a $d \times 1$ vector with each element be a quantized integer. To preserve gradient for backpropagation, the elements are quantized by
\begin{align}
\hat z = z{\rm{ + sg[}}Q(z) - z{\rm{]}},
\end{align}
where $Q( \cdot )$ is a quantization operator and ${\rm{sg[}} \cdot {\rm{]}}$ is the stopgradient operator \cite{2017Neural, 2019VQVAE2}. The bit rate is controlled by limiting the dimension and quantization level of encoder output. The output is quantized into binary values and correspondingly the bit rate is bounded by $d$.
Our model is trained by two steps as presented in Section 3.2, in which $(E,G_1)$ is firstly optimized as
\begin{align}
\mathop {{\rm{min}}}\limits_{E,{G_1}} \mathbb{E} {\left\| {X - {G_1}(E(X))} \right\|^2}.
\end{align}
Then, with $E$ fixed, $(G_2,J)$ is optimized as
\begin{align}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{J\in \mathcal{F}} \mathop {\max }\limits_{{G_2}} \mathbb{E}[J({G_2}(E(X)),E(X))] - \mathbb{E}[J(X,E(X))],\notag
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}$ denotes the bounded 1-Lipschitz functions. $G_2$ is trained to generate images of which the distribution is the same as that of $X$. The input of $G_2$ is a $100 \times 1$ vector, in which the first $d\ (d<100)$ elements are the output of $E$ and the other elements are Gaussian noise. When $d=0$, $(G_2,J)$ degenerates to a pure generative adversarial network. Extra experiments show that, with different dimensions of the noise vector, the MSE curves converge to almost the same value. To stabilize the process of adversarial training, WGAN-gp \cite{2017WGAN, 2017Wasserstein} is employed, in which a gradient penalty is added into the loss function of $J$ as
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[J({G_2}(E(X)),E(X))] - \mathbb{E}[J(X,E(X))] + {\lambda _{gp}}{L_{gp}}, \notag
\end{align}
where $L_{gp}$ is the gradient penalty term and $\lambda _{gp}$ is a parameter set to 10. We use a pre-training scheme to address the degeneration problem in adversarial training, which is detailed in the supplementary material.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\subfigure[2 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4_1.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[4 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4_2.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[8 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4_3.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[16 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4_4.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[32 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4_5.png}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[64 bits]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figure4_6.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{MSE loss versus training epoch for different bit-rates.}
\label{Trainloss}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Rate-Distortion Tradeoff with or without Perception Constraint}
For 32 different bit rates, $R \in \{ 2,4,6, \cdots ,64\}$, we train 32 encoder-decoder pairs $(E,G_1)$ by minimizing MSE-only loss and another 32 pairs $(E,G_2)$ by our proposed framework. Figure~\ref{EmpiricalRDP} shows the fitted empirical rate-distortion curves of the encoder-decoder pairs. In Figure~\ref{EmpiricalRDP}, $R(D,\infty)$ and $R(D,0)$ are the fitting results, whilst $R(D/2,\infty)$ is a scaled version of the fitted $R(D,\infty)$ curve. Clearly, the empirical rate-distortion curves are monotonically non-increasing and convex, which is consistent with the theoretical properties of $R(D,P)$ \cite{2019Rethinking}. Interestingly, $R(D/2,\infty)$ closely approaches $R(D,0)$, which empirically demonstrates the result given by Theorem 2, i.e., the 2-fold relation between the lowest achievable MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint and that under no perception constraint.
Figure~\ref{Trainloss} presents the MSE loss in training $G_1$ and $G_2$ versus training epoch for six rate cases $R \in \{ 2,4,8,16,32,64\}$. For each case, the curve which is twice the amplitude of the MSE of $G_1$ is also plotted for reference. It can be seen that, without perception constraint, the MSE loss of $G_1$ converges rapidly in all bit-rate cases. In comparison, the MSE loss of $G_2$ converges slower, which is due to the fact that $G_2$ is jointly trained with $J$ in an alternating manner. Although $G_2$ is trained only using an adversarial loss and without using MSE loss, it closely converges to the 2-fold MSE curve of $G_1$ in each case, which accords well with Theorem 2.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figure5.png}}
\caption{Visual comparison between the two cases with or without perception constraint.}
\label{Outputimage}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\vskip 0.2in
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.58\columnwidth]{ComparewithDAL.png}}
\caption{Performance comparison between the traditional distortion plus adversarial loss based method and the proposed method.}
\label{ComparewithDAL}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{Outputimage} shows some samples of the reconstructed images by $G_1$ and $G_2$ under different bit rates. Obviously, the output of $G_2$ is clearer and sharper than that of $G_1$. As the decrease of bit rate, the output of $G_1$ becomes more blurry and unrecognizable, especially when bit rate is less than 4, which is due to the information lost in the encoding step. In comparison, the output of $G_2$ does not suffer from such deteriorating problem, which is clear and recognizable even when the bit rate is 2. However, for fixed bit rate, better perceptual quality would lead to larger distortion. Hence clear output images do not necessarily mean correct numbers. In principle, $G_2$ additionally takes a noise input to generate details, which would change the typeface, inclination, thickness of the original input and may even reconstruct a completely different but clear number.
Next, we compare our method with the DAL method, of which the parameter $\lambda$ balances between the MSE distortion loss and the adversarial loss. Based on DAL for different values of $\lambda$, we train a number of encoder-decoder pairs for bit rate $R=4$. Figure~\ref{ComparewithDAL} compares the results of $G_1$, $G_2$ and the DAL method with selected $\lambda \in \{ 0.1,1,5\} $, including the MSE and output image samples. It can be seen that, for the DAL method, as the increase of $\lambda$, the perceptual quality improves but in the meantime the distortion increases. Our method has better peceptual quality than the DAL method even when the MSE of DAL is larger than that of $G_2$. As discussed in Section 2.3 and 3.2, while our method can achieve the lowest distortion under perfect perception constraint, the DAL method cannot.
\subsection{Related Works}
Our work is closely related to \cite{2019Rethinking} but different from it in the following aspects. First, the analysis in \cite{2019Rethinking} is based on constructing an encoder-decoder pair that can attain perfect perception quality, e.g., by concatenating a post-processing perceptual mapping after an optimal encoder-decoder pair under MSE measure. Since the constructed compression system can attain perfect perception quality with a doubling of the MSE distortion, in theory the lowest achievable MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint should be no more than twice that under no perception constraint. In contrast, we derive the rate-distortion bound under perfect perception constraint through a completely different line of analysis, via analyzing the lossy compression formulation itself as presented in Section 3.1. Second, our result deterministically shows that the lowest achievable distortion under perfect perception constraint is exactly 2-fold that under no perception constraint. Third, we show that, to achieve the lowest MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint, perceptual loss is unnecessary for training the encoder whilst distortion loss, either on pixel or deep features, is unnecessary for training the decoder. Fourth, we propose a training framework that can achieve the lowest MSE distortion under perfect perception constraint at a given bit rate.
Like \cite{2018Unreasonable, 2017PhotoRealistic}, our method is also based on GAN. However, unlike the formers using a distortion plus adversarial loss to train the encoder and decoder in an end-to-end manner, our method first uses a MSE loss to train the encoder and, then, uses an adversarial loss to train the decoder conditioned on the so obtained encoder. The superiority of the new method is discussed in Section 2.3 and 3.2. Recently, a conditioned discriminator similar to that in our framework has been employed in \cite{2020HighFidelity} to achieve high-fidelity image compression. Our work provides a theoretical foundation of the conditioned discriminator. The work \cite{2020HighFidelity} still uses a distortion plus adversarial loss, while we show that the decoder can be
trained to achieve perfect perceptual reconstruction using
adversarial-only loss and adversarial loss is unnecessary when training encoder.
We leave the application of the proposed framework to color image compression to future work, as it has a high requirement on computation hardware and poses a challenge in tuning a big GAN model.
\section{Conclusion}
We analyzed the effect of perception constraint on the rate-distortion function in lossy compression. We proved that, for fixed bit rate, the cost of imposing a perfect perception constraint is exactly a doubling of the lowest achievable MSE. The analysis also provided new insights on how to build a training framework for perfect perception reconstruction in lossy compression. Accordingly, we proposed a framework for training an encoder-decoder pair to achieve the lowest MSE under perfect perception constraint. Experimental results well verified the theoretical finding and demonstrated the superiority of the new framework over the traditional distortion plus adversarial loss based framework.
|
\section{Introduction}
Modern problems of interest involve big data generated from social \cite{freeman2000visualizing}, citation \cite{zhang2018name}, biological \cite{fout2017protein} and physical networks \cite{liang2014wireless}, which can be modeled as graph signals. Analyzing graph signals requires information processing architectures that adapt to the irregular structure inherent in the underlying graph. Graph neural networks (GNNs) have been proposed as one such example, which leverage graph structural information to learn meaningful representations from graph signals \cite{Bruna2013, Defferrard2016, Fernando2019, Wu19-SGC, Kipf2017, Xu19-GIN, gori2005new, scarselli2008graph, battaglia2016interaction, gilmer2017neural, velivckovic2017graph, lee2018graph, wu2019dual} and perform successfully in a wide array of applications, e.g., node classification \cite{bhagat2011node, zhang2018end}, social recommendation \cite{Ying2018, Wu20192}, resource allocation \cite{zhan2020resource}, and planning among others \cite{yu2018learning, gao2021wide, li2018diffusion}.
While achieving resounding success, the performance of GNNs relies on the quality of training data. Given limited training data, GNNs learn over-parametric models that fit too closely to a particular dataset but fail to fit unseen testing data. The latter results in sub-optimal generalization performance, referred to as over-fitting \cite{dietterich1995overfitting}. Dropout is a conventional method to tackle this issue \cite{srivastava2014dropout}, which randomly omits a set of units from neural networks during training to reduce the number of parameters to be learned. In analogy to Dropout, multiple recent works focus on sampling the underlying graph to alleviate over-fitting. The works in \cite{zheng2020robust, luo2021learning} learn task-irrelevant graph edges with deep neural networks and prune away these edges to avoid aggregating unnecessary information. As these approaches require to learn the sampling parameter for each edge, they may be computationally expensive and tie to specific task-cases. On the other hand, the works in \cite{hamilton2017inductive, chen2018fastgcn, huang2018adaptive} have developed fast layer sampling methods, including neighbor-level sampling \cite{hamilton2017inductive}, node-level sampling \cite{chen2018fastgcn} and a layer-dependent variant \cite{huang2018adaptive}. While speeding up training, they may face "neighbor explosion" as layer-wise methods. DropEdge in \cite{rong2019dropedge} recently has been developed as a graph sampling method. It randomly removes a set of graph edges during training to prevent over-smoothing \cite{li2018deeper}. By producing varying graph connections, it could work as an intuitive data augmentation technique for over-fitting.
However, DropEdge considers each edge with equal priority and samples edges in an i.i.d. manner. Such a procedure does not account for the underlying graph structure and may yield edge-dropped subgraphs substantially different from the underlying one. These subgraphs then carry little structural information embedded in graph signals, and GNNs built upon these subgraphs during training could result in noisy information that degrades performance. From this perspective, we hypothesize that the structural information of the underlying graph should be incorporated during random edge dropping to avoid potential noise that hurts the training process.
This paper proposes TADropEdge (Topology Adaptive Edge Dropping) method as an adaptive data augmentation technique, which samples edge-dropped subgraphs during training while maintaining the overall topology of the underlying graph.
We begin by explicitly analyzing how random edge dropping increases the data diversity alleviating over-fitting, and theoretically explain why i.i.d. edge dropping results in noisy augmented data degrading performance. We proceed to consider graph connectivity as the key property that captures graph topology, and develop TADropEdge that incorporates this factor into random edge dropping, which consists of three phases: i) Preprocess the underlying graph to identify disjoint components; ii) Leverage the graph spectrum to assign connectivity-relevant edge weights for each disjoint component; iii) Normalize the edge weights and drop graph edges adaptively based on their normalized weights. For the edge weight computation, we follow \cite{zhan2021barrier-journal} to employ \emph{aggregate resistance weights}, which represent the criticality of edges to the component connectivity. The latter is a positive real-valued distribution over edges that can be conveniently used for the adaptive edge dropping, captures graph topology more accurately, and is computationally more efficient for large-scale graphs, compared to some other methods \cite{dong2012clustering, hagen1992new, cheng2017network}.
To sum up, we make the following contributions: \textbf{I.} We provide explicit theoretical analysis w.r.t. how random edge dropping augments training data and why an i.i.d. procedure is not satisfactory. \textbf{II.} We propose TADropEdge that accounts for graph structural information during random edge dropping, yielding better data augmentation and improved generalization performance. \textbf{III.} TADropEdge has reduced variance by neglecting irrelevant noisy subgraphs for mitigating the training difficulty, and works as a generic method modular to different GNN models. Experimental results on real-life and synthetic datasets corroborate theoretical findings and demonstrate that TADropEdge effectively improves generalization performance and learns robust GNN models. Note that proofs, implementation details and more experimental results can be found in the supplementary material. \vspace{-2mm}
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Graph neural networks.} GNNs have been developed as powerful tools that are capable of leveraging graph structural information to process graph signals. The most popular model for GNNs is the one involving graph convolutions, referred to as graph convolutional neural networks (GCNNs). Inspired by CNNs in the Euclidean domain, GCNNs consist of a cascade of layers, each of which applies a graph convolution \cite{Ortega18-GSP} followed by a pointwise nonlinearity. Several implementations have been developed under this framework \cite{Bruna2013, Defferrard2016, Fernando2019, Wu19-SGC, Kipf2017, Xu19-GIN}. The work in \cite{Bruna2013} computes the graph convolution in the spectral domain, while the authors in \cite{Defferrard2016} use a Chebyshev polynomial implementation. In parallel, the works in \cite{Fernando2019, Wu19-SGC} employ a summation polynomial to implement the graph convolution, and the authors in \cite{Kipf2017, Xu19-GIN} reduce the polynomial to the first order. In addition to GCNNs, other GNN models include message passing neural networks \cite{gori2005new, scarselli2008graph, battaglia2016interaction, gilmer2017neural} and graph attention networks \cite{velivckovic2017graph, lee2018graph, wu2019dual}. The former leverage the graph structure as the computation graph and combine arbitrary information across edges, while the latter learn the edge weights from training data as well. We in particular focus on GCNNs, while the proposed TADropEdge is applicable for any GNN models.
\textbf{Graph Sampling.} Graph sampling has been investigated in GNNs for efficient computation and performance enhancement. GraphSAGE in \cite{hamilton2017inductive} randomly samples a fixed-size neighborhood of each node and aggregates features accordingly for information fusion. FastGCN in \cite{chen2018fastgcn} interprets graph convolutions as integral transforms under probability measures and independently samples nodes at each layer. The work in \cite{huang2018adaptive} improves FastGCN by sampling nodes in lower layers conditioned on ones in upper layers. Instead of sampling layers, GraphSAINT in \cite{zeng2019graphsaint} samples the training graph and builds full GCNNs on the sampled subgraphs to avoid "neighbor explosion". DropEdge in \cite{rong2019dropedge} similarly samples the training graph, but focuses on dropping edges rather than nodes for alleviating over-smoothing. More recent work in \cite{gao2020stochastic} considers distributed scenarios over physical networks, where random edge dropping arises naturally during testing due to external factors. The authors in \cite{gao2020stochastic} developed SGNNs to incorporate such graph randomness into training and enhance robustness to the neighborhood uncertainty. However, the aforementioned works randomly sample nodes / edges during training without accounting for graph structural information inherent in graph signals, which is the key reason behind the success of GNNs. The proposed TADropEdge takes this factor into consideration and performs random edge dropping based on the underlying graph topology. \vspace{-2mm}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminary}
\textbf{GCNNs.} Let $\ccalG=(\ccalV, \ccalE)$ be a graph with the node set $\ccalV = \{ n_i \}_{i=1}^N$ and the edge set $\ccalE=\{ e_m = (n_{i_m},n_{j_m}) \}_{m=1}^M$. The graph signal $\bbX: \ccalV \to \mathbb{R}^F$ is defined on the top of nodes, which assigns an $F$-dimensional feature to each node. The graph shift operator $\bbS \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ is a support matrix that satisfies $[\bbS]_{ij} \ne 0$ if $i = j$ or $(n_i,n_j)\in \ccalE$ and $[\bbS]_{ij}=0$ otherwise, thus captures the graph structure. Common examples of $\bbS$ include the adjacency, the Laplacian and their normalized versions.
Graph convolutional neural networks (GCNNs) leverage graph structure to model nonlinear representations from graph signals. The GCNN is a cascade of layers, each layer consisting of a \emph{graph convolutional filter} followed by a pointwise nonlinearity. At layer $\ell$, we have an $F_{\ell-1}$-dimensional input signal $\bbX_{\ell-1} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times F_{\ell-1}}$. The graph convolutional filter is a linear mapping of graph signals $\bbH_\ell: \mathbb{R}^{N \times F_{\ell-1}} \to \mathbb{R}^{N \times F_\ell}$, which is a polynomial function of the graph shift operator \cite{Fernando2019, Ortega18-GSP}\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{align} \label{eq:graphFilter}
\bbH_\ell(\bbS) \bbX_{\ell-1} := \sum_{k=0}^K \bbS^k \bbX_{\ell-1} \bbB_{\ell,k}
\end{align}
where $\ccalB_\ell = \{ \bbB_{\ell,k} \in \mathbb{R}^{F_{\ell-1} \times F_\ell} \}_{k=0}^K$ are filter parameters. The graph shift operation $\bbS \bbX$ represents the information exchange between neighboring nodes, and $\bbS^k \bbX$ accesses farther nodes in a $k$-hop neighborhood. Therefore, the graph filter is a shift-and-sum operation that aggregates the neighborhood information up to a radius of $K$. The feature generated by the filter is then passed through a pointwise nonlinearity $\sigma(\cdot): \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ to produce the $\ell$th layer output feature\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{align} \label{eq:layerProcessing}
\bbX_\ell = \sigma\big( \bbH_\ell (\bbS) \bbX_{\ell-1} \big),~\forall~ \ell=1, \ldots, L.
\end{align}
The input to the GCNN is the $0$th layer signal $\bbX_0 = \bbX \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times F}$ and the output of the GCNN is the $L$th layer feature $\bbX_L \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times F_{L}}$. We interpret the GCNN as a nonlinear mapping of graph signals $\bbPhi(\bbX; \bbS, \ccalA): \mathbb{R}^{N \times F} \to \mathbb{R}^{N \times F_L}$, where $\ccalA = \{ \ccalB_\ell \}_{\ell=1}^L$ are architecture parameters. If particularizing the filter order $K=1$, the GCNN reduces to the graph convolutional network (GCN) \cite{Kipf2017}.
\textbf{DropEdge.} DropEdge is a training technique that prevents over-smoothing and over-fitting for deep GCNNs \cite{rong2019dropedge}. At each training epoch $t$, DropEdge samples graph edges independently with the same default probability $p$ to obtain a sparse subgraph $\ccalG_t$ associated to the graph shift operator $\bbS_t$. It then replaces $\bbS$ with $\bbS_t$ in the GCNN architecture \eqref{eq:layerProcessing} for signal propagation and parameter training. In the validation and testing phases, the underlying graph $\ccalG$ is utilized without DropEdge.
In what follows, we first provide theoretical analysis on random edge dropping w.r.t. data augmentation. This analysis shows explicitly how it endows GCNNs with enhanced robustness to unseen signals, while indicating an i.i.d. dropping could result in noisy augmented data degrading performance. We then develop TADropEdge based on these theoretical findings, which accounts for graph structural information during random edge dropping and yields more satisfactory data augmentation.\vspace{-1mm}
\section{Analysis and Motivation} \label{sec:Motivation}\vspace{-0.5mm}
Given the training data $\ccalT = \{ (\bbX_r, \bby_r) \}_{\tau=1}^R$ of $R$ signal-label pairs and the loss function $c(\bbPhi(\bbX_r; \bbS, \ccalA), \bby_r)$ between the output feature and the label, we are interested in the cost over $\ccalT$ given by $C(\bbS, \ccalA) = 1/R \sum_{r=1}^R c(\bbPhi(\bbX_r; \bbS, \ccalA), \bby_r)$.
Since the edge dropping incorporates randomness into training, the cost $C(\bbS_t, \ccalA)$ is a random variable depending on the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS_t$ at training epoch $t$. The latter is sampled from an i.i.d. distribution $m_p(\bbS)$ determined by the default probability $p$. This observation motivates to consider the cost average over the graph distribution $m_p(\bbS)$, which formulates the stochastic optimization problem as \vspace{-1mm}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:stochasticProblemOverS}
\begin{split}
\min_{\ccalA} \bar{C}(\bbS, \ccalA) = \min_{\ccalA} \mathbb{E}_{\bbS \backsim m_p(\bbS)} \left[C({\bbS}, \ccalA)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation
The problem \eqref{eq:stochasticProblemOverS} is akin to the conventional stochastic optimization problem, while the expectation $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ is now w.r.t. graph randomness rather than data distribution. Since the cost $C(\bbS_t, \ccalA)$ is entirely determined by the subgraph $\bbS_t$, sampling $\bbS_t$ from $m_p(\bbS)$ is equivalent to sampling $C(\bbS_t, \ccalA)$ from $\mathbb{E}_{\bbS \backsim m_p(\bbS)} \left[C({\bbS}, \ccalA)\right]$ at training epoch $t$. Therefore, we can interpret DropEdge as running stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on \eqref{eq:stochasticProblemOverS}. We then formally analyze how DropEdge arguments the training data.
\subsection{Data augmentation}
We conduct analysis in the graph spectral domain and consider a one-dimensional graph signal $\bbx \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ without loss of generality. Since the graph shift operator $\bbS$ is symmetric, it allows for the eigendecomposition $\bbS = \bbV \bbLambda \bbV^\top$ with orthogonal eigenvectors $\bbV \!=\! [\bbv_1,...,\bbv_N]$ and eigenvalues $\bbLambda \!=\! \text{diag} (\lambda_1,...,\lambda_N)$. We define the graph Fourier transform (GFT) by projecting $\bbx$ on the eigenvector basis as $\hat{\bbx} \!=\! \bbV^\top\! \bbx$. Substituting the GFT into the graph filter \eqref{eq:graphFilter} and using $\bbS^k = \bbV \bbLambda^k \bbV^\top$ yields \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FilterGFT}
\hat{\bbu} = \bbV^\top \bbu = \bbV^\top \bbH(\bbS) \bbx = \sum_{k=0}^K b_k \bbLambda^k \big(\bbV^\top \bbx\big) = \bbH(\bbLambda) \hat{\bbx}.
\end{equation}
The filter operation between $\hat{\bbx}$ and $\hat{\bbu}$ is pointwise since $\bbH(\bbLambda)$ is a diagonal matrix whose $i$th diagonal entry $h(\lambda_i) = \sum_{k=0}^K b_k \lambda_i^k$ represents the filter response evaluated at $[\hat{\bbx}]_i$ in the frequency domain, i.e., $[\hat{\bbu}]_i = h(\lambda_i) [\hat{\bbx}]_i$ for $i =1,\ldots,N$. This motivates to define the \emph{filter frequency response} as an analytic function $h(\lambda) = \sum_{k=0}^K h_k \lambda^k$ on a graph frequency variable $\lambda$. The shape of $h(\lambda)$ is entirely determined by filter parameters $\ccalB$, and a specific graph $(\ccalG, \bbS)$ only instantiates specific eigenvalues $\{ \lambda_i \}_{i=1}^N$ on $\lambda$. We proceed to introduce the \emph{integral Lipschitz filter} and the \emph{Lipschitz nonlinearity}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:LipschitzFilter}
Consider the filter frequency response $h(\lambda)$ satisfying $|h(\lambda)|\le 1$. The filter is integral Lipschitz if for any frequencies $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists a constant $C_L>0$ such that \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LipschitzFilter}
\left| h(\lambda_1)-h(\lambda_2) \right| \leq C_L \frac{|\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{1}|}{|\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}|/2}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{definition}\label{def:LipschitzNonlinearity}
The nonlinearity $\sigma(\cdot)$ satisfying $\sigma(0)=0$ is Lipschitz if for any $a, b \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists a constant $C_\sigma > 0$ such that\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LipschitzNonlinear}
|\sigma(a) - \sigma(b)| \le C_\sigma|a - b|.
\end{equation}
\end{definition} \vspace{-1mm}
The integral Lipschitz filter is the one whose frequency response is Lipschitz in any interval $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$ with the Lipschitz constant inversely proportional to the interval midpoint $(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)/2$. It is equivalent to require the derivative of the frequency response satisfying $|\lambda h'(\lambda)| \leq C_L$ for all $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. Such a condition is reminiscent of the scale invariance of wavelet transforms \cite{Daubechies92-Wavelets}, and common examples include graph wavelets in \cite{Hammond11-Wavelets, Shuman15-Wavelets}. This condition can also be enforced by means of penalties during training \cite{Gama20-ICASSP}. A Lipschitz nonlinearity is commonly used in neural networks, e.g., the absolute value, the ReLU, the Tanh, ect. For GCNNs with integral Lipschitz filters and Lipschitz nonlinearities,
the following theorem characterizes the increased data diversity introduced by the graph randomness.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:dataDiversity}
Consider the GCNN $\bbPhi(\bbX; \bbS, \ccalA)$ consisting of integral Lipschitz filters with constant $C_L$ and Lipschitz nonlinearities with constant $C_\sigma$. Let $\bbS$ be the underlying graph and $\bbS'$ be an edge-dropped subgraph. For the graph signal $\bbX$, consider another graph signal $\bbX'$ satisfying \vspace{-1mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:anotherData}
\bbPhi(\bbX; \bbS', \ccalA) = \bbPhi(\bbX'; \bbS, \ccalA),
\end{equation}
and measure the graph difference between $\bbS$ and $\bbS'$ w.r.t. the underlying graph $\bbS$ by considering the relative error matrix model \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{align}\label{eq:relativeError}
\bbE \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} : \bbS - \bbS' = \bbE \bbS + \bbS \bbE \ , \ \bbE \!=\! \bbE^{\mathsf{T}}.
\end{align}
Then, it holds that \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dataDiversity}
\| \bbPhi(\bbX'; \bbS, \ccalA) - \bbPhi(\bbX; \bbS, \ccalA) \|_2 \le C \| \bbE \|_2 \| \bbX \|_2 + \ccalO(\| \bbE \|_2^2)
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending on the architecture parameters.
\end{theorem}\vspace{-1mm}
Theorem \ref{theorem:dataDiversity} states that processing the original signal $\bbX$ with the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ is equivalent to processing another signal $\bbX'$ with the underlying graph $\bbS$, and its output $\bbPhi(\bbX'; \bbS, \ccalA)$ is close to the original output $\bbPhi(\bbX; \bbS, \ccalA)$ if $\bbS'$ is similar to $\bbS$. We measure the graph similarity between $\bbS$ and $\bbS'$ with the relative error matrix model [cf. \eqref{eq:relativeError}]. Such a model
ties the perturbation magnitude of edge dropping to the underlying graph structure by multiplying $\bbE$ with $\bbS$ where the summation is for matrix symmetry, and thus characterizes the graph similarity w.r.t. the overall topology.
These results indicate that an edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ generates an additional signal $\bbX'$, whose output is similar to that of the original signal $\bbX$ if the relative error between $\bbS'$ and $\bbS$ is small.
Given i.i.d. random edge dropping, there exist $2^{|\ccalE|}$ subgraphs with $|\ccalE|$ the number of edges. From Theorem \ref{theorem:dataDiversity}, each subgraph $\bbS_t$ sampled from the distribution $m_p(\bbS)$ yields a new signal $\bbX_{t,r}$ from the original signal $\bbX_r$. Therefore, we may reinterpret the stochastic optimization problem \eqref{eq:stochasticProblemOverS} as\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:stochasticProblemDataAugmentation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\ccalA} \sum_{r=1}^R \sum_{t=1}^{2^{|\ccalE|}} p_t c\big(\bbPhi(\bbX_{t,r}; \bbS, \ccalA), \bby_r\big)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $p_t$ is the sampling probability of $\bbS_t$ from $m_p(\bbS)$. We now observe new training data $\{ \!(\bbX_{t,r},\! \bby_r)\! \}_{t,r}$ of $R \!\cdot\! 2^{|\ccalE|}$ signal-label pairs increasing the data diversity, while the augmented data $\bbX_{t,r}$ is assumed sharing the same label $\bby_r$ as the original data $\bbX_r$. This is reasonable iff $\bbX_{t,r}$ and $\bbX_r$ yield similar outputs when $\bbS_t$ and $\bbS$ capture similar topology, i.e., the relative error is mild [cf. \eqref{eq:dataDiversity}].
However, DropEdge samples all edges in an i.i.d. manner without accounting for the underlying graph topology, which yields a certain number of edge-dropped subgraphs substantially different from the underlying graph. In these instances, the relative errors are large, the augmented signals yield essentially different outputs, and the sharing label assumption does not hold resulting in performance degradation of data augmentation. In other words, DropEdge considers all subgraphs in $m_p(\bbS)$ with equal priority [cf. \eqref{eq:stochasticProblemOverS}] while ignoring dissimilarity between subgraphs and the underlying graph. The graph signals will be processed over some completely irrelevant subgraphs that carry little structural information inherent in graph signals during training, violating the natural reason behind the success of GCNNs. This motivates to take graph structural information into account during random edge dropping, which is exactly the proposed method.\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Graph connectivity} \label{subsec:graphConnectivity}
We consider graph connectivity as the key property that captures graph structure, and propose to incorporate this factor into DropEdge for more satisfactory data augmentation in which generated data does not deviate far from the original data.
Our intuition is that if the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ maintains similar connectivity as the underlying graph $\bbS$, it preserves the overall topology, the relative error $\bbE$ [cf. \eqref{eq:relativeError}] would be small, and the augmented data that shares the same label as the original data is reasonable. To see this intuitively, note that the difference between the entry $[\bbS]_{ij}$ of the underlying graph $\bbS$ and the entry $[\bbS']_{ij}$ of the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ is given by $[\bbE\bbS+\bbS\bbE]_{ij}$. By expanding the matrix multiplication, we have\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{align} \label{eq:relativeExpansion}
[\bbS]_{ij} - [\bbS']_{ij} \!=\! [\bbE\bbS+\bbS\bbE]_{ij} \!=\! \sum_{\tau \in \ccalN_i} [\bbE]_{i \tau} [\bbS]_{\tau j} + \sum_{\tau \in \ccalN_j} [\bbS]_{i \tau} [\bbE]_{\tau j} = \sum_{\tau \in \ccalN_i} [\bbE]_{i \tau} + \sum_{\tau \in \ccalN_j} [\bbE]_{\tau j}
\end{align}
where $\bbS$ is assumed the adjacency matrix, and $\ccalN_i$ and $\ccalN_j$ are the sets of neighboring nodes of $n_i$ and $n_j$. It is observed that the entry difference $[\bbS]_{ij} - [\bbS']_{ij}$ is proportional to the number of neighboring nodes (edge connections) scaled by the entries of the relative error $\bbE$. As the entries of $\bbE$ grow, the entries of the underlying graph $\bbS$ and the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ become more dissimilar. However, parts of the graph with stronger connectivity would change proportionally larger than parts of the graph with weaker connectivity [cf. \eqref{eq:relativeExpansion}]. From another perspective, it is equivalent to stating that the same edge changes in parts of the graph with stronger connectivity could result from smaller relative errors than parts of the graph with weaker connectivity, and thus maintain more graph structural information. The latter emphasizes the importance of maintaining graph connectivity during random edge dropping, in order to yield small relative errors and avoid augmentation in which the generated data deviates far from the original data.\vspace{-1mm}
\iffalse
\subsection{Graph Connectivity}
We consider graph connectivity as the key property that captures the graph topology, and propose to incorporate this factor into DropEdge for more "healthy" data augmentation. Our intuition is that if the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS'$ maintains similar connectivity as the underlying graph $\bbS$, it preserves the overall topology, the relative error $\bbE$ [cf. \eqref{eq:relativeError}] would be admissible, and the augmented data that shares the same label as the original data is assumed "healthy". We validate this fact in Theorem \ref{theorem:GraphConnectivity}
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:GraphConnectivity}
Consider the underlying graph $\bbS$. Let $\{ e_{1,m} = (n_{i_{1, m}}, n_{j_{1, m}}) \}_{m=1}^D$ be $D$ edges in the part of the graph with strong connectivity and $\{ e_{2,m} = (n_{i_{2, m}}, n_{j_{2, m}}) \}_{m=1}^D$ be another $D$ edges in the part of the graph with weak connectivity, such that
\begin{align}\label{thm:conditionNeighbor}
\sum_{m=1}^D |\ccalN_{n_{i_{1, m}}}| + |\ccalN_{n_{j_{1, m}}}| \ge \sum_{m=1}^D |\ccalN_{n_{i_{2, m}}}| + |\ccalN_{n_{j_{2, m}}}|
\end{align}
where $|\ccalN_{n_{i_{1, m}}}|$ is the number of neighbors of node $n_{i_{1, m}}$. Suppose removing $\{ e_{1,m} \}_{m=1}^D$ results in the subgraph $\bbS_1$ and the relative error $\bbE_1^*$, and removing $\{ e_{2,m} \}_{m=1}^D$ results in another subgraph $\bbS_2$ and another relative error $\bbE_2^*$. Then, it holds that
\begin{align} \label{thm:relativeErrorComparison}
\|\bbE_1^*\|_2 \le \|\bbE_2^*\|_2.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:GraphConnectivity} states that dropping the same number of edges in parts of the graph with weaker connectivity would result in larger relative errors; hence, the underlying graph and the edge-dropped subgraph become more dissimilar resulting in "noisy" augmented data. Note that the condition \eqref{thm:conditionNeighbor} simply indicates that there are more connections in the part of the graph where the edges $\{ e_{1,m} \}_{m=1}^D$ belongs compared to the edges $\{ e_{2,m} \}_{m=1}^D$. This result \eqref{thm:relativeErrorComparison} together with the result \eqref{eq:dataDiversity} in Theorem \ref{theorem:dataDiversity} emphasize the importance of maintaining the graph connectivity during the random edge dropping.
\fi
\section{Methodology} \label{sec:methodology}
Motivated by the above analysis, we develop TADropEdge that samples random edge-dropped subgraphs while maintaining similar topological connectivity as the underlying graph. To characterize graph connectivity, instead of considering local neighborhood of individual nodes, we take a more global perspective by considering large-scale clusters within the graph. We suppose there exist several weakly connected components in a single connected graph, referred to as \emph{clusters}---see Fig. \ref{fig:res_vals} for a motivation example with three clusters. In classification problems, for instance, $q$ is the number of node classes. In this context, inter-cluster edges are critical for establishing graph connectivity while intra-cluster edges are not. Proposition 1 in the supplementary material validates this fact by upper bounding the change in eigenvectors of the graph Laplacian induced by the change in intra-cluster edges, where the bound can be arbitrarily small as long as the edge-dropped subgraph maintains similar clustering topology.
The main premise behind this work is to identify inter- and intra-cluster edges in the underlying graph, and to allow higher sampling probabilities for inter-cluster edges and lower sampling probabilities for intra-cluster edges. The latter not only gives the benefits as DropEdge to avoid over-fitting but also preserves overall graph topology to avoid noisy augmented data. Specifically, TADropEdge consists of three phases:
\begin{figure*} \label{fig:clustering_example}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.18\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{resistanceValues.jpg}
\caption{} \label{fig:res_vals}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.24\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.18]{eigvalFig.pdf}
\caption{} \label{fig:eigvals}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.18\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{eigvecNo_0.jpg}
\caption{} \label{fig:eig_0}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.18\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{eigvecNo_1.jpg}
\caption{} \label{fig:eig_1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.18\linewidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.08]{eigvecNo_2.jpg}
\caption{} \label{fig:eig_2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Fig. \ref{fig:res_vals} shows an example graph with 3 clusters. Fig. \ref{fig:eigvals} plots the first (smallest) $6$ eigenvalues. Fig. \ref{fig:eig_0}--\ref{fig:eig_2} are eigenvectors of the first 3 eigenvalues. Fig. \ref{fig:res_vals} also shows an visualization of \emph{aggregate resistance weights}.}\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure*}
I. \textbf{Disjoint component identification}: We preprocess the underlying graph to identify \emph{disjoint components}, which are not connected to each other. In particular, there may exist several components within the underlying graph, where nodes in the same component can be connected either directly or indirectly via relay nodes while nodes between different components can never find a connecting path. We refer to the latter as disjoint components, the number of which corresponds to the number of zero eigenvalues of the graph Laplacian. We employ the disjoint-set forest to compute the union-find data structure \cite{tarjan1975efficiency}.
The latter stores a collection of non-overlapping node sets, which allows us to determine the disjoint components and count the number of nodes in each one of them.
II. \textbf{Edge weight computation}: We suppose there are $q$ clusters in each disjoint component (with no less than $q$ nodes). We leverage the graph spectrum to compute a positive real-valued distribution over edges, referred to as the \emph{aggregate resistance weight}, which measures the role each edge plays in being an inter- or intra-cluster edge and implies its criticality regarding to the component connectivity.
Following \cite{zhan2021barrier-journal}, we consider the first $q$ eigenvectors (correspoding to the $q$ lowest eigenvalues) of the graph Laplacian. Each eigenvector corresponds to a mode with relatively uniform value distribution over each cluster---see Fig. \ref{fig:eig_0}--\ref{fig:eig_2} for $q=3$ eigenvectors / modes. Given $q$ linearly independent modes, the uniform value of each cluster differs from the uniform value of its neighboring clusters in at least one mode. As such, the value difference between nodes that connect different clusters will be non-zero while the value difference between nodes within a single cluster will be very close to zero. This observation motivates to identify the inter- or intra-cluster edge based on the eigenvector value difference between its parent nodes across the first $q$ eigenvectors. In particular, let $\breve{\bbV} = [\mathbf{u}_{0}~\mathbf{u}_{1}~\cdots~\mathbf{u}_{q-1}] \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times q}$ be a matrix in which the columns are the first $q$ eigenvectors and $\bbD \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$ be the incidence matrix that satisfies $[\bbD]_{i_m m}=1$, $[\bbD]_{j_m m}=-1$ if $e_m = (n_{i_m}, n_{j_m}) \in \ccalE$ and $[\bbD]_{im}=0$ for all $i \ne i_m, j_m$. We define aggregate resistance weight as\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{align}\label{eq:qAggregateResistance}
\breve{\mathbf{r}} = \text{diag}\left( \bbD^\mathsf{T} \left( \breve{\bbV} \breve{\bbV}^\mathsf{T} \right) \bbD \right)
\end{align}
where the $m$th component $[\breve{\mathbf{r}}]_m$ represents the weight of the edge $e_m = (n_{i_m}, n_{j_m})$. To be more precise, expanding \eqref{eq:qAggregateResistance} yields $[\breve{\mathbf{r}}]_m \!=\! \sum_{\ell=0}^{q-1} ([\bbu_\ell]_{i_m} \!-\! [\bbu_\ell]_{j_m})^2$ for $m=1,\ldots,M$, which represents the aggregated value difference between the edge nodes $n_{i_m}$ and $n_{i_m}$ across $q$ eigenvectors. As discussed above, this vector $\breve{\mathbf{r}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is higher for inter-cluster edges and lower for intra-cluster edges. Fig. \ref{fig:res_vals} illustrates an example with $q=3$ clusters,
and more examples are shown in the supplementary material. This forms the basis of TADropEdge to preserve salient topological information. That is, the edges with higher weights being the inter-cluster edges are critical in preserving graph topology and hence are sampled with higher probabilities. During the weight computation, the lowest value is logged and set as the default value for all edges of those disjoint components with less than $q$ nodes.
III. \textbf{Topology adaptive edge dropping}: We drop graph edges adaptively based on their aggregate resistance weights. Given the fact that edges with large weights are critical for establishing topological connectivity, we sample these edges with higher probabilities or maintain them as undropped. In particular, let $\ccalG$ be the underlying graph and $p$ be the default probability. TADropEdge determines the sampling matrix $\bbP_{\ccalG, p}$ by edge weights, where the entry $[\bbP]_{i_mj_m}$ is the sampling probability of the edge $e_m = (n_{i_m},n_{j_m}) \in \ccalE$. We propose three specific adaptive sampling strategies as follows:
(i) \text{\emph{Threshold cutoff}:} We consider a threshold $\gamma$ determined by the edge weight distribution. Graph edges are sampled at the default probability $p$ if their weights are smaller than $\gamma$, otherwise they are maintained as undropped. It fixes a small number of critical edges for maintaining graph connectivity.
(ii) \text{\emph{Division normalization}:} We normalize the edge weights to $[0,1]$ with the division function, and determine the sampling matrix $\bbP_{\ccalG,p}$ by the normalized weights. Given the edge weight $\omega$ and the function parameter $\gamma$, the edge sampling probability is $~p_{\ccalG, p} = 1 - (1 - p) * \gamma/(\gamma + \omega)$.
(iii) \text{ \emph{CDF normalization}:} We normalize the edge weights to $[0,1]$ with the cumulative distribution function (CDF), and determine the sampling matrix $\bbP_{\ccalG,p}$ by the normalized weights. Given the edge weight $\omega$ and the CDF $f(\omega)$ of $\omega$, the edge sampling probability is $~p_{\ccalG, p} = p + (1-p) * f(\omega)$.
All strategies sample graph edges of lower weights at lower probabilities close to $p$ while sampling graph edges of higher weights at higher probabilities up to $1$, where the parameter $\gamma$ is selected based on the edge weight distribution---see implementation details in the supplementary material.
At each training epoch $t$, TADropEdge samples an edge-dropped subgraph $\ccalG_t$ with the sampling matrix $\bbP_{\ccalG, p}$. It then replaces the shift operator $\bbS$ of the underlying graph $\ccalG$ with the sparse shift operator $\bbS_t$ of the subgraph $\ccalG_t$ in the architecture [cf. \eqref{eq:layerProcessing}] for signal propagation and parameter training\footnote{We also perform the normalization technique for the edge-dropped subgraph $\bbS_t$ following the ideal of \cite{rong2019dropedge}.}.
\begin{remark} \normalfont
The number of clusters $q$ is a parameter for edge weight computation. On the one hand, it is related to practical applications, for instance, $q$ is the number of classes in node classification. On the other hand, $q$ can be determined from the spectrum of the graph Laplacian. If a disjoint component has $q$ clusters, there will be a \emph{gap} from the $(q-1)$th eigenvalue to the $q$th eigenvalue---see Fig. \ref{fig:eigvals} from $\lambda_2$ to $\lambda_3$. We leverage both aspects for robust edge weight computation. In particular, given the disjoint component is desired with $\alpha$ clusters, we search for a maximal gap in the neighborhood of the $(\alpha-1)$th eigenvalue and select $q$ that corresponds to the eigenvalues up until that gap.
\end{remark}\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Discussions}\label{subsec:discussion}\vspace{-1mm}
\textbf{Variance reduction.} TADropEdge samples a number of critical edges with higher probabilities or keeps them undropped, which gets rid of irrelevant noisy subgraphs and thus reduces the graph randomness throughout the architecture. Moreover, it generates the edge-dropped subgraphs that maintain overall topology, which propagate graph signals similarly as the underlying graph and produce close output features. Both aspects lead to reduced output / gradient variance, which mitigates the training difficulty compared to i.i.d. DropEdge.
\textbf{Over-smoothing.} While seminal to establish more satisfactory data augmentation and improve generalization performance, TADropEdge may weaken the capacity of alleviating over-smoothing for deep GNNs. Over-smoothing is a phenomenon that output features of GNNs converge to a subspace that is only relevant to graph topology but independent to input signals, as the architecture depth increases \cite{li2018deeper, oono2019asymptotic}. Since TADropEdge exploits graph structural information during random edge dropping, the sampled subgraphs have similar overall topology though with different local structures. They will propagate graph signals in a similar way as the underlying graph, and thus output features may converge faster to the limiting subspace compared to i.i.d. DropEdge. We therefore consider TADropEdge as a trade-off between over-fitting and over-smoothing. It is worth mentioning that increasing the architecture depth typically degrades performance even if over-smoothing is alleviated with DropEdge as observed from \cite{rong2019dropedge,luo2021learning}, and TADropEdge has already achieved higher accuracies on shallow architectures with efficient implementation (Section \ref{experiments}). \vspace{-2mm}
\section{Experiments}\label{experiments}\vspace{-2mm}
We evaluate the proposed TADropEdge on node-level and graph-level classification problems with real-life and synthetic datasets, and compare it with DropEdge and existing state-of-the-art models. The experimental results show superior classification accuracies of TADropEdge corroborating theory. The supplementary material contains implementation details and more experimental results.
\subsection{Node-level classification} \vspace{-2mm}
\begin{figure*}%
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth, height = 0.7\linewidth]{Convergence2-eps-converted-to.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{fig0}%
\end{subfigure}\hfill\hfill%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth, height = 0.7\linewidth]{Dropout_comparison_Cutoff-eps-converted-to.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{fig1}%
\end{subfigure}\hfill\hfill%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,height = 0.7\linewidth]{Dropout_comparison_Division-eps-converted-to.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{fig2}%
\end{subfigure}\hfill\hfill%
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,height = 0.7\linewidth]{Dropout_comparison_CDF3-eps-converted-to.pdf}%
\caption{}%
\label{fig3}%
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Performance comparison between TADropEdge and DropEdge for $3$-layered GCN on Cora dataset. (a) Converging behaviors. (b) Threshold cutoff. (c) Division normalization. (d) CDF normalization. }\label{fig:vary_case_study}\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure*}
We consider the node classification in citation networks. The problem considers three citation datasets with varying graph sizes and feature types: Cora, CiteSeer and Pubmed \cite{sen2008collective}. In these datasets, graph nodes are papers and edges are citations. The node feature is a sparse bag-of-words vector, the node label is the paper topic, and the graph is undirected with a symmetric adjacency matrix. The goal is to find out the topic of a given paper. We conduct the full-supervised training following \cite{huang2018adaptive, rong2019dropedge}.
\begin{table}[t]\footnotesize
\caption{Performance comparison between TADropEdge and DropEdge}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l | c| p{0.5cm} p{0.5cm} p{0.6cm}| p{0.5cm} p{0.5cm} p{0.6cm}| p{0.5cm} p{0.5cm} p{0.6cm}|}
\hline
& & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{GCN} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{JKNet} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{IncepGCN} \\
Dataset & Method & ~~2L & ~~3L & ~~4L & ~~2L & ~~3L & ~~4L & ~~2L & ~~3L & ~~4L
\\
\hline
&Original &0.868 & 0.866 & 0.860 & - & 0.869 & 0.861 & - & 0.870 & 0.862 \\
&DropEdge &0.872 & 0.872 & 0.874 &- & 0.878 & 0.877 &- & 0.875 & 0.879 \\
Cora & TADropEdge-Cutoff
& \textbf{0.879} & 0.879 & 0.877& - & 0.883 & 0.883 & - & \textbf{0.889} & 0.881 \\& TADropEdge-Division & 0.878 & 0.880 & 0.878 & - & \textbf{0.886} & \textbf{0.886} & - & 0.886 & \textbf{0.884} \\& TADropEdge-CDF & \textbf{0.879} & \textbf{0.883} & \textbf{0.879} & - & \textbf{0.886} & 0.883 & - & 0.887 & 0.883 \\ \hline
&Original &0.794 & 0.789 & 0.777 &- & 0.793 & 0.789 &- & 0.787 & 0.794 \\
&DropEdge &0.802 & 0.798 & 0.783 &- & 0.796 & 0.791 &- & 0.794 & 0.796 \\
CiteSeer & TADropEdge-Cutoff
& 0.812 & 0.805 & \textbf{0.791} &- & \textbf{0.807} & 0.796 &- & 0.804 & \textbf{0.801} \\& TADropEdge-Division
& \textbf{0.814} & 0.804 & 0.790 &- & 0.806 & 0.796 &- & \textbf{0.805} & \textbf{0.801} \\& TADropEdge-CDF
& \textbf{0.814} & \textbf{0.807} & \textbf{0.791} &- & 0.806 & \textbf{0.797} &- & 0.803 & 0.800 \\ \hline
&Original &0.904 & 0.894 & 0.891 &- & 0.895 & 0.890 &- & 0.896 & 0.895 \\
&DropEdge &0.909 & 0.907 & 0.904 &- & 0.907 & 0.903 &- & 0.904 & 0.906 \\
Pubmed & TADropEdge-Cutoff
& 0.912 & 0.912 & 0.906 &- & \textbf{0.911} & 0.908 &- & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{0.911} \\& TADropEdge-Division
& 0.911 & 0.912 & \textbf{0.908} &- & 0.910 & 0.907 &- & \textbf{0.910} & \textbf{0.911} \\& TADropEdge-CDF
& \textbf{0.914} & \textbf{0.915} & 0.905 &- & 0.910 & \textbf{0.910} &- & 0.908 & 0.909 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ComparisonDropEdge}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\textbf{Comparison with DropEdge.} We start by providing a case study to demonstrate how TADropEdge improves performance against i.i.d. DropEdge, where we focus on the dataset Cora and the backbone GCN of $3$ layers \cite{Kipf2017}. Fig. \ref{fig0} shows converging behaviors of compared methods at $p=0.7$. TADropEdge converges faster with lower training / validation loss. The former is due to variance reduction (Section \ref{subsec:discussion}) and the latter is because TADropEdge accounts for graph structural information. Fig. \ref{fig1}-\ref{fig3} report the classification accuracy comparison between TADropEdge and DropEdge under varying default probabilities $p$. While different adaptive sampling strategies yield (slightly) different performance,
TADropEdge consistently outperforms DropEdge in almost all scenarios.
These results validate the importance of maintaining graph topology during random edge dropping.
We then formally compare TADropEdge and DropEdge on all three datasets: Cora, CiteSeer and Pubmed. We consider three backbones: GCN \cite{Kipf2017}, IncepGCN \cite{rong2019dropedge} and JKNet \cite{Xu19-GIN}, where the architecture depth varies from $2$ to $4$ layers for efficient implementation\footnote{Deeper architectures increase computational complexity but degrades performance due to over-smoothing in most cases \cite{rong2019dropedge, luo2021learning}, such that we focus on shallow architectures in this paper.}. We follow the experimental setting in \cite{rong2019dropedge} to perform a random hyper-parameter search for each model---see details in the supplementary material. Table \ref{tab:ComparisonDropEdge} summaries the results. It is observed that TADropEdge improves classification accuracy consistently in all cases. While different adaptive sampling strategies affect performance slightly, all of them outperform DropEdge corroborating the effectiveness of TADropEdge on exploiting graph structural information during random edge dropping. The performance improvement is more remarkable for GNNs of lower layers, which
can be explained by the fact that TADropEdge may weaken the ability of alleviating over-smoothing in deep GNNs,
as discussed in Section \ref{subsec:discussion}.
\begin{table}[t]\footnotesize
\caption{Performance comparison between TADropEdge and SOTA methods}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l | c| c| c| c|}
\hline
& Method & Cora & CiteSeer & Pubmed
\\ [0.5ex]
\hline
&FastGCN &0.8500 & 0.7760 & 0.8800 \\
&AS-GCN &0.8744 & 0.7966 & 0.9060 \\
SOTA methods &GraphSAGE
& 0.8220 & 0.7140 & 0.8710 \\& NeuralSparse
& 0.8230 & 0.7730 & 0.8500 \\& PTDNeT
& 0.8250 & 0.7840 & 0.8540 \\ \hline
& TADropEdge-GCN & 0.8830 (3L) & \textbf{0.8140 (2L)} & \textbf{0.9150 (3L)} \\
TADropEdge & TADropEdge-JKNet
& 0.8860 (3L / 4L) & 0.8070 (3L) & 0.9110 (3L) \\& TADropEdge-IncepGCN
& \textbf{0.8890 (3L)} & 0.8050 (3L) & 0.9110 (4L) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ComparisonSOTAs}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\textbf{Comparison with SOTAs.} We select the best performance of each backbone with TADropEdge, and compare with existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) models. The latter include sampling methods: FastGCN \cite{chen2018fastgcn}, AS-GCN \cite{huang2018adaptive}, GraphSAGE \cite{hamilton2017inductive} and supervised sparsification methods: NeuralSparse \cite{zheng2020robust} and PTDNET \cite{luo2021learning}.
For sampling methods, we reuse the results reported in \cite{huang2018adaptive}; For sparsification methods, we utilize the Tensorflow implementation in \cite{luo2021learning}. Note that we follow the full-supervised setting in\cite{huang2018adaptive, rong2019dropedge}, which is different from that in \cite{luo2021learning}. We summarize the comparison results in Table \ref{tab:ComparisonSOTAs}. TADropEdge exhibits the best performance against SOTA methods on all datasets.
The performance improvements on Cora and Citeseer are more significant than that on Pubmed. This is because the underlying graphs of Cora and Citeseer have better clustering properties than that of Pubmed and thus, graph structural information is more important during random edge dropping. For most cases, the best accuracy of TADropEdge is achieved under the depth of $2$ or $3$ layers. This indicates that TADropEdge is able to achieve superior performance with efficient implementation.\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{table}[h]\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance comparison on source localization between TADropEdge and DropEdge.}
\label{table1}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & Classification accuracy \\ \hline
GCNN & $0.820$ \\ \hline
GCNN with DropEdge & $0.836$ \\ \hline
GCNN with TADropEdge-Cutoff & $\textbf{0.860}$ \\ \hline
GCNN with TADropEdge-Division & $0.856$ \\ \hline
GCNN with TADropEdge-CDF & $0.848$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ComparisonSource}
\end{center} \vspace{-6mm}
\end{table}
\subsection{Graph-level classification}\vspace{-2mm}
We consider the graph-level classification as source localization. The problem considers the signal diffusion process over the stochastic block model (SBM) graph of $N$ nodes equally divided into $C$ communities, where the inter- and intra-community link probabilities are $0.2$ and $0.6$ respectively. The initial source signal is a Kronecker delta $\bbdelta_s = [\delta_1, \ldots, \delta_N]^\top \in \{ 0,1 \}^N$ with $\delta_s \neq 0$ at the source node $s \in \{ s_1, \ldots, s_C \}$. The diffused signal at time $t$ is $\bbx_{st} = \bbS^t \bbdelta_s + \bbn$ with $\bbS$ the normalized adjacency matrix and $\bbn$ the normal noise. The goal is to determine the source community of a given diffused signal. We consider a single-layered GCNN \cite{Fernando2019}, and compare TADropEdge with DropEdge and the original model. We measure performance as the classification accuracy, and follow \cite{rong2019dropedge} to perform a random hyper-parameter search to report the best accuracy for each method---see details in the supplementary material.
Table \ref{tab:ComparisonSource} shows the results. We see that both TADropEdge and DropEdge outperform the original model, which implies random edge dropping successfully augments the training data. TADropEdge exhibits better performance than DropEdge, where the threshold cutoff obtains the highest classification accuracy. As previously explained, this is because TADropEdge maintains the overall topology of the underlying graph during random edge dropping and avoids noisy augmented data. The performance improvement of TADropEdge is more significant compared to the node classification in citation networks. We attribute this behavior to the fact that the SBM graph has better clustering properties, and its topology is more vulnerable to i.i.d. edge dropping.\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{C}\vspace{-2mm}
This paper proposed Topology Adaptive Edge Dropping method to improve generalization performance of graph neural networks. TADropEdge accounts for the underlying graph topology during random edge dropping, such that the edge-dropped subgraphs maintain the structural information inherent in graph signals and avoid noisy data augmentation for performance enhancement. TADropEdge consists of three phases: 1) Identify disjoint components within the underlying graph; 2) Assign connectivity-relevant weights to edges for each disjoint component; 3) Normalize the edge weights and drop graph edges adaptively based on the normalized weights. The three phases identify critical edges that establish the graph connectivity, and sample them with higher probabilities to maintain the overall topology of the underlying graph. Considerable experiments on real-life and synthetic datasets validate that TADropEdge consistently promotes performance and learns robust GNNs.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\subsubsection{#1}\vspace{-3\baselineskip}\color{black}\medskip{\noindent \bf \thesubsubsection. #1.}}
\newcommand{\myparagraph}[1]{\needspace{1\baselineskip}\medskip\noindent {\bf #1}}
\newcommand{\myindentedparagraph}[1]{\needspace{1\baselineskip}\medskip \hangindent=11pt \hangafter=0 \noindent{\it #1.}}
\newcommand{\myparagraphtc}[1]{\needspace{1\baselineskip}\medskip\noindent {\it #1.}\addcontentsline{toc}{subsubsection}{\qquad\qquad\quad#1}}
|
\chapter*{Requirements for this Document}
Candidates shall submit a dissertation of not more than 30,000 words, plus not more than 30
pages of diagrams, tables, listing etc., and (where applicable) the source code, on a subject
selected by the candidate in consultation with the supervisor and approved by the director of
the course. The associated source code is neither included in the word count nor the 30-page appendices.
There is no minimum length. However, it would be unusual to see a document of less than,
say, 35 pages in a font size no smaller than 11pt that contained an adequate demonstration
Many dissertations have around 6-7 chapters, but your choice of organisation should
follow from the nature of your own material. The word limit is 30,000, but many dissertations are less than
this. 15,000 - 20,000 words or around 50 pages is reasonable. You will probably need about 1,000 words for
the Introduction and the same, or less, for the Conclusion. The rest of the chapters will vary, depending on
the number you include, but many will probably be around 2-3,000 words.
Each project dissertation will be read by at least two assessors, including at least one Exam-
iner, but excluding the supervisor. Each assessor will write a brief report on the dissertation,
including comments on context, contribution, competence, criticism and clarity. The asses-
sors are asked to give a mark based on the above criteria. The final USM will usually be
computed as an average.
The project is written up as a dissertation, which should give a clear account of an
attempt to apply some of the principles taught in the course in practice. Students are
encouraged to pay careful attention to the organisation of the material and the style.
Although the expected standard is that of a good internal project report in industry,
some past dissertations have reached publication standard, and others have been the
starting points for research programmes.
Factors in Assessment
The mark awarded to a dissertation will be based upon the examiners' overall impression of
the work. To arrive at this impression, they will consider the following factors:
Context: The dissertation should demonstrate, as far as is relevant, a good understanding of
the context in which the work was undertaken. It should be evident that the student
understood both the problem and the problem domain, and that the choice of approach was
informed and intelligent. The examiners would like to be convinced that the student has a
good general knowledge of the field.
Competence: The student should demonstrate, in the text of the dissertation that they are
able to apply the ideas and the techniques that they have studied. The examiners will look
for evidence of understanding, and appropriate application of techniques. They would like
to be convinced that the student has shown competence in investigating the chosen topic.
Contribution: The dissertation should have some value in itself. This may arise in different
ways: the dissertation may present a fresh application, an extension to a theory, a new
solution, or a new approach to a problem. The value will depend upon the extent of
achievement: the nature of the application, the utility of the extension, the elegance of the
solution, or the coherence of the approach.
All of these are intangible, but the examiners' expectations will be framed in the knowledge
that this is work undertaken by new graduates (it should be more advanced than a third-year
undergraduate project, but not necessarily comparable with that of a research student).
\textbf{Ideally, the examiners would like to be convinced that the student has made a worthwhile contribution to knowledge or understanding in the field.}
Critical Evaluation: The dissertation should provide appropriate critical assessment of the
work that has been done and the process of doing it.
Presentation: If the dissertation is to succeed as a demonstration of knowledge and
understanding, and if the examiners are to be convinced of the competence of the student,
then a certain degree of clarity and organisation is required. However, part of the value of
the dissertation lies in its accessibility: if it is to make a worthwhile contribution, then it must
be readable for another member of the cohort that’s taken a similar schedule of courses
whilst also maintaining sufficient detail to document the work and support assessments
made.
\fi
\chapter*{Abstract}
The program synthesis problem within the Inductive Logic Programming (ILP)
community has typically been seen as untyped.
We consider the benefits of user provided types on background knowledge.
Building on the Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL) framework, we show that type
checking is able to prune large parts of the hypothesis space of programs.
The introduction of polymorphic type checking to the MIL approach to logic
program synthesis is validated by strong theoretical and experimental results,
showing a cubic reduction in the size of the search space and synthesis time,
in terms of the number of typed background predicates.
Additionally we are able to infer polymorphic types of
synthesized clauses and of entire programs.
The other advancement is in developing an approach to leveraging
refinement types in ILP. Here we show that further pruning of the search
space can be achieved, though the SMT solving used for refinement type checking
comes at a significant cost timewise.
\tableofcontents
\chapter{Introduction}
In the last decade there has been a great surge in the effective application of
Artificial Intelligence techniques to a great number of
practical problems, e.g.~image classification \citep{deng2009imagenet},
code completion \citep{Raychev:2014:CCS:2666356.2594321},
as well as autonomous navigation \citep{bojarski2016end}.
Though these advances in AI technology have made previous instances of the above
problems tractable, many of the techniques leveraged are not able to give a useful
explanation of why decisions are being made (a prime example being artificial
neural networks), and struggle to generalize over their entire input space
\citep{gulwani2015inductive}.
For some problems, like in the case of autonomous driving cars, the ability to
understand why certain decisions will be/were made could be of utmost importance
with regard to safety and liability issues.
\paragraph{Comprehensibility}
The problem with the alluded to methods is that the generated programs
do not necessarily have a description that allows humans to understand and
effectively reason about the programs (e.g.~the edge weights in neural networks
do not give a ready interpretation of program behaviour). The focus
of these approaches is on improving according to \cite{michie}'s \emph{weak}
criterion for machine learning, i.e.~improving predictive accuracy.
In contrast, programs described by programming languages do have
semantics that are comprehensible to both machines and humans,
which corresponds to Michie's criterion for \emph{strong} machine learning.
From this it follows that a fruitful approach to explainable AI might be to
generate computer programs expressed in programming languages,
i.e.~\emph{code programs}.
Programming languages also strongly emphasize
the composability of programs, motivating the usage of the term
\emph{synthesis} for the generation of code programs.
Logic and functional languages in particular are good candidates for synthesis
due to their high level of abstraction being associated with smaller programs.
Recent work on \emph{ultra-strong} machine learning \citep{Muggleton2018}
has shown that learning logic relational programs can extend humans' capacity
for understanding training data to a level beyond unassisted study.
\paragraph{Inductive synthesis}
Code program synthesis is not only useful in terms of explainable AI, it is
also of interest for the sake of automating programming.
Code synthesis holds promise as a tool for developers to become
more efficient, but has also proven effective in empowering non-programmers in
obtaining programs that fit their needs, e.g.~learning spreadsheet transformations \citep{Singh2012a}. For these
users of program synthesis the synthesis problem is posed as finding a program
that accounts for the examples that the user gives (in terms of inputs and
outputs) and which is mostly likely to appropriately generalize from the
examples \citep{Gulwani2010}.
The paradigm that combines both automatic generation of code programs and
learning from examples is known as \emph{Inductive Programming} \citep{kitzelmann}.
Versus general machine learning,
inductive programming typically relies on very few examples to learn from,
e.g.~the single example $f([[1,2,3],[4,5]]) = [[1,2],[4]]$ is enough to induce
a program that drops the last element from input lists.
For programmers this paradigm is useful for problems ranging from
which constants to fill in for edge cases (see \citep{Solar-Lezama2009}), up to
the potential to discover novel efficient algorithms \citep{Cropper2018}.
\paragraph{Logic programs}
The above considerations motivate the study of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP),
"a form of machine learning that uses logic programming to represent examples, background knowledge, and learned programs" \citep{Cropper2017},
an active field of study for almost thirty years \citep{Muggleton1991}.
The specification of an inductive logic problem is in terms of
the examples the program needs to satisfy, along with background information
in the form of asserted facts and available program fragments,
and possibly rules about the structure of the program to be synthesized.
A particularly powerful approach developed recently is that of the
\emph{Meta-Interpretive Learning} (MIL) \citep{Muggleton2014}.
One of the major benefits of this approach (versus virtually all other existing
synthesis systems) is that it is able do \emph{predicate invention}, that is,
it is able to construct helper predicates/functions.
The MIL framework essentially takes the user's problem
description and sees it as a specification of a search space of possible
programs to consider.
The time required for synthesis is most influenced by how large the search space
is that is traversed.
The implementation of the MIL framework is written in Prolog,
a logic programming language that does not consider the types
of its terms. The MIL algorithm in turn does not make use of the
types of predicates during its search.
\paragraph{Contribution}
The thesis of this document is that types are a significant feature for the
MIL approach to code program synthesis.
Types provide an effective way of pruning out nonsensical programs in the search
space, i.e.~programs already rejected by type checking.
Different gradations of types
are considered, namely polymorphic types, i.e.~types with type parameteres,
and refinement types (with polymorphism), i.e.~types with a proposition restricting
inhabitants.
The second system has strictly more accurate types than the first,
but the type checking comes at a considerable cost.
For polymorphic types we show significant benefits both theoretically and
experimentally,
showing a cubic reduction in the size of the search space and synthesis time,
in terms of the number of typed background predicates.
Additionally we are able to infer polymorphic types of
synthesized clauses and of entire programs.
For refinement typing the foremost contribution is in the
introduction of refinement types to ILP, while the experimental results
indicate more work is needed for refinement type checking to be truly effective.
\paragraph{Document organization}
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. The first chapter presents a brief
introduction to the project. The other chapters are described as follows:
chapter 2 contains a literature review of code synthesis approaches
with a focus on types and ILP. Chapter 3 discusses
in detail the existing MIL systems.
Chapters 4 through 7 represent the novel contributions of this project.
Chapter 4 discusses where MIL can benefit from the introduction of types.
The subsequent chapter discusses how
polymorpic type checking is introduced to the existing system.
Chapter 6 deals with refinement types and with how Satisfiability Modulo
Theories (SMT) solving is leveraged for type checking.
Both chapter 5 and 6 have sections presenting theoretical and experimental results.
The conclusion, chapter 7, considers the implications of the
experimental results and relates this outcome to future work.
\chapter{Review of Program Synthesis}
\iftrue
Following on from the arguments made in the introduction regarding the
significance of program synthesis,
this chapter opens with discussing the strong relation
between program synthesis and the notion of proof search.
Subsequently the presentation switches to a literature review.
Different aspects of the synthesis problem are highlighted, such as the
differences in problem definitions, various application areas and
multiple paradigms.
We do not aim for comprehensiveness, instead we review a selection of disparate
approaches in the literature based on contrasting features.
The focus is on code program synthesis approaches for synthesis of functional
programs, usually based around typing information,
and synthesis of logic programs, where we mainly look at the
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) approach. Methods outside of
these areas are also touched upon.
\section{Program Synthesis as Proof Search}
There is a strong correspondence between program synthesis and automated
theorem proving. In program synthesis there is a specification for
which we try to find a program satisfying the specification.
The user might provide helper functions to be used in the synthesized program.
In automated theorem proving we state a proposition and want to find a proof
for the validity of the formula. The user might provide lemmas that may
be used in the proof.
As we will see later, many specifications can be expressed as a type that
the synthesized program needs to satisfy.
The connection between program synthesis and proof search is most
eloquently expressed by the Curry-Howard correspondence \citep{sorensen2006lectures}.
This correspondence states that there is a direct mapping between
programs (expressed in type theory) and mathematical proofs.
For every type theory, a formal system for describing (functional) programs
with their types, there is a mapping between the types of the programs and logical formulae.
From this correspondence it follows that type checking is the same as
checking that a proof follows the rules of formal logical system
(e.g.~natural deduction).
This connection means that when we are interested in program synthesis we
should be aware of the work that exists ``on the other side'' of the
correspondence, namely in (semi-)automated theorem proving.
On the side of theorem proving there is an interesting distinction made
between systems that fully automate the construction of proofs
\citep{bibel2013automated} and
of so called proof assistants (e.g.~\cite*{the_coq_development_team_2018_1219885},
and Isabelle \citep{Nipkow:2002:IPA:1791547}), where software assists users in
writing down proofs in a formal system. One form of assistance provided
is the ability to do proof search. Whilst the ideal of theorem proving is full
automation, for many non-trivial logical systems this is simply not tractable
(in general, it is even undecidable to determine the truth of all propositions).
Proof assistants are instead able to do proof search based on a (partial) proof,
and lemmas already constructed by the user.
The idea of having the user
guide proof automation is recognizable program synthesis as
providing background knowledge, in the form of helper functions.
How a user of a proof assistant asks the system to find a proof, and upon
failure will try to provide additional guidance by providing additional
lemmas (or working further on the proof) is also in clear relation to how
users work with synthesis systems.
For this project we work in the setting of logic programs. Logic programming
is at an interesting intersection of programming and theorem proving, as
execution is performed based on SLD-resolution, the algorithm behind
first-order theorem provers.
For this document we will hence often rely on the terminology of
proofs and proof search.
\section{Dimensions of Program Synthesis}
In this section we review several important features of program synthesis.
Based on a survey of the literature (focused on type-based synthesis and approaches
to ILP), we look at the domains and applications areas where synthesis
has been successfully applied.
Next we look at the different ways that the synthesis problem can be specified
by the user.
Following on we look at the types of programs that can be learned by different
approaches. We finish on a discussion of the recognisable paradigms within
the literature.
We follow \citep{Gulwani2010} in identifying the
key aspects of an approach to the synthesis problem as
capturing the user's intent in a specification, the space of
programs that is considered, and the approach to searching this space.
\subsection{Synthesis Domains/Application Areas}
In this section we give an idea of the diversity of problems addressable by
program synthesis, based on a selection of successful approaches in the literature.
The review paper by \citep{Gulwani2010} is great resource for entering upon
the field of program synthesis, and unless otherwise annotated the reference
for the below discussion is this paper.
Bitvector algorithms ``typically describe some plausible yet unusual operation
on integers or bit strings that could easily be programmed using either a
longish fixed sequence of machine instructions or a loop, but the same thing
can be done much more cleverly using just four or three or two carefully chosen
instructions whose interactions are not at all obvious until explained or fathomed''
\citep{Warren:2002:HD:515297}. In synthesis of bitvector algorithm initial
approaches used straight-forward brute-force
search \citep{Massalin:1987:SLS:36177.36194}, while newer approaches
are to leverage SMT solver reasoning \citep{Jha:2010:OCP:1806799.1806833}.
Other systems are able to fill in holes left in programs. The Sketch system
\citep{Solar-Lezama2009} deals with finding the appropriate values for
single value holes in imperative programs.
The holes are typically boundary conditions, e.g.~for loops.
In template-based synthesis \citep{Srivastava2013} the conditions on holes
are less-restricted in that holes can be filled by arbitrary expressions.
Templates are a way for the user to provide their insight
to the synthesis system, by writing code or invariants with holes.
Constraints are generated for these holes and SMT solvers are used to
find solutions.
Sometimes we are able to give a very precise specification for algorithms.
For example, we may be able to express the condition for properly implementing
critical sections and shared variables for mutual exclusion algorithms.
A synthesis system may then be able synthesis new concurrent algorithms by
properly inserting lock acquiring and releasing statements. \citep{bar2003automatic}
More generally we might be able to very precisely describe how function behave.
For functional programs a good place to assert such a specification is in
the type of the program \citep{frankle2016example}.
In \citep{polikarpova2016program} non-trivial algorithms over binary-search trees
are synthesized from specifications expressed as refinement types. The synthesis
technique derives from type checking rules for the programming language that
is considered.
The are a couple of domains that are only well suited for synthesis from
examples. We highlight string and matrix transformations.
A string transformation is a mapping on strings.
For example <EMAIL>'' might be
mapped to ``Hoare, T., UK''. One of the applications of string transformation
is to learn spreadsheet operations \citep{Singh2012}.
String transformations are also an often considered problem in ILP,
e.g.~\citep{cropper2016data}.
Similarly one can try to learn matrix transformations, by giving input-output
examples. These examples are typically larger than string transformations,
making it a good benchmark test for synthesis systems \citep{Wang2017}.
Another avenue explored is inventing strategies for robots performing tasks.
In \citep{Cropper2016} a very high-level strategy is learned for
serving either tea or coffee for a table of cups. The system is provided with
examples of good behaviour which are used to generate a higher-order logic
program describing the actions that the robot should perform.
\subsection{Specifications}
From the user's perspective one of the most important features of a synthesis
system is which problems it is able to solve. In this subsection we present
different ways of specifying the synthesis problem. We distinguish two
main aspects to specification, namely how to specify the \emph{goal}
and how to provide \emph{background knowledge}.
\paragraph{Goals}
The \emph{goal} of a synthesis problem is a program that satisfies the
specification.
The are multiple ways to describe what is expected of the goal.
There is the programming-by-example specification, where the conditions
on the goal are stated as input-output examples \citep{metagol}. Examples
are split in positive examples, ones that the synthesized program needs
to satisfy, and negative examples (also called counter-examples)
which should not be entailed by the program.
A related specification of the goal is programming-by-demonstration \citep{Lau2000}:
in addition to providing input-output examples a (partial) trace is provided
of the transformations that turned the input into the output.
As discussed in the previous section, there is the Sketch/templates
approach to specification by writing programs with holes.
In essence the program goal is already partially given by the user and only
small fragments need to be filled in.
A very general approach is to say that any (set of) logical proposition(s)
might be used as a specification. The previous section's mutual exclusion
conditions would fall in this category. A more rigid framework follows
from only allowing specifications over a function's arguments.
By the Curry-Howard correspondence these propositions may also be stated
as function typing \citep{frankle2016example}. A recent development is that even
examples may be encoded in types \citep{osera2015type}, yielding types as a very
powerful specification vehicle.
\paragraph{Background knowledge}
There are systems that approach synthesis with only a specification. Such
systems are forced to perform searches over very larges program spaces,
the exhaustive search of small lambda-terms satisfying a type, by
\citep{Katayama2005}, being such an example.
More common is to accept guidance from the user, in which case we call the
provided hints the \emph{background knowledge}.
In inductive logic programming the user may provide background knowledge
in the form of facts, defined Horn clauses (which may be higher-order)
\citep{Raedt2010}.
In meta-interpretive learning \citep{muggleton2014meta} in addition metarules
are supplied. Metarules define structure for clauses which are \emph{invented}
by the synthesis system. In chapter 3 we will at these metarules in more
detail.
In the setting where we are trying to synthesis functional programs from
specification embedded in types background knowledge takes on the following
forms.
Type declarations informing the system of the data structures over which to
operate. Type declarations for helper functions (with or without the actual
definition of the functions). For encoding more precise properties refinement
types are leveraged.
As a final example of background knowledge we highlight that the Sketch and
template approaches to synthesis blur the line between providing goal specifications
and background knowledge. Partial programs are more typically background
knowledge, but are here used as the primary means of specification.
\subsection{Paradigms and Types of Programs Learned}
In this subsection we look some of the paradigms for program synthesis. For
the separate approaches we highlight the types of programs that have been
synthesized by the method.
The most straightforward approach to synthesis to enumerative the entire space
of programs that your method is willing to consider, e.g.~\citep{Katayama2005}
searches over all lambda-terms. We look at several more sophisticated methods.
We will look at Inductive Logic Programming here as it will feature prominently
in the remainder of the document.
\paragraph{Maintaining consistent programs}
One idea is to maintain the space of programs that are consistent with examples.
With no examples the entire space of programs works. By interatively adding
examples one can start reducing this space of consistent programs.
Version Space Algebra \citep{Lau2000} is a powerful approach whereby the
space of programs (version space) is maintained by a partial ordering of
programs (usually by generality), which can be fully represented by the maxima and
minima of the ordering. An update function is able to shrink these boundaries
for each additional example considered.
Other approaches that are able to use a succinct representation of the space
of solutions is the work by \cite{Gvero2013} where types are used to
represent classes of expressions that are candidates for code completion
queries in IDEs. In \citep{Singh2012}, an exponentially sized space of
consistent string transformation is maintained in polynomial space by a
clever sharing of shared sub-expressions.
\paragraph{Constraint solving}
A very general approach to synthesis is to convert the problem to (logical)
constraints. These constraints are written in a language of an off-the-shelf
solver (in particular SMT solvers). The results of the solver
are then used to construct program solutions.
In the Sketch/template approach to synthesis the holes in programs
are surrounded by code that imposes conditions on the possibilities for such holes
\citep{Solar-Lezama2009} \citep{Srivastava2013}.
In Constraint-Based Synthesis of Datalog Programs \citep{B2017} the derivation
algorithm for (first-order) logic programming is encoded as logical constraints,
with additionally that the predicates symbols are allowed to vary, again
subject to constraints. To make problem tractable the constraints only
encode derivations of a bounded length. Any solution found satisfying the
constraints for partial derivations is then checked for being an actual solution
by using the found program to build a derivation in Datalog itself.
If the program does not work an additional constraint is generated excluding
the program from being considered again.
\paragraph{Inductive logic programming}
We have that in ILP the norm is to learn untyped logic programs.
Logic programs consist of Horn clauses, implications with a single atom in
the consequent \citep{Raedt2010}.
These programs are commonly interpreted as either Prolog, or
Datalog code. Prolog represents the SLD-resolution approach to program execution,
and comes with features that make the language Turing-complete, whilst Datalog
uses grounding of first-order logic to propositional logic to determine
entailment (which is decidable). While ILP systems primarily are used to
synthesize first-order programs, with an important feature being recursive programs,
recent work makes invention of higher-order programs possible
\citep{Muggleton2015}.
This document will further discuss the Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL)
framework as a particularly strong approach to ILP.
A simplistic approach to typing in MIL was already considered in
\citep{Farquhar2015} in order to learn proof strategies. The system only
support simple non-polymorphic types and hardcodes types in metarules.
\paragraph{Typing}
As already stated, the specification of functions is well addressed by
types. There are a number of approaches in the literature on using types
to synthesize functional programs.
The norm is to synthesis programs according to an (existing) type system,
with the guarantee that the programs type checks.
Important features include being parametric polymorphism, algebraic data types,
and structural recursion over these types.
Modern systems are able to utilize refinement types as specification, but also
direct the search \citep{polikarpova2016program}.
Type directed synthesis usually takes an approach that is very similar to
theorem provers. As the program will need to conform to a type according to
the rules of a type system, these rules are actually used to direct the search
\citep{osera2015type}.
The type specification is decomposed according the rules and non-deterministic
choices are made when the premises of the rules need information that is
not captured in the conclusion, i.e.~the current program fragment to be proven.
It is interesting to note that type directed synthesis is quite flexible.
In \citep{frankle2016example} it is noted that examples can encoded in types, meaning
that types are expressive enough to capture logical requirements on programs
as well as inductive synthesis from examples.
In \citep{Gvero2013} types are used direct the generation of code completions
in IDEs. Here types are viewed as set of consistent expressions all being
candidates to be enumerated.
\paragraph{Arbitrary DSLs}
A more ambitious approach is to synthesis programs not restricted to a particular
programming language.
In work by \citep{Wang2017} a domain expert provides a domain specific language
(DSL) and the end-user provides examples. Along with the DSL concrete
semantics (an evaluation function) and abstract semantics (a mapping to abstract
values, e.g.~value ranges) are provided. The domain experts chooses the
appropriate abstractions made available to the system.
The approach uses finite tree automata (FTA) to encode abstract syntax trees (ASTs)
of the DSL with predicates on the nodes encoding their abstract semantics.
The FTA is used to maintain a set of programs
whose abstract semantics are consistent with the examples.
A ``best'' program is selected among the accepted programs and is checked
against the examples. If unsuccessful the tree automata is modified such that
more nodes with abstract semantics become available and with the guarantee
that the previously selected programs are no longer successful.
This is iterated until a successful program is found.
It is shown in the paper that this system is able to outperform multiple
other purpose built systems. However, a severe limitation of this approach
is that it does not handle DSLs with binders, e.g.~lambda terms and let bindings.
\iffalse
\section{Approaches in the Literature}
\subsection{Key issues to consider for these approaches}
\citep{polikarpova2016program} identify the following
key concerns in regard to evaluating their approach, which, when paraphrased
naturally applies to all approaches:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ``Are the specifications expressive enough to specify interesting programs,
including benchmarks proposed in prior work?''
\item ``How concise are the input specifications compared both to the
synthesized solutions and to inputs required by existing techniques?''
\item ``Are the inputs intuitive: in particular, is the algorithm applicable
to specifications not tailored for synthesis?''
\item ``How scalable is the approach: can it handle benchmarks tackled by
existing synthesizers? Can it scale to more complex programs than
those previously reported in the literature?''
\item ``How is synthesis performance impacted by various features of the approach?''
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Program Synthesis from Polymorphic Refinement Types}
- Synthesis from specifications in the form of refinement types, hence
has a much stronger correctness guarantee. Decomposes specifications
during synthesis.
- "Local liquid round-trip" type checking and assigning least fixpoints to unknown refinements.
- RM: "Horn constraint[s] $P_0 \wedge P_1 \implies T$". This does not
seem a sensible constraint to me...
- Condition/Liquid abduction for deducing branching conditions.
- Abstract refinements, allowing parametric refinements in types.
- Is able to invent auxiliary functions if their signature can be
assigned a full refinement specification during synthesis
of another function, which is helped along by providing higher-order
combinators as BK.
- Type checking and type strengthing rules in "round-trip" typechecking
algo. Sound and complete relative to just bottom up typechecking.
- Local Liquid Type Checking Algorithm. Still not entirely clear to me.
- Comparison with other methods by taking performance results from their
papers! Comparison to methods from different paradigms as well, e.g.
by examples.
\section*{Template-based program verification and program synthesis}
Their manifesto with which I fully agree with:
"We believe template-based programming is a significantly better approach to program development.Algorithmic insights and design will still require artful human insight, but template-based program verification and program syn- thesis reduce the art in software coding. Program verification helps ensure that all corner cases are covered, if the programmer manually writes the program and is willing to provide the insights about the proof using templates. Pro- gram synthesis not only covers corner cases (by generating verified programs), but also virtually eliminates the manual coding aspect, by limiting programmer input to insights about the program structure (which are very close to the algorithmic insights they already have in mind), in the form of templates." Srivastave, Template
- Similar to Sketch in that holes and assertions guide the verification/synthesis.
- Works on imperative programs.
- RM: need to finish paper.
\section*{Example-Directed Synthesis: A Type-Theoretic Interpretation}
- Gives a type theory interpretation for examples by seeing them
as inhabitants of types restricted/refined to just contain the example, i.e. singleton types. With intersection can specify needing to satisfy
multiple examples. Also allows negative examples, though restricted
to singleton types.
- Synthesis is proof search based on a sequent calculus (type system)
with intersection and union types. Sound but incomplete. Relates three
different calculi for the soundness proof, that last of which is used
in the synthesis.
- subset of ML with Algebraic datatypes, recursive function and parametric polymorphism.
- Has access to monomorphic background functions. (Why monomorphic??)
- As opposed to Metagol unable to synthesize new helper functions.
- Calculi: Natural Deduction -> Unsyncronized Sequent
-> Synchronized Sequent -> Implementation.
- the system “[…] does not infer instantiation of polymorphic library functions”,
- "synthesis of recursive functions requires trace complete refinements, i.e. refinements should also subsume specifications that clarify the results of structurally recursive calls"
- Refer to extended version of paper, which I can't find.
- Use "sampling" to derive refinement types for helper/library functions.
Why not just give your helper functions a proper refinement type, which
would be an accurate specification for the function. Answer: because
they want to allow users to just give helper functions without
specifying types. They mark this technique as something that positively
distinguishes them from the theorem proving tradition.
- ND calc to Unsync sequent calc allows for algorithmic search and takes
normal forms into account.
- Step for Unsync calc to Sync calc is taking into account when examples
would require the same proof structure when the intersections have
been eliminated.
- Optimization techniques discussed: normalization of refinements,
focusing, ...
- Multiple search strategies discussed. Enumerating on simple types
proved more effective than taking refinements into account! Not
being able to cache as much of the search space plays an important
role. This can be worded as the "shape" of the search plays being
important, e.g. refinements you get many more specific goals with
less candidates versus simple types less specific goals with more
candidates, occurring more often in the search.
- Translating examples into refinement specifications.
- MYTH as direct inspiration.
\section*{Constraint-Based Synthesis of Datalog Programs}
- Authors believe synthesizing that Datalog programs helps solve problems in information
extraction, graph analytics, and specifying static program analysis.
- Constraint based approach, i.e. a reduction to SMT constraints of the reasoning
otherwise done by a datalog implementation.
- Constraints encode clauses up to a given size, and all derivations for these
clauses up to a given size. The reduction then computes an under approximation of
the least fixpoint.
- Using 'Clause templates' can restrict the structure of clauses considered,
which is similar in how meta-rules only consider certain structure for
generated clauses.
- Completely delegates program search to SMT solver.
- Def of 'Datalog Synthesis Problem' allows for examples over multiple predicates,
but does no include the possibility of supplying background information beyond
facts. Includes pos and neg examples.
- Detailed explanation of reduction to SMT is given. Encoding derivations
hinges on the theory of arrays. Models of the SMT problem correspond 1-to-1
with derivations of fixed length for datalog program associated with the model.
- Synthesis phase where ``every possible derivation of some finite length
for $n$ number of clauses, each clause of a certain size restricted form'' is
considered in the constraint problem. Additionally the constraint that no
negative examples are derived and the constraint that \emph{most} positive
examples are derived are added.
- Verification phase: pick one of the models, check if all examples occur
in its actual fixpoint as specified, i.e. either positively or negatively.
If not generate a constraint that does allow this and similar program
to be synthesized in the next synthesis phase.
- Soundness and Completeness relative to the number of clauses parameter
and the number of atoms per clause parameter.
- Allows for restricting search space by optionally imposing 'clause templates'
which restrict the types of clauses to be considered.
- Idea: Might be interesting to consider adding types rules to the SMT reduction.
Needs to be able to deal with non-fact, higher order clauses as well.
- Benchmarks appear to be mostly graph (reachability) based, with two more
complex problems.
- \textbf{"Furthermore, MIL tools like Metagol require a total ordering on the Herbrand
base, which might not exist for certain examples..."} \emph{I have not read enough of the theory to understand this point}.
\section*{
Exploiting Answer Set Programming with External Sources for Meta-Interpretive Learning}
- "[Metagol] is very efficient by exploiting the query-driven procedure of Prolog to guide the instantiation of meta-rules in a specific order." Specific order?
- Develops a MIL-encoding in ASP with external sources, specifically in the HEX-formalism.
- Reliance on binary forward chaining meta rules, where the forward chaining
imposes a significant restriction, e.g. not able to learn inverses of BK
predicates. Make a case that for examples from the literature it is not so
significant.
- "We introduce in Section 3 our novel MIL approach based on HEX-programs for general MIL-problems. In the first encoding, Π(M), we restrict the search space by interleaving derivations at the object level and the meta level such that new instantiations of meta- rules can be generated based on pieces of information that are already derived wrt. partial hypotheses of rules. Furthermore, we outsource the background knowledge and access it by means of external atoms, which enables the manipulation of complex objects such as strings or lists."
- "We then define the class of forward-chained MIL-problems, for which the grounding can be restricted."
- "A large number of constants may still be imported from the background knowledge. We thus develop in Section 4 a technique to abstract from object-level terms in a third encod-
ing, Πsa(M), by externally computing sequences of background knowledge atoms that derive all positive examples, and by checking non-derivability of negative examples with an external constraint"
- "We presented a general HEX-encoding for solving MIL-problems that interacts with the BK via external atoms and restricts the search space by interleaving derivations on the object and meta level. In addition, we introduced modifications of the encoding for certain types of MIL-problems and a state abstraction technique to mitigate grounding issues that are hard to tackle otherwise. Our approach combines several advantages of Metagol and ASP-based approaches, and it is
very flexible as it allows to plug in arbitrary (monotonic) theories as BK. Moreover, our encod- ings can easily be adjusted, e.g. by adding further constraints to limit the import of BK. For instance, we also tried to delay the import of BK by restricting the initial import to chains of a limited length. This resulted in a significant speed-up for many MIL-problems, but minimality of solutions is not guaranteed. Nevertheless, in our tests, solutions that were not considerably larger than solutions of other instances could be obtained instead of timeouts. To investigate how this and similar modifications affect the accuracy wrt. a test data set remains future work"
- Does not work with higher order programs.
\section*{Program Synthesis using Abstraction Refinement}
SYNGAR
- SYNthesis usinG Abstraction Refinement
- End Users provide examples
- A Domain Expert provides the DSL, along with concrete and abstract semantics
for the DSL. In addition the expert gives a universe of predicates that they
believe are useful when building incorrectness proofs. Allowing arbitrary
DSLs makes the approach very general.
- Use Finite Tree Automata (FTA) to encode ASTs of the DSL with predicates
on the nodes which indicate the abstract semantics of the programs that that
node encodes. Use the FTA to maintain a set of programs (states marked final in FTA)
whose abstract semantics are consistent with the examples.
Start with very coarse abstraction predicates leading to a small FTA with many
accepted program ASTs. Use a ranking to choose the ``best'' program from
the accepted programs. Check whether running the examples on this program
leads to correct outputs. If they do a correct program has been found. If not
construct a proof that the selected program is incorrect for this example
by annotating the AST for the program by the weakest assignment of predicates
(supplied by the expert) that proof the inconsistency. Generate a new FTA
now with access to the predicates that were used in the incorrectness proof,
with the guarantee that the FTA will no longer accept the previous program.
Iterate until either a program is selected that is consistent with the examples
or no final states are marked in the constructed FTA (note that FTAs are infinite
in general, hence there is a (hidden) bound parameter on the size of the FTA/accepted
ASTs).
- Compares very favorably against Concrete FTA variant, and enumerative approach
of ENUM-EQ, and domain specific synthesizers FlashFill and PROSE, in respectively
the string and matrix/tensor domains.
- Based on CounterExample-Guided Abstraction Refinement used for model checking
programs.
- Abstract semantics can be seen as a form of specifications, and while SYNQUID
uses refinement specifications to refute candidates, BLAZE (and MORPHEUS) over-
approximate the behavior of programs. BLAZE also does abstraction refinement
not used in these other approaches.
- ``[The] FTA-based method described in this paper has three key limitations: First, our synthesis method does not support let bindings, thus, it cannot be used to synthesize programs over DSLs that allow variable introduction. Second, our method treats λ-abstractions as constants; hence, it may not perform very well for DSLs that encourage heavy use of higher-order combinators. Third, our method requires abstract values to be drawn from a decidable logic – i.e., we assume that it is possible to over-approximate values of intermediate DSL expressions using formulas from a decidable logic.''
Choice of allowed predicates is quite important and needs to be decided by
domain expert.
Only positive examples are handled.
\fi
\fi
\chapter{Untyped Meta-Interpretive Learning}
This chapter contains an overview of the existing meta-interpretive learning (MIL)
approach to one variant of the inductive logic programming problem.
First, we state prerequisites before presenting a formal definition
of the problem addressed by MIL.
Subsequently the MIL framework is explained, along with the central role of
metarules. Finally, the high-level algorithm is presented in the form of
\metaai{}, an implementation of MIL which incorporates
a powerful extension to allow for higher-order abstractions.
\section{Logic Prerequisites}
We work within the framework of logic programming. A reader unfamiliar with
this topic is referred to \citep{nienhuys1997foundations} for a comprehensive treatment.
The primary logic programming features we will assume familarity with are
logical variables, unification on logical variables, and SLD-resolution (along
with seeing a SLD-tree as a derivation/proof of a goal atom).
We use the language of logic to introduce the requisite concepts.
The definitions in this chapter mainly follow those of \cite{Cropper2017}'s PhD thesis.
\paragraph{First-order}
A \emph{variable} is a character string whose initial letter is uppercase.
\emph{Function and predicate symbols} are character strings whose initial letter is lowercase.
The \emph{arity} $n$ of a predicate/function symbol $p$ is the number of arguments
it takes and is denoted as $p/n$.
The \emph{predicate signature} $\predsig{}$ is the set of predicate symbols with
arity greater than 0.
A \emph{constant} is a function symbol with arity zero.
The \emph{constant signature} $\consts{}$ is the set of constant symbols.
A variable which can be substituted by a constant or
function symbol is called a \emph{first-order}.
The set of first-order variables is denoted as $\fovars{}$.
A \emph{term} is a variable, a constant symbol, or a function symbol of arity $n$
immediately followed by a bracketed $n$-tuple of terms.
A term which contains no variables is called \emph{ground}.
A formula $p(t_1, \dots , t_n)$, where $p$ is a predicate symbol
of arity $n$ and each $t_i$ is a term, is called an \emph{atom}.
An atom is ground if all of its terms are ground.
The $\neg$ symbol is used for negation.
A \emph{literal} is an atom $A$ or its negation $\neg A$.
\paragraph{Clauses}
A \emph{clause} is a finite disjunction of literals.
Each variable in a clause is implicitly universally quantified.
A clause that contains no variables is ground.
Clauses with at most one positive literal are called \emph{Horn clauses}.
A Horn clause with exactly one positive literal is called a \emph{definite clause}:
\begin{definition}
A (first-order) \emph{definite clause} is of the form:
\[ A_0 \leftarrow A_1, \ldots, A_m \]
where $m \geq 0$ and each $A_i$ is an atom of the form
$p(t_1, \ldots, t_n)$, such that $p \in \predsig{}$ and
$t_i \in \consts{} \cup \fovars$.
The atom $A_0$ is the \emph{head} and the conjunction $A_1, \ldots, A_m$ is the \emph{body}.
\end{definition}
A definite clause with no body literals is called a \emph{fact}.
A Horn clause with no head, i.e. no positive literal, is called a \emph{goal}.
\paragraph{Higher-order}
For higher-order logic, the quantification of first-order logic is extended
to allow for quantifiers to range over predicate and function symbols.
A variable which can be substituted by a predicate symbol is \emph{higher-order}.
The set of higher-order variables is denoted as $\hovars$.
A \emph{higher-order} term is a higher-order variable or a predicate symbol.
An atom which has at least one higher-order term is higher-order.
A definite clause with at least one higher-order atom is higher-order:
\begin{definition}
A \emph{higher-order definite clause} is of the form:
\[A_0 \leftarrow A_1, \ldots, A_m \]
where $m \geq 0$ and each $A_i$ is an atom of the form
$p(t_1, \ldots, t_n)$, such that $p \in \predsig \cup \hovars$ and
$t_i \in \consts \cup \predsig \cup \fovars \cup \hovars$.
\end{definition}
\paragraph{Substitution}
Given a formula with variables $v_1, \ldots, v_n$, simultaneously replacing
the variables with terms $t_1, \ldots, t_n$ is called a substitution.
Such a substitution is denoted by
$\theta = \{v_1/t_1, \ldots, v_n/t_n\}$. A substitution $\theta$ unifies atoms
$A$ and $B$ in the case $A\theta$ = $B\theta$.
\section{Meta-Interpretive Learning}
This section starts by formally introducing the problem addressed by MIL.
To do so we first need the key MIL concept of metarules.
The second part of this section gives an overview of meta-interpreting
and how metarules lift this notion to meta-interpretive learning.
\subsection{Problem Statement}
\label{sec:untyped-prob}
The user supplies a set of examples $\exs$ and background knowledge $\kb$.
All \emph{examples} $e \in \exs$ are ground atoms over the same predicate name.
The examples $\exs = (\exspos, \exsneg)$ are divided into positive
and negative examples.
The \emph{background knowledge} $\kb = \defc \cup \meta$ consists of
definite clauses $\defc$, representing program fragments, and metarules $\meta$.
The definite clauses also encode the facts (clauses without body) that are asserted.
\begin{definition}
A higher-order formula of the form
\[ \exists \pi \forall \mu ~.~ A_0 \leftarrow A_1, \ldots, A_m \]
where $m \geq 0$, $\pi$ and $\mu$ are disjoint sets of higher-order variables,
is called a \emph{metarule}.
Each $A_i$ is an atom of the form $p(t_1, \ldots, t_n)$ such that
$p \in \predsig \cup \pi \cup \mu$ and
each $t_i \in \consts \cup \predsig \cup \pi \cup \mu$.
\end{definition}
Metarules differ from higher-order definite
clauses in that they allow existential quantification.
Table \ref{tab:metarules} lists common metarules, a selection of which will be
used throughout this document.
Note that we elide the quantifiers, e.g.~the full definition of
the Identity metarule is
$\exists P \exists Q \forall A \forall B~ P(A,B) \ot Q(A,B)$.
When quantifiers are omitted, we always label universally quantified
first-order variables with names from the start of the alphabet ($A,B,C,\ldots$)
and existentially quantified higher-order variables with names
starting from $P$ on in the alphabet.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l | l|}
\hline
\textbf{name} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{metarule}}
\\\hline
Identity &\hspace{0.5cm} $P(A,B) \ot Q(A,B)$
\\\hline
Precon &\hspace{0.5cm} $P(A,B) \ot Q(A),R(A,B)$
\\\hline
Curry &\hspace{0.5cm} $P(A,B) \ot P(A,B,R)$
\\\hline
Chain &\hspace{0.5cm} $P(A,B) \ot Q(A,C),R(C,B)$
\\\hline
Tailrec &\hspace{0.5cm} $P(A,B) \ot Q(A,C),P(A,B)$
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Common metarules, where variables $A$,$B$, and $C$ are universally
quantified and $P$, $Q$, and $R$ are existentially quantified.}
\label{tab:metarules}
\end{table}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:untyped-cons-hypo}
Given $(\kb, \exs) = (\kb, (\exspos,\exsneg))$ as background knowledge and examples,
respectively, a program $H$ is a \emph{consistent hypothesis},
denoted $H \cup \kb \entails \exs$, if all positive examples are entailed
by the program, and none of the negative examples are.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A \emph{MIL learner} takes an input $(B, E)$ and either outputs a definite
program $H$ that is a consistent hypothesis for the input, or terminates
stating failure to find a program.
\end{definition}
We consider MIL learners that have the additional guarantee that they return
programs that are optimal in a textual complexity sense.
The optimizing criterion used is the number of clauses in the program.
The guarantee is that there is no other consistent hypothesis which has fewer clauses.
\subsection{Meta-Interpreting and Metarules}
A Prolog meta-interpreter evaluates a Prolog-like language by unifying a
goal with a head of one of the first-order clauses that it has available.
The atoms in the body of the unified clause become new goals subject to
the same procedure. For example, SLD-resolution on the goal
$ancestor(alice,charlie)$, given the definite clauses
\begin{align*}
&parent(alice,bob)\\
&parent(bob,charlie)\\
&ancestor(A,B)\ot parent(A,B)\\
&ancestor(A,B)\ot parent(C,B),ancestor(A,C)
\end{align*}
yields by resolution with the last clause (unifying the goal with the head of
this clause) that the goals required to prove
become $ancestor(alice,C)$ and $parent(C,charlie)$. To prove the first of
these two goals the first clause with $ancestor$ as head is chosen
(non-deterministically out of the two options). The two goals
are now $parent(alice,C)$ and $parent(C,charlie)$. Unifying the first goal
with the first fact fixes $C$ to $bob$ allowing both goals to be proven
by the asserted facts.
The Meta-Interpretive Learning framework is a meta-interpreter that additionally
tries to unify a goal with the head of a metarule, which is
a higher-order clause.
Upon selecting a metarule to prove the goal, the unification
is saved in the form of a \emph{meta-substitution}.
\begin{definition}
Let $M$ be a metarule with the name $x$, $C$ be a horn clause,
$\theta$ be a unifying substitution of $M$ and $C$, and
$\Sigma \subseteq \theta$ be the substitutions where the variables are all
existentially quantified in $M$, such that
$\Sigma = \{v_1/t_1, \ldots , v_n/t_n\}$.
Then a \emph{meta-substitution} for $M$ and $C$ is an atom of the form:
$sub(x, [v_1,\ldots,v_n]\{v_1/t_1, \ldots , v_n/t_n\})$, where the second
argument is a list of
logical variables with the appropriate substitution applied.
\end{definition}
Saved meta-substitutions are reused for proving goals that are encountered
later on, becoming available as unification targets like the definite clauses
in the background knowledge.
Upon completing the proof of all goals the meta-substitutions contain a description
of the program. To obtain the program the saved substitutions are applied
to the named metarules. Each such instantiated metarule corresponds to an
invented clause of the program, with the predicate symbols being grounded
through the substitution.
\begin{definition}
Let $(\kb, \exs)$ be a MIL input and $H$ a hypothesis.
Then a predicate $p$ is an \emph{invention} if it is in the predicate signature
of $H$ and not in the predicate signature of $\kb \cup \exs$.
\end{definition}
Metarules form the heart of the MIL approach to learning.
Metarules allow for introducing a strong bias to the hypothesis space. This
is due to the clauses of programs in the hypothesis having to conform to the
structure of the supplied metarules. Metarules hence give great control over
the size of the search space, as well as how the search space is traversed.
They also allow the user to specify which features they consider likely to be
needed by the program.
Examples are (tail-)recursion and higher-order clauses.
In recent work by \cite{Cropper2016} the MIL framework is expanded so as
to allow background predicates and inventions with higher-order arguments.
\section{\metaai{}: Untyped Abstracted MIL}
The implementation of MIL that we consider as a basis in this document is
the \metaai{} system introduced by \cite{Cropper2016}. This section shows how
to specify a problem instance in Prolog code and goes over a high-level version
of the algorithm.
The improvement of
the \metaai{} versus the original \metagol{} implementation of MIL \citep{Muggleton2014}
is in allowing higher-order predicates to be part of the program, in particular
predicates that are termed \emph{abstractions}.
As shown in \citep{Cropper2016}, learning higher-order inventions has benefits
in terms of finding smaller programs, which leads to reduced learning times,
and can achieve high accuracy with a reduced number of examples.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{higher-order definition} is a set of higher-order definite clauses
with matching head predicates.
\end{definition}
The following definition of $map$, operating over lists\footnote{A list in Prolog is either $[]$, the empty list, or is a cons of a head $H$ and a tail $T$, denoted as $[H|T]$.}, is an example of a higher-order definition:
\begin{align*}
&map([],[],F) \ot\\
&map([A|As],[B|Bs],F) \ot F(A,B), map(As,Bs)
\end{align*}
Any clause which takes an argument that is a predicate is termed an
\emph{abstraction}:
\begin{definition}
A higher-order definite clause of the form
\[
\forall \tau ~ p(s_1, \ldots, s_m) \ot q(u_1,\ldots,u_n,v_1\ldots,v_o)
\]
where $o >0$, $\tau \subseteq \fovars \cup \hovars$, $p,q, v_1, \ldots, v_o \in \predsig$,
and $s_1, \ldots, s_m,u_1, \ldots, u_n \in \fovars$, is called an \emph{abstraction}.
\end{definition}
The following clause, which increases each element of a list by one, is an example
of an abstraction:
\[
increment\_all(A,B)\ot map(A,B,succ).
\]
\subsection{Representation of Background Knowledge}
\label{sec:untyped-prolog-repr}
For Prolog code we will use the \texttt{typewriter} font.
Definite clauses in Prolog are very similar to the logic syntax, except the
arrow ($\ot$) is replaced by an ASCII version (\texttt{:-}) and every clause
is terminated by a dot. For clauses with empty bodies the ersatz arrow
is omitted.
The background knowledge is separated into three parts: \emph{primitive clauses},
\emph{interpreted clauses} and metarules.
Primitive clauses are just standard Prolog definite clauses, as such they do not
involve atoms whose predicate symbol are variable.
Such clause definitions are added to the background knowledge by asserting that
they are available as a primitive, e.g.~\texttt{id(X,X).}~is a definite clause, and by
asserting \texttt{prim(id/2)} the predicate is added to the background knowledge.
The interpreted clauses are Prolog clauses that do involve body atoms whose
predicate symbols are existentially quantified, and in particular are arguments
to the head of the clause. Because during the synthesis algorithm a higher-order
argument might remain undetermined until the body is evaluated, the normal
Prolog evaluation strategy is not sufficient (see the below algorithm).
These clauses are asserted to be \emph{interpreted}, e.g.~\texttt{interpreted(map/3)}.
Asserting \texttt{metarule(Name,Subs,(Head:-Body))} adds a metarule
with the name \texttt{Name} to the background knowledge.
\texttt{Subs} is a list of the existential (higher-order) variables
occuring in the metarule, \texttt{Head} is the head atom of the rule and
\texttt{Body} is a list of the body atoms of the rule.
Take the chain rule as an example:
\[
\texttt{metarule(chain,[P,Q,R],(P(A,B):-[Q(A,B),R(B,C)])).}
\]
\subsection{The Algorithm}
\label{sec:metaai-algo}
Figure \ref{fig:metaai} contains the Prolog code for the abstracted MIL algorithm,
which has support for higher-order abstraction.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
learn(Pos,Neg,Prog):-
prove(Pos,[],Prog),
not(prove(Neg,Prog,Prog)).
prove([],Prog,Prog).
prove([Atom|Atoms],Prog1,Prog2):-
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog3),
prove(Atoms,Prog3,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom,Prog,Prog):-
prim(Atom),
call(Atom).
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog2):-
interpreted((Atom:-Body)),
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog2):-
member(sub(Name,Subs),Prog1),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:-Body)),
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog2):-
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:-Body)),
prove(Body,[sub(Name,Subs)|Prog1],Prog2).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The \metaai{} algorithm.}
\label{fig:metaai}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Invocation}
The first clause, \texttt{learn}, is the invocation point of the algorithm.
After the user has asserted their background knowledge, they run the algorithm
by calling \texttt{learn} with a list of their positive and a list of
their negative examples whereby, upon success, \texttt{Prog} gets instantiated
to a program.
The algorithm starts out with an empty program, the first argument
to \texttt{prove} in the body of \texttt{learn}. If a program is found entailing
the positive examples it is checked against the negative examples. Were one
of the negative examples to be entailed, backtracking occurs and
the search will continue for another program entailing the positive examples.
When all the positive examples are entailed by the found program, and none of
the negative examples are, the search successfully terminates.
\paragraph{Search}
The \texttt{prove} procedure is mainly for choosing the first goal in a list
of goals to hand off to the \texttt{prove\_aux} procedure. The mutual recursion
of \texttt{prove} and \texttt{prove\_aux} represents a left-most
depth-first search over the goals that arise during synthesis.
When a goal has been proven successfully by \texttt{prove\_aux} it may have
changed the program under construction, hence the new program is passed
along for proving the remaining \texttt{Atoms} goals. As the last disjuctive
clause \pc{prove\_aux} will always succeed with introducing a new invented
clause, an additional mechanism, not shown in
the code, of an limit on the number of inventions is used.
The limit makes sure that the depth first search does not run off and keeps
creating invented clauses for goals that are difficult (or impossible) to prove.
By re-running the algorithm with increasing invention limit all possible
programs are considered.
\paragraph{Additional proving rules}
For the most important part of the algorithm,
we consider each of the disjunctive bodies of \texttt{prove\_aux} separately:
\begin{itemize}
\item The first disjunct tries to prove an atom (whose predicate symbol might
be a variable) by unifying the atom's predicate with a predicate asserted
as background knowledge, considering all options based on the predicate's arity.
When this
unification succeeds the atom is unified with the head of the predicate,
whereupon
it is known that \texttt{Atom} represents a first-order atom which
Prolog is able to evaluate. Evaluation is
invoked by \texttt{call(Atom)}. If successful the atom's predicate symbol
will remain fixed for for any goals subsequently generated.
If the call to \texttt{call}
fails, or having tried all possible programs
which included this particular choice for the atom causing Prolog to
backtrack to this decision point,
all remaining predicates in the background knowledge will be tried in the same
manner. If none lead to a successful program being found this
disjunct of \texttt{prove\_aux} fails, causing the next disjunct to be tried.
\item The second disjunct tries to prove the goal atom by unifying the atom
with the head of one the head of interpreted background predicates.
Again, if the predicate symbol is a variable it will become fixed upon
successful unification.
By unifying the head of an interpreted clause the corresponding
variables in the \texttt{Body} change accordingly, thereby making the
body of the interpreted clause the goals that need to be proved to be
able to conclude the unified head.
\item Upon failure to find a successful program by proving the atom by
an interpreted predicate, the algorithm checks if it may make use of any
of the invented clauses that it keeps track of in the form of meta-substitutions.
For each meta-substitution that is already in the program the algorithm
tries to unify the atom with a fresh head of the meta-substitution's metarule,
under the restrictions of the variables that are already fixed in the substitution
list \texttt{Subs}. If it succeeds, the body of the reused invented clause
represents the goals that need to be proven.
\item Finally, the last disjunct applies when all other disjuncts failed to
lead to a successful program. Now a metarule is instantiated, with no
conditions on the \texttt{Subs}titutions for the existentially quantified
predicate symbols. This means that \texttt{Atom} is used to create a new
invention. The body atoms of the metarule become the goals to be proven and
the invention is remembered by prepending a new meta-substitution to the
existing program.
\end{itemize}
In overview: a depth-first search is conducted over partial programs, starting
with the examples as goals. To prove each goal, first it is attempted to be
proven by one of the primitive and interpreted predicates. In the first case
Prolog is able to evaluate whether the atom holds, and in the second case
the body of the higher-order predicate remain as goals to be proven by
meta-interpretation. Otherwise the saved invented clauses are tried, again
leading to additional goals to be proven. As a last resort an atom can be proven
by creating a metarule-guided invention, where the body of the invention will
likely contain goal atoms with predicate variables.
If there are no more goals to prove a successful program has been found.
\chapter{Typed Meta-Interpretive Learning}
Starting with this chapter, this document will focus on presenting novel
contributions.
This chapter highlights the potential benefits of adding typing to
Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL) before the subsequent chapters focus on
tackling the search space reduction issue. After some preliminaries regarding
types, three areas are discussed where types bring with them great potential.
The first is the ability to prune away parts of the search space. Second, we
consider the idea that types can provide guidance in choosing how to traverse
the search space. The final highlighted feature is that it might be possible
to inform the user that the background knowledge that they provided is
insufficient for solving the synthesis problem.
\section{Typing Definitions}
\label{sec:typed-type-def}
As is usual in presenting logic, the definitions of the previous chapter did
not include any type decorations.
For our purposes a \emph{type} is a set of values. A value that belongs
to a type is called an \emph{inhabitant}.
Normally it is known for functions and predicates for which values a
predicate or function makes sense.
We will restrict the domain of predicates/functions to just these values.
We will use such domain restrictions, along with co-domain restrictions,
in defining the formal types of predicates and functions. As a general
reference for refinement types with polymorphism see \citep{freeman1991refinement}.
\paragraph{Polymorphic types}
The types we consider are constructed from a collection of base types $B$,
among others, the integers, $int$, and the Booleans, denoted $bool$.
We also allow \emph{holes} in our types, for which we use \emph{type variables}.
The Cartesian product ($\times$) is used to construct types whose values
are tuples of values from the supplied types.
The arrow ($\to$) is used to construct function types from other types.
We have that the grammar\footnote{This is in essence the type grammar of
System-F \citep{girard1971extension}.} for our types is stated as
\[ T ::=~b_i~\mid~X_j~\mid~T \times T~\mid~T \to T, \]
where $b_i \in B$ and $X_j$ represents type variables.
A type is \emph{higher-order} if a function type appears in an argument position.
\begin{definition}
A predicate $p$, with arity $n$, is a function whose result type is Boolean.
The \emph{predicate type} of $p$ is fixed by the types of its $n$ arguments.
This is denoted as:
\[ p : T_1 \times \ldots \times T_n \to bool \hspace{1em}\text{or}\hspace{1em} p(a_1, \ldots, a_n) : T_1 \times \ldots \times T_n \to bool \]
where $a_i : T_i$ are the formal arguments of $p$.
\end{definition}
We will abbreviate the predicate typing $p : T_1 \times \ldots \times T_n \to bool$
to the compacter $p : [T_1,\ldots,T_n]$. In what follows we will be lax in
distinguishing between the type of an atom (always $bool$) and the type of
the atom's predicate.
For function typing a similar definition holds, except that the co-domain
is not fixed to be Boolean. For functions we do not use shorthand notation.
A type is \emph{polymorphic} when it is parametrized by one or more types,
i.e.~it contains type variables.
We always consider type variables to be universally quantified.
For example, the polymorphic type of lists is $list(X)$.
Replacing the \emph{type parameter} $X$ with a type resolves the polymorphism,
e.g.~take $X=int$, then $list(int)$ is the type of lists
of integers, which is no longer polymorphic.
A predicate is polymorphic when one of its argument types is.
\paragraph{Refinement types}
Given the above description of types we define the notion of
refinement type, and refer to unrefined types as \emph{simple (polymorphic) types}.
A \emph{refinement type} $\{ x : T \mid \phi\}$ is the subset of the
type $T$ consisting of the values $x$ that satisfy the formula $\phi$.
For this work we only allow refinements to occur on predicates.
In order to discuss the meaning of refinements on predicates, hereby
a reminder regarding the interpretation of predicates:
a predicate implements a relation, which identifies tuples,
by mapping arguments included in the relation to $\top$ (true)
and otherwise returning $\bot$ (false).
Let $p(a_1, \ldots, a_n):T_1\times\ldots\times T_n\to bool$ be a predicate with its type.
A refinement $\phi$ for this type is a proposition that can mention any of the variables $a_i$.
The refined type is denoted as $T_1\times\ldots\times T_n\to bool\<\phi \>$, with
shorthand $[T_1,\ldots,T_n]\<\phi\>$.
The semantics of this type is that $\phi$ denotes a necessary
condition of any $\top$ inhabitant of the Boolean result type.
In conventional refinement type notation this corresponds to
\begin{align*}
bool\< \phi \> &= \{ b: bool ~\vert~ b {=}\bot\vee (b {=} \top \implies \phi) \}\\
&= \{ b: bool ~\vert~ b {=}\bot \vee (b{\neq} \top \vee \phi) \} \\
&= \{ b: bool ~\vert~ \neg\phi \implies b {=} \bot) \}.
\end{align*}
Given a valuation for the arguments of $p$, the proposition $\phi$ has a truth value.
When a valuation makes $\phi$ false, the values of the arguments to the predicate
cannot be identified by the relation that the predicate is representing,
as the predicate must return false for these arguments. Hence refinement are
a way of restricting types to make them more accurate.
As an example consider the higher-order $map$ predicate, as of it is a good candidate
for a refinement type.
The $map$ relation guarantees that the list arguments are of the same length.
This is encoded in a refinement type as follows:
\[ map(A,B,F):[list(T),list(S),[T,S]]\<length(A)=length(B)\>\]
It is important to note that simple polymorphic types are precisely our refinement
types with all refinements just being the $true$ proposition (not imposing
any restrictions). In this text we will elide types (and their refinements)
when they are not of interest to the discussion at hand.
\section{Pruning the Search Space}
\label{sec:typed-pruning}
The MIL approach is surprisingly effective gives its simplicity.
The algorithm is quite naive in regard to what possibilities for programs
it is willing to consider.
One major shortcoming, inherited from its logic programming origins,
is its irreverence of types. Many of the logic programming languages do not
concern themselves with types. In particular, Prolog does not have predicate
types.
Consider having to prove a goal atom $P([true,false,true],[1])$, with
$P$ a predicate variable. We can immediately see that its type
is $[list(bool),list(int)]$.
Let us suppose that the given background predicates include the predicates
$succ : [int,int]$ (the successor relation on integers),
$tail : [list(X),list(X)]$ (the list tail relation), and
$map : [list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]]$ (the relation that maps another relation
over elements). The metarules we consider for this example are
Chain and Curry (see table \ref{tab:metarules}).
Clearly any predicate in the background knowledge over non-list types
need not be tried as a direct substitution for $P$.
Also many inventions and interpreted predicates need not be tried, such as
$inv(A,B)\ot tail(A,C),map(C,B,succ)$, purely due to the typing of this
clause being incompatible with the type of the example goal.
\subsection{A Worked Example}
The work involved in the above example is considerable given how easy it is to see,
based on typing, that it cannot succeed. First $P$ will be unified with $inv$
whereupon unification of the atoms assigns $A=[true,false,true]$ and $B=[1]$.
The body atoms $tail([true,false,true],C)$
and $map(C,[1],succ)$ become the new goals, being passed of to be proven
by a recursive \texttt{prove} call.
The atom $tail([true,false,true],C)$ is proven in the first disjunct of
\texttt{prove\_aux},
assigning $C=[false,true]$. Now the second goal $map([false,true],1,succ)$ is considered.
None of the primitives predicates unify with the predicate name,
hence the interpreter clause of \texttt{prove\_aux} is evaluated.
Here the head of map is first checked for
whether it happens to unify with base case over empty lists, which it does not.
Subsequently the head of the inductive disjunct of $map$ is unified, whereupon
$succ(false,1)$ and $map([true],[],succ)$ become the new goals.
Again \texttt{prove} is called recursively,
whereupon $succ(false,1)$ is selected to be proven by delegating the
evaluation of the atom to Prolog itself.
Prolog determines that this atom does not hold.
It is only at this point that \metaai{} is able to decide
that the invented clause $inv(A,B)\ot tail(A,C),map(C,B,succ)$ could not
be used, leading the meta-interpreter to backtrack to the decision point of
having to pick a way of proving the original atom $P([true,false,true],[1])$.
\paragraph{Type Checked}
In contrast, when we consider types, a unification attempt is enough to
determine that the above work is unnecessary.
The type annotations for the atoms are
\[ P([true,false,true],[0]):[list(bool),list(int)] \] and
\[ inv(A,B):[list(int),list(int)]\ot tail(A,C),map(C,B,succ). \]
Type checking corresponds to checking whether the type of $inv$ can
have zero or more of its variables unified such that it corresponds to
$P$'s type. Clearly the first arguments' types cause unification to fail,
thereby rejecting the attempt to try to prove the goal atom with the invented
clause.
This is just one example of where simple type checking helps considerably.
Every time type checking can determine that one of the options considered by
\metaai{} cannot be successful exploration of a part of the search space
can be skipped over, which is called \emph{pruning}.
When such parts of the search space contain multiple decisions points considered
by the algorithm the benefit of type checking becomes considerable more
significant.
\subsection{Granularity of types}
Polymorphic types are already quite powerful in pruning parts of the search space.
But suppose we make a simple adjustment to the above example. Instead
of our goal's arguments including Booleans we change these values to integers,
making the example goal $P([1,0,1],[1])$. A type check determines that the atom's
type $[list(int),list(int)]$ is unifiable with $[list(int),list(int)]$,
hence giving the go-ahead to attempt to prove the atom with $inv$.
\paragraph{Unnecessary work revisited}
Because polymorphic type checking is unable to rule out the invented
clause the algorithm will be forced to do the same work as detailed above.
When it reaches the atom $succ(0,1)$ Prolog will instead determine that this
atom does hold. Now even more work will be performed, namely the remaining
goal, $map([1],[],succ)$, will be passed off to \texttt{prove\_aux},
which again checks that this is not a primitive before checking the interpreted
disjunctive clauses of $map$. Thanks to the first argument the base case
does not apply, and because the second argument does not allow itself to be
split into a head and tail the inductive case of $map$ also does not apply.
So in this case, there was not only more work in trying to prove additional
goals before finally finding out that the invented clause cannot be used,
but we also incurred a small cost for the unification attempt of the type
checking.
Intuitively, when we look at the example goal and at the invented clause we are
still able to immediately see that this clause cannot work. This is due to
being able to reason about the lengths of the lists involved. Clearly
all the tuples entailed by the invented clause have as property that the
first argument has exactly one additional element versus its
second argument.
\paragraph{Refinement reasoning}
The above noted relation on the arguments of $inv$ is a property well captured
by a refinement type and can be stated as:
\[ inv(A,B):[list(int),list(int)]\<length(A) = length(B) + 1\> \]
This type states that the predicate can only entail the arguments if the
first list has a length exactly one longer than the second list.
If we now return to the type checking of $P([1,0,1],[1]):[list(int),list(int)]$
against the type of $inv$ we not only try to unify the polymorphic types, but
we also check that the refinement is still satisfiable, i.e.~does not preclude
the arguments from being entailed. What happens is that the heads are
speculatively unified, leading to the refinement becoming instantiated to
$length([1,0,1]) = length([1]) + 1$. For this example checking the
refinement can simply be done by expanding the definition
of $length$, which directly derives the contradiction $3 = 2$.
The refinement type hence declares that these values are never part of
the relation encoded by the $inv$ clause. At this point the algorithm will give
up on $inv$ and will try the next option for proving the example atom.
Refinement type checking is hence able to prune parts
of the search space that simple polymorphic type checking is not able to.
There is, of course, the issue that reasoning over (instantiated) refinements
is not entirely trivial. For the example the work needed to come to a contradiction
was very simple. The main challenge for the usage of refinement types is in
identifying refinements that suitably abstract from the predicates, and in
finding algorithms that are able to very rapidly reason on the constraints
specified by the refinements.
\paragraph{Composing refinements}
The above identified refinement for $inv$ is not something a user would be
able to supply to the system, as the clause in question is an invention. The body
atoms on the other hand are background predicates which the user can
annotate with appropriate refinements. The refinement for $tail(A,C)$ could well
be
\[ length(A) = length(C) + 1 \]
while $map(C,B,F)$'s refinement can be taken to be $length(C) = length(B)$.
The structure of the clause now indicates how these refinements compose,
namely $length(A) = length(C) + 1 \wedge length(C) = length(B)$.
Clearly, this approach to refinements is quite powerful in that is it able
to capture sensible refinements even for invented clauses.
\section{Types Directing the Search}
\label{sec:typed-direct-search}
The \metaai{} algorithm uses a basic depth-first search procedure for determining
the order in which goals are proven.
A novel observation is that this search might be better steered by the
information available in the goals that remain to be proven.
The idea is that the ordering of the goals in the search needs to be guided by
a heuristic function. Correspondingly the search algorithm needs to be adjusted so as
to implement the best-first search procedure. Best-first search keeps track
of all the nodes left to explore, in our case the current goals left to prove,
and selects among them the best node to explore/prove next (according to the heuristic).
As it is non-obvious what the main features of interest are and
how much weight they should have relative to each other, work is needed
in determining good heuristic ordering functions.
The goals are the basic units whose proof order needs to be decided on,
which, in the untyped case have quite limited information available.
Obvious considerations are to prioritize those goals that are already entirely
ground, including the predicate symbol(s). Amongst them the atoms with primitive
predicate symbols would need to be sorted first as an inconsistency on such a goal
would lead to immediate backtracking. Next one would sort on the
number of variables in the goals, preferring atoms with fewer variables as
these are less likely to incur non-determinism in their proof.
Issues in ordering start to crop up when deciding on the ordering of atoms
with different arities and whether the proportion of the number of ground
arguments might not be a more useful feature than just the sheer number of
them.
\paragraph{Type Guidance}
The introduction of types is interesting for heuristic search because it adds
additional information to use for determining the ordering.
As we saw in the section on pruning the search space, types of the predicates
are often already known while the arguments of such predicates are still variables.
During synthesis, e.g.~of a new invention, there are also variables in the types,
meaning that some types are more ``complete'' than others.
A heuristic in the typed environment could consider ordering goals with
complete types (i.e. no variables in them) first, as these types
will be able to rule out large parts of the background predicates.
Subsequently it would be useful to consider how to order the predicates
with incomplete types. To define a useful heuristic it would then be necessary
to weight the type features relative to the non-type features.
\paragraph{Implementation}
The accompanying synthesis system implemented for this project has best-first
search available as an option. There is a proof-of-concept heuristic
that looks at type information and the number of ground arguments.
While the implementation is able to show some benefits in exploring less
of the search space, the heuristic needs more thought before the value of
heuristic search in MIL can be thoroughly evaluated.
For now we defer work on heuristics.
\section{Showing Insufficiency of the Background Knowledge}
\label{sec:typed-insuff}
A third area where type annotated predicates might be useful is in
determining that the predicates that the user supplied will never be able
to prove the goals. Clearly it would be very beneficial for the user to be aware
that the background knowledge that they are providing is insufficient for solving
the problem. Ideally the synthesis algorithm is able to detect, no matter
the size of the programs it will consider, whether there are any sensible programs
at all in the hypothesis space.
Deciding on whether the background predicates can be composed is something
that type checking is already able to reason about. Hence the idea is to
leverage the user provided type annotations to check whether the background
predicates compose at all.
One simple approach is to take the type of the examples and for each metarule
try types for the body atoms. The types one would try are the ones on
the background predicates. Simple types or refinement type checking
might indicate that not a single sensible composition was found. Such a result
would only prove that no single clause programs can be constructed for the given
examples. If we relax the condition that the clause must match with the type
of the examples we could show that no invention exist that is composed
from just background predicates.
The above reasoning is not strong enough to make claims about the non-existence of
programs that are only slightly more complex. The main issue is that the type
of an invention does not have to be the same as the type of any of the background
predicates. Determining what types can be generated for inventions would
be one approach to trying to show insufficiency of the background knowledge.
In this thesis we limit ourselves to presenting the above argument for why
types could be useful for showing insufficiency of the background knowledge,
but will leave a solution to the problem for future work.
\chapter{Synthesis with Polymorphic Types}
This chapter introduces polymorphic types to Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL).
The main motivation for the introduction of types is so that type checking
is able to prune parts of the search space.
For a motivating example please refer back to section \ref{sec:typed-pruning}.
We restate the problem that our system is able to address, noting the type
annotations we expect the user to provide.
We introduce the \metast{} algorithm, which extends the \metaai{}
algorithm with polymorphic type checking.
We look at how the type annotated background knowledge, along
with unification, can propagate types through to the newly derived goals.
In the section that follows we look at inferring polymorphic types,
i.e.~generate the most general type of each clause, and of the program itself.
Towards the end of the chapter we argue for the algorithm's correctness
in terms of being sound and complete (relative to \metaai{}).
We close out the chapter by a theory result regarding the influence of types
on the size of the search space, and perform experiments validating the work of
introducing polymorphic types.
\section{Revised Problem Statement}
\label{sec:simple-problem}
We assume familiarity with the synthesis problem statement in
section \ref{sec:untyped-prob},
as well as with the way users provide background knowledge to
the \metaai{} algorithm, as discussed in section \ref{sec:untyped-prolog-repr}.
Instead of reiterating the complete definitions we note the needed
adjustments to these definitions.
In addition to supplying examples, the user now supplies a type
for the examples, that is a single type that is consistent for all examples.
For the background knowledge we stipulate that each atom that can become a goal
within the MIL algorithm is annotated with a (polymorphic) type.
For the primitive clauses only the head of the clause needs to be assigned a
type. As an example, the (primitive predicate) $head$, which returns the first
element of a list, was added to the untyped
background knowledge as \pc{prim(head/2)} (with the $2$ signifying the predicate's
arity). In the setting of typed synthesis predicates need to be asserted
with their type, that is, \pc{prim(head:[list(X),X])}
adds the $head$ relation to the (typed) background knowledge.
The interpreted predicates and the metarules need types for their head atoms
as well as for their body atoms. The variable names used for the types are
shared in a definition of a clause,
which is the main means of propagating type information.
For adding interpreted predicates to the untyped background knowledge,
the definition of the interpreted $map$ predicate was stated as a normal
Prolog definition, plus an \pc{interpreted} assertion:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
map([],[],F).
map([A|S],[B|T],F):-F(A,B),map(S,T,F).
interpreted(map/3).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
For the typed assertions of interpreted predicates, we need to
annotate the atoms of the body of an interpreted clause in addition to the
head atom. Following the notation used for metarules, the definition of the
clause is moved into the
\pc{interpreted} assertion\footnote{Note that we make heavy use of Prolog's square
bracket list notation here: to operate over values, as the data structure
containing the multiple body atoms, and as a convenient syntax for predicate types.}:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
interpreted(map([],[],F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]] :- []).
interpreted(map([A|S],[B|T],F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]] :-
[F(A,B):[X,Y],map(S,T,F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]]]).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Metarule definitions now include types on their atoms.
For the untyped Chain metarule the assertion
\pc{metarule(chain,[P,Q,R],(P(A,B):- [Q(A,C),R(C,B)]))} sufficed.
For adding the Chain metarule to the typed background knowledge the assertion
becomes:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
metarule(chain,[P,Q,R],
(P(A,B):[X,Y] :- [Q(A,C):[X,Z],R(C,B):[Z,Y]]).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Definition \ref{def:untyped-cons-hypo}, on consistent hypotheses,
only needs adjustment in that the generated clauses of the program have
simple types on their atoms.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{Typed MIL learner} takes examples and
background knowledge with polymorphic types and outputs a polymorphic
typed definite program $H$ that is a consistent hypothesis for the input.
\end{definition}
\section{\metast{}: Type Checking through Unification}
One of the major strengths of Prolog (and logic programming in general) is
support for logical variables and unification on these variables.
Unification plays an important role in most type checking and type inference
algorithms (see, for example, \citep{kanellakis1989polymorphic}).
For our purposes we can reduce all type checking to unification.
Unification on types serves two purposes during synthesis.
For type checking we want to show
that a general (polymorphic) type can be instantiated to a
more specific type, e.g.~as
in the case of \pc{head:[list(X),X]}, and proving an atom \pc{P([1],1):[list(int),int]}.
At the same type we often have type variables in atoms' types due to the exploratory
nature of synthesis (e.g.~the \pc{Z} variable in the Chain metarule definition
of the previous section will always be just a variable right after the metarule is
used for inventing a clause).
These type variables represent freedom in how to interpret
the atom, in particular these variables represent that the type
of the arguments is as of yet undetermined.
Non-ground arguments (i.e.~arguments with variables in them)
will often initially have a variable for their type.
For example, suppose we are trying to prove atom \pc{P([1],B):[list(int),X]}.
Unification with the \pc{head} primitive on the predicate name and type fixes
this atom's type to \pc{[list(int),int]}.
In either case, whether we are type checking
or making types more specific, when unification succeeds we know we can proceed in
our proof attempt.
\subsection{Derivation and General Types}
The major change we introduce to the \metaai{} algorithm is
that each atom has both a \emph{Derivation Type} (\pc{DT}),
and a \emph{General Type} (\pc{GT}), that is \pc{Atom:DT:GT}.
The derivation type is always an instance of the general type of the atom,
which can be seen as instantiating any type parameters in the general type to
correspond to the types of the values that the arguments have taken on in the
derivation.
The derivation type is for keeping track of the type of the atom as
it is used in the proof of the entailment for the
user provided examples. The derivation type hence is as accurate as possible
taking into account the \emph{values} that the atom's arguments have taken on.
The values an atom's arguments take on during the algorithm
ultimately derive from the values of the user provided examples.
As such the derivation type can be seen as deriving
from the example goals given to the algorithm, which are the root of the
derivation tree (implicitly) constructed by the algorithm. The algorithm
will terminate when a successful complete derivation
has been found for the example goals,
at which point all arguments in the derivation tree will have been instantiated
to values. Therefore the derivation types for atoms in a successful derivation
are never polymorphic (contain no type parameters).
The general type, \pc{GT}, on the other hand is not concerned with being accurate
with regard to the values that the atom has taken on in the current derivation.
Instead the general type sees the atom as the head atom of a
definite clause and maintains the type that the atom's arguments
\emph{may} be instantiated with, i.e.~its polymorphic type.
The general type is hence
determined by the constraints imposed on the arguments' types based on
the types of the atoms that become goals to prove this atom.
The general types can hence be seen as deriving from the leafs in the
derivation, up through the subtree under this particular atom.
In particular, the general type is not influenced by the example goals
(and type) given to the algorithm.
Upon a successful derivation being found, in general, it is \emph{not} the
case that the general type does not contain variables,
instead the point of the general types (of the head atoms of inventions)
is that they may be polymorphic.
\paragraph{An example}
As an example, suppose we have to prove \pc{P([1,2,3],2):DT:GT}.
Its derivation type will already be fixed as \pc{DT=[list(int),int]},
due to the algorithm being able to maintain fully accurate derivation types
for arguments instantiated with values (given that the type of the example
goals was provided and the background predicates had accurate types).
As we have not yet proven the atom the general type will usually be
$GT=[X,Y]$.\footnote{
In the case that the argument variables are shared with other atoms in a clause
it might be that there are already constraints imposed on the general type
(which would necessarily also be present in the derivation types).
Such constraints make the type more specific than just two variables.}
Suppose the invented clause the algorithm comes up with to
prove the atom is \pc{inv(A,B):-tail(A,C),head(C,B)}.
We have that the (general) type of the body atoms is
\pc{tail:[list(X),list(X)]} and \pc{head:[list(Y),Y]}. The general type
of the \pc{inv} derives from these general types as being \pc{[list(X),X]}.
As part of proving the goal atom by this invention we unify the head of the
invention with the goal to obtain \pc{inv([1,2,3],2):[list(int),int]: [list(X),X]}.
Now the body atoms of the invention need to proven, which are
\pc{tail([1,2,3],C):[list(int),list(int)]:[list(X),list(X)]} and atom
\pc{head(C,2):[list(int),int]:[list(Y),Y]}.
The derivation types have the correct type
for \pc{C} imposed by the typing of the background predicates of \pc{tail}
and \pc{head} forcing unification on \pc{C}'s type based on the type of the
other arguments. Clearly the proof succeeds when \pc{C=2} is forced by
proving the \pc{tail} atom.
This example makes the utility of having a general type for \pc{inv} apparent.
If we would need to prove another goal such as
\pc{Q([[1],[2]],[2]]:
[list(list(int)),list(int)]:QGT}, we are not restricted to
just being able to retrieve the derivation type that was used in the proof
for the previous goal. Instead we can check that
this derivation type is also an instantiation of the general type of \pc{inv},
thereby allowing reuse of the invented predicate.
\subsection{The Algorithm}
The polymorphic type checking contribution to MIL of this thesis has resulted in
the \metast{} algorithm in figure \ref{fig:metast}.
The code in this figure is the \metaai{} algorithm, except for the bold code
which achieves type checking.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
learn(Pos,Neg,(*\pc{\textbf{Type}}*),Prog):-
(*\pc{\textbf{map(decorate\_types(Type),Pos,PosTyped),}}*)
(*\pc{\textbf{map(decorate\_types(Type),Neg,NegTyped),}}*)
prove((*\pc{\textbf{PosTyped}}*),[],Prog),
not(prove((*\pc{\textbf{NegTyped}}*),Prog,Prog)).
prove([],Prog,Prog).
prove([Atom|Atoms],Prog1,Prog2):-
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog3),
prove(Atoms,Prog3,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:GT}}*),Prog,Prog):-
prim(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT}}*)),!,
(*\pc{\textbf{prim(Atom:GT),}}*)
call(Atom).
prove_aux(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:GT}}*),Prog1,Prog2):-
interpreted(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:-BodyDT}}*)),
(*\pc{\textbf{interpreted(Atom:GT:-BodyGT),}}*)
(*\pc{\textbf{combine\_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),}}*)
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:GT}}*),Prog1,Prog2):-
member(sub(Name,(*\pc{\textbf{GTinv}}*),Subs),Prog1),
(*\pc{\textbf{instance\_of(DT,GTinv),}}*)
(*\pc{\textbf{GT=GTinv,}}*)
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:-BodyDT}}*))),
(*\pc{\textbf{metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),}}*)
(*\pc{\textbf{combine\_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),}}*)
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:GT}}*),Prog1,Prog2):-
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom(*\pc{\textbf{:DT:-BodyDT)}}*)),
(*\pc{\textbf{metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),}}*)
(*\pc{\textbf{combine\_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),}}*)
prove(Body,[sub(Name,(*\pc{\textbf{GT,}}*)Subs)|Prog1],Prog2).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The \metast{} algorithm.}
\label{fig:metast}
\end{figure}
We have as main invariant of the algorithm that every
goal provided as the first argument to \pc{prove\_aux} has its derivation
type \pc{DT} instantiated to the most specific type that is consistent
with how the atom was derived from the examples (using the program built up at
to that point), and that \pc{GT} is the most general type of
the atom as is constrained by the typing of the background predicates and
the invented clauses in the program. An atom's derivation type is always
an instance of its general type, as can be easily checked.
\subsection{Forward Propagating Derivation Types}
As part of specifying what problem the user would like to solve, the
user supplies a type, \pc{Type}, for the examples.
In the \pc{learn} clause of \metast{},
the \pc{Pos} and \pc{Neg} examples are of the form \pc{p(a,\ldots,z)},
just as in the untyped case.
The first two lines of the new \pc{learn} body make sure that the example
atoms satisfy the above invariant, namely each example is mapped from
\pc{p(a,\ldots,z)} to \pc{p(a,\ldots,z):Type:GT}, where \pc{Type} is the
user supplied type, and \pc{GT} is a new entirely unconstrained type variable.
The \pc{prove} clauses of \metast{} are taken unchanged from the untyped algorithm.
Their main purpose is to implement (leftmost) depth-first search.
For this subsection we will focus on how the derivation type \pc{DT} is used
to prune parts of the search space and how the correct derivation type is
assigned to new goals. For now it suffices to know that the difference between
the body atoms \pc{BodyDT}, the body atoms with derivation type,
and the body atoms \pc{Body} in the \pc{prove\_aux}
clauses in \ref{fig:metast} is that \pc{Body}'s atoms additionally have their
general type set.
In discussing the \pc{prove\_aux} clause disjuncts we maintain the invariant
that the goal atoms, i.e~the first argument to the clause and the \pc{Body}
atoms,
have the derivation type \pc{DT} instantiated to the most accurate known type.
\paragraph{Disjuncts}
In the first disjunct of \pc{prove\_aux} we check whether the atom can be proved
by one of the primitive background predicates. An atom's predicate will now
be matched against primitives, not only on arity, but also on the \pc{DT} type.
A primitive can only be chosen when the derivation type is an instance of the
primitive's type. For example, take the goal \pc{P([1,2],B)} with
derivation type \pc{[list(int),int]}. When considering the \pc{tail:[list(X),list(X)]}
predicate, unification of the types fails due to \pc{int} and \pc{list(X)}
not being unifiable. A predicate such as \pc{head:[list(X),X]} does pass
the unification test due to \pc{X=int} equalizing the types.
Hence accurate derivation type checking occurs at the \pc{prim(Atom:DT)} line,
and failure to unify the types means that Prolog's evaluation will not be invoked
for the atom.
The second disjunct matches against the type annotated interpreted background
clauses. The assertion \pc{interpreted(Atom:DT:-BodyDT)} says to find a
background clause definition such that the head of the clause successfully
unifies both the \pc{Atom}, containing a predicate name and values, as well
as the derivation type \pc{DT} with the clause's head and type. When the head unifies
successfully, the definition of the interpreted clause makes sure
that types of the body atoms are appropriately unified as well.
Upon successful selection of a background predicate, the general type
of each atom is appended to their derivation type.
The third disjunct tries to reuse an invented clause of the program.
Here we use that the polymorphic type of (the head of) the clause is saved
along with the meta-substitution and the name of the metarule used for the invention.
The \pc{instance\_of(DT,GTinv)} goal asserts that the derivation type is
an instance of \pc{GTinv}. Note that \pc{DT} is not unified with \pc{GTinv}
itself, which would make the type to specific, instead \pc{DT} is unified
with a copy of \pc{GTinv}.
We create a new instance of the invented clause, making sure that
the same meta-substitutions constraints are imposed,
and generate body atoms with the appropriate derivation types.
The final disjunct deals with the option of inventing a new clause. The only major
change to note: in unifying the head of the metarule
with the atom we need to prove, the derivation type (and the general
polymorphic type) are unified as well.
\subsection{Inferring the Most General Type}
Having looked at how goals get the correct derivation type assigned,
we now look at how the general type can be determined for atoms.
Note that determining the general type serves two purposes. First, we need the
general type of an invention if we are to reuse an invention wherever we can,
e.g.~an invention \pc{inv(A,B):-tail(A,C),head(C,B)} derived to prove
\pc{P([1,2],2)} has derivation type \pc{[list(int),int]} when invented
for these values.
Instead we want to know the more general polymorphic type,
\pc{[list(X),X]}, such that the invention can be reused, e.g.~to
prove \pc{P([[],[1]],[1]):
[list(list(int)),list(int)]}.
Second, which follows directly from knowing the general type of inventions,
is that we can give a general type to the entire program, i.e.~to the head
of the clause used for the examples. This means we can also generalize from
the example type that we have been given.
All of the background knowledge (primitive and interpreted predicates, and
metarules) is already annotated with general types (and become more accurate
for goal derivation types by making them more specific through unification).
This is the property exploited in the algorithm, and why we see unification
on the background knowledge twice, once for the derivation types and once
for the general types.
\paragraph{Disjuncts revisited}
For the first disjunct it should be clear that unifying \pc{GT} with the
general type of the already selected primitive keeps track of the general
type of the atom. For the interpreted clauses of the second disjunct this holds
true as well, except that body atoms of the interpreted clause become goals
which can restrict the general type during their proof. We have that
background knowledge is only annotated with a single type,
which is why we unify twice, once we get body atoms with derivation types and
once we get body atoms with general types.
The \pc{combine\_types} predicate combines these lists of singly typed
atoms, of the form \pc{BodyAtom:DTy} and \pc{BodyAtom:GTy}, into atoms with both
a derivation and general type, e.g.~\pc{BodyAtom:DTy:GTy}.
For the third disjunct we already explained how the general type of an invention
is used to type check. To keep track of the general type, note that the general
type of the (head of the) invention must be the general type of the atom,
which is asserted by the equality.
This equality also makes sure that the general type among all usages of the
invention remain consistent for this one general type.
The metarule instantiation with the general type \pc{GT} makes
sure constraints imposed by a new goal are directly reflected in the general
type of the invention.
The final disjunct, handling new inventions, is similar in reasoning to
the previous disjunct. The one thing to note is that because the new
invention is saved as part of the program, the general type for the
clause is stored with it. This is the general polymorphic type that will be shared
amongst all uses of the invention\footnote{An alternative
simple approach would be to modify the definition of meta-subtitutions
to include types on the predicate names, forgoing the need to store the type
separately.}.
\section{Theoretical Results}
\label{sec:simple_theory}
To argue the correctness of the \metast{} algorithm we establish soundness,
i.e.~the programs found by the algorithm are correct for the examples,
and relative completeness, that is, every program found by the \metaai{}
algorithm will also be found by \metast{}. Related to the completeness
result, we also briefly look at how sound pruning impacts predictive accuracy.
As a separate result we characterize how types on predicates can bound the
size of the search space.
\subsection{Soundness}
\begin{definition}
An inductive synthesis algorithm is \emph{sound} if
every program returned by the algorithm is a
consistent hypothesis (definition \ref{def:untyped-cons-hypo}).
\end{definition}
To establish soundness of \metast{}, we make the following assumption:
the \metaai{} algorithm is sound.
Though we assume it here, it is not too hard to be convinced that this
assumption is true. In essence the meta-interpreter extends the proof procedure
of SLD-resolution with additional higher-order rules, and at the same time
maintains the proof steps in the derivation of the entailment of the examples
that an implementation of SLD-resolution does not itself maintain.
\begin{proposition}
Given that the \metaai{} algorithm is sound, the \metast{} algorithm
is sound.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume the precondition.
Note that in logic/constraint programming we have that adding more
constraints to clauses can only reduce the number of solutions found.
For the \metast{} algorithm to succeed the same derivation that the
\metaai{} algorithm establishes must be found, i.e.~the derivation on
atoms without their types is exactly a \metaai{} derivation. This
is due to the \metast{} algorithm only adding constraints to the
\metaai{} algorithm.
Clearly the type checking of \metast{} only imposes additional
conditions on the proof of atoms, hence the derivations found by \metast{}
must be a subset of the derivations found by \metaai{}. Conclude
that any returned program by \metaai{} must as well be a consistent hypothesis.
\end{proof}
The only thing to remark with regard to the additional constraints imposed by
\metast{} is that they are not as simple as just additional atoms in bodies.
The head atoms gain some freedom in that they have additional variables in
their types, and some of the body atoms in the clauses are modified instead
of just added. These changes do not matter, as in the end the algorithm
can only succeed when the atoms (without their types) form a proper \metaai{}
proof.
\subsection{Completeness}
For our completeness result we assume that the background knowledge is
typable by the polymorphic types introduced in section \ref{sec:typed-type-def}.
We also assume that the provided background knowledge has correct types,
i.e.~the types might be too general, but they are not inaccurate.
For completeness relative to the \metaai{} algorithm we show that when the
\metaai{} algorithm is able to find a program, then \metast{} must find the
same program (syntactically identical).
Remember, from section \ref{sec:metaai-algo}, that the search procedure of
the \metaai{} (and hence of the \metast{}) algorithm is leftmost depth-first.
\begin{definition}
A procedure that discards parts of a search space performs
\emph{inconsistency pruning} when
the parts of the search space pruned away never contain any successful nodes.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
Let $A$ be a depth-first search algorithm.
If an algorithm $A'$ is algorithm $A$ except that it does additional
inconsistency pruning,
then when algorithm $A$ finds its first successful node $s$, algorithm $A'$
will also find node $s$ as its first successful node.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume the stated relationship between $A$ and $A'$ and that algorithm
$A$ has found its first successful node $s$.
Suppose that either $A'$ does not find a successful node, or finds a node $t$.
Due to sound pruning we have that $A'$ cannot have pruned away the part
of the space containing $s$, and must come across it eventually.
Hence $A'$ must find node $t$. Because the traversal order of the nodes
is the same (modulo unsuccessful nodes being left out) it follows that $t = s$.
\end{proof}
First note that a program with a type check error cannot be a consistent
hypothesis (given at least one positive example).
That \metast{} adds inconsistency pruning relative to \metaai{} follows from
that a type checking failure leads to pruning
and that any program with a type check error cannot be made to type check
by adding additional clauses to the program (i.e.~continuing the search).
That \metast{}'s type checking through unification correctly implements
type checking can be established by induction on the size of the derivation
tree constructed during the algorithm\footnote{Note that we plan to make
the presentation of the type system formal such that this proof, amongst
others, can be proven formally.}.
The induction hypothesis is that the values are always inhabitants
of the derivation types. When the algorithm tries to prove a goal
with a primitive/interpreted/invented predicate and the typing of the predicate
cannot be instantiated to the derivation type of goal,
that predicate will be rejected due to a type error.
This rejection is sound due to the predicate's type
indicating that the predicate cannot successfully the values of this type.
Otherwise, the predicate may be used to continue the search, at which
point it is easy to show that the values in the new goals are again
inhabitants of their type.
Using the above result we can immediately conclude the below proposition, by
instantiating the algorithms $A$ and $A'$ by \metaai{} and
\metast{}, respectively.
\begin{proposition}
The (simply typable) programs found by the \metaai{} algorithm and the
\metast{} algorithm are exactly the same syntactically.
\end{proposition}
We will use this result in justifying why it is not worthwhile to experimentally
investigate the difference in accuracy of \metast{} and \metaai{}.
The above result only holds when the algorithms are allowed to run arbitrarily
long, long enough to find the (first) successful program.
In practice a timeout is used. As we will see in the experimental work,
the untyped system is considerably slower than the typed system.
A consequence is that the typed system can find programs for which the
untyped system will use more time than is allowed by a timeout.
In such cases the predictive accuracy of the typed system will vastly
outperform the untyped system. In experiments where both systems are able to
find the program the predictive accuracy is not impacted by type checking.
\subsection{Proportion of Relevant Predicates}
For the remainder of the theoretical examination we focus on a particular
language class of logic programs. The metarules in table \ref{tab:metarules}, e.g.~containing the
Chain rule $P(A,B) \ot Q(A,C),R(C,B)$, focus on restricting the structure
of the class of programs where each clause has a head atom and two body atoms.
Each atom's predicate has exactly arity two. This class is known as $H_2^2$.
The number of programs in this class is given as $O(|M|^n(p^3)^n)$, where
$|M|$ is the number of metarules, $n$ is the number of clauses and $p$ is the
number of predicate symbols \citep{lin2014bias}. The $p^3$ term is due
to that all three of the predicates in a clause being chosen independently from
each other.
If higher-order abstractions, each with $k \geq 1$ higher-order variables are
considered, this result is updated to $O(|M|^np^{(2+k)n})$ \citep{Cropper2016}.
We will suppose that the predicates in the background
knowledge are annotated with polymorphic types.
The improvement of taking types into consideration is due to predicate typing
having to match up, meaning that predicates in a clause usually cannot
be chosen independently from each other.
Only a portion of the background predicates' types will line up.
Given $p$ predicates with types, fixing one of the three predicates
in a $\Htwo$ clause restricts the choice of the two other predicates of the clause.
It hence makes sense to consider the maximum number of predicates that remain as
possible choices for any predicate of a $\Htwo$ clause,
after either (or both) of the other predicates have been selected.
This is determined per instance of the background knowledge.
Let $\overline{p} \leq p$ be the worst case number of predicates that remain as choices for
any of the predicates in a $\Htwo$ clause.
This value is determined by an exhaustive search
over the three predicate places in a clause, filling in any one predicate
and checking how many of the predicates can still be substituted for the
remaining predicate variables.
\begin{definition}
Given $p$ typed predicates,
with $\overline{p} \leq p$ an upper bound on the number of typed
predicates that can be filled in any of the predicate variables of a $\Htwo$ clause,
given that another predicate of the clause has already been selected,
$t = \overline{p} /p$ is the \emph{worst case proportional constant}.
\end{definition}
The ratio will always be between $0$ and $1$, with lower values indicating
a greater reduction in the search space.
The proportional constant is a convenient value to work with due to it
abstracting away the number of predicates in the program. The following
result characterizes the reduction in the hypothesis space of programs given
that predicates are properly annotated with types.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:space_red}
Given $p$ typed predicates, and the worst case proportional constant $t$ for the
predicates, the hypothesis space $\Htwo$ is reduced by a factor of $t^{3n}$,
where $n$ is the number of clauses, versus the untyped hypothesis space.
\end{proposition}
The $p$ term in $O(|M|^n(p^3)^n)$ is the (maximum) number of predicates that can
be filled in for any predicate variables in a untyped (unabstracted) clause.
For the typed case we know that this maximum is $\overline{p}$, and hence we substitute
$\overline{p}$ for $p$ in the size bound:
\begin{align*}
|M|^n(\overline{p}^3)^n
&=
|M|^n((tp)^3)^n
\\ &=
|M|^n(t^{3n})(p^{3n})
\\ &=
(t^{3n})(|M|^n(p^3)^n))
\\
\end{align*}
In case of the abstracted search space we have that the reduction factor
is $t^{(2+k)n}$, using the exact same reasoning. These results imply
that using types to prune the search space leads to a considerable reduction
in effort.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:simple-expr}
There are two main concerns when evaluating synthesis systems: the speed with
which they are able to find programs and, in an inductive setting,
the predictive accuracy of the found programs for the relation that is being learned.
As shown in the previous section, when the search algorithm is (leftmost)
depth-first search, the first encountered program that correctly entails the examples
is always the same.
It follows that the accuracy of the found programs (barring timeouts, which
we will not consider in this section) is not affected by
polymorphic type checking based pruning, justifying the decision of only performing
experiments that check the impact on the size of the search space and
the impact on the time needed for synthesis.
We perform three experiments to evaluate the benefit of polymorphic
types to MIL. First, the \emph{Search Space Reduction} experiment checks that
the inclusion of irrelevant background predicates has negative effects for
the untyped framework, though the typed system is able to ignore them.
Second, the \emph{Ratio Influence} checks that the implementation is able to come close
to the theoretical result regarding better than linear influence of
the ratio on the search space.
Finally, we do a statistical experiment, \emph{Simply Typed Droplasts},
on the synthesis of the $droplasts$ program, checking for a time speedup and
a reduction in the number of derivation steps.
For simplicity's sake we will compare \metast{} to the untyped system by just
disabling \metast{}'s type checking\footnote{Time constraints caused us to
decide that proper experiments generating both typed and untyped experiments
will have to be deferred to future work.}.
Note that this means that there is
some additional overhead versus \metaai{}, which does not keep track of types
at all. The number of proof steps is not impacted by this overhead, only the
time needed is (though the impact should be quite small).
The Prolog implementation used for running the experiments is SWI-Prolog.
\subsection{Derivation steps}
In determining how efficient program synthesis is, we propose to keep track
of the number of decisions made for traversing the program search space.
That is, a decision is a choice made to construct part of a potential program.
A decision in the MIL framework corresponds to
\begin{itemize}
\item trying to prove an atom with a primitive predicate,
\item trying to prove an interpreted higher-order predicate,
by expanding the body,
\item trying an existing invented predicate/clause,
\item or choosing to apply a metarule, creating an invention.
\end{itemize}
Figure \ref{fig:counter} indicates with bold lines where in the
\metast{} algorithm the (global) decision counter is increased.
Note, that for our purposes, a decision is made
\emph{after} type-checking. For the untyped algorithm the checks occur at the
same place (modulo additional type checking lines).
Due to the correspondence of synthesis with constructing proofs,
in particular derivations for the positive examples, the decisions will also
be called proof steps or derivation steps.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog,Prog):-
prim(Atom:DT),!,
prim(Atom:GT),
(*\texttt{\textbf{increase\_counter,}}*)
call(Atom).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,Prog2):-
interpreted(Atom:DT:-BodyDT),
interpreted(Atom:GT:-BodyGT),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\texttt{\textbf{increase\_counter,}}*)
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,Prog2):-
member(sub(Name,GTinv,Subs),Prog1),
instance_of(DT,GTinv),
GT=GTinv,
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:DT:-BodyDT)),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\texttt{\textbf{increase\_counter,}}*)
prove(Body,Prog1,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,Prog2):-
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:DT:-BodyDT)),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\texttt{\textbf{increase\_counter,}}*)
prove(Body,[sub(Name,GT,Subs)|Prog1],Prog2).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\metast{}'s \texttt{prove\_aux} annotated with decision counter.}
\label{fig:counter}
\end{figure}
\stepcounter{expcount}
\subsection{Experiment \arabic{expcount}: Search Space Reduction}
In this experiment we verify, via deterministic tests, that 1) adding typed
predicates that do not compose w.r.t.~the input type are ignored by the
typed system, and 2) that the difference in time and proof steps
corresponds to the theoretical results in proposition \ref{prop:space_red}.
\begin{hypothesis}
\label{hypo:mismatched-ignore}
\metast{} with type checking enabled is not able to prune the search space
relative to \metaai{} (i.e.~\metast{} with type checking disabled).
\end{hypothesis}
\begin{hypothesis}
\label{hypo:mismatched-pref}
\metast{} with type checking enabled is not able to learn faster than
\metaai{}.
\end{hypothesis}
\paragraph{Setup}
We ask the system to prove a single positive example \texttt{p(0,1)}, of type
$[int,int]$. In order to strictly control the search space we only provide the
chain metarule. As we want to traverse the entire search space we will only
introduce predicates that cannot contribute to a successful program.
The predicate(s) in the background knowledge need to be general enough to
always succeed in unifying with goal atom (thereby making sure
that the largest possible search space is traversed).
The following predicate was chosen due to it being well-behaved when
the search space is traversed depth first:
\[ to\_zero(X,0). \]
We add one instance of this predicate with type $[int,int]$, thereby allowing
it to be used by the typed system. To test how the system handles completely
irrelevant background predicates we iteratively add additional instances of
this predicate, but now with type $[bottom,bottom]$, where $bottom$ is
a dummy type. Predicates with both $bottom$ and $int$ types cannot
occur in the body of the Chain metarule.
\paragraph{Result}
The graph on top in figure \ref{fig:space_red_3clause} shows the number
proof steps that were needed to traverse the search space, when the number of
clauses in the largest program considered is restricted to three.
The graph on the bottom in this figure shows the time spent on traversing
the search space in both the typed and the untyped system.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{experiments/search_space_reduction/plot_steps_3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{experiments/search_space_reduction/plot_time_3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Number of proof steps and time for increasing number of mismatched predicates.
Max clauses is three. Typed proof steps are constant at $83$ and the time
required for typed synthesis is (approximately) constant at $0.014$ seconds.}
\label{fig:space_red_3clause}
\end{figure}
The number of steps required by the typed system remain constant at $83$.
Correspondingly, the time for the typed program is also as near to constant,
never needing more than $0.014$ seconds. The untyped program on the other hand
traverses bigger and bigger search spaces with increasing number of (irrelevant)
background predicates. These graphs are strong evidence for rejecting
hypothesis \ref{hypo:mismatched-ignore}, regarding not being able to further
prune the search space,
and for rejecting hypothesis \ref{hypo:mismatched-pref}, regarding performance
not being affected relative to the untyped system.
\paragraph{Additional Analysis} It is interesting to note that the graph for the proof
steps (and time as well), for a maximum of three clauses, is best explained\footnote{By
running linear regression and determining that terms of higher degree
always are given trivially sized coefficients} by a polynomial of degree four.
This deviates from the known
theory result regarding the size of the search space being $O(|M|^n(p^3)^n)$,
where $|M| = 1$, $n = 3$, and $p$ is varied in the experiment. Based on the
theory one would expect a polynomials of degree $9$ to best explain the
experimental data. The experiment was repeated to try to better understand
this observation: the number of clauses was limited to four, which resulted
in a polynomial of degree five best fitting the data, while a degree $12$
polynomial would be expected according to the theory.
Actually it is not hard to see that the theory result does
not take into account certain conditions on the predicates imposed by
the MIL framework. It only represents the size of the search space
traversed by a completely naive brute-force algorithm.
One clear example is that the predicates in the head
are restricted to the predicate of the examples and to invented symbols.
It follows that at least one of the three predicates in a clause is restricted
to $n$, instead of $p$. This observation allows us to replace the $p^3$
in the size expression with $p^2$ (given $p \gg n$).
This restricted size bound still does not fully explain our lower degree polynomials,
meaning that we need to refine the theory to accurately
capture the hypothesis space that is actually considered by the MIL framework.
\stepcounter{expcount}
\subsection{Experiment \arabic{expcount}: Ratio Influence}
For this experiment we consider the worst case proportional constant
$t = \overline{p}/p$ as a varying ratio, where $p$ is the total number
of background knowledge predicates, of which at most $\overline{p}$
of which can be used for any predicate variable.
Via a deterministic test we determine the influence of the ratio of matching types
predicates versus all background predicates on the search space that
the \emph{typed} system, \metast{}, explores. Again, we are interested in the
size of the search space, hence we do not try to find a successful program.
\begin{hypothesis}{Ratio unimportant}
\label{hypo:ratio}
The ratio $t$ does not influence the size of the search space explored.
\end{hypothesis}
\paragraph{Setup}
We take as basis the previous experiment.
Again, we take the $to\_zero(X,0)$ predicate, though this time we insert $25$ of
them in the background knowledge. We vary the types of the predicates
such that different ratios are achieved, e.g.~$1/25$, $2/25$, etc.
The predicates that will be allowed by type checking will have type
$[int,int]$ and the other predicates will have type $[bottom,bottom]$.
We restrict the number of clauses to three.
\paragraph{Result}
Figure \ref{fig:space-ratio} has a plot showing how the time necessary for
traversing the search space is influenced by the ratio of type matching versus
all predicates. The second plot shows the same behaviour but for the number
of proof steps by the untyped and simply typed systems.
There is enough evidence to \emph{reject} the hypothesis that the ratio of correctly
typed background predicates \emph{does not} matter. Clearly the ratio has significant
influence on the time taken and the number of decisions made by the algorithm.
Note that the untyped system will not care about the ratio of the matching
typed predicates as it will not consider this feature at all, hence leading
to its constant behaviour.
The plots are again best explained by degree four polynomials, again
demonstrating the need for better fitting theory. The time plot is interesting
in particular for that it reveals that the \metast{} with type checking turned
off, which is how this test was conducted for the untyped results, apparently
has overhead from the types that are carried around, even more so than the
typed system, as clearly demonstrated by the case when the ratio is $1.0$.
This is likely due to an increased cost for making placeholder variables
for the types that are not being checked, which appears to have non-trivial
cost in SWI-Prolog.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{experiments/search_space_ratio/plot_ratio_steps.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{3.2ex}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.89\textwidth]{experiments/search_space_ratio/plot_ratio_time.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Number of proof steps and time for increasing ratio of type matching
predicates out of all predicates.}
\label{fig:space-ratio}
\end{figure}
\stepcounter{expcount}
\subsection{Experiment \arabic{expcount}: Simply Typed Droplasts}
\label{sec:simple-droplasts}
As a final experiment we take a popular exercise from the literature \citep{kitzelmann2007data},
namely the \texttt{droplasts} program. This polymorphic program takes a list of lists
and drops the last element from each of the inner lists. The program learned is:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
droplasts(A,B):-map(A,B,droplasts_1).
droplasts_1(A,B):-reverse(A,C),droplasts_2(C,B).
droplasts_2(A,B):-tail(A,C),reverse(C,B).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{hypothesis}
\label{hypo:simple}
\metast{} is not able to improve on the untyped system, in the time required
and the number of proof steps needed, in a (semi-)realistic setting.
\end{hypothesis}
\paragraph{Setup}
This experiment is conducted stochastically. We generate small
random input examples (outer and inner lists (of integers) of length between
2 and 5)\footnote{The rather limited lengths are chosen so that we can reuse
most of this experiment when we consider the refinement experiment for the following chapter}
and run them through a reference implementation to obtain correct
positive examples. As we are interested in the effect of type checking on
the search space based on the background predicates, we fix the number of
(positive) examples generated to three.
We provide the synthesis system with predicates for a list \texttt{concat}
relation (appending elements at the back),
the \texttt{tail} relation, the \texttt{reverse} relation
and the two-place identity relation, all with appropriate polymorphic types.
The type of the examples is set to $[list(list(int)),list(list(int))]$.
We give it the \texttt{chain} metarule, along with metarules
for abstraction to the following predicates. The higher-order predicates
made available are the \texttt{map}, the \texttt{reduceback} and the \texttt{filter}
relations.
For the experiment we add additional typed predicates, which for sake of
execution time we take to be simple, forgoing excessive costs associated
with non-determinism and resolution\footnote{The typed system would for the
most part not incur these costs, hence adding an additional cost for resolution
and non-determinism would mostly be a tool to manipulate the results in
your favor.}. The additional predicates only match on particular values for
their arguments, where the values are randomly chosen from a small distribution.
The types of predicates are correct for the values
of the argument and are either: $bool$, $nat$, $int$, $list(int)$,
$list(list(int))$, or $list(list(X))$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{experiments/simple_droplast/plot_steps.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth]{experiments/simple_droplast/plot_time.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average number of proof steps and time for increasing number of typed background predicates.
Standard deviation is depicted by bars.}
\label{fig:simple-droplast}
\end{figure}
For each number of additional background predicates we run ten trials,
for each trial generating random positive examples and predicates.
We average over the trials and calculate the standard deviation of the sample.
\paragraph{Result}
The plots in figure \ref{fig:simple-droplast} depict the average time and number of
proof steps required by the untyped and typed systems. The standard deviations
are included as bars.
These graphs are reasonable evidence for concluding that the typed system is
able to outperform the untyped system in a non-toy synthesis example,
thereby rejecting hypothesis \ref{hypo:simple}.
\paragraph{Analysis}
The advantage of type checking observed in the previous, deterministic experiments
is less pronounced in this experiment. The main reason for this is that while
in the previous tests the untyped program needed to explore the entire
space of possible programs,
i.e.~with each background predicate at each possible position
in all clauses, now the untyped system is able to discard parts of its search
space based on the \emph{values} in the background predicates not unifying.
\chapter{Synthesis with Refinement Types}
Based on the success of polymorphic type checking in making synthesis more efficient,
it is natural to consider whether more expressive types can be leveraged for
further improvement. The extension to polymorphic types we will consider in this
chapter is refinement types, i.e.~polymorphic types with an additional proposition
restricting inhabitants of the type (see section \ref{sec:typed-type-def}
for a definition). We will often use the term \emph{simple types} to refer
to polymorphic types without refinements.
First we discuss how the user specifies refinement types for the
background knowledge.
As the MIL algorithm conceptually only needs minor adjustments, we next
introduce the adapted algorithm \metart{}.
We show how a refinement proposition representing the entire program
can be obtained from the proof structure maintained by the algorithm.
Refinement checking is accomplished by proving (un)satisfiability by a
SMT solver.
We discuss the levels of refinement expressivity available,
and how there is a tradeoff to be made.
The chapter closes with theory and experimental results.
\section{Representation of Refinements}
The reader is referred to section \ref{sec:typed-type-def}
for the definition and some of the syntax used for refinement types.
We assume familiarity with the problem statement for program synthesis
using polymorphic typed predicates, as well as with the way users provide their
background knowledge to the \metast{} algorithm, as can be found
in section \ref{sec:simple-problem}.
The user supplied positive and negative examples are unchanged versus
the simply typed case: the user provides a single consistent (non-refinement)
type for all the examples.
As in the case of polymorphic type checking,
we need the user to supply refinement types for the background knowledge.
The refinement types on the predicates should be such that they are consistent
with the predicates, i.e.~for any predicate
$p(A_0,\ldots,A_k):[T_0,\ldots,T_k]\<\phi\>$, which gets
its arguments instantiated to $a_0,\ldots,a_k$, it is never the case
that $p(a_0,\ldots,a_k)$ holds while $\phi[a_0/A_0,\ldots,a_k/A_k]$ is
false. Note that the user is not otherwise restricted, they can choose
to use the most general refinement ($true$) or to make it as precise as they
like (even as far as the refinement completely characterizing the predicate).
For specifying refinements in Prolog we require a way to refer to the arguments.
Instead of just annotating the predicate's name with a type we also write out
its formal arguments when asserting that a predicate belongs to the background
knowledge.
The primitive predicate assertions gain an additional argument for the refinement on
the simple type. The simple type itself is appended to the atom representing
the predicate's name and formal arguments. For example
\pc{prim(tail(A,B):[list(X),list(X)],$\<length(A) = length(B)+1\>$)}, is
the predicate representing the tail relation with the refinement stating
the length property that always holds of its arguments. Note that the
refinement bracket syntax ($\<\ldots\>$) made its way into our Prolog notation.
For now we hide the actual syntax used in writing down refinements by this
notation and comeback to the refinement specification language in
section \ref{sec:ref-expr}.
The interpreted predicates gain an additional assertion for the specification
of the refinement type. We will need to keep track
of structure of the program derived,
and hence will keep track of the existentially quantified predicate
names in the interpreted clause.
As an example, the assertion of the map predicate being an interpreted
background predicate becomes:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
interpreted([F],map([],[],F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]] :- []).
interpreted([F],map([A|S],[B|T],F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]] :-
[F(A,B):[X,Y],map(S,T,F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]]]).
interpreted_ref(map(C,D,F),(*$\<length(C)=length(D)\>$*))
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The metarules will not need to keep track of refinements (directly)
and hence remain unchanged versus the simple type problem statement,
i.e.~all atoms are decorated with simple types.
The definition of consistent hypotheses,
and that of MIL learner are essentially unchanged: the programs learned
are still simply typed, and the only adjustment needed is that the supplied
background predicates are refinement typed.
\section{From a Program Derivation to a Refinement}
This section starts out with observing how refinements on predicates
give rise to a refinement over a program.
Next we present how refinement type checking can be integrated
at a high level into the MIL algorithm. This high-level algorithm will
delegate the type checking to a subroutine, hiding the complexity.
We subsequently look how this type checking subroutine is able to
construct a single proposition that needs to be checked for satisfiability.
\subsection{Backward Action on Refinements}
\label{sec:ref-backward}
We now look at how the validity of substituting
the head of a definite clause with its body gives rise to inferring refinements.
Suppose we are in a position of needing to prove that an atom $Q(X,Y)$ is
an inhabitant of its type $[T_X,T_Y]\<\phi_Q\>$, where $\phi_Q$ might be
a unknown refinement and $X$ and $Y$ might both be variables
(and not yet concrete terms) of as of yet undetermined type.
\paragraph{Substitution of refinements}
Suppose that after applying the chain metarule that $Q$ is assigned the
body $Q(X, Y) \ot R(X,A),S(A,Y)$
with the following typing (again involving unknowns):
\begin{align*}
R(X,A) &: [T_X,T_A]\< \phi_R \>\\
S(A,B) &: [T_A,T_Y]\< \phi_S \>\\
\end{align*}
If the refinement of $Q(X,Y)$ was unknown we now know that $\phi_R \wedge \phi_S$
is an accurate substitution for $\phi_Q$ as the just invented definite clause
would be the only way of deriving $Q(X,Y)$.
To see that this is an accurate substitution observe
that any occurrence of $Q(X,Y)$ in the program may be replaced by the newly
constructed body. If $\phi_Q$ is not unknown it is the case that there
is already another body assigned to $Q(X,Y)$, which means
we are adding a disjunctive clause. The refinement $\phi_Q$ needs to
be updated to $\phi_Q' = \phi_Q \vee (\phi_R \wedge \phi_S)$.
\paragraph{Backward action}
From the above description it follow that the types in the body of an invention
have a kind of
\emph{backward action} with regard to the type of the predicate that is being
invented.
This backward action leads to additional named (argument) variables occurring in
refinement types,
names not present in a predicate head's arguments. Therefore
a context needs to be maintained for any such existentially qualified variables.
The significance of this backward action is that is leads to a \emph{grand
refinement} for the entire program, i.e.~a single proposition whose satisfiability
determines whether the program is still consistent. For example, it could
be that $R(X,A)$ has to be invented leading to an adjustment of its refinement type, which
would in turn change $Q(X,Y)$'s type. In the same way $Q(X,Y)$ could occur
in the body of the clause invented for predicate of the examples.
Hence we have that the entire program's refinement type is influenced
by any adjustment to a type due to filling in a definition for a
predicate.
Note that for interpreted predicates we have that the same property holds:
the refinement for the head of the interpreted clause can be made more accurate
by conjuncting it with the refinements of the predicates that occur in the
clause's body.
\subsection{High-level algorithm: \metart{}}
Figure \ref{fig:metart} contains the code for \metart{}, the refinement type
checking Meta-Interpretive Learning algorithm. The algorithm is, in essence,
the \metast{} algorithm from the previous chapter with additional pruning.
The code in bold notes all the changes made to implement refinement checking.
The same four disjunctive clauses remain and fulfill the same tasks.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
learn(Pos,Neg,Type,Prog):-
map(decorate_types(Type),Pos,PosTyped),
map(decorate_types(Type),Neg,NegTyped),
prove(PosTyped,[],Prog),
not(prove(NegTyped,Prog,Prog)).
prove([],Prog,Prog).
prove([Atom|Atoms],Prog1,Prog2):-
prove_aux(Atom,Prog1,Prog3),
prove(Atoms,Prog3,Prog2).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog,Prog):-
prim(Atom:DT),!,
prim(Atom:GT),
(*\texttt{\textbf{check\_refinement(Prog),}}*)
call(Atom).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog3}}*)):-
interpreted((*\texttt{\textbf{Subs,}}*)Atom:DT:-BodyDT),
interpreted((*\texttt{\textbf{Subs,}}*)Atom:GT:-BodyGT),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2=[inter(Atom,DT,GT,Subs)|Prog1]}}*)
(*\texttt{\textbf{check\_refinement(Prog2),}}*)
prove(Body,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2,Prog3}}*)).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog3}}*)):-
member(sub(Name,GTinv,Subs),Prog1),
check_unifies_with(GTinv,DT),
GT=GTinv,
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:DT:-BodyDT)),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2=[inv(Name,Atom,DT,GT,Subs)|Prog1],}}*)
(*\texttt{\textbf{check\_refinement(Prog2),}}*)
prove(Body,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2,Prog3}}*)).
prove_aux(Atom:DT:GT,Prog1,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog3}}*)):-
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:DT:-BodyDT)),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Atom:GT:-BodyGT)),
combine_types(BodyDT,BodyGT,Body),
(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2=[sub(Name,Atom,DT,GT,Subs)|Prog1],}}*)
prove(Body,(*\pc{\textbf{Prog2,Prog3}}*)).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\metart{}: refinement type checking MIL.}
\label{fig:metart}
\end{figure}
Each disjunct maintains in its \pc{Prog} arguments what the currently derived
program is. For the first disjunct this is done by unifying the selected
predicate name with one of the variables already in \pc{Prog}, hence the change
in the program \pc{Prog} needs no further work.
The other disjuncts explicitly keep track of the structure of the proof constructed
by the algorithm. For invented clauses a meta-substitution is already
kept track of. Uses of higher-order background predicates and of
invented clauses are now also saved.
The \pc{check\_refinement} predicate achieves pruning by deriving the
proposition representing the constraints imposed on the entire program
by the refinements. The stored proof of the program gives rise to the
grand refinement, the proposition whose satisfiability determines whether
the program being considered is still a viable option, or else is already
inconsistent. When the grand refinement is satisfiable the call to
\pc{check\_refinement} holds for the supplied program and the search continues.
If the refinement of the supplied program is proven unsatisfiable,
the proof search procedure of Prolog starts backtracking, discarding
(at least) the last choice made for the program.
When considering just filling in the existential variables from a clause body
we have that an inconsistent refinement will not become consistent upon
filling in more variables in the clause. This monotonicity property carries
over to the grand refinement of the entire program, i.e.~once proving
unsatisfiable subsequent additions to the program cannot make the
grand refinement satisfiable.
This observation is enough to guarantee sound pruning of the search space.
\subsection{Tree-Shaped Grand Refinement}
As noted in the previous section the algorithm maintains the structure of
the program constructed in the form of how the invented and interpreted clauses
are used. This structural information encodes where predicates occur in the
program and over which variables they operate.
\paragraph{Tree-shape derivation}
The Meta-Interpretive Learning approach to synthesis extends
Prolog's backward-chaining algorithm with additional methods for proving atoms.
The backward-chaining algorithm come downs to the idea that a goal
atom is proven by unifying the goal with the head of a definite clause
leading to the body atoms of this clause becoming the goals.
Hence a goal atom has child goal atoms, which in turn have child goal atoms, etc.,
until a goal atom is an asserted fact (i.e.~has not body to prove). This means
that the proof of a goal atom forms a tree of goals.
The derivation maintained in the \metart{} algorithm maintains this structure
in \pc{Prog},
but just for the proof steps that involve interpreted and invented clauses.
For usages of interpreted predicates we store \pc{inter(Atom,DT, GT,Subs)},
where \pc{Atom}'s predicate identifies the interpreted clause used.
The \pc{inter(\ldots)} atom encodes the information needed to reconstruct goal
body atoms, instantiating known predicate variables with the substitution \pc{Subs}.
For invented clauses we have that
\pc{sub(Name,\ldots)} and \pc{inv(Name,\ldots)} use \pc{Name} to identify the
metarule used, thereby giving access to the body goals.
The leafs of this proof tree are the atoms that are either proved by a primitive,
meaning that the chosen primitive will be stored in the \pc{Sub} substitution
of the parent goal, or are atoms who are yet to be proven (whose predicate
symbol might be a variable).
Hence the information stored in \pc{Prog} is sufficient to recreate the proof
tree with known predicate variables resolved and leaving unknown predicates
as variables.
\paragraph{Constructing the Grand Refinement}
As follows from section \ref{sec:ref-backward}, the grand refinement can be
directly derived from this proof structure. We explain a traversal of the
derivation tree whereby the grand refinement is constructed and at the same
time a \emph{variable context} is maintained. The variable context is the
set of typed variables that occur in the derivation,
along with the values that they are assigned to (in case an argument variable
has already been assigned a value).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
atom_to_refinement(Pred(Args):Ty,Prog,[],(*$\<true\>$*)):-
var(Pred).
atom_to_refinement(Pred(Args):Type,Prog,Context,Refinement):-
prim(Atom:Type,Refinement),
typed_args_to_context(Args,Type,Context).
atom_to_refinement(Pred(Args):Type,Prog,Context,Refinement):-
member(inter(Pred(Args),Type,GT,Subs),Prog),
interpreted(Subs,Pred(Args):Type:-Body),
interpreted_ref(Pred(_),InterRef),
body_to_refinement(Body,Prog,BodyContext,BodyRef),
typed_args_to_context(Args,Type,InterCtx),
append(BodyContext,InterCtx,Context),
Refinement=and(BodyRef,InterRef).
atom_to_refinement(Pred(Args):Type,Prog,Context,Refinement):-
(member(app(Name,Pred(Args),Type,GT,Subs),Prog);
(member(sub(Name,Pred(Args),Type,GT,Subs),Prog)),
metarule(Name,Subs,(Pred(Args):Type:-Body)),
body_to_refinement(Body,Prog,BodyContext,Refinement),
typed_args_to_context(Args,Type,InterCtx),
append(BodyContext,InterCtx,Context).
body_to_refinement([],Prog,Context,(*$\<true\>$*)).
body_to_refinement([Atom|Atoms],Prog,Context,Refinement):-
atom_to_refinement(Atom,Prog,Ctx1,Ref1),
body_to_refinement(Atoms,Prog,Ctx2,Ref2),
append(Ctx1,Ctx2,Context),
Refinement=and(Ref1,Ref2).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Prolog code for converting a derivation to a Grand Refinement.}
\label{fig:grand-ref}
\end{figure}
The details of the algorithm for converting a derivation to its
grand refinement are in figure \ref{fig:grand-ref}. The basics are
that two mutually recursive clauses build up the grand refinement bottom up.
Leafs, i.e.~those atoms whose predicate is a variable or a primitive,
are directly convertible, see the first two disjuncts of
\pc{atom\_to\_refinement}.
In the case of interpreted predicates the body refinement is first
derived, and this refinement is conjuncted with the refinement that was supplied for the interpreted clause.
For every atom the arguments are added to the context.
In \pc{body\_to\_refinement} a list of atoms is a clause body, which represents
a conjunction of atoms, hence the main task of this clause is to collect
contexts and conjunct refinements.
The grand refinement is derived by supplying \pc{atom\_to\_refinement}
with the example goal that algorithm is currently trying to prove,
along with the current program derivation.
As a result we obtain a variable context, containing variable names with
typing (and possibly values), and a single large proposition: the grand refinement.
\section{Grand Refinement Checking}
\label{sec:ref-checking}
The only issue not dealt with in the previous sections is that of
establishing whether the grand refinement is satisfiable. Satisfiability of
the refinement is defined as there being an assignment of the variables
in the context such that the grand refinement is true.
This section explores the possibilities that Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT)
provide as a framework for specifying refinements. In this framework
the grand refinement corresponds to a SMT logic formula.
SMT solvers will be used to try to
prove unsatisfiability (also called inconsistency) of this formula.
\subsection{SMT Solvers}
The main motivation for choosing to explore the effectiveness of
refinement types in pruning the search space is that SMT solvers have proven
to be very efficient in solving satisfiability problems.
Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) are theories for stating logic problems
regarding a set of formulas having a satisfying model. The formulas are expressed in
a suitably restricted logic. The satisfiability problem is encoded in a language
supported by SMT solvers.
A common standard, with widespread support, is the SMTLIB (2.0) language \citep{barrett2010smt}.
SMT solvers are special purpose programs utilizing the best available
algorithms to prove satisfiability, often relying on heuristics.
Forerunners in performance and support of new logics are
the Z3 solver \citep{de2008z3}, and the CVC4 solver \citep{barrett2011cvc4}.
\subsection{Language of Refinements}
Up till this point we have relied on mathematical syntax for specifying refinements.
The only requirement we have had on refinements is that they are propositions
that may mention the arguments of a predicate, where we left the availability
of certain functions and notations out of scope.
With our choice for solving satisfiability of the grand refinement fixed,
we can use this decision to guide our specification of refinements.
As any language we choose needs to be translated to a format that the SMT solvers
are able to work with, the simplest solution is to take the syntax of
SMTLIB.
\paragraph{Variables in refinements}
The main feature on top of SMTLIB that we need is to be able to correctly
keep track of the named variables in the refinements. The chosen solution
is to move from a refinement being a single string to list of strings and
terms. An example for such a refinement is for the map predicate:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
interpreted_ref(map(A,B,F):[list(X),list(Y),[X,Y]],
['(= (length ',A,') (length ',B,'))']).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The first thing to notice is the Lisp-like syntax of the refinement, and that
the SMTLIB language has support for functions, e.g.~\pc{length}.
The significance of the interspersing of variable names is that a variable
occurring multiple times in the program derivation (and hence also in the
grand refinement), are identified with one another.
This also makes it easy to translate such a single derivation variable
to just one SMT variable. The SMT translation of the grand
refinement just has this single variable name in place of all the occurrences
of the variable.
\paragraph{Encoded problem}
The translation of the grand refinement to a SMT problem now proceeds as follows.
First the context variables are considered, which are the same logical
variables that occur in the refinement. For each variable there is
a declaration of a new SMT variable with a new name, with typing as it occurs
in the derivation.
If the variable has a known value in the derivation a SMT equality assertion
is generated for the variable with this value.
Note that there may
occur higher-order variables in predicate arguments,
but these will never occur as variables in refinements and hence are filtered out.
For the grand refinement we have that each single refinement occurring in it
can now be ``folded
down'' from a list of strings and Prolog variables to a single string.
The names chosen for the SMT variables are used as substitutions for the
variables that occur in the refinements, where upon string concatenation becomes
available.
The structure of the grand refinement itself, involving disjunctions
and conjunctions over refinements, can now be made
into a single string by replacing nodes such as \pc{and(ref1,ref2)} by
\pc{RefStr} from the following code:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
ref_to_SMT(ref1,smt1),ref_to_SMT(ref2,smt2),
str_concat(["(and ",smt1," ",smt2,")"],RefStr).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The set of formulas given to the SMT solver are thus: the variable declarations,
assertions for values of variables (as far as they are known),
and the translation of the grand refinement type.
\section{Expressiveness of Refinements}
\label{sec:ref-expr}
Having chosen the syntax of the type refinements, this section looks
at the available choices in regards the logic theories that SMT solvers support.
As has been the theme of this document we identified higher-order predicates
as promising, with as argument that many standard list functions/predicates
have simple refinements. We therefore focus on SMT logic theories that are
able to reason over lists.
\subsection{Z3 Sequence Theory}
The first candidate is the Z3 Sequence \citep{SMTseq} theory. This theory
is able to reason over lists of bounded length and includes such function symbols
as: \pc{seq.concat}, \pc{seq.len}, \pc{seq.indexof}, \pc{seq.extract}, etc.
The theory is already undecidable, but it is the smallest theory that we
identified that includes list reasoning.
In this theory it is very easy to write refinements using just the set of
available function symbols. As our main example, the map predicate's
refinement assertion looks very familiar:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
interpreted_ref(map(A,B,F),
['(= (seq.len ',A,') (seq.len ',B,'))']).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Beyond its undecidability, the main issue with this theory is that it lacks
expressiveness. For example, we might want a refinement on a sort predicate
that states that all the elements of the input and the output lists are the same.
Such a refinement is not possible in this theory.
\subsection{DTLIA: Quantifiers, Datatypes and Arithmetic}
Lists are the prime example of algebraic datatypes (ADTs). In the ADT formulation
of lists there is only the empty list constructor and the \pc{cons} list
constructor for an element and a second list. The only operations available are
to pattern match on these two constructors. Embracing algebraic datatypes
leads more possibilities beyond just lists, e.q.~option types and record types.
The ADT formulation of lists comes with no functions pre-defined, that is,
notions such as length will have to be user-defined. Many important functions
on lists are recursive, e.g.~the length function. When reasoning over lengths
it is often useful to also compare lengths. This means we also need some basic
arithmetic notions.
Recently there has been work on SMT solvers to support algebraic datatypes,
the logic fragment of which is called $DT$ \citep{reynolds2015decision}.
This theory on its own is decidable, though with quantifiers it is not.
In other recent work progress\footnote{The work is so recent that I discovered a unsoundness issue in the implementation. The issue was promptly fixed: https://github.com/CVC4/CVC4/issues/2133} has been made on supporting recursive functions on these datatypes \citep{reynolds2016model}.
SMT solvers translate recursive functions definitions (on ADTs)
to quantified formula, therefore we have to relinquish decidability.
The need to support simple arithmetic is satisfied by the Linear Integer
Arithmetic (LIA) theory.
The combination of theories $DT$ (with quantifiers over Uninterpreted Functions)
and $LIA$ is the theory $(UF)DTLIA$. Only the CVC4 solver implements this theory.
The complexity of the recursive function definitions can be hidden from
the user for standard definitions, e.g.~\pc{dt\_length} in the following:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
interpreted_ref(map(A,B,F),
['(= ',dt_length(A),' ',dt_length(B),')']).
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Behind the scenes the \pc{dt\_length} predicate is able to insert the appropriate
SMTLIB function definition in the set of formulas handed to the SMT solver.
The below code shows such a definition. Note that SMTLIB does not support
the polymorphism of this example (the example uses \pc{Y} as a type parameter),
but that the generated code must actually generate a separate function definition
based on the types in each instance of the function being in the grand refinement.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{lstlisting}
(define-fun-rec dt_length ((x (List Y))) Y
(if-then-else (= x (as nil (List Y)))
0
(+ 1 (dt_length (tail x)))
)
)
\end{lstlisting}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
For user-defined recursive SMT functions the effort required to integrate with
the system becomes significant.
The implementation of this system is quite non-trivial while the details are
rather uninteresting. The document will not look further into the matter.
The $DTLIA$ is our preferred theory in terms of expressiveness. Recursive functions
give enough power to express subset inclusions on lists, hence it becomes
possible to express the property of the \pc{sort} predicate that the elements
are permuted.
It is interesting to note that the recursive functions are so powerful that they
essentially allow us to fully encode (first-order) Prolog predicates in
the SMT logic. Hence users get the option to choose, on a sliding scale, between
very accurate refinements and very coarse refinements.
The understanding is that these more complicated refinements might take more
time to reason over, though could also be useful in detecting inconsistency earlier.
\section{Theoretical Results}
The results from the previous chapter can be directly lifted to the setting
of refinement types. The reason for why the propositions can be directly
restated and their proofs only slightly modified is that the refinement
types have the same soundness properties for the synthesis algorithm as
simple types. In particular the main feature is the inconsistency
pruning of the search space.
\begin{proposition}
The programs found by the \metaai{} algorithm (which can be assigned
a polymorphic types with refinements)
and the \metart{} algorithm are exactly the same.
\end{proposition}
The proof follows again by that a depth-first search algorithm is used
to traverse the program hypothesis space and that programs are still encountered
in the same order, just that the some inconsistent programs have been skipped
over by the \metart{} algorithm due to type checking. For a more precise argument see section \ref{sec:simple_theory}.
The reduction of the space of $\Htwo$ programs also directly applicable to
the refinement type system. The refinements are for the most part an improvement with regard to
the granularity of the types, i.e.~they will further restrict the possibilities
for choices of predicates in a clause. This means that the result regarding
the \emph{worst case proportional constant} applies but that refinements in
the background knowledge will shrink this worst case ratio further.
\section{Experimental Results}
We present experiments which check whether there is sufficient evidence to
claim that the current implementation of
refinement type checking has significant advantages, i.e.~whether we are justified
in \emph{rejecting} the following:
\begin{hypothesis}
\label{hypo:ref-impr}
Refinement type checking cannot reduce the number of proof steps
compared to non-refinement polymorphic type checking.
\end{hypothesis}
As in the previous chapter we focus on the \texttt{droplasts} program. This
program takes a list of lists and drops the last element from each of the inner lists.
We perform statistical experiments to evaluate whether refinement type checking has
any benefits versus only simple types checking (and by extension versus the
untyped system).
In the first experiment we add predicates with polymorphic types that compose well,
but whose refinement types lead to being able to decide that some combinations
of predicates in a clause will not work. This test is primarily to show a difference
between simple type checking and refinement type checking.
The second experiment tries to be a bit more general and includes predicates
that are less sensible, though allow for a bigger difference between
the untyped case and the typed cases.
\stepcounter{expcount}
\subsection{Experiment \arabic{expcount}: Droplasts with Sensible Predicates}
The program we are synthesizing is \texttt{droplasts}. We perform a statistical
experiment where we have random background knowledge
containing predicates with refinement types and are iteratively
adding additional refinement typed predicates to
check how the refinement type checking system behaves when the composition of
refinements rules out certain programs.
\paragraph{Setup}
We follow the setup of the simply typed droplasts experiment of section \ref{sec:simple-droplasts}.
We generate small random input examples, outer and inner lists (of integers) of length between
2 and 5, and run them through a reference implementation to obtain correct
positive examples.
We choose this length restriction for the examples, because the
SMT solver needs more time for larger lists.
Adding additional examples would make the found programs more accurate,
but would come at the cost of even longer synthesis times (due to the SMT solver
being invoked more often).
As we are interested in the effect of type checking on
the search space we fix the number of (positive) examples generated to three.
We provide the synthesis system with the following predicates:
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{concat:[A:list(T),B:T,C:list(T)]$\<length(A) + 1 = length(C)\>$}
\subitem The relation that appends an element at the back, where
\texttt{length} is the length function over ADT lists definable in
SMT-LIB.
\item \texttt{tail:[A:list(X),B:list(X)]$\<A=cons(\_,B)\>$}
\subitem The relation taking of the head of a list, with accurate
refinement representation.
\item \texttt{reverse:[A:list(X),B:list(X)]$\<rev(A,B)\>$}
\subitem The reverse relation on lists. The refinement is a SMT-LIB
quadratic time predicate function checking whether the arguments are each
others' reversal.
\item \texttt{map:[A:list(X),B:list(Y),F:[X,Y]]$\<length(A)=length(B)\>$}
\subitem The higher-order map relation with a refinement concerning
lengths.
\item \texttt{reduceback:[list(T),list(T),[list(T),T,list(T)]]$\<true\>$}
\subitem The reduceback relation which essentially replaces \texttt{cons}
in a list with the function parameter. The current refinement system
cannot assign a more useful refinement.
\item \texttt{filter:[A:list(T),B:list(T),F:[T]]$\<length(B) \leq length(A)\>$}
\subitem The filter relation whereby element can only be retained
from the first list if the \texttt{F} predicate holds for the element.
\end{itemize}
As part of the experiment we add random background predicates. These
predicates drop an element at a fixed index from a list. The refinement for
these predicates encode that lists of lower length are unaffected and lists
of length equal to this index, or higher, have their lengths reduced by one.
The SMT solver's timeout has been set to $30$ milliseconds, which still gives
enough time for the solver to prove some problem instances \texttt{unsat}.
We use the CVC4 SMT solver, for which we specify the logic DTLIA,
with options for finite model finding and inductive reasoning enabled.
For each number of additional background predicates we run ten trials,
for each trial generating positive examples and random predicates.
We average over the trials and calculate the standard deviation of the sample.
\paragraph{Result}
The plots in figure \ref{fig:ref-droplast} depict the average time and number of
proof steps required by the untyped, simply typed and refinement type systems.
The standard deviations are included as bars.
The amount of time necessary for refinement checking is an issue made obvious
by the first graph. The proportion of type spent in Prolog running the Metagol
code is trivial compared to the time spent waiting for the SMT solver. We are
aware that this means that the current implementation does not afford a lot of
practical benefit, instead we should approach the work on refinement types
as a proof of concept.
For the plot on the right we have that the refinement system is able to cut down on
the search space explored relative to the untyped and simply typed systems,
though with considerable variance\footnote{The sudden increase of variance is
a sign that this experiment is not particularly well designed. In future
work other long running experiments will be used to evaluate the work.}.
Note that because the types for the most part compose that the difference between
the simply typed and untyped systems is small, again showing that worst case proportional
constant is significant in improving on the untyped system.
Given these graphs we are inclined to
reject the hypothesis that refinement type checking does not have any advantages,
though we do so with the knowledge that the amount of data generated is actually
rather limited and a sudden spike in variance. Another provision is that improvement in search space reduction
comes at a very severe cost in regard to execution time.
As a sanity check of the implementations we use the soundness results from this, and the previous, chapter. By soundness we know that when a system prunes part of the search space
they do so only when that part of the search space cannot yield a successful program.
Hence the number of proof steps for the \metast{} should always be at most the number
of proof steps of the \metaai{} system, and the \metart{} system should always
need at most the number of proof steps of the \metast{} system.
We can confirm this for each separate trial that was run, giving some confidence
in the correctness of the implementation.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{experiments/ref_droplast_sensible/plot_steps.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1.5ex}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{experiments/ref_droplast_sensible/plot_time.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average number of proof steps and time for increasing number of typed background predicates.
Standard error is depicted by bars.}
\label{fig:ref-droplast}
\end{figure}
\stepcounter{expcount}
\subsection{Experiment \arabic{expcount}: Droplasts with Additional Predicates}
In order to distinguish more between the untyped and the simply typed cases
in the previous experiment an (even) longer running experiment was conducted.
\paragraph{Setup}
We take an identical setup to the previous experiment, though now remove
the identity predicate from the base background knowledge and add the
following refinement typed predicates:
\begin{lstlisting}
dumb0([0],[]):[list(nat),list(X)](*$\<true\>$*).
dumb1(W,0):[list(nat),int](*$\<false\>$*):-findall(K,(between(3,4,K)),W).
dumb2(W,0):[list(int),int](*$\<false\>$*):-findall(K,(between(2,7,K)),W).
\end{lstlisting}
The first and the second predicate should usually be ruled out due to polymorphic
types and the second and third have refinements that state that they cannot
be used in a program.
\paragraph{Result}
The plots in figure \ref{fig:ref-droplast-more} depict the average time and number of
proof steps required by the untyped, simply typed and refinement type systems.
The standard deviations are included as bars.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{experiments/ref_droplast_more/plot_steps.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{1.5ex}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth]{experiments/ref_droplast_more/plot_time.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average number of proof steps and time for increasing number of typed background predicates.
Standard error is depicted by bars.}
\label{fig:ref-droplast-more}
\end{figure}
As is unsurprising, the time results show that our refinement checking is
very slow, and has very high variance as well. The plot of the number of
proofs steps to the right shows that while there is evidence for concluding
that the refinement type checking system can improve in regard to the
untyped system, the simply typed and refinement typed systems are quite close
in the size of the search space traversed. This experiment is
not able to show significant improvements for the refinement type checking.
A better considered experiment is needed, which we have to defer to future
work.
The data does show that the refinement type checking system is able to
do with strictly fewer proof steps than the (simple) polymorphic typed
system and the untyped system.
We can cautiously use this as evidence
that the refinement typed system is able to improve on the untyped (and simply
typed) system, though we have to keep in mind that this is solely for a
minor reduction in the size of the search space and that it comes at a very
large expense in terms of runtime.
\iffalse
\chapter{Type Guided Search}
\section{Introducing Limits for First Order Guesses}
\section{The Information Available in a Body with Holes}
\section{Best-First Search}
\section{Theoretical Results}
\fi
\chapter{Conclusion}
Logic program synthesis by Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL) benefits significantly,
in terms of search space explored and time needed, from type checking.
The difference in performance between the untyped \metaai{} algorithm
and the same algorithm with simple type checking, \metast{}, is impressive.
On the other hand, the value of the refinement types checking introduced in
this document is foremost theoretical:
there is only limited experimental improvement,
but the work does represent an advancement in terms of bringing refinement
typing to Inductive Logic Programming (ILP).
\subsubsection{Summary and evaluation}
In building on the MIL framework, the basic synthesis algorithm has shown
why it is such a convincing approach to ILP: it is a simple, succinct, and
highly adaptable extension of the algorithm used for proving atoms in logic
programming.
The \metaai{} variant of the framework was essential in allowing the system
to express higher-order programs. It is this work on higher-order programs
that made it possible to consider interesting refinement type properties.
The major deficiency we identified with the system was its naiveté in not
taking typing into account.
The addition of polymorphic types to the MIL algorithm is a very good fit.
The syntax for types has been chosen such that it is easy to leverage
the powerful unification of Prolog, which is entirely responsible for type
checking. In experimental work we have shown that the introduction of simple
type checking is very effective, showing significant improvements in both
shrinking the search space explored and the time required for synthesis.
There is (up to) a cubic reduction in the size of the search space and
synthesis time, in terms of the number of typed background predicates.
As annotating background knowledge with polymorphic types is only
a small burden for users, this result provides a strong argument
for taking polymorphic type checking into consideration for future ILP
systems.
We presented the theory that introduces refinement types to ILP.
Refinements on types allow for more accurate type checking. The cost of
checking the refinements is however not insignificant. We leverage SMT solving,
which in the current approach incurs such overhead that timewise the refinement
checking has a severe detrimental effect.
The overhead is attributable to the logics considered not being as performant
as hoped, and to the shear number of invocation of the solver.
The experimental work shows that some additional pruning of the search space is
achieved, though more work is needed to make refinement type checking in ILP
worthwhile.
\subsubsection{Future work}
\paragraph{Theory}
The experimental work on polymorphic types (section \ref{sec:simple-expr}) showed
(and partially explained) a discrepancy between the theory of the size of
hypothesis spaces and the search space over programs considered by MIL algorithms.
A better characterization of the search spaces considered by MIL would be useful
in predicting the impact of algorithmic changes.
The work regarding
polymorphic type checking itself can be made more convincing by presenting
formal proofs of soundness and completeness. In the future a formal type
system should be introduced for this purpose.
\paragraph{Justifying refinements}
While the polymorphic type checking approach is quite satisfactory, the refinement
types work can be improved upon in a number of areas.
Following on from the experimental work, better experiments are needed
to justify refinement type checking as a worthwhile approach to further
pruning the search space.
In addition, as the main aim of refinement
type checking is in improving performance, the most direct way of addressing
this issue is by making use of more performant theories for the SMT solvers.
The work is mainly in identifying logics that are expressive enough to state useful
properties, while requiring much less time to prove (un)satisfiability.
Analysis of the number of invocations of the SMT solvers in the experimental data
of section \ref{sec:ref-expr} could be used to express the performance needed
of SMT solvers for the current approach, which involves many SMT invocations,
to be a sensible way forward.
\paragraph{Reduction to SMT}
The current approach asks the SMT solver to solve an entirely new problem
every time it is invoked, but when a previous refinement check was
satisfiable it is usually the case that only additional assertions need
to be added. This structural property could be leveraged to make solvers
more efficient by allowing them to reuse work performed for the previous checks.
A more ambitious approach (briefly considered for this project) is to completely
encode the ILP synthesis problem as a set of constraints for a SMT solver.
The prospect of integrating the checking of refinements into such a single
SMT problem is especially enticing.
\paragraph{Directing the search}
In section \ref{sec:typed-direct-search} we already explored the possibility of
types being able to guide the traversal of the search space, which given a
well-considered heuristic would be able to further prune the search space.
Such further pruning might also have implications for the viability of the
current refinement type checking approach as this could significantly
reduce the number of invocations of the SMT solver.
\paragraph{Functional metarules}
The MIL approach to synthesis is especially powerful in that it is able to
invent program clauses. The main reason for this capability are the metarules.
It appears that introducing rules for structural inventions might
be applicable outside of ILP. Introduction of metarules to the setting
of functional programs would a major new avenue to explore.
Existing type system-based approaches could be extended, thereby
introducing the (almost) unique feature of invention of helper clauses/functions
to the field of functional program synthesis.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\subsubsection*{References}}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{tikz}
\title{Improving Approximate Optimal Transport Distances using Quantization}
\author[1, 2]{\href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{Gaspard Beugnot \thanks{This work was conducted in large part during an internship at MIT.}}{}}
\author[1]{\href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{Aude Genevay}{}}
\author[3]{\href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{Kristjan Greenwald}}
\author[1]{\href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{Justin Solomon}}
\affil[1]{%
MIT CSAIL
}
\affil[2]{%
INRIA
}
\affil[3]{%
IBM Watson AI Lab
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Optimal transport (OT) is a popular tool in machine learning to compare probability measures geometrically, but it comes with substantial computational burden. Linear programming algorithms for computing OT distances scale cubically in the size of the input, making OT impractical in the large-sample regime. We introduce a practical algorithm, which relies on a quantization step, to estimate OT distances between measures given cheap sample access. We also provide a variant of our algorithm to improve the performance of approximate solvers, focusing on those for entropy-regularized transport. We give theoretical guarantees on the benefits of this quantization step and display experiments showing that it behaves well in practice, providing a practical approximation algorithm that can be used as a drop-in replacement for existing OT estimators.
\end{abstract}
Optimal transport (OT) is a versatile component of the probabilistic toolbox for machine learning. As an alternative to conventional divergences between probability measures, OT provides a means of measuring how distributions align geometrically. OT has found application in
parameter estimation \citep{bernton2019parameter}, robust learning \citep{esfahani2018data}, and generative modeling \citep{salimans2018improving,genevay2017learning}---among other learning tasks.
When distributions are absolutely continuous or composed of huge numbers of points, it becomes infeasible to compute OT distances exactly. In this setting, a common approximation follows two steps: First, we draw $k$ samples from both distributions, and then we use linear programming to extract the distance between empirical distributions. This plug-in procedure produces a convergent approximation as $k\to\infty$ (by the Glivenko--Cantelli theorem, since the Wasserstein distance metrizes weak convergence \citep{villani2003topics}), but two challenges conspire to limit its scalability:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Sample complexity} bounds and related results show that this approximation converges with rate $k^{-\nicefrac{1}{d}}$, where $d$ is the ambient dimension \citep{dudley1969speed,weed2017sharp}. These sharp \emph{asymptotic} rates exhibit a curse of dimensionality: we need a large number $k$ of samples (growing exponentially with $d$) before the approximation is useful.
\item The \emph{computational complexity} of solving the linear program is roughly cubic in $k$ \citep{burkard2012assignment}, limiting the maximum $k$ we can take before this method becomes unreasonably slow.
\end{itemize}
Together, these facts imply that the largest $k$ for which solving the linear program is feasible may not be sufficient for extracting a usable distance estimate, i.e., the bottleneck is not availability of samples/data (the classic statistical setting), but \emph{computation} budget.
Our work is motivated by a simple observation about the methodology above. In machine learning, it is often straightforward to sample from the input measures for OT, e.g.\ when they come from large datasets, generative models, or easily-sampled smooth distributions. In this case, limited approximation quality is a byproduct of the cubic computational expense rather than a paucity of samples. The algorithm above only draws $O(k)$ samples---but it could draw more without affecting the asymptotic runtime. That is, we can improve approximation quality with little added computational expense by drawing more than $k$ samples, cutting down to $k$ \emph{representative} (weighted) samples, and then solving a smaller discrete problem.
We introduce a practical, easily-implemented improvement to empirical OT. In our algorithm, the OT solver remains either the linear program solver or the recently-popular regularized Sinkhorn algorithm \citep{cuturi2013sinkhorn}. As input to this step, however, we ``summarize'' a superlinear number of samples with $k$ weighted samples through quantization. Our technique is seamless to implement given an implementation of empirical OT and substantially improves approximation quality given fixed computational cost. It can be used as a drop-in replacement for existing estimators. Beyond verifying performance empirically, we provide theory predicting the behavior we observe, in the low quantization error setting. While it is impossible to overcome the asymptotic curse of dimensionality associated to all finitely-supported measures \citep{kloeckner2012approximation}, our method leverages better convergence rates in the finite sample regime for ``clusterable'' distributions \citep{weed2017sharp}. This leads to substantial practical benefit, with an improvement of the exponent of the convergence rate by a factor $2$ in the best case (fast decaying tails) or at worst on par with the plug-in estimator (close to uniform).
\textbf{Related work.}
OT suffers from a severe curse of dimensionality. Effective approximation requires an exponential number of samples $n$ in the ambient dimension. For an absolutely continuous measure $\mu$ (w.r.t.\ Lebesgue), its Wasserstein distance to any measure supported on $n$ points is asymptotically lower-bounded by $O(n^{-\nicefrac{1}{d}})$ \citep{dudley1969speed}. This bound can sometimes be circumvented, e.g., when the measures have lower intrinsic dimension \citep{weed2017sharp} or when the support is discrete (convergence rate $O(\sqrt{\nicefrac1n})$, with constant depending on dimension) \citep{sommerfeld2018optimal}. To counter this curse of dimensionality, the best-known workaround relies on entropic regularization, with $O(\sqrt{\nicefrac1n})$ convergence \citep{genevay2018sample}. Another estimator penalizes the rank of the transport plan \citep{forrow2018statistical}, while \citep{goldfeld2020gaussian} proposes a smoothed distance by convolving measures with Gaussians. While these exhibit better convergence rates, they only approximate the Wasserstein distance and do not converge to its true value.
The curse of dimensionality can sometimes be mitigated for standard OT---\citep{weed2017sharp} proves that for mixtures of Gaussians and clusterable distributions, the $p$-th power of the $p$-Wasserstein distance enjoys a $O(\sqrt{\nicefrac1n})$ rate for small $n$---implying a $O(n^{\nicefrac{-1}{4}})$ rate for $W_2$.
While the curse of dimensionality requires many samples to approximate transport reliably, in practice computational complexity prevents us from doing so. OT between discrete measures yields a large-scale linear program solvable using network flow solvers or the Hungarian algorithm, when both measures have the same size and uniform weights \citep{burkard2012assignment}. These take $O(n^3 \log n)$ time, where $n$ is the support size. As a faster alternative, entropy-regularized OT can be solved with quadratic complexity using Sinkhorn's algorithm \citep{sinkhorn1967diagonal}, but its convergence rate decays when regularization goes to zero \citep{franklin1989scaling}.
For efficient OT approximation, we oversample the input measures and compute a summary via a quantization algorithm like $k$-means; note quantization is equivalent to finding the closest measure supported on $k$ points in 2-Wasserstein distance \citep{pollard1982quantization,canas2012learning}. The original $k$-means algorithm \citep{lloyd1982least} is prohibitive for large sample sizes and often reaches local minima. With a careful initialization, however, \citep{arthur2006k} proved that $k$-means likely converges to near its global optimum. This initialization, called $k$-means++, is obtained via $D^2$ sampling and is $O(\log k)$-close to optimal in expectation. This yields a cheap approximation in $O(nk)$ time, since the algorithm requires $k$ passes through the data. Later variants have lower computational complexity, among which \citep{bahmani2012scalable} performs only a fixed number of passes on the data and \citep{bachem2016fast} uses an MCMC $D^2$ sampler. These benefit from bounds similar to $k$-means++ but have $O(n)$ computational complexity.
Our approach has similarities with a line of work that uses a multi-scale scheme to compute optimal transport efficiently \citep{schmitzer2013hierarchical, gerber2017multiscale}. However, they focus on accelerating the exact computation of optimal transport, while we target a fast approximation. These multi-scale approaches also do not leverage a connection between $k$-means and optimal transport to yield quantitative analysis, and they are not applicable to entropy-regularized transport.
\paragraph{Contributions.} We propose efficient OT estimators using quantization, with theoretical analysis for two classes of OT problems:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{(Unregularized) OT:} We leverage the link between OT and $k$-means \citep{pollard1982quantization,canas2012learning} to quantify the bias and give precise bounds for Gaussian mixtures and clusterable distributions in the non-asymptotic regime.
\item \textbf{Entropy-regularized OT}: Building on complexity results for Sinkhorn \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17}, we prove that our pre-processing can yield $\epsilon$-approximate OT with better time/space complexity.
\end{itemize}
We compare our estimators to the plug-in estimator on toy and real-world datasets.
\textbf{Notation.}
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be probability measures on a compact set $\X\subseteq \RR^d$. The 2-Wasserstein distance between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:w2}
W_2(\mu,\nu)\!\eqdef\!\left( \min_{\pi \in\Pi(\mu,\nu) } \int_{\X\times\X} \hspace{-.2in} \|x-y\|^2_2\,d \pi(x,y)\right) ^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\hspace{-.1in},
\end{equation}
where $\Pi(\mu,\nu)$ is the set of couplings on $\X\times\X$ with marginals $\mu,\nu$.
Given $n$ samples from each measure, $X_n \eqdef(x_1, \dots, x_n) \sim \mu ^{\otimes n}$ and $Y_n \eqdef(y_1, \dots, y_n) \sim \nu ^{\otimes n}$, the \emph{empirical plug-in estimator} for $W_2$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:plugin}
W_2(\hat \alpha_n,\hat \beta_n) =\!\left( \min_{\substack{\pi \ones = \ones/n \\ \pi^T \ones = \ones/n} } \frac{1}{n^2}\!\!\sum_{i,j=1}^n \|x_i-y_j\|_2^2 \pi_{ij}\right) ^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\hspace{-.1in},
\end{equation}
where $\hat \alpha_n\eqdef \frac{1}{n}\sumin \delta_{x_i}$ and $\hat \beta_n\eqdef \frac{1}{n}\sumin \delta_{y_i}$ are empirical measures from $\mu$ and $\nu$, resp.
\section{Algorithm Overview}
We aim to improve the plug-in estimator $W_2(\hat \mu_k,\hat \nu_k)$, which approximates $W_2(\mu,\nu)$ with $O(k^3 \log k)$ computational complexity (that of LP solvers) and $O(k^{-\alpha})$ bias, given $k$ samples from each measure. In the worst case (e.g., uniform distributions), $\alpha = \nicefrac{1}{d}$, but there exist
regimes in which the rate improves (see \S\ref{sec:assumptions}). Our idea is to \emph{oversample} the measures, using $n > k$ samples to construct approximations of $\mu$ and $\nu$ of size $k$ that yield an estimated OT value with better bias
while preserving computational complexity. To satisfy these criteria, we need to ensure that pre-processing takes $O(k^3 \log k)$ time.
We denote by $\Shatk (X_n)$ a stochastic map that inputs a sample $X_n = (x_1, \dots, x_n) \sim \mu^{\otimes n}$ and outputs a $k$-point quantization. For any finite $S \subseteq \X$, use the function $P_S:\X \to S$ to denote the function that maps any point in $\X$ to its nearest neighbor in $S$. Denoting by $\hat \mu_n$ (resp., $\hat \nu_n$) the empirical measure associated to the $n$-sample $X_n$ (resp., $Y_n$) and $f_\#(\mu)$ the pushforward of $\mu$ through $f$, our estimator is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{our_estimator}
\Est (k, n) \eqdef W_2(P_{\Shatk(X_n)\#}(\hat{\mu}_n), P_{\Shatk(Y_n)\#}(\hat{\nu}_n) ) .
\end{equation}
That is, we replace $\hat \mu_k$, $\hat \nu_k$ in the plug-in estimator \eqref{eq:plugin} with weighted $k$-point measures $P_{\Shatk(X_n)\#}(\hat{\mu}_n)$ and $P_{\Shatk(Y_n)\#}(\hat{\nu}_n)$, the centers of approximate $k$-means on $X_n$ and $Y_n$, resp. Each center is weighted proportionally to the number of samples in its Voronoi region. The plug-in estimator \eqref{eq:plugin} corresponds to $n = k$.
There are two steps in our pre-processing: \emph{(i)} selecting $k$ points representative of the larger $n$ samples and \emph{(ii)} weighting the resulting $k$ points with the number of samples in their Voronoi regions. For $k$-means++, \emph{(i)} is $O(nk)$ while for \citep{bachem2016fast,bahmani2012scalable} it is $O(k)$. Regardless, the assignment in step \emph{(ii)} requires $O(nk)$ time. To be consistent with the $O(k^3 \log k)$ time complexity of the OT solver, we thus set $n = k^2 \log k$.
{
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Approximation of $W_2(\mu, \nu)$}
\label{our_algorithm}
\small
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\Input{Two samplers $\mu, \nu$; number of anchor points $k$.}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Output{Approximation of $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ with complexity $O(k^3 \log k)$}
\tcc{Sample $n$ points}
Set $n = k^2 \log k$
Sample $X_n = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$ i.i.d.\ from $\mu$ and $Y_n = (y_1, \dots, y_n)$ i.i.d.\ from $\nu$
\tcc{Subsample $k$ anchor points}
Compute $\Shatk(X_n) = (c_1, \dots, c_k)$ with $k$-means++
Compute $\Shatk(Y_n) = (d_1, \dots, d_k)$ with $k$-means++
\tcc{Compute weights}
Set $a_i = \sum_{j=1}^n \mathbf{1}_{i = \arg \min_{l} \lVert x_j - c_l \rVert^2_2}\ \forall i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$
Set $b_i = \sum_{j=1}^n \mathbf{1}_{i = \arg \min_{l} \lVert x_j - d_l \rVert^2_2}\ \forall i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$
\tcc{Cost matrix}
Set $\boldsymbol{C}_{ij} = \lVert c_i - d_j \rVert^2_2\ \forall i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$
\tcc{Weighted Wasserstein distance}
\KwRet{$W_2(P_{\Shatk(X_n)_\#}\hat{\mu}_n, P_{\Shatk(Y_n)_\#}\hat{\nu}_n) \eqdef L_{\boldsymbol{C}}(a, b)^{\nicefrac12}$}
\end{algorithm}}
Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} summarizes our estimator. It takes four steps: (1) sample $k^2 \log k$ points from each measure, (2) run $k$-means++ initialization, (3) project the $k^2 \log k$ points onto the $k$ cluster centers, and (4) compute OT between these new weighted point clouds. Steps (1) and (3) are seamless to implement, while steps (2) and (4) have readily available implementations in many languages, as they come from well-known algorithms. Thus, the procedure is highly practical, and it can easily be implemented to improve the bias of OT estimation with similar running times.
The performance of our approach is summarized informally in the theorem below; we bound bias
in \S\ref{sec:theory}.
\begin{theorem}[Informal]
Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} runs in $O(k^3\log k)$ time.\footnote{This complexity assumes sampling is cheap, i.e., $O(1)$. If drawing samples requires complex operations, the number of points we can sample will be below $n = k^2 \log k$; it is straightforward to adapt to this case.} The estimator has $O(k^{-2\alpha})$ bias in the best case and $O(k^{-\alpha})$ at worst, where the latter is the bias of the empirical plug-in estimator.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} The ``best case'' happens in the finite sample regime, when distributions have low quantization error as defined in \S\ref{sec:assumptions}. For near-uniform distributions, we get the asymptotic rate right away and cannot hope to improve on the plug-in estimator.
\end{remark}
This theorem predicts the performance observed in \S\ref{sec:experiments}. In short, with the same computational complexity, we improve the bias by an exponent of 2 compared to the plug-in estimator. Time complexity is a direct addition of pre-processing and LP solver complexities. The bias
bounds, on the other hand, require more work and are the object of the next section.
\section{Theoretical analysis}\label{sec:theory}
\subsection{Bounding bias}
The bias of our estimator $\Est (k, n)$ defined in \eqref{our_estimator} is
\begin{equation}
\label{main_objective}
\Bias(k, n) = \absv{W_2(\mu, \nu) - \E \csb{\Est(k,n)}}.
\end{equation}
By the triangle inequality on $\absv{\cdot}$ and $W_2$, we have that
\begin{align*}
\Bias(k, n) \leq &\E_{X_n, \Shatk} \csb{W_2(\mu, P_{\Shatk(X_n)\#}(\hat{\mu}_n))} \\
+ &\E_{Y_n, \Shatk} \csb{W_2(\nu, P_{\Shatk(Y_n)\#}(\hat{\nu}_n))},
\end{align*}
so bounding bias amounts to controlling the two terms above.
This requires some definitions:
\begin{definition}[Quantization error $\phi_S(C)$]
\label{bachem_kmeans_notation}
Let $\C \subseteq \X $ be a finite set of $n$ elements. For any $S \subseteq \X$, define the \emph{quantization error} of $\C$ w.r.t.\ $S$ as
\[\phi_S(\C) = \sum_{x \in \C} d(x, S)^2,\] where
$d(x, S) = \min_{s\in S} d(x,s)$.
For $k \leq n$, denote by $\kmeansOPT$ the \emph{optimal quantization error} for a set of $k$ elements, written
$\kmeansOPT(\C) = \min_{S \subseteq \X, \absv{S} = k} \phi_S (\C)$,
and $S_k$ its minimizer.
\end{definition}
We can relate the bias of our estimator to sample complexity and quantization error as follows:
\begin{theorem}[Bias of the estimator]
\label{thm:optimal_bias_estimator}
Suppose
$\E\csb{W_2(\mu, \hat \mu_n)} \leq O(n^{-\alpha}),$
where $\alpha$ is the sample complexity rate of $\mu$. Then, for a sample $X_n \sim \mu^{\otimes n}$,
\begin{align*}
\E_{X_n, \Shatk} &\csb{W_2(\mu, P_{\hat S_k(X_n)\#} \hat{\mu}_n)} \leq \\&\qquad O\p{n^{-\alpha} + \sqrt{\nicefrac{(\log k)}{n}}\E_{X_n} \csb{\kmeansOPT(X_n)}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
The sample complexity here is not necessarily the asymptotic rate $\alpha=\nicefrac{1}{d}$. Rather, we will see in \S\ref{sec:assumptions} that our estimator performs well in the finite sample regime for clusterable distributions, with rate $\alpha=\nicefrac{1}{4}$.
\begin{proof}
By the triangle inequality on $W_2$, we can decompose into two quantities $A$ and $B$:
\begin{align}
\E_{X_n, \Shatk} \csb{W_2(\mu, P_{\hat S_k(X_n)\#} \hat{\mu}_n)} \leq & \nonumber \\
\underbrace{\E_{X_n} W_2(\mu, \hat{\mu}_n)}_{A}
+
\underbrace{\E_{X_n, \Shatk} W_2(\hat{\mu}_n, P_{\hat S_k(Xn)\#} \hat{\mu}_n)}_{B} \label{n_k_decomposition}
.
\end{align}
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item $A$ is the sample complexity rate of the empirical distribution, which we assume to be $O(n^{-\alpha})$.
\item $B$ is the error made when projecting the $n$ samples onto $k$ weighted points chosen by {$k$-means++}. If $n=k$, it vanishes and we recover the sample complexity of the empirical estimator.
Controlling $B$ requires relating Wasserstein distance to the optimal quantization \citep{canas2012learning}.
\end{itemize}
Denoting $X_n = (x_1, \dots, x_n) \sim \mu ^{\otimes n}$,
we write:
\begin{align}
B &= \E_{X_n, \Shatk} \csb{\p{\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n d(x_i, \hat S_k)^2 }^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \E_{X_n} \csb{\p{
\frac{8(\log k + 2)}{n} \kmeansOPT(X_n)
}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}.\label{eq:B}
\end{align}
The first equality comes from the equivalence between $W_2$ and the quantization error \cite[Lemma 1]{canas2012learning}. The second is
the $k$-means++ optimality bound of \citep{arthur2006k}. Jensen's inequality completes the proof. Note having the optimal set $S_k$ instead of $\hat S_k$ would remove the $\log k$ factor in \eqref{eq:B}.
\end{proof}
In our algorithm, we take $n=k^2 \log k$ to get the following bias for our estimator:
\begin{corollary}In the setting of Theorem~\ref{thm:optimal_bias_estimator}, with $n=k^2 \log k$, our estimator (Algorithm~\ref{our_algorithm}) satisfies
\begin{align*}
\E_{X_n, \Shatk} &\csb{W_2(\mu, P_{\Shatk(X_n)\#}(\hat{\mu}_n))} \leq \\&\qquad O\p{(k^2 \log k)^{-\alpha} + \nicefrac{1}{k}\E_{X_n} \csb{\kmeansOPT(X_n)}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}.
\end{align*}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{cor:bound}
\end{corollary}
Corollary~\ref{cor:bound} tells us that at best, our estimator improves the exponent in the bias bound by a factor of 2, going from $O(k^{-\alpha})$ to $O(k^{-2\alpha})$ while keeping computational complexity on par with the empirical plug-in estimator. To benefit from this improvement, we need to ensure quantization error---the second term in the bound---is small enough so that the first dominates.
\subsection{Controlling the quantization error}\label{sec:assumptions}
To prove our estimator improves bias, we must make an assumption on the behavior of the quantization error when quantizing an $n$-sample from $\mu$ on $k$ points.
Intuitively, the quantization error is small when the measure is well-concentrated. In particular, we can upper bound quantization error for Gaussian mixtures and measures supported on finite numbers of balls.
\begin{remark} We derive improved theoretical rates for these two classes of functions, but our algorithm is better than the plug-in estimator for \emph{any} dataset whose quantization error is smaller than the sample complexity. This is verified by several real-world datasets (Fig.\ref{fig:qerr}, supplement), underscoring the practical significance of our proposed algoritm.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[Clusterable distribution]
A distribution $\mu$ is an $(m,\sigma^2)$-Gaussian mixture if it is a mixture of $m$ Gaussian distributions in $\RR^d$ and the trace of the
covariance matrix of each mixture component is upper-bounded by $\sigma^2$.
A distribution $\mu$ is $(m,\Delta)$-clusterable if $\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$ lies in the union of $m$ balls of radius at most $\Delta$.
\end{definition}
By writing down the definition of $\phi_{k}^{OPT}$, it is straightforward to prove that for k $\geq m$, $\nicefrac{1}{n} \cdot \EE[\phi_{k}^{OPT}({X_n})] \leq \sigma^2$ if $\mu$ is a $(m,\sigma^2)$-Gaussian mixture, and $\nicefrac{1}{n} \cdot \EE[\phi_{k}^{OPT}({X_n})] \leq \Delta^2$ if $\mu$ is $(m,\Delta)$-clusterable.
Incidentally, for such measures, better sample complexity rates can be derived \citep{weed2017sharp}:
\begin{proposition}[\citep{weed2017sharp}]\label{prop:weed_bach_finite_sample}
If $\mu$ is a $(m,\sigma^2)$-Gaussian mixture and $\log \frac{1}{\sigma}\geq 25/8$, then for all $n \leq m (32 \sigma^2 \log \frac{1}{\sigma})^{-2}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weedbach}
\mathbb{E}[W_2^2(\mu, \hat{\mu}_n)] \leq 84 \sqrt{\nicefrac{m}{n}}.
\end{equation}
The same rate holds for $(m,\Delta)$-clusterable distributions, for all $n \leq m (2\Delta)^{-4}$.
\end{proposition}
This result can be extended to distributions that are mixtures with fast decaying tails. This improved rate holds \emph{in the small-sample regime}, but asymptotically, the $\nicefrac1d$ rate returns. This rate is for \emph{squared} $W_2$, so in our analysis using $W_2$ this only implies $\alpha = \nicefrac14$ via Jensen's inequality. Thus, these improved rates for $W_2$ are only relevant in dimension higher than 4.
Further assumptions on $\sigma^2$ (resp.\ $\Delta$) improve the convergence rate of the bias from Theorem~\ref{thm:optimal_bias_estimator}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:cluster_rate} If $\mu$ is an $(m,\sigma^2)$-Gaussian mixture (resp.\ $(m,\Delta)$-clusterable), then for all $k \geq m$ such that $k^2\log k \leq m (32 \sigma^2 \log \frac{1}{\sigma})^{-2}$ (resp.\ $k^2\log k \leq m (2\Delta)^{-4}$) our estimator (Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm}) satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[W_2(\mu, P_{\hat S_k(X_n)\#}\hat{\mu}_n)] \leq &\sqrt{84}\left( \frac{m}{k^2\log k} \right)^{\!\!\nicefrac14}\!\!\!\!+\!C \sigma \sqrt{\log k},
\end{align*}
(replacing $\sigma$ by $\Delta$ in the above bound for clusterable distributions), where $C$ is
independent of $k$ and $\sigma$.
If
$k^2\log k \leq m (32 \sigma^2 \log \frac{1}{\sigma})^{-2}$ (resp. $k^2\log k \leq m (2\Delta)^{-4}$),
then
$\sigma \leq O((\log k)^{\nicefrac{-1}{4}}\:k^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}})$ (resp. $\Delta$), and
the rate becomes $O((\log k)^{\nicefrac{1}{4}}\:k^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}})$.
\end{proposition}
Hence, we achieve an $O((\log k)^{\nicefrac{1}{4}}\:k^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}})$ rate in $O(k^3)$ computation time, compared to the $O(k^{-\nicefrac14})$ rate of the empirical estimator.
For the range of $k$ we consider, we observe in practice that the assumption $\nicefrac{1}{n}\cdot \phi_{k}^{OPT}\leq \nicefrac{1}{k}$ often holds, and hence our bound applies. Due to the curse of dimensionality, however, there is no guarantee for this to hold in the asymptotic case.
\paragraph{Intuition on the finite sample regime.}
The intuition for the bound of Proposition \ref{prop:weed_bach_finite_sample} is not simple. We provide an informal explanation.
From a high level, in the small sample regime, we are looking at a coarse scale (e.g. from a distance, Gaussians ``look like'' Diracs) so the bound behaves like discrete optimal transport, which is $n^{-1/2}$. However when the number of samples grows, we are looking at a fine scale; in this regime, we suffer from the curse of dimensionality. A second piece of intuition is simpler: when you have very few samples, every new sample brings a lot of information, but after a while, the information gain of each new sample diminishes.
\section{Regularized Transport}\label{sec:regularized_transport}
Quantization can also improve approximate OT solvers, as it introduces negligible error while improving the required runtime and memory storage, at least in the discrete case.
We focus on entropic regularization, a popular approximation of OT obtainable in quadratic time with Sinkhorn's algorithm \citep{cuturi2013sinkhorn}.
More precisely, the computational complexity to obtain an $\epsilon$-approximation of the unregularized cost for discrete problems is bounded by $O(k^2\epsilon^{-2})$, an order of magnitude cheaper than the linear program \citep{sinkhornbound}.
The oversampling strategy used previously for absolutely continuous measures is irrelevant, however: quantizing $n$ points with $k$ centroids takes at least $O(nk)$ time (because of weight assignment), which exceeds $O(k^2)$ for $n > k$.
Instead, we consider the case where we are given two very large discrete measures as input and rely on quantization to design a more efficient approximation procedure. In this setting, the literature focuses on \textit{complexity bounds}: given two discrete distributions over $n$ points and a target precision $\epsilon$, the aim is to provide an $\epsilon$-approximation of unregularized transport with bounded complexity \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1802-04367, sinkhornbound}. Building on this problem formulation, we propose a quantization step with target precision $\epsilon$ as a preprocessing step. Afterwards, any approximate transport solver can be used on the resulting quantized distribution. This provides the same theoretical guarantees and bounded computational complexity as above, with
potential computation time improvements. Our algorithm is detailed in Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}.
{
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{$\epsilon$-approximation of $W_2(\mu_n, \nu_n)$}
\label{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}
\small
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\Input{Finite distributions $\mu_n, \nu_n$; target precision $\epsilon$}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Output{$3 \epsilon$-approximation of $W_2(\mu_n, \nu_n)$ with complexity $O(k^2 \epsilon^{-2})$}
\tcc{Quantize the point clouds}
$S_\epsilon = \quantize\,(\mu_n, \epsilon)$; $\absv{S_\epsilon} = k_{\epsilon, \mu_n}$
$T_\epsilon = \quantize\,(\nu_n, \epsilon)$; $\absv{T_\epsilon} = k_{\epsilon, \nu_n}$
\tcc{Compute weights and cost matrix}
Set $a_i\!=\!\sum_{j=1}^n\!w_{\mu, j} \mathbf{1}_{i = \arg \min_{l} \lVert x_j - c_l \rVert^2_2}\ \forall i\!\in\!\{1,\ldots\!,k_{\epsilon, \mu_n}\}$
Set $b_i\!=\!\sum_{j=1}^n\!w_{\nu, j} \mathbf{1}_{i = \arg \min_{l} \lVert y_j - d_l \rVert^2_2}\ \forall i\!\in\!\{1,\ldots\!,k_{\epsilon, \nu_n}\}$
Set $\boldsymbol{C}_{ij} = \lVert c_i - d_j \rVert^2_2\ \forall c_i,d_j\in S_\epsilon \times T_\epsilon$
\tcc{Regularized transport solver}
\KwRet{$\approxsolver \,(\boldsymbol{C}, a, b, \epsilon)$}
\end{algorithm}}
Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} relies on two subroutines: $\quantize$ and $\approxsolver$. The former inputs a point cloud $\mu_n$ and a tolerance $\epsilon$ and outputs a (sub)set $S_\epsilon$, which is a quantized version of $\mu_n$. \kmeanspp\ can be adapted easily to do this. An example is in Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeanspp_fixed_precision}.
$\approxsolver$ yields an $\epsilon$ approximation of unregularized transport. The most used one is probably the Sinkhorn algorithm, which has a complexity bounded by $O(k^2\epsilon^{-2})$; see \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17} for details. This is the one we use in our experiments.
{
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{$\quantize$}
\label{alg:kmeanspp_fixed_precision}
\small
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\Input{A finite distribution $\mu_n$ with support and weights $(x_i, w_i)_{1\leq i \leq n)}$; target precision $\epsilon$.}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Output{Set $S_\epsilon$ with $k_\epsilon$ elements, s.t.\ $W_2^2 (\mu_n, P_{\hat{S}_\epsilon\#} \mu_n) = \sum_i w_i d(x_i, S_\epsilon)^2 < \epsilon^2$.}
$S_\epsilon \leftarrow x_{\textsc{RAND}(1, n)}$
$D = (w_i d(x_i, S_\epsilon)^2)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$
\While{$\sum_i D_i > \epsilon^2$}{
$S_\epsilon \leftarrow x_{\arg \max_i D_i}$
$D = (w_i d(x_i, S_\epsilon)^2)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$
}
\KwRet{$S_\epsilon$}
\end{algorithm}}
Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeanspp_fixed_precision} is
directly adapted from the original \kmeanspp\ algorithm. It is guaranteed to finish, as $S_\epsilon = \mu_n$ is a solution for any $\epsilon$. Denoting $k_\epsilon = \absv{S_\epsilon} \leq n$, we have that the complexity of Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeanspp_fixed_precision} is bounded by $O(n k_\epsilon)$. Thus, Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} has a complexity bounded by $O(n k_\epsilon + k_\epsilon^2 \epsilon^{-2}) \lesssim O(n^2\epsilon^{-2})$. The fact that it outputs a $3\epsilon$ approximation of OT relies on Lemma 1 of \citep{canas2012learning}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
W_2(\mu, \nu) \leq &W_2 (P_{\hat{S}_\epsilon\#} \mu,P_{\hat{T}_\epsilon\#} \nu)
\\&+ W_2 (\mu, P_{\hat{S}_\epsilon\#} \mu) + W_2 (\nu, P_{\hat{S}_\epsilon\#} \nu)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The first term is approximated within $\epsilon$ thanks to $\approxsolver$, the second/third
thanks to Algorithm \ref{alg:kmeanspp_fixed_precision}.
Overall, we have two options to obtain a $3\epsilon$ approximation of $W_2(\mu_n, \nu_n)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Run $\approxsolver(\boldsymbol{C}_n, w_\mu, w_\nu, 3\epsilon)$ where $\boldsymbol{C}_n$ is the $n \times n$ cost matrix between $\mu_n$ and $\nu_n$.
\item Run Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}.
\end{itemize}
Both have a complexity $\leq O(n^2\epsilon^{-2})$ and provide the same theoretical guarantees; but the latter can provide a significant speed up. We compare both approaches in the next section, measuring CPU-time vs.\ precision.
\textbf{Space complexity.} While Sinkhorn's algorithm has space complexity of $O(n^2)$, we highlight that alg.\ \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} has space complexity of $O(n + k_\epsilon^2)$. Indeed, the $\quantize$ algorithm only needs to keep track of the assignment of every point to their nearest centroid: this is a vector of size $n$. Thus, for huge datasets where storage is critical, quantization is a natural way to downscale the point cloud while keeping track of the precision loss.
\begin{remark}
Some remarks about Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The bound on the complexity of $\approxsolver$ usually involves $\norm{C}_\infty$. It will be smaller for the cost between centroids, providing additional speedup.
\item This preprocessing step can be used for any $p$-Wasserstein distance, by changing the exponent in $\quantize$ accordingly ($D=(w_i d(x_i, S_\epsilon)^p)_{1 \leq i \leq n}$).
\item We provide an algorithm with the same approximation guarantees than the baseline, with lower or equal computational complexity.
A sharp bound on the output of algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} would require studying $\epsilon \mapsto k_\epsilon$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
\textbf{Datasets.} We test on discrete (mainly real-world data) and continuous (synthetic) distributions. The latter tests theoretical bounds, while the former shows efficiency of Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} on large point clouds.
Fig.\ 5
(supplement) shows examples. The discrete datasets are: \emph{DOT}, \emph{Adult}, and \emph{Sampled Mixtures}. The `true' distance is computed on the whole point cloud; some datasets were downsampled to suit ground truth computation on our machine.
\emph{DOT} \citep{Schrieber_2017_DOT} contains grayscale images (i.e., fixed discrete support in $\RR^2$) in various resolutions, a benchmark used e.g.\ in \citep{sommerfeld2018optimal}, which uses the plug-in estimator. \emph{Adult} (UCI repository) is a point cloud in $\RR^6$ with continuous features for 35,000 individuals, split into two groups by income. \emph{Sampled Mixtures} (synthetic) contains 10,000 points from a Gaussian mixture with covariance $\tau$ in $\RR^{15}$, simulating point clouds suited to $k$-means. The continuous distributions are \emph{Gaussians} and \emph{fragmented-hypercube} \citep{forrow2018statistical},\footnote{What they refer to as ``k-means \& OT'' is \emph{not} our Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm}, since they set $k=4$. Their $x$-axis does not relate to overall computational complexity.} with closed-form $W_2$; see Appendix 1
for details and more experiments.
\subsection{Algorithm 1}
For each dataset, we compare the behavior of the plug-in estimator and that of Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm}. We plot the mean \textit{relative} error $\E_{X_n, \Shatk} \csb{|\Est (k, k^2 \log k) - W_2 (\mu, \nu)|} / W_2 (\mu, \nu)$, estimating the expectation with 100 runs. We display two types of plots: \emph{(i)} mean relative error vs.\ $k$ (size of the point clouds passed to the LP) (Figures~\ref{fig:discrete_results},~\ref{fig:continuous_results}) and \emph{(ii)} mean relative error vs.\ CPU time (Figure~\ref{fig:cpu_time}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/discrete/dot.pdf}
\caption{DOT dataset.}
\label{result_DOT}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/discrete/adult.pdf}
\caption{Adult dataset.}
\label{result_adult}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/discrete/std_0.1.pdf}
\caption{Discrete mixture, large variance ($\tau=0.1$).}
\label{result_spreadout}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/discrete/std_0.0001.pdf}
\caption{Discrete mixture, low variance ($\tau=10^{-4}$).}
\label{result_synthetic_compact}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-8pt}
\caption{Mean relative error vs.\ $k$ on discrete datasets. Values in parentheses display the regression coefficient computed for the second half of the graph. In \emph{(a)}, we plot the
average value of the 45 pairwise estimation on the DOT dataset ("Microscopy" images, 64 resolution).}
\label{fig:discrete_results}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/continuous/gaussian_dim6_batch50_std1_165.pdf}
\caption{Gaussian with $10^{-1}$ diagonal covariance.}
\label{fig:gaussian_0}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/continuous/gaussian_dim6_batch50_std0.0001_165.pdf}
\caption{Gaussian with $10^{-4}$ diagonal covariance.}
\label{fig:gaussian_4}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/continuous/fragmentedhyper_dim8_batch50_165.pdf}
\caption{Fragmented hypercube, $d=8$.}
\label{fig:hypercube_dim_8}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.65in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/continuous/fragmentedhyper_dim2_batch50_165.pdf}
\caption{Fragmented hypercube, $d=2$.}
\label{fig:hypercube_dim_2}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-8pt}
\caption{Mean relative error vs.\ $k$ on continuous distributions. Values in parentheses display the regression coefficient computed for the second half of the graph. Left: Gaussian in $\RR^5$. When the clusterable assumption does not hold, the improvement is negligible. However, when the finite sample rate is applicable, the improvement is striking ($\times 2.1$). Right: Fragmented hypercube \citep{forrow2018statistical}. In high dimension, it resembles the uniform distribution and we get no improvement. In small dimension, the improvement is significant ($\times 1.8$).}
\label{fig:continuous_results}
\vspace{-12pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[t]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.22in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/cpu_time/bigger/gaussian_STD1_cputime.pdf}
\caption{Spread Gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.22in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/cpu_time/bigger/gaussian_STD0.0001_cputime.pdf}
\caption{Peaked Gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.22in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{data/cpu_time/bigger/adult_cputime.pdf}
\caption{Adult Dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-8pt}
\caption{Mean relative error vs.\ CPU time ($s$) on (a) Gaussians with unit covariance, (b) Gaussians with $10^{-4}$ diagonal covariance, (c) Adult dataset. One line corresponds to log-spaced values of $\boldsymbol{k}$. Line's transparency correspond to various $\boldsymbol{\kappa} \in \cb{1, 0.5, 0.1}$, darkest for biggest value. Line's color corresponds to various \textbf{estimator}. We compare the plug-in estimator (orange) to two variants of our algorithm : $k$-means++ (green) or AFK-MC$^2$ (blue) from \citep{bachem2016fast} as a preprocessing step. For data with small quantization error, our approximate $k$-means pre-processing (even unoptimized) provides a clear advantage. }
\label{fig:cpu_time}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Results.}
Our estimator exhibits favorable behavior when estimating $W_2$ between large \emph{point clouds}. In this case, the sample complexity of the plug-in estimator $W_2(\mu, \hat{\mu}_k)$ decays in $O(k^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}})$, independently of the dimension or number of samples (these only affect the constant \citep{sommerfeld2018optimal}), but ours enjoys a faster decay rate exponent---up to twice better. For continuous distributions, our results are similarly advantageous in the finite-sample regime for clusterable distributions but tend to the sample complexity rate in higher dimensions. They provide a way to verify Theorem \ref{thm:optimal_bias_estimator} and to illustrate the different regimes. We notice in practice that oversampling enables the estimator to have much lower variance (fig. 7, supplement).
\textbf{Discrete datasets.} On the real-world datasets, the bias decays 45\% (\emph{DOT}, fig.\ \ref{result_DOT}) to 65\% (\emph{Adult}, fig.\ \ref{result_adult}) faster. A simple analysis explains this: On a $100\!\times\!100$ image, with $k\leq\!100$ samples the plug-in estimator will sample $\sim\!1\%$ of the image, whereas our estimator processes all the pixels and then subsamples the 100 most relevant. Synthetic experiments slightly qualify this analysis: When the data is well-clustered
the improvement is up to twice the decay rate (fig.\ \ref{result_synthetic_compact}), as expected from Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster_rate}; however, when the point cloud is more spread out, the decay rate only marginally improves over plug-in estimation.
\textbf{Continuous distributions.}
The plug-in estimator on Gaussian data recovers the expected $\nicefrac{-1}d$ rate exponent when variance is high (fig.\ \ref{fig:gaussian_0}); when the variance is low, we find the better finite sample complexity rate of $\nicefrac{-1}{2}$ predicted by \citep{weed2017sharp}. In this regime, our estimator beats the plug-in estimator by a large margin (fig.\ \ref{fig:gaussian_4}). Asymptotically, both curves should reach the same slope of $\nicefrac{-1}{d}$.
Similarly, we should expect our estimator to degrade on the uniform distribution: for uniformly-spread data, quantization error decays in $k^{-\nicefrac{1}{d}}$. The \emph{Fragmented Hypercube} example confirms this: When $d = 2$, the distribution is clusterable (fig.\ \ref{fig:hypercube_dim_2}), but as $d$ increases
the quantization error is relatively high, eventually reaching the performance of the plug-in estimator (fig.\ \ref{fig:hypercube_dim_8}).
\textbf{CPU time.}
Since our goal is to provide a faster $W_2$ approximation, we check the decay of the bias against CPU time. These experiments evaluate to what extent the theoretical improvement of the bias may be cancelled by overhead in $k$-means computation. The solver we use for OT \citep{flamary2017pot} is thoroughly optimized, making the comparison difficult. However, our estimator is only slower by a constant on spread out data (Figure~\ref{fig:cpu_time}(a)) and provides a clear advantage on clustered (Figure~\ref{fig:cpu_time}(b)) and real data (Figure~\ref{fig:cpu_time}(c)). To further improve, \emph{(i)} our basic implementation of $k$-means++ could be optimized and \emph{(ii)} we can use theoretically weaker minimizers of the quantization problem. In Figure~\ref{fig:cpu_time}, we use a faster approximate quantizer, AFK-MC$^2$ \citep{bachem2016fast} with fixed chain length on $n=k^2 \log k$ points (blue), which has overall complexity $k^2 \log k$ but weaker guarantees on the quantization error. Another alternative is to multiply the number of points used to compute the anchors (we tested $\kappa \in \cb{1, 0.5, 0.1}$) to further decrease the complexity constant between the pre-processing and the OT estimation steps. This can be used as a hyper-parameter to balance faster execution with lower bias improvement. For these experiments, we use an Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7200U CPU @ 2.50GHz processor, with 8 GB memory. The $k$-means and OT solvers are implemented in C and wrapped in Python.
\paragraph{Variance of the estimator.} Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} relies on \textit{oversampling}. Thus, we expect and confirm experimentally that it benefits from much lower variance compared to the plug-in estimator, as illustrated by the confidence intervals in Figures \ref{fig:discrete_results}, \ref{fig:continuous_results} (plots are in log-log scale). For a more quantitative analysis, we plot the \textbf{empirical standard deviation} of Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} on the Gaussian dataset on Figure \ref{fig:standard_deviation_gaussian_alg1}. It is worth noticing that it exhibits a much lower variance no matter how clusterable the underlying distribution is. However, proving this requires bounding the stability of the optimal quantization solution, for which no directly applicable results exist.
\textbf{Lloyd's algorithm.}
$k$-means++ is often used as an initialization step for Lloyd's algorithm. The latter converges to a local minimizer of the quantization error, at the expense of few more passes through the data, for an overall complexity of $O(nki)$, where $i$ is the number of iterations. Theoretically, this algorithm makes the quantization error decay by $\log k$ at best. We verify experimentally that the improvement is marginal in Figure \ref{fig:lloyd_refinement}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.6in}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{data/std/gaussian_dim6_batch50_std1_165_STDPLOT.pdf}
\caption{Gaussian with unit diagonal covariance}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{1.6in}
\includegraphics[width=1.6in]{data/std/gaussian_dim6_batch50_std0.0001_165_STDPLOT.pdf}
\caption{Gaussian with $10^{-4}$ diagonal covariance}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Empirical standard deviation of Algorithm 1 vs. $k$. Sampling $k^2 \log k$ samples instead of $k$, our estimator manages a much lower standard deviation, independently of the clusterability of the distribution.}
\label{fig:standard_deviation_gaussian_alg1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.65in]{data/lloyd/gaussian_lloydrefinment.pdf}
\caption{Mean relative error vs.\ $k$ on the Gaussian dataset
for Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm} (green), and the same algorithm succeeded by Lloyd's procedure (blue). The improvement of the latter is marginal and comes at the expense of few $O(nk)$ steps.
}
\label{fig:lloyd_refinement}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Algorithm 2}
To test the performance of Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}, we compare it to do an approximate solver for entropy-regularized optimal transport, which is arguably the most popular occurence in machine learning applications. Specifically, for datasets $(\mu_n, \nu_n)$, we measure the CPU time to execute Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport}
with input $(\mu_n, \nu_n, \epsilon)$ and $\approxsolver(\mu_n, \nu_n, 3\epsilon)$, which are both guaranteed to output a $3\epsilon-$approximation of OT. Here, $\approxsolver$ is from \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17}, but any other approximate solver satisfying the same constraints on the input/output can be used. We display two types of plots: \emph{(i)} CPU time vs.\ precision $\epsilon$ and \emph{(ii)} estimated transport cost vs.\ precision $\epsilon$. The former demonstrates efficiency while the latter shows that the output is indeed at most $\epsilon$ away from the unregularized cost.
\textbf{Results.} From the CPU time plots in fig.\ \ref{fig:regularized_experiments} (left column)
the speedup introduced by our algorithm is unmistakable. It only matches the performance of $\approxsolver$ for low values of $\epsilon$, when $\quantize$ simply outputs the whole dataset to have a small enough quantization error. That's why it is most useful for structured data, e.g.\ peaked distributions (fig.\ \ref{fig:regularized_experiments}.c)
or real-world datasets (fig. \ref{fig:regularized_experiments}.e)
The error vs.\ $\epsilon$ plots (right column) suggest that the bounds in \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17} are loose, since the error is often smaller than the guaranteed $\epsilon$. Quantization enables us to have maximum efficiency for bounded inaccuracy.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\hspace{-.1in}
\begin{minipage}{3.34in}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c}
$(t, \epsilon)$ & $(\mathrm{error}, \epsilon)$ \\
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/regularized_comparison_gaussian_std0.1.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/RELERROR_VS_EPS_regularized_comparison_std0.1.pdf} \\
(a) Gaussian, $\sigma= 10^{-1}$ . & (b) Gaussian, $\sigma= 10^{-1}$. \\
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/regularized_comparison_gaussian_std0.001.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/RELERROR_VS_EPS_regularized_comparison_std0.001.pdf} \\
(c) Gaussian $\sigma=10^{-3}$ . & (d) Gaussian, $\sigma=10^{-3}$. \\
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/regularized_comparison_adult_std.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{data/regularized/RELERROR_VS_EPS_regularized_comparison_adult.pdf} \\
(e) Adult Dataset. & (f) Adult Dataset.
\end{tabular}
\caption{Left: CPU time ($s$) vs.\ $\epsilon$, for Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} and $\approxsolver$ \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/AltschulerWR17}. Right: absolute error vs.\ $\epsilon$. The smallest precision for the range of $\epsilon$ is taken so that $\approxsolver$ requires $n_{\mathrm{max}}=10^4$ iterations. Algorithm \ref{our_algorithm_for_regularized_transport} consistently provides an approximate solution an order of magnitude faster than $\approxsolver$. }
\label{fig:regularized_experiments}
\end{minipage}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
Our algorithm is designed with practicality in mind: at best---and in most of our experiments---we observe and expect reduced bias for fixed computational budget; at worst, it behaves like plug-in estimation.
Our bounds explain the estimator's good behavior by relating $W_2$ to quantization error.
Even when we fall back to the $\nicefrac{-1}{d}$ rate asymptotically, we have up to twice the decay rate in the finite sample case.
Quantization is also efficient in aproximate OT solvers, as it can match their error with improved time/space complexity.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The MIT Geometric Data Processing group acknowledges the generous support of Army Research Office grant W911NF2010168, of
Air Force Office of Scientific Research award FA9550-19-1-031, of National Science Foundation grant IIS-1838071, from the CSAIL Systems that Learn program, from the MIT–IBM Watson AI Laboratory, from the Toyota–CSAIL Joint Research Center, from a gift
from Adobe Systems, from an MIT.nano Immersion Lab/NCSOFT Gaming Program seed grant, and from the Skoltech–MIT Next Generation Program.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
The issue that this paper addresses arises at the end of \cite[Section 1]{D4} where the author asserts that the compositum of all $D_4$ extensions of $\mathbb Q$, called $F$ in that paper and $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ here, and the compositum of all generalized $D_4$ extensions of $\mathbb Q$, see \cite[Definition 1.10]{D4}, denoted $\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$, are the same. The author says that this follows from a simple argument as well as a celebrated theorem of Shafarevich. The argument is made that since $D_4$ is nilpotent the kernels of all the embedding problems must also be nilpotent and hence are solvable. The problem is that there is another condition that must be met in order to apply said theorem. For the reader's convenience we include a statement of the theorem by Shafarevich below.
\begin{thm}\cite{Ish, serreTopics, Sha}\label{thm:Sha}
Let $L/K$ be an extension of number fields with Galois group $S$, let $U$ be a nilpotent group with $S$-action, and let $G$ be a semi-direct product $U\rtimes S$. Then the embedding problem for $L/K$ and
$$
1\rightarrow U \rightarrow G\rightarrow S\rightarrow 1
$$
has a solution.
\end{thm}
As Theorem \ref{thm:Sha} indicates, in order to use this theorem it is not sufficient for the embedding problem to have a nilpotent kernel, it must {\it also} be split. While $D_4$ itself fits into a short exact sequence that is split, it is not the case that all the relevant embedding problems can be made to split.
\begin{example}
Consider $K = \mathbb Q(\sqrt{d})$. It is a classical result that $K$ can only be embedded into a degree 4 cyclic extension of $\mathbb Q$ if $d$ can be written as the sum of two rational squares. In order words, the embedding problem given by
$$
1 \rightarrow \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \rightarrow \mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z \rightarrow \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \rightarrow 1
$$
is not always solvable despite having nilpotent kernel.
In contrast, the problem of embedding a single quadratic extension of $\mathbb Q$ into a $D_4$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ is always possible since the relevant embedding problem
$$
1 \rightarrow \mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z \rightarrow D_4\simeq \mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z \rtimes \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \rightarrow \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z \rightarrow 1
$$
is split. Here we should be careful to point out that a Galois extension $L/\mathbb Q$ with Galois group $D_4$ in fact contains 3 different quadratic extensions of $\mathbb Q$. Using the Galois correspondence, we can see that the embedding problem above corresponds to embedding $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{d})$ into $L$ in the only way that makes the extension $L/\mathbb Q(\sqrt{d})$ have Galois group $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$.
\end{example}
For the rest of the article we will let $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ be the compositum of all $D_4$ extensions of $\mathbb Q$, $\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$ be the compositum of all generalized $D_4$ extensions of $\mathbb Q$, and we aim to prove the following theorem:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:goal}
Let $E/\mathbb Q$ be an elliptic curve. Then $E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})_\mathrm{tors} = E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))_\mathrm{tors}$.
\end{thm}
Once Theorem \ref{thm:goal} is proven all of the results in \cite{D4} are completely justified except the assertion that $\mathbb Q_{D_4} = \mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$. Since this assertion was not a central part of the paper we don't attempt to prove it here, but we do discuss what is left to show in Section \ref{sec:open}.
For the ease of the reader, in what follows any groups defined by a small group label will have a link to the corresponding LMFDB page \cite{lmfdb} if it exists and if there is a more commonplace name or description, we use that in place of the small group label.
\subsection{Acknowledgements} We would like to thank Maarten Derickx for pointing this mistake out and for helpful conversations throughout the preparation of this document. We would also like to thank Jackson Morrow and the anonymous referee for helpful comments on an initial draft of this paper.
\section{Galois Embedding Problems and the Brauer Group of a Field}
We start this section by introducing Galois embedding problems and exploring a particular problem that illustrates the need for this paper. For the remainder of this section unless otherwise stated we will let $L/K$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $Q$ and
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:ses}
1 \rightarrow N \rightarrow G \rightarrow Q \rightarrow 1
\end{equation*}
be a short exact sequence of groups. We want to study when there exists a Galois extension $M/K$ with $L\subseteq M$ and $\operatorname{Gal}(M/K)\simeq G$. If such an $M$ exists, we say that $M$ is a solution to the embedding problem given by $(L/K,G,N)$.
One of the main tools that is used to study Galois embedding problems is the Brauer group of a field.
\begin{defn}
Let $K$ be a field. The {\it Brauer group of $K$}, denoted ${\rm Br}(K)$, is the abelian group whose elements are Morita equivalence classes of central simple algebras over $K$ under the binary operation of tensor products.
\end{defn}
For $a,b\in K$ we let $(a,b)_K$ (or just $(a,b)$ when it is clear from context) represent the class of central simple algebras equivalent to the quaternion algebra $K(i,j)/\langle i^2 = a,j^2 = b, ij = -ji\rangle$ inside ${\rm Br}(K)$. These algebras have order 2 in ${\rm Br}(K)$ and are deeply connected to the embedding problems that we are interested in.
The main result that we will use to prove Theorem \ref{thm:goal} is known as the embedding criterion and it gives criterion for the existence of a solution to the embedding problem of the form \\$$(F(\sqrt{a_1},\dots,\sqrt{a_r})/F, G, \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z),$$
where $F$ is a field, the $a_i$'s are independent modulo $(F^\times)^2$, and $G$ is a non-split central extension of $(\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)^r$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:embedding} {\rm (Embedding Criterion, \cite[Section 7]{Frohlic})} Let $F$ be a field and $K = F(\sqrt{a_1},\dots,\sqrt{a_r})$ were the $a_i$'s are in $F^\times$ and independent modulo $(F^\times)^2$. Let $Q = \operatorname{Gal}(K/F)$, and consider a non-split central extension $G$ of $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ by $Q$. Let $\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_r$ generate $Q$, where $\sigma_i(\sqrt{a_j}) = (-1)^{\delta(i,j)}\sqrt{a_j}$ and let $\tilde{\sigma_1},\dots,\tilde{\sigma_r}$ be any set of preimages of $\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_r$ in $G$. Define $c_{ij}$ for $i\leq j$ by $c_{ij} = 1$ if and only if $[\tilde{\sigma}_i,\tilde{\sigma}_j]\neq 1$ for $i<j$ and $c_{ii} = 1$ if and only if $(\tilde{\sigma}_i)^2 \neq 1$. There exists a Galois Extension $L/F$, $L \supseteq K$, such that $\operatorname{Gal}(L/F)\simeq G$ and the surjection $G \to Q$ is the natural surjection of Galois groups, if and only if
$$\prod_{i\leq j} (a_i,a_j)^{c_{ij}} = 1 \in {\rm Br}(F).$$
\end{thm}
Using Theorem \ref{thm:embedding}, we get the following result concerning polyquadratic extensions of $\mathbb Q$.
\begin{cor} \cite{Embedding, Smith} \label{cor:embedding} Let $a,b,c,d\in\mathbb Z$ be nonsquare and independent mod $\mathbb Z^2$. \\
\begin{enumerate}
\item The field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$ can be embedded into a $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $$(a,a)=(a,-1) = 1\in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$
\item The field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})$ can be embedded into a $D_4$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $$(a,b) = 1\in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$
\item The field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})$ can be embedded into a $Q_8$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $$(a,b)(ab,-1) = 1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$
\item The field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b},\sqrt{c})$ can be embedded into a $\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/16T11}{\rm SmallGroup(16,13)}$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $$ (a,ab)(c,-1) = 1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$
\item The field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b},\sqrt{c},\sqrt{d})$ can be embedding into a $\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/32T9}{\rm SmallGroup(32,49)}$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ if and only if $$ (a,b)(c,d)=1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
We will use the information in Corollary \ref{cor:embedding} in order to prove that if $K/\mathbb Q$ has Galois group $G$ which is isomorphic to one of the 5 groups in Corollary \ref{cor:embedding}, then $K$ must be in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\begin{remark}
While it may not seem like it at first glance, everything in Corollary \ref{cor:embedding} is completely explicit. For example, given a field $K = \mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})$ such that $(a,b)= 1\in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$, every $D_4$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ that contains $K$ can be given concretely. Since $(a,b)=1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$ there exist $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb Q$ such that $b=\alpha^2-a\beta^2$. Then for any $r\in\mathbb Q^\times$, the extension $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{r(\alpha+\beta\sqrt{a})},\sqrt{\beta})/\mathbb Q$ is a $D_4$ extension that contains $K$ and every such extension arises in this way.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of the main theorem}
Before outlining the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:goal}, we give a definition and lemma.
\begin{definition}
Given a group $G$, we say that a field $F/\mathbb Q$ is {\bfseries $G$-complete} if for every Galois extension $K/\mathbb Q$ such that $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q) \simeq G$ it follows that $K\subseteq F$. The field $F$ is said to be {\bfseries $G$-incomplete} if there exists at least one Galois extension $K/\mathbb Q$ with $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)\simeq G$ and $K\not\subseteq F$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:contained}
Let $F$ be an extension of $\mathbb Q$ and let $K/\mathbb Q$ be a finite Galois extension with Galois group $G$. If there exist normal subgroups $N_1,\dots, N_r \lhd G$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $1\leq i \leq r$ the field $F$ is $G/N_i$-complete, and
\item $\displaystyle \bigcap_{i=1}^r N_i = \{e\}$,
\end{enumerate}
then $K\subseteq F$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $1\leq i \leq r$ let $K_i$ be the subfield of $K$ with Galois group $N_i$ guaranteed to exists by the fundamental theorem of Galois theory. Each of these fields is in $F$ by condition (1) and condition (2) ensures that $K = K_1K_2\dots K_r$. Since each $K_i$ is in $F$ we have that $K = K_1K_2\dots K_r$ is contained in $F$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Clearly, if $K/\mathbb Q$ is a finite extension that is not Galois with Galois closure $K^{\rm Gal}$ such that $K^{\rm Gal}/\mathbb Q$ satisfies conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:contained} with $F=\mathbb Q_{D_4}$, then $K\subseteq K^{\rm Gal} \subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{remark}
With Lemma \ref{lem:contained} in hand, we start to see how one might prove Theorem \ref{thm:goal}.
The idea is to first show that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete for a few carefully chosen groups $G$ and then use these together with Lemma \ref{lem:contained} to prove that
$$\mathbb Q(E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[p^\infty])\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}.$$
That is, we will show that for every elliptic curve $E/\mathbb Q$ and prime $p$, the field of definition of the $p$-primary component of $E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))$ is contained in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
This combined with the fact that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}\subseteq\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$ would give us that $E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[p^\infty] = E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[p^\infty]$. From there, Theorem \ref{thm:goal} would follow from the classification of finite abelian groups.
We start the process by proving that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete for some small groups.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Simple_G_in_F}
If $G$ is a group isomorphic to $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$, $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$, or $D_4$ then $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $K/\mathbb Q$ be a number field with $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)\simeq G$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose $G$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$. In this case $K=\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$ for some squarefree $a$ in $\mathbb Z$ and we saw from Theorem \ref{thm:Sha} that any quadratic extension of $\mathbb Q$ can be embedded into a $D_4$ extension. Thus $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$ and $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$-complete.
\item Suppose $G$ is isomorphic to $D_4$. Clearly $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $D_4$-complete.
\item Suppose $G$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$. This means that $K$ has a unique subfield of the form $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$.
This unique quadratic field can be embedded into a $D_4$ extension $L$ such that $L/\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$ is not a cyclic degree 4 extension and $K$ is not a subfield of $L$.
We now consider the Galois extension given by the compositum of $L$ and $K$.
Since the intersection of $L$ and $K$ is exactly $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$, we have that $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of index 2 inside $D_4\times C_4$, call it $G$.
We also know that if $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are the projection maps out of $D_4\times C_4$, then $\pi_1(G)= D_4$ and $\pi_2(G)= C_4$.
Since $L\cap K= \mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})$, $G$ contains a normal subgroup $N$ such that $[D_4:\pi_1(N)] = [C_4:\pi_2(N)] = 2$ (so the fixed field that is in both $K$ and $L$ is a quadratic) and $\pi_1(N)\neq \langle f \rangle$ (since $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a})/\mathbb Q$ is {\it not} cyclic).
If we let $N_1$ and $N_2$ be the 2, noncyclic subgroups of $D_4$ of index 2, we can rephrase these conditions to say that $G$ has the property that either $G \cap \pi_1^{-1}(N_1) = G \cap \pi_2^{-1}(\langle c^2 \rangle)$ or $G \cap \pi_1^{-1}(N_2) = G \cap \pi_2^{-1}(\langle c^2 \rangle)$ and the common group is an index 2 subgroup of $G$.
Searching the index 2 subgroups of $D_4\times C_4$, we see that there are two groups up to conjugation with this property and they are both isomorphic to $\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/16T10}{\rm SmallGroup(16,3)}$.
With this $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q)$ is isomorphic to $\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/16T10}{\rm SmallGroup(16,3)}$ and letting $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q) = H$ we see that $H$ has two distinct normal subgroups $N_1$ and $N_2$ such that $N_1\cap N_2 =\{e\}$ and $H/N_1\simeq H/N_2\simeq D_4$.
Thus by Lemma \ref{lem:contained} and part (2) of this proposition, $K\subseteq KL \subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$ and $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$-complete
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
The following lemmas give a list of small groups for which $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is not necessarily $G$-complete, but with some added assumptions on $K/\mathbb Q$, we can show that $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Q8_condly}
Let $G$ be isomorphic to {\rm \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/8T5}{SmallGroup(8,4)}} and let $F = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})$ such that
$$(a,b)=(ab,-1)=1\in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q).$$ If $K/\mathbb Q$ is a solution to the embedding problem $(F/\mathbb Q,G,\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)$, then $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From Corollary \ref{cor:embedding} and the added assumption that $(a,b) =1 \in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$, we know that there is a Galois extension $L/\mathbb Q$ such that $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})\subseteq L$ and $\operatorname{Gal}(L/\mathbb Q)\simeq D_4$.
Considering the compositum of $K$ and $L$ we see that $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q)$ is isomorphic to the uniqe group of order 16 with a quotient isomorphic to $D4$ and a quotient isomorphic to $Q_8$, namely $H \simeq \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/16T8}{\rm Smallgroup(16,4)}$.
The group $H$ has 3 normal subgroup $N_1$, $N_2$, and $N_3$ such that $N_1\cap N_2\cap N_3=\{e\}$ and $H/N_1\simeq D_4$ and $H/N_2\simeq H/N_3 \simeq \mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$. Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:contained} and Proposition \ref{prop:Simple_G_in_F} , we have $K\subseteq LK \subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Here we point out that the previous proof, we didn't actually need all 3 of the normal subgroups.
In fact, $N_1\cap N_2 = N_1 \cap N_3 = \{ e \}$ and so one in fact only needs two fields tow generate $L$.
We included all 3 in the proof because this is the way the search was conducted, by computing \emph{all} the relevant normal subgroups and computing their intersection.
The code used to verify all of these computations can be found at \cite{MagmaCodeForErrata}.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:16-3_condly}
Let $G$ be isomorphic to {\rm \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/8T11}{SmallGroup(16,13)}} and let $F = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b},\sqrt{c})$ such that $(a,ab)=(c,-1)=1\in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$. If $K/\mathbb Q$ is a solution to the embedding problem $(F/\mathbb Q,G,\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)$, then $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From Corollary \ref{cor:embedding} and the assumption that $(c,-1) = 1\in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$ the field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{c})$ can be embedded into a degree 4 cyclic extension $L/\mathbb Q$.
Again considering the field $LK$ we compute that $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q) \simeq D_4\times \mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z \simeq \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/32T5}{\rm SmallGroup(32,25)}$ and thus we have $K\subseteq LK\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:32-49_condly}
Let $G$ be isomorphic to {\rm \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/8T22}{SmallGroup(32,49)}} and let $F = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b},\sqrt{c},\sqrt{d})$ such that $(a,b)=(c,d)=1\in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$. If $K/\mathbb Q$ is a solution to the embedding problem $(F/\mathbb Q,G,\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)$, then $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From Corollary \ref{cor:embedding} and the added the assumption that $(a,b) = 1\in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$ we have that $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b})$ can be embedded into a $D_4$ extension, we pick one of the possible solutions to this embedding problem and call it $L$. Again we consider the extension $LK/\mathbb Q$ and compute that $\operatorname{Gal}(LK/\mathbb Q) = H\simeq \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/32T215}{\rm SmallGroup(64,231)}$. The group $H$ has 3 normal subgroups $N_1, N_2,$ and $N_3,$ such that $N_1\cap N_2\cap N_3 = \{e\}$, $H/N_1\simeq H/N_2\simeq D_4$, and $H/N_3\simeq \href{http://www.lmfdb.org/GaloisGroup/16T11}{\rm SmallGroup(16,13)}$. Thus by Lemma \ref{lem:contained} and Proposition \ref{prop:Simple_G_in_F}, we have $K\subseteq LK \subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{proof}
Before we can prove Theorem \ref{thm:goal} we will need to prove that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete for some groups of size 64. In order to do this we will first need a group theory lemma and a proposition about Galois embedding problems with decomposable kernel.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:grps_wedge}\cite[Lemma 4.1]{32}
Let $G$ be a group and let $N_1$, and $N_2$ be normal subgroups of $G$ such that $N_1\cap N_2 = \{e\}$. Then we have that $G$ is isomorphic to the pullback $(G/N_1)\curlywedge(G/N_2)$ and the following diagram commutes:
$$\xymatrix{
& & 1\ar[d] & 1\ar[d] & \\
& & N_2\ar[d]\ar@{=}[r] & N_2\ar[d] & \\
1\ar[r] & N_1\ar[r]\ar@{=}[d] & G\ar[r]\ar[d] & G/N_1\ar[r]\ar[d] & 1 \\
1\ar[r] & N_1\ar[r] & G/N_2\ar[r]\ar[d] & G/N_1N_2\ar[r]\ar[d] & 1 \\
& & 1 & 1 & \\
}$$
Here the maps from a group to a quotient of that group are the natural maps.
\end{lemma}
Using this lemma, one can prove the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\cite[Theorem 4.1]{32}\label{prop:Central_Product_Embedding}
Let $G$, $N_1$ and $N_2$ be group as in Proposition \ref{lem:grps_wedge}. Let $K/\mathbb Q$ be a Galois extension with $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)\simeq G/N_1N_2$. Then the embedding problem $(K/\mathbb Q,G,N_1\times N_2)$ is solvable if and only if $(K/\mathbb Q,G/N_1,N_2)$ and $(K/\mathbb Q,G/N_1,N_2)$ are solvable.
\end{prop}
\begin{remark}
Proposition \ref{prop:Central_Product_Embedding} can be stated more generally for an arbitrary base-field, but we only state it with $\mathbb Q$ as the base field so for the sake of simplicity. For more details, the reader is encouraged to see \cite{32}.
\end{remark}
We are now ready to show that $F$ is $G$-complete with respect to some larger groups.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:64_G_in_F}
Let $G$ be isomorphic to {\rm {SmallGroup(64,206)}, {SmallGroup(64,215)},} or {\rm SmallGroup(64,216)}. Then $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $K/\mathbb Q$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $G$, one of the three groups listed above. Then, in all 3 cases $[G,G] \simeq (\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)^2$ and $G/[G,G]\simeq (\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)^4.$ Therefore, we can write $[G,G] = N_1\times N_2$ where $G$, $N_1$, and $N_2$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:grps_wedge}. Choosing $N_1$ and $N_2$ correctly we get that in all cases $G/N_1\simeq D_4\times (\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)^2$ and
$$G/N_2\simeq
\begin{cases}
{\rm SmallGroup(32,48)} & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 206)}\\
{\rm SmallGroup(32,49)} & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 215)\ or\ SmallGroup(64, 216).} \\
\end{cases}$$
The group SmallGroup(32,48) is isomorphic to ${\rm SmallGroup(16,13)}\times \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$. Using Proposition \ref{prop:Central_Product_Embedding}, we get that the field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{a},\sqrt{b},\sqrt{c},\sqrt{d})$ can be embedded into a field with Galois group $G$ if and only if
$$\begin{cases}
(a,b) = (a,b)(c,-1) = 1 \in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q) & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 206)}\\
(a,b) = (a,b)(c,d) = 1 \in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q) & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 215)\ or\ SmallGroup(64, 216).} \\
\end{cases}$$
Rewriting these conditions we get
$$\begin{cases}
(a,b) = (c,-1) = 1 \in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q) & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 206)}\\
(a,b) = (c,d) = 1 \in{\rm Br}(\mathbb Q) & G\simeq {\rm SmallGroup(64, 215)\ or\ SmallGroup(64, 216).} \\
\end{cases}$$
Thus, any Galois extension $K/\mathbb Q$ with $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)\simeq G$ is the compositum of two fields of degree 32 that are in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ by Lemmas \ref{lem:Q8_condly}, \ref{lem:16-3_condly}, and \ref{lem:32-49_condly}. Therefore it must be that $K\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$ and $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$-complete for all 3 groups.
\end{proof}
With this we are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:goal} but before we get started we make a remark that will guide our strategy.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:lift}
Examining the proofs of Propositions \ref{prop:Simple_G_in_F}, and \ref{prop:64_G_in_F} as well as Lemmas \ref{lem:Q8_condly}, \ref{lem:16-3_condly}, and \ref{lem:32-49_condly}, we see that at each step it was useful to
think of the field in question as living in a larger but still finite extension of $\mathbb Q$.
For example in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:Simple_G_in_F} while proving that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$-complete, we start with a generic $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$ extension of $\mathbb Q$, called $K/\mathbb Q$ in the proof. The result follows from considering $K$ inside of the field $LK$, where $L/\mathbb Q$ is a $D_4$ extension and $[L\cap K : \mathbb Q] = 2.$
Motivated by this, when we are trying to compute the $p$-primary component of $E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})$ and show that it is
$\mathbb Z/p^n\mathbb Z\oplus\mathbb Z/p^m\mathbb Z$ with $m\leq n$ using this method, it is useful to not just consider the field of definition of the $p^n$-th torsion but actually the field of definition of the $p^{n+1}$ torsion.
On the groups side of things, this just means that we will lift groups of level $p^n$ to level $p^{n+1}$ before doing any of the computations.
The idea is that viewing $\mathbb Q(E[p^n])$ inside $\mathbb Q(E[p^{n+1}])$, allows us to see that the relevant fields are generated by fields that are in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:goal}]
Let $E/\mathbb Q$ be an elliptic curve and $p$ a prime. We denote the $p$-primary component of $E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))$ by $E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[p^\infty]$ and its field of definition by $K_p = \mathbb Q(E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)[p^\infty])).$
The overall strategy of the proof is to show that $K_p\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
This combined with the fact that $\mathbb Q_{D_4}\subseteq\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$ would yield that $E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[p^\infty] = E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[p^\infty]$ and from here the result follows from the classification of finite abelian groups. We proceed by breaking the argument down into cases based on the size and parity of $p$.
Suppose $p\geq 5$ is a prime. From \cite[Sections 5.1-3]{D4}, we know that in this case $K_p/\mathbb Q$ is an abelian extension. Since $\operatorname{Gal}(K_p/\mathbb Q)$ has exponent dividing 4 and is abelian, it must be isomorphic to $(\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z)^{s_1} \times (\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z)^{s_2}$ for some nonnegative integers $s_1$ and $s_2$, and since $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$- and $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$-complete $K_p \subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$ and $E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[p^\infty] = E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[p^\infty]$.
Next, suppose $p=3$. From \cite[Section 5.4]{D4}, we see that there are 3 different cases that need to be checked corresponding to the possible isomorphism class of $\mathcal{E}(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[3^\infty]$. For two of them $\operatorname{Gal}(K_p/\mathbb Q)\simeq \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ and in this case clearly $K_3\subseteq\mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
The last cases corresponds to the case when $\operatorname{Gal}(K_3/\mathbb Q)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the normalizer of the split Cartan subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z)$.
It turns out that the normalizer of the non-split Cartan subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z)$ is isomorphic to $D_4$ and again we have $K_3\subseteq \mathbb Q_{D_4}$.
The last outstanding case is when $p=2$. To settle this case, let $\mathcal{S}$ be the set containing of isomorphism classes of groups with small groups label (2,1),(4,1),(8,3),(64,206), (64,215), or (64,216).
When a we say a group is in $\mathcal{S}$, we mean that it is isomorphic to a group in $\mathcal{S}$.
Next for each of the relevant groups from \cite{RZB} and as discussed in Remark \ref{rmk:lift}, consider them at twice the level necessary to verify \cite[Table 2]{D4}.
For each of these groups $G$, we let
$$S_G = \{N : N\triangleleft G \hbox{ and $G/N\in\mathcal{S}$}\} \hbox{ and }N_G = \displaystyle \bigcap_{N\in S_G} N.$$
Now, if $E/\mathbb Q$ is comes from a point on the modular curve corresponding to one of the groups $G$ in \cite[Table 2]{D4}, then there is a subfield of $\mathbb Q(E[2^n])$ call it $L_G$ corresponding to the fixed field of $N_G$ and with Galois groups $G/N_G$.
The field $L_G$ is contained in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ since $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ is $G$ complete for all $G\in \mathcal{S}$ by Propositions \ref{prop:Simple_G_in_F} and \ref{prop:64_G_in_F}.
Further we know that $E(L_G)[2^\infty]$ is isomorphic to the subgroup of $(\mathbb Z/2^n\mathbb Z)^2$ that is fixed by $N_G$ where $2^n$ is the level of $G$.
So if we can confirm that $E(L_G)[2^\infty]\simeq E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[2^\infty]$, then we would have $E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[2^\infty] \simeq E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))[2^\infty]$ since $E(L_G)\subseteq E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})\subseteq E(\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty))$.
All that is left to do is show that for each $G$ of interest the fixed group of $N_G$ is isomorphic to the subgroup given in \cite[Table 2]{D4}.
Thus $E(D_4^\infty)[2^\infty] = E(K_G)[2^\infty] \subseteq E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[2^\infty] \subseteq E(D_4^\infty)[2^\infty]$ implying that $E(\mathbb Q_{D_4})[2^\infty] = E(\mathbb Q_{D_4}^\infty)[2^\infty]$.
Thus completing the case when $p=2$ as well as the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:goal}. The code confirming this can be found in \cite{MagmaCodeForErrata}.\end{proof}
\section{Remaining Open Questions}\label{sec:open}
The question about the equality of the fields $\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$ and $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ still remains open, but there are some smaller questions one could ask that could potentially shed light on the relationship between these two fields.
\begin{question}
Is $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ a $Q_8$-complete field?
\end{question}
We saw that under the added assumption that each individual term coming from the embedding criterion is trivial we can show that a $Q_8$ extension of $\mathbb Q$ is in $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$, but the question remains in the case when $(a,b) = (ab,-1) \neq 1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$.
More concretely, consider the field $\mathbb Q(\alpha)/\mathbb Q$ where $\alpha$ is a root of
$$f(x) = x^8 + 84x^6 + 1260x^4 + 5292x^2 + 441.$$
In this case, we have that $\operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)\simeq Q_8$ and $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{3},\sqrt{14}) \subset K$ and $(3,14) = (42,-1) \neq 1 \in {\rm Br}(\mathbb Q)$.
Is $K\subseteq\mathbb Q_{D_4}$? We suspect that if one could find the answer to this particular questions, they could also likely settle the relationship between $\mathbb Q_{D_4}$ and $\mathbb Q(D_4^\infty)$.
|
\section{Introduction}
The vast-majority of input techniques for mobile devices demands the use of hands as an input source, which may constraints user experiences. For example, it would be inconvenient for a user to interact with a smartwatch to reject a phone call while both hands are occupied (e.g. carrying objects \cite{ng2013impact}). Therefore, providing hands-free interactions may improve the wearable interactive experiences under different situational uses and provide additional input opportunities for accessibility purposes (e.g., people with motor impairments).
To understand different hands-free interaction options, prior works explored eye-tracking systems \cite{Dhuliawala2016SmoothEM,Esteves2015OrbitsGI}, tongue input \cite{Saponas:2009:OST:1622176.1622209}, teeth input \cite{ashbrook2016bitey, mohamed2006teethclick}, facial expression \cite{masai2015affectivewear}, and voice recognition \cite{860214}. Eye-tracking systems \cite{Esteves2015OrbitsGI} usually require a mounted camera attached to glasses or a stationary device to become hands-free. Beyond having a camera facing users, more research leveraged head-worn sensors to track input gestures from the face. However, many of these works either require complex on-body sensor contacts on the face \cite{iravantchi2019interferi,rantanen2013capacitive,zhang2014non}, abnormal sensor locations \cite{mohamed2006teethclick} or placing sensors in the mouth \cite{gallego2019chewit,saponas2009optically}. To simplify the sensing requirements and hardware complexity, further research explored hands-free interaction techniques through sensors that are easily mounted on existing wearable devices, such as glasses or earbuds. For example, CanalSense leveraged barometers in the earbuds to classify face-related movements \cite{ando2017canalsense}. However, past works mostly explored face-related gestures through either barometers \cite{ando2017canalsense} or bone-conduction microphones \cite{ashbrook2016bitey}. Furthermore, many existing devices have already embedded inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, such as eSense \cite{kawsar2018esense}, into earpieces. However, acoustic-only approaches may have limitations related to noise from speaking, chewing or outside agents, and motion-only approaches may be affected while the user is in a motion (e.g., jogging). Furthermore, little research has explored the feasibility of leveraging motion sensing (e.g., IMU) combined with acoustic sensing (e.g., microphone) to recognize face-related gestures.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{figures/all_teeth.png}
\caption{Our gesture set with 13 teeth gestures.}
\label{fig:f1_hardware}
\Description{This figure contains thirteen teeth gestures with corresponding pictures in three rows. The first row: back triple. The second row: right single, right double, right hold, left single, left double, and left hold. The third row: front single, front double, front hold, back single, back double, and back hold.}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we present TeethTap, a minimally-obtrusive eyes-free, hands-free input technology that can recognize up to 13 discrete teeth gestures (Fig. \ref{fig:f1_hardware}), which cover both places of contact (i.e., left side, right side, front and back) and methods of contact (i.e., single bite, double bite, or hold). To recognize these 13 teeth gestures, we built a lightweight earpiece, which secures a microphone and IMU sensor behind each ear. The earpiece was made of 18 small components which were 3D printed and then fitted together, and was adjustable to various ear sizes and head widths. To understand the feasibility of leveraging TeethTap to recognize teeth gestures, we conducted a user study with 11 participants in five sessions (i.e., one practice session, one training session, two testing sessions, and one remounting session). We then analyzed the accuracy to recognize gestures using a DTW-based K-Nearest-Neighbor(KNN) algorithm, which has been widely used to classify IMU-based data in previous literature \cite{Zhang2017FingerSoundRU}.
Overall, TeethTap achieved 90.9\% accuracy on average to classify 13 discrete teeth input gestures in the testing sessions. We further compared the differences in the accuracy of having sensors on both sides vs. one single side. We found that it is sufficient to only use a single side sensor to recognize `manner' gestures, such as single-tap, double-tap, and hold. We also uncovered the accuracy differences in remounting the sensors by participants themselves and participants' subjective feedback. We further discussed the existing challenges of using TeethTap in-the-wild, the potential applications (e.g., volume control with ``Hold'' gestures), integrating TeethTap to other devices, and how to avoid remounting problems of TeethTap. We believe our findings shed light on future research that leverages motion and acoustic sensing on earpieces to recognize teeth gestures. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We explored the feasibility of leveraging motion sensing captured around the ear, and fusing motion and acoustic signals to filter noises, to recognize 13 discrete teeth gestures with an average accuracy of 90.9\%.
\item We uncovered the effect on different gestures of having motion sensors on both sides vs. one side and discussed the influences on recognition accuracy from remounting the devices.
\item We proposed a set of design implications to apply the combination of motion and acoustic sensing on earpieces (e.g., in-the-wild scenario, design form factors, integrating to other head-worn devices).
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
Hands-free interaction techniques benefit people under different scenarios. Prior research exploring hands-free wearable input devices focuses on tracking eye movement \cite{Barz2015ComputationalMA,Esteves2015OrbitsGI,Sugano2015SelfCalibratingHE,zhang2017smartphone,fan2020eyelid}, head movement \cite{Esteves2017SmoothMovesSP}, jaw movement \cite{taniguchi2018mouthwitch} and lip movement \cite{dalka2010human}. For example, Rantanen et al. \cite{rantanen2013capacitive} leveraged head-mounted capacitive and electromyography (EMG) sensors to detect different facial gestures. Similarly, Interferi \cite{iravantchi2019interferi} allowed users to wear a face sensing mask that used acoustic interferometry to track face-related gestures.
However, these approaches often require heavy instrumentation on the user, such as cameras, magnets or headsets, to accurately distinguish between user input gestures. Recently, reserachers presented C-Face\cite{10.1145/3379337.3415879}, an ear-mounted wearable that can track facial movements, which has shown promising performance. But it is unclear how it can track teeth-input gestures.
To explore other hands-free interaction techniques that require minimal hardware instrumentation and complexity, prior works explored different approaches to recognize teeth gestures \cite{ashbrook2016bitey} and tongue gestures \cite{nguyen2018tyth,Saponas:2009:OST:1622176.1622209,taniguchi2018earable}. Researchers first explored the approaches by adding sensors inside the mouth, such as embedded optical sensors into orthodontic dental retainers to detect tongue gestures \cite{saponas2009optically} and intraoral sensing bit to detect different tongue and teeth gestures \cite{gallego2019chewit}. Moreover, Li et al. \cite{Li:2013:STO:2493988.2494352} used sensor-embedded teeth to recognize four mouth-related activities: coughing, chewing, drinking and speaking. However, these approaches might be obtrusive to some people who do not have dental retainers or do not want to hold a sensor bit in the mouth.
To avoid placing sensors inside the mouth, past researchers further explored other approaches like placing bone-conduction microphones (e.g., \cite{ashbrook2016bitey}) on the skin to track teeth gestures or tongue gestures. For example, TeethClick \cite{mohamed2006teethclick} placed a single throat microphone that touched the cheek and picked up vibration signals from the jawbone to recognize single vs. double teeth clicks. To further make the hardware instrumentation less obtrusive, Bitey \cite{ashbrook2016bitey} recognized tooth click sounds from up to five different pairs of teeth gestures with bone-conduction microphones worn above the ears. However, Bitey tested user-specific gesture sets tailored to each participant, and the study relied solely on acoustic data, which has several limitations related to noise from speaking, chewing or outside agents.
Another approach to track tooth-clicks is to use motion sensing (e.g., IMU). Simpson et al. \cite{4473368} introduced Tooth-Click Detector, which used a three-axis accelerometer on an earbud to pick up strong vibrations from tooth-clicks to control computer cursors. Zhao et al. \cite{Zhao:2012:TET:2168556.2168632} further employed the Tooth-Click Detector \cite{4473368} as well as an eye-gaze tracker to type on an on-screen keyboard. Researchers had also used tooth-touch sound as an alternative mouse device for accessibility \cite{Kuzume2011ToothtouchSA,Simpson2010EvaluationOT}. However, these approaches were binary---only being able to detect whether or not there was a tooth click. Recently, many existing earpieces have already embedded IMU sensors, such as eSense \cite{kawsar2018esense}, and have been applied for activity recognition \cite{katayama2019situation,lee2019automatic}. However, it is unknown whether it is feasible to detect different teeth gestures through earpieces with IMU sensors.
Previous works also explored the combination of using IMU sensors and microphones to detect eating behaviors \cite{Bedri:2017:EUW:3139486.3130902, Bi2018AuracleDE}. We understand that acoustic sensors are more error-prone to background acoustic noise, and motion sensors are more likely to have false positives while the user is in motion. Therefore, it is important to explore how both motion and acoustic sensors can be used in tandem on earpieces to detect different teeth gestures and reduce false positives. In our work, TeethTap fuses acoustic sensing with motion sensing to accurately classify a large set of 13 universally applied teeth gestures. By combining data from two separate sensing modalities into one device, our system is able to better realize noise and recognize teeth tapping movements. Furthermore, our instrumentation is minimally-intrusive, securing both sensors discreetly behind each ear. Strategic sensor placement combined with a robust classification system makes TeethTap a viable future accessory to the ear.
\section{Gesture Design}
Our approach in designing teeth gestures was inspired in part by two linguistic vowel sound features: the degree of aperture (jaw openness) and tongue frontness (or backness) \cite{prakash2020earsense}. The degree of aperture functions as z-axis, and is relevant for gesture release detection. We applied the idea of tongue frontness to the jaw, functioning as a y-axis. Lastly, we added a final axis (x-axis) for side-side movement. The four extremes of our x-y plane can therefore be described as front, back, left, and right. This design maximized the spread of each point of contact to best avoid confusion when classifying one gesture from another.
In linguistics, there are two primary categories of articulation: the place of articulation and the manner of articulation \cite{gallego2019chewit}. As described above, our gestures have four places the teeth can make contact: front, back, left, and right. For each place of contact, TeethTap employs three possible ``manners'' of contact: single tap, double tap, and hold. ``Single tap'' is a quick tap and release. Naturally, ``double tap'' is composed of two quick single taps followed by a release. ``Hold'' is a tap with a delayed release. The time passed from the start of the hold gesture when the teeth first make contact, and the release of the gesture is registered as a continuous variable representing analog input. All non-hold gestures represent discrete digital inputs. We also added a gesture into our gesture set. This gesture is composed of three quick single back (regular) bites in sequence. We designed this gesture to be natural to produce yet easily recognizable for the purpose of testing under various real-world conditions such as walking, jumping, eating and speaking.
\section{Methodology}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.15\columnwidth]{figures/new_wear.jpg}
\caption{Y-axis in relation to jaw movement}
\label{fig:JawMovement_yaxis}
\Description{This figure shows a person's ear with a 3D printed earpiece mounted. The figure also points out the direction of the y-axis.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sensing Principle}
By positioning our IMU sensors just behind the bottom of the ear where the jawline begins, we are able to collect gyroscope movement across three axes whenever the jaw shifts upwards, downwards or sideways. Fig. \ref{fig:JawMovement_yaxis} illustrates this principle on the IMU's y-axis under the left ear. As the jaw extrudes leftward, it presses against the bottom part of the left IMU, causing the gyroscope to rotate upwards. The resulting rotation causes its y-axis value to increase. On each earpiece, we also placed a microphone to collect and analyze acoustic data from different teeth gestures.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{figures/LeftandRight.png}
\caption{Raw Gyroscope data for Left Single and Right Single Gestures}
\Description{This figure contains two by two sub-figures. The top left figure shows the left single gesture's signal from the left channel. The top right figure shows the left single gesture's signal from the right channel. The bottom left figure shows the right single gesture's signal from the left channel. The bottom right figure shows the right single gesture's signal from the right channel.}
\label{fig:GestureLeftRight}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:GestureLeftRight}(a) shows the left ear's IMU data during a left single gesture, clearly depicting this positive y-axis peak. Conversely, the right ear IMU depicts a negative y-axis peak, as the right jaw retracts, rotating the right IMU in the opposite direction (Fig. \ref{fig:GestureLeftRight}(b)). Similarly, Fig. \ref{fig:GestureLeftRight}(d) further shows a similar peak, this time illustrating the right ear's IMU data for a single right gesture. Again, the negative peak in Fig. \ref{fig:GestureLeftRight}(c) is caused by the left side of the jaw retracting and rotating the IMU downwards.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/GestureComparison.png}
\caption{Raw Gyroscope data for back triple, back double, back single, and back hold Gestures}
\label{fig:GestureComparison}
\Description{This figure contains four figures in a single column. The first figure at the top shows signals of tap, tap, tap, and release. The second figure shows signals of tap, tap, and release. The third figure shows signals of tap and release. The fourth figure shows signals of tap and holding.}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:GestureComparison} illustrates the gyroscope data from four gestures: back triple, back double, back single, and back hold (top to bottom, respectively). The first three high-amplitude peaks in Figure \ref{fig:GestureComparison}(a) represent the back-triple gesture. The fourth smaller peak at the end of the window represents the gesture release. Release energy is captured when the mouth opens after performing a gesture. Back double (Fig. \ref{fig:GestureComparison}(b)) and back single (Fig. \ref{fig:GestureComparison}(c)) also end with a release peak. Notice that back hold (Fig. \ref{fig:GestureComparison}(d)), has no release peak because hold gestures delay the release, categorizing it instead as a separate sub-gesture.
\subsection{Hardware Design}
TeethTap's hardware is composed of a 3D printed earpiece housing two contact microphones and two IMUs.
Our 3D printed earpiece is made from 18 small individual components assembled together to form a single unit (Fig. \ref{fig:earpiece1}). The design is adjustable around the ears and behind the head to accommodate for various ear sizes and head widths. The natural flex of thinly printed PLA filament presses the IMU sensors against the jawline just under the ear and secures the microphones to the temporal bone behind the ear. We used two contact microphones (BU-30179-000) \cite{BU30179046:online} and two inertial measurement units (IMU) (MPU-9250) \cite{invensense2014mpu} to capture sound and motion on the skin behind each ear. The contact microphones are connected to a customized PCB board, which amplifies and filters the acoustic signals. The filtered data from acoustic sensors and the gyroscope data from IMUs are sent to a micro-controller (HUZZAH32) \cite{Adafruit58:online}
using its on-board 12-bit analog to digital converter (ADC) and its inter-integrated circuit (I$^2$C) communication, respectively. The microphone data is sampled at 8000 Hz, and the IMU data is sampled at 120 Hz. Lastly, the HUZZAH32 sends the data to a computer for processing using WiFi.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{figures/hardware.png}
\caption{3D printed earpiece housing two microphones and two IMUs}
\label{fig:earpiece1}
\Description{This figure contains two sub-figures. The left one shows the 3D printed earpiece from an overview. The right one shows the microphone and IMU of one side of the 3D printed earpiece.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/data_processing_pipeline.jpg}
\caption{Data Processing Pipeline}
\label{fig:dataprocessingpipleine}
\Description{This figure shows the data processing pipeline. From Acoustic to Bandpass Filter, to Calculate Energy and combined with the Gyro data to determine whether it is a gesture or not. Then it goes to segmentation, then SVM points to KNN + DTW, and both point to Noise. Finally, KNN + DTW points to Classified Gesture.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data Processing Pipeline}
To collect sensor data from the HUZZAH32 board, we created a Python program on the receiving computer.
We also used the same program to analyzes the data for gesture recognition in two stages: gesture segmentation and gesture classification. Figure \ref{fig:dataprocessingpipleine} illustrates TeethTap's data processing pipeline.
\subsection{Gesture Segmentation}
Our algorithm first segmented a two-second sliding window from the continuous data stream generated from the microphones and IMUs. As data flowed in and out of the queue, our sliding window shifted 20 times a second with an overlap of 95 percent. Every window, we checked if the microphone data exceeded a predetermined energy threshold, which indicated a gesture was possibly performed. Once our system detected a sufficient spike in audio data, we then grabbed that window's corresponding two-second gyroscope data window. Next, we checked if the gyroscope's y-axis absolute maximum value exceeded a predetermined energy threshold to understand whether a gesture was performed. At this stage, we waited until the gesture was centred within the two-second sliding window in preparation for segmentation. Because most participants finished each gesture in roughly 1.5 seconds, further segmentation was needed. To segment the data, we smoothed the absolute value of the peak(s) to find the gesture's center-point and added a 90 data point buffer on each side to form a finalized event region of 1.5 seconds (i.e., 180 data points).
\subsection{Noise Detection with Acoustic Sensing}
Although TeethTap's contact microphone was hardly affected by outside noise, self-generated noise such as eating, talking or walking might interfere with the system. To address this issue, we implemented an SVM model classifier with a linear kernel to train both acoustic features and IMU features in the frequency domain. To collect acoustic data for noise and gestures, we asked one researcher and two pilot participants (one female) to each perform each teeth gesture five times, and we collected noise information by asking them to talk, walk, eat food, and remain static in random order. Overall, we collected 650 gesture segments and 650 noise segments.
TeethTap extracted features from the IMU data and the microphone data for SVM classification. Seven of the eight IMU-related features were calculated across each of the three axes for both gyroscopes (six axes total). These included the number of peaks, peak values, root mean square (RMS), zero-crossing rate, standard deviation, minimum value, and maximum value. The eighth IMU-derived feature was calculated by finding the correlation between each of the left gyroscope axes with each of the right gyroscope axes. We also collected two acoustic features from the microphone data: the 30 lower bins of the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and 26 Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) \cite{Zhang2017FingerSoundRU}. This was made for a total of 64 features used to train our SVM model. We then applied the model to classify noise segments vs. gesture segments from acoustic data in TeethTap (Fig. \ref{fig:dataprocessingpipleine}).
\subsection{Gesture Classification Algorithm}
After segmenting the data and filtering out the noise, we classified the gestures by using K-Nearest-Neighbor (k=1) with a distance measurement of multi-dimensional Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) \cite{ten2007multi}. DTW is known for finding temporal patterns (similarities) between time-series datasets (especially with small training sets). Our first ran DTW (Dynamic Time Warping) on the data gathered during gesture segmentation with each gesture instance from training, one at a time. DTW's distance function would then output a value from every iteration. The gesture with the smallest distance value was determined as the predicted gesture.
\section{User Study}
\subsection{Participants}
\TrackChange{To evaluate the real-time gesture recognition performance and the usability of TeethTap, we issued a recruitment announcement on the school campus and recruited 11 participants with an average age of 24.3 (from 21 to 34, five female). Our participants are students or employees of the university, and all of them have healthy teeth.} Each participant received a $\$$10 gift card or cash for participating in our study. The study for each participant lasted around one hour and was conducted in a laboratory environment. The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/GUI.png}
\caption{The GUI of the user study}
\label{fig:GUI}
\Description{This figure contains two by two sub-figures. The top left shows a teeth gesture of back double. The top right shows a person sit in front of the monitor. The bottom left shows a gesture with predicted and truth as back double with green background. The bottom right shows a gesture with predicted as front single and truth as back double. The background of the bottom right is red.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Procedure}
At the beginning of the user study, we played a video that demonstrated how to perform 13 TeethTap gestures using animations of teeth constructed with AutoCAD (Fig. \ref{fig:f1_hardware}), followed by a live demonstration of the system by the researcher. Next, we helped the participant put on the device and explained the user interface (UI) of the system. The participant was asked to sit in front of a table with a monitor that displayed the testing UI. We then conducted the study in five different sessions: one practice session, one training session, two testing sessions, and one remounting session.
In each of the five sessions, participants were asked to perform each of the 13 gestures five times in a random order, which was indicated in the monitor. The first session was the practice session, which was designed to help the participant familiarize themselves with the gestures and testing system. The second session was the training session. The data collected in the training session was used to train an ML model, which was then used to provide real-time classification in later sessions. In the two testing sessions, we provided real-time classification results to the participant. The model was trained using the data collected in the training session. If the gesture was recognized as the same gesture appearing on the screen, we changed the background to green. Otherwise, the background was turned to red, and the recognized gesture's name and the picture were displayed. Whenever the system detected a holding gesture, the UI displayed a clock and asked the participants to hold for a randomly generated time interval (two to four seconds) until release. If no release gesture was detected within five seconds after the timer ended, the system timed out, counting the attempt as a recognition failure and proceeding to the next gesture in sequence.
To further understand the effect of taking TeethTap off and put it back on the same training data, we conducted a remounting session. Participants were asked to take off our prototype and put it back before this session started. Afterward, participants followed the same instructions as the testing session. In total, we collected 2860 (11*13*5*4) gesture instances in the training, testing and remounting sessions. At any point in the study, if the participant misconducted a gesture (performed a gesture than was different from the requested gesture), we asked the participant to report this to the researcher, and we removed these instances from the training and testing data. In total, 89 out of 2860 instances were removed. The real-time classification results and sensor data were saved for later analysis. After our participants finished the five sessions, we asked their subjective feedback on our system, potential applications, and improvements.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{figures/Accuracyof13Gestures.png}
\caption{The recognition accuracy for 11 participants in the testing sessions}
\label{fig:accuraciesFirsttwotest}
\Description{This figure is a bar chart of the recognition accuracy for 11 participants. X-axis: each participant. Y-axis: the recognition accuracy in percentage. For each participant, the figure shows three bars in blue (double earpieces), red (left only), and yellow (right only).}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Results from Both Earpieces}
In the two testing sessions of recognizing 13 different gestures, we found that our participants reached an average accuracy of 90.9\% (SD = 4.1\%). Within the 1382 total teeth gestures from 11 participants, TeethTap successfully recognized 1256 gestures. Fig. \ref{fig:accuraciesFirsttwotest} demonstrates each participant's individual teeth gestures recognition accuracy. We found that P3 and P8 had the highest and lowest accuracy of 96.2\% and 83.9\%, respectively. There were only five holding gesture instances where the system failed to detect the release gesture. As shown by the confusion matrix presented in Fig. \ref{fig:ConfusionMatrix}, the back-triple gesture had the highest accuracy, which reached over 99.1\%. Among all different gestures, the left-hold-gesture had the lowest accuracy of 81.9\%. By analyzing the false positive from the confusion matrix, we found that the right-hold-gesture is most likely to be falsely recognized as back-hold-gesture (9.1\%). Overall, confusion was more prominent among similar gestures, such as single and holding gestures (holding gesture is a single tap gesture with a delayed release).
\subsubsection{Comparison between Single and Double Earpieces}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/Confusion_matrix_13Gesture.png}
\caption{The confusion matrix for recognition accuracy of the testing sessions}
\label{fig:ConfusionMatrix}
\Description{This figure shows a confusion matrix with rows are true labels and columns are predicted labels. For each value in the confusion matrix, the background color close to red if the value is close to 100 and the background color close to blue if the value is close to 0.}
\end{figure}
To understand whether having both earpieces are necessary and which gestures are less prone to errors by only having sensors on one side, we further analyzed the accuracy with Left-only earpiece or right-only earpiece. We used the segmentation data saved in the training session and two testing sessions and followed the same data processing pipeline as both earpieces. We found that the average accuracy dropped 18.4\% to 72.4\% for only using the left earpiece, and it dropped 16.0\% to 74.8\% for the right one (Fig. \ref{fig:accuraciesFirsttwotest}).
In our gesture set, there are three ``manners'' of contact: double-tap, single-tap, and hold. To understand whether having a single earpiece affects the accuracy, we relabeled the data by only dividing it into three groups: double-tap, single-tap, and hold. From the results (Fig. \ref{fig:AccuraciesForDifferentChannels} a), we first found that the average accuracy across all eleven participants in the testing sessions reached 96.1\% to recognize these three different gesture groups by using both earpieces. By only having single side earpiece, we found the average accuracy only decreased by 1.6\% for the left earpiece and 2.9\% for the right earpiece, respectively. Therefore, we can conclude that using a single side earpiece could reach relatively similar accuracy as double-side earpieces to classify among single-tap gestures, double-tap gestures, and hold gestures.
To understand the effect of earpiece positions on different teeth-contact areas, we relabeled the data as front-teeth-tap, back-teeth-tap, right-teeth-tap, and left-teeth-tap. We found that the average accuracy in classifying the four kinds of gesture groups with both-side earpieces stayed around 90.9\% (Fig. \ref{fig:AccuraciesForDifferentChannels} b). However, the accuracy decreased dramatically to 74.9\% with the left only earpiece and 75.1\% with right only earpiece, respectively. From the results, we found that the accuracy with both-side earpieces are vital to recognize teeth gestures are different positions.
To further explore the accuracy correlation between the position of earpiece placement and the teeth-tap position, we first conducted a comparative analysis of the accuracy of left-teeth-tap gestures with the left only earpiece and right only earpiece. For the three left-teeth-tap gestures (i.e., `left-single-tap,' `left-double-tap,' and `left-hold'), the average accuracy with left only earpiece (93.2\%) outperformed 3.3\% than the right earpiece (89.9\%). On the other side, we also analyzed the same results for right-teeth-tap gestures (i.e., `right-single-tap,' `right-double-tap,' and `right-hold'). We found that the average accuracy with a left only earpiece (88.4\%) was 5.8\% less than the right one (94.5\%). Therefore, the accuracy is higher for a single earpiece the recognize the teeth gestures that reside on the same side as the earpiece.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/Accuracyofdifferentchannels.png}
\caption{a) The accuracy of different channels for `manner' gestures b) The accuracy of different channels for four teeth-tap positions}
\label{fig:AccuraciesForDifferentChannels}
\Description{This figure contains two sub-figures. Both of them are bar charts. X-axis is each participant and Y-axis is the recognition accuracy in percentage. For each participant, both sub-figures shows three bars in blue (double earpieces), red (left only), and yellow (right only).}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Remounting Effects and Subjective Feedback}
In our study, we conducted a remounting session to understand whether taking the earpieces off and putting them back would affect the accuracy. Overall, we found the average accuracy of recognizing 13 gestures across 11 participants reached 85.3\%, which dropped 5.5\% from the testing sessions. Therefore, we agree that having the participant remount the sensor by themselves may affect the recognition performance. By analyzing the accuracy changes across different participants, we found that P5 (-12.1\%), P3 (-11.5\%), and P9 (-10.9\%) had the accuracy dropped over 10\% in the remounting session. After finishing the study, P5 mentioned his experiences of the remounting session and concerns on making sure the system stays at the relatively same position every time:
\begin{quote}
``...To be honest, I forgot where the previous position was after I took it off and trying to put it back. Therefore, I would recommend the researchers to design the artifact that fit on a fixed position on my ears, such as using my ears' shape and force to keep the sensor at the same position, just like the sporting earphones, they always fix at the same place when I use them...''
\end{quote}
We further analyzed the results to uncover how does remounting affect the performance of different gesture sets. For `manner' gestures, we found that the performance only dropped 3\% from 96.1\% to 93.1\% after the participants remounted our prototype. Therefore, we revealed that `manner' gestures are less influenced by remounting the devices.
\TrackChange{After about an hour of the study, our participants completed about 325 gestures, no one reported that they were fatigued. P4 specifically mentioned the benefit of teeth gestures on privacy and `faster response':}
\begin{quote}
\TrackChange{``...I think the key benefit of having teeth gestures as another input modality is you can make instant responses without even take out the smart devices. Such as playing or pausing music, taking a phone call, I could simply use teeth taps to interact with my smart devices, especially I want this to be applied to my Airpods. Another benefit is that nobody else knows what I did, this will be very useful if I want to reject a call in a meeting...''}
\end{quote}
\section{Discussion}
From our study and findings, we uncovered the feasibility of leveraging IMU sensors on earpieces to track teeth gestures with an accuracy of 90.9\% on average. We also introduced what gesture sets were more error-prone to a single earpiece and whether the subjective feedback and design implications for remounting the device. In this section, we further discuss activation gestures for in-the-wild scenarios, and the opportunities and challenges of deploying TeethTap in real-world future applications.
\subsection{In-the-wild Scenario}
From the findings, we found that TeethTap successfully recognized 99.1\% for the back-triple gesture. We then conducted a short evaluation to explore whether the back-triple gesture could function as an activation gesture, such as "Hey Siri," to reduce the concerns from false positives. For the "in-the-wild" evaluation, we evaluated how well the activation gesture works while conducting different daily activities. For the same participant group, they were instructed to conduct the following activities in sequence: talking with the researcher, writing on a paper while talking, walking or running around the lab, and eating or drinking. At ten randomized intervals during this process, the researcher asked the participant to perform an activation gesture. Throughout this process, TeethTap was running in real-time on a laptop to detect activation gestures (binary classification). If the performed activation gesture was not detected, we counted the attempt as a false-negative error. If the participant did not perform a gesture and the system detected an activation gesture, we counted this as a false-positive error. The recognition model was built using the five activation gesture instances collected in the previous training sessions.
Eleven participants tested the activation gesture while performing various activities over a total span of 71 minutes and 33 seconds. Among all Eleven participants, zero false-positive errors were triggered. However, we detected 23 false-negative errors from the 133 gestures. One thing worth mentioning here is that the training data for the activation gesture (back-triple gesture) was collected in the training session while the participants were sitting still in a chair. The added motion introduced from the prescribed activities likely influenced recognition performance. However, we intentionally designed the system to avoid false-positive errors while being more tolerant of false-negative errors, since false-positive errors arguably interfere more with performing daily activities. Therefore, future research could leverage a similar approach to generate an activation gesture to prevent false positives.
\subsection{Applications and Gesture Sets}
TeethTap offers up to 13 discrete teeth input gestures with an average accuracy rate of 90.9\%. Our participants in our study showed strong interests in embedding teeth gestures to control their smart devices.
However, to interact with most applications, we may not need to recognize all 13 input gestures at the same time. In other words, a subset of the 13 gestures may be enough for many applications, enabling an even higher accuracy rate. In this section, we discuss potential applications of TeethTap and map possible gesture subsets to each application.
\subsubsection{Navigating through audio or video content}
The task of navigating through audio or video content could call for the following five gestures: back single (pause/play), left single (previous track), right single (next track), left double (rewind), and right double (fast-forward). The accuracy of recognizing these five gestures is 92.3\% using training and testing data from the user study.
\subsubsection{Volume control}
The holding gesture is designed to provide continuous input, such as changing the volume. A user could simply hold down a gesture to raise or lower volume and release the gesture when the volume has reached the desired level. In this application, only two gestures would be needed: left hold (turn down the volume) and right hold (turn up the volume). The accuracy of recognizing these two gestures is 93.2\% using training and testing data from the user study.
\subsubsection{Operating phone call or videochat}
Phone calls often come at socially inappropriate times. TeethTap could provide discreet gestures that are eyes-free and hands-free to operate a call with two gestures: back double (accept the call) and back single (reject call/hand up). The accuracy of recognizing these two gestures is 98.6\% using training and testing data from the user study. Even in the remounting session, we found that TeethTap could still successfully recognize these two gestures at an accuracy of 94.6\%.
\subsection{Integrating TeethTap to existing head-worn devices}
The current form factor is an independent earpiece, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:earpiece1}. However, we envision TeethTap could be easily adopted into the form factor of existing earphones, headphones, VR headsets or Glass frame technologies. The key integration step is to attach IMUs and contact microphones behind the ear. The form factor could be an extended piece attaching to a Glass frame. Sensors could also be embedded in headphones, following the curvature of the headphone ear-pad around the back of the ear. We believe that integrating such a change would require only hardware alterations, with no changes in the algorithm being necessary.
\subsection{Improving the performance of session-independent models}
The goal of TeethTap is to provide a user-dependent, but session-independent technology to recognize discrete teeth gestures. In other words, the user needs to provide a few training samples ( e.g. five instances per gesture) when they use TeethTap for the first time. However, they should not have to recollect training data every time they wear the device. The testing results from the fifth session showed that after taking off the device and putting it back on again, the recognition accuracy of TeethTap decreased to around 85.3\%. Apparently, there is room for improvement in the performance.
There are several potential solutions that can help improve TeethTap's performance as a session-independent input technology. Firstly, we can improve the design of the form factor, by improving its precision in applying consistent pressure to the same areas of the body every time it is put on. After all, form factor displacement between sessions is the primary reason for this performance decrease across sessions. Secondly, we can further process sensor data (e.g. normalization) to account for deviations in form factor positioning. Lastly, we could also consider utilizing acoustic sensor data in the gesture classification process (not just the segmentation process), as wearing a position would likely have less of an effect on the acoustic sensor. For instance, we can calculate energy differences between the left and right acoustic sensors to reliably dictate whether an incoming gesture comes from the left side or right side of the mouth.
\section{Limitation and Future Work}
TeethTap demonstrates the proof-of-concept for detecting a rich set of discrete teeth gestures using an earpiece. However, we do find several limitations and future work from our user evaluation and prototype design.
In the current user study, we did not evaluate TeethTap's performance in recognizing 13 gestures when the user is in motion (e.g. walking, running), which can be limiting in the context of daily life. In the future, we plan to further optimize our system to be functional while the user is moving. There are a few solutions we plan to explore to achieve this feat: 1) we plan to build two separate models---one for static posture and the other for motion---allowing our system to toggle between modes depending on context; 2) we plan on collecting a larger set of training samples and using more advanced machine learning techniques. Furthermore, our participants were from 21 to 34, which lead to being unknown about how well do aging population perform in our study by using our system. In future work, we will further conduct a study with older adults and also discover how well does TeethTap help people with motor impairments who have problems using their smart devices to provide input commands. Although we claimed the existing limitations of our current work, we do believe the current approach has proved the feasibility of leveraging motion tracking on earpieces and combined with noise-filtering from acoustic sensing to recognize different teeth gestures.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present TeethTap, a wearable technology that can recognize up to 13 discrete teeth gestures. It uses an earpiece which attaches an IMU sensor and a contact microphone behind both the left and right ears. A KNN-based (with the distance measurement of DTW) algorithm is developed for gesture recognition. A user study with 11 participants shows that it can recognize 13 gestures with an accuracy of 90.9\%. We also uncovered the importance of having both-side earpiece available when recognizing position-based gestures comparing with the left-only or right-only earpiece. We further showed the sufficiency of only using a single earpiece to leverage motion sensing to recognize `manner' based gestures. In the discussion, we introduced the approach of reducing false positives through an in-the-wild evaluation with an activation gesture. We also discussed the opportunity and challenges of widely deploying TeethTap on real-world devices in the future. We believe that by fusing motion and acoustic sensing into a minimalist earpiece, TeethTap offers a promising set of novel eyes-free interaction gestures for future applications.
\begin{acks}
This work is supported by Information Science Department at Cornell University. We thank participants for participating the study, reviewers for their thoughtful feedback, and lab members in Cornell SciFi lab for their early feedback on the paper and system design.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction and Motivation}
Storytelling is central to human communication. People use stories to communicate effectively with one another. As humans, we engage with well-told stories and comprehend more information from stories \cite{suzuki_dialogues_2018}. However, when it comes to automatic storytelling, computers still have a long way to go. The field of automated story generation, or computational narrative, has received more attention because of recent technological enhancements. The importance of computational narrative is that it can improve human interaction with intelligent systems. Storytelling helps computers communicate with humans \cite{riedl_computational_2016}, and automated story generation drives improvements in natural language processing. Computational narrative research involves story understanding, story representation, and story generation. In this survey, we will focus on the story generation capabilities of computational systems.
Many surveys were written on different facets of computational storytelling. \cite{gervas2009computational} provides a chronological summary of storytelling systems focusing on computational creativity, measured using metrics including the stories' novelty and the users' involvement in the storytelling process. \cite{riedl2013interactive} focuses on interactive intelligence, a digital interactive storytelling experience where users interact with the computational system to build storylines. The survey paper touches on generating narrative structures and character building. \cite{riedl_computational_2016} discusses human-centered computational narrative and how it can improve artificial intelligence applications. The paper shed some light on machine learning challenges concerned with story generation and commonsense reasoning. Nevertheless, it does not go into these challenges in-depth as it is not its primary focus point.
Past survey papers focused primarily on story generation using specific approaches or on specific sub-problems in story generation. For example, \cite{7439785} summarizes progress in the areas of plot and space generation without much discussion around neural language models. \cite{survey_deep} examine different deep learning models used in story generation and categorize them by their goals. However, there is still motivation to organize a survey in a different manner. The process of automatically generating a logically-coherent and interesting narrative is complex. Therefore, it might be more beneficial detailing the major problems present in the field and techniques used to address them rather than summarizing different types of models. For people who are new in the field, our survey should serve as a decent starting point for conducting innovative research in the field.
Some of the survey papers, albeit comprehensive, do not include the latest development in story generation because of transformers. \cite{riedl2013interactive} chronicles interactive narrative prior to 2013, yet the discussed approaches do not include large-scale neural language models, which we have access to now and has been fueling new research in the field. Another example would be the paper by \cite{gervas2009computational}, where the author comments on storytelling systems and different evaluation criteria for creativity; similarly, all of the systems consist of planning and no neural approaches.
We acknowledge that more survey papers exist with different areas of focus within the domain of computational narratives, such as Narrative theories \citep{cavazza_narratology_2006}, Interactive Intelligence \citep{luo_review_2015}, Drama Management \citep{roberts_survey_2008}, Plan-based story generation \citep{young_plans_2013}.
It has been demonstrated that the field of automated story generation has a gap in up-to-date survey papers. Our paper, by laying out all the prominent research problems in story generation and previous literature addressing these issues, will fill this gap.
The scope of this survey paper is to explore the challenges in automatic story generation. We hope to contribute in the following ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Explore how previous research in story generation addressed those challenges.
\item Discuss future research directions and new technologies that may aid more advancements.
\item Shed light on emerging and often overlooked challenges such as creativity and discourse.
\end{enumerate}
There are several important background concepts crucial to understanding the problem of story generation. Automated story generation is a process involving the use of computer systems to create written stories, often involving artificial intelligence (AI). Story generation requires story understanding and representation, which are usually handled by natural language processing. Hence, the first concentration in this paper is content encoding and comprehension. A system is conventionally defined as capable of story comprehension if it, given a textual story, can read and answer questions about it \citep{lehnert1983boris, reeves1991computational}. Recently, state-of-the-art neural text generation models (such as GPT-2 \citep{radford2019language}), are used to generate stories. These models are trained on the WebText corpus, a collection of texts scraped from the internet. Hence, the key challenge of applying these language models to story generation is to ensure that the generated story remains on topic and maintains entity and event consistencies. In our paper, we consider the following two concepts as crucial starting points: Controllability -- having human inputs influence the generation results (Section~\ref{sec:co} of the paper), and commonsense -- narrative systems with pre-existing knowledge that would help generate coherent stories (Section~\ref{sec:cs} of the paper).
\section{Method}
\subsection{Controllability in Story Generation}
\label{sec:co}
The controllability problem in story generation is the user input's ability to influence the generation results. Such influence often takes the form of a plot the user wishes the system to adhere to when producing a new narrative. Controlling story generation is a significant challenge that gained more attention in the last few years due to the limitations of neural-based story generation approaches. Most modern story generators use Neural based techniques that need little to no manual modeling to generate stories. Neural based models solve the lack of novelty issues found in the symbolic systems due to their unstructured generation. Yet, this advance comes at the cost of less controllability and plot coherence. In this section, we shed light on a few approaches to the problem of controllability, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and compare their methodologies.
\textbf{Reinforcement Learning}. \cite{tambwekar2018controllable} aimed at controlling the story plot by controlling its ending and events order. They proposed a deep reinforce approach to controlled story generation with a reward shaping technique to optimize the pre-trained sequence to sequence model in \citep{martin2017event}. Their reward function encompasses two main parts, the distance to the goal verb and the story verb frequency. The distance to the goal verb measures how many lines between a generated verb and the goal verb in training stories. Simultaneously, the story verb frequency counts the stories with both the goal verb and the generated verb. They evaluated their model on plot coherence and goal achievement, length, and perplexity. Their method was better than their base model alone in the aspects being assessed. However, this approach requires training the model for every new goal, which can be inconvenient for the users. Another drawback to this model is it uses the sequence to sequence model in \citep{martin2017event}, which generates stories as sequences of objects encapsulating the sentence components (verb and subject) that require translation to full sentences.
\textbf{Model Fusion}. \cite{fan2018hierarchical} attempts to solving the plot controllability problem by dividing the generation process into two levels of hierarchy a premise and a story. The premise provides an overall sketch of the story, which was utilized to write the story. This fusion model combines a convolutional sequence to sequence model with a self-attention mechanism to improve generated story quality. A convolutional network first generates a writing prompt which then, becomes the input to the sequence to sequence model and guide it in generating a story conditioned on the prompt. Their model was superior in both human evaluations and perplexity scores than a traditional sequence to sequence method. Conditioning on the generated premise makes the generated story plot consistent and has an improved long-term dependency. Overall, this approach improves the shortcomings of the previous work by writing the stories directly and being conditioned for different prompts without retraining. Yet this model also has its limitations. First, it relies heavily on random sampling for the generation, which is prone to errors. Second, it suffers from text repetition in the generated stories. Lastly, the generated prompts are generic and less interesting than human written writing prompts, which often generates boring stories.
\textbf{Plan and Write}. \cite{yao_plan-and-write_2019} proposed the Plan-and-write story generation framework. The authors leveraged some of the characteristics of symbolic planning and integrated it into a neural system. Their work improves the previous literature in that it uses the titles to generate controlled storylines rather than the auto-generated writing prompts directly. They utilize storyline planning to improve the generated stories' quality and coherence and thus control the generation. They explore several story planning strategies to see their effect on story generation. This framework takes as an input the title of the story and then generates a storyline. The storyline and the title are then used as input to control the story generation in a sequence to sequence model. They also proposed two metrics to evaluate their model, inter-story repetition, and intra-story repetition. The evaluations showed that the model is more superior to the used conditional language model baselines. Those evaluations also showed that the model suffers from several major problems: repetition, going off-topic, and logical inconsistencies. It also utilizes a sequential language model to approximate the story plot, which simplifies the structure and depth of a good story plot, suggesting that generating coherent and logical story plots is still far from being solved.
\textbf{Generation by Interpolation}. \cite{wang2020narrative} introduced a generation-by-interpolation story generation model. While previously introduced methods require minimal human input, they still suffer from logical inconsistencies and off-topic wandering. The generation by interpolation model is designed to overcome these challenges. It is an ending-guided model that is better than storyline-guided models because, in the storyline-guided, the model can easily be misled by a very general prompt.
In contrast, an ending-guided model can use a single ending sentence to develop a good story plot. Their ending-guided method centers on conditioning the generation on the first and last sentences of the story. Where a GPT-2 model \cite{radford2019language} generates several candidates for a storyline, and then these candidates are ranked based on their coherence scores using a RoBERTa model\citep{roberta}. Then the sentence with the highest coherence with the first and last sentence is chosen and then generated. Their evaluations demonstrate the informativeness of the ending guide and the effectiveness of the coherence ranking approach. The generated stories were of higher quality and better coherence than previous state-of-the-art models. The model's human evaluations suggested that good stories' assessment needs better and deeper evaluation metrics to match how humans define an excellent story, for example, measuring how the organization of events and characters can constitute better narratives. Lastly, using a transformer-language-model-based system improved the model's coherence and repetition. However, it showed that it could not manage commonsense inference beyond a small extend and thus established the need to integrate more human knowledge into the model.
\textbf{Plot Machines}. \cite{rashkin2020plotmachines} proposed a transformer-language-model-based system that generates multi-paragraph stories conditioned on specified outlines for these stories. This model shows improvements in the narrative over the previous work. The approach utilizes memory state tracking and discourse structures to better control the generated story plot and keep track of the generated lines to maintain the coherence. The outlines are represented with an unordered list of high-level, multi-word descriptions of events occurring in the story. At every step, the model generates based on the representation of the given outline, the high-level discourse representation, the preceding story context, and the previous memory. Discourse representation is an encoding of the type of paragraph the current paragraph is, including introduction (\texttt{\_i\_}), body (\texttt{\_b\_}), and conclusion (\texttt{\_c\_}), which is appended to the outline representations at every time step. The preceding story context is the same as the hidden state vectors output by the transformer's attention blocks upon feeding generated sentences into a static GPT-2 model. Finally, the memory is a concatenated vector containing both the generated tokens and an encoded state of the story. When evaluated based on human preferences, the proposed system outperforms baseline models, including Fusion \citep{radford2018improving}, GPT-2 \citep{radford2019language}, and Grover \citep{grover} in metrics measuring logical ordering, narrative flow, and the level of repetitiveness. In PlotMachines, the conditioning of generation depended on a general outline that includes events and phrases for ease of extraction. Even with the better performance in PlotMachines, the stories can benefit from incorporating a comprehensive plot outline such as the output of an event-based planning system that can improve the generated stories' depth and interestingness.
Narrative controllability is still an open challenge for automatic story generation. Albeit being an active research area in natural language generation, we can attribute some of its problems to the new technologies that were essentially used to improve it, which manifested after introducing neural-based systems to story generation models. As summarized in table \ref{tab:control} in appendix \ref{appendix:a}, narrative controllability approaches are typically ending-focused or storyline-focused. In the ending focused, the goal is to generate a story with a specific desired ending. An example of these such systems are \citep{tambwekar2018controllable, wang2020narrative}. Whereas in the storyline focused, the generated stories would follow an outline of the plot. \citep{rashkin2020plotmachines, yao_plan-and-write_2019, fan2018hierarchical} are examples of such systems. Both approaches reflect different controllability goals which needs to be addressed when comparing generation systems. We also notice a shift from Seq2Seq models \citep{tambwekar2018controllable, fan2018hierarchical, yao_plan-and-write_2019} to transformer based architecture in newer models \citep{rashkin2020plotmachines, wang2020narrative}.
After examining those solutions we notice that there are three main challenges that needs to be solved. First, controlled models generally suffer from low creativity and interestingness, which is obvious, especially in more rigid controls such as story outlines. Second, the evaluation metrics for the controllability of automatic story generation systems are neither sufficient nor unified, making it harder to evaluate and compare systems. Third, despite the controls added to the generation process, we still need to improve the coherence and logical plot generation. Those challenges are an open invitation for more research in controllability.
\subsection{Commonsense Knowledge in Story Generation}
\label{sec:cs}
Commonsense is regarded obvious to most humans\citep{cambria2011isanette}, and comprises shared
knowledge about how the world works \citep{nunberg1987position}.
Commonsense serves as a deep understanding of language.
Two major bottlenecks here are how to acquire commonsense knowledge and incorporate it into state-of-the-art story-telling generation systems.
\subsubsection{Benchmarks}
Before integrating commonsense knowledge into neural language models, the models often are trained on commonsense knowledge bases, datasets containing information detailing well-known facts or causal relationships. We will first introduce these benchmarks, which target commonsense.
\textbf{ConceptNet}. ConceptNet by \citet{speer2017conceptnet} is a large semantic knowledge graph that connects words and phrases of natural language with labeled edges, describing general human knowledge and how it is expressed in natural language. The data is in form of triples of their start node, relation label, and end node. For example, the assertion that “a dog has a tail” can be represented as (dog, HasA, tail). It lays the foundation of incorporating real-world knowledge into a variety of AI projects and applications. What's more, many new benchmarks extract from ConceptNet and serve other utilities.
\textbf{CommonsenseQA}. CommonsenseQA by \citep{talmor2019commonsenseqa} is a benchmark extracting from ConceptNet's multiple target
concepts, which have the same semantic relation, to a single source concept.
It provides a challenging new dataset for commonsense question answering.
Each question requires one to disambiguate a target concept from three connected concepts in ConceptNet.
The best pre-trained LM tuned on question answering, can only get 55.9\% accuracy on CommonsenseQA, possessing important challenge for incorporating commonsense into large language model.
\textbf{ATOMIC}. \cite{sap2019atomic} presented ATlas Of MachIne Commonsense (ATOMIC), an atlas for commonsense knowledge with 877K textual descriptions of nine different types \textit{If-then} relations.
Instead of capturing general commonsense knowledge like ConceptNet, ATOMIC focuses on sequences of events and the social commonsense relating to them.
The purpose of the dataset is to allow neural networks abstract commonsense inferences and make predictions on previously unseen events.
The dataset is in the form of \texttt{<event, relation, event>} and is organized into nine categories such as xIntent (PersonX’s intention) and xEffect (effect on PersonX). For instance, “PersonX makes PersonY a birthday cake xEffect PersonX gets thanked”.
\textbf{GLUCOSE}. ATOMIC is person centric, hence it can not be used in sentences describing events. \citet{mostafazadeh2020glucose} constructs GLUCOSE (GeneraLized and COntextualized Story Explanations), a large-scale dataset of implicit commonsense causal knowledge, which sentences can describe any event/state. Each GLUCOSE entry is organized into a story-specific causal statement paired with an inference rule generalized from the statement. Given a short story and a sentence X in the story, GLUCOSE captures ten dimensions of causal explanations related to X. GLUCOSE shares the same purpose with ATOMIC.
\textbf{SocialIQA}. SocialIQA\citep{sap2019social} is the a large-scale benchmark for commonsense reasoning
about social situations, which provides 38k multiple choice questions.
Each question consists of a brief context, a question about the context, and three answer options.
It covers various types of inference about people’s actions being described in situational contexts. The purpose of SocialIQA is to reason about social situations.
There are also many other benchmarks involved in commonsense domain. \textbf{MCScript}\citep{ostermann2018mcscript} provides narrative texts and questions, collected based on script scenarios.\textbf{OpenBookQA}\citep{mihaylov2018can} is a question answering dataset, modeled after open
book exams for assessing human understanding of a subject.
\textbf{Cosmos QA}\citep{huang2019cosmos} provides 35k problems with multiple-choice, which
require commonsense-based reading comprehension.
What's more, technique of generating commonsense datasets are also developed. For example, \citet{davison2019commonsense} proposed a method for generating commonsense knowledge by transforming relational triples into masked sentences, and then using a large, pre-trained bidirectional language model to rank a triple’s validity by the estimated pointwise mutual information between the two entities.
\citet{schwartz2017effect} and \citet{trinh2018simple} demonstrate a
similar approach to using language models for tasks requiring commonsense, such as the Story Cloze Task and the Winograd Schema Challenge, respectively \citep{mostafazadeh2016corpus, levesque2012winograd}.
\subsubsection{Frameworks}
Three ways of applying these benchmarks on commonsense story generation are (1) fine-tuning pre-trained language models (LM) on commonsense benchmarks, (2) perceptions of causality after generating stories, and (3) incorporating benchmarks into language models encoding.
An intuition is to utilize commonsense knowledge is to train language model on commonsense datasets.
\citet{yang2019enhancing} integrates external commonsense knowledge to BERT \citep{devlin2019bert} to enhance language representation for reading comprehension.
\citet{guan2020knowledge} fine-tuned GPT-2\citep{radford2019language} on on knowledge-augmented data, ATOMIC and ConceptNet, for a better performance for commonsense story generation. They firstly transform ConceptNet and ATOMIC into readable natural language sentences and then post-trained on these transformed sentences by minimizing the negative likelihood of predicting the next token. \citet{mao2019improving} and \cite{guan2020knowledge} also fine-tuned GPT-2 on ConceptNet and the
BookCorpus\citep{kiros2015skip}.
They achieve a less perplexity and higher BLEU score,
however, these knowledge-enhanced pre-training model for commonsense story generation are still far from generating stories with long-range coherence.
Instead of directly training language models on commonsense datasets, which improves LM's logicality and grammaticality,
an alternative of incorporating commonsense into language model is to analyze perceptions of causality or overall story quality.
\cite{bosselut2019comet} extended upon the work ATOMIC by \citet{sap2019atomic} and ConceptNet by \citet{speer2017conceptnet} and trained a GPT model \citep{radford2018improving} on commonsense knowledge tuples, in the format of \texttt{<phrase subject, relationship, phrase object>}. The resulting model, \textbf{COMeT}, is capable of generating new commonsense triples on novel phrases.
With this feature, automatic generated story can be evaluated easily. The model has been proven to be efficient in learning commonsense knowledge tuples, as in humans deem most COMeT-generated triples from novel phrases to be correct. It provides a easy way of making inferece on generated text.
However, it is Sentence-level Commonsense inferences, which is only able to deal with short sentences, within 18 tokens. Story generation is usually in need of a paragraph-level commonsense inference because combining with context, the inference could be completely different.
In order to incorporates paragraph-level information to generate coherent commonsense inferences from narratives, \citet{gabriel2020paragraph} proposed a discourse-aware model \textbf{PARA-COMeT}. PARA-COMeT firstly created commonsense datasets by (1) using COMeT to provides inference on sentences in ROCStories corpus \citep{mostafazadeh2016corpus} and (2) transform inference into natural language by human-written templates, (3) then filter out those with low coherence with narrative. PARA-COMeT consists of (1) a memory-less model, focusing on extracting semantic knowledge from the context, and (2) a model augmented with recurrent memory, used for incorporating episodic knowledge. Compared with COMeT, PARA-COMeT demonstrated the effectiveness of generating more implicit and novel discourse-aware inferences in paragraph level.
\citet{ammanabrolu2020automated} also developed proposed \textbf{C}ausal, \textbf{C}ommonsense \textbf{P}ot \textbf{O}rdering(CCPO) on COMeT. CCPO establishs plot points by (1) extracting all the coreference clusters from a given textual story plot using a pre-trained neural coreference resolution model\citep{clark2016deep}, and (2)extract a set of <subject, relation, object> triples from the story text using OpenIE\citep{angeli2015leveraging}. Then a plot graph between each two plot points is generated by keep recursively querying commonsense inference on these two plot points. The automatic story is generated based on the plot graphs. CCPO successfully improves perceptions of local and global coherence in terms of causality, however its performance is restricted by commonsense inference models.
Another common method is incorporating commonsense knowledge graph into the model encoding process.
\citet{guan2019story} incorporates commonsense knowledge graph by applying features from ConceptNet\citep{speer2017conceptnet} and graph attention\citep{velivckovic2018graph} on building knowledge context vectors to represent the graph.
They significantly improve the ability of neural networks to predict the end of a story.
\citet{mihaylov2018knowledgeable} also incorporate external
commonsense knowledge into a neural cloze-style reading comprehension model.
\subsection{Other Challenges in Story Generation}
\label{sec:other}
There are issues in the story generation field that are yet to be heavily researched upon. The current emphasis of mainstream story generation research is to produce narratives with reasonable structures and plots and less on the cherries on top: fascinating and driven characters, consistent styles, and creative language and plot. Some researchers have ventured potential approaches to these currently outstanding problems, as detailed below.
\subsubsection{Characters and Entities}
How characters are motivated and interact with each other influence the progression of a story. Different approaches have been taken to model how focusing on characters can produce higher-quality generated narratives, some from the perspective of character affect, and some from entity representation in narrative generation.
\textbf{\textsc{EnGen}} \cite{clark-etal-2018-neural} presented an entity-based generation model \textsc{EnGen}, which produces narratives relying on: (1) the current sentence; (2) the previous sentence, encoded by a Seq2Seq model (S2SA); (3) dynamic, up-to-date representations of all the entities in the narrative. The entity representation vectors are based on EntityNLM \citep{ji2017dynamic}, and the vectors are updated every time their corresponding entities are mentioned. The model was evaluated on a series of tasks, including a novel mention generation task, where the model fills a slot with all previous mentions of entities, including coreferences. Similarly, the automated sentence selection task examines \textsc{EnGen}'s ability to distinguish between the ground truth continuation sentence and a distraction sentence. \textsc{EnGen} is able to out-perform both S2SA and EntityNLM for these tasks. Another task involved Mechanical Turk workers reading sentences generated by both \textsc{EnGen} and S2SA on the same prompts and deciding which continuation is more fluent. Out of the 50 prompt passages, Turkers preferred the \textsc{EnGen} stories for 27 of them, and S2SA for the rest 23, although most of the human evaluations yield similar results between the two models. Incorporating character or entity information into the context for generation can improve model performance on some automated and human-evaluated tasks. The authors contended that this design improves the fluency of the generated texts. However, the lengths of the generated segments for the human-evaluation task are very short, usually fragments of sentences. Therefore, it is unlikely that these generated texts help propel the plot. Furthermore, the paper does not indicate how the entity representations model character interactions and how these interactions contribute to the stories.
\textbf{Using Character Affinities} A dive into character interactions in particular is detailed in \cite{mendez2016use}, where the authors attempted to model character interactions using numerical affinity values. Character relationships are categorized into four types: foe (lowest affinity), indifferent (medium affinity), friend (higher affinity), and mate (highest affinity). The system consists of a Director Agent, which sets up the environment for interactions to occur, and a set of Character Agents, each representing a character. The authors defines that each Character Agent interacts with the character's foes, friends, and mates. Actions pertinent to different interactions are templated using defined interaction protocols and are relatively restricted in terms of scope. These actions are independent and can be added upon each other to alter the affinity values. The primary parameter of concern in this model is the affinity between characters, a factor related to character emotions. Although this modeling approach has been suggested for narrative generation, the authors did not provide examples of stories generated using this character affinity model. Instead, the authors presented affinity changes for different Character Agents in the story to illustrate how different affinity threshold values for foe interactions affect the affinity evolution in the narratives. The model might be considered useful for modeling character interactions, yet the effect affinity changes have on the story plot remains unclear.
\textbf{EC-CLF} \cite{brahman2020modeling} proposed a method for story generation conditioned on emotion arc of the protagonist by using reinforcement learning to train a GPT-2 model. The authors suggested two emotion consistency rewards: EC-EM and EC-CLF. EC-EM calculates how well the generated story aligns with the given arc using character reaction inferences from COMET \citep{bosselut2019comet}; it is a modified Levensthtein distance that considers the cosine similarities between words from the given arc and the COMET inferences. EC-CLF, on the other hand, involves training a BERT \citep{devlin2019bert} classifier to identify the emotion in the generated sentences; the reward value is the probability of the desired emotions throughout the narrative from the classifier head. For human-evaluated tasks such as assessing emotion faithfulness and content quality, RL-CLF (GPT-2 trained with EC-CLF reward) outperformed baselines including GPT-2 trained with the emotion arc as an additional input to the narrative examples (EmoSup) and GPT-2 trained on the reward function EC-EM. This work augmented current state-of-the-art models with the ability to generate narratives with the protagonist's emotion changes following a specified emotion arc. It is an example of how character emotions can be used to inform story progression and improve narrative quality. Despite the enhancement of generation quality, the model still only focuses on one character instead of interactions between characters.
\textbf{SRL + Entity} \cite{fan2019strategies} generated action-driven narratives by adapting the following pipeline: (1) based on the prompt given, produce an action plan with where all entities are represented with placeholder tags; (2) create an entity-anonymized story from the action plan; (3) output the full story after replacing the anonymized, generalized entities with natural language entities. Every entry in the action sequence consists of a predicate, which is a verb, and a series of arguments, which are the entities involved in the action. This representation allows models to learn more in-depth and generalizable relationships between different verbs and characters. A convolutional Seq2Seq model is trained on the prompts from the \textsc{WritingPrompts} dataset \citep{fan2018hierarchical} and their corresponding action sequences. The network has an attention head dedicated to past verbs to improve verb diversity in generations.Human preference studies showed that the novel model generated more coherent narratives than the \textit{Fusion} model from \cite{fan2018hierarchical}; additionally, the new model had more diversity in the generated verbs. The technique of abstraction and generalization can be proven useful in the story generation process, since abstractions reveal more widely-applicable rules in storytelling. Again, it is not clear if character interactions are implicitly learned by the models in this work, therefore further investigation would be required to determine if this work is suitable for multi-agent narrative generation.
In this section, we examine four works in the sub-field of character and entity-focused automated narrative generation. Generally, representing entities in certain format can improve the quality of the plotline, and character emotions can help inform the story generation process. Interactions between multiple characters are currently not the focus of the field, but it should be for potential future research.
\subsubsection{Creativity}
Creativity in human-authored narratives manifests in ways including figures of speech, character traits, and the environment for the narrative to occur in. \cite{lara-improv} developed a system for improvisational interactive storytelling based on a plot graph as a general guideline for the generated storyline. Recent introduction to transformer-based language models has inspired people generating novel contents using these language models \footnote{\url{https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3}}, including using GPT-2 to generate fantasy descriptions with explicit subjects and weblinks \citep{austin2019book}. Nonetheless, there has still not been much specific research into further improving the creativity of transformer-based language models.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
This survey discussed several directions in automatic story generation research and their respective challenges, and summarized research attempts at solving them. The research in automatic story generation is far from done. As with every new technology, new challenges arise. With automated story generation, such challenges include controlling the story content, commonsense knowledge, inferring reasonable character actions, and creativity. This survey provides a dive into some of these active research problems. This survey's value is that it is a good starting point for researchers who want to learn more about the domain and the current state-of-the-art solutions for several story generation challenges.
In Section~\ref{sec:co}, we summarized a few approaches addressing the problem of story generation controllability. We noticed that the papers we reviewed shared one of two goals, either controlling the story outline or controlling the story ending. We also observed an emerging trend towards using transformer-based language models for story generation.
In Section~\ref{sec:cs}, we introduced methods to incorporate commonsense knowledge into story generation systems and frameworks with such integrated commonsense knowledge. Frequent approaches include: (1) Fine-tuning on commonsense datasets, (2) analyzing perceptions of causality and (3) incorporating commonsense knowledge graph into encoders. These methods are able to increase the overall story quality. However, no methods can ensure the generation of reasonable and coherent stories. One potential path to major improvements in this area would be to combine all of these different approaches.
In Section ~\ref{sec:other}, we provided insight into some less-researched areas at the moment, including characters in generated narratives and the creativity of generated stories. Incorporating representations of entities into the generation process seems to improve the coherence of the plot, and character affect can help navigate the generation space as well. Extending the work in character affect from single character to multi characters can perhaps further enhance the generated narratives. There has not been much emphasis on the creativity of generated texts.
Additionally, we highlight a few future research problems that are worth exploring:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the controllability systems we examined, we noticed that the stories become less interesting when the generation process is more controlled. There is a trade-off between narrative creativity and structural coherence of narratives.
\item The evaluation metrics used are generally the metrics used for other natural language generation tasks such as BLEU, perplexity, and ROUGE. Those metrics are weak and do not perform well for this task. Moreover, the story generation domain needs different metrics to capture story-specific characteristics. Such as measures for creativity and interestingness. Besides, there is a need to develop more robust and unified metrics to facilitate comparisons between systems.
\item The problems of plot incoherence and illogical plot generation are far from being solved. Both are still very active research areas and can be an interesting future research direction.
\item Instead of sentence-level and paragraph-level commonsense inference, a story-level commonsense inference could increase the accuracy of inference and provides a better tool for generating a more logic coherent story.
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
\newcommand{\xhdr}[1]{\paragraph{\bf {#1}}}
Random graphs have long played a central role in the area of
network analysis, and one of their crucial uses has been as
{\em null models}: a way of producing families of synthetic
graphs that match observed network data on specific basic properties.
Armed with effective null models, we can take an observed network
phenomenon and ask whether a random graph with similar characteristics
would exhibit the same phenomenon or not.
This comparison to random-graph baselines is an essential
strategy, but of course the challenge is to define what we mean
by a random graph ``with similar characteristics.''
In these types of analyses, a widely-used null model --- arguably
the ubiquitous default --- is the {\em configuration model}:
given an observed network $G$, it generates random graphs sampled
uniformly at random from among all graphs with the same degree
sequence as $G$.
The configuration model has provided a powerful way of asserting
that observed properties of real networks are not simply
a consequence of the node degrees, in that they would be unlikely
in a random graph with the same degree sequence~\cite{newman2001random,fosdick2018configuring}.
Despite the widespread use of the configuration model,
it is well-understood to be an extremely weak null model, particularly
for any question involving local rather than global structure.
In particular, a random graph with a given degree sequence will
typically have very little non-trivial local structure in the
neighborhood of any given node $v$, and very little non-trivial
community structure.
Thus, real networks will almost always look very different from
the predictions of a random draw from the configuration model
on any question involving structures like local motifs or dense communities;
and these are some of the main questions for which people
seek out random graphs as baselines.
Given these limitations of the configuration model, researchers have
sought other null models in which we sample uniformly or near-uniformly
over different families of graphs defined by characteristics of
a given real network.
Stanton and Pinar, for example, show how to sample from graphs that
match an observed network $G$ not just in its degree sequence but
in the pairs of degrees $(d_i, d_j)$ arising from the edges $(i,j)$ of $G$~\cite{stanton2012constructing}.
This increases the specificity of the null model, but it continues to
lack non-trivial local or community structure.
An interesting recent step toward null models designed to exhibit
local structure was taken by Orsini et al.~\cite{orsini2015quantifying}, who generalized
and put into practice the \emph{$dK$-series} hierarchy of random graph models~\cite{mahadevan2006systematic},
where the lowest levels match the degree sequence or degree correlations
and higher-levels --- the 2.1-series and 2.5-series --- also match
statistics on triangles such as the average clustering coefficient or the sequence of clustering coefficients.
This approach comes with the obstacle, however, there are not any practical algorithms
for uniformly sampling from these subsequent levels that match more than just
degrees and pairs of degrees; as a result, while they constitute valuable
heuristics, they are not designed to provide guarantees on
near-uniform sampling from the associated family of graphs.
Thus, a basic question has remained: given an observed graph $G$,
can we construct a null model by sampling from a family of graphs matching
characteristics of $G$ in such a way that the resulting random samples
exhibit non-trivially rich local structure and community structure?
\xhdr{The present work: A null model based on the $k$-core.}
In this paper, we provide a new approach to this question,
by showing how to uniformly sample from graphs that match $G$
in its {\em k-core} properties.
The resulting samples provide random-graph baselines with
richer graph-theoretic structure than the configuration model,
and we show that they can lead to potentially different conclusions
when employed as null models.
To formulate our approach, we begin with some basic definitions.
Given a graph $G$ and a number $k$, the {\em $k$-core} of $G$
is the (unique) maximal subgraph of $G$ in which every node
has degree at least $k$;
it can be found efficiently by iteratively deleting nodes of
degree strictly less than $k$ in $G$.
(For sufficiently large $k$, $G$ will have no subgraph of
minimum degree $k$, and hence the $k$-core of $G$
for these large $k$ will be the empty graph.)
Building on this definition, we say that the {\em core-value} $c_v$ of
a node $v$ is the largest $k$ such that $v$ belongs to the $k$-core of $G$.
A long line of work in network analysis has shown that successive
$k$-cores of $G$, for $k = 0, 1, 2, ...$, provides considerable
information about the local structure of $G$, including the
regions where it exhibits denser connectivity~\cite{dorogovtsev2006k,carmi2007model,shin2016corescope,laishram2018measuring,malliaros2020core}.
This information is equivalently captured by the sequence of
core-values $c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ of the $n$ nodes of $G$.
Given this, we ask the following question:
by analogy with the configuration model, which samples uniformly
from all graphs matching the degree sequence of $G$, can we
sample uniformly (or near-uniformly) from all graphs matching
the sequence of core numbers of $G$?
We could do this in theory by brute-force rejection sampling, so
our goal is to develop reasonable algorithms for generating such samples.
This type of sampler would provide a genuinely new type of null model,
by producing random graphs that match an observed $G$ on
richer forms of structure than the degree sequence.
\xhdr{Sampling a random graph with a given core-value sequence.}
We answer this question affirmatively, by providing a method
for near-uniform sampling from graphs with a given core-value sequence.
We provide an overview of our strategy here, and give details in
the subsequent sections.
Our basic approach is to define a Markov chain whose state space
is the set of all graphs with the given core-value sequence,
and whose transitions are a set of graph
transformations that preserve the core-values.
The crux of the method, and the heart of our analysis, is the definition of a
sufficiently rich set of local transformations such that
sequences of these transformations, composed together,
are able to transform
a starting graph $G_0$ into any other graph with the same core-value sequence.
Applying random transformation to an underlying graph thus
produces a Markov chain on the set of all graphs of a given
core-value sequence.
Our results establish that
the Markov chain is strongly connected; and by adding
appropriate probabilities on the ``identity transformation'' that leaves
the graph unchanged, we can also ensure that the chain is aperiodic
and has a uniform stationary distribution.
Thus, by generating random trajectories in this Markov chain,
we can sample nearly-uniformly from the set of all graphs with
a given core-value sequence.
As part of the analysis of this sampling procedure, we solve a problem
of combinatorial interest in its own right.
When we generate our Markov chain based on a given graph $G$, then
$G$ itself provides a starting state for traversing the chain.
But if we start instead from a given core-value sequence
$c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$, then we face the following
fundamental question: is the state space associated with
$(c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n)$ non-empty?
That is, do there exist any graphs with this core-value sequence?
And if so, can we construct one?
For degree sequences in simple graphs without loops or parallel edges,
the corresponding {\em realizability question} --- characterizing
whether there exists a simple graph with a given degree sequence ---
is the subject of a famous theorem of Erd\"{o}s and Gallai~\cite{erdos1960graphs,choudum1986simple}
and the constructive Havel--Hakimi algorithm~\cite{havel1955remark,hakimi1962realizability}.
We provide a corresponding constructive characterization for the realizability of core-value sequences in simple graphs,
and this gives us a starting point in the Markov chain when provided with a core-value sequence as input.
Through computational experiments, we demonstrate some of the
basic properties of the samples produced by this Markov chain,
including how they differ systematically from the output of
the configuration model.
We then demonstrate our methods in the context of
a {\em motif-counting} application; the question here is whether
the frequencies of particular small subgraphs in a given graph $G$
are significantly higher, significantly lower, or indistinguishable
from the abundance of these subgraphs in a random-graph baseline.
We show that a comparison to random graphs matching the degree
sequence of $G$ may potentially lead to different conclusions than
this same comparison to random graphs matching the core-value sequence of $G$;
this points to some of the value in having multiple null models
based on the different families of random graphs.
It is useful to note a few additional points about these results.
First, there is a large collection of additional families of random
graphs that have been studied extensively in network analysis,
including stochastic block models, preferential attachment graphs,
Kronecker graphs, and many others.
It would be interesting to relate our family of random
graphs with a given core-value sequence to these.
But there is also an important distinction to be drawn in how these
families are generally used in practice: they are typically used
as generative models specified by optimizing a constant number of
parameters and then generating graphs whose size $n$ may be arbitrarily large.
In contrast, our approach is more closely aligned with models ---
such as the configuration model and more recent approaches such as
the $dK$-series --- based on uniform or near-uniform sampling from
a family of graphs obtained by matching a base graph $G$ on
a number of parameters (such as degrees or core-values) that are
linear in the number of nodes.
Finally, we also note the following important open question.
While we prove that random walks in our Markov chain will converge
to the uniform stationary distribution on graphs of a fixed core-value
sequence, it is an open question whether this chain can be proven to
be {\em rapidly mixing}.
This question aligns in interesting ways with the fact that despite
recent progress, we still do not have a full understanding of the mixing
properties of Markov chains on graphs with fixed degree sequences either~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.
The questions in this area are quite challenging, though
computational evidence is consistent with the premise that
these chains tend to mix well in practice~\cite{milo2003uniform,stanton2012constructing}.
As in those cases, our computational experiments also suggest that
random walks are sampling our state space effectively in practice,
indicating the utility of our Markov-chain methods.
Establishing provable bounds is thus a valuable and potentially
quite challenging further question, and recent techniques
in the theory of rapidly mixing Markov chains might be valuable here.
\subsection{Additional related work}
There are a large number of random graph models that are used for network
analysis, and we refer to surveys by Sala et al.~\cite{sala2010measurement} and
Drobyshevskiy and Turdakov~\cite{drobyshevskiy2019random} for a more expansive
discussion. The models most relevant to our paper are those that are employed
as ``null models,'' where the goal is to sample uniformly from the set of all
graphs satisfying a certain property and then evaluate how likely other properties are under the null.
The \emph{configuration model},
which samples uniformly from the set of graphs with a prescribed degree sequence, is broadly used~\cite{bender1978asymptotic,bollobas1980probabilistic,molloy1995critical,molloy1998size,artzy2005generating,newman2001random,fosdick2018configuring}.
There are several variants of the configuration model for dealing with
simple graphs, self-loops, and multi-edges; these details and a host of applications are covered
in depth in the survey by Fosdick et al.~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.
Furthermore, there are a number of configuration-type models for other relational data models such as
hypergraphs~\cite{chodrow2020configuration} and simplicial complexes~\cite{young2017construction}.
The Chung--Lu model is similar to the configuration model but samples from from graphs whose expected
degree sequence is the same as the one that is given~\cite{chung2002average,chung2002connected,chung2004spectra}.
The space of graphs with a fixed degree sequence is a special case of the more general $dK$-graphs, which
specifies degree correlation statistics for subgraphs of size
$d$~\cite{mahadevan2006systematic} (the configuration model corresponds to $d = 1$).
Pinar and Stanton~\cite{stanton2012constructing} developed a uniform sampler for
the $d = 2$ case, which generates graphs with a prescribed \emph{joint} degree distribution.
Further generalizations of the $dK$-graphs include those with
prescribed degree correlations and clustering
statistics~\cite{gjoka2013,colomer2013deciphering,orsini2015quantifying}. All
of these techniques rely on MCMC samplers, but those for the $d \geq 3$ cases or
these generalized $dK$-graphs do not guarantee uniform samples. We also use
MCMC sampling, but we can guarantee that the stationary distribution is uniform
over the space of graphs with a specified $k$-core sequence.
A major application of null models is the determination of important small subgraph patterns,
often called \emph{network motifs}~\cite{shen2002network,milo2002network,milo2004superfamilies,sporns2004motifs,kovanen2011temporal}.
In these applications, small subgraphs are counted in the real network and the null model, and those appearing
much more or less in the data compared to the null are deemed interesting for study.
We include a set of experiments that revisits network motifs to see which are significant under our $k$-core null model.
\section{Generating Random Graphs with a Given Core-Value Sequence}
\def{\bf c}{{\bf c}}
\def\mathcal H{\mathcal H}
\def\H_\c{\mathcal H_{\bf c}}
\def\mathcal S{\mathcal S}
\def\S_\c{\mathcal S_{\bf c}}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\rule{2mm}{2mm}{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
\newcommand{\omt}[1]{}
\newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\mv}[2]{\begin{itemize} \item {\em Move {#1}. {#2}} \end{itemize}}
For generating a random graph with a given core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$, we will proceed as follows.
First, we define the {\em state space} $\S_\c$ to be the set of
all graphs with core-value sequence equal to ${\bf c}$.
In this section, as in the rest of the paper,
all graphs are undirected and {\em simple}, with no self-loops
or parallel edges.
We will define a set of {\em moves} that apply to a graph $G \in \S_\c$;
each move transforms $G$ into another graph $G' \in \S_\c$
(where possibly $G' = G$).
The moves are defined such that if there is a move from $G$ to $G'$,
there is also one from $G'$ to $G$.
This allows us to define an undirected graph $\H_\c$ on the state space $\S_\c$,
in which $G$ and $G'$ are connected by an edge (or potentially
by several parallel edges) if there is a move that transforms $G$ into $G'$.
Let $\Delta$ be the maximum number of legal moves out of any one
$G \in \H_\c$.
We now define a random walk with self-loops as follows:
For a graph $G$ with $D \leq \Delta$ legal moves out of it, the
random walk remains at $G$ with probability $1 - D / (2 \Delta)$,
and with probability $D / 2 \Delta$, it chooses one of the
$D$ legal moves out of $G$.
Our main technical result is to
show that for any two graphs $G_1, G_2 \in \S_\c$, it is
possible to apply a sequence of moves that tranforms $G_1$ into $G_2$.
This means that the undirected graph $\H_\c$ we have defined is connected,
and so the random walk we have defined converges from any starting point
to a unique stationary
distribution that (by the definition of the transition probabilities)
is uniform on $\S_\c$.
We can therefore run the Markov chain from an arbitrary starting point,
and the graph we have after $t$ steps will become arbitrarily close
to a uniform graph with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$.
For the starting point, we can either use a given input graph,
or we can start directly from a core-value sequence ${\bf c}$ and
construct a graph that realizes this sequence, if one exists.
We show first how to efficiently perform this latter operation, constructing a
graph from a core-value sequence.
\subsection{The realization problem for core-value sequences}
Given a sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$,
how can we efficiently determine if there is a graph that has this
as its core-value sequence, and to construct such a graph if one exists?
Erdos and Gallai solved the analogous problem for degree sequences
\cite{erdos1960graphs,choudum1986simple},
and here we give an efficient algorithm for core-value sequences.
Since core-values are define by degrees of subgraphs, it is useful
to have some initial terminology for degree sequences as well.
Recall that a graph is called {\em $d$-regular} if all of its
node degrees are equal to $d$.
We observe the following.
\begin{stmt}
If $d$ is an even number, there exist $d$-regular graphs on every
number of nodes $n \geq d+1$.
If $d$ is an odd number, there exists a $d$-regular graph on $n \geq d+1$
nodes if and only if $n$ is even.
\label{stmt:regular-exists}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
There are many natural constructions; here is one that is easy to describe.
We label the nodes $0, 1, \ldots, {n-1}$ and interpret addition
modulo $n$ (thus imagining the nodes organized in clockwise order).
When $d$ is even,
connect each node $i$ to the $d/2$ nodes on either side of it in this order:
${i - d/2}, i - (d/2) + 1, \ldots i + (d/2)$.
When $d$ is odd and $n$ is even,
connect each node $i$ to the nodes
${i - (d-1)/2}, i - ((d-1)/2) + 1, \ldots i + ((d-1)/2)$ as well as
the ``antipodal'' node in the clockwise order, $i + (n/2)$.
Finally, we note that in any graph, the sum of the degrees of all
nodes must be an even number (since every edge is counted twice),
and therefore when $d$ is odd, any $d$-regular graph must have
an even number of nodes.
\end{proof}
It will be useful to be able to talk about ``almost regular''
graphs when $d$ is odd and $n$ is odd, so we say that a graph $G$
is {\em $d$-uniform} if (i) $d$ is even and $G$ is $d$-regular;
or (ii) $d$ is odd, $G$ has an even number of nodes, and $G$ is $d$-regular;
or (iii) $d$ is odd, $G$ has an odd number of nodes, and $G$ consists
of a single node of degree $d+1$ with all other nodes having degree $d$.
By slightly extending the construction from the proof of
\rf{stmt:regular-exists} to handle case (iii) in this definition as well,
we have
\begin{stmt}
For all $d$ and all $n \geq d+1$,
there exists a $d$-uniform graph on $n$ nodes.
\label{stmt:uniform-exists}
\end{stmt}
We now consider the set of $c$-cores of $G$, for $c = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$,
where again the $c$-core $\Gamma_c$ is the unique
maximal subgraph of minimum degree $c$.
(In cases where it is clear from context, we will sometimes use
$\Gamma_c$ to denote the set of nodes in the $c$-core, as well as the
subgraph itself.)
The following construction procedure for the $c$-cores of $G$
will be useful in the proofs as well.
\begin{itemize}
\item We first define $\Gamma_0$ to be all of $G$.
\item Having constructed $\Gamma_c$ for a given $c$, we then repeatedly
delete any node of degree at most
$c$ from $\Gamma_c$, updating the degrees as we go,
until no more deletions are possible.
(Note that while all nodes in $\Gamma_c$ have degree at least $c$
at the start of this deletion process, some degrees in $\Gamma_c$ might drop
below $c$ in the middle of the process.)
Once the deletions from $\Gamma_c$ have stopped,
all of the remaining nodes have degree at least $c+1$.
Let $H$ be this subgraph of $G$.
$H$ has minimum degree $c+1$; and since no node
deleted so far can belong to any subgraph of minimum degree $c+1$,
we see that $H$ is the unique maximal subgraph with this property.
Thus $H = \Gamma_{c+1}$.
\item We proceed in this way until we encounter a $c$ for which
$\Gamma_c$ is empty; at that point, we define $c^* = c-1$, and declare
$\Gamma_{c^*}$ to be the {\em top core} of $G$.
\item We will refer to the order in which the nodes were deleted from
$G$ in this process as a {\em core deletion order}; note that there
is some amount of freedom in choosing the order in which nodes are
deleted, and all such orders constitute valid core deletion orders.
\end{itemize}
We first consider the case in which all core-values in an $n$-node graph
$G$ are the same number $c$.
Note that in this case, we must have $n \geq c+1$, since each node
must have at least $c$ neighbors.
Conversely, as long as $n \geq c+1$, we observe that a $c$-uniform graph
on $n$ nodes has all core-values equal to $c$.
Thus we have a first realization result for core-values, for the
case where all values are the same.
\begin{stmt}
For a core-value sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ where
all $c_i = c$, there exists a graph with this core-value sequence ${\bf c}$
if and only if $n \geq c+1$.
\label{stmt:realize-same-core-values}
\end{stmt}
Now, we consider an arbitrary core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
As in \rf{stmt:realize-same-core-values}, the highest $c_1 + 1$ values
must be the same in order for node $1$ to have a sufficient number of
neighbors in the top core $\Gamma_{c_1}$.
Thus, suppose $c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$.
Now, suppose $|\Gamma_{c_1}| = n_1$, where $n_1 \geq c_1 + 1$.
Let $H$ be an $n_1$-uniform graph on the nodes $1, 2, \ldots, n_1$.
For each node $j > n_1$, we attach it to an arbitrary set of $c_j$ nodes
in $H$, resulting in a graph $G$ on the nodes $1, 2, \ldots, n$.
We now claim
\begin{stmt}
The graph $G$ has core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
\label{stmt:realize-core-value-construct}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
By construction, the $n_1$ nodes $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq n_1$
all have $c_i = c_1$; they all belong to $H$ and hence have
core-value equal to $c_1$.
For $j > n_1$, note that it belongs to the subgraph induced
on the nodes $\{1, 2, \ldots, j\}$; since the minimum degree
in this subgraph is $c_j$, we have $j \in \Gamma_{c_j}$.
But since the degree of $j$ is $c_j$, we also have
$j \not\in \Gamma_{c_j + 1}$, and hence the core-value of $j$
is $c_j$, as required.
\end{proof}
From \rf{stmt:realize-core-value-construct} it follows that $G$
realizes the given core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
Since the only assumption on ${\bf c}$ was that $c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$,
we have the following theorem about realization of
core-value sequences.
\begin{stmt}
A sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ is the
core-value sequence of a simple graph if and only if
$c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$; and when this condition holds, there
is an efficient algorithm to construct a graph with core-value sequence
equal to ${\bf c}$.
\label{stmt:realize-core-value-condition}
\end{stmt}
\subsection{A Markov Chain on All Graphs with a Given Core-Value Sequence}
In the previous subsection, we showed how to construct a single
member of the state space $\S_\c$ consisting of all graphs
with core-value sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
We now define a {\em move set} on this state space,
providing ways of transforming a given graph in $\S_\c$ into other
graphs in $\S_\c$.
For each move that transforms a graph $G$ to $G'$, there will also
be a move transforming $G'$ to $G$;
thus, the graph $\H_\c$ on $\S_\c$ in which $G$ and $G'$
are adjacent when there is a move transforming one directly into the other
is an undirected graph.
Let $G$ be a graph with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
We note that sorting the nodes in the decreasing
sequence of their indices $n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$
constitutes a core deletion order for $G$, and we will use this
fact at certain points in the analysis.
The first set of moves is
\mv{1}{Add and Delete. For any nodes $(i,j)$ not connected by an edge in $G$,
we can add the edge $(i,j)$ provided that no core-values are affected.
Similarly, for an edge $(i,j)$ of $G$, we can delete $(i,j)$ provided
that no core-values are affected.}
Given that we only add or delete edges when the core-values are unaffected,
the resulting graph $G'$ is also in $\S_\c$ by definition.
The remaining moves alter multiple edges at once, while preserving
all core-values.
The second set of moves is
\mv{2}{Move Endpoint. Let $h, i, j$ be nodes of $G$ such that
$c_j < \min(c_h, c_i)$, with $(h,j)$ an edge of $G$ and
$(i,j)$ not an edge of $G$.
We delete $(h,j)$ and insert $(i,j)$.}
We claim
\begin{stmt}
If $G \in \S_\c$ and we apply an instance of
{\em Move Endpoint} involving nodes $h, i, j$, then the resulting
graph $G'$ is also in $\S_\c$.
\label{stmt:move-endpoint-valid}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
Consider the core deletion order $n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$ in $G$;
we consider nodes in this same order in $G'$ and analyze their core-values.
Note that $j > \max(h,i)$ since $c_j < \min(c_h, c_i)$.
First, all nodes $j' > j$ have the same edges into $\{1, 2, \ldots, j'-1\}$
in both $G$ and $G'$, so all of them will get the same core-value
and can be deleted in the same order.
Next, $j$ has the same number of edges into $\{1, 2, \ldots, j-1\}$
in both $G$ and $G'$, so it can still be deleted when we encounter
it in this order in $G'$, and it will get the same core-value as as well.
Finally, once $j$ is deleted, the subgraphs of $G$ and $G'$ induced
on the set of nodes $\{1, 2, \ldots, j-1\}$ are identical, and
so the ordering $j-1, j-2, \ldots, 2, 1$ forms a core deletion order
in both.
From this, it follows that the sequence of core-values is the same
in $G$ and $G'$, and hence the {\em Move Endpoint} operation
preserves the core-value sequence.
\end{proof}
The third set of moves is
\mv{3}{Core Collapse and Core Expand.
Let $h, i, j$ be nodes of $G$ with $c_h > c_i$ and $c_i = c_j$.
If $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ are both edges of $G$ but $(i,j)$ is not,
the Core Collapse operation deletes $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ and inserts $(i,j)$,
provided that no core values are affected.
Analogously, if $(i,j)$ is an edge of $G$ but $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ are not,
the Core Expand operation deletes $(i,j)$ and inserts $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$,
again provided that no core values are affected.
We will also allow ``half-move'' versions of Core Collapse and Core Expand,
again only in the case where no core values are affected:
in the half-move version of Core Collapse, only one of $(h,i)$ or $(h,j)$
is deleted; and in the half-move version of Core Expand,
only one of $(h,i)$ or $(h,j)$ is inserted.
}
This concludes the description of the moves.
We now analyze their global properties in the state space $\S_\c$.
\subsection{Connectivity of the State Space}
Recall that our strategy is to use the set of moves specified
in the previous subsection to define an undirected graph $\H_\c$ on the state
space $\S_\c$ of all graphs with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
We now show that $\H_\c$ is connected --- that is,
for any graphs $G_1, G_2 \in \S_\c$, there is a sequence of moves that
transforms $G_1$ into $G_2$.
If we then define a random walk on $\H_\c$ with each edge out of a
given state chosen uniformly, and self-loop probabilities at each state
set as at the start of the section,
the resulting process is connected and aperiodic, with a uniform stationary
distribution that it converges to from any starting point.
It therefore remains only to establish the connectivity of $\H_\c$.
To do this, we consider two arbitrary graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ in $\S_\c$,
and we describe a path connecting $G_1$ and $G_2$ in $\H_\c$.
In order to do this, it is useful to recall a small amount of terminnology:
the {\em top core}, as before, consists of the nodes with the
highest core-value $c_1$.
Suppose that there are $n_1$ such nodes;
that is, $c_{n_1} = c_1$ and $c_{n_1 + 1} < c_1$.
Let $V_1 = \{1, 2, \ldots, n_1\}$ be the set of nodes in the top core.
Finally, for simplicity of exposition, we will assume for most
of this discussion that $c_1 > 2$.
This condition applies to all the intended applications of our methods, since
graphs with $c_1 \leq 2$ are much simpler in structure than
the networks we work with in general.
Moreover, the assumption $c_1 > 2$ can be removed with additional work;
at the end of the section we describe how to achieve analogous results for
the remaining cases of $c_1 = 2$ and $c_1 = 1$.
We construct the path from $G_1$ to $G_2$ in a sequence of steps.
Since all of our moves have analogues that perform them in the
``reverse'' direction, we can describe the construction of this path
working simultaneously
from both its endpoints at $G_1$ and $G_2$.
\xhdr{Step 1: Linking all edges to the top core.}
We first apply a sequence of moves to $G_1$ designed to produce
a graph $G_1'$ that has the same core-value sequence ${\bf c}$,
in which all edges have at least one end in the set $V_1$.
For a number $c$,
we use $\Gamma_c$ as before to denote the $c$-core.
We consider the nodes following the order of a core deletion sequence
$n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$.
When we get to a node $i$, it has degree $c_i$ by the definition
of a core elimination sequence.
If $c_i < c_1$, then
we consider each of $i$'s incident edges $(i,j)$ in turn, and process
this edge according to the following set of cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $c_j = c_1$, then we do not need to do anything, since
the edge $(i,j)$ already has one end in the top core $V_1$.
\item If $c_1 > c_j > c_i$, then we apply Move Endpoint
to delete $(i,j)$ and replace it with an edge $(h,i)$
for any node $h \in V_1$ that is not currently a neighbor of $i$.
Such a node $h$ must exist since $|V_1| \geq c_1 + 1$ while
the degree of $i$ is $c_i < c_1$.
By \rf{stmt:move-endpoint-valid}, all core-values are preserved
by this operation.
\item If $c_j = c_i$ and
the degree of node $j$ is equal to $c_j$, then we apply the
full version of the Core Expand operation, replacing the edge
$(i,j)$ with two edges $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ to any node $h \in V_1$
that is not a neighbor of either.
(By applying a sequence of Move Endpoint operations prior to this
Core Expand operation, we can ensure that there is at least one
node $h \in V_1$ that is not a neighbor of either $i$ or $j$.)
We claim that $i$ and $j$ still have core-values equal to $c_i$
after this operation: their core-values are at least $c_i$ since
the nodes in $\Gamma_{c_i}$ still have minimum degree $c_i$;
and their core-values are at most $c_i$ since their degrees are
equal to $c_i$.
Since all other nodes have the same core-values before and after
this operation, the core-value sequence of the graph has been preserved.
\item If $c_j = c_i$ and
the degree of node $j$ is greater than $c_j$, then we apply the
half-move version of the Core Expand operation, replacing the edge
$(i,j)$ with the single edge $(h,i)$ for any node $h \in V_1$
that is not a neighbor of $i$.
In this case too we claim that that $i$ and $j$ still have core-values
equal to $c_i$ after this operation.
As before, their core-values are at least $c_i$ since
the nodes in $\Gamma_{c_i}$ still have minimum degree $c_i$.
The core-value of $i$ is at most $c_i$ since its degree is $c_i$.
The core-value of $j$ is at most $c_j$ since we have removed an
edge incident to it, which cannot raise its core-value.
Since all other nodes have the same core-values before and after
the operation, the core-value sequence of the graph has been preserved
in this case as well.
\end{itemize}
We apply this process to each edge incident to node $i$ in turn;
and we proceed node-by-node
through the core deletion sequence in this way.
At the end of this procedure, we have the desired
graph $G_1'$: it has the same core-value sequence ${\bf c}$,
and all its edges have at least one end in the set $V_1$.
We apply the same process to $G_2$ as well, producing a graph $G_2'$
that also has the property that every edge has at least one end in $V_1.$
\xhdr{Step 2: Converting the top core to a $c_1$-uniform graph.}
Starting from $G_1'$, we next apply a sequence of moves so that
the edges with at least one end outside of $V_1$ remain the same,
but the subgraph induced on $V_1$ becomes $c_1$-uniform.
Note that this will preserve the core-value sequence, since
all nodes in $V_1$ in will still have core-value equal to $c_1$.
It will also uniquely determine the degree sequence of $V_1$, since
the degree sequence of a $d$-uniform graph graph on $n$ nodes
is uniquely determined by $d$ and $n$: it consists entirely of
the value $d$ when at least one of $d$ or $n$ is even; and it consists
of a single instance of $d+1$ and all other values equal to $d$
when both $d$ and $n$ are odd.
To make the subgraph on $V_1$ $c_1$-uniform, it suffices to apply
a sequence of moves resulting in the following property:
\begin{quote}
{\em ($\ast$) Either (i) all degrees in the subgraph induced on
$V_1$ are equal to $c$, or (ii) one node in the subgraph on $V_1$
has degree $c+1$, and all others have degree $c$.}
\end{quote}
An extension of our point in the previous paragraph is the following:
which of cases (i) or (ii) occurs is determined by $c_1$ and $n_1$:
since the sum of the degrees of all nodes in the subgraph on $V_1$ must
be even, we will be in case (i) when at least one of $c_1$ or $n_1$
is even, and otherwise we will be in case (ii).
To achieve property $(\ast)$ starting from $G_1'$, we first delete
any edge if it joins two nodes $i$ and $j$ in $V_1$
that both have degree strictly greater than $c_1$.
Since $i$ and $j$ still belong to a subgraph of minimum degree $c_1$,
their core-values are still at least $c_1$; and since the deletion
of the edge can't have increased their core-values, they are still
at most $c_1$ as well.
After this, we may assume that there are no edges joining any nodes
in $V_1$ where both ends have degree strictly greater than $c_1$.
Next, consider any node $h$ in $V_1$ of degree at least $c_1 + 2$.
By the transformations in the previous paragraph,
all of its neighbors have degree equal to $c_1$.
Let $S$ be this set of neighbors.
Each node in $S$ has an edge to at most $c_1 - 1$ other nodes in $S$,
and so there is at least one pair of nodes in $S$, say $i$ and $j$,
that are not joined by an edge.
We apply the following transformation:
We first add the edge $(i,j)$, and then we delete the edges
$(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$.
After this sequence of three Add and Delete moves,
the degrees of $i$ and $j$ remain the same, and the degree of
$h$ has been reduced by two.
Since all three nodes $h, i, j$ --- as well as all other nodes of $V_1$ ---
still have degree at least $c_1$, all core-values in $V_1$ remain $c_1$.
The final thing we must verify is that in the middle of this sequence,
after adding the edge $(i,j)$, we did not increase any core values strictly
above $c_1$, thereby taking our constructed path out of the state space $\S_\c$.
To show this, suppose that after adding $(i,j)$ (thereby increasing
their degrees to $c_1 + 1$), we delete $G - V_1$ and
all nodes of degree at most $c_1$ in $V_1$.
By the guarantee from the previous paragraph that there were no edges
connecting two nodes of degree greater than $V_1$ in $G$,
the resulting subgraph of $G$ consists of a set of isolated nodes,
together with a triangle on $\{h, i, j\}$.
By our assumption that $c_1 > 2$ (in fact, it is sufficient here that
$c_1 > 1$), no node in this subgraph has
degree greater than $c_1$, and hence the graph after the addition of
the edge $(i,j)$ continues to have an empty $(c_i + 1)$-core.
If we repeatedly apply the operation in the previous paragraph,
we arrive at a point where the subgraph on $V_1$ only has nodes of
degrees $c_1$ and $c_1 + 1$, and there are no edges between any of
the nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$.
Finally, we perform a sequence of moves to reduce the number of nodes
of degree $c_1 + 1$ to at most one.
Thus, suppose there are two nodes $h$ and $\ell$ that each have
degree $c_1 + 1$.
There are two cases to consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If there is a node $i$ that is a neighbor of one of $h, \ell$ but not the
other --- say that $i$ is a neighbor of $h$ but not $\ell$ --- then
we add the edge $(i,\ell)$ followed by deleting the edge $(h,i)$.
After doing this, $h$ has degree $c_1$ and $\ell$ has degree $c_1 + 2$;
by applying the procedure in the previous paragraph, we can then
reduce the degree of $\ell$ to $c_1$ while preserving all other
node degrees.
In this way, we have strictly reduced the number of nodes of degree
$c_1 + 1$.
\item[(ii)]
Suppose that the neighbor sets of $h$ and $\ell$ in $V_1$ are the same.
Let $T$ be this set of common neighbors of $h$ and $\ell$.
We have $|T| = c_1 + 1$, each node in $T$ has degree $c_1$, and
for each node, two of its edges go to $h$ and $\ell$, so at most
$c_1 - 2$ edges go to other nodes in $T$.
Thus there is a pair of nodes in $T$, say $i$ and $j$,
that are not joined by an edge.
We add the edge $(i,j)$ and then delete the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$;
as above, this preserves all core-values after each move, and
strictly reduces the number of nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$.
\end{itemize}
Since we can apply at least one of these two cases to strictly
reduce the number of nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$ whenever
the number of such nodes is at least two,
we can iteratively perform this reduction until the number of
nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$ is at most one.
We have therefore arrived at the desired outcome:
a graph $G_1''$ that agrees with $G_1'$ on all edges not contained
entirely in $V_1$, and with the property that the subgraph on
$V_1$ is $c_1$-uniform.
We perform the same process on $G_2'$, arriving at a graph $G_2''$
whose subgraph on $V_1$ is also $c_1$-uniform.
\xhdr{Step 3: Transforming one $c_1$-uniform top core into another.}
For a set of nodes $S$ in a graph $G$, let $G[S]$ denote the
subgraph of $G$ induced on $S$.
Since the subgraphs $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$ are both $c_1$-uniform,
their multisets of degrees are the same.
If each contains a node of degree $c_1 + 1$,
we choose an arbitrary bijection $\pi$ from $\{1, 2, \ldots, n_1\}$
to itself that maps the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ in $G_1''[V_1]$
to the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ in $G_2''[V_1]$.
Henceforth we can take this bijection as implicit, and assume
for simplicity that the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ (if any) is
the same in $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$.
Since the degree sequences of $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$
are the same, it is known via results on the {\em switch chain}
\cite{fosdick2018configuring} that we can transform one
of these subgraphs into the other by a sequence of moves of the
following form: find four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$ for which
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ are edges but $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ are not,
and replace the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$.
In our move set we do not have this operation available as a single move,
but we can accomplish it by first adding the edges
$(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ and then deleting the edges
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$.
As before, we simply need to verify that in the middle of this
sequence of two Add operations and two Delete operations,
we do not cause any nodes to achieve a core-value greater than $c_1$.
To establish this, suppose that
after the two Add operations, we delete all nodes outside $V_1$
together with all nodes in $V_1$ of degree $c_1$.
The only nodes remaining are the four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$
together with the node $m$ of degree $c_1 + 1$ (if there is one),
and the edges $(h,i)$, $(j,\ell)$, $(h,j)$, and $(i,\ell)$,
as well as any edges between $\{h, i, j, k\}$ and $m$.
Since this 5-node subgraph is not the complete graph $K_5$
(since it lacks the edges $(h,\ell)$ and $(i,j)$), it has an empty 4-core.
By our assumption that $c_1 > 2$, this means that there is no
subgraph of minimum degree $c_1 + 1$ after deleting all nodes of
degree at most $c_1$, and hence no node acquires a core-value
of greater than $c_1$ via our sequence of moves.
By applying a sequence of these switch moves, implemented
as sequences of two Add moves and two Delete moves each,
we can thus produce a graph $G_1^o$ that agrees with $G_1''$ on
all edges with at least one end outside $V_1$, and such that the subgraphs
$G_1^o[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$ are isomorphic.
\xhdr{Step 4: Concatenating the Subpaths.}
The graphs $G_1^o$ and $G_2''$ are almost the same: their
induced subgraphs on $V_1$ are isomorphic, and for each node $j > n_1$,
the node $j$ has degree $c_j$ in both, with all $c_j$ edges going to
nodes in $V_1$.
The ends of these $c_j$ edges from $j$ to $V_1$ might be different
in $G_1^o$ and $G_2''$, but by applying a sequence of Move Endpoint
operations, we can shift the endpoints of $j$'s edges
to $V_1$ so that they become the same in the two graphs.
Applying such operations to every $j > n_1$, we can thus
transform $G_1^o$ to $G_2''$ by a sequence of Move Endpoint operations
for the edges from each node $n_1 + 1, n_2 + 2, \ldots, n$ into $V_1$.
Finally, we can
concatenate all the subpaths in $\H_\c$ that we have defined using
our set of moves. This concatenation provides
the path from $G_1$ to $G_2$ in $\H_\c$: it goes via
the intermediate graphs
$$G_1, G_1', G_1'', G_1^o, G_2'', G_2', G_2$$
and the paths between each consecutive pair of graphs on this list
using the sequences of moves describes in this subsection.
Recall from the beginning of this section that if $D(G)$
is the number of moves out of a graph $G \in \S_\c$, and
$\Delta = \max_{G \in \S_\c} D(G)$, we define
a uniform random walk on the graph $\H_\c$ in which the self-loop
probability at $G$ is $1 - D(G) / (2 \Delta)$.
We have thus established that
\begin{stmt}
The graph $\H_\c$ defined by our move set on the
collection of all graphs of core-value sequence ${\bf c}$
is connected.
Moreover, the random walk on $\H_\c$ based on the self-loop
probabilities we have defined has the property that
it converges to a uniform stationary distribution from
any starting point.
\label{stmt:walk-connected-convergence}
\end{stmt}
\xhdr{Handling the case $c_1 \leq 2$.}
As noted at the start of this subsection, the exposition
has assumed that the highest core-value $c_1$ satisfies the
assumption (mild in practice) that $c_1 > 2$.
We now show how with additional work we can remove this assumption
and still achieve comparable results.
First, consider the case in which the highest core-value $c_1$
satisfies $c_1 = 2$.
The only place in the analysis
where we use the assumption that $c_1 > 2$ is in Step 3 when
we use two Add moves followed by two Delete moves to simulate the
single {\em switch move} that replaces two edges
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$;
we need to ensure that no node increases its core-value when we do this.
To handle the case $c_1 = 2$, we can thus simply enhance the Markov chain
by including switch moves in the top core:
when (i) the set of four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$ is a subset of the top core,
(ii) $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ are edges and
(iii) $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ are not edges, then we allow a single move that
replaces the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$.
This preserves all core-values even when $c_1 \leq 2$.
With this extra set of moves including switch moves in the top core,
we now have a graph $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ with more edges than $\mathcal H_{\bf c}$, and the analysis
above shows that that $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ is connected when $c_1 = 2$.
A random walk on $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ is thus sufficient to generate random graphs
with a given core-value sequence when the highest core-value is 2.
Finally, the case $c_1 = 1$ has a particularly simple structure:
the core-value sequence, for some $k$, has $k$ nodes
with core-value $1$ and $n-k$ nodes with core-value $0$.
Any $G$ with this core-value sequence
has $n-k$ isolated nodes and $k$ nodes that
form a union of trees, each of size at least 2.
We can sample directly from this set of graphs, without recourse
to the Markov chain developed here, by adapting
an algorithm for generating uniform spanning trees
\cite{wilson1996generating}: we first sample from the
size distribution of components and then sample spanning trees
of complete graphs of the chosen sizes.
\omt{
\section{Setting Up the Markov Chain}
The first step of creating a Markov chain is proving what k-core sequences are possible. This is analogous to the configuration model, where a realizability proof is required to provide a random graph with a given degree sequence. First, we prove that given a graph where all nodes have core-value $c$, we can add a new node to the graph such that this new node also has core-value $c$ without altering the core-values of the other nodes.
\begin{lemma}\label{addKNode}
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $n$ nodes, such that all nodes have core-value $k*$, then it is possible to add a new node $v'$ to the graph, only modifying edges with $v'$ as an endpoint, such that all nodes in $G$ and $v'$ have core-value $k*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Add a node $v'$ to $G$. Attach $v'$ to an arbitrary $k*$ nodes. Since $v'$ has degree $k*$, its core-value must be $\leq k*$. Thus $v'$ cannot be part of a k-core with core-value $> k*$, and its addition will not promote any node to a k-core of core-value $> k*$. Additionally, it will not demote any node to a lower k-core. Finally, since it has $k*$ connections to nodes of core-value $k*$, it must also have core-value at least $k*$. Thus all nodes in this new graph have core-value $k*$.
\end{proof}
Thus by the argument above, it is possible to have a graph of any core-value with arbitrarily large numbers of nodes. The next step is then showing that we can add nodes with other core-values. If we assume a graph consisting of core-values $c$, then we we add any nodes such that they consist of any sequence of core-values as long as those core values are all $\leq c$.
\begin{lemma}\label{addAnyNode}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with $n$ nodes that all have core-value $k*$. Let $N$ be a set of nodes. Let $N'$ be a set of intended core-values such that each core-value $n'$ in $N'$ corresponds to a node $n$ in $N$, and all intended core values are $\leq k*$ . Then $\exists$ a graph $G'=(V', E')$ that includes all nodes from G at their current core-values, and all nodes from $N$ with their intended core values from $N'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $N$ be the nodes that you wish to add to the graph. Sort this list of nodes by the intended core-value of the nodes, with the largest core-values first. We then add the nodes one by one. For each node you add, it either has a smaller core-value than all of the nodes in the graph, or it has a core-value equal to the minimum core-value of all the nodes in the graph. Following a similar argument to \ref{addKNode}, adding such a node will not impact the core-values of the graph. Thus you are able to add all of the nodes in $N$ one by one to get $G'$.
\end{proof}
Now that we've shown we can add nodes to a framework of same-core nodes, we need to show when such a framework can be created. In fact, we can create a graph where all nodes are of core-value $c$ if and only if there are at least $c+1$ nodes.
\begin{algorithm}\label{GraphofK}
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Create a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $c$ nodes all with core-value $k$}
Let $k > 0$ and $c>k$.\;
\uIf{$k$ == 1}{
Connect each node to exactly one other node in a chain\;
}\uElseIf{$k$ == 2}{
Create a circle of nodes\;
Connect each node to it's left neighbor\;
}\uElseIf{$k$ is even and $c$ is odd, or $k$ is odd and $c$ is even}{
Create a circle of nodes\;
Connect each node to it's left neighbor\;
Let $z=(c-k+1)/2$\;
\ForEach{Node $n \in V$}{
Attach to $n$ all nodes that are more than $z$ nodes to the left or right of $n$\;
}
}\uElse{
Follow the above protocol for $c=c-1$\;
Add a node to the graph, and connect it to $k$ arbitrary nodes\;
}
\caption{Create graph of only core-value $k$}
\end{algorithm}
We can now put this all together and show that we can create a graph from any core sequence provided that there are at least $c+1$ nodes of core value $c$ if $c$ is the largest core value.
\begin{algorithm}\label{GraphofAny}
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Given a list $N$ of nodes with pre-defined core values, s.t. $|N| = c$, create a graph $G=(V,E)$ using those nodes that has no self loops.}
Sort $N$ by the core-values, largest core-values first\;
Let $k > 0$ be the maximum value of $N$ and $c>k$\;
Create a graph $G'$ using Alg:\ref{GraphofK} of all the nodes of $N$ that have core-value $k$\;
Using the strategy defined in Lemma \ref{addAnyNode}, we can then add nodes from $N$ in order\;
\caption{Create graph of arbitrary core-values}
\end{algorithm}
Furthermore, it is clear that there cannot be any graph where the largest core value is $c$ and there are $\leq c$ nodes with that core value, so the above proofs cover all possible core value sequences.
\section{Proving connectivity of the Markov chain}
Now that we've established k-core realizability, we need a set of moves. These moves must satisfy two requirements: first, it must not change the core value sequence, and second every possible graph of this core value sequence must be reachable by some sequence of these moves. First, lets define these moves.
\subsection{Move Set}
We include several types of moves in our move set. For this section, we will refer to the core-value of node $n$ as $c_n$, the set of all nodes in core $k$ as $C_k$, and the maximum core-value as $K$. This is for labeled, undirected graphs with no self-loops.
\subsubsection{Move Endpoint}
Find an edge $(A, B)$ s.t. $c_A > c_B$. Find another node $D$ s.t. $c_B < c_D$. Delete $(A, B)$ and insert $(D, B)$. $B$'s core value will not change, since it still has the same number of connections to nodes of a greater core value. Similarly, $A$ and $D$ are unaffected by the edges.
\subsubsection{Core Collapse}
Find two edges $(A, B), (A,D)$ s.t.$c_A > c_B$ and $c_B = c_D$, replace both of those edges with $(B, D)$. This will not affect A, as it has a larger core-value. Similarly, $B, D$ will maintain the same number of edges to nodes of core value greater than or equal to their own, so it will not affect their core values.
\subsubsection{Core Expand}
Find and edge $(A, B)$ s.t. $c_A = c_B$. Find a node $D$ s.t. $c_D > c_A$. Remove $(A,B)$. If $A$ has fewer than $c_A$ edges to nodes of greater core value, insert $(A, D)$. Similarly, if $B$ has fewer than $c_A$ edges to nodes of greater core value, insert $(B, D)$. This does not affect the core-value of $D$. It also does not affect the core-value of $A, B$ because we ensure they have only up to $c_A$ edges to nodes of higher core-values, and their number of edges do not decrease.
\subsubsection{Add}
There are a few heuristics one can use, but essentially an edge $(A,B)$ can be added only if adding that edge does not affect the core values of any nodes in the graph. This can be ensured by adding the edge, checking the core values of the new graph, and then reverting if necessary.
\subsubsection{Delete}
Slightly easier than add, you can delete an $(A,B)$ edge if both $A$ and $B$ have $c_A$ and $c_B$ edges to nodes of equal or greater core-value respectively other than $(A,B)$.
\subsubsection{Degree Collapse}
Very similar to a core-collapse, but instead done with three nodes all with core-value $K$, where one node has greater degree than the other two rather than greater core value.
\subsubsection{Degree Expand}
Very similar to a core-expand, but instead done with three nodes all core-value $K$, but such that none lose core-value, which can be checked by attempting the degree expand and then reverting if necessary.
None of these moves will alter the core value of any node in the graph, so we can guarantee that using any sequence of them will not alter the core value sequence of the graph.
\subsection{Proving Connectivity}
Now we just need to prove that any construction of a core value sequence can be reached with some sequence of these moves. To do this, we will use a graph construction we term the 'Natural State'. A graph in its 'Natural State' consists of every node of core-value $c$ having exactly $c$ edges attached to nodes of higher core-value, and no edges to any node of its same core-value, where $c < K$.
\begin{lemma}
If we omit the degree collapse and degree expand, then, ignoring nodes of core-value $K$, we can reach a particular state we call the 'Natural State'.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we have a node $n$ with core-value $c < K$. Then $n$ must have at least $c$ edges to nodes of core-value $\geq c$. If an edge goes to a higher core, we don't care about it. If it goes to a lower core, we don't care about it. If it goes to a node of core-value $c$, though, then we need to adjust the edge. Let there be such an edge, with endpoints $n, n'$ both in core $c$. We then need to apply a core expand - this will ensure that the edge is replaced by edges to higher nodes, but also that the core-values of $n, n'$ do not change. Using core expand, we can then reach the 'Natural State' of the graph.
\end{proof}
Given that we have shown it is possible to reach the 'Natural State' for any graph, all that's left is to show that we can reach some analogue of the 'Natural State' for the nodes with the highest core value. That is, we need to show that for any number of nodes $n$ with core-value $K$, using only the moves listed it is possible to reach all constructions of $n$ nodes of core-value $K$.
\begin{lemma}
The degree collapse and degree expand are enough to move any group of nodes in core $c$ to either a $c$-regular graph or a $c$-regular graph with one extra node of degree $c+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose you have a graph consisting only of nodes in core $c$. Each node, then, has at least $c$ edges to other nodes in the graph, and it only need $c$ edges to maintain its core value. First, find any edges between two nodes each with $deg > c$, delete those edges (this will not affect core values). Next, find a node $n$ s.t. it has degree $ \geq c+2$. All of it's neighbors must have degree $c$, which means at least two of its neighbors are not connected. Perform degree collapse on these nodes, which decreases $n$'s degree, but does not change core values or the degree of the other two nodes. Repeat for all nodes until no node has degree $ > c+1$. Repeat this again, but for nodes of degree $c+1$, which has the same guarantees. By the end of this, you will be left with either a $c$-regular graph, or a $c$-regular graph with one $c+1$ node.
\end{proof}
Now that we have shown that there is some 'Natural State' for every graph, and an analogue state for its highest core, we can prove that using the moves above it is possible to pass from any graph $G$ through its 'Natural State' to any other construction of its core value sequence.
\begin{theorem}
The move set above is sufficient to reach every possible construction of any given core set.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have already shown that we can reach a 'Natural State' for any graph. Using the move-endpoints, and the degree functions we can also move between all 'Natural States'. We have also shown that the top-core can be reduced to a k-regular or almost k-regular graph. Any instance of this 'regular' graph can be transformed into any other instance of a 'regular' graph using degree-stable randomization, such as described in Fosdick et al. Thus, any graph of core-values $C$ can be transformed into any other graph of core-values $C$ by travelling through the 'Natural State' and 'regular' state.
\end{proof}
}
\section{Basic set-up for doing the computational experiments}
In the previous section, we established that the Markov chain defined by the random walk on $\H_\c$ will converge to a uniform stationary distribution from any starting point. We now discuss some of the computational considerations involved in running the Markov chain so as to be able to sample from it.
\omt{
First, we need to ensure that our setup of a Markov Chain will in fact produce random samples. This requires two things: that the graph of graphs for the Markov Chain is fully connected and that each node in this graph of graphs has equal degree.
\begin{theorem}
It is possible to uniformly sample a random graph of core values $C$ by running a Markov Chain using this move-set.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have already shown that the graph of graphs is connected. In order to uniformly sample, in that case, one simply needs to add self-loops such that the sum of actual transitions and self loops is the same for every graph in the chain. We simply overestimate the maximum number of transitions, and apply this move set many times to uniformly sample.
\end{proof}
}
The basic set up for computationally running this Markov chain has two steps. A graph is input in the form of a SparseMatrix. The core numbers are then calculated and an array of core values from largest to smallest is created. The nodes are then renamed from 1 to $n$ such that each node is distinct and the node name refers to the index of their core-value in the core array. This results in nodes named such that nodes with larger core-values have smaller names.
We then do a number of transition steps. Each transition step is identical, except for the graph being processed. The transition step takes in several values: the graph, the core array and an estimated upper bound on the highest degree of any node in the Markov chain. We then estimate an upper bound on how many possible transitions there are from this graph to other graphs. We do this by soliciting an upper bound on the number of possible transitions for each type of move - note that no two moves will ever give the same exact resultant graph. This is done by proposing many moves, not all of which are necessarily possible. We sum these upper bounds to get an upper bound on the total number of transitions from this graph. If that upper bound is larger than our estimated upper bound on the largest degree in the Markov chain, then we double that estimate and start over.
Next, we randomly select a number between 0 and the estimated degree upper bound. If the number is larger than our possible transition estimate, then we "self loop" and draw again. Otherwise, we choose proportionally randomly among the moves, and then select a random proposed move. If it is not a possible move we "self loop" and draw again. Otherwise, we apply the move, then call the transition function again. This rejection sampling method is used because calculating all possible moves is both memory intensive and time consuming.
\section{Using the Core-Value Model for Network Analysis}\label{sec:properties}
Having now established the basic method for generating random graphs with a given core-value sequence, we provide a set of computational experiments showing how it can serve as a null model for network analysis tasks, parallel to the ways in which the configuration model that fixes node degrees is used.
We will see that in some cases, the conclusions from our core-value null model form fundamental contrasts with the conclusions that would be reached using the configuration model.\footnote{Code and data for all the results in this section may be obtained from the following link: {\scriptsize \url{https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kvank/selected_publications.html}}}
\subsection{Subgraphs and Motifs}
We begin with an application where it is natural to expect that the contrast between the configuration model and the core-value model might be apparent: in the frequency of small subgraphs.
When we are assessing the abundance of a particular subgraph in real network data, we may want to compare it to the frequency of this same subgraph in a randomized version of the network that preserves some invariant.
The configuration model, by fixing only the node degrees, destroys most of the local structure, and hence can make particular small subgraphs seem highly frequent in the real network data as a result.
Intuitively, our core-value model can be viewed as preserving enough local structure to maintain the core decomposition; will this give a different view of the abundance of small subgraphs?
We show here that it does in general.
We begin by considering perhaps the simplest family of small subgraphs: triangles on three nodes. After this, we move on to an analysis of small motifs more generally. In both cases, the core-value model leads to different conclusions than the configuration model in several important respects.
\subsection*{\small Triangle-based statistics}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_tri_dist.pdf}
\Description[Four histograms of triangle count]{Four triangle count histograms, the k-core null model overlaps with the configuration model for Autonomous systems and Power Grid.}
\caption{Distribution of the number of triangles from 50 random samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset
and 50 random samples of graphs with a degree sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The $k$-core samples have more triangles, and often the number of triangles in the dataset is within the range those observed in the random samples.}
\label{fig:tri_dist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_tri_seq.pdf}
\Description[Four exponential graphs]{K-core triangle degree is consistently higher than the configuration model and closer to the true data.}
\caption{Triangle degree sequences (given by the number of triangles adjacent to a given node)
from 50 random samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset
and 50 random samples of graphs with a degree sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The $k$-core samples tend to match the triangle sequence more closely.}
\label{fig:tri_seq}
\end{figure}
For our computational experiments here and in a number of the subsequent analyses, we use four graph datasets:
an autonomous systems network~\cite{leskovec2005graphs},
a protein structure network~\cite{milo2004superfamilies},
a friendship network of lawyers working at the same firm~\cite{lazega2001collegial}, and
a power grid~\cite{son_kim_olave-rojas_alvarez-miranda_2018}.
For each dataset, we run our Markov-chain sampler for a number of steps equal to 100 times the number of edges in the graph,
with input $k$-core sequence given by the dataset.
We repeated this 50 times to get 50 random graphs with a prescribed $k$-core distribution.
We then compare the statistics of the resulting graph to the output of the configuration model.
For this, we use 50 samples from a Markov-chain configuration model sampler for vertex-labeled simple graphs,
using the double edge swap procedure described by Fosdick et al.~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.\footnote{Note that the Markov-chain approach is the standard strategy for generating fixed-degree graphs because we are trying to produce simple graphs; more basic direct approaches yield graphs with self-loops and parallel edges.}
As noted earlier in this section, one weakness of the configuration model is that it destroys local structure, and we observe this even on the small
datasets considered here.
Specifically, the total number of triangles in the configuration model samples is far below the number of triangles
in the corresponding datasets (Figure~\ref{fig:tri_dist}).
The random samples from the prescribed $k$-core sequence have more triangles than those in the configuration model samples.
Moreover, the distribution of the total number of triangles straddles the number of triangles in the autonomous systems dataset.
Thus, the observed number of triangles in this datasets is unsurprising \emph{given the $k$-core sequence}.
In other words, we would not reject the null model of a random graph sampled uniformly at random from the space
of graphs with the given $k$-core sequence, just based on the statistic of the number of triangles.
In addition to the total number of triangles, we also measure the \emph{triangle degree sequence} in these random
samples and compare them to the datasets (Figure~\ref{fig:tri_seq}).
Here, the triangle degree of a node is the number of triangles in which it participates.
We see that the triangle degree sequences given by the $k$-core sequence null model more closely match those of the data.
Taken together, the results of this subsection provide evidence that our $k$-core-based null model
offers a substantially different baseline than the configuration model.
In particular, for the datasets considered here, the core-based null model produces random samples with a larger number of triangles that capture
some of the local structure in the graph.
We will see in the next subsection that this same principle applies for motif analysis more generally.
\subsection*{\small Motif analysis}
A longstanding application of null models for network analysis is the identification
of important or unusual small subgraph patterns called \emph{network motifs}~\cite{milo2002network}.
The main idea is to count the number of occurrences of several small subgraphs in a given dataset as well as in several
random samples from a null model.
``Motifs'' are then subgraphs that appear significantly more or less often than in the null.
Historically, the employed null model is the configuration model~\cite{milo2002network,milo2004superfamilies,fosdick2018configuring}.
Here, we consider both the configuration model and our $k$-core-based model as null models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_SRP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_SRP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{FIG/subgraphs.PNG}
\Description[Two line plots]{K-core and configuration model diverge for all 7 subgraphs.}
\caption{Subgraph ratio profile (SRP) plots under the $k$-core and configuration null models for four node subgraphs and triangles.
The x-axis in the SRP plots are indexed by the seven subgraphs at the bottom.
}
\label{fig:srp}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:srp} we consider the results of counting six different motifs consisting of six distinct (non-induced) subgraphs on four nodes each, as well as a motif consisting of the triangle so that we can view the results of the previous subsection in this context as well.
To decide whether the number of copies of a given subgraph appears significantly more or less frequently than in a random baseline, a canonical approach is to the use the {\em subgraph ratio profile (SRP)}, which essentially measures a normalized difference between the frequencies of the subgraph in the real network and in the random baseline. (We refer readers to Milo et al.~\cite{milo2004superfamilies} for the precise definition.) As a result, a positive SRP for a given subgraph indicates that the subgraph occurs more frequently in the real data than in a random baseline, while a negative SRP indicates that it occurs less frequently. Positive SRP values are thus taken as evidence that the corresponding subgraph is a meaningfully abundant motif in the network data.
Viewed in this context, we see that the SRP can be defined using any random-graph model that fixes some aspect of the structure of the real network. While the configuration model that fixes degrees is the standard approach, we can also define SRP values using the core-value model and ask whether we arrive at similar conclusions.
As we see in Figure \ref{fig:srp}, the SRP values based on the core-value model are in fact quite different for two of our datasets, on autonomous systems and the social network on lawyers.\footnote{For power grids and protein networks, there isn't enough meaningful four-node structure to produce clear results using either baseline.}
In particular, we see that many SRP values are on opposite sides of $0$ across the two models, showing that a number of conclusions can change when we move a core-based null model.
Moreover, these changes generally go in the conjectured direction based on the preservation of local structure: if we believe that the core-value model destroys less of the local structure in a network relative to the configuration model, then we would expect lower (and potentially negative) SRP values, and this is what see for many of the subgraphs in Figure~\ref{fig:srp}.
The results thus point to the crucial role in the choice of null model for interpreting these subgraph frequency questions --- a type of issue that becomes feasible to ask given an efficient way to generate null graphs with fixed core-value sequences.
\subsection{Edge-based statistics}
To understand how the core-value model behaves in these types of applications, it is natural to explore some of its basic properties as well.
Perhaps the most fundamental set of properties concern basic counts of edges and degrees.
When sampling based on a $k$-core description given by a dataset, a major difference with the configuration model is that the number of edges in the random sample can differ from those in the dataset.
For a simple example, consider a 4-cycle and the graph obtained by adding one additional edge to the 4-cycle --- all nodes in both graphs have a core value equal to two, but they differ in the number of edges.
Here, we examine the distribution in the number of edges in random samples generated by our algorithm,
where the core-value sequence is generated by a real-world dataset.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_edge_dist.pdf}
\Description[Four histograms]{K-core consistently has more edges than the real-world graph.}
\caption{Distribution of the number of edges from 50 MCMC samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
As expected, the number of edges in the random samples is different than in the original data, but the difference is not drastic.}
\label{fig:edge_dist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_deg_seq.pdf}
\Description[Four line plots]{For all four plots, frequency increases with degree.}
\caption{Degree sequences from 50 MCMC samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The degree sequences of the random samples are similar (but not identical) to the degree sequences in the real-world data.}
\label{fig:deg_seq}
\end{figure}
We use the same datasets and sampling procedure that we employed in the previous subsections.
Figure~\ref{fig:edge_dist} shows the number of edges in the resulting samples.
We see that, for a given dataset, all of the random samples have a number of edges that is greater than or equal to the original data.
Thus, the total number of edges in these datasets over the space of graphs with the same $k$-core sequence is concentrated above the observed number of edges.
At the same time, though, the number of edges in the random sample is not drastically different.
We also compare the degree sequence of the random samples to those in the original data (Figure~\ref{fig:deg_seq}).
The degree sequences largely resemble those in the original data, but are not exactly the same.
Often, the samples from our algorithm produce graphs with a larger maximum degree than the empirical autonomous systems dataset.
\subsection{Attribute-based assortativity}
\begin{table}
\caption{Network assortativity $r$ with respect to several attributes in the Lawyers dataset.
We list the z-score of the assortativity statistic with respect to 50 samples from the configuration
and $k$-core-based model.
}
\label{tab:attrs}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c}{z-score} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-4}
Attribute & $r$ & configuration & $k$-core \\ \midrule
Status & 0.55 & 21.29 & 3.92 \\
Office Location & 0.21 & 5.53 & 8.72. \\
Gender & 0.12 & 2.50 & 0.31 \\
Law School & 0.05 & 1.80 & 0.79 \\
Type of Practice & 0.04 & 1.29 & 1.71 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As a final investigation, we consider whether or not attribute-based assortativity is preserved
under the configuration and core-value null models. The lawyers dataset has several
attributes on each node, and we measure the network assortativity $r$~\cite{newman2003mixing}
for status at the firm (partner or associate), office location, gender, law school, and type of practice (litigation or corporate).
Assortativity is positive for all of the attributes, i.e., there is a tendency for edges to appear between two nodes sharing the same attribute
(Table~\ref{tab:attrs}).
As a baseline, we measure the assortativity levels under 50 samples of the configuration model
and the core-value model and compute the same $z$-score as for the motif analysis.
The assortativity scores are higher in the data than in both the null models (all of the $z$-scores in Table~\ref{tab:attrs} are positive).
For example, office location assortativity is overwhelmingly significant under either null.
This is unsurprising, as neither null model is designed to capture mesoscale modular, community, or cluster structure within the network,
and several of the attributes are known to correspond to meaningful cluster structure~\cite{peel2017ground}.
At the same time, evaluating significance based on $z$-scores for some attributes
could lead to different conclusions based on the choice of null model and the desired significance level.
For example, the gender assortativity in the network is $0.12$, which is about 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
with respect to the configuration model, but only 0.31 standard deviations above the mean with respect to the core-value model.
Thus, gender assortativity may seem insignificant under the core-value null but significant under the configuration model null.
\section{Conclusion}
The {\em $k$-core decomposition} is a fundamental graph-theoretic
concept that assigns each node $v$ a {\em core-value} equal to the
largest $c$ such that $v$ belongs to a subgraph of $G$ of minimum degree $c$.
Drawing on this concept,
we have proposed a new family of random graphs that can serve as
a class of null models in network analysis,
obtained by randomly sampling from the set of
all graphs with a given core-value sequence.
Our sampling method exploits the rich combinatorial structure of
the $k$-core decomposition; we construct a novel Markov chain on
the set of all graphs of a given core-value sequence,
show that the state space is connected with respect to this transition,
and establish that the chain can be used to generate near-uniform
samples from this set of graphs.
The approach opens up a number of intriguing further directions of
potential theoretical and empirical interest.
One question noted earlier is to try establishing bounds on the
mixing rate of the Markov chain we have defined.
Such questions are in general quite challenging, since the mixing
even of simpler chains remains open; we note that many of these chains have
proved valuable for sampling even in the absence of provable guarantees.
A second question, related to our solution of the realizability
question for core-value sequences, is to study extremal questions
over the set of graphs realizing a given core-value sequence;
for example, what is the minimum or maximum number of edges that a graph
with a given core-value sequence can have?
Finally, in a more empirical direction and motivated by our findings
on network motifs, it will be interesting to
characterize the kinds of network properties for which the configuration model
and our core-value model produce systematically different results.
Such comparisons can begin to provide insight into the broader consequences of our choice of null models in network analysis.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Haobin Ni for his thoughtful insight.
This research was supported in part by
ARO Award W911NF19-1-0057,
ARO MURI,
NSF Award DMS-1830274,
a Simons Investigator Award,
a Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship,
AFOSR grant FA9550-19-1-0183,
and grants from
JP Morgan Chase \& Co. and
the MacArthur Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction}
\newcommand{\xhdr}[1]{\paragraph{\bf {#1}}}
Random graphs have long played a central role in the area of
network analysis, and one of their crucial uses has been as
{\em null models}: a way of producing families of synthetic
graphs that match observed network data on specific basic properties.
Armed with effective null models, we can take an observed network
phenomenon and ask whether a random graph with similar characteristics
would exhibit the same phenomenon or not.
This comparison to random-graph baselines is an essential
strategy, but of course the challenge is to define what we mean
by a random graph ``with similar characteristics.''
In these types of analyses, a widely-used null model --- arguably
the ubiquitous default --- is the {\em configuration model}:
given an observed network $G$, it generates random graphs sampled
uniformly at random from among all graphs with the same degree
sequence as $G$.
The configuration model has provided a powerful way of asserting
that observed properties of real networks are not simply
a consequence of the node degrees, in that they would be unlikely
in a random graph with the same degree sequence~\cite{newman2001random,fosdick2018configuring}.
Despite the widespread use of the configuration model,
it is well-understood to be an extremely weak null model, particularly
for any question involving local rather than global structure.
In particular, a random graph with a given degree sequence will
typically have very little non-trivial local structure in the
neighborhood of any given node $v$, and very little non-trivial
community structure.
Thus, real networks will almost always look very different from
the predictions of a random draw from the configuration model
on any question involving structures like local motifs or dense communities;
and these are some of the main questions for which people
seek out random graphs as baselines.
Given these limitations of the configuration model, researchers have
sought other null models in which we sample uniformly or near-uniformly
over different families of graphs defined by characteristics of
a given real network.
Stanton and Pinar, for example, show how to sample from graphs that
match an observed network $G$ not just in its degree sequence but
in the pairs of degrees $(d_i, d_j)$ arising from the edges $(i,j)$ of $G$~\cite{stanton2012constructing}.
This increases the specificity of the null model, but it continues to
lack non-trivial local or community structure.
An interesting recent step toward null models designed to exhibit
local structure was taken by Orsini et al.~\cite{orsini2015quantifying}, who generalized
and put into practice the \emph{$dK$-series} hierarchy of random graph models~\cite{mahadevan2006systematic},
where the lowest levels match the degree sequence or degree correlations
and higher-levels --- the 2.1-series and 2.5-series --- also match
statistics on triangles such as the average clustering coefficient or the sequence of clustering coefficients.
This approach comes with the obstacle, however, there are not any practical algorithms
for uniformly sampling from these subsequent levels that match more than just
degrees and pairs of degrees; as a result, while they constitute valuable
heuristics, they are not designed to provide guarantees on
near-uniform sampling from the associated family of graphs.
Thus, a basic question has remained: given an observed graph $G$,
can we construct a null model by sampling from a family of graphs matching
characteristics of $G$ in such a way that the resulting random samples
exhibit non-trivially rich local structure and community structure?
\xhdr{The present work: A null model based on the $k$-core.}
In this paper, we provide a new approach to this question,
by showing how to uniformly sample from graphs that match $G$
in its {\em k-core} properties.
The resulting samples provide random-graph baselines with
richer graph-theoretic structure than the configuration model,
and we show that they can lead to potentially different conclusions
when employed as null models.
To formulate our approach, we begin with some basic definitions.
Given a graph $G$ and a number $k$, the {\em $k$-core} of $G$
is the (unique) maximal subgraph of $G$ in which every node
has degree at least $k$;
it can be found efficiently by iteratively deleting nodes of
degree strictly less than $k$ in $G$.
(For sufficiently large $k$, $G$ will have no subgraph of
minimum degree $k$, and hence the $k$-core of $G$
for these large $k$ will be the empty graph.)
Building on this definition, we say that the {\em core-value} $c_v$ of
a node $v$ is the largest $k$ such that $v$ belongs to the $k$-core of $G$.
A long line of work in network analysis has shown that successive
$k$-cores of $G$, for $k = 0, 1, 2, ...$, provides considerable
information about the local structure of $G$, including the
regions where it exhibits denser connectivity~\cite{dorogovtsev2006k,carmi2007model,shin2016corescope,laishram2018measuring,malliaros2020core}.
This information is equivalently captured by the sequence of
core-values $c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ of the $n$ nodes of $G$.
Given this, we ask the following question:
by analogy with the configuration model, which samples uniformly
from all graphs matching the degree sequence of $G$, can we
sample uniformly (or near-uniformly) from all graphs matching
the sequence of core numbers of $G$?
We could do this in theory by brute-force rejection sampling, so
our goal is to develop reasonable algorithms for generating such samples.
This type of sampler would provide a genuinely new type of null model,
by producing random graphs that match an observed $G$ on
richer forms of structure than the degree sequence.
\xhdr{Sampling a random graph with a given core-value sequence.}
We answer this question affirmatively, by providing a method
for near-uniform sampling from graphs with a given core-value sequence.
We provide an overview of our strategy here, and give details in
the subsequent sections.
Our basic approach is to define a Markov chain whose state space
is the set of all graphs with the given core-value sequence,
and whose transitions are a set of graph
transformations that preserve the core-values.
The crux of the method, and the heart of our analysis, is the definition of a
sufficiently rich set of local transformations such that
sequences of these transformations, composed together,
are able to transform
a starting graph $G_0$ into any other graph with the same core-value sequence.
Applying random transformation to an underlying graph thus
produces a Markov chain on the set of all graphs of a given
core-value sequence.
Our results establish that
the Markov chain is strongly connected; and by adding
appropriate probabilities on the ``identity transformation'' that leaves
the graph unchanged, we can also ensure that the chain is aperiodic
and has a uniform stationary distribution.
Thus, by generating random trajectories in this Markov chain,
we can sample nearly-uniformly from the set of all graphs with
a given core-value sequence.
As part of the analysis of this sampling procedure, we solve a problem
of combinatorial interest in its own right.
When we generate our Markov chain based on a given graph $G$, then
$G$ itself provides a starting state for traversing the chain.
But if we start instead from a given core-value sequence
$c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$, then we face the following
fundamental question: is the state space associated with
$(c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n)$ non-empty?
That is, do there exist any graphs with this core-value sequence?
And if so, can we construct one?
For degree sequences in simple graphs without loops or parallel edges,
the corresponding {\em realizability question} --- characterizing
whether there exists a simple graph with a given degree sequence ---
is the subject of a famous theorem of Erd\"{o}s and Gallai~\cite{erdos1960graphs,choudum1986simple}
and the constructive Havel--Hakimi algorithm~\cite{havel1955remark,hakimi1962realizability}.
We provide a corresponding constructive characterization for the realizability of core-value sequences in simple graphs,
and this gives us a starting point in the Markov chain when provided with a core-value sequence as input.
Through computational experiments, we demonstrate some of the
basic properties of the samples produced by this Markov chain,
including how they differ systematically from the output of
the configuration model.
We then demonstrate our methods in the context of
a {\em motif-counting} application; the question here is whether
the frequencies of particular small subgraphs in a given graph $G$
are significantly higher, significantly lower, or indistinguishable
from the abundance of these subgraphs in a random-graph baseline.
We show that a comparison to random graphs matching the degree
sequence of $G$ may potentially lead to different conclusions than
this same comparison to random graphs matching the core-value sequence of $G$;
this points to some of the value in having multiple null models
based on the different families of random graphs.
It is useful to note a few additional points about these results.
First, there is a large collection of additional families of random
graphs that have been studied extensively in network analysis,
including stochastic block models, preferential attachment graphs,
Kronecker graphs, and many others.
It would be interesting to relate our family of random
graphs with a given core-value sequence to these.
But there is also an important distinction to be drawn in how these
families are generally used in practice: they are typically used
as generative models specified by optimizing a constant number of
parameters and then generating graphs whose size $n$ may be arbitrarily large.
In contrast, our approach is more closely aligned with models ---
such as the configuration model and more recent approaches such as
the $dK$-series --- based on uniform or near-uniform sampling from
a family of graphs obtained by matching a base graph $G$ on
a number of parameters (such as degrees or core-values) that are
linear in the number of nodes.
Finally, we also note the following important open question.
While we prove that random walks in our Markov chain will converge
to the uniform stationary distribution on graphs of a fixed core-value
sequence, it is an open question whether this chain can be proven to
be {\em rapidly mixing}.
This question aligns in interesting ways with the fact that despite
recent progress, we still do not have a full understanding of the mixing
properties of Markov chains on graphs with fixed degree sequences either~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.
The questions in this area are quite challenging, though
computational evidence is consistent with the premise that
these chains tend to mix well in practice~\cite{milo2003uniform,stanton2012constructing}.
As in those cases, our computational experiments also suggest that
random walks are sampling our state space effectively in practice,
indicating the utility of our Markov-chain methods.
Establishing provable bounds is thus a valuable and potentially
quite challenging further question, and recent techniques
in the theory of rapidly mixing Markov chains might be valuable here.
\subsection{Additional related work}
There are a large number of random graph models that are used for network
analysis, and we refer to surveys by Sala et al.~\cite{sala2010measurement} and
Drobyshevskiy and Turdakov~\cite{drobyshevskiy2019random} for a more expansive
discussion. The models most relevant to our paper are those that are employed
as ``null models,'' where the goal is to sample uniformly from the set of all
graphs satisfying a certain property and then evaluate how likely other properties are under the null.
The \emph{configuration model},
which samples uniformly from the set of graphs with a prescribed degree sequence, is broadly used~\cite{bender1978asymptotic,bollobas1980probabilistic,molloy1995critical,molloy1998size,artzy2005generating,newman2001random,fosdick2018configuring}.
There are several variants of the configuration model for dealing with
simple graphs, self-loops, and multi-edges; these details and a host of applications are covered
in depth in the survey by Fosdick et al.~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.
Furthermore, there are a number of configuration-type models for other relational data models such as
hypergraphs~\cite{chodrow2020configuration} and simplicial complexes~\cite{young2017construction}.
The Chung--Lu model is similar to the configuration model but samples from from graphs whose expected
degree sequence is the same as the one that is given~\cite{chung2002average,chung2002connected,chung2004spectra}.
The space of graphs with a fixed degree sequence is a special case of the more general $dK$-graphs, which
specifies degree correlation statistics for subgraphs of size
$d$~\cite{mahadevan2006systematic} (the configuration model corresponds to $d = 1$).
Pinar and Stanton~\cite{stanton2012constructing} developed a uniform sampler for
the $d = 2$ case, which generates graphs with a prescribed \emph{joint} degree distribution.
Further generalizations of the $dK$-graphs include those with
prescribed degree correlations and clustering
statistics~\cite{gjoka2013,colomer2013deciphering,orsini2015quantifying}. All
of these techniques rely on MCMC samplers, but those for the $d \geq 3$ cases or
these generalized $dK$-graphs do not guarantee uniform samples. We also use
MCMC sampling, but we can guarantee that the stationary distribution is uniform
over the space of graphs with a specified $k$-core sequence.
A major application of null models is the determination of important small subgraph patterns,
often called \emph{network motifs}~\cite{shen2002network,milo2002network,milo2004superfamilies,sporns2004motifs,kovanen2011temporal}.
In these applications, small subgraphs are counted in the real network and the null model, and those appearing
much more or less in the data compared to the null are deemed interesting for study.
We include a set of experiments that revisits network motifs to see which are significant under our $k$-core null model.
\section{Generating Random Graphs with a Given Core-Value Sequence}
\def{\bf c}{{\bf c}}
\def\mathcal H{\mathcal H}
\def\H_\c{\mathcal H_{\bf c}}
\def\mathcal S{\mathcal S}
\def\S_\c{\mathcal S_{\bf c}}
\def\Gamma{\Gamma}
\def\rule{2mm}{2mm}{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
\newcommand{\omt}[1]{}
\newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\mv}[2]{\begin{itemize} \item {\em Move {#1}. {#2}} \end{itemize}}
For generating a random graph with a given core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$, we will proceed as follows.
First, we define the {\em state space} $\S_\c$ to be the set of
all graphs with core-value sequence equal to ${\bf c}$.
In this section, as in the rest of the paper,
all graphs are undirected and {\em simple}, with no self-loops
or parallel edges.
We will define a set of {\em moves} that apply to a graph $G \in \S_\c$;
each move transforms $G$ into another graph $G' \in \S_\c$
(where possibly $G' = G$).
The moves are defined such that if there is a move from $G$ to $G'$,
there is also one from $G'$ to $G$.
This allows us to define an undirected graph $\H_\c$ on the state space $\S_\c$,
in which $G$ and $G'$ are connected by an edge (or potentially
by several parallel edges) if there is a move that transforms $G$ into $G'$.
Let $\Delta$ be the maximum number of legal moves out of any one
$G \in \H_\c$.
We now define a random walk with self-loops as follows:
For a graph $G$ with $D \leq \Delta$ legal moves out of it, the
random walk remains at $G$ with probability $1 - D / (2 \Delta)$,
and with probability $D / 2 \Delta$, it chooses one of the
$D$ legal moves out of $G$.
Our main technical result is to
show that for any two graphs $G_1, G_2 \in \S_\c$, it is
possible to apply a sequence of moves that tranforms $G_1$ into $G_2$.
This means that the undirected graph $\H_\c$ we have defined is connected,
and so the random walk we have defined converges from any starting point
to a unique stationary
distribution that (by the definition of the transition probabilities)
is uniform on $\S_\c$.
We can therefore run the Markov chain from an arbitrary starting point,
and the graph we have after $t$ steps will become arbitrarily close
to a uniform graph with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$.
For the starting point, we can either use a given input graph,
or we can start directly from a core-value sequence ${\bf c}$ and
construct a graph that realizes this sequence, if one exists.
We show first how to efficiently perform this latter operation, constructing a
graph from a core-value sequence.
\subsection{The realization problem for core-value sequences}
Given a sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq c_2 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$,
how can we efficiently determine if there is a graph that has this
as its core-value sequence, and to construct such a graph if one exists?
Erdos and Gallai solved the analogous problem for degree sequences
\cite{erdos1960graphs,choudum1986simple},
and here we give an efficient algorithm for core-value sequences.
Since core-values are define by degrees of subgraphs, it is useful
to have some initial terminology for degree sequences as well.
Recall that a graph is called {\em $d$-regular} if all of its
node degrees are equal to $d$.
We observe the following.
\begin{stmt}
If $d$ is an even number, there exist $d$-regular graphs on every
number of nodes $n \geq d+1$.
If $d$ is an odd number, there exists a $d$-regular graph on $n \geq d+1$
nodes if and only if $n$ is even.
\label{stmt:regular-exists}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
There are many natural constructions; here is one that is easy to describe.
We label the nodes $0, 1, \ldots, {n-1}$ and interpret addition
modulo $n$ (thus imagining the nodes organized in clockwise order).
When $d$ is even,
connect each node $i$ to the $d/2$ nodes on either side of it in this order:
${i - d/2}, i - (d/2) + 1, \ldots i + (d/2)$.
When $d$ is odd and $n$ is even,
connect each node $i$ to the nodes
${i - (d-1)/2}, i - ((d-1)/2) + 1, \ldots i + ((d-1)/2)$ as well as
the ``antipodal'' node in the clockwise order, $i + (n/2)$.
Finally, we note that in any graph, the sum of the degrees of all
nodes must be an even number (since every edge is counted twice),
and therefore when $d$ is odd, any $d$-regular graph must have
an even number of nodes.
\end{proof}
It will be useful to be able to talk about ``almost regular''
graphs when $d$ is odd and $n$ is odd, so we say that a graph $G$
is {\em $d$-uniform} if (i) $d$ is even and $G$ is $d$-regular;
or (ii) $d$ is odd, $G$ has an even number of nodes, and $G$ is $d$-regular;
or (iii) $d$ is odd, $G$ has an odd number of nodes, and $G$ consists
of a single node of degree $d+1$ with all other nodes having degree $d$.
By slightly extending the construction from the proof of
\rf{stmt:regular-exists} to handle case (iii) in this definition as well,
we have
\begin{stmt}
For all $d$ and all $n \geq d+1$,
there exists a $d$-uniform graph on $n$ nodes.
\label{stmt:uniform-exists}
\end{stmt}
We now consider the set of $c$-cores of $G$, for $c = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$,
where again the $c$-core $\Gamma_c$ is the unique
maximal subgraph of minimum degree $c$.
(In cases where it is clear from context, we will sometimes use
$\Gamma_c$ to denote the set of nodes in the $c$-core, as well as the
subgraph itself.)
The following construction procedure for the $c$-cores of $G$
will be useful in the proofs as well.
\begin{itemize}
\item We first define $\Gamma_0$ to be all of $G$.
\item Having constructed $\Gamma_c$ for a given $c$, we then repeatedly
delete any node of degree at most
$c$ from $\Gamma_c$, updating the degrees as we go,
until no more deletions are possible.
(Note that while all nodes in $\Gamma_c$ have degree at least $c$
at the start of this deletion process, some degrees in $\Gamma_c$ might drop
below $c$ in the middle of the process.)
Once the deletions from $\Gamma_c$ have stopped,
all of the remaining nodes have degree at least $c+1$.
Let $H$ be this subgraph of $G$.
$H$ has minimum degree $c+1$; and since no node
deleted so far can belong to any subgraph of minimum degree $c+1$,
we see that $H$ is the unique maximal subgraph with this property.
Thus $H = \Gamma_{c+1}$.
\item We proceed in this way until we encounter a $c$ for which
$\Gamma_c$ is empty; at that point, we define $c^* = c-1$, and declare
$\Gamma_{c^*}$ to be the {\em top core} of $G$.
\item We will refer to the order in which the nodes were deleted from
$G$ in this process as a {\em core deletion order}; note that there
is some amount of freedom in choosing the order in which nodes are
deleted, and all such orders constitute valid core deletion orders.
\end{itemize}
We first consider the case in which all core-values in an $n$-node graph
$G$ are the same number $c$.
Note that in this case, we must have $n \geq c+1$, since each node
must have at least $c$ neighbors.
Conversely, as long as $n \geq c+1$, we observe that a $c$-uniform graph
on $n$ nodes has all core-values equal to $c$.
Thus we have a first realization result for core-values, for the
case where all values are the same.
\begin{stmt}
For a core-value sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ where
all $c_i = c$, there exists a graph with this core-value sequence ${\bf c}$
if and only if $n \geq c+1$.
\label{stmt:realize-same-core-values}
\end{stmt}
Now, we consider an arbitrary core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
As in \rf{stmt:realize-same-core-values}, the highest $c_1 + 1$ values
must be the same in order for node $1$ to have a sufficient number of
neighbors in the top core $\Gamma_{c_1}$.
Thus, suppose $c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$.
Now, suppose $|\Gamma_{c_1}| = n_1$, where $n_1 \geq c_1 + 1$.
Let $H$ be an $n_1$-uniform graph on the nodes $1, 2, \ldots, n_1$.
For each node $j > n_1$, we attach it to an arbitrary set of $c_j$ nodes
in $H$, resulting in a graph $G$ on the nodes $1, 2, \ldots, n$.
We now claim
\begin{stmt}
The graph $G$ has core-value sequence
${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
\label{stmt:realize-core-value-construct}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
By construction, the $n_1$ nodes $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq n_1$
all have $c_i = c_1$; they all belong to $H$ and hence have
core-value equal to $c_1$.
For $j > n_1$, note that it belongs to the subgraph induced
on the nodes $\{1, 2, \ldots, j\}$; since the minimum degree
in this subgraph is $c_j$, we have $j \in \Gamma_{c_j}$.
But since the degree of $j$ is $c_j$, we also have
$j \not\in \Gamma_{c_j + 1}$, and hence the core-value of $j$
is $c_j$, as required.
\end{proof}
From \rf{stmt:realize-core-value-construct} it follows that $G$
realizes the given core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
Since the only assumption on ${\bf c}$ was that $c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$,
we have the following theorem about realization of
core-value sequences.
\begin{stmt}
A sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$ is the
core-value sequence of a simple graph if and only if
$c_{c_1 + 1} = c_1$; and when this condition holds, there
is an efficient algorithm to construct a graph with core-value sequence
equal to ${\bf c}$.
\label{stmt:realize-core-value-condition}
\end{stmt}
\subsection{A Markov Chain on All Graphs with a Given Core-Value Sequence}
In the previous subsection, we showed how to construct a single
member of the state space $\S_\c$ consisting of all graphs
with core-value sequence ${\bf c} = c_1 \geq \cdots \geq c_n$.
We now define a {\em move set} on this state space,
providing ways of transforming a given graph in $\S_\c$ into other
graphs in $\S_\c$.
For each move that transforms a graph $G$ to $G'$, there will also
be a move transforming $G'$ to $G$;
thus, the graph $\H_\c$ on $\S_\c$ in which $G$ and $G'$
are adjacent when there is a move transforming one directly into the other
is an undirected graph.
Let $G$ be a graph with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
We note that sorting the nodes in the decreasing
sequence of their indices $n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$
constitutes a core deletion order for $G$, and we will use this
fact at certain points in the analysis.
The first set of moves is
\mv{1}{Add and Delete. For any nodes $(i,j)$ not connected by an edge in $G$,
we can add the edge $(i,j)$ provided that no core-values are affected.
Similarly, for an edge $(i,j)$ of $G$, we can delete $(i,j)$ provided
that no core-values are affected.}
Given that we only add or delete edges when the core-values are unaffected,
the resulting graph $G'$ is also in $\S_\c$ by definition.
The remaining moves alter multiple edges at once, while preserving
all core-values.
The second set of moves is
\mv{2}{Move Endpoint. Let $h, i, j$ be nodes of $G$ such that
$c_j < \min(c_h, c_i)$, with $(h,j)$ an edge of $G$ and
$(i,j)$ not an edge of $G$.
We delete $(h,j)$ and insert $(i,j)$.}
We claim
\begin{stmt}
If $G \in \S_\c$ and we apply an instance of
{\em Move Endpoint} involving nodes $h, i, j$, then the resulting
graph $G'$ is also in $\S_\c$.
\label{stmt:move-endpoint-valid}
\end{stmt}
\begin{proof}
Consider the core deletion order $n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$ in $G$;
we consider nodes in this same order in $G'$ and analyze their core-values.
Note that $j > \max(h,i)$ since $c_j < \min(c_h, c_i)$.
First, all nodes $j' > j$ have the same edges into $\{1, 2, \ldots, j'-1\}$
in both $G$ and $G'$, so all of them will get the same core-value
and can be deleted in the same order.
Next, $j$ has the same number of edges into $\{1, 2, \ldots, j-1\}$
in both $G$ and $G'$, so it can still be deleted when we encounter
it in this order in $G'$, and it will get the same core-value as as well.
Finally, once $j$ is deleted, the subgraphs of $G$ and $G'$ induced
on the set of nodes $\{1, 2, \ldots, j-1\}$ are identical, and
so the ordering $j-1, j-2, \ldots, 2, 1$ forms a core deletion order
in both.
From this, it follows that the sequence of core-values is the same
in $G$ and $G'$, and hence the {\em Move Endpoint} operation
preserves the core-value sequence.
\end{proof}
The third set of moves is
\mv{3}{Core Collapse and Core Expand.
Let $h, i, j$ be nodes of $G$ with $c_h > c_i$ and $c_i = c_j$.
If $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ are both edges of $G$ but $(i,j)$ is not,
the Core Collapse operation deletes $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ and inserts $(i,j)$,
provided that no core values are affected.
Analogously, if $(i,j)$ is an edge of $G$ but $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ are not,
the Core Expand operation deletes $(i,j)$ and inserts $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$,
again provided that no core values are affected.
We will also allow ``half-move'' versions of Core Collapse and Core Expand,
again only in the case where no core values are affected:
in the half-move version of Core Collapse, only one of $(h,i)$ or $(h,j)$
is deleted; and in the half-move version of Core Expand,
only one of $(h,i)$ or $(h,j)$ is inserted.
}
This concludes the description of the moves.
We now analyze their global properties in the state space $\S_\c$.
\subsection{Connectivity of the State Space}
Recall that our strategy is to use the set of moves specified
in the previous subsection to define an undirected graph $\H_\c$ on the state
space $\S_\c$ of all graphs with core-value sequence ${\bf c}$.
We now show that $\H_\c$ is connected --- that is,
for any graphs $G_1, G_2 \in \S_\c$, there is a sequence of moves that
transforms $G_1$ into $G_2$.
If we then define a random walk on $\H_\c$ with each edge out of a
given state chosen uniformly, and self-loop probabilities at each state
set as at the start of the section,
the resulting process is connected and aperiodic, with a uniform stationary
distribution that it converges to from any starting point.
It therefore remains only to establish the connectivity of $\H_\c$.
To do this, we consider two arbitrary graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ in $\S_\c$,
and we describe a path connecting $G_1$ and $G_2$ in $\H_\c$.
In order to do this, it is useful to recall a small amount of terminnology:
the {\em top core}, as before, consists of the nodes with the
highest core-value $c_1$.
Suppose that there are $n_1$ such nodes;
that is, $c_{n_1} = c_1$ and $c_{n_1 + 1} < c_1$.
Let $V_1 = \{1, 2, \ldots, n_1\}$ be the set of nodes in the top core.
Finally, for simplicity of exposition, we will assume for most
of this discussion that $c_1 > 2$.
This condition applies to all the intended applications of our methods, since
graphs with $c_1 \leq 2$ are much simpler in structure than
the networks we work with in general.
Moreover, the assumption $c_1 > 2$ can be removed with additional work;
at the end of the section we describe how to achieve analogous results for
the remaining cases of $c_1 = 2$ and $c_1 = 1$.
We construct the path from $G_1$ to $G_2$ in a sequence of steps.
Since all of our moves have analogues that perform them in the
``reverse'' direction, we can describe the construction of this path
working simultaneously
from both its endpoints at $G_1$ and $G_2$.
\xhdr{Step 1: Linking all edges to the top core.}
We first apply a sequence of moves to $G_1$ designed to produce
a graph $G_1'$ that has the same core-value sequence ${\bf c}$,
in which all edges have at least one end in the set $V_1$.
For a number $c$,
we use $\Gamma_c$ as before to denote the $c$-core.
We consider the nodes following the order of a core deletion sequence
$n, n-1, \ldots, 2, 1$.
When we get to a node $i$, it has degree $c_i$ by the definition
of a core elimination sequence.
If $c_i < c_1$, then
we consider each of $i$'s incident edges $(i,j)$ in turn, and process
this edge according to the following set of cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $c_j = c_1$, then we do not need to do anything, since
the edge $(i,j)$ already has one end in the top core $V_1$.
\item If $c_1 > c_j > c_i$, then we apply Move Endpoint
to delete $(i,j)$ and replace it with an edge $(h,i)$
for any node $h \in V_1$ that is not currently a neighbor of $i$.
Such a node $h$ must exist since $|V_1| \geq c_1 + 1$ while
the degree of $i$ is $c_i < c_1$.
By \rf{stmt:move-endpoint-valid}, all core-values are preserved
by this operation.
\item If $c_j = c_i$ and
the degree of node $j$ is equal to $c_j$, then we apply the
full version of the Core Expand operation, replacing the edge
$(i,j)$ with two edges $(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$ to any node $h \in V_1$
that is not a neighbor of either.
(By applying a sequence of Move Endpoint operations prior to this
Core Expand operation, we can ensure that there is at least one
node $h \in V_1$ that is not a neighbor of either $i$ or $j$.)
We claim that $i$ and $j$ still have core-values equal to $c_i$
after this operation: their core-values are at least $c_i$ since
the nodes in $\Gamma_{c_i}$ still have minimum degree $c_i$;
and their core-values are at most $c_i$ since their degrees are
equal to $c_i$.
Since all other nodes have the same core-values before and after
this operation, the core-value sequence of the graph has been preserved.
\item If $c_j = c_i$ and
the degree of node $j$ is greater than $c_j$, then we apply the
half-move version of the Core Expand operation, replacing the edge
$(i,j)$ with the single edge $(h,i)$ for any node $h \in V_1$
that is not a neighbor of $i$.
In this case too we claim that that $i$ and $j$ still have core-values
equal to $c_i$ after this operation.
As before, their core-values are at least $c_i$ since
the nodes in $\Gamma_{c_i}$ still have minimum degree $c_i$.
The core-value of $i$ is at most $c_i$ since its degree is $c_i$.
The core-value of $j$ is at most $c_j$ since we have removed an
edge incident to it, which cannot raise its core-value.
Since all other nodes have the same core-values before and after
the operation, the core-value sequence of the graph has been preserved
in this case as well.
\end{itemize}
We apply this process to each edge incident to node $i$ in turn;
and we proceed node-by-node
through the core deletion sequence in this way.
At the end of this procedure, we have the desired
graph $G_1'$: it has the same core-value sequence ${\bf c}$,
and all its edges have at least one end in the set $V_1$.
We apply the same process to $G_2$ as well, producing a graph $G_2'$
that also has the property that every edge has at least one end in $V_1.$
\xhdr{Step 2: Converting the top core to a $c_1$-uniform graph.}
Starting from $G_1'$, we next apply a sequence of moves so that
the edges with at least one end outside of $V_1$ remain the same,
but the subgraph induced on $V_1$ becomes $c_1$-uniform.
Note that this will preserve the core-value sequence, since
all nodes in $V_1$ in will still have core-value equal to $c_1$.
It will also uniquely determine the degree sequence of $V_1$, since
the degree sequence of a $d$-uniform graph graph on $n$ nodes
is uniquely determined by $d$ and $n$: it consists entirely of
the value $d$ when at least one of $d$ or $n$ is even; and it consists
of a single instance of $d+1$ and all other values equal to $d$
when both $d$ and $n$ are odd.
To make the subgraph on $V_1$ $c_1$-uniform, it suffices to apply
a sequence of moves resulting in the following property:
\begin{quote}
{\em ($\ast$) Either (i) all degrees in the subgraph induced on
$V_1$ are equal to $c$, or (ii) one node in the subgraph on $V_1$
has degree $c+1$, and all others have degree $c$.}
\end{quote}
An extension of our point in the previous paragraph is the following:
which of cases (i) or (ii) occurs is determined by $c_1$ and $n_1$:
since the sum of the degrees of all nodes in the subgraph on $V_1$ must
be even, we will be in case (i) when at least one of $c_1$ or $n_1$
is even, and otherwise we will be in case (ii).
To achieve property $(\ast)$ starting from $G_1'$, we first delete
any edge if it joins two nodes $i$ and $j$ in $V_1$
that both have degree strictly greater than $c_1$.
Since $i$ and $j$ still belong to a subgraph of minimum degree $c_1$,
their core-values are still at least $c_1$; and since the deletion
of the edge can't have increased their core-values, they are still
at most $c_1$ as well.
After this, we may assume that there are no edges joining any nodes
in $V_1$ where both ends have degree strictly greater than $c_1$.
Next, consider any node $h$ in $V_1$ of degree at least $c_1 + 2$.
By the transformations in the previous paragraph,
all of its neighbors have degree equal to $c_1$.
Let $S$ be this set of neighbors.
Each node in $S$ has an edge to at most $c_1 - 1$ other nodes in $S$,
and so there is at least one pair of nodes in $S$, say $i$ and $j$,
that are not joined by an edge.
We apply the following transformation:
We first add the edge $(i,j)$, and then we delete the edges
$(h,i)$ and $(h,j)$.
After this sequence of three Add and Delete moves,
the degrees of $i$ and $j$ remain the same, and the degree of
$h$ has been reduced by two.
Since all three nodes $h, i, j$ --- as well as all other nodes of $V_1$ ---
still have degree at least $c_1$, all core-values in $V_1$ remain $c_1$.
The final thing we must verify is that in the middle of this sequence,
after adding the edge $(i,j)$, we did not increase any core values strictly
above $c_1$, thereby taking our constructed path out of the state space $\S_\c$.
To show this, suppose that after adding $(i,j)$ (thereby increasing
their degrees to $c_1 + 1$), we delete $G - V_1$ and
all nodes of degree at most $c_1$ in $V_1$.
By the guarantee from the previous paragraph that there were no edges
connecting two nodes of degree greater than $V_1$ in $G$,
the resulting subgraph of $G$ consists of a set of isolated nodes,
together with a triangle on $\{h, i, j\}$.
By our assumption that $c_1 > 2$ (in fact, it is sufficient here that
$c_1 > 1$), no node in this subgraph has
degree greater than $c_1$, and hence the graph after the addition of
the edge $(i,j)$ continues to have an empty $(c_i + 1)$-core.
If we repeatedly apply the operation in the previous paragraph,
we arrive at a point where the subgraph on $V_1$ only has nodes of
degrees $c_1$ and $c_1 + 1$, and there are no edges between any of
the nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$.
Finally, we perform a sequence of moves to reduce the number of nodes
of degree $c_1 + 1$ to at most one.
Thus, suppose there are two nodes $h$ and $\ell$ that each have
degree $c_1 + 1$.
There are two cases to consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If there is a node $i$ that is a neighbor of one of $h, \ell$ but not the
other --- say that $i$ is a neighbor of $h$ but not $\ell$ --- then
we add the edge $(i,\ell)$ followed by deleting the edge $(h,i)$.
After doing this, $h$ has degree $c_1$ and $\ell$ has degree $c_1 + 2$;
by applying the procedure in the previous paragraph, we can then
reduce the degree of $\ell$ to $c_1$ while preserving all other
node degrees.
In this way, we have strictly reduced the number of nodes of degree
$c_1 + 1$.
\item[(ii)]
Suppose that the neighbor sets of $h$ and $\ell$ in $V_1$ are the same.
Let $T$ be this set of common neighbors of $h$ and $\ell$.
We have $|T| = c_1 + 1$, each node in $T$ has degree $c_1$, and
for each node, two of its edges go to $h$ and $\ell$, so at most
$c_1 - 2$ edges go to other nodes in $T$.
Thus there is a pair of nodes in $T$, say $i$ and $j$,
that are not joined by an edge.
We add the edge $(i,j)$ and then delete the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$;
as above, this preserves all core-values after each move, and
strictly reduces the number of nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$.
\end{itemize}
Since we can apply at least one of these two cases to strictly
reduce the number of nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$ whenever
the number of such nodes is at least two,
we can iteratively perform this reduction until the number of
nodes of degree $c_1 + 1$ is at most one.
We have therefore arrived at the desired outcome:
a graph $G_1''$ that agrees with $G_1'$ on all edges not contained
entirely in $V_1$, and with the property that the subgraph on
$V_1$ is $c_1$-uniform.
We perform the same process on $G_2'$, arriving at a graph $G_2''$
whose subgraph on $V_1$ is also $c_1$-uniform.
\xhdr{Step 3: Transforming one $c_1$-uniform top core into another.}
For a set of nodes $S$ in a graph $G$, let $G[S]$ denote the
subgraph of $G$ induced on $S$.
Since the subgraphs $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$ are both $c_1$-uniform,
their multisets of degrees are the same.
If each contains a node of degree $c_1 + 1$,
we choose an arbitrary bijection $\pi$ from $\{1, 2, \ldots, n_1\}$
to itself that maps the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ in $G_1''[V_1]$
to the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ in $G_2''[V_1]$.
Henceforth we can take this bijection as implicit, and assume
for simplicity that the node of degree $c_1 + 1$ (if any) is
the same in $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$.
Since the degree sequences of $G_1''[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$
are the same, it is known via results on the {\em switch chain}
\cite{fosdick2018configuring} that we can transform one
of these subgraphs into the other by a sequence of moves of the
following form: find four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$ for which
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ are edges but $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ are not,
and replace the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$.
In our move set we do not have this operation available as a single move,
but we can accomplish it by first adding the edges
$(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ and then deleting the edges
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$.
As before, we simply need to verify that in the middle of this
sequence of two Add operations and two Delete operations,
we do not cause any nodes to achieve a core-value greater than $c_1$.
To establish this, suppose that
after the two Add operations, we delete all nodes outside $V_1$
together with all nodes in $V_1$ of degree $c_1$.
The only nodes remaining are the four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$
together with the node $m$ of degree $c_1 + 1$ (if there is one),
and the edges $(h,i)$, $(j,\ell)$, $(h,j)$, and $(i,\ell)$,
as well as any edges between $\{h, i, j, k\}$ and $m$.
Since this 5-node subgraph is not the complete graph $K_5$
(since it lacks the edges $(h,\ell)$ and $(i,j)$), it has an empty 4-core.
By our assumption that $c_1 > 2$, this means that there is no
subgraph of minimum degree $c_1 + 1$ after deleting all nodes of
degree at most $c_1$, and hence no node acquires a core-value
of greater than $c_1$ via our sequence of moves.
By applying a sequence of these switch moves, implemented
as sequences of two Add moves and two Delete moves each,
we can thus produce a graph $G_1^o$ that agrees with $G_1''$ on
all edges with at least one end outside $V_1$, and such that the subgraphs
$G_1^o[V_1]$ and $G_2''[V_1]$ are isomorphic.
\xhdr{Step 4: Concatenating the Subpaths.}
The graphs $G_1^o$ and $G_2''$ are almost the same: their
induced subgraphs on $V_1$ are isomorphic, and for each node $j > n_1$,
the node $j$ has degree $c_j$ in both, with all $c_j$ edges going to
nodes in $V_1$.
The ends of these $c_j$ edges from $j$ to $V_1$ might be different
in $G_1^o$ and $G_2''$, but by applying a sequence of Move Endpoint
operations, we can shift the endpoints of $j$'s edges
to $V_1$ so that they become the same in the two graphs.
Applying such operations to every $j > n_1$, we can thus
transform $G_1^o$ to $G_2''$ by a sequence of Move Endpoint operations
for the edges from each node $n_1 + 1, n_2 + 2, \ldots, n$ into $V_1$.
Finally, we can
concatenate all the subpaths in $\H_\c$ that we have defined using
our set of moves. This concatenation provides
the path from $G_1$ to $G_2$ in $\H_\c$: it goes via
the intermediate graphs
$$G_1, G_1', G_1'', G_1^o, G_2'', G_2', G_2$$
and the paths between each consecutive pair of graphs on this list
using the sequences of moves describes in this subsection.
Recall from the beginning of this section that if $D(G)$
is the number of moves out of a graph $G \in \S_\c$, and
$\Delta = \max_{G \in \S_\c} D(G)$, we define
a uniform random walk on the graph $\H_\c$ in which the self-loop
probability at $G$ is $1 - D(G) / (2 \Delta)$.
We have thus established that
\begin{stmt}
The graph $\H_\c$ defined by our move set on the
collection of all graphs of core-value sequence ${\bf c}$
is connected.
Moreover, the random walk on $\H_\c$ based on the self-loop
probabilities we have defined has the property that
it converges to a uniform stationary distribution from
any starting point.
\label{stmt:walk-connected-convergence}
\end{stmt}
\xhdr{Handling the case $c_1 \leq 2$.}
As noted at the start of this subsection, the exposition
has assumed that the highest core-value $c_1$ satisfies the
assumption (mild in practice) that $c_1 > 2$.
We now show how with additional work we can remove this assumption
and still achieve comparable results.
First, consider the case in which the highest core-value $c_1$
satisfies $c_1 = 2$.
The only place in the analysis
where we use the assumption that $c_1 > 2$ is in Step 3 when
we use two Add moves followed by two Delete moves to simulate the
single {\em switch move} that replaces two edges
$(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$;
we need to ensure that no node increases its core-value when we do this.
To handle the case $c_1 = 2$, we can thus simply enhance the Markov chain
by including switch moves in the top core:
when (i) the set of four nodes $\{h, i, j, k\}$ is a subset of the top core,
(ii) $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ are edges and
(iii) $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$ are not edges, then we allow a single move that
replaces the edges $(h,i)$ and $(j,\ell)$ with $(h,j)$ and $(i,\ell)$.
This preserves all core-values even when $c_1 \leq 2$.
With this extra set of moves including switch moves in the top core,
we now have a graph $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ with more edges than $\mathcal H_{\bf c}$, and the analysis
above shows that that $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ is connected when $c_1 = 2$.
A random walk on $\mathcal H_{\bf c}'$ is thus sufficient to generate random graphs
with a given core-value sequence when the highest core-value is 2.
Finally, the case $c_1 = 1$ has a particularly simple structure:
the core-value sequence, for some $k$, has $k$ nodes
with core-value $1$ and $n-k$ nodes with core-value $0$.
Any $G$ with this core-value sequence
has $n-k$ isolated nodes and $k$ nodes that
form a union of trees, each of size at least 2.
We can sample directly from this set of graphs, without recourse
to the Markov chain developed here, by adapting
an algorithm for generating uniform spanning trees
\cite{wilson1996generating}: we first sample from the
size distribution of components and then sample spanning trees
of complete graphs of the chosen sizes.
\omt{
\section{Setting Up the Markov Chain}
The first step of creating a Markov chain is proving what k-core sequences are possible. This is analogous to the configuration model, where a realizability proof is required to provide a random graph with a given degree sequence. First, we prove that given a graph where all nodes have core-value $c$, we can add a new node to the graph such that this new node also has core-value $c$ without altering the core-values of the other nodes.
\begin{lemma}\label{addKNode}
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $n$ nodes, such that all nodes have core-value $k*$, then it is possible to add a new node $v'$ to the graph, only modifying edges with $v'$ as an endpoint, such that all nodes in $G$ and $v'$ have core-value $k*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Add a node $v'$ to $G$. Attach $v'$ to an arbitrary $k*$ nodes. Since $v'$ has degree $k*$, its core-value must be $\leq k*$. Thus $v'$ cannot be part of a k-core with core-value $> k*$, and its addition will not promote any node to a k-core of core-value $> k*$. Additionally, it will not demote any node to a lower k-core. Finally, since it has $k*$ connections to nodes of core-value $k*$, it must also have core-value at least $k*$. Thus all nodes in this new graph have core-value $k*$.
\end{proof}
Thus by the argument above, it is possible to have a graph of any core-value with arbitrarily large numbers of nodes. The next step is then showing that we can add nodes with other core-values. If we assume a graph consisting of core-values $c$, then we we add any nodes such that they consist of any sequence of core-values as long as those core values are all $\leq c$.
\begin{lemma}\label{addAnyNode}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with $n$ nodes that all have core-value $k*$. Let $N$ be a set of nodes. Let $N'$ be a set of intended core-values such that each core-value $n'$ in $N'$ corresponds to a node $n$ in $N$, and all intended core values are $\leq k*$ . Then $\exists$ a graph $G'=(V', E')$ that includes all nodes from G at their current core-values, and all nodes from $N$ with their intended core values from $N'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $N$ be the nodes that you wish to add to the graph. Sort this list of nodes by the intended core-value of the nodes, with the largest core-values first. We then add the nodes one by one. For each node you add, it either has a smaller core-value than all of the nodes in the graph, or it has a core-value equal to the minimum core-value of all the nodes in the graph. Following a similar argument to \ref{addKNode}, adding such a node will not impact the core-values of the graph. Thus you are able to add all of the nodes in $N$ one by one to get $G'$.
\end{proof}
Now that we've shown we can add nodes to a framework of same-core nodes, we need to show when such a framework can be created. In fact, we can create a graph where all nodes are of core-value $c$ if and only if there are at least $c+1$ nodes.
\begin{algorithm}\label{GraphofK}
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Create a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $c$ nodes all with core-value $k$}
Let $k > 0$ and $c>k$.\;
\uIf{$k$ == 1}{
Connect each node to exactly one other node in a chain\;
}\uElseIf{$k$ == 2}{
Create a circle of nodes\;
Connect each node to it's left neighbor\;
}\uElseIf{$k$ is even and $c$ is odd, or $k$ is odd and $c$ is even}{
Create a circle of nodes\;
Connect each node to it's left neighbor\;
Let $z=(c-k+1)/2$\;
\ForEach{Node $n \in V$}{
Attach to $n$ all nodes that are more than $z$ nodes to the left or right of $n$\;
}
}\uElse{
Follow the above protocol for $c=c-1$\;
Add a node to the graph, and connect it to $k$ arbitrary nodes\;
}
\caption{Create graph of only core-value $k$}
\end{algorithm}
We can now put this all together and show that we can create a graph from any core sequence provided that there are at least $c+1$ nodes of core value $c$ if $c$ is the largest core value.
\begin{algorithm}\label{GraphofAny}
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Given a list $N$ of nodes with pre-defined core values, s.t. $|N| = c$, create a graph $G=(V,E)$ using those nodes that has no self loops.}
Sort $N$ by the core-values, largest core-values first\;
Let $k > 0$ be the maximum value of $N$ and $c>k$\;
Create a graph $G'$ using Alg:\ref{GraphofK} of all the nodes of $N$ that have core-value $k$\;
Using the strategy defined in Lemma \ref{addAnyNode}, we can then add nodes from $N$ in order\;
\caption{Create graph of arbitrary core-values}
\end{algorithm}
Furthermore, it is clear that there cannot be any graph where the largest core value is $c$ and there are $\leq c$ nodes with that core value, so the above proofs cover all possible core value sequences.
\section{Proving connectivity of the Markov chain}
Now that we've established k-core realizability, we need a set of moves. These moves must satisfy two requirements: first, it must not change the core value sequence, and second every possible graph of this core value sequence must be reachable by some sequence of these moves. First, lets define these moves.
\subsection{Move Set}
We include several types of moves in our move set. For this section, we will refer to the core-value of node $n$ as $c_n$, the set of all nodes in core $k$ as $C_k$, and the maximum core-value as $K$. This is for labeled, undirected graphs with no self-loops.
\subsubsection{Move Endpoint}
Find an edge $(A, B)$ s.t. $c_A > c_B$. Find another node $D$ s.t. $c_B < c_D$. Delete $(A, B)$ and insert $(D, B)$. $B$'s core value will not change, since it still has the same number of connections to nodes of a greater core value. Similarly, $A$ and $D$ are unaffected by the edges.
\subsubsection{Core Collapse}
Find two edges $(A, B), (A,D)$ s.t.$c_A > c_B$ and $c_B = c_D$, replace both of those edges with $(B, D)$. This will not affect A, as it has a larger core-value. Similarly, $B, D$ will maintain the same number of edges to nodes of core value greater than or equal to their own, so it will not affect their core values.
\subsubsection{Core Expand}
Find and edge $(A, B)$ s.t. $c_A = c_B$. Find a node $D$ s.t. $c_D > c_A$. Remove $(A,B)$. If $A$ has fewer than $c_A$ edges to nodes of greater core value, insert $(A, D)$. Similarly, if $B$ has fewer than $c_A$ edges to nodes of greater core value, insert $(B, D)$. This does not affect the core-value of $D$. It also does not affect the core-value of $A, B$ because we ensure they have only up to $c_A$ edges to nodes of higher core-values, and their number of edges do not decrease.
\subsubsection{Add}
There are a few heuristics one can use, but essentially an edge $(A,B)$ can be added only if adding that edge does not affect the core values of any nodes in the graph. This can be ensured by adding the edge, checking the core values of the new graph, and then reverting if necessary.
\subsubsection{Delete}
Slightly easier than add, you can delete an $(A,B)$ edge if both $A$ and $B$ have $c_A$ and $c_B$ edges to nodes of equal or greater core-value respectively other than $(A,B)$.
\subsubsection{Degree Collapse}
Very similar to a core-collapse, but instead done with three nodes all with core-value $K$, where one node has greater degree than the other two rather than greater core value.
\subsubsection{Degree Expand}
Very similar to a core-expand, but instead done with three nodes all core-value $K$, but such that none lose core-value, which can be checked by attempting the degree expand and then reverting if necessary.
None of these moves will alter the core value of any node in the graph, so we can guarantee that using any sequence of them will not alter the core value sequence of the graph.
\subsection{Proving Connectivity}
Now we just need to prove that any construction of a core value sequence can be reached with some sequence of these moves. To do this, we will use a graph construction we term the 'Natural State'. A graph in its 'Natural State' consists of every node of core-value $c$ having exactly $c$ edges attached to nodes of higher core-value, and no edges to any node of its same core-value, where $c < K$.
\begin{lemma}
If we omit the degree collapse and degree expand, then, ignoring nodes of core-value $K$, we can reach a particular state we call the 'Natural State'.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we have a node $n$ with core-value $c < K$. Then $n$ must have at least $c$ edges to nodes of core-value $\geq c$. If an edge goes to a higher core, we don't care about it. If it goes to a lower core, we don't care about it. If it goes to a node of core-value $c$, though, then we need to adjust the edge. Let there be such an edge, with endpoints $n, n'$ both in core $c$. We then need to apply a core expand - this will ensure that the edge is replaced by edges to higher nodes, but also that the core-values of $n, n'$ do not change. Using core expand, we can then reach the 'Natural State' of the graph.
\end{proof}
Given that we have shown it is possible to reach the 'Natural State' for any graph, all that's left is to show that we can reach some analogue of the 'Natural State' for the nodes with the highest core value. That is, we need to show that for any number of nodes $n$ with core-value $K$, using only the moves listed it is possible to reach all constructions of $n$ nodes of core-value $K$.
\begin{lemma}
The degree collapse and degree expand are enough to move any group of nodes in core $c$ to either a $c$-regular graph or a $c$-regular graph with one extra node of degree $c+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose you have a graph consisting only of nodes in core $c$. Each node, then, has at least $c$ edges to other nodes in the graph, and it only need $c$ edges to maintain its core value. First, find any edges between two nodes each with $deg > c$, delete those edges (this will not affect core values). Next, find a node $n$ s.t. it has degree $ \geq c+2$. All of it's neighbors must have degree $c$, which means at least two of its neighbors are not connected. Perform degree collapse on these nodes, which decreases $n$'s degree, but does not change core values or the degree of the other two nodes. Repeat for all nodes until no node has degree $ > c+1$. Repeat this again, but for nodes of degree $c+1$, which has the same guarantees. By the end of this, you will be left with either a $c$-regular graph, or a $c$-regular graph with one $c+1$ node.
\end{proof}
Now that we have shown that there is some 'Natural State' for every graph, and an analogue state for its highest core, we can prove that using the moves above it is possible to pass from any graph $G$ through its 'Natural State' to any other construction of its core value sequence.
\begin{theorem}
The move set above is sufficient to reach every possible construction of any given core set.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have already shown that we can reach a 'Natural State' for any graph. Using the move-endpoints, and the degree functions we can also move between all 'Natural States'. We have also shown that the top-core can be reduced to a k-regular or almost k-regular graph. Any instance of this 'regular' graph can be transformed into any other instance of a 'regular' graph using degree-stable randomization, such as described in Fosdick et al. Thus, any graph of core-values $C$ can be transformed into any other graph of core-values $C$ by travelling through the 'Natural State' and 'regular' state.
\end{proof}
}
\section{Basic set-up for doing the computational experiments}
In the previous section, we established that the Markov chain defined by the random walk on $\H_\c$ will converge to a uniform stationary distribution from any starting point. We now discuss some of the computational considerations involved in running the Markov chain so as to be able to sample from it.
\omt{
First, we need to ensure that our setup of a Markov Chain will in fact produce random samples. This requires two things: that the graph of graphs for the Markov Chain is fully connected and that each node in this graph of graphs has equal degree.
\begin{theorem}
It is possible to uniformly sample a random graph of core values $C$ by running a Markov Chain using this move-set.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have already shown that the graph of graphs is connected. In order to uniformly sample, in that case, one simply needs to add self-loops such that the sum of actual transitions and self loops is the same for every graph in the chain. We simply overestimate the maximum number of transitions, and apply this move set many times to uniformly sample.
\end{proof}
}
The basic set up for computationally running this Markov chain has two steps. A graph is input in the form of a SparseMatrix. The core numbers are then calculated and an array of core values from largest to smallest is created. The nodes are then renamed from 1 to $n$ such that each node is distinct and the node name refers to the index of their core-value in the core array. This results in nodes named such that nodes with larger core-values have smaller names.
We then do a number of transition steps. Each transition step is identical, except for the graph being processed. The transition step takes in several values: the graph, the core array and an estimated upper bound on the highest degree of any node in the Markov chain. We then estimate an upper bound on how many possible transitions there are from this graph to other graphs. We do this by soliciting an upper bound on the number of possible transitions for each type of move - note that no two moves will ever give the same exact resultant graph. This is done by proposing many moves, not all of which are necessarily possible. We sum these upper bounds to get an upper bound on the total number of transitions from this graph. If that upper bound is larger than our estimated upper bound on the largest degree in the Markov chain, then we double that estimate and start over.
Next, we randomly select a number between 0 and the estimated degree upper bound. If the number is larger than our possible transition estimate, then we "self loop" and draw again. Otherwise, we choose proportionally randomly among the moves, and then select a random proposed move. If it is not a possible move we "self loop" and draw again. Otherwise, we apply the move, then call the transition function again. This rejection sampling method is used because calculating all possible moves is both memory intensive and time consuming.
\section{Using the Core-Value Model for Network Analysis}\label{sec:properties}
Having now established the basic method for generating random graphs with a given core-value sequence, we provide a set of computational experiments showing how it can serve as a null model for network analysis tasks, parallel to the ways in which the configuration model that fixes node degrees is used.
We will see that in some cases, the conclusions from our core-value null model form fundamental contrasts with the conclusions that would be reached using the configuration model.\footnote{Code and data for all the results in this section may be obtained from the following link: {\scriptsize \url{https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kvank/selected_publications.html}}}
\subsection{Subgraphs and Motifs}
We begin with an application where it is natural to expect that the contrast between the configuration model and the core-value model might be apparent: in the frequency of small subgraphs.
When we are assessing the abundance of a particular subgraph in real network data, we may want to compare it to the frequency of this same subgraph in a randomized version of the network that preserves some invariant.
The configuration model, by fixing only the node degrees, destroys most of the local structure, and hence can make particular small subgraphs seem highly frequent in the real network data as a result.
Intuitively, our core-value model can be viewed as preserving enough local structure to maintain the core decomposition; will this give a different view of the abundance of small subgraphs?
We show here that it does in general.
We begin by considering perhaps the simplest family of small subgraphs: triangles on three nodes. After this, we move on to an analysis of small motifs more generally. In both cases, the core-value model leads to different conclusions than the configuration model in several important respects.
\subsection*{\small Triangle-based statistics}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_tri_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_tri_dist.pdf}
\Description[Four histograms of triangle count]{Four triangle count histograms, the k-core null model overlaps with the configuration model for Autonomous systems and Power Grid.}
\caption{Distribution of the number of triangles from 50 random samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset
and 50 random samples of graphs with a degree sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The $k$-core samples have more triangles, and often the number of triangles in the dataset is within the range those observed in the random samples.}
\label{fig:tri_dist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_tri_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_tri_seq.pdf}
\Description[Four exponential graphs]{K-core triangle degree is consistently higher than the configuration model and closer to the true data.}
\caption{Triangle degree sequences (given by the number of triangles adjacent to a given node)
from 50 random samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset
and 50 random samples of graphs with a degree sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The $k$-core samples tend to match the triangle sequence more closely.}
\label{fig:tri_seq}
\end{figure}
For our computational experiments here and in a number of the subsequent analyses, we use four graph datasets:
an autonomous systems network~\cite{leskovec2005graphs},
a protein structure network~\cite{milo2004superfamilies},
a friendship network of lawyers working at the same firm~\cite{lazega2001collegial}, and
a power grid~\cite{son_kim_olave-rojas_alvarez-miranda_2018}.
For each dataset, we run our Markov-chain sampler for a number of steps equal to 100 times the number of edges in the graph,
with input $k$-core sequence given by the dataset.
We repeated this 50 times to get 50 random graphs with a prescribed $k$-core distribution.
We then compare the statistics of the resulting graph to the output of the configuration model.
For this, we use 50 samples from a Markov-chain configuration model sampler for vertex-labeled simple graphs,
using the double edge swap procedure described by Fosdick et al.~\cite{fosdick2018configuring}.\footnote{Note that the Markov-chain approach is the standard strategy for generating fixed-degree graphs because we are trying to produce simple graphs; more basic direct approaches yield graphs with self-loops and parallel edges.}
As noted earlier in this section, one weakness of the configuration model is that it destroys local structure, and we observe this even on the small
datasets considered here.
Specifically, the total number of triangles in the configuration model samples is far below the number of triangles
in the corresponding datasets (Figure~\ref{fig:tri_dist}).
The random samples from the prescribed $k$-core sequence have more triangles than those in the configuration model samples.
Moreover, the distribution of the total number of triangles straddles the number of triangles in the autonomous systems dataset.
Thus, the observed number of triangles in this datasets is unsurprising \emph{given the $k$-core sequence}.
In other words, we would not reject the null model of a random graph sampled uniformly at random from the space
of graphs with the given $k$-core sequence, just based on the statistic of the number of triangles.
In addition to the total number of triangles, we also measure the \emph{triangle degree sequence} in these random
samples and compare them to the datasets (Figure~\ref{fig:tri_seq}).
Here, the triangle degree of a node is the number of triangles in which it participates.
We see that the triangle degree sequences given by the $k$-core sequence null model more closely match those of the data.
Taken together, the results of this subsection provide evidence that our $k$-core-based null model
offers a substantially different baseline than the configuration model.
In particular, for the datasets considered here, the core-based null model produces random samples with a larger number of triangles that capture
some of the local structure in the graph.
We will see in the next subsection that this same principle applies for motif analysis more generally.
\subsection*{\small Motif analysis}
A longstanding application of null models for network analysis is the identification
of important or unusual small subgraph patterns called \emph{network motifs}~\cite{milo2002network}.
The main idea is to count the number of occurrences of several small subgraphs in a given dataset as well as in several
random samples from a null model.
``Motifs'' are then subgraphs that appear significantly more or less often than in the null.
Historically, the employed null model is the configuration model~\cite{milo2002network,milo2004superfamilies,fosdick2018configuring}.
Here, we consider both the configuration model and our $k$-core-based model as null models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_SRP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_SRP.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{FIG/subgraphs.PNG}
\Description[Two line plots]{K-core and configuration model diverge for all 7 subgraphs.}
\caption{Subgraph ratio profile (SRP) plots under the $k$-core and configuration null models for four node subgraphs and triangles.
The x-axis in the SRP plots are indexed by the seven subgraphs at the bottom.
}
\label{fig:srp}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:srp} we consider the results of counting six different motifs consisting of six distinct (non-induced) subgraphs on four nodes each, as well as a motif consisting of the triangle so that we can view the results of the previous subsection in this context as well.
To decide whether the number of copies of a given subgraph appears significantly more or less frequently than in a random baseline, a canonical approach is to the use the {\em subgraph ratio profile (SRP)}, which essentially measures a normalized difference between the frequencies of the subgraph in the real network and in the random baseline. (We refer readers to Milo et al.~\cite{milo2004superfamilies} for the precise definition.) As a result, a positive SRP for a given subgraph indicates that the subgraph occurs more frequently in the real data than in a random baseline, while a negative SRP indicates that it occurs less frequently. Positive SRP values are thus taken as evidence that the corresponding subgraph is a meaningfully abundant motif in the network data.
Viewed in this context, we see that the SRP can be defined using any random-graph model that fixes some aspect of the structure of the real network. While the configuration model that fixes degrees is the standard approach, we can also define SRP values using the core-value model and ask whether we arrive at similar conclusions.
As we see in Figure \ref{fig:srp}, the SRP values based on the core-value model are in fact quite different for two of our datasets, on autonomous systems and the social network on lawyers.\footnote{For power grids and protein networks, there isn't enough meaningful four-node structure to produce clear results using either baseline.}
In particular, we see that many SRP values are on opposite sides of $0$ across the two models, showing that a number of conclusions can change when we move a core-based null model.
Moreover, these changes generally go in the conjectured direction based on the preservation of local structure: if we believe that the core-value model destroys less of the local structure in a network relative to the configuration model, then we would expect lower (and potentially negative) SRP values, and this is what see for many of the subgraphs in Figure~\ref{fig:srp}.
The results thus point to the crucial role in the choice of null model for interpreting these subgraph frequency questions --- a type of issue that becomes feasible to ask given an efficient way to generate null graphs with fixed core-value sequences.
\subsection{Edge-based statistics}
To understand how the core-value model behaves in these types of applications, it is natural to explore some of its basic properties as well.
Perhaps the most fundamental set of properties concern basic counts of edges and degrees.
When sampling based on a $k$-core description given by a dataset, a major difference with the configuration model is that the number of edges in the random sample can differ from those in the dataset.
For a simple example, consider a 4-cycle and the graph obtained by adding one additional edge to the 4-cycle --- all nodes in both graphs have a core value equal to two, but they differ in the number of edges.
Here, we examine the distribution in the number of edges in random samples generated by our algorithm,
where the core-value sequence is generated by a real-world dataset.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_edge_dist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_edge_dist.pdf}
\Description[Four histograms]{K-core consistently has more edges than the real-world graph.}
\caption{Distribution of the number of edges from 50 MCMC samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
As expected, the number of edges in the random samples is different than in the original data, but the difference is not drastic.}
\label{fig:edge_dist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/as_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/protein1_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/lawyers_deg_seq.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\columnwidth]{FIG/power_true_deg_seq.pdf}
\Description[Four line plots]{For all four plots, frequency increases with degree.}
\caption{Degree sequences from 50 MCMC samples of graphs with a $k$-core sequence given by a real-world graph dataset.
The degree sequences of the random samples are similar (but not identical) to the degree sequences in the real-world data.}
\label{fig:deg_seq}
\end{figure}
We use the same datasets and sampling procedure that we employed in the previous subsections.
Figure~\ref{fig:edge_dist} shows the number of edges in the resulting samples.
We see that, for a given dataset, all of the random samples have a number of edges that is greater than or equal to the original data.
Thus, the total number of edges in these datasets over the space of graphs with the same $k$-core sequence is concentrated above the observed number of edges.
At the same time, though, the number of edges in the random sample is not drastically different.
We also compare the degree sequence of the random samples to those in the original data (Figure~\ref{fig:deg_seq}).
The degree sequences largely resemble those in the original data, but are not exactly the same.
Often, the samples from our algorithm produce graphs with a larger maximum degree than the empirical autonomous systems dataset.
\subsection{Attribute-based assortativity}
\begin{table}
\caption{Network assortativity $r$ with respect to several attributes in the Lawyers dataset.
We list the z-score of the assortativity statistic with respect to 50 samples from the configuration
and $k$-core-based model.
}
\label{tab:attrs}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c}{z-score} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-4}
Attribute & $r$ & configuration & $k$-core \\ \midrule
Status & 0.55 & 21.29 & 3.92 \\
Office Location & 0.21 & 5.53 & 8.72. \\
Gender & 0.12 & 2.50 & 0.31 \\
Law School & 0.05 & 1.80 & 0.79 \\
Type of Practice & 0.04 & 1.29 & 1.71 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As a final investigation, we consider whether or not attribute-based assortativity is preserved
under the configuration and core-value null models. The lawyers dataset has several
attributes on each node, and we measure the network assortativity $r$~\cite{newman2003mixing}
for status at the firm (partner or associate), office location, gender, law school, and type of practice (litigation or corporate).
Assortativity is positive for all of the attributes, i.e., there is a tendency for edges to appear between two nodes sharing the same attribute
(Table~\ref{tab:attrs}).
As a baseline, we measure the assortativity levels under 50 samples of the configuration model
and the core-value model and compute the same $z$-score as for the motif analysis.
The assortativity scores are higher in the data than in both the null models (all of the $z$-scores in Table~\ref{tab:attrs} are positive).
For example, office location assortativity is overwhelmingly significant under either null.
This is unsurprising, as neither null model is designed to capture mesoscale modular, community, or cluster structure within the network,
and several of the attributes are known to correspond to meaningful cluster structure~\cite{peel2017ground}.
At the same time, evaluating significance based on $z$-scores for some attributes
could lead to different conclusions based on the choice of null model and the desired significance level.
For example, the gender assortativity in the network is $0.12$, which is about 2.5 standard deviations above the mean
with respect to the configuration model, but only 0.31 standard deviations above the mean with respect to the core-value model.
Thus, gender assortativity may seem insignificant under the core-value null but significant under the configuration model null.
\section{Conclusion}
The {\em $k$-core decomposition} is a fundamental graph-theoretic
concept that assigns each node $v$ a {\em core-value} equal to the
largest $c$ such that $v$ belongs to a subgraph of $G$ of minimum degree $c$.
Drawing on this concept,
we have proposed a new family of random graphs that can serve as
a class of null models in network analysis,
obtained by randomly sampling from the set of
all graphs with a given core-value sequence.
Our sampling method exploits the rich combinatorial structure of
the $k$-core decomposition; we construct a novel Markov chain on
the set of all graphs of a given core-value sequence,
show that the state space is connected with respect to this transition,
and establish that the chain can be used to generate near-uniform
samples from this set of graphs.
The approach opens up a number of intriguing further directions of
potential theoretical and empirical interest.
One question noted earlier is to try establishing bounds on the
mixing rate of the Markov chain we have defined.
Such questions are in general quite challenging, since the mixing
even of simpler chains remains open; we note that many of these chains have
proved valuable for sampling even in the absence of provable guarantees.
A second question, related to our solution of the realizability
question for core-value sequences, is to study extremal questions
over the set of graphs realizing a given core-value sequence;
for example, what is the minimum or maximum number of edges that a graph
with a given core-value sequence can have?
Finally, in a more empirical direction and motivated by our findings
on network motifs, it will be interesting to
characterize the kinds of network properties for which the configuration model
and our core-value model produce systematically different results.
Such comparisons can begin to provide insight into the broader consequences of our choice of null models in network analysis.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank Haobin Ni for his thoughtful insight.
This research was supported in part by
ARO Award W911NF19-1-0057,
ARO MURI,
NSF Award DMS-1830274,
a Simons Investigator Award,
a Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship,
AFOSR grant FA9550-19-1-0183,
and grants from
JP Morgan Chase \& Co. and
the MacArthur Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
\textit{Cloud computing} is inexorably becoming the technology of choice among big and small businesses to deploy and manage their IT infrastructures and applications \cite{wang2016spatial}. Infrastructure-as-a-Service (\textit{IaaS}) is a key cloud service delivery model. Large companies such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and IBM provide IaaS solutions to their consumers. Examples of IaaS consumers include Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) providers and organizations such as governments, universities, and research centers \cite{fattah2020long}. The computing resources or Virtual Machine (VM) instances are the most common IaaS services \cite{hwang2015cloud}. The \textit{functional} properties of a VM instance or an IaaS service include computing resources such as CPU units, memory units, storage, and network bandwidths. Examples of \textit{non-functional} properties or Quality of Service (QoS) attributes of IaaS services are availability, price, response time, throughput, and energy efficiency \cite{fattah2020event,fattah2020signature}.
The \textit{market-driven} cloud service provisioning is a topical research area \cite{varghese2018next}. There exist several key service \textit{provisioning} models in the cloud market such as on-demand, reservation \cite{chaisiri2011optimization, zheng2016probabilistic}, and economic models \cite{sharma2012pricing,Thanakornworakij,PAL2013113}. We propose an \textit{alternative strategy to the on-demand model} which would be used in conjunction. The premise is that the on-demand or reservation model makes it difficult to accurately predict service demand, thus potentially leading to either under-provisioning or over-provisioning \cite{dustdar2011principles,jiang2011asap, islam2012empirical}.
The alternative model focuses on the economic model-based cloud service selection and provision for long-term IaaS composition. In that regard, the economic model-based service provisioning approach is fundamentally different from the typical on-demand and reservation models. According to the \textit{on-demand}, the provider has a fixed set of VM instances associated with QoS and price \cite{Hong}. The consumer may acquire and release on-demand VM instances anytime and only pay for the usage by per hour or per second.
The provider usually sets a discounted flat rate for the reserved instances in the \textit{reservation} model \cite{fattah2019long}. The consumers reserve the VM instance for a fixed time period and pay for it regardless of usage.
According to \textit{economic model} based service provisioning approaches, there exists \textit{market competitions} among providers to set the price and QoS of their services \cite{PAL2013113}. The market competition forms \textit{non-cooperative games} among competitive providers and consumers \cite{Thanakornworakij}.
\textit{We focus on the economic model-based cloud service selection and provision for a long-term period}. Economic expectations are \textit{formally} expressed in terms of economic models \cite{ye2014economic,sajibtsc2015,goiri2012economic}. According to the economic model-based service selection approaches \cite{ye2014economic,yu2007efficient,kholidy2014qos}, a consumer's requests include custom VM instances, QoS parameters and the price the consumer is willing to pay for the instance (usually determined by their market research or the \textit{consumer economic models}). Similarly, the providers follow their own economic model to \textit{accept} or \textit{reject} the requests from the consumers \cite{sajibtsc2015}.
The economic model-based service selection and provisioning approaches are applied in different cloud markets such as spot market, SLA negotiation, and auction-based reservation models \cite{zaman2013combinatorial}.
We assume that consumers create their \textit{IaaS requests} following their own economic models. An IaaS provider receives a set of IaaS requests from \textit{different} consumers. \textit{The IaaS composition from the provider's perspective is defined as the selection of an optimal set of consumer requests \cite{sajibtsc2015}}. The IaaS composition is a \textit{decision-making} problem where the provider decides which requests it should \textit{accept} or \textit{reject}. An effective IaaS composition \textit{maximizes} the provider's long-term economic expectations, such as profit, reputation, and consumer growth \cite{fattah2018cp}. The economic model is the \textit{formal tool} to select the optimal set of consumer requests to meet the provider's expectations \cite{dash2009economic}.
Our objective is to design a \textit{qualitative economic model} for the long-term IaaS composition \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. The qualitative economic models provide an \textit{effective} way to select consumer requests where there exists \textit{uncertainties} or \textit{incomplete} information. The consumer requirements are typically uncertain and probabilistic \cite{fattah2018cp} for the long-term period. \textit{The provider's long-term economic expectations are also dynamic} \cite{mistry2018long}. The qualitative economic model specifies the provider's \textit{temporal business strategies} such as reputation building, risk management, revenue, and profit maximization \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. These business strategies determine the service provisioning \textit{preferences}. For example, the provider may observe very high demand for \textit{Network-intensive services} (i.e., VM instances designed for Network-intensive applications, e.g., C5n instance type in Amazon EC2\footnote{https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/c5/}) in the Christmas or holiday period. The provider may prefer to provision Network-intensive services than CPU-intensive services (i.e., VM instances designed for CPU intensive applications, e.g., P3 instance in Amazon EC2\footnote{https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/p3/}) to increase its revenue.
We assume that an IaaS provider has its long-term qualitative economic model, i.e., the temporal service provisioning \textit{preferences} \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. The provider receives long-term IaaS requests from different consumers which are represented in \textit{time series} and associated with QoS parameters and price. The \textit{qualitative IaaS composition} is defined as the \textit{selection} or \textit{acceptance} of an optimal set of IaaS requests using the qualitative economic model of the provider. \textit{We aim to provide a comprehensive framework for long-term qualitative IaaS composition}. To the best of our knowledge, apart from our previous work \cite{sajibicsoc2016,mistry2018long}, existing research mainly focus on the \textit{quantitative IaaS composition}. The target of the quantitative composition is to \textit{maximize revenue and profit} of the provider for a \textit{short-term} period without any long-term business strategies or economic model \cite{ye2013qos,chaisiri2012optimization,zhu2010resource}. In contrast, the target of the qualitative composition is to \textit{maximize the similarity measure} between a given set of consumer requests and the provider's qualitative economic model.
We represent the provider's long-term qualitative economic model using \textit{Temporal Conditional Preference Networks} (TempCP-nets) \cite{mistry2017probabilistic}. The TempCP-net \textit{ranks} the short-term and long-term consumer requests using k-d tree according to provider's preferences \cite{sajibtsc2014}. The qualitative composition is \textit{transformed} into a \textit{combinatorial optimization problem} where the objective is to select the consumer requests that maximizes the preference rankings. We explore two composition approaches: a) \textit{global composition}, and b) \textit{local composition} \cite{alrifai2009combining, yu2008framework}. The global composition approach considers all the consumer requests within the composition interval which is computationally expensive \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. The local composition approach \textit{divides} the composition interval into several time segments and optimizes a \textit{partial set} of requests (acceptance or rejection) in each time segment. It may \textit{significantly improve} the runtime efficiency as we do not need to consider the whole set of requests during the entire composition period. However, the local composition approach is a \textit{greedy approach} of sequential optimization \cite{gnanlet2009sequential,pednault2002sequential} and may not produce the optimal result as the request selection is \textit{temporal-dependent} on the previous acceptance or rejection decisions in other time segments. For example, when we optimize the requests from left to right time segments (i.e., January, February, March), the composition result may be different than the optimization from right to left time segments (i.e., March, February, and January). A reinforcement learning based approach called 3d Q-learning \cite{mistry2018long} is proposed to \textit{find the optimal sequence} of temporal selections. The proposed 3d Q-learning based composition approach is considered \textit{off-policy} as the \textit{learning approach has no restrictions over exploration}. The proposed approach does not consider the \textit{temporal distribution} and \textit{correlations} of the \textit{historical request sets} to compose a new set of requests using \textit{policy reuse}.
We propose a novel \textit{on-policy} based 3d Q-learning approach that effectively utilizes historical information to find the optimal selection of requests. First, the proposed learning approach reduces the run-time by removing redundant state transitions in the off-policy based 3d Q-learning approaches. Next, a novel request annotation approach based on agglomerative clustering techniques \cite{fernandez2008solving,bouguettaya2015efficient} is proposed to capture the \textit{intrinsic characteristics} of the historical requests such as the temporal distribution and the global preference ranking. A \textit{novel policy reuse approach} is proposed to compose a new set of requests that effectively utilizes previous policies which are learned from historical information. The key contributions of this work are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item A comprehensive framework to compose long-term and short-term IaaS requests based on the provider's qualitative economic model.
\item An on-policy based 3d Q-learning approach to finding the optimal request selection sequence.
\item A novel request annotation approach to capture the intrinsic characteristics of historical request sets.
\item A novel policy reuse approach to enable effective utilization of historical information in the proposed 3d Q-learning.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In section 2, we introduce a set of terminologies and concepts that are used to formulate the qualitative composition problem. Section 3 illustrates a motivation scenario to explain the need for sequential learning in IaaS composition. Section 4 provides a general overview of the proposed qualitative IaaS composition framework. In section 5, we describe the proposed IaaS composition approach for a new set of requests. Section 6 describes the proposed long-term qualitative composition with the previous learning experience. Section 7 presents our experiments to evaluate the proposed approaches. Section 8 summarizes the related work on economic model based cloud service composition and sequential learning approaches. Finally, Section 9 concludes the paper and discusses the limitation and future work of this paper.
\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, We introduce a set of terminologies and concepts that are used to formulate the qualitative IaaS composition problem in this paper. We will use these terminologies throughout the paper to describe the problem and proposed solution.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Providers and Services:} IaaS providers are referred as the provider. We consider the composition problem from the perspective of a single provider. IaaS services usually include a wide selection of VM instance types optimized to fit different use cases such as general purpose, compute optimized, memory optimized, and storage optimized \cite{hwang2015cloud}. The VM Instance types comprise varying combinations of CPU, memory, storage, and networking capacity and give consumers the flexibility to choose the appropriate mix of resources for their applications. We consider VM instances as services. The VM instances designed for Memory-intensive applications are termed as Memory-intensive services. For example, The R5 instance in Amazon EC2 is an example of Memory-intensive services\footnote{https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/r5/}. Similarly, VM instances designed for CPU-intensive applications are termed as CPU-intensive services. For example, the P3 instance in Amazon EC2 is an example of Memory-intensive services\footnote{ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/p3/}.
\item \textit{Resources:} The resources are the capacity of the physical machines that are used to offer the VM services such as: CPU cores, memory unit, and network bandwidths \cite{hwang2015cloud}. \textit{We assume that provider has a fixed set of resources.} Here, the number of fixed set of resources refers to the maximum number of resource the provider may have at a certain point of time. The maximum number of resource however may change over period of time. In such a case, the number of fixed of resources is required to be updated according to the new maximum number of resources. The proposed approach can be considered as a proactive approach, where provider anticipates the maximum number of resources it can have. Our aim to utilize these resources based on the provider's economic model.
\item \textit{Consumers}: The targeted consumers are mainly the medium to large business organizations such as SaaS providers, governments, universities, and research institutes. These organizations may require services for a long-term period (e.g., 1 to 3 years).
\item \textit{IaaS Requests}: IaaS requests refer to the configuration of \textit{functional} and \textit{non-functional} requirements of the VM over a period of time. A consumer may need a VM with 2 vCPU, 2gb memory, and 99\% availability in first six months of a year. The IaaS requests for that period is represented as (2 vCPU, 2 gb memory, 99\% availability). \textit{We assume the deterministic IaaS requests, i.e., the provider has knowledge about the long-term requests prior to the composition}. We compose these requests based on the provider's economic models. The provider defines the requests as either \textit{short-term} or \textit{long-term}. A request is considered short-term if only one business strategy is applicable for the life time of the requests. A request is considered long-term if more than one business strategies are applicable to the request. For instance, if the provider changes its business strategies or economic models quarterly, a request that needs reservation for a VM for 1 year is considered as a long-term request. In this circumstances, a request that reserves the VM for a one month is considered as short-term requests. Note that, we focus on the economic model-based service provisioning where VMs are reserved for a certain time period. \textit{The burstable on-demand resources are outside the focus of this paper}.
\item \textit{Conditional Preference Networks (CP-nets)}: The CP-net is a widely used tool that captures a user's conditional preferences qualitatively \cite{cp1}. CP-Nets \cite{boutilier2004cp} is a compact and intuitive formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional preferences under the ceteris paribus (``all else being equal") semantics. The dynamic semantics of the preferences are indicated using a Conditional Preference Table (CPT) \cite{boutilier2004cp}. One CP-net can only represent one business strategy at a time \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. For example, if the business strategy is to build reputation for the first three months, a CP-net could be constructed that can graphically express the preference on higher QoS in a service than higher prices.
\item \textit{Temporal Conditional Preference Networks (TempCP-nets)}: The TempCP-net is a set of CP-nets that represents a provider's economic expectations over the long-term period \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. If there are three business strategies for a year, the TempCP-net could be constructed with a set of three CP-nets.
\item \textit{k-d Tree}: The induced graph in a CP-net may contain nodes with multi-dimensional tuples and the annotated ranking of preferences \cite{boutilier2004cp}. The \textit{k-d tree} is a graph indexing technique in which every node is a \textit{k}-dimensional point \cite{andoni2006near}. Every non-leaf node in a k-d tree can be thought of as implicitly generating a splitting hyperplane that divides the space into two parts, known as half-spaces. Points on the left and right sides of this hyperplane are represented by the left and right subtree of that node respectively. We apply the k-d tree to index the service preference rankings based on the provider's TempCP-net.
\item \textit{Local IaaS Ranking}: The rank of an IaaS request is determined by its k-d tree index. The ranking of a request or a set of request considering only one period is called local IaaS ranking. For example, if an IaaS request expands from January to December, then its local IaaS ranking of January is computed considering its preference rankings on January.
\item \textit{Global IaaS Ranking}: The ranking of a long-term request or set of requests considering each period is called its global IaaS ranking. For example, if an IaaS request expands from January to December, then its global ranking considers is the aggregated local ranking of each month from January to December.
\item \textit{Sequential Optimization}: The sequential optimization approach is a series of local optimization where the initial problem is divided into sub-problems \cite{gnanlet2009sequential}. The local optimizations have cascading effect as the decisions in each local optimization affects the sequential decision making in successive local optimizations. The key benefit of the sequential optimization is that it reduces the search space of the global optimization significantly \cite{pednault2002sequential}.
\item \textit{Q-learning}: Q-learning \cite{watkins1992q} is a model-free reinforcement learning approach. The goal of Q-learning is to learn a policy, which tells an agent what action to take under what circumstances. It does not require a model of the environment, and it can handle problems with stochastic transitions and rewards, without requiring adaptations \cite{watkins1992q}. In the context of IaaS compositions, the Q-learning is used to learn the optimal sequences of request selection. The two-dimensional Q-learning has no start and terminal states as it accepts only model-free state transitions \cite{shani2005mdp}. A Q-learning process is termed as \textit{off-policy} if the learning approach has no restrictions over exploration \cite{munos2016safe}. In contrast, the \textit{on-policy} based Q-learning process is \textit{smart} and removes redundant state transitions considering historical information \cite{van2016deep}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Motivation Scenario}
In this section, We illustrate an example scenario to describe the need of sequential learning in IaaS composition. Let us consider an IaaS provider offers virtual CPU services. The provider offers 100 CPU units with 100\% availability. We are only considering availability as a QoS parameter for simplicity. We defined three semantic levels - high, moderate, and low to express qualitative preferences of the provider for services attributes as shown in Figure \ref{fig:semanticTable}. We assume the provider may change the interpretation of the semantic levels based on the cloud market condition. The provider considers more than \$1000 as high price according to Figure \ref{fig:semanticTable} in the first year. The provider considers more than \$1300 as high price due to predicted inflation in the second and third years. Three different preference rankings are set based on the provider's annual goal in three years.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .8\textwidth]{semanticTable.pdf}
\caption{Semantic preference table}
\label{fig:semanticTable}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
We adopt the economic models of the provider as described in \cite{mistry2018economic} to continue in this example. Figure \ref{fig:cp} shows the provider's three economic models for three different years. In the first year, the provider wants to offer high-quality service in with a lower price to create its reputation. The most important attribute in the first year is the ``availability'' of a service followed by the ``CPU'' and the ``price''. The provider decides to maximize its profit by offering services at a higher price for lower resources and QoS in the second year. The ``price'' therefore sets the ``CPU'' and the ``availability'' in the second year. The provider's preference for the third year is to provision lower CPU-intensive services. Let us assume the provider wants to receive requests that are long-term. Therefore, the provider offers discounts on long-term service requests. A decision variable labeled $N$ is used to distinguish the type of requests. The value of $N$ is set to true ($T$) when a request is long-term. A request is considered long-term if it spans over the next period. Otherwise, the value of $N$ is set to false ($F$) to indicate the request as a short-term request. In figure \ref{fig:cp}, $N$ is associated with ``price'' ($P$) for the first two years. In these periods ($CP1$ and $CP2$), the provider considers the high and moderate ``price'' level indifferently for long-term requests. $N$ is associated with ``availability'' ($A$) in the third year. According to $CP3$, short-term requests are provided with relatively lower ``availability" at the same moderate price. More details about how to represent these economic models using CP-nets can be found in \cite{sajibicsoc2016}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.9\textwidth]{CPNets}
\caption{CP-nets of a provider}
\label{fig:cp}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
Let us assume a set of requests is represented by $A$ in Figure \ref{fig:req}(a). $A$ has four requests i.e., $\{R1\}$,$\{R2\}$,$\{R3\}$, and $\{R4\}$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:req}(a). Each of these requests arrives at the beginning of the composition. A request is represented in annual segments for simplicity. For instance, $(C: High, A: low, P: moderate)$ represents a request segment of $\{R1\}$ in the first year. Similarly, Figure \ref{fig:req}(a) shows the annual requirements of other consumer requests $\{R2\}, \{R3\} $ and $ \{R4\}$(a) for three years. The provider can select these four requests from $2^{4} = 16$ possible combinations to find the optimal composition in a brute force manner.
The number of possible ways to select the requests grows exponentially with the number of requests. A sequential optimization process may be applied to reduce the total number of comparisons to find the global optimal composition. Let us consider a sequential optimization approach for the request set $A$ where requests are selected from the right to left year i.e., $3^{\text{rd}}$,$2^{\text{nd}}$ and $1^{\text{st}}$. There are $2^3 = 8$ comparisons are required in the third year to select the highest ranked $R3$ according to the $CP3$. Note that, in $CP3$ the highest preference order is low CPU, high price, and low availability. In $R3$, the consumer's preference order is low CPU, moderate availability, and low price. Therefore, $R3$ is the closest match request according to $CP3$. Details of the ranking technique using CP-nets can be found in \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. Once we only accept $R3$ in the third year, $R1$ and $R2$ are rejected in the subsequent years. In following years, the local optimization accepts $R4$ and update the solution. The optimal solution $\{R3, R4\}$ is calculated in ten comparisons. If we change the sequence of optimization process e.g., left to right i.e., $1^{\text{st}}$, $2^{\text{nd}}$ and $3^{\text{rd}}$, the total number of comparison in the first year becomes $2^4 = 16$ to select the highest ranked $R1$. The request $R1$ has ``N/A" ranking in the following years. As a result, the left to right sequence produces an unacceptable solution. The right to left sequence generates optimal result when sequential optimization is applied on $A$. The same sequence may not work or give a good solution for a different set of requests. Let us consider the request set $B$ in Figure \ref{fig:req}(c). The distribution of requests in $B$ is different from $A$. The number of comparisons becomes $2^5 = 32$ to select the highest ranked $R3$ in the third year (Figure \ref{fig:req}(d)). As $R3$ has ``N/A" ranking in the second year, it can not be selected. As a result, the right to left sequence does not work for $B$. We propose a model-free learning approach to generate the optimal sequence of local optimizations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.8\textwidth]{images/motive2.pdf}
\caption{ Sets of requests (a) request set $A$ (c) request set $B$}
\label{fig:req}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\section{A Qualitative IaaS Composition Framework}
In this section, we provide a general overview of the proposed qualitative IaaS composition framework. We also describe some common concepts in qualitative IaaS composition such as long-term IaaS request representation, long-term qualitative preferences representation, combinatorial optimization in qualitative IaaS composition.
A qualitative composition framework is proposed that learns from historical information of the past request sets as shown in Figure \ref{fig:propframe}. We assume that a set of long-term requests of consumers and the provider's qualitative preferences are available at the beginning of the composition. Our target is to find the optimal composition using a learning based approach that utilizes information of the past consumer requests. For each set of new requests, we learn the sequence of the optimal composition and save it for future request sets.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= .6\textwidth]{propframe.pdf}
\caption{Long-term qualitative composition framework}
\label{fig:propframe}
\end{figure}
We use TempCP-nets to represent the qualitative preferences which enable qualitative composition of the requests. The proposed framework performs indexing and ranking of the requests configuration of the TempCP-net. The indexing of the TempCP-net is built using \textit{k}-d tree indexing that enables efficient searching of the rank of the consumer requests. The ranking of the requests configurations is computed using the provider's TempCP-nets. The ranked requests are taken as an input of a learning module. The learning module applies a reinforcement learning based method that utilizes the historical information of the past requests to find out optimal composition efficiently.
\subsection{\textbf{Long-term IaaS Request Representation}}
The long-term requests of the consumers are represented as time series group (TSG) of the service attributes. We denote \(T\) as the total service usage time. The TSG of the consumer requests is defined as \(R_c = \{s_{c1},s_{c2},...,s_{cn}\} \), where $s_{cn}$ represents a service attribute and \(cn\) is the number of service attributes in \(R_c\). We represent the service attribute time series as \( s_{cn} = \{(x_n,t_n)|n=1,2,3,...., T\} \), where \(x_n\) is the value of \(s_{cn}\) at the time interval \(t_n\). Figure \ref{fig:req} shows two sets of requests where each request in a set has 3 service attributes ($cn=3$) i.e., CPU, availability, and price. Each requests has three year intervals ($T =3$). Each service attribute may have different types of value during these intervals.
\subsection{\textbf{Long-term Qualitative Preferences based on TempCP-nets}}
\label{sec:cp}
We need an efficient tool to represent the provider's qualitative preferences. We define a set of attributes $V = \{X_{1},..., X_{n}\}$ which is defined over the finite, discrete domain $D(X_n)$ and semantic domains $S(X_n)$. The attributes are either functional or non-functional. Examples of functional attributes are CPU ($C$), Memory ($M$), and so on. Availability ($A$), Price ($P$), Latency ($LT$) are examples of QoS attributes. A mapping table $Sem\_Table(X_{n}, x_{n})$ is used to map $x_{n}$ in $D(X_{n})$ into $s_{n}$ in $S(X_{n})$ where $s_{n} = Sem\_Table(X_{n}, x_{n})$. An example of a semantic table is shown in Figure \ref{fig:semanticTable}. We assume the preferences order and semantics of $V$ is static within an interval in a long-term composition period. However, they may vary within different intervals. We consider a set of decision variables $DN = \{N_{1}, N_{2},....,N_{d}\}$. A decision variable may represent request type, requests duration, and etc. We assume that the decision variable is a binary variable. Therefore, it takes true of false $\{T, F\}$ values. For instance, the decision variable is set true for a request if it spans to the next interval.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= .8\textwidth]{induced.pdf}
\caption{Induced preference graph with decision variable for CP1}
\label{fig:f3}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
The service provisioning time $T$ is considered into $m$ intervals and represented as $T=\sum_{k=1}^{m}I_{k}$, where $I_k$ is an interval in $T$. We assume that the provider sets a preference ranking of each service configuration at each interval $I_k$. The preference rankings of service configurations are expressed over the complete assignments on $V$ and $DN$ with the semantic domain $Sem\_D^{I_{k}}(V)$. $O^{I_{k}}$ is denoted as the set of service configurations for an interval $I_{k}$. A total order $(\succeq)$ of the service configuration set represents a preference ranking for an interval. For example, $o_{1} \succeq o_{2}$ denotes that a service configuration $o_{1}$ is equally or more preferred over $o_{2}$. The preference relation $o_{1} \succ o_{2}$ denotes that the service configuration $o_{1}$ is preferred over $o_{2}$. If the preferences are indifferent or non-comparable, we denote the relation using $o_{1} \sim o_{2}$. $T \sim F$ means that the provider does not care about the true and false values of a decision variable.
The size of the service configuration set $O^{I_{k}}$ grows exponentially with the number of intervals. Therefore, direct assignment of all possible preferences over the long-term period is always not feasible. We represent the provider's long-term preferences on service configurations using a TempCP-net. A TempCP-net is represented as set of CP-nets with semantic preference tables for each interval of the composition period. We denote a TempCP-net as $\text{TempCP-Net} = \{(CP^{I_{k}}, Sem\_Table^{I_{k}}, I_{k})\;|\;\forall k \in [1,m]\}$. A CP-net can be considered as a graphical model that formally represents qualitative preferences and reasons about them. A CP-net $CP^{I_{k}}$ in the interval $I_{k}$ consists a direct graph $G$ which is defined using $V$ and $DN$. Each node in $G$ represents an attribute $X_i \in V$. The nodes of $DN$ are represented by a dashed circle. A node of $V$ is represented by a solid circle. In this work, we only consider acyclic CP-nets to represent the provider's qualitative preferences. The CPT of each node is denoted by $CPT(X_{i})$ which contains a total order $\succ^{i}_{u}$ with each instantiation $u$ of $X_{i}$'s parents $Pa(X_{i}) = U$ \cite{cp1}. For example, $Pa(P)=C$ and $CPT(C)$ contains $\{C1, C2\}$ in $CP3$ while preferences are made over $\{P1, P2, P3\}$ (Figure \ref{fig:cp}). A preference outcome $o$ of a CP-net is obtained by sweeping through the CP-net from top to bottom setting each variable to its preferred value given the instantiation of its parents \cite{wang2012wcp}. A preference order $o \succ \acute{o}$ is called a consequence of a CP-net, if $o \succ \acute{o}$ can be obtained directly from one of the CPTs in the CP-net. For example, the fact that $(A2, C2, P2)$ is preferred to $(A2, C1, p2)$ is a direct consequences of the semantics of $CPT(C)$ in $CP1$ for the long-term requests (Figure \ref{fig:cp}). The set of consequences $o\succ \acute{o}$ creates a partial order over all possible service configurations of an acyclic CP-net.
Figure \ref{fig:f3} shows the induced preference graph generated by $CP1$ which is a directed acyclic graph (DAG). There are two induced graph generated based on the value of the decision variable $N$ (i.e., true and false). The true value of $N$ represents the induced preference graph for long-term requests. The false value of $N$ represents short-term requests. $(A1, C1, P1)$ is considered as the most preferred request for the short-term requests. There is no outgoing edge from $(A1, C1, P1)$. Similarly, $(A2, C1, P3)$ has no incoming edge because it is least preferred request configuration. There is an edge between $(A2, C1, P1)$ and $(A1, C1, P1)$. According the preference statement $A1 \succ A2$ in the $CPT(CP1)$, $(A1, C1, P1) \succ (A2, C1, P1)$. $(A1, C1, P1)$ and $(A1, C1,\\ P2)$ does not have any outgoing edge because they are the highest preferred configuration (Figure \ref{fig:f3}). The induce preference graph of a CP-net is constructed by pairwise comparison of all service configurations. The complexity for ordering queries for a TempCP-net in an interval is $O(ndq^2)$ where $n$ and $d$ is the number of attributes and decision variables respectively and the number of output configurations is $q$.
\subsection{\textbf{Combinatorial Optimization in Qualitative IaaS Composition}}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.8\textwidth]{kd.pdf}
\caption{\textit{k}-d tree indexing of the induced preference graphs}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:f4}
\end{figure}
Given a provider's TempCP-net and a set of long-term requests $R$, the IaaS composition is defined as the selection of an optimal set $\bar{r} \subseteq \bar{R}$ that produces the best similarity measure with the TempCP-Net. We consider qualitative preference rankings as the foundation of the similarity measure. First, we index preference rankings from TempCP-Net. We then perform a similarity search on the indexed TempCP-Net which is denoted as $Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{r})$. Hence, the objective of the IaaS composition is to minimize the ranking output $Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{r})$.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Indexing Preference ranks}}
\label{sec:kd}
The preference rank of a request configuration is denoted as $Sem\_Req$ $=(s_{1}, ...,s_{n}) \;|\; \text{where } s_{i} \in S(X_{i}), \text{and }X_{i} \in V$. It is found by a pre-order traversal of the induced graph. The time complexity of searching the preference rank over the induced graph is $O(n)$. A request configuration $(s_{1}, ...,s_{n})$ is considered as a multidimensional vector. We use a \textit{k}-d tree \cite{jia2010optimizing} to improve the searching process. There exist different multi-dimensional indexing structures such as B-tree, B+-tree, k-d Trees, Point Quadtrees, R, R*, R+ Trees \cite{sellis1997multidimensional,robinson1981kdb}. The k-d tree is a \textit{congruent} choice in IaaS composition as the IaaS preference ranking requires the multi-dimensional value queries \cite{sajibicsoc2016,nam2004comparative}. \textit{Note that, finding the optimal multi-dimensional indexing structures for IaaS composition is outside the focus of this paper}.
The \textit{k}-d tree is a binary tree that is used for indexing some nodes in a space with k dimensions. We represent each service configuration $o$ (i.e., a node in the induced graph) as a k-dimensional point in the \textit{k}-d tree. Each node in each level splits its all children along a specific dimension into two subspace, known as half-spaces. Each subspace is represented by either a left or a right sub-tree of that node. A canonical method is used to build the \textit{k}-d tree \cite{jia2010optimizing}. The construction algorithm follows a cycle during the selection of splitting planes. For example, at the root, all children are split based on ``availability" plane in Figure \ref{fig:f4}. The children of the root split their children along ``CPU" plane. The grandchildren of the root have ``price-aligned" planes. Finally, the great-grandchildren have again planes aligned with availability.
Let us assume there are $n$ points in an induced preference graph. We place the median point found in one dimension at the root of the \textit{k}-d tree. Every other point smaller and larger than the root in the same dimension are placed into right and left sub-tree respectively. This process creates a balanced \textit{k}-d tree where the runtime is $O(n \;log(n))$ \cite{jia2010optimizing}. We annotate each node of the \textit{k}-d tree with its respective preference ranking obtained from the induced graph. For instance, the root node $(A2,C2,P2)$ in the \textit{k}-d tree in Figure \ref{fig:f4} has the preference ranking 6 that is obtained from its induced graph. We construct the \textit{k}-d tree indexing for each value of the decision variable $N$. For example, two different \textit{k}-d tree indexing are shown in Figure \ref{fig:f4} to represent short-term and long-term service configurations. The service configurations with indifferent preference have the same ranking value. For example, the provider's preferences on $(A2,C1,P2)$ and $(A1,C2, P1)$ are indifferent for long-term requests. Both service configurations are annotated with preference ranking 4 in Figure \ref{fig:f4}.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Local and Global Preference Ranking}}
A request may not be inclusive, i.e., exactly fit within an interval of TemCP-net. It may overlap two or more intervals of TempCP-nets. An overlapping request $R$ (interval $[T_{0}, T_{m}]$) is divided into smaller inclusive segments where each segment fits within an interval of the TempCP-net. The attributes that have \textit{temporal semantics} require such segmentation. For instance, ``Price" is considered as an attribute with \textit{temporal semantics} in a consumer request. If a request requires 20 units of CPU for 12 months with total \$120, a monthly segmentation interprets the provisioning of 20 CPU units for \$10. Let us consider an attribute $X$ in $R$ that has \textit{temporal semantics}. If the segmentation is applied in $[T_{j}, T_{k}]$, the new segments are calculated using the following equation according to \cite{sajibicsoc2016}:
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:rank}
x_{i}^{[T_{j},T_{k}]} = x_{i}^{[T_{0},T_{m}]} \times \frac{|T_{k}-T_{j}|}{|T_{m}-T_{0}|}
\end{equation}
The requests are ready to be composed after the temporal segmentation. We define a set of $N$ requests as $\bar{R} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} R_i$. We use the following composition rules to combine the requests in a set $\bar{R}$ \cite{sajibtsc2015}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The rule of summation: $\bar{x_{i}} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} x_{i}$, where $X_{i} \in \{C, M, NB, RT, P\}$.
\item The rule of maximization: $\bar{y_{i}} = max(y_{i}), \forall \; i \in [1,N]$, where $Y_{i} \in \{A, TP\}$.
\end{itemize}
The preference ranking function of a set of requests is $Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{R}): V \rightarrow [1,n]$, which outputs the order of $\bar{R}$ according to the preferences (\textit{k}-d tree of the TempCP-net). $\bar{R}$ is transformed $\acute{\bar{R}} = \{(s_{i}, I_{j})\;|\;s_{i} \in S(X_{i}), X_{i} \in V, \text{and } T = \sum_{j=1}^m I_{j}\}$ based on $Sem\_Table$ of the TempCP-net. First, we define the local similarity measure, i.e., preference rankings for a time segment and then we define the global objective function for the entire composition period.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Local preference ranking}: Let us consider $M^{i}(s_{i})$ in the interval $i$ is the function that outputs the preference ranking by temporal matching of $\acute{\bar{R}}$ segments with the \textit{k}-d tree. The temporal matching process or the searching algorithm starts from the root node and traverses the tree recursively. The search algorithm returns the preference ranking of a node if that matches with a request configuration. For instance, the algorithm returns ranking 10 by performing 10 comparisons for the short-term request $(A2, C1, P3)$ in Figure \ref{fig:f4}. If a query search point is not found in the \textit{k}-d tree, it is discarded in the composition. The complexity of performing a query in a \textit{k}-d tree is on average $O(log(n))$ for each service.
\item \textit{Global Preference Ranking}: As the long-term requests are divided into local segments, we aggregate the local preference rankings to generate the global preference ranking as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ranking}
Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{R}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} M^{i}(s_{i})
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\section{IaaS Composition for a New Set of Requests}
In this section, we illustrate the proposed IaaS composition approach for a new set of requests, i.e., IaaS composition without any prior knowledge of incoming requests. We introduce a sequential IaaS composition approach that leverages reinforcement learning techniques to compose incoming requests.
We assume that initially the IaaS provider does not store a history of incoming requests. Each set of incoming requests are considered as a new set of requests and the composition is performed from scratch for the new set of requests. We identify three approaches to compose a new set of requests:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Brute-force approach}: This approach generates all the combinations of requests over the total composition period. The preference ranking of each combination is computed using the global preference ranking Equation \ref{eq:ranking} and pairwise compared. The combination of requests that generates the minimum global ranking is returned as the optimal composition. If the number of requests is $N$, the time complexity of this approach is exponential ($2^N$).
\item \textit{Global optimization approach}: The target of the global optimization is to improve the runtime efficiency from the brute-force approach. We apply Dynamic Programming (DP) \cite{sajibicsoc2016} to reduce the re-computation of similarity measure of the same combinations of requests. The DP is designed to compute the similarity measure of a large combination of request sets by breaking it into smaller combinations (overlapping subproblem) structure. The results of the subproblems are stored in a temporary array which enables avoiding repeated computation. We denote $\bar{R}(N)$ as a set of $N$ requests and $i \in [1,N]$ as the $i_{th}$ request. $\tau(\bar{R}(N), k)$ denotes the subset of requests of size $k$ which generates the maximum preference rankings among all requests of size $k$. We start with base case $k=1$, i.e., a set consists of only one requests. The highest ranked request $i$ is computed by pairwise comparison of preference rankings:
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{align*}
&\text{Base case, } \tau(\bar{R}(N), k=1) = R_{i}\\ \notag &\text{where } Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, R_{i}) \text{ is minimum.} \notag
\end{align*}
For $k>1$, it either accepts the $N_{th}$ request (the $k_{th}$ place is already filled) or rejects it (reduces $\bar{R}(N)$ to $\bar{R}(N-1)$). We have two optimal substructures:
\vspace{-6mm}
\begin{align*}
\bar{R_{i}} &= \{N \cup \tau(\bar{R}(N-1), k-1)\} \\
\bar{R_{j}} &= \tau(\bar{R}(N-1), k) \notag
\end{align*}
The $\bar{R_{i}}$ and $\bar{R_{j}}$ are computed separately. The re-computation of overlapping substructures is avoided by building a temporary array in a bottom-up manner \cite{kimes2004restaurant}. if $\bar{R_{i}}$ returns the minimum preference ranking, it should be returned as the optimal composition, $\tau(\bar{R}(N), k) =\bar{R_{i}}$ if $Pref(\text{TempCP-Net},\bar{R_{i}})$ $< Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{R_{j}})$. Otherwise, the request is removed from the composition, i.e., $\tau(\bar{R}(N), k) =\bar{R_{j}},\text{if } Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{R_{i}}) \geq Pref(\text{TempCP-Net}, \bar{R_{j}})$. The complexity of finding $C(\bar{R}(N), k)$ is $O(N^{k})$. As there are at most $N$ requests to be considered in a set, we solve the DP from bottom up manner in the following sequence: $\tau(\bar{R}(N), \;1)$, $\tau(\bar{R}(N), \;2), \cdots, \tau(\bar{R}(N), N)$. The final complexity of the DP based solution is $O(N^{O(N)})$.
\item \textit{Local sequential optimization approach:} This approach optimizes requests in each time segment. The key reason is that we do not need to consider the whole set of requests during the entire composition period. We only consider a partial set which is applicable in a specific temporal segment. It should reduce the runtime complexity significantly. In Fig \ref{fig:newExample1}, the local optimization could be divided into two segments: optimization with ${A,B}$ in the first year ($OP_{i}$) and optimization with ${A, B, C}$ ($OP_{j}$) in the second year. As the request sets are deterministic, we can perform the optimization sequences in different orders, i.e., $<OP_{i},OP_{j}>$ or $<OP_{j},OP_{i}>$. Local optimizations are dependent on the accepted or rejected requests during previous optimizations in a sequence. For example, if the sequence is $<$1st year, second year$>$ in Fig \ref{fig:newExample1} and we reject request $B$ in the first year, the candidate request set for local optimization is the second year reduces to $<A, C>$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Example-Overlap.pdf}
\caption{Overlapping requests in different temporal segments}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:newExample1}
\end{figure}
We propose a heuristic based sequential optimization approach for an IaaS composition in \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. To improve the quality of the solution, we develop a reinforcement learning based approach to find the best local service provision policy, i.e., the best selection of requests in the optimal temporal sequence.
\subsection{\textbf{Sequential IaaS Composition using Reinforcement Learning}}
We formulate the long-term IaaS composition problem, i.e., the selection of requests, as a sequential decision process. We begin with a time segment in the TempCP-net and select a request for the composition. The selection of the requests for the next segment depends on the previous selections of requests as accepted overlapping requests are already committed for both the segments.
A sequential decision process is modeled in different approaches such as Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB), Markov Decision Process (MDP), or Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) \cite{kaelbling1996reinforcement}. We observe that the state-action-reward situation in the IaaS composition is similar to the MDP. We may start the selection of requests (actions) in a time segment and can compute the local preference ranking of the selected requests by matching the temporal segment in the selected requests with the corresponding temporal \textit{k}-d tree of the given TempCP-net. The local preference ranking may be considered as the reward function. After the selection of requests in a segment, the composition approach may transit to any segment and make new selections. The process may continue until total reward cannot be further maximized (convergence) (as we consider ranking values as the reward, maximizing total rewards refer to minimizing global ranking). MAB or POMDP is also applicable in our context as they are special cases of MDP. For example, MAB is a special case of MDP that has only one state. We select MDP as the general sequential decision process.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{newExample2.pdf}
\caption{State-action transitions for sequential composition}
\label{fig:newExample2}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:newExample2} shows the all possible state transitions for the request sets in the Figure \ref{fig:newExample1}. The state-action is represented by the pair [interval, Request]. In Fig \ref{fig:newExample2}, [1,A] refers that request A in Fig \ref{fig:newExample2} is selected in the interval 1. We consider bi-directional transition edges. The key reason is it does not specify the transition sequence. For example, if request C is selected in the second interval first, i.e. [2,C], the next transition may happen to any of the [1,A], [1,B] or [1,AB]. [1,AB] represents that both requests A and B are selected in the interval 1.
As the composition environment is dynamic, model-free learning, e.g., reinforcement learning (RL) is usually more applicable than the model-based learning algorithms to implement the MDP. To solve the composition problem using a reinforcement learning (RL) approach, we treat each new request sets as a new environment and learn the optimal selection of requests through multiple interactions with the environment. We focus on the Q-learning approach as a reinforcement learning (RL) approach. Note that other deep learning approaches could be implemented in our context. However, we are not focused on providing a comparative study of machine learning approaches in this paper; instead, we use what we think is a sound approach in our context. Our primary target is to apply an unsupervised machine learning approach in the long-term IaaS composition. In that respect, our primary target is to evaluate the effectiveness of general reinforcement learning, i.e., Q-learning and its proposed variations in our context. In the future work, we will compare the performance of the proposed approach with other deep reinforcement learning approaches.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Q-learning based Approach in IaaS Composition}}
A widely used reinforcement learning is Q-learning. In a Q-learning based method, past interactions in the same environment are utilized to learn the optimal policy \cite{watkins1992q}. The sequences of request selection i.e., \textit{experience} over different intervals can be treated as past interactions in the context of IaaS composition. We define experience as a tuple $<s, a ,r, \acute{s}>$ where $s$ is the current interval, $a$ is the selected request in $s$, $r$ is the reward for selecting $a$, and $\acute{s}$ is the next interval. We represent the history of interactions as $<s_{0}, a_{0}, r_{1}, s_{1}, a_{1}, r_{2},....>$. We formally define the Q-learning environment in the context of qualitative composition as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Environment}: The environment consists of consumers and the provider. The consumer requests are represented into time series groups and the provider's long-term qualitative preferences are represented in TempCP-net. The environment is deterministic, i.e., incoming requests and TempCP-net is given prior to the composition.
\item \textit{State ($s$)}: The tempCP-net is usually consists of several temporal CP-nets for different time intervals or segments. Each time interval or segment is treated as a state. The number of states is finite.
\item \textit{Action ($a$)}: The selection or rejection of a request is treated as an action in our context. In Figure \ref{fig:newExample1}, the second segment (2nd year) has 3 available requests $\{A,B, \text{ and} \;C\}$. Hence, the possible set of acceptance actions is $\{A,B,C,AB,AC,BC,ABC\}$.
\item \textit{Policy ($\pi$)}: It is a function that determines which action to perform, i.e., selection of requests in a given state. If $S$ is the set of all states and $A$ is the set of all possible actions, the policy ($\pi$) is represented as $\pi(s): S \longrightarrow A$.
\item \textit{Reward function ($RWD$)}: We match the action, i.e., selected request segments with the corresponding segment in TemCP-net. We consider the local preference ranking as the reward. The reward function is defined based on the equation \ref{eq:ranking} as $RWD(s,a)=Pref(\text{TempCP-net(s)},a)$ at a state $s$ and actions $a$.
\item \textit{Value function ($V$)}: $V^{\pi}(s)$ is the state-value function in the sequential decision process. It is the expected cumulative preference ranking starting from state $s$ following a policy $\pi$.
\end{itemize}
We apply the basic Q-learning approach to the IaaS composition. We propose a modified Q-learning approach for the long-term IaaS composition.
\subsubsection{\textbf{IaaS Composition using 2d Q-learning}}
A value function $V^{\pi}(s)$ represents how good is the temporal sequence of a segment for the composer to select requests. The value function depends on the policy by which the composer chooses its actions. Among all possible value-functions, there exists an optimal value function that has a higher value than other state functions:
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{equation}
V^{*}(s) = max_{\pi} V^{\pi}(s) \;\;\forall s \in S
\end{equation}
The optimal policy $\pi^{*}$ corresponds to the optimal value function: \vspace{-3mm}
\begin{equation}
\pi^{*}= arg\;max_{\pi} V^{\pi}(s) \;\;\forall s \in S
\end{equation}
A recursive function called $Q$ is usually used in a Q-learning process and represented as $Q^{\pi}(s,a)$ \cite{watkins1992q}. It is used to calculate the cumulative reward using the policy $\pi$. We map $Q^{\pi}(s,a)$ with the expected global preference ranking of choosing the request $a$ in the interval $s$ for the policy $\pi$. The probability of moving from interval $s$ to interval $\acute(s)$ is denoted by $P(\acute{s}| s,a)$ in Equation \ref{eq:q3} where $a$ is the selected requests. The current preference ranking of $a$ in $s$ is denoted by $R(s,a,\acute{s})$ where $\acute{s}$ is the next interval. The future global ranking is denoted by $V^{\pi}(\acute{s})$ in Equation \ref{eq:q3}.
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:q3}
Q^{\pi}(s,a) = \sum_{\acute{s}} P(\acute{s}| s,a)(R(s,a,\acute{s})+\gamma V^{\pi}(\acute{s}))
\end{equation}
In a Q-learning process, a table $Q[S,A]$ is maintained where $S$ denotes the set of states and $A$ denotes the set actions \cite{watkins1992q}. $Q[S,A]$ is used to store the current value of $Q^{\pi}(S,A)$. The value of $Q^{\pi}(S,A)$ in the context of long-term IaaS composition is computed using temporal differences. Therefore, we create a table $Q[S,A]$ where $s$ denotes the set of interval or segment and the set of action is denoted by $a$. We set the initial $Q[s,a]$ to 0 for each $(s,a)$. we start the process from an random state ($s$) and executes a random action ($a$) for a reward $r$. The next interval is also selected randomly. We use $\epsilon$-greedy policy to restrict the randomness over the time. The idea is the composer should explore the state-action sequences randomly, in the beginning, to find better future discounted preference rankings, later the randomness should be reduced. Here, $\epsilon$ is defined as the probability of exploration. The exploration is equivalent to picking a random action in action space. If $\epsilon$ = 1, the composer will always explore, and never act greedily concerning the action-value function. Therefore, $\epsilon < 1$ in practice, so that there is a good balance between exploration and exploitation. The higher value of alpha usually assigns higher weights to the current estimate than the previous estimate. The learning process terminates when there are no further updates on Q-values. It is also known as convergence values. Once the Q-learning reaches the convergence state, the optimal policy is found using $Q[S,A]$ in Equation \ref{eq:q5}. At each segment the action with highest reward is selected. An example of 2d $Q[S,A]$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:f7} where the number of segments is 5 and the number of actions is 10. The best action in segment 5 is $A10$ or $A5$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:q4}
Q[s,a] = (1-\alpha)Q[s,a] + \alpha (r+\gamma max_{\acute{a}}Q[\acute{s},\acute{a}])
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:q5}
\pi^{*}(s) = argmax_{a}Q[s,a] \;|\; \forall a \in A(s)
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{\textbf{IaaS Composition using 3d Q-learning}}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig7_qvalues.pdf}
\caption{(a) Q-values in a 2d $Q[S,A]$ (b) Q-values in a 3d $Q[S,A, O]$}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:f7}
\end{figure}
The 2d Q-learning has no start and terminal states as it accepts only model-free state transitions \cite{shani2005mdp}. The long-term effect of sequential order is indicated by $Q[S,A]$. However, it is not possible to keep track of the execution order in the 2d Q-learning process. For example, there are several possible state transitions can take places in Figure \ref{fig:newExample2} such as $\{[1,A]\rightarrow [2,B]\}$ and $\{[2,B]\rightarrow [1,A]\}$. Here, $Q[1,A]$ represents the expected global preference rankings of selecting action $A$ in the first year irrespective of the sequence of selection (first or second). A similar explanation is also applied to $Q[1,A]$. Besides, the existing Q-learning approaches for the composition allow multiple execution order. Such order in Figure \ref{fig:newExample2} is $\{[1,A] \rightarrow [2,BC] \rightarrow [1,B]\}$. Note, the selection of request $A$ and $B$ in the first year is taken at two different positions in a sequence.
We introduce a three-dimensional Q-learning in \cite{mistry2018long} using a 3d table $Q[S,A,O]$ to store the Q values. $O$ represents the set of execution orders. Therefore, a particular state-action pair $(s,a)$ may have different values depending on the execution order $o$. If a set of requests is selected from the first segment at the first step of the composition, it may have a different preference ranking than if it is selected at the last step of the composition. Figure \ref{fig:f7} illustrates an example of 3d $Q[S,A,O]$. Here, the ranking of $A10$ is 1 in segment 5 when it is performed as the starting state. However, the preference ranking of $A10$ changes into 9 when it is performed in the third step. An extension of Equation \ref{eq:q4} is shown in Equation \ref{eq:q6} for a 3d Q-learning process. The $\acute{o}$ denotes the next execution order after $o$ and $\alpha$ denotes the learning rate. The 3d Q-learning selects the start state ($s$), perform an action ($a$) with reward $r$ arbitrarily. From the start state, it observes all the possible states in different orders.
\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:q6}
Q[s,a,o] = &(1-\alpha)Q[s,a,o] \\ \notag
&+ \alpha (r+\gamma max_{(\acute{a},\acute{o})}Q[\acute{s},\acute{a},\acute{o}])
\end{align}
\subsubsection{\textbf{On-policy based 3d Q-learning}}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= .8\textwidth]{redundant-states.pdf}
\caption{On-policy state-action transitions in 3d Q-learning (Green colored are allowed from [1,A,1] and [1,B,2]}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:newexample3}
\end{figure}
The 3d Q-learning increases the number of explorations in the learning process than the 2d Q-learning. The $n\times m$ Q-matrix from two dimensions is extended to $n\times m \times p$ Q-matrix. The number of states is denoted by $n$, the number of actions is denoted by $m$ and $p$ is the number of segments. As the exploration space increases, 3d Q-learning requires more time to learn compared to the 2d Q-learning. The 3d Q-learning based composition approach is considered as off-policy, as the composer has no restrictions over exploration. We transform the off-policy approach into an on-policy learning approach by intelligent reduction of state transitions as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{State sequence policy}: Once a request is rejected, it is not considered anymore in following local optimization. Therefore, we do not need to consider the same states multiple times. We introduce state sequence policy where each state is visited only once in a policy $\pi$.
\item \textit{Removing redundant state transitions}: The rejected request in a local segment may appear in another segment if the request overlaps the two segments. All the state-action pairs that contain the rejected request should not be considered as the next state transitions. For example, if we accept request $A$ in the first year, request $B$ is rejected in Figure \ref{fig:newExample1}. However, request $B$ overlaps into the second year. Hence it should be removed from the next candidate transitions. Figure \ref{fig:newexample3} depicts the on-policy state transitions when the request $A$ in the first year is selected at first in the sequence.
\end{itemize}
We represent the on-policy 3d Q-learning process for IaaS composition in Algorithm \ref{alg:qlearning}. Algorithm \ref{alg:qlearning} runs multiple episodes or round to perform the 3d Q-learning process. The algorithm uses Equation \ref{eq:q6} to update the Q-values in each episode. A $\epsilon$-greedy policy is used by algorithm \ref{alg:qlearning} where the optimal action is selected for execution. The optimal action is denoted by $arg\;max_{(a,o)}Q(s, a,o))$ where the probability of the optimal action is $(1 - \epsilon)$. The greedy policy optimizes $Q(s, a,o)$ continuously. It incorporates the unique state sequence policy. When a request is rejected, we remove it from the candidate action sets. The learning process continues in a loop up to a maximum number $k$ or Q-values converge to the optimal value. Once the Q-values reach convergence state, we use Equation \ref{eq:q7} to compute the optimal policy which is similar to 2d Q-learning process \cite{wang2010adaptive}.
\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:q7}
\pi^{*}(s) = &argmax_{(a,o)}Q[s,a,o] \\ \notag
&\text{where } \forall a \in A(s) \text{ and } o \in [1, |A(s)|]
\end{align}
\begin{algorithm}
\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\caption{The on-policy 3d Q-learning process to compose IaaS requests}
\label{alg:qlearning}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Initialize Q(s,a,o) to 0
\FOR {each episode to $K$}
\STATE $s \gets s_{0}$
\STATE execution order, $o\gets 1$
\WHILE{$o \neq$ total number of segments}
\STATE Choose action $a$ from $s$ in $o$ using $\epsilon$-greedy policy.
\STATE Execute $a$, observe reward $r$ and next state $\acute{s}$
\STATE $Q[s,a,o] \gets (1-\alpha)Q[s,a,o] + \alpha (r+\gamma max_{(\acute{a},\acute{o})}Q[\acute{s},\acute{a},\acute{o}])$
\STATE create candidate $[s,a]$ based on redundant state transitions
\STATE $s \gets \acute{s}$ using $\epsilon$-greedy policy.
\STATE $o \gets o+1$
\ENDWHILE
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Long-term Qualitative Composition with Previous Learning Experiences}
We aim to utilize the knowledge of composing past requests to compose new incoming requests efficiently. In this section, we describe the proposed long-term qualitative composition approach that leverages past learning experience. We analyze different types of requests patterns and illustrate how to identify similar request sets. Once we identify a similar requests set from the past incoming requests, we reuse previously learned policy to compose new incoming requests.
The optimal sequence of state-action may vary depending on the distribution of the requests over the time and their rankings. For example, Figure \ref{fig:pattern} shows four types of request patterns, i.e., almost sparse pattern, almost dense pattern, chain pattern, and mixed pattern.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Almost Sparse Pattern}: Figure \ref{fig:pattern}(a) shows a set of \textit{almost sparse request pattern}. Most requests are short and disjoint, i.e., do not overlap between two intervals. The composition may be performed in parallel by taking the short-term requests.
\item\textit{Almost dense Pattern}: Figure \ref{fig:pattern}(b) shows a set of requests where the requests are mostly \textit{overlapped} between intervals. An overlapping request spans for the next interval. Most requests are accepted in the first step of the selection.
\item\textit{Chain Pattern}: Figure \ref{fig:pattern}(c) shows a chain pattern where the requests are mostly short-term and overlapped between intervals. The requests are also evenly distributed between the intervals in a chain pattern.
\item \textit{Mixed Pattern}: Figure \ref{fig:pattern}(d) shows a mixed pattern where both long-term and short-term requests are overlapped and evenly distributed.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{requests_pattern}
\caption{Different requests patterns: a) almost sparse pattern, b) almost dense pattern, c) chain, (d) mixed patterns \cite{sajibicsoc2016}}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:pattern}
\end{figure}
Applying the Q-learning method each time when a new set of requests arrives can be expensive. Instead of learning a new set of incoming request every time, we apply the experience from the previously learned request sets. We propose a qualitative composition framework as shown in Figure \ref{fig:flowchart}. The proposed framework takes a set of incoming requests and the TempCP-net of the provider. First, the given request set is annotated with its global preference ranking and overlapping ratio and matched with the existing sets of requests. Initially, there is no existing request set. A Q-learning algorithm is applied to the request set using the TempCP-net. The output of the Q-learning algorithm is a matrix called Q-value. The learned Q-value matrix is stored with the corresponding request set for future.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{flowcharts.pdf}
\caption{A qualitative composition framework using policy library from Q-learning}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
Each time a new set of requests arrives the proposed framework find the similarity with existing request sets. The similarity is measured through a hierarchical clustering method called \textit{agglomerative clustering method} \cite{Growendt2017,fernandez2008solving,bouguettaya2015efficient}. For each set of requests, we apply the\textit{ agglomerative clustering method} to build a corresponding clustering tree. To measure the similarity between two request sets, the correlation coefficient of their corresponding clustering trees is computed. If the similarity is greater than a predefined variable $S$, then the Q-value matrix of the corresponding matched request set is applied to compose the new request set. We set the value of $S$ based on the trial and error in the experiment. The existing Q-value matrix may not be fully applicable to a new set of requests. In such a case, the proposed framework applies the Q-value matrix partially (a policy reuse approach) and learns the rest of the sequence.
\label{sec:dq}
In our previous work, we calculate similarity between different types of requests concerning the statistical distribution of their resources attributes such as normal, left-skewed and right-skewed distributions of CPU, memory, and network bandwidth \cite{mistry2018long}. The proposed approach however is unable to capture intrinsic characteristics of different request patterns such as temporal distribution or global ranking. Therefore, it may not correctly utilize the historical information of the previous consumers' request sets.
\subsection{\textbf{Clustering Methods to Find Similar Request Sets}}
We use clustering techniques to compute the similarity between a new request set and past request sets. Clustering is a well-known data analytic techniques to capture the intrinsic features of a set of data and group them on different sets based on similarity. Clustering is suitable where manual tagging of data is expensive. Moreover, the prior knowledge for manual tagging may not be available or insufficient. In such a case, clustering is a preferred option over supervised learning approaches such as classification and regression \cite{Growendt2017,fernandez2008solving,bouguettaya2015efficient}. There are many clustering techniques in the existing literature. We focus on partitional and hierarchical clustering approaches in the IaaS composition.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Partitional Clustering}}
Partitional clustering methods produces a flat partition of that optimizes an objective function. The objective function needs to be predefined. The most well-known partitional algorithm is \textit{K-means} clustering. The main steps of K-means clustering of a request set are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Create randomly few centroid points for the requests.
\item Assign each request to the closest centroid.
\item Calculate the central point of the newly created clusters and update the centroid accordingly
\item Repeat the previous last two steps until there is an object left to resign to another cluster.
\end{enumerate}
The computational complexity of the K-means clustering is $O(NK)$ where $N$ is the number of requests and $K$ is the number of the clusters. The K-means clustering is efficient concerning computational clustering as it requires linear computational time. However, the performance of K-means depends on how the value of $K$ is chosen. It is difficult to determine the optimal value of $K$ when prior knowledge is inadequate or absent.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Hierarchical Clustering}}
The hierarchical clustering method is a mainstream clustering method because it can be applied to the most types of data. Although hierarchical clustering method has a higher complexity compare to the K-means, it does not need predefined parameters. Therefore, hierarchical clustering are more suitable for handling real-world data. There are two main approaches for hierarchical clustering bottom up and top down. The bottom-up approach aggregate individual data points to the most high-level cluster. The complexity is usually $O(N^2)$ for the bottom-up approach. However, it may go up to $O(N^2logN)$. The complexity of the top-down approach is $O(2^N)$. The top-down approach is usually more expensive than a bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach is generally known as \textit{agglomerative hierarchical clustering} \cite{murtagh2012algorithms,bouguettaya1996line} .
\subsubsection{\textbf{Agglomerative Clustering based Similarity Measure}}
We use an agglomerative clustering based approach to reuse the existing policies for a new incoming request set based on the history of the past request sets. The clustering approach is applied to a set of requests to construct a clustering tree. The clustering tree captures the intrinsic features of the requests and group the requests based on their similarities. When a set of requests arrives, we build a clustering tree and compare it with the existing clustering trees to find the most similar clustering tree using the correlation coefficient.
We annotate each request in a set of requests with its global rank and overlapping ratio to construct a clustering tree to capture the temporal aspects and global ranking of a request set. The global rank is computed by the equation \ref{eq:ranking}. The overlapping ratio of a request is the ratio of the number of operation interval and the number of total intervals of the composition. The overlapping ratio of a request $R_i$ is computed by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
O(R_i) = \frac{\text{Number of intervals of } R_i}{\text{Total Number of Intervals}}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{plot.pdf}
\caption{Annotation of a request set using global preference ranking and overlapping ratio (a) annotation table (b) annotation plot}
\label{fig:plot}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
The overlapping ratio for the request $R3$ in the request set $A$ (Figure \ref{fig:req}) is $2/3=.667$. Let us assume a request set is annotated with the global preference ranking and the overlapping ratio of each request as shown in Figure \ref{fig:plot}. Now, we construct the clustering tree based on the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each request is considered as a cluster. If there are $N$ requests in a set of requests, then the number of clusters is $N$.
\item A $N X N$ distance matrix is constructed based on the \textit{Euclidean Distance} (Equation \ref{eqn:euclid}) of each pair of requests according to their global preference ranking $GPR$ and overlapping ratio $OR$.
\item The closest pair of clusters is selected and merge them into a single cluster.
\item The distances between the new cluster and each of the old clusters are computed.
\item Steps 3 and 4 are repeated until there exists only a single cluster.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{equation}
E.D = \sqrt{\sum{GPR(R1-R2)}^2+OR(R1-R2)^2}
\label{eqn:euclid}
\end{equation}
We can perform step 4 in different ways based on different hierarchical clustering approaches \cite{murtagh2012algorithms,fernandez2008solving,Growendt2017,bouguettaya1996line}. We consider different conventional approaches to measure the distance between two clusters which are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item SLINK: SLINK stands for single linkage clustering method. In this method, two clusters are joined based on the distance of their nearest pair of elements. Only one member of each cluster is considered to compute the distance \cite{murtagh2012algorithms}. It is also known as \textit{nearest neighbour}(NN) clustering method.
\item CLINK: CLINK is short for complete linkage clustering method. Two clusters are joined based on the distance of the farthest pair of elements \cite{Growendt2017}. It is also known as \textit{farthest neighbour}(FN) clustering method.
\item UPGMA: This unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic average is also known as the average linkage clustering method \cite{fernandez2008solving}. We compute the distance between two clusters based on the average distance of each pair of elements from two clusters.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{clusters}
\caption{Hierarchical clustering steps}
\label{fig:clusters}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Any of the above hierarchical clustering approaches, i.e., SLINK, CLINK, UPGMA could be used for the IaaS composition of new requests. We use the SLINK or nearest neighbor approach as it is a widely used clustering approach and effective in time-series data clustering \cite{berkhin2006survey}. \textit{Note that, finding the optimal clustering approach for IaaS composition is out of the focus of this paper}.
A clustering construction process is shown in Figure \ref{fig:clusters}. Initially, we perform the annotation as shown in Figure \ref{fig:plot}. In Figure \ref{fig:clusters}(a), \{R4\} and \{R5\} are the nearest to each other. \{R4\} and \{R5\} are put in the same cluster. Similarly, \{R2\} and \{R3\} are the nearest to each other and joined in the same cluster. In Figure \ref{fig:clusters}(b), \{R6\} is the nearest to the \{R4\}. Therefore, \{R6\} is joined with \{\{R4\},\{R5\}\}. In the next step, \{R1\} is the nearest to \{R3\}. \{R1\} is joined with \{\{R2\},\{R3\}\}. In Figure \ref{fig:clusters}(c), there are only two clusters which are \{\{R4\},\{R5\},\{R6\}\} and \{\{R1\},\{R2\},\{R3\}\}. These two clusters are joined based on \{\{R5\} and \{R2\} who are the nearest request to each other from two clusters. Finally, there is only one cluster left.
Once we build clustering trees for different sets of requests, we need to compute the coefficient of correlation between different clustering trees. We use \textit{Cophenetic correlation coefficient} to compare two clustering trees \cite{sokal1962comparison}. A cophenetic correlation coefficient determines how well a clustering tree preserves the pairwise distance between the original requests before clustering. \textit{The cophenetic distance between two requests in a clustering tree is the height of the clustering tree where the two branches that include the two requests merge into a single branch.} We compute the cophenetic correlation coefficient for each clustering tree and use them to measure similarities between two clustering trees. Given a set of requests R, its corresponding clustering tree T, R(i,j) is the Euclidean distance between $i$th and $j$th requests, and T(i,j) is the cophenetic distance where two requests merged first time in the clustering tree, we compute the cophenetic correlation coefficient using the following equation \cite{sokal1962comparison}:
\begin{equation}
c = \frac{\sum_{i<j}(R(i,j)-\bar{R})(T(i,j)-\bar{T})}{\sqrt{[\sum_{i<j}(R(i,j)-\bar{R})^2][\sum_{i<j}(T(i,j)-\bar{T})^2]}}
\label{eqn:cop}
\end{equation}
\subsection{\textbf{Q-learned Policy Reuse in IaaS Composition}}
Let us assume we are given a library of Q-matrices where the corresponding incoming requests set has a cophenetic distance to a new set of requests, $c$ below a certain threshold $ThC$. Our target is to reuse the Q-matrices to find the optimal composition of the new set of requests. We reuse existing policy library in two ways: a) greedy policy reuse approach, b) policy reuse in on-policy 3d Q-learning approach:
\subsubsection{\textbf{Greedy Policy Reuse Approach}}
The best policy reuse approach should not involve Q-learning approach for a new set of requests at all. However, it is challenging to apply an existing policy directly to a new set of requests due to the new request sets, e.g., new states and actions in the environment. However, the number of temporal segments remain the same as the provider's long-term TempCP-net does not change. As a greedy approach we can partially reuse the policy, i.e., only the temporal sequences from the previous history could be applied to perform local optimization. Note that, the greedy policy reuse approach does not involve any reinforcement learning to compose a new set of requests. The steps for greedy policy reuse approach are described below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find the similar Q matrices where cophenetic distance $c$ is below a certain threshold $ThC$ using the Agglomerative Clustering approach.
\item Select the Q matrix that is learned for the request set of min($c$).
\item Generate the optimal policy ($\pi^{*}$) from the Q matrix.
\item Let us assume $D$ is the sequence of state transitions in ($\pi^{*}$).
\item Following the sequence $D$, perform local optimization using Dynamic programming in each segment. Accept the requests from the output of the optimization. Rejected requests are removed from the candidate list for the next available sequence.
\item Return the set of accepted requests when local optimization is performed in all segments in $D$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Policy Reuse in the On-policy 3d Q-learning Approach}}
We omit the reuse of learned actions, i.e., selection of requests in the greedy approach. Here, we focus on policy reuse in the exploration process in the proposed Q-learning approach. We adopt the policy reuse approach for two-dimensional Q-learning approach \cite{fernandez2006probabilistic} for the proposed on-policy 3d Q-learning approach. The key idea in policy reuse is to integrate the past policy as a probabilistic bias in the exploration strategy of the new learning process for composition.
We define $\mu$ as the policy exploitation probability that defines the exploitation of past policy, the new policy or a random exploration. Hence, the $\epsilon$-greedy state transition is replaced with $\mu$-$\epsilon$-greedy state transition as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Follow the past policy $\pi_{past}(s)$ to select the next state-action with the probability $\mu$
\item Exploit the current policy $\pi_{past}(s)$ to select the next state-action with the probability $(1-\mu)\epsilon$.
\item Select the next state-action randomly with the probability $(1-\mu)(1-\epsilon)$.
\end{enumerate}
One issue in the policy reuse is to find the corresponding actions as the partial request, i.e., request in an interval may not be an exact match with the new request. We perform time-series similarity measure \cite{sajibtsc2015} between the request sets. If the similarity index is higher than a threshold $(TMS)$, we consider a one to one mapping between the actions and apply the past policy to the new request sets. If we have a library of $N$ Q matrices, we modify the on-policy 3d Q-learning approach with policy reuse strategy in the Algorithm \ref{alg:qlearningp}.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\fontsize{8pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\caption{The on-policy 3d Q-learning process with policy reuse}
\label{alg:qlearningp}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $L$ is library of $N$ Q matrices shorted on cophenetic distance $c$
\REQUIRE $H$ is library of $N$ past optimal policy $\pi_{past}(s)$ from the Q matrices.
\REQUIRE $E$ is the extra episodes for random exploration
\REQUIRE the policy exploitation probability $\mu$
\STATE Initialize Q(s,a,o) to 0
\FOR {each episode to $N+E$}
\STATE $s \gets s_{0}$
\STATE execution order, $o\gets 1$
\WHILE{$o \neq$ total number of segments}
\STATE Choose action $a$ from $s$ in $o$ using $\mu$-$\epsilon$-greedy policy.
\STATE Execute $a$, observe reward $r$ and next state $\acute{s}$
\STATE $Q[s,a,o] \gets (1-\alpha)Q[s,a,o] + \alpha (r+\gamma max_{(\acute{a},\acute{o})}Q[\acute{s},\acute{a},\acute{o}])$
\STATE create candidate $[s,a]$ based on redundant state transitions
\STATE $s \gets \acute{s}$ using $\mu$-$\epsilon$-greedy policy.
\STATE $o \gets o+1$
\ENDWHILE
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
\label{exper}
In this section, we discuss our experiments to evaluate the proposed approach. First, we discuss different techniques to evaluate the proposed approach. Next, we discuss the experiment setup with real world datasets. Finally, the experiment results and their evaluation are discuss.
We conduct a set of experiments to evaluate the proposed long-term qualitative composition framework in terms of accuracy and runtime efficiency. First, we analyze the efficiency of the proposed long-term qualitative composition framework for a new set of requests (without history). We compare the proposed approaches with four state-of-the-art techniques: a) Global Dynamic Programming \cite{zou2012qos}, b) 2-d Q-learning \cite{moustafa2013multi}, c) Heuristics based optimization \cite{sajibicsoc2016}, and d) On-policy SARSA learning approach \cite{wang2017integrating}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Global Dynamic Programming}: A QoS-aware dynamic service composition approach is proposed in \cite{zou2012qos} that utilizes the concept of global dynamic programming (DP). The global DP approach finds the all possible solution through developing sub-optimal solutions considering the provider's economic model. The global DP approach is able to find the best solution if exists. However, it poses scalability issue during runtime due to comparisons among a large number of candidates.
\item \textit{2-D Q-learning}: A multi-objective service composition approach is proposed in \cite{moustafa2013multi} that leverages reinforcement learning technique to deal with conflicting objectives and various QoS constraints. The proposed approach uses reinforcement learning to deal with the uncertainty characteristic inherent in open and decentralized environments.
\item \textit{Heuristic based optimization}: A heuristic based approach is proposed in \cite{sajibicsoc2016} that utilizes sequential optimization. The proposed approach considers several sequences of local optimizations, i.e., left to right, right to left and random. During each iteration, higher utility requests (i.e., trade-off ratio of higher rankings with smaller request length) are selected over higher utility requests. Finally, long-term requests are accepted through collaborative decisions of local optimizations, i.e., based on the global utility score.
\item \textit{On-policy SARSA learning approach}: A modified SARSA (State-Action-Reward-State-Action) algorithm is proposed as the on-policy reinforcement learning approach for adaptive service composition \cite{wang2017integrating}. The difference between SARSA and Q-learning is that SARSA selects requests (action) following the same current policy and updates its Q-values. However, Q-learning applies the greedy policy, i.e., updates its Q-values based on the maximum preference rankings of available actions.
\end{itemize}
The efficiency of the proposed long-term qualitative composition framework is analyzed for a given set of historical request sets. \textit{We consider the outputs of the brute-force approach as the baseline or validation set}. In the brute-force approach, the minimum preference ranking of all the combinations of requests over the total composition period are computed using the global preference ranking Equation \ref{eq:ranking} and pairwise comparisons. As the brute-force approach has exponential runtime, it is not applicable in real world applications. We compare the performance of proposed the greedy policy reuse and the 3d Q-learning with policy reuse approach when the Agglomerative clustering is used for similarity measure. We compare the proposed approach with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test based composition approach \cite{mistry2018long} which is a well-known technique to find correlations between incoming requests and the set of historical requests based on statistical distribution. The historical learned Q-values are used as the initial values (rather than 0) in the K-S test based Q-learning approach \cite{mistry2018long}.
\subsection{\textbf{Simulation Setup with Real World Datasets}}
\label{ex:sim}
Long-term consumer requests are generated from publicly available datasets. Google cluster trace \cite{clusterdata} is used to generate functional requirements of the consumer requests. Google cluster traces provide CPU and Memory workloads of 70 jobs. It does not include the QoS requirements of IaaS consumers. WS-dream dataset \cite{JiangICWS2012} is a real-world cloud QoS performance datasets consist response time and throughput information of one hundred cloud services. As we consider both the functional and non-functional (QoS) attributes in IaaS requests, we generate 70 long-term IaaS requests by creating a random one-to-one mapping between Google cluster and WS-dream dataset. Note that WS-dream dataset does not include IaaS requirements on two QoS attributes, i.e., availability and price which are important for the proposed economic model-based IaaS composition framework. Hence, we randomly generated availability and price values for each IaaS requests.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\caption{Requests distribution description}
\label{tab:request}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Distribution \\ type\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Request length \\ (in months)\end{tabular}} \\ \cline{2-4}
& 1-3 & 4-8 & 9-12 \\ \hline
Normal & 20\% & 60\% & 20\% \\ \hline
Right-skewed & 20\% & 20\% & 60\% \\ \hline
Left-skewed & 60\% & 20\% & 20\% \\ \hline
Random & random & random & random \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
Finding actual IaaS provider's business strategy is difficult in the real world. Therefore, Ten tempCP-nets are synthesized where each CP-net has twelve intervals. We consider six attributes namely CPU, memory, response time, availability, price, throughput, and request length. A decision variable is used to represent request length. We generate the dependency randomly to build different types of business strategy. We define ten levels of semantic to generate semantic preference tables. The preference statements for the CPT of each attribute is created randomly. The requests are categorized into four different distributions which are normal, right-skewed, left-skewed, and random. When most of the consumers request the median length of services, we consider the distribution as a normal distribution. Similarly, temporal higher overlapping requirements generate right-skewed distribution and temporal lower overlapping requirements generates a left-skewed distribution \cite{mistry2018long}. For each category of the distribution, we generate five request sets where each set has ten to thirty requests. Table \ref{tab:request} shows the description of each distribution. To create a normal distribution of requests, sixty percent of the total requests are segmented into 4 to 8 month intervals. Rest of the requests are segmented into 1 to 3 month interval and 9 to 12 month intervals. We create other distributions in a similar manner. The starting time of the requests in distribution is generated using poison distribution.
\subsection{\textbf{Efficiency of the Proposed Framework for a New Set of Requests}}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Evaluating Accuracy}}
\label{ex:s1}
In the first experiment, we do not consider the history of Q-learned values. Each request set is composed individually against 10 different TempCP-nets. Initially, moderate learning rate ($\alpha =0.5$) is used for both off-policy and on-policy Q-learning based composition approaches. The outputs are normalized, averaged and compared against the brute force approach. We define the accuracy of a composition as the normalized preference ($NP$):
\begin{equation*}
NP = \frac{\text{ranking from a composition approach}}{\text{ranking from the brute-force approach}}
\label{eqn:cop1}
\end{equation*}
A higher normalized preference value means higher accuracy and a lower value means lower accuracy. The Figure \ref{fig:exp1} depicts the performances of the proposed approach in different request distributions. In all the distributions (Figure \ref{fig:exp1}), both the off-policy and on-policy 3D Q-learning approach have similar accuracy to the DP based approach. Both approaches have significant higher accuracy than the 2d Q-learning, heuristic-based approaches, and on-policy SARSA approach. The accuracy in the proposed off-policy 3d Q-learning approach is inversely correlated with the number of requests. An increase in the number of requests is followed by a decrease in accuracy for off-policy 3d Q-learning approach irrespective of the type of distribution. It is mainly because an increase in the number of requests results in an increase of transition probabilities in state-action sequences of Q-learning which may cause local optima. There is no significant decrease in the on-policy Q-learning approach for a higher number of request sets except for left-skewed distribution. The possible explanation is that the on-policy Q-learning approach removes redundant state transition probabilities. As there is less number of overlapping requests in left-skewed distribution, the on-policy Q-learning approach behaves similarly to the off-policy 3d Q-learning approach. The accuracy in the heuristic based approach is increased when the number of requests is increased. The accuracy in SARSA is almost similar to the heuristic-based approach.
The proposed off-policy and on-policy 3D Q-learning approaches demonstrate 35\% higher accuracy than the existing approaches, i.e., SARSA, Q-learning, and Heuristic based approaches in normal, right-skewed, and random distribution. In the case of left-skewed distribution, the accuracy reduces slightly (especially for large number of request sets), but still 15\% higher than the existing approaches. A large portion (around 60\% to 80\%) IaaS requests in the left-skewed distribution is short-term (0-3 months). However, the focus of the paper is long-term compositions. We will focus on achieving the consistent higher accuracy in different distributions in the future work.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-8mm}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{normal.pdf}} \hspace*{-.01em}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{Right.pdf}} \\ [-3ex]
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{Left.pdf}} \hspace*{-.01em}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{random.pdf}} \\
\caption{\small Accuracy of the DP, on-policy and off-policy Q-learning, SARSA and heuristic approaches in different distributions of requests(a) normal, (b) right-skewed, (c) left-skewed, and (d) random. \normalsize}
\label{fig:exp1}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Next, we analyze the effect of learning rate $(\alpha)$ on the accuracy of the proposed framework. We use 3 different learning rates: a) low ($\alpha =0.2$), b) moderate ($\alpha =0.5$), and c) high ($\alpha =0.8$) in the proposed on-policy and off-policy Q-learning approaches in the random distribution set. We randomly choose 10 request sets and the proposed framework is applied to each set separately with the three different learning rates. The averaged accuracy in different learning rate is shown in Fig \ref{fig:learning-rate}. We find that the low and moderate learning rate generates higher and acceptable accuracy for both the on-policy and off-policy 3D Q-learning approaches. However, the higher learning rate reduces the accuracy by around 30\% for the proposed 3d and 2d Q-learning based composition approaches. The key reason is that the higher learning rate overestimates the expected future reward or preference ranking and reduces the state-action exploration process. However, the learning rate has a lower influence on the accuracy of SARSA. As SARSA applies in-policy Q-updates with reduced exploration, different learning rate creates an almost similar number of random explorations which can bring any random update (increase, decrease or remain the same) on the output.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vspace{-8mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{learning-rate.pdf}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{Preference rankings in different learning rates}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:learning-rate}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Evaluating Run-time Efficiency in the Composition without History}}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vspace{-8mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Runtime-historyless.pdf}
\caption{Runtime efficiency in composition approaches}
\label{fig:runtimehistoryless}
\end{figure}
We calculate the execution time of each composition for different numbers of incoming requests. We randomly pick 5 requests sets from all the distributions with the same number of request sets. Total 25 compositions are performed on request sets with 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 incoming requests. The average execution time is described in Figure \ref{fig:runtimehistoryless}. All the composition approaches have similar execution time for a lower number of incoming requests, i.e., sets with 10 and 15 requests. However, for a higher number of requests, the best runtime is generated by the sequential approach and the global DP approach generates the worst case. It defines the applicability of sequential local composition approach over global composition approach for a higher number of requests. We find that the SARSA approach is the quickest among the reinforcement learning approaches due to its on-policy nature. Similarly, the proposed on-policy 3d learning approach runs around 35\% faster than the off-policy 3d q-learning approach and around 65\% faster than the 2d q-learning composition approach. The key reason is the on-policy 3d q-learning approach removes redundant overlapping requests in each episode of its convergence for a composition.
The existing heuristic-based sequential composition approach aggressively reduces the solution space and computation time \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. As a result it is highly effective in real world scenarios where runtime efficiency is more important than accuracy. The proposed approach achieves 35\% higher accuracy using only 5\% increase in computation time than the heuristic-based approach. The impact of this slight increase is negligible in runtime. Moreover, Figure 17 depicts that the proposed approach is scalable in runtime with a higher number of requests set. We conclude that the proposed approach has a higher time efficiency in real world scenarios to achieve the high accuracy.
\subsection{\textbf{Efficiency of the Proposed Policy Reuse Approach with History}}
In the second experiment, we consider that a history of learning experiences are available as a database of learned Q-matrices during a composition. The proposed policy reuse approaches apply the learned policies from a similar set of requests based on the agglomerative clustering approach. All 70 requests are clustered into three sets based on the cophenetic correlation coefficient:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Set A}: It consists of a highly similar request sets with normalized cophenetic correlation coefficient ranging from (.8 to 1).
\item \textit{Set B}: It consists of an average similar request sets with normalized cophenetic correlation coefficient ranging from (.6 to .8).
\item \textit{Set C}: It consists of a lowly similar request sets with normalized cophenetic correlation coefficient ranging from (.3 to .6).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-8mm}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{History-high-similarity.pdf}} \hspace*{-.01em}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{History-med-similarity.pdf}} \\ [-3ex]
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{History-low-similarity.pdf}} \hspace*{-.01em}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{Runtime-with-history.pdf}} \\
\caption{\small Accuracy of policy reuse approaches in different distributions, (a) highly similar (Set A), (b) average similar (Set B), (c) lowly similar (Set C), and (d) Average Runtime efficiency in the policy reuse approaches \normalsize}
\label{fig:exp2}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Note that, we consider a request set as new if its cophenetic correlation coefficient ranges from 0 to 0.3 when compared with existing request sets. All the requests in set A, B and C are composed individually with the off-policy Q-learning approach and the resulted Q-matrices and policies are stored in a database. Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(a), (b) and (c) depicts the accuracy of the proposed approaches in Set A, B and C. We find that the greedy policy reuse approach performs poorly in every distribution (average accuracy around 35\%). The key reason is that it ignores critical information of request overlapping and the future expected to rank from the current selection. We consider the output from the individual composition without history as a baseline. The efficiency of the policy reuse approach is calculated based on how close output it can produce in comparison to the individual composition without history. According to Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(a), the proposed Q-learned based policy reuse approach performs closely to the output which is generated without history (around 80\% accuracy). However, the accuracy drops to about 60\% in average and lower similar sets (Set B and C) which is not acceptable (Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(b), (c)). The K-S test based approach also has around 60\% accuracy in all the three sets. The K-S test based approach is about 30\% and 5\% less accurate than the proposed Q-learned policy reuse approach in Set A and B respectively (Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(a) and (b)). However, it is 5\% more accurate than the policy based approaches in Set C (Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(c)). The proposed policy reuse approach should only be applied when highly similar request sets are found in the history.
According to existing literature \cite{koenig1993complexity}, the time complexity of 2d Q-learning approach is $O(ep)$, where $e$ is the total number of actions, $e = \sum_{s \epsilon S} a(s)$, and $p$ is the total number of states, $p = |S|$. In our context, the state is dependent on the number of time intervals, i.e., $I$ and the state transitions are laid out on the two dimensional state-space $[I \times I]$. Similarly, the pairwise comparison is performed in each action, i.e., selecting a request set in a composition. Hence, if the number of request set is $N$, the time complexity of 2d Q-learning approach for the IaaS composition is $O(N^{2}I^{2})$. We modified the 2d Q-learning approach for IaaS composition into 3d On-policy learning process in Algorithm 1. As one more dimension is added in the 3d learning, the time complexity of Algorithm 1 is $O(N^{3}I^{3})$. Algorithm 2 applies policy reuse to reduce the state-action transitions by removing the redundant states. As the complexity of the clustering based similarity in Algorithm 2 is $O(N^{2})$, the time complexity of the proposed policy reuse approach is $O(N^{2})$ + $O(N^{2}I^{2})$. Figure \ref{fig:exp2}(d) depicts the average runtime efficiency of the proposed policy reuse approach in the three sets. For a smaller number of sets (10 and 15) the policy reuse approach could not improve the runtime efficiency significantly than the K-S test based approach or composition without history approach. However, the policy reuse approach improves the runtime efficiency significantly (around 40\%) than the Q-learning approach without history for a higher number of requests composition. The runtime of the greedy policy reuse approach is similar to the heuristic based sequential optimization approach.
We analyze the effect of the library size, i.e., the number of learned Q-matrices for the proposed policy reuse approach. According to Figure \ref{fig:librarysize}, although a lower library size (i.e., 5) enables a quick convergence for the Q-leaning based policy reuse approach, the resulted accuracy also stays low. The key reason is the exploration method in the learning approach may not receive enough policies from the library of similar policies. Figure \ref{fig:librarysize} depicts that a bigger library size improves the accuracy of the proposed approach. However, the accuracy is not linearly related to the library size. Once, the library size reaches a certain threshold, adding newly learned matrices may not necessarily improve the result. The proposed approach performs a satisfactory level of exploration with the threshold library size and newly added policies may only reiterate over the same explored states. N=15 is the threshold value of library size in Figure \ref{fig:librarysize}. On the other side, a bigger library size also increases the runtime. In Figure \ref{fig:librarysize} the runtime increases at the rate of 20\% if library size is increased by a factor of 5. The threshold library size is dependent on the TempCP-net, the number of intervals and the distribution of the learned Q-matrices. In the future, we will investigate determining the optimal library size of the Q-learned database for the composition framework.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Effect-of-library-size-new.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{Effects of different library sizes of Q-matrices in the policy reuse approach}
\label{fig:librarysize}
\end{figure}
One of our assumption is that the semantic levels of the provider's qualitative preferences are determined by the providers prior to the composition. The proposed approach determines the optimal qualitative IaaS composition for the provider based on the provided semantic preference table. Note, determining the optimal semantic levels, i.e., value ranges are out of the focus of this paper. We have added a new experiment to depict the effect of different semantic levels $(Slv = [2,3,5,10,20])$ on the accuracy of the proposed approach. The value ranges are uniformly distributed in the experiment. For example, the value range [66,100] is considered ``High'' in 3 semantic levels where the value range [80,100] is considered ``High'' in 5 semantic levels. Figure \ref{fig:levelsize} depicts that a higher semantic levels improves the accuracy of the proposed approach slightly. As the lower semantic levels are coarse-grained, the number of candidate solutions are not effectively filtered in contrast to higher semantic levels. However, after the semantic levels reaches a certain threshold, adding new levels may not necessarily improve the result. In the future, we will investigate determining the optimal semantic levels for the composition framework.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/Effect-of-semantic-levels.pdf}
\caption{Effects of different semantic levels in the proposed approach}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{fig:levelsize}
\end{figure}
\section{Related Work}
Cloud service composition has been studied extensively in the existing literature \cite{mistry2018economic}. We identify two types of economic models for cloud service composition - a) quantitative , and b) qualitative composition \cite{mistry2018economic, gavvala2019qos,souri2020hybrid}. We find that most quantitative approaches are mainly considered from a provider's perspective where the objective is to select the optimal set of service requests based on the provider's economic goal such as maximizing profit, revenue, or resource utilization, We also find that qualitative approaches are mainly considered from a consumer's perspective. Composition from a consumer's perspective selects the best cloud service from a set of cloud services based on the consumer's service requirements.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Quantitative composition from a provider's perspective}: The objective of the quantitative composition is to maximize a provider's economic expectations such as revenue, profit, and reputation by optimizing available resources \cite{cong2020survey}. For example, let us assume an IaaS provider receives requests from two perspective consumers, a bank and a university. The bank requests a VM instance with 8 cores CPU, 1TB memory, 1GB bandwidth, 10ms latency for 1 year and is willing to pay \$500 upfront. The university requests a different VM instance with 16 cores CPU, 1972 CUDA cores GPU, 2TB memory, 500MB bandwidth, 5ms latency for 1 year and is willing to pay \$800 upfront. The provider has four options: a) accept both the requests, b) accept the bank's request, c) accept the university's request, and d) reject both the requests. The economic model of the provider will guide the provider to take the appropriate decision. For example, the economic model of the provider may \textit{suggest} that GPU based services have larger operation costs (due to the higher demand for electricity). As a result, the bank's IaaS request may be \textit{preferred} and \textit{accepted} over the university's IaaS request to \textit{maximize profit}. Note that, if the provider has a \textit{different economic model}, i.e., revenue maximization and reputation building for services with higher throughput, the university's IaaS request may be \textit{preferred} and \textit{accepted} over the bank's IaaS request (the university is paying more upfront that \textit{maximizes revenue}). An economic model is proposed in \cite{goiri2012economic} to maximize resource utilization. The proposed approach assesses the cost of resource utilization from a cloud federation perspective and develops a resource management core for the \textit{short-term} profit maximization. An economic model is proposed to calculate the short-term operation cost of VM provisioning using power ratings of the physical servers in \cite{Thanakornworakij}. The proposed economic model aims at maximizing profit based on right pricing and rightsizing in the Cloud data centre. However, short-term economic benefits may negatively affect the long-term economic gain. A meta-heuristic optimization approach is proposed in \cite{sajibtsc2015} to compose stochastic service requests considering long-term economic gain. However, these proposed quantitative models could not be applied in qualitative composition context as these models do not consider the provider's business strategies or long-term qualitative preferences to accept or reject requests in the composition.
\item \textit{Qualitative composition from a consumer's perspective}: Qualitative economic models are often used to express the preferences of a consumer where there exists incomplete or uncertain information. Qualitative models facilitate the selection and composition of multiple providers when quantitative approaches are not applicable. A qualitative economic model is proposed in \cite{fattah2018cp} to represent a consumer's service preferences. The qualitative model is built using a dependency graph and conditional preference tables. The dependency graph and the conditional preference tables form a Conditional Preference Network (CP-net). A CP-net represents the consumer's preferences qualitatively in a natural and intuitive way. The conditional preference statements for each QoS attribute are expressed using a CPT (Conditional Preference Table). A CP-net based qualitative economic model is presented in \cite{cp1} to select and compose multiple providers based on qualitative preferences of a consumer. The semantic consistency of the CP-net decides the quality of the composition. There are several variations of CP-nets in the existing literature. Consumers are allowed to express the weight or relative importance among attributes using the weighted CP-net (WCP-Net) \cite{wang2012wcp}. The preferences can also be incomplete or inconsistent. A web service selection model using CP-net is proposed in \cite{wang2009web} to select with incomplete or inconsistent user preferences. Probabilities are attached to the CPTs when there exist uncertainties in the qualitative preferences \cite{cornelio2013updates}. A CP-net based user similarity search and conflict removal technique are proposed to remove inconsistency or incompleteness in the user preferences \cite{bohanec2008qualitative}. The qualitative composition approaches from the consumer's perspective could not be applied directly to a provider as multiple long-term requests are composed at the same time according to the qualitative preferences of the provider.
\end{itemize}
An IaaS provider's preferences are expressed using qualitative economic models. The ordering of the preference outcomes is calculated using an economic variable. Examples of economic variables are cost, reputation, revenue, and so on. The composition depends on the ordering of the preference outcomes. A qualitative economic model usually depends on multiple domain-specific properties \cite{chung2012general}. Several existing studies consider qualitative economic models from the perspective of a provider. A CP-net based composition is proposed to select an optimal set of consumers from a provider's perspective \cite{fattah2018cp}. The proposed approach defines a composability model to determine the inconsistency of the preference composition of the consumers from a provider's perspective. A qualitative economic model for long-term IaaS composition is proposed to capture provider's long-term business strategies using temporal CP-nets \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. A novel sequential optimization method is proposed to select the optimal set of long-term consumer requests. The proposed approach is compared with global dynamic approach and greedy approach which shows that sequential optimization can achieve better time efficiency with acceptable accuracy. However, the proposed method does not include decision variables and business strategies to capture the types of consumers. The decision variables distinguish different types of consumers and enable a natural way to represent qualitative preferences. Decision variables are introduced in \cite{mistry2018long} to capture the provider's qualitative preferences for short-term and long-term requests. The optimal composition is performed using sequential optimization through reinforcement learning following the long-term qualitative economic model.
The sequential local optimization method is a well-known approach in many areas such as operational research, image processing, pattern recognition and so on. Sequential local optimization is usually applicable when the consequences of any given action regarding high-level criteria need to be determined \cite{kimes2004restaurant,chaefer2005modeling}. Many existing approaches use machine learning techniques in a sequential optimization to determine the parameters in state-action sequences \cite{watkins1992q}. As the IaaS composition is dynamic in nature, a model-free learning platform might be more suitable than a model-based learning platform \cite{dorigo2016ant}. Adaptive service composition utilizes reinforcement learning based methods to compose services from a consumer's perspective \cite{wang2020integrating}. Markov Decision Process or MDP is often used to model service composition problem \cite{alizadeh2020reinforcement}. A Q-learning based composition approach is proposed in \cite{lewis2012reinforcement}. The proposed approach models adaptive controllers through a sequential decision process. The optimal policy is constructed using a reward function to approximate the optimal function. A heuristic based optimization approach is proposed without considering historical requests patterns \cite{sajibicsoc2016}. It creates random sequences of local optimizations. The heuristics treat different types of consumers in a similar manner which may output a non-optimal composition. A reinforcement learning (Q-learning) approach is proposed in \cite{mistry2018long} that learns service provision strategies for different types of consumers without historical information of the past requests. It invalidates the necessity of learning if every new composition needs to be learned from scratch. In this paper, we remove the limitation of the existing approach in \cite{mistry2018long}. We propose a new on-policy 3d Q-learning based IaaS composition framework that has the ability o reuse historical learning experiences or policies using agglomerative clustering.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a qualitative composition approach for deterministic consumer requests according to the provider's long-term qualitative preferences represented in TempCP-nets. We perform the selection of consumer requests in each temporal segments sequentially. We propose Q-leaning based reinforcement learning approaches to find the best sequence of local optimization or selection of requests. We design an on-policy based three-dimensional Q-learning approach that intuitively removes redundant computations, i.e., state-action transitions using the length of overlapping requests. We propose different policy reuse approaches to perform the composition based on the learned compositions. The similar policy is selected using the cophenetic distance from agglomerative clustering of requests. Experimental results show that the proposed on-policy based 3d Q-learning approach is effective in real world situations. The proposed approach generates more accurate results than other approaches, i.e., 2d Q-learning, SARSA and heuristic based sequential approaches. The accuracy of the proposed on-policy based learning approach closely approximates to the accuracy of the off-policy 3d Q-learning composition approach in significantly reduced runtime. Experimental results also suggest that higher learning rates should not be used in the proposed approach. The proposed on-policy reuse approach produces better accuracy with agglomerative clustering than the greedy and K-S test based reuse approaches in an acceptable runtime.
One of the key limitations of the proposed work is to determine the optimal library size of Q-matrices which will be addressed in the future work. The proposed framework also does not consider the stochastic arrival of incoming requests and the probabilistic qualitative preferences. We will explore the dynamic qualitative IaaS composition in the future work.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This research was partly made possible by DP160103595 and LE180100158 grants from the Australian Research Council. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1983, Weinstein~\cite{Weinstein1983} proved a fundamental fact about Poisson brackets, nowadays known as his ``splitting theorem'': if $p$ is a point in a Poisson manifold $\mathsf{X}$ at which the matrix of the Poisson bracket has rank $2k$, then $p$ has a neighbourhood that decomposes as a product of a symplectic manifold of dimension $2k$, and a Poisson manifold for which the Poisson bracket vanishes at $p$. An important consequence of this splitting is that $\mathsf{X}$ admits a canonical (and possibly singular) foliation by symplectic leaves, which is locally induced by the aforementioned product decomposition.
It is natural to ask under which conditions this splitting is \emph{global}, so that $\mathsf{X}$ decomposes as a product of Poisson manifolds, having a symplectic leaf as a factor (perhaps after passing to a suitable covering space). If $\mathsf{X}$ is compact, an obvious necessary condition is that the symplectic leaf is also compact. However, this condition is not sufficient; it is easy to construct examples in the $C^\infty$ context where both $\mathsf{X}$ and its leaf are simply connected, but $\mathsf{X}$ does not decompose as a product.
In contrast, we will show that for holomorphic Poisson structures on compact K\"ahler manifolds, the existence of such splittings is quite a general phenomenon:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:BBW-decomp}
\BBW
\end{theorem}
Here and throughout, by a ``K\"ahler Poisson manifold'', we mean a pair $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ where $\mathsf{X}$ is a complex manifold that admits a K\"ahler metric, and $\pi \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\wedge^2 \cT{\mathsf{X}}}$ is a holomorphic bivector that is Poisson, i.e.~the Schouten bracket $[\pi,\pi]=0$. We will not make reference to any specific choice of K\"ahler metric at any point in the paper.
We remark that all hypotheses of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} are used in an essential way in the proof. Indeed, in \autoref{sec:BBW-decomp}, we give examples showing that the conclusion may fail if the Poisson manifold $\mathsf{X}$ is non-K\"ahler ($C^\infty$ or complex analytic), if $\mathsf{X}$ is not compact, or if the fundamental group of $\mathsf{L}$ is infinite.
The proof of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} is given in \autoref{sec:BBW-decomp}. It rests on the following result of independent interest, which we establish using Hodge theory in \autoref{sec:subcal}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:subcal}
Let $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ be compact K\"ahler Poisson manifold, and suppose that $i : \mathsf{L}\hookrightarrow \mathsf{X}$ is the inclusion of a compact symplectic leaf. Then the holomorphic symplectic form on $\mathsf{L}$ extends to a global closed holomorphic two-form $\sigma \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ of constant rank such that the composition $\theta := \piX^\sharp\omX^\flat \in \sEnd{\cT{\mathsf{X}}}$ is idempotent, i.e.~$\theta^2 =\theta$.
\end{theorem}
Here $\piX^\sharp : \forms[1]{\mathsf{X}} \to \cT{\mathsf{X}}$ and $\omX^\flat : \cT{\mathsf{X}} \to \forms[1]{\mathsf{X}}$ are the usual maps defined by interior contraction into the corresponding bilinear forms. Following work of Frejlich--M\u{a}rcu\cb{t} in the $C^\infty$ setting, we refer to a holomorphic two-form $\sigma$ as in \autoref{thm:subcal} as a \defn{subcalibration of $\pi$}. The key point about a subcalibration, which they observed, is that it provides a splitting $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}$ into a pair of subbundles $\mathcal{F} = \img \theta$ and $\mathcal{G} = \ker \theta$ that are orthogonal with respect to $\pi$. Moreover $\mathcal{F}$ is automatically involutive, and $\mathcal{G}$ is involutive if and only if the component of $\sigma$ lying in $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}^\vee$ is closed. But in the compact K\"ahler setting, the latter condition is automatic by Hodge theory, and furthermore, any splitting of the tangent bundle into involutive subbundles is expected to arise from a splitting of some covering space of $\mathsf{X}$, according to the following open conjecture of Beauville (2000):
\begin{conjecture}[{\cite[(2.3)]{Beauville2000}}]\label{conj:beauville}
Let $\mathsf{X}$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold equipped with a holomorphic decomposition $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \bigoplus_{i\in I} \mathcal{F}_i$ of the tangent bundle such that each subbundle $\bigoplus_{j\in J} \mathcal{F}_j$, for $J \subset I$, is involutive. Then the universal cover of $\mathsf{X}$ is isomorphic to a product $\prod_{i \in I} \mathsf{U}_i$ in such a way that the given decomposition of $\cT{\mathsf{X}}$ corresponds to the natural decomposition $\cT{\prod_{i \in I}\mathsf{U}_i} \cong \bigoplus_{i \in I} \cT{\mathsf{U}_i}$.
\end{conjecture}
Thus, our second key step in the proof of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} is to prove the following theorem, which establishes a special case of \autoref{conj:beauville}, but with a stronger conclusion:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:split}
Suppose that $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold equipped with a splitting $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}$ of the tangent bundle into involutive subbundles. If $\mathcal{F}$ has a compact leaf $\mathsf{L}$ with finite holonomy group, then the splitting of $\cT{\mathsf{X}}$ is induced by a splitting of the universal cover of $\mathsf{X}$ as a product of manifolds. If, in addition, $\mathsf{L}$ has finite fundamental group and trivial canonical class, then the splitting of the universal cover is induced by a splitting of a finite \'etale cover.
\end{theorem}
The proof of \autoref{thm:split} is given in \autoref{sec:beauville}; see in particular \autoref{thm:Ehresmann} and \autoref{cor:split-CY-leaf}. It exploits the second-named author's global Reeb stability theorem for holomorphic foliations on compact K\"ahler manifolds~\cite{Pereira01}, which implies that all leaves of $\mathcal{F}$ are compact with finite holonomy. We then apply the theory of holonomy groupoids to show that the holonomy covers of the leaves assemble into a bundle of K\"ahler manifolds over $\mathsf{X}$, equipped with a flat Ehresmann connection induced by the transverse foliation $\mathcal{G}$. Finally, we exploit Lieberman's structure theory for automorphism groups of compact K\"ahler manifolds~\cite{Lieberman78} to analyze the monodromy action of the fundamental group of $\mathsf{X}$ on the fibres, and deduce the result.
The results above have several interesting consequences for the global structure of compact K\"ahler Poisson manifolds. For instance \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} immediately implies the following statement.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:iso}
If $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ is a compact K\"ahler Poisson manifold, then all simply connected compact symplectic leaves in $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ are isomorphic.
\end{corollary}
Meanwhile, we have the following immediate corollaries of \autoref{thm:subcal}:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:irred}
Let $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ be a compact connected K\"ahler Poisson manifold such that the tangent bundle $\cT{\mathsf{X}}$ is irreducible. If $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ is a compact symplectic leaf, then either $\mathsf{L} =\mathsf{X}$ or $\mathsf{L}$ is a single point.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Let $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ be a compact K\"ahler Poisson manifold such that the Hodge number $h^{2,0}(\mathsf{X})$ is equal to zero. If $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ is a compact symplectic leaf, then $\mathsf{L}$ is a single point.
\end{corollary}
Note that the vanishing $h^{2,0}(\mathsf{X})=0$ holds for a wide class of manifolds of interest in Poisson geometry, including all Fano manifolds, all rational manifolds, and more generally all rationally connected manifolds. Many natural examples arising in gauge theory and algebraic geometry fall into this class. Applied to the case in which $\mathsf{X}$ is a projective space, this answers a question posed by the third author about the existence of projective embeddings that are compatible with Poisson structures:
\begin{corollary}
A compact holomorphic symplectic manifold of positive dimension can never be embedded as a Poisson submanifold in a projective space, for any choice of holomorphic Poisson structure on the latter.
\end{corollary}
\paragraph{Acknowledgements:} We thank Pedro Frejlich and Ioan M\u{a}rcu\cb{t} for correspondence, and in particular for sharing their (currently unpublished) work on subcalibrations with us. We also thank Henrique Bursztyn, Marco Gualtieri and Ruxandra Moraru for interesting discussions. In particular \autoref{cor:iso} and \autoref{cor:irred} were pointed out by Bursztyn and Gualtieri, respectively.
This project grew out of discussions that took place during the school on ``Geometry and Dynamics of Foliations'', which was hosted May 18--22, 2020 by the Centre International de Rencontres Math\'ematiques (CIRM), as part of the second author's Jean-Morlet Chair. We are grateful to the CIRM for their support, and for their remarkable agility in converting the entire event to a successful virtual format on short notice, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
S.D.~was supported by the ERC project ALKAGE (ERC grant Nr 670846). S.D., J.V.P.~and F.T.~were supported by CAPES-COFECUB project Ma932/19. S.D.~and~F.T.~were supported by the ANR project Foliage (ANR grant Nr ANR-16-CE40-0008-01). J.V.P.~was supported by CNPq, FAPERJ, and CIRM. B.P.~was supported by a faculty startup grant at McGill University, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), through Discovery Grant RGPIN-2020-05191.
\section{Subcalibrations of K\"ahler Poisson manifolds}
\label{sec:subcal}
Throughout this section, we fix a connected complex manifold $\mathsf{X}$ and a holomorphic Poisson structure on $\mathsf{X}$, i.e.~a holomorphic bivector $\pi \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\Tpol[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ such that the Schouten bracket $[\pi,\pi]$ vanishes identically. We recall that the \defn{anchor map} of $\pi$ is the $\cO{\mathsf{X}}$-linear map
\[
\piX^\sharp : \forms[1]{\mathsf{X}} \to \cT{\mathsf{X}}
\]
given by contraction of forms into $\pi$. Its image is an involutive subsheaf, defining a possibly singular foliation of $\mathsf{X}$. If $i : \mathsf{L} \hookrightarrow \mathsf{X}$ is a leaf of this foliation, then $\pi_\bL := \pi|_\mathsf{L}$ is a nondegenerate Poisson structure on $\mathsf{L}$, so that its inverse
\[
\eta := \pi_\bL^{-1} \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{L},\forms[2]{\mathsf{L}}}
\]
is a holomorphic symplectic form. The pair $(\mathsf{L},\eta)$ is called a \defn{symplectic leaf} of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$.
\subsection{Extending forms on symplectic leaves}
The following lemma gives a sufficient condition for the holomorphic symplectic form on a symplectic leaf to extend to all of $\mathsf{X}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:extend}
Let $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ be a compact K\"ahler Poisson manifold, and suppose that $(\mathsf{L},\eta)$ is a compact symplectic leaf with inclusion $i : \mathsf{L} \hookrightarrow \mathsf{X}$. Then there exists a global closed holomorphic two-form $\omX_0 \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ such that $i^*\omX_0 = \eta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This proof is a variant of the arguments in \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Druel2019} and \cite[Theorem 5.6]{Loray2018}. Suppose that $\dim \mathsf{L} = 2k$ and let $\omega \in \coH[1]{\mathsf{X},\forms[1]{\mathsf{X}}} \cong \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{X}}$ be any K\"ahler class. Note that since $\pi$ is holomorphic, the contraction operator $\hook{\pi}$ on $\forms{\mathsf{X}}$ descends to the Dolbeault cohomology $\coH{\mathsf{X},\forms{\mathsf{X}}}$. In particular, we have a well-defined class
\[
\alpha := \hook{\pi}^k \omega^{2k} \in \coH[2k]{\mathsf{X},\cO{\mathsf{X}}}
\]
We claim that $i^*\alpha \in \coH[2k]{\mathsf{L},\cO{\mathsf{L}}}$ is nonzero. Indeed, since $\pi|_\mathsf{L} = \pi_\bL$, we have the following commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
\coH[2k]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{X}}} \ar[r]^-{\hook{\pi}^k} \ar[d]^-{i^*} & \coH[2k]{\mathsf{X},\cO{\mathsf{X}}} \ar[d]^-{i^*} \\
\coH[2k]{\mathsf{L},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{L}}} \ar[r]^-{\hook{\pi_\bL}^k} & \coH[2k]{\mathsf{L},\cO{\mathsf{L}}}
}
\]
The bottom arrow is an isomorphism since $\pi_\bL^k$ is a trivialization of the anticanonical bundle of $\mathsf{L}$. Meanwhile $i^*\omega^{2k} \in \coH[2k]{\mathsf{L},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{L}}}$ is nonzero since $i^*\omega$ is a K\"ahler class on $\mathsf{L}$. It follows that $i^*\alpha = \hook{\pi_\bL}^ki^*\omega^{2k} \ne 0$ as claimed.
Using the Hodge symmetry $\overline{\coH[2k]{\mathsf{X},\cO{\mathsf{X}}}} \cong \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{X}}}$, the complex conjugate of $\alpha$ gives a holomorphic $2k$-form
\[
\mu \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{X}}}
\]
such that $i^*\mu \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{L},\forms[2k]{\mathsf{L}}}$ is nonzero. Since the canonical bundle of $\mathsf{L}$ is trivial, $i^*\mu$ must be a constant multiple of the holomorphic Liouville volume form associated with the holomorphic symplectic structure on $\mathsf{L}$. Hence by rescaling $\mu$, we may assume without loss of generality $i^*\mu = \frac{1}{k!}\eta^k$. Now consider the global holomorphic two-form
\[
\omX_0 := \tfrac{1}{(k-1)!}\hook{\pi}^{k-1}\mu,
\]
which is closed by Hodge theory, since $\mathsf{X}$ is compact K\"ahler. We claim that it restricts to the symplectic form on $\mathsf{L}$. Indeed,
\[
i^*\omX_0 = \tfrac{1}{(k-1)!}i^*(\hook{\pi}^{k-1}\mu) = \tfrac{1}{(k-1)!}\hook{\pi_\bL}^{k-1}i^*\mu = \tfrac{1}{(k-1)!k!}\hook{\pi_\bL}^{k-1}\eta^k = \eta
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
The lemma only gives the existence of the holomorphic two-form $\omX_0$, but says little about its global properties. Nevertheless, it can be used to produce a two-form with the following property, the ramifications of which are explained in \autoref{sec:subcal-split} below:
\begin{definition}[Frejlich--M\u{a}rcu\cb{t}]
A holomorphic two-form $\sigma \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ is called a \defn{subcalibration of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$} if it is closed, and the composition
\[
\theta := \piX^\sharp\omX^\flat \in \sEnd{\cT{\mathsf{X}}}
\]
is idempotent (i.e.~$\theta^2=\theta$), where $\omX^\flat : \cT{\mathsf{X}} \to \forms[1]{\mathsf{X}}$ is the map defined by contraction of vector fields into $\sigma$.
\end{definition}
We will be interested in subcalibrations that are compatible with our chosen symplectic leaf $\mathsf{L}$ in the following sense:
\begin{definition}
A subcalibration $\sigma$ of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ is \defn{compatible with the symplectic leaf $i : \mathsf{L}\hookrightarrow \mathsf{X}$} if $i^*\img \theta = \cT{\mathsf{L}} \subset i^*\cT{\mathsf{X}}$.
\end{definition}
Equivalently, the subcalibration is compatible with $\mathsf{L}$ if the projection of $\pi$ to $\wedge^2\img\theta$ is a constant rank bivector that is an extension of the nondegenerate Poisson structure $\pi_\mathsf{L}$ on $\mathsf{L}$.
The following gives a simple condition that allows an arbitrary extension of the two-form on $\mathsf{L}$ to be refined to a subcalibration compatible with $\mathsf{L}$. Note that it applies, in particular, whenever $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact connected K\"ahler manifold:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:subcal-correct}
Let $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ be a holomorphic Poisson manifold and let $(\mathsf{L},\eta)$ be a symplectic leaf of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$. Suppose that the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $h^0(\mathsf{X},\cO{\mathsf{X}}) = 1$, i.e.~every global holomorphic function on $\mathsf{X}$ is constant
\item $\coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}} = \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2,\textrm{cl}]{\mathsf{X}}}$, i.e.~every global holomorphic two-form on $\mathsf{X}$ is closed
\item $\eta$ extends to a global holomorphic two-form on $\mathsf{X}$
\end{enumerate}
Then $\eta$ extends to a subcalibration compatible with $\mathsf{L}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\omX_0 \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ be any extension of the symplectic form on $\mathsf{L}$ to a global holomorphic two-form on $\mathsf{X}$, and let $\theta_0 := \piX^\sharp\omX_0^\flat \in \sEnd{\cT{\mathsf{X}}}$. Since $\pi_\bL = \pi|_\mathsf{L}$ is inverse to the symplectic form $\eta = i^*\omX_0$ on $\mathsf{L}$, it follows easily that $\theta_0|_\mathsf{L} \in \sEnd{i^*\cT{\mathsf{X}}}$ is idempotent with image $\cT{\mathsf{L}} \subset i^*\cT{\mathsf{X}}$, giving a splitting
\[
i^*\cT{\mathsf{X}} \cong \cT{\mathsf{L}}\oplus \ker \theta_0|_\mathsf{L}
\]
In particular, the characteristic polynomial of $\theta_0|_{\mathsf{L}}$ is given by
\[
P(t) = t^{n-2k}(t-1)^{2k}
\]
where $n = \dim \mathsf{X}$ and $k = \tfrac{1}{2} \dim \mathsf{L}$. But the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of $\theta_0$ are holomorphic functions on $\mathsf{X}$, and since $h^{0}(\mathsf{X},\cO{\mathsf{X}}) = 1$, such functions are constant. We conclude that $P(t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $\theta_0$ over all of $\mathsf{X}$.
Taking generalized eigenspaces of $\theta_0$, we obtain a decomposition
\[
\cT{\mathsf{X}} \cong \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}
\]
where $i^*\mathcal{F} = \cT{\mathsf{L}}$. Projecting the two-form $\omX_0$ to $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}^\vee$ we therefore obtain a new holomorphic two-form $\sigma_1$ such that $i^*\sigma_1 = \eta$, which has the additional property that $\mathcal{G} \subset \ker \sigma_1$. Then $\theta_1 = \piX^\sharp\sigma_1^\flat$ also has characteristic polynomial $P(t)$, giving a splitting $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F}' \oplus \mathcal{G}$ with respect to which $\theta_1$ takes on the Jordan--Chevalley block form
\[
\theta_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
1 + \phi & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $\phi \in \End{\mathcal{F}'}$ is nilpotent. Using the identity $\theta_1\piX^\sharp=\piX^\sharp\theta_1^\vee$ as maps $\forms[1]{\mathsf{X}} \to \cT{\mathsf{X}}$, one calculates that $\pi$ must be block diagonal, i.e.~equal to the sum of its projections to $\wedge^2\mathcal{G}$ and $\wedge^2\mathcal{F}'$. The latter projection, say $\pi' \in \wedge^2\mathcal{F}'$, is then nondegenerate because $\theta_1=\piX^\sharp\sigma_1^\flat$ is invertible on $\mathcal{F}'$. We may therefore define a two-form $\sigma := (\pi')^{-1} \in \wedge^2 \mathcal{F}' \subset \forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}$. By construction, the endomorphism $\theta := \piX^\sharp\sigma^\flat$ preserves the decomposition $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F}' \oplus \mathcal{G}$, acts as the identity on $\mathcal{F}'$, and has $\mathcal{G}$ as its kernel. In particular, $\theta$ is idempotent and $\sigma$ restricts to the symplectic form on $\mathsf{L}$. Moreover, $\sigma$ is closed by hypothesis. Thus $\sigma$ is a subcalibration of $\pi$ compatible with $\mathsf{L}$, as desired.
\end{proof}
Combining \autoref{lem:extend} and \autoref{lem:subcal-correct}, we immediately obtain the following statement, which is a rephrasing of \autoref{thm:subcal} from the introduction:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:exists-subcal}
If $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold equipped with a holomorphic Poisson structure and $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ is a compact symplectic leaf, then there exists a subcalibration of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$ compatible with $\mathsf{L}$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Splitting the tangent bundle}
\label{sec:subcal-split}
Note that if $\sigma$ is a subcalibration of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$, then the operator $\theta := \pi^\sharp\omX^\flat$ gives a decomposition
\[
\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}
\]
of the tangent bundle into the complementary subbundles
\[
\mathcal{F} := \img \theta, \qquad \mathcal{G} := \ker \theta.
\]
We may then project $\pi$ onto the corresponding summands in the exterior powers to obtain global bivectors
\[
\pi_\mathcal{F} \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\wedge^2 \mathcal{F}} \qquad \pi_\mathcal{G} \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X} \wedge^2 \mathcal{G}}.
\]
Similarly, the form $\sigma$ projects to a pair of sections
\[
\sigma_\mathcal{F} \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X}, \wedge^2 \mathcal{F}^\vee} \qquad \sigma_\mathcal{G} \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X}, \wedge^2 \mathcal{G}^\vee},
\]
which we may view as global holomorphic two-forms on $\mathsf{X}$ via the splitting $\cT{\mathsf{X}}^\vee \cong \mathcal{F}^\vee \oplus \mathcal{G}^\vee$.
An elementary linear algebra computation then shows that
\[
\pi = \pi_\mathcal{F} + \pi_\mathcal{G}, \qquad \sigma = \sigma_\mathcal{F} + \sigma_\mathcal{G}
\]
and $\pi_\mathcal{F}$ is inverse to $\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ on $\mathcal{F}$, so that
\[
\mathcal{F} = \img \pi_\mathcal{F} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \mathcal{G} = \ker \sigma_\mathcal{F}.
\]
With this notation in place, we may state the following fundamental result about subcalibrations, due to Frejlich--M\u{a}rcu\cb{t}, which will play a key role in what follows:
\begin{theorem}[Frejlich--M\u{a}rcu\cb{t}]\label{thm:frelich-marcut}
Suppose that $\sigma$ is a subcalibration of $(\mathsf{X},\pi)$. Then the bivector fields $\pi_\mathcal{F},\pi_\mathcal{G}$ are Schouten commuting Poisson structures, i.e.
\begin{align}
[\pi_\mathcal{F},\pi_\mathcal{F}] = [\pi_\mathcal{G},\pi_\mathcal{G}] = [\pi_\mathcal{F},\pi_\mathcal{G}] = 0. \label{eq:commute}
\end{align}
In particular, $\mathcal{F} = \img \pi_\mathcal{F}$ is involutive. Moreover, $\mathcal{G}$ is involutive if and only if $\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ is closed.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}The proof of Frejlich--M\u{a}rcu\cb{t} makes elegant use of the notion of a Dirac structure. For completeness, we present here an essentially equivalent argument based on the related notion of a gauge transformation of Poisson structures.
We recall from~\cite[Section 4]{Severa2001} that if $B$ is a closed holomorphic two-form
such that the operator $1+B^\flat\pi^\sharp \in \sEnd{\forms[1]{\mathsf{X}}}$ is invertible, then the gauge transformation of $\pi$ by $B$ is a new Poisson structure $B \star \pi \in \coH[0]{\mathsf{X},\wedge^2\cT{\mathsf{X}}}$ whose underlying foliation is the same as that of $\pi$, but with the symplectic form on each leaf modified by adding the pullback of $B$. Equivalently, $B\star\pi$ is determined by its anchor map, which is given by the formula $(B\star \pi)^\sharp = \pi^\sharp(1+B^\flat \pi^\sharp)^{-1} : \forms[1]{\mathsf{X}} \to \cT{\mathsf{X}}$. The skew symmetry of $B\star \pi$ follows from the skew symmetry of $\pi$ and $B$, while the identity $[B\star \pi,B\star \pi]=0$ is deduced using the closedness of $B$ and the equation $[\pi,\pi]=0$.
We apply this construction to the family of two-forms $B(t) := t\sigma$. Note that since $\theta := \pi^\sharp \omX^\flat$ is idempotent, the operator $1 + B^\flat(t)\pi^\sharp = 1 + t\theta^\vee \in \sEnd{\forms[1]{\mathsf{X}}}$ is invertible for all $t \ne -1$. We therefore obtain a family of holomorphic Poisson bivectors
\[
\pi(t) := B(t) \star \pi, \qquad t \in \mathbb{C}\setminus\{-1\},
\]
with anchor map
\[
\pi^\sharp(t) = \pi^\sharp(1+t\theta^\vee)^{-1}.
\]
Since $\theta$ is idempotent, we have $(1+t\theta^\vee)^{-1} = 1 - \tfrac{t}{1+t}\theta^\vee$, which implies that
\[
\pi(t) = \pi_\mathcal{F} + \pi_\mathcal{G} -\tfrac{t}{1+t}\pi_\mathcal{F} = \tfrac{1}{1+t}\pi_\mathcal{F} + \pi_\mathcal{G}
\]
for all $t \neq -1$. Since $[\pi(t),\pi(t)] = 0$ for all $t \neq -1$, the bilinearity of the Schouten bracket therefore implies the desired identities \eqref{eq:commute}. This implies immediately that $\mathcal{F} = \img\pi_\mathcal{F}$ is the tangent sheaf of the symplectic foliation of the Poisson bivector $\pi_\mathcal{F}$; in particular, it is involutive.
It remains to show that $\mathcal{G}$ is involutive if and only if $\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ is closed. To this end, observe that if $\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ is closed, then its kernel $\mathcal{G} = \ker \sigma_\mathcal{F}$ is involutive by elementary Cartan calculus.
Conversely, if $\mathcal{G}$ is involutive, then both $\mathcal{F}^\vee$ and $\mathcal{G}^\vee$ generate differential ideals in $\forms{\mathsf{X}}$. This implies that the exterior derivatives of $\sigma_\mathcal{F} \in \wedge^2\mathcal{F}^\vee$ and $\sigma_\mathcal{G} \in \wedge^2\mathcal{G}^\vee$ lie in complementary subbundles of $\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}$, namely
\[
\mathrm{d} \sigma_\mathcal{F} \in \wedge^3 \mathcal{F}^\vee \oplus (\wedge^2 \mathcal{F}^\vee \otimes \mathcal{G}^\vee)\qquad \mathrm{d} \sigma_\mathcal{G} \in (\wedge^2 \mathcal{G}^\vee \otimes \mathcal{F}^\vee) \oplus \wedge^3\mathcal{G}^\vee.
\]
Since $\mathrm{d} \sigma_\mathcal{F} + \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathcal{G} = \mathrm{d} \sigma = 0$, we conclude that $\mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathcal{F} = 0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\section{Product decompositions}
\label{sec:beauville}
The subcalibrations discussed in the previous section give, in particular, a decomposition of the tangent bundle into involutive subbundles. In this section we fix a complex manifold $\mathsf{X}$ and give criteria for such a decomposition of $\cT{\mathsf{X}}$ to arise from a decomposition of some covering of $\mathsf{X}$ as a product as in \autoref{conj:beauville}. The main objects are therefore the following:
\begin{definition}\label{def:complement}
Suppose that $\mathcal{F}$ is a regular foliation of $\mathsf{X}$. A \defn{foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$} is an involutive holomorphic subbundle $\mathcal{G} \subset \cT{\mathsf{X}}$ such that $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}$.
\end{definition}
Note that the definition is symmetric: if $\mathcal{G}$ is complementary to $\mathcal{F}$ then $\mathcal{F}$ is complementary to $\mathcal{G}$. However, in what follows, the foliations $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ will play markedly different roles.
\subsection{Fibrations, flat connections and suspensions}
\begin{definition}\label{def:fibration}
Let $\mathcal{F} \subset \cT{\mathsf{X}}$ be a regular holomorphic foliation. We say that $\mathcal{F}$ is a \defn{fibration} if there exists a surjective holomorphic submersion $f : \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{Y}$ whose fibres are the leaves of $\mathcal{F}$. In this case, we call $\mathsf{Y}$ the \defn{leaf space} of $\mathcal{F}$ and the map $f$ the \defn{quotient map}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The submersion $f: \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{Y}$, if it exists, is unique up to isomorphism, so there is no ambiguity in referring to $\mathsf{Y}$ as ``the'' leaf space of the foliation $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{remark}
Suppose that $\mathcal{F}$ is a fibration, and $\mathcal{G}$ is a foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$. Then $\mathcal{G}$ is precisely the data of a flat connection on the submersion $f : \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{Y}$, in the sense of Ehresmann~\cite{Ehresmann1951}. Recall that such a connection is \defn{complete} if it has the path lifting propery,~i.e.~given any point $y \in \mathsf{Y}$, any path $\gamma : [0,1] \to \mathsf{Y}$ starting at $\gamma(0) = y$, and any point $x$ lying in the fibre $f^{-1}(y) \subset \mathsf{X}$, there exists a unique path $\widetilde\gamma : [0,1] \to \mathsf{X}$ that is tangent to the leaves of $\mathcal{G}$ and starts at the point $\widetilde\gamma(0)=x$. If $f$ is proper, then every flat Ehresmann connection is complete in this sense.
\begin{definition}\label{def:suspension}
Suppose that $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ is a pair consisting of a regular holomorphic foliation $\mathcal{F}$ and a complementary foliation $\mathcal{G}$. We say that the pair $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ is a \defn{suspension} if $\mathcal{F}$ is a fibration for which $\mathcal{G}$ defines a complete flat Ehresmann connection.
\end{definition}
Suppose that $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ is a suspension with underlying fibration $f : \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{Y}$, and $y \in \mathsf{Y}$ is a point in the leaf space of $\mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathsf{L} = f^{-1}(y)$ be the fibre. The \defn{monodromy representation} at $y$ is the homomorphism $\pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y) \to \Aut{\mathsf{L}}$ defined by declaring that a homotopy class $[\gamma] \in \pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y)$ acts on $\mathsf{L}$ by sending $x \in \mathsf{L}$ to $\widetilde\gamma(1)$ where $\widetilde\gamma$ is the path lifting $\gamma$ with initial condition $\widetilde\gamma(0) = x$. Lifting arbitrary paths in $\mathsf{Y}$ based at $y$ then gives a canonical isomorphism
\[
\mathsf{X} \cong \frac{\mathsf{L} \times \widetilde{\mathsf{Y}}}{\pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y)}
\]
where $\widetilde{\mathsf{Y}}$ is the universal cover of $\mathsf{Y}$ based at $y$, and $\pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y)$ acts diagonally on the product. Moreover the pullbacks of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ to $\mathsf{L} \times \widetilde{\mathsf{Y}}$ coincide with the tangent bundle of the factors $\mathsf{L}$ and $\widetilde{\mathsf{Y}}$, respectively, as in \autoref{conj:beauville}. In this way, we obtain an equivalence between suspensions $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ and homomorphisms $\rho : \pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y)\to\Aut{\mathsf{L}}$, where $\mathsf{Y}$ and $\mathsf{L}$ are complex manifolds and $y\in\mathsf{Y}$.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:polarized}
We will make repeated use of the following observation: if $\mathsf{X}$ is compact K\"ahler, the restriction of any K\"ahler class on $\mathsf{X}$ to a leaf $\mathsf{L}$ of $\mathcal{F}$ gives a K\"ahler class $\omega \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{L}}$ that is invariant under the monodromy representation, i.e.~the monodromy representation is given by a homomorphism
\[
\rho : \pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y) \to \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{L}}
\]
where $\Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{L}}$ is the group of biholomorphisms of $\mathsf{L}$ that fix the class $\omega$. The structure of $\Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{L}}$ is well understood thanks to work of Lieberman~\cite{Lieberman78}, and this will allow us to control the behaviour of various suspensions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Holonomy groupoids}
In \autoref{thm:Ehresmann} below, we will give criteria for a pair of foliations on a compact K\"ahler manifold to be a suspension. Our key technical tool is the holonomy groupoid $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ of a regular foliation $\mathcal{F}$. We briefly recall the construction and refer the reader to \cite{Moerdijk2003,Winkelnkemper1983} for details. (Note that in \cite{Winkelnkemper1983}, the holonomy groupoid is called the ``graph'' of $\mathcal{F}$.)
If $x, y$ are two points on the same leaf $\mathsf{L}$ of the foliation $\mathcal{F}$, and $\gamma$ is a path from $x$ to $y$ in $\mathsf{L}$, then by lifting $\gamma$ to nearby leaves one obtains a germ of a biholomorphism from the leaf space of $\mathcal{F}|_{\mathsf{U}_x}$ to the leaf space of $\mathcal{F}|_{\mathsf{U}_y}$ where $\mathsf{U}_x,\mathsf{U}_y \subset \mathsf{X}$ are sufficiently small neighbourhoods of $x$ and $y$, respectively. This germ is called the holonomy transformation induced by $\gamma$. We say that two paths tangent to $\mathcal{F}$ have the same holonomy class if their endpoints are the same, and they induce the same holonomy transformation.
The \defn{holonomy groupoid} $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ is the set of holonomy classes of paths tangent to $\mathcal{F}$.
It carries a natural complex manifold structure of dimension equal to $\dim \mathsf{X} + \rank \mathcal{F}$, and comes equipped with a pair of surjective submersions $s,t : \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$ that pick out the endpoints of paths. The usual composition of paths then makes $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ into a complex Lie groupoid over $\mathsf{X}$.
\begin{remark} In the differentiable setting, the holonomy groupoid may fail to be Hausdorff, but in the analytic setting we consider here, the Hausdorffness is guaranteed by \cite[Corollary of Proposition 2.1]{Winkelnkemper1983}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:kahler}
The map $(s,t) : \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}\times \mathsf{X}$ is an immersion~\cite[0.3]{Winkelnkemper1983}. Hence a K\"ahler structure on $\mathsf{X}$ induces a K\"ahler structure on $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ by pullback.
\end{remark}
Suppose that $x \in \mathsf{X}$, and let $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ be the leaf through $\mathsf{X}$. We denote by $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_x \subset \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ the group of holonomy classes of loops based at $x$. Since homotopic loops induce the same holonomy transformation, $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is a quotient of the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathsf{L},x)$. Moreover, it acts freely on the fibre $s^{-1}(x)$, and the map $t$ descends to an isomorphism $s^{-1}(x)/\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_x \cong \mathsf{L}$. Put differently, the fibration $s^{-1}(\mathsf{L}) \to \mathsf{L}$ is a fibre bundle equipped with a complete flat Ehresmann connection whose horizontal leaves are the fibres $t^{-1}(y) \subset s^{-1}(\mathsf{L})$ where $y \in \mathsf{L}$. The holonomy group $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is the image of the homomorphism
\begin{align}
\hol_x : \pi_1(\mathsf{L},x) \to \Aut{s^{-1}(x)} \label{eq:hol}
\end{align}
obtained by taking the monodromy of this flat connection.
Now suppose that $\mathcal{G}$ is a foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$. Then the preimage $t^{-1}\mathcal{G} \subset \cT{\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})}$
defines a regular foliation on $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$. The leaves of this foliation are the submanifolds of the form $t^{-1}(\mathsf{W})$ where $\mathsf{W} \subset \mathsf{X}$ is a leaf of $\mathcal{G}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:tpull-complement}
Suppose that $\mathcal{F}$ is a regular foliation of $\mathsf{X}$ such that the map $s : \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$ is proper, and that $\mathcal{G}$ is a foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The foliation $t^{-1}\mathcal{G} \subset \cT{\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})}$ defines a complete flat Ehresmann connection on the fibration $s: \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$.
\item If $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ is a leaf of $\mathcal{F}$, then the $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$-horizontal lifts of $\mathsf{L}$ are exactly the fibres $t^{-1}(y)$ for $y \in \mathsf{L}$.
\item If $x\in \mathsf{X}$ and $\mathsf{L}$ is the leaf of $\mathcal{F}$ through $x$, then the monodromy representation $\rho_x : \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x) \to \Aut{s^{-1}(x)}$ of $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ extends the holonomy representation of $\mathcal{F}$ at $x$, i.e.~the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
\pi_1(\mathsf{L},x) \ar@{->>}[d]_-{\hol_x}\ar[r] & \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x) \ar[d]^-{\rho_x} \\
\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_x \ar@{^(->}[r] & \Aut{s^{-1}(x)}
}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the first statement, note that $\rank \mathcal{G} = \dim \mathsf{X} - \rank \mathcal{F}$ and the fibres of $t$ have dimension equal to $\rank \mathcal{F}$. Therefore $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ has rank equal to $\dim \mathsf{X}$. Note that $\mathcal{G}$ is identified with the normal bundle of the foliation $\mathcal{F}$ and therefore $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ surjects by $s$ onto the normal bundle of every leaf. Meanwhile every $t$-fibre surjects by $s$ onto the corresponding leaf. Considering the ranks, it follows that $t^{-1}(\mathcal{G})$ is complementary to the fibres of $s$, defining a flat Ehresmann connection. Since $s$ is proper, this connection is complete, as desired.
For the second statement, note that the horizontal lifts of a leaf $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ of $\mathcal{F}$ are, by definition, given by intersecting the preimage $s^{-1}(\mathsf{L})$ with the leaves of $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$. But $t$ projects $s^{-1}(\mathsf{L})$ onto $\mathsf{L}$, which is complementary to $\mathcal{G}$. It follows that the intersection of the leaves of $t^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ with $s^{-1}(\mathsf{L})$ are the fibres $t^{-1}(y)$ for $y \in \mathsf{L}$, as claimed. The third statement then follows immediately from the description of the holonomy representation \eqref{eq:hol} above.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Suspensions on K\"ahler manifolds}
We are now in a position to prove our main result on complementary foliations.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Ehresmann}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a regular foliation on a compact K\"ahler manifold, and suppose that $\mathcal{F}$ has a compact leaf $\mathsf{L} \subset \mathsf{X}$ with finite holonomy group. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}\item\label{stmt:suspend} For every foliation $\mathcal{G}$ complementary to $\mathcal{F}$, there exists a finite \'etale cover $\phi : \widetilde{\mathsf{X}} \to \mathsf{X}$ such that $(\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F},\phi^{-1}\mathcal{G})$ is a suspension.
\item\label{stmt:split} If, in addition, the fundamental group of $\mathsf{L}$ is finite and the universal cover $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ admits no nonzero holomorphic vector fields, i.e.~$h^0(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}})=0$, then we can arrange so that the suspension in statement \ref{stmt:suspend} is trivial, i.e.~there exists a compact K\"ahler manifold $\mathsf{Y}$ and a finite \'etale cover
\[
\phi : \widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \times \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{X}
\]
such that $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ and $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ are identified with the tangent bundles of the factors $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ and $\mathsf{Y}$, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
As an immediate corollary of part \ref{stmt:suspend} of \autoref{thm:Ehresmann}, we obtain the following special case of Beauville's conjecture:
\begin{corollary}
\autoref{conj:beauville} holds for decompositions of the tangent bundle of the form $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F}\oplus \mathcal{G}$ where $\mathcal{F}$ has a compact leaf with finite holonomy.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \autoref{thm:Ehresmann}, part \ref{stmt:suspend}]
Suppose that $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold and $\mathcal{F}$ is a regular holomorphic foliation having a compact leaf with finite holonomy group. Then by the global Reeb stability theorem for compact K\"ahler manifolds~\cite[Theorem 1]{Pereira01}, \emph{every} leaf of $\mathcal{F}$ is compact with finite holonomy group. As observed in \cite[Example 5.28(2)]{Moerdijk2003}, this implies that the submersions $s,t: \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$ are proper maps.
If $\mathcal{G}$ is any foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$, we obtain from \autoref{lem:tpull-complement} a flat Ehresmann connection on the fibration $s :\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$ whose monodromy representation induces the holonomy representation of every leaf. Let us choose a base point $x \in \mathsf{X}$, and consider the monodromy representation
\[
\rho: \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x) \to \Aut{s^{-1}(x)}.
\]
Note that by \autoref{rmk:kahler}, $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$ is a K\"ahler manifold. If we choose a K\"ahler class on $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})$, its restriction to $s^{-1}(x)$ gives a K\"ahler class $\omega \in \coH[1,1]{s^{-1}(x)}$ that is invariant under the monodromy action. Hence $\rho$ factors through the subgroup $\Autom{\omega}{s^{-1}(x)}$ of biholomorphisms of $s^{-1}(x)$ that fix the class $\omega$.
By \autoref{lem:finite-index} below applied to the monodromy action of $\Pi := \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x)$ on $\mathsf{Z} := s^{-1}(x)$, there exists a finite-index subgroup $\Gamma < \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x)$ whose image $\rho(\Gamma) < \Autom{\omega}{s^{-1}(x)}$ contains no finite subgroups that act freely on $s^{-1}(x)$. Let $\phi : \widetilde{\mathsf{X}} \to \mathsf{X}$ be the covering space corresponding to $\Gamma$, with base point $\widetilde{x} \in \widetilde{\mathsf{X}}$ chosen so that $\phi_*\pi_1(\widetilde{\mathsf{X}},\widetilde{x}) = \Gamma$. Then $\phi$ is a finite \'etale cover since $\Gamma$ has finite index.
We claim that the pair $(\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F},\phi^{-1}\mathcal{G})$ is a suspension. Note that to prove this, it suffices to show that the holonomy groups of the leaves of $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ are trivial, for in this case the holonomy groupoid of $\phi^*\mathcal{F}$ embeds as the graph of an equivalence relation in $\widetilde{\mathsf{X}} \times \widetilde{\mathsf{X}}$, which in turn implies that $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ is a fibration whose quotient map is proper. Then the complementary foliation $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ is a flat Ehresmann connection, as desired, and this establishes part \ref{stmt:suspend} of the theorem.
To see that the holonomy groups of the leaves of $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ are indeed trivial, suppose that $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}\subset \widetilde{\mathsf{X}}$ is a leaf of $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$. Then $\phi$ restricts to an \'etale cover $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \to \mathsf{L}$ where $\mathsf{L}$ is a leaf of $\mathcal{F}$. If we choose a base point $\widetilde{y} \in \widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ with image $y = \phi(\widetilde{y}) \in \mathsf{L}$, then the germ of the leaf space of $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ at $\widetilde{y}$ is identified with the germ of the leaf space of $\mathcal{F}$ at $y$, so that the holonomy group of $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ at $\widetilde{y}$ is canonically identified with the image of the composition
\[
\xymatrix{
\pi_1(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\widetilde{y}) \ar[r] & \pi_1(\mathsf{L},y) \ar[r] & \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_y.
}
\]
Choose a homotopy class of a path $\widetilde\gamma$ from $\widetilde{x}$ to $\widetilde{y}$, let $\gamma$ be its projection to a homotopy class from $x$ to $y$, and let $\hol_\gamma : s^{-1}(y) \to s^{-1}(x)$ be the isomorphism given by parallel transport of the Ehresmann connection on $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F}) \to \mathsf{X}$. The adjoint actions of $\widetilde\gamma,\gamma$ and $\hol_\gamma$ then fit in a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
\pi_1(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\widetilde{y}) \ar[r]\ar[d]^-{\mathrm{Ad}_{\widetilde\gamma}} & \pi_1(\mathsf{L},y) \ar[r]\ar[d]^-{\mathrm{Ad}_{\gamma}} & \mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_y\ar@{-->}[d] \ar@{^(->}[r] & \Aut{s^{-1}(y)} \ar[d]^{\mathrm{Ad}_{\hol_{\gamma}}} \\
\pi_1(\widetilde{\mathsf{X}},\widetilde{x}) \cong \Gamma \ar@{^(->}[r] & \pi_1(\mathsf{X},x) \ar[r] & \Autom{\omega}{s^{-1}(x)} \ar@{^(->}[r] & \Aut{s^{-1}(x)}
}
\]
Note that since $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_y$ acts freely on $s^{-1}(y)$, and the holonomy $\hol_\gamma$ is an isomorphism between the fibres, the conjugate of $\mathsf{Hol}(\mathcal{F})_y$ by $\hol_\gamma$ acts freely on $s^{-1}(x)$. We conclude that the dashed arrow embeds the holonomy group of $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ as a finite subgroup in $\Autom{\omega}{s^{-1}(x)}$ that acts freely on $s^{-1}(x)$. Since the diagram is commutative, this subgroup lies in the image of $\Gamma$ and hence by our choice of $\Gamma$ it must be trivial, as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \autoref{thm:Ehresmann}, part \ref{stmt:split}]
By part \ref{stmt:suspend} of the theorem, we may assume without loss of generality that $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ is a suspension with base $\mathsf{Y}$ and typical fibre $\mathsf{L}'$, where $\mathsf{L}'$ is a covering space of $\mathsf{L}$. Moreover the monodromy representation of this suspension takes values in the group $\Autom{\omega'}{\mathsf{L}'}$ of biholomorphism of $\mathsf{L}'$ that fix some K\"ahler class $\omega' \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{L}'}$.
Now note that if the fundamental group of $\mathsf{L}$ is finite and the universal cover of $\mathsf{L}$ has no nonvanishing vector fields, then $\coH[0]{\mathsf{L}',\cT{\mathsf{L}'}}=0$ as well. Therefore $\Autom{\omega'}{\mathsf{L}'}$ is finite by \cite[Proposition 2.2]{Lieberman78}. The kernel of the monodromy representation therefore gives a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(\mathsf{Y})$, and passing to the corresponding finite \'etale cover of $\mathsf{Y}$, we trivialize the suspension, giving an \'etale map $\mathsf{L}'\times \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{X}$ that implements the desired splitting of the tangent bundle. Then passing to the universal cover of $\mathsf{L}'$, we obtain the desired statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:finite-index}
Let $\mathsf{Z}$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold with K\"ahler class $\omega \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{Z}}$, let $\Pi$ be a finitely generated group, and let $\rho : \Pi \to \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{Z}}$ be a homomorphism to the group of biholomorphisms of $\mathsf{Z}$ that fix the class $\omega$. Then there exists a finite-index subgroup $\Gamma < \Pi$ whose image $\rho(\Gamma) < \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{Z}}$ contains no finite subgroups that act freely on $\mathsf{Z}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By taking preimages under $\rho$, we reduce the problem to the case where $\rho$ is injective, so we may assume without loss of generality that $\Pi < \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{Z}}$ is a subgroup. Moreover, by \cite[Proposition 2.2]{Lieberman78}, the neutral component $\Aut{\mathsf{Z}}_0$ of the group of all biholomorphisms of $\mathsf{Z}$ is a finite index subgroup in $\Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{Z}}$. In particular, $\Pi \cap \Aut{\mathsf{Z}}_0$ has finite index in $\Pi$, and is therefore finitely generated by Schreier's lemma. Hence we may assume without loss of generality that $\Pi < \Aut{\mathsf{Z}}_0$.
By \cite[Theorems 3.3, 3.12 and 3.14]{Lieberman78}, there is an exact sequence
\begin{align}
\xymatrix{
1 \ar[r] & \mathsf{N} \ar[r] & \Aut{\mathsf{Z}}_0 \ar[r] & \mathsf{T} \ar[r] & 1
}\label{eq:lieberman-exact}
\end{align}
where $\mathsf{N}$ is the closed subgroup exponentiating the Lie algebra of holomorphic vector fields with nonempty zero locus, and $\mathsf{T}$ is a compact complex torus (a finite connected \'etale cover of the Albanese torus of $\mathsf{Z}$).
Since $\Pi$ is finitely generated, its image in $\mathsf{T}$ is a finitely generated abelian group. Therefore, by the classification of finitely generated abelian groups, there is a finite-index subgroup $\Gamma < \Pi$ whose image in $\mathsf{T}$ is torsion-free. Suppose that $\mathsf{G} < \Gamma$ is a finite subgroup that acts freely on $\mathsf{Z}$. We claim that $\mathsf{G}$ is trivial. Indeed, by construction, the image of $\mathsf{G}$ in $\mathsf{T}$ is a torsion-free finite group, hence trivial. We must therefore have that $\mathsf{G} < \mathsf{N}$. But by \autoref{lem:fixed-points} below, every element of $\mathsf{N}$ has a fixed point, and therefore the only subgroup of $\mathsf{N}$ that acts freely is the trivial subgroup.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:fixed-points}
Let $\mathsf{N}$ be a connected complex Lie group, and let $\mathsf{X}$ be a compact complex manifold. Let $a : \mathsf{N} \times \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{X}$ be an action of $\mathsf{N}$ on $\mathsf{X}$ by biholomorphisms. Suppose that the vector fields generating the action all have a non-empty vanishing locus. Then every element of $\mathsf{N}$ has a fixed point in $\mathsf{X}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathsf{U}\subset \mathsf{N}$ be the set of elements with at least one fixed point. Note that $\mathsf{U} = p(a^{-1}(\Delta))$, where $\Delta \subset \mathsf{X}\times \mathsf{X}$ is the diagonal and $p : \mathsf{N} \times \mathsf{X} \to \mathsf{N}$ is the projection. Since $a$ is holomorphic, $a^{-1}(\Delta) \subset \mathsf{N} \times \mathsf{X}$ is a closed analytic subspace. Since $p$ is proper, the Grauert direct image theorem implies that the image $p(a^{-1}(\Delta)) = \mathsf{U} \subset \mathsf{N}$ is a closed analytic subvariety. But we assume that every generating vector field for the action has at least one zero; therefore $\mathsf{U}$ contains the image of the exponential map of $\mathsf{N}$, and in particular it contains an open neighbourhood of the identity. It follows that $\dim \mathsf{U} = \dim\mathsf{N}$, and therefore $\mathsf{U} = \mathsf{N}$ since $\mathsf{N}$ is connected.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Foliations with trivial canonical class}
In the particular case when the foliation $\mathcal{F}$ or its compact leaf $\mathsf{L}$ has trivial canonical class, we can strengthen the results of the previous section. For example, we have the following:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:split-CY-leaf}
Suppose $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold, and $\mathcal{F} \subset \cT{\mathsf{X}}$ is a regular foliation having a compact leaf $\mathsf{L}$ with finite fundamental group and trivial canonical class $c_1(\mathsf{L}) = 0$. If $\mathcal{G}$ is any complementary foliation, then there exists a finite \'etale cover $\phi : \widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \times \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{X}$ inducing the splitting of the tangent bundle of $\mathsf{X}$ as in \autoref{thm:Ehresmann}, part \ref{stmt:split}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{thm:Ehresmann}, part \ref{stmt:split}, it suffices to show that $h^0(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}})=0$ where $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ is the universal cover of $\mathsf{L}$, but this vanishing is well known. Indeed, in this case, the canonical bundle of $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$ is trivial, so that $\cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}} \cong \forms[n-1]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}$ where $n = \dim \mathsf{L}$. We then have
\[
h^{0}(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}) = h^0(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\forms[n-1]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}) = h^{n-1}(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cO{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}) = h^1(\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cO{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}) = \tfrac{1}{2}\dim \coH[1]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}};\mathbb{C}} = 0
\]
by Hodge symmetry, Serre duality, the Hodge decomposition theorem and the simple connectivity of $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}$.
\end{proof}
This corollary, in turn has consequences for the foliation itself:
\begin{corollary}
Suppose that $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold and that $\mathcal{F}$ is a (possibly singular) foliation with trivial canonical class $c_1(\mathcal{F}) = 0$. If $\mathcal{F}$ has a compact leaf $\mathsf{L}$ with finite fundamental group, then there exists a finite \'etale cover $\phi : \widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \times \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{X}$ such that $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F} = \cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem 5.6]{Loray2018}, $\mathcal{F}$ is automatically regular and admits a complementary foliation, so \autoref{cor:split-CY-leaf} applies.
\end{proof}
In the situation where $c_1(\mathcal{F}) =0$ but the compact leaf $\mathsf{L}$ has infinite fundamental group, the situation becomes more complicated. However, the Beauville--Bogomolov decomposition theorem~\cite{Beauville1983,Bogomolov1974} implies that $\mathsf{L}$ has a finite \'etale cover of the form $\mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{T}$, where $\mathsf{Z}$ is a simply connected compact K\"ahler manifold with $c_1(\mathsf{Z}) = 0$, and $\mathsf{T}$ is a compact complex torus. Moreover, amongst all such coverings there is a ``minimal'' one through which all others factor. This minimal split covering is unique up to a non-unique isomorphism~\cite[Proposition 3]{Beauville82}. By exploiting this result we can split the leaves of $\mathcal{F}$ in a uniform fashion:
\begin{proposition}\label{C:split1}
Let $\mathsf{X}$ be a compact K\"{a}hler manifold and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a possibly singular foliation on $\mathsf{X}$ with $c_1(\mathcal{F})=0$. If $\mathsf{L}\subset \mathsf{X}$ is a compact leaf whose holonomy group is finite, then there exists a simply connected compact K\"ahler manifold $\mathsf{Z}$ with $c_1(\mathsf{Z})=0$, a compact complex torus $\mathsf{T}$, a locally trivial fibration $f\colon \mathsf{W} \to \mathsf{Y}$ between complex K\"ahler manifolds with typical fibre $\mathsf{T}$, and a finite \'etale cover $$\phi\colon \mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{W} \to \mathsf{X}$$
such that $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ is given by the fibres of the natural morphism $\mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{W} \to \mathsf{Y}$ induced by $f$. Moreover if $\mathcal{G}$ is any foliation complementary to $\mathcal{F}$, then we may choose $\phi$ so that $\phi^{-1}\mathcal{G}$ is the pullback of a flat Ehresmann connection on $f$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem 5.6]{Loray2018}, $\mathcal{F}$ is regular and there exists a foliation $\mathcal{G}$ complementary to $\mathcal{F}$. Then by \autoref{thm:Ehresmann} part \ref{stmt:suspend}, we may assume without loss of generality that $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$ is a suspension with base $\mathsf{Y}$ and typical fibre $\mathsf{L}$.
Let $\mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{L}$ be the minimal split cover of $\mathsf{L}$ as in \cite[Section 3]{Beauville82}. Since every automorphism of $\mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{T}$ respects the product decomposition~\cite[Section 3, Lemma]{Beauville82}, the foliations on $\mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{T}$ given by the tangent bundles of the factors descend to canonical foliations on $\mathsf{L}$ that split the tangent bundle $\cT{\mathsf{L}}$. Then, since $f$ is a locally trivial fibration, we obtain a decomposition $\mathcal{F} \cong \mathcal{F}_\mathsf{Z} \oplus \mathcal{F}_\mathsf{T}$ into involutive subbundles with compact leaves. Note that by construction, the leaves of $\mathcal{F}_\mathsf{Z}$ are finite quotients of $\mathsf{Z}$ and therefore $\mathcal{F}_\mathsf{Z}$ satisfies the hypotheses of \autoref{cor:split-CY-leaf}. Hence by passing to an \'etale cover, we may assume that $\mathsf{X} = \mathsf{Z} \times \mathsf{W}$, so that $\mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{Z}}$ is identified with the tangent bundle of $\mathsf{Z}$, and $\mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{T}} \oplus \mathcal{G}$ is identified with the tangent bundle of $\mathsf{W}$.
This reduces the problem to the case in which $\mathcal{F}_\mathsf{Z} = 0$, or equivalently $\mathsf{L}$ is a finite quotient of a torus $\mathsf{T}$, and $\mathcal{F}$ is the suspension of a representation
\[
\rho : \pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y) \to \Autom{\omega_\mathsf{L}}{\mathsf{L}}
\]
for some K\"ahler class $\omega_\mathsf{L} \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{L}}$ and some base point $y \in \mathsf{Y}$. Let $\omega \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{T}}$ be the induced K\"ahler class on $\mathsf{T}$. By \autoref{lem:torus-lift} below, there exists a finite index subgroup $\Gamma < \pi_1(\mathsf{Y},y)$ such that $\rho|_\Gamma$ lifts to a homomorphism
\[
\widetilde \rho : \Gamma \to \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{T}}
\]
Let $\widetilde{\mathsf{Y}} \to \mathsf{Y}$ be the covering determined by $\Gamma$, and let $\widetilde{\mathsf{X}} \to \widetilde{\mathsf{Y}}$ be the suspension determined by $\widetilde \rho$. Then we have a natural \'etale cover $\widetilde{\mathsf{X}} \to \mathsf{X}$ lifting $\widetilde{\mathsf{Y}} \to \mathsf{Y}$ whose restriction to each fibre corresponds to the quotient map $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{L}$, giving the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:torus-lift}
Let $\mathsf{L}$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold equipped with a finite \'etale cover $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{L}$, where $\mathsf{T}$ is a compact complex torus. Let $\omega \in \coH[1,1]{\mathsf{L}}$ be any K\"ahler class. If $\Pi$ is a finitely generated group and $\rho : \Pi \to \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{L}}$ is a homomorphism, then there exists a finite-index subgroup $\Gamma < \Pi$ whose action on $\mathsf{L}$ lifts to an action on $\mathsf{T}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of \autoref{lem:finite-index} we may assume without loss of generality that $\rho$ is the inclusion $\Pi \hookrightarrow \Aut{\mathsf{L}}_0 < \Autom{\omega}{\mathsf{L}}$ of a subgroup of the neutral component of the full automorphism group.
By a theorem of Lichnerowicz~\cite{Lichnerowicz1967}, $\Aut{\mathsf{L}}_0$ is a torus. In particular, $\Pi$ is a finitely generated abelian group, and hence it has a free abelian subgroup $\Gamma < \Pi$ of finite index.
Let $\mathsf{T}_1 \to \mathsf{L}$ be the minimal split cover of $\mathsf{L}$ as in \cite[Section 3]{Beauville82}, and let $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{T}_1$ be a factorization of $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{L}$ through $\mathsf{T}_1 \to \mathsf{L}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{T}_1$ is a morphism of tori. Let $\omega_{\mathsf{T}_1}$ be the pullback of the class $\omega$ to $\mathsf{T}_1$.
Since the minimal split cover is unique up to isomorphism, any automorphism of $\mathsf{L}$ that fixes the class $\omega$ extends to an automorphism of $\mathsf{T}_1$ that fixes $\omega_{\mathsf{T}_1}$.
Let $\mathsf{G} < \Autom{\omega_{\mathsf{T}_1}}{\mathsf{T}_1}$ be the subgroup of automorphisms of $\mathsf{T}_1$ that lift automorphisms in $\Aut{\mathsf{L}}_0$.
Then $\mathsf{G}$ is a complex Lie subgroup of $\Autom{\omega_{\mathsf{T}_1}}{\mathsf{T}_1}$ and the natural map $\mathsf{G} \to \Aut{\mathsf{L}}_0$ is a surjective morphism of complex Lie groups with finite kernel. This in turn implies that the neutral component $\mathsf{G}_0 < \Aut{\mathsf{T}_1}_0$ of $\mathsf{G}$ is a torus where $\Aut{\mathsf{T}_1}_0 \cong \mathsf{T}_1$ denotes the neutral component of the automorphism group of $\mathsf{T}_1$. In particular, $\mathsf{G}$ is abelian.
It follows that $\Gamma < \Aut{\mathsf{L}}_0$ lifts to an inclusion $\Gamma < \mathsf{G} < \Aut{\mathsf{T}_1}_0$.
Let now $\Aut{\mathsf{T}}_0 \cong \mathsf{T}$ be the neutral component of the automorphism group of $\mathsf{T}$. Since the map $\mathsf{T} \to \mathsf{T}_1$ is a morphism of complex Lie groups, we have a surjective natural morphism $\Aut{\mathsf{T}}_0 \to \Aut{\mathsf{T}_1}_0$ of complex Lie groups. Hence the inclusion $\Gamma < \Aut{\mathsf{T}_1}_0$ lifts to an inclusion $\Gamma < \Aut{\mathsf{T}}_0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If one keeps the hypotheses of \autoref{C:split1} and further assumes that $\mathsf{X}$ is projective, then there exists a finite \'etale cover of $\mathsf{X}$ isomorphic to a product where the foliation $\mathcal{F}$ becomes the relative tangent bundle of the projection to one of the factors; this follows by combining \autoref{C:split1} with the fact that there exists a fine moduli scheme for polarized abelian varieties of dimension $g$ with level $N$ structures, provided that $N$ is large enough. This gives a simpler proof of \cite[Theorem 5.8]{Loray2018}.
\end{remark}
\section{Global Weinstein splitting}
\label{sec:BBW-decomp}
We now combine the results of the previous sections to establish our main result (\autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} from the introduction), whose statement we now recall:
\begin{theorem*}
\BBW
\end{theorem*}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{cor:exists-subcal}, there exists a subcalibration $\sigma \in \coH[2]{\mathsf{X},\forms[2]{\mathsf{X}}}$ compatible with $\pi$. Let $\cT{\mathsf{X}} = \mathcal{F} \oplus \mathcal{G}$ be the corresponding splitting of the tangent bundle as in \autoref{sec:subcal-split}, and let $\pi = \pi_\mathcal{F} +\pi_\mathcal{G}$ and $\sigma = \sigma_\mathcal{F}+\sigma_\mathcal{G}$ be the corresponding decompositions. Note that $\sigma_\mathcal{F}$ is closed since it is holomorphic, and $\mathsf{X}$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold. Therefore by \autoref{thm:frelich-marcut}, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ are involutive. Moreover, since $\mathsf{L}$ is a holomorphic symplectic manifold, we have $c_1(\mathsf{L})=0$, so by \autoref{cor:split-CY-leaf} there exists an \'etale cover $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \times \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{X}$ that induces the given splitting of the tangent bundle.
It remains to verify that the induced Poisson structure on this covering space is the sum of the pullbacks of Poisson structures on the factors. But since $\widetilde{\mathsf{L}} \times \mathsf{Y}$ is compact, this property follows immediately from the K\"unneth decomposition
\begin{align*}
\coH[0]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}\times \mathsf{Y}, \wedge^2 \cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}\times \mathsf{Y}}} \cong \coH[0]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\wedge^2 \cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}} \, \oplus \, \rbrac{\coH[0]{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}},\cT{\widetilde{\mathsf{L}}}} \otimes \coH[0]{\mathsf{Y},\cT{\mathsf{Y}}}} \, \oplus \, \coH[0]{\mathsf{Y},\wedge^2\cT{\mathsf{Y}}}, \label{eqn:kunneth}
\end{align*}
and the $\pi$-orthogonality of the factors, which ensures that the induced bivector projects trivially to the middle summand in this decomposition.
\end{proof}
We conclude the paper by giving some examples which demonstrate that the conclusion of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} may fail if the hypotheses are weakened.
\begin{example}
The analogue of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} fails in the $C^\infty$ or real analytic contexts, even for Poisson structures of constant rank.
For instance, any $C^\infty$ symplectic fibre bundle (as in \cite[Chapter 6]{McDuff1998}) defines a regular Poisson manifold for which the symplectic leaves are the fibres. Such bundles need not be trivial, even if the base and fibres are simply connected. The simplest nontrivial example is the nontrivial $S^2$-bundle over $S^2$ underlying the odd Hirzebruch surfaces, equipped with the $C^\infty$ Poisson structure induced by a fibrewise K\"ahler form. This four-manifold is simply connected but is not diffeomorphic to $S^2\times S^2$.
Note that given a symplectic fibre bundle, we may rescale the symplectic form on the fibres by the pullback of an arbitrary nonvanishing function on the base, to obtain a Poisson manifold whose symplectic leaves are pairwise non-symplectomorphic. In particular, even when the underlying manifold splits as a product, the Poisson structure need not decompose as a product of Poisson structure on the factors.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The conclusion of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} can fail if the K\"ahler condition is dropped. For instance, by taking the mapping torus of an infinite-order holomorphic symplectic automorphism of a K3 surface, we may construct a holomorphic symplectic fibre bundle whose total space is non-K\"ahler. It splits only after passing to the universal cover, which has infinitely many sheets.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The conclusion of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} can fail if the leaf $\mathsf{L}$ has infinite fundamental group. For example, let $\mathbb{Z}^{2n}\cong\Lambda \subset \mathbb{C}^{2n}$ be a lattice, and let $\mathsf{Y}$ be a compact K\"ahler Poisson manifold on which $\Lambda$ acts by holomorphic Poisson isomorphisms. Equip $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ with the standard holomorphic Poisson structure in Darboux form. Then the quotient $\mathsf{X} := (\mathbb{C}^{2n}\times \mathsf{Y})/\Lambda$ is a compact holomorphic Poisson manifold, which is a flat fibre bundle over the symplectic base torus $\mathsf{L} := \mathbb{C}^{2n}/\Lambda$. If $p \in \mathsf{Y}$ is a point where the Poisson structure vanishes, then $\widetilde\mathsf{L} := (\mathbb{C}^{2n}\times \Lambda \cdot p)/\Lambda$ defines a symplectic leaf of $\mathsf{X}$ for which the projection $\widetilde \mathsf{L} \to \mathsf{L}$ is a local diffeomorphism of holomorphic Poisson manifolds. Two possibilities are of note: i) if $p$ is a $\Lambda$-fixed point, then $\widetilde \mathsf{L} \cong \mathsf{L}$, and ii) if the orbit of $p$ is infinite, then $\mathsf{L}$ is non-compact.
Note that if both i) and ii) occur for some points $p \in \mathsf{Y}$, then $\mathsf{X}$ cannot split. It is easy to construct examples of this phenomenon, e.g.~take $\mathsf{Y}=\mathbb{P}^2$ equipped with a Poisson bivector given by an anticanonical section vanishing on the standard toric boundary divisor (a triangle). Let $\Lambda$ act by irrational rotations of the torus. Then the vertices of the triangle are fixed, and the smooth points of the triangle are symplectic leaves with infinite orbits. Moreover, in this case $\mathsf{X}$ is K\"ahler.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The conclusion of \autoref{thm:BBW-decomp} can fail if $\mathsf{X}$ is not compact. Let $\mathsf{Y}$ be a smooth projective manifold and let $f : \mathsf{Y} \to \mathsf{B}$ be a non-isotrivial fibration whose general fibres are $K3$ surfaces. If $\mathsf{U}$ is a sufficiently small
euclidean open subset of $\mathsf{B}$ that does not intersect the critical locus of $f$, and $\mathsf{X} = f^{-1}(\mathsf{U})$ then $\mathsf{X}$ is K\"ahler, simply-connected, and admits a holomorphic Poisson structure with symplectic leaves given by the fibres of $f$, but it does not split as a product. \end{example}
\bibliographystyle{hyperamsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
We study \emph{structured} matrix pencils of the form~$s[E,0] - [A,B]$ with $E,A\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times n}$ and $B\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times m}$ for which we write $[E,A,B]\in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$. Such pencils are typically associated with differential-algebraic control systems of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:EAB}
E \dot x(t) = Ax(t)+Bu(t).
\end{equation}
An essential difference between differential-algebraic systems~\eqref{eq:EAB}
and ordinary differential systems (by this we mean~\eqref{eq:EAB}
with square and invertible~$E\in\mb{R}^{n\times n}$)
is their solution behaviour (see~\cite{Tren13a})
and the different controllability concepts (see~\cite{BergReis13a}).
To address various control problems of systems~\eqref{eq:EAB},
the well known
(quasi) Kronecker form (cf.~\cite{Kron90,Gant59d,BergTren12})
of the augmented pencil~$s[E,0] - [A,B]$
is not ``good enough''. A finer structure, which takes into
account the input matrix~$B$, is required.
This is achieved by ``(quasi) canonical'' (feedback) forms.
A very early contribution in this spirit is by Nicos Karcanias and coworkers~\cite{LoisOzca91}; we will explain their achievements in due course.
Our approach to ``(quasi) canonical'' forms is via
augmented Wong sequences; this tool is fundamental and introduced in Section~\ref{Sec:AugWong}.
In Section~\ref{Ssec:PFF}, we allow for state space transformations of~\eqref{eq:EAB},
invertible transformations from the left, and proportional state feedback,
where the latter means to add the algebraic relation $u(t) = F_Px(t) + v(t)$ to the system~\eqref{eq:EAB} for~$F_P\in\mb{R}^{m\times n}$ and~$v$ as new input. These transformations constitute an equivalence relation and
the representatives of the equivalence classes are called P-feedback forms.
We derive a \textit{quasi} P-feedback form which~-- when compared to
the previous form~-- has the advantages that it provides some geometric insight and is simpler to compute,
but still allows to read off the most relevant structural properties of the control system.
In Section~\ref{Ssec:PDF-form},
we extend the class of allowed transformations by also considering derivative feedback, i.e.\ $u(t) = F_P x(t) + F_D \dot{x}(t) + v(t)$. Again, we derive a \textit{quasi} form for the corresponding equivalence relation.
\section{Augmented Wong sequences} \label{Sec:AugWong}
Wong sequences have been introduced as a fundamental geometric tool for the analysis of matrix pencils and the derivation of quasi canonical forms~-- see~\cite{BergIlch12a,BergTren12,BergTren13}.
This approach has been extended to control systems $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ to derive a Kalman controllability decomposition~-- see~\cite{BergReis13a,BergTren14}. Compared to matrix pencils $sE-A\in\mb{R}[s]^{\ell\times n}$, the augmented pencil $[sE-A,-B]$ with $B\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times m}$ contains additional independent variables, which are typically associated with the input of the control system~\eqref{eq:EAB}\footnote{Of course, input constraints may be present, but we ignore this for purpose of motivation.}. We like to emphasize that the augmented Wong sequences are projections of the Wong sequences corresponding to the augmented matrix pencil $s[E,0]-[A,B]$ as shown in Proposition~\ref{Prop:AWS_properties}.
The augmented Wong limits are related to the concepts of reachable and controllable spaces for the~DAE control system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$. These spaces are some of the most important notions for~(DAE) control systems and have been considered in~\cite{Lewi86} for regular systems. Further usage of these concepts can be found in the following: in~\cite{OzcaLewi89} generalized reachable and controllable subspaces of regular systems are considered; Eliopoulou and Karcanias~\cite{ElioKarc95} consider reachable and almost reachable subspaces of general~DAE systems; Frankowska~\cite{Fran90} considers the reachable subspace in terms of differential inclusions. However, to the best of our knowledge, the interplay between the (augmented) Wong-sequences and (quasi) canonical forms has not been investigated so far and
the present contribution aims to close this gap.
\begin{Definition}[Augmented Wong sequences]\label{Def:AWS}
Let $[E,A,B]\in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$.
The sequences $(\mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^i)_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0}$ and $(\mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^i)_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0}$ defined as\footnote{Note that in this work $A^{-1}$ and $E^{-1}$ denote the preimage of the respective space under the induced linear map}, and not the matrix inverse (whose existence is not assumed here; in fact, $E$ and $A$ are not even assumed to be square).
\[
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^0&:=\mb{R}^n,&\quad \mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^{i+1}&:=A^{-1}(E\mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^i + \im B)\subseteq \mb{R}^n,\\
\mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^0&:=\{0\},&\quad \mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^{i+1}&:=E^{-1}(A\mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^i + \im B)\subseteq \mb{R}^n,
\end{aligned}
\]
are called \emph{augmented Wong sequences} and
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} := \bigcap_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0} \mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^i,\qquad
\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} := \bigcup_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0} \mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^i,
\]
are called the \emph{augmented Wong limits}.
\end{Definition}
We highlight some important properties of the above defined sequences.
\begin{Proposition}[Properties of augmented Wong sequences]\label{Prop:AWS_properties}
Consider $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ with their augmented Wong sequences $(\mathcal{V}_{[E,A,B]}^i)_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0}$ and $(\mathcal{W}_{[E,A,B]}^i)_{i\in{\mb{N}}_0}$. Then we have:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
The sequences are nested and terminate, i.e., there exist~$i^*,j^*\leq n$ such that, for all~$i,j\in{\mb{N}}$,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:AWS_nested}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{V}^0_{[E,A,B]} \supsetneq \mathcal{V}^1_{[E,A,B]} \supsetneq \cdots \supsetneq \mathcal{V}^{i^*}_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{V}^{i^*+i}_{[E,A,B]}
= \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = A^{-1}(E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B),\label{eq:AWS_nested1}\\
&\mathcal{W}^0_{[E,A,B]} \subsetneq \mathcal{W}^1_{[E,A,B]} \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \mathcal{W}^{j^*}_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{W}^{j^*+j}_{[E,A,B]}
= \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = E^{-1}(A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B),\label{eq:AWS_nested2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and hence their limits are well defined.
\item
The augmented Wong limits $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]},\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}\subseteq\mb{R}^n$ are linear subspaces and satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AWS_invariance}
\begin{aligned}
E \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} &\subseteq A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B,\\
A\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} &\subseteq E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E(VcapW)_A(VcapW)}
\begin{aligned}
E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) &= E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B),\\
A(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) &= (E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B) \cap A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{multline}\label{eq:EVBcapAWB}
\hspace*{-3mm} E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})+\im B
\ = \
(E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)\cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)\\
= A(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})+\im B.
\end{multline}
\item The augmented Wong limits $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]},\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}\subseteq\mb{R}^n$ are related to the Wong limits $\mathcal{V}^*_{[[E,0],[A,B],0]}$, $\mathcal{W}^*_{[[E,0],[A,B],0]}\subseteq\mb{R}^{n+m}$ of the augmented pencil $s[E,0]-[A,B]$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:augWong_WongAug}
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = [I_n,0]\cdot \mathcal{V}^*_{[[E,0],[A,B],0]}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = [I_n,0]\cdot \mathcal{W}^*_{[[E,0],[A,B],0]}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Proof} ~\\[-4ex]
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
The proof of this statement is straightforward
and hence omitted.
\item
By~\eqref{eq:AWS_nested} the two relations in~\eqref{eq:AWS_invariance} follow, which in turn immediately yield the subset inclusion ``$\subseteq$'' of
the equations in~\eqref{eq:E(VcapW)_A(VcapW)}. To show the converse inclusions, let $z\in E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)$.
Then there exist $v\in\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$, $w\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$, and~$u\in\mb{R}^m$ such that
\[
Ev = z = Aw + Bu.
\]
By~\eqref{eq:AWS_nested} we have $E\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B) \cap \im E$ and since $Aw+Bu\in(A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B) \cap \im E$ there exists $\overline{w}\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ such that $E\overline{w} = Aw+Bu$ and hence $z=Ev=E\overline{w}$. Therefore, $v - \overline{w} \in \ker E \subseteq \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$, which gives $v\in \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$, thus $z = Ev \in E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})$. This shows $E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)\subseteq E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})$. The inclusion $(E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B) \cap A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}\subseteq A(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})$ can be shown
similarly and its proof is omitted.
\\
We show~\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB}: For the first equality, observe that ``$\subseteq$'' follows from~\eqref{eq:AWS_invariance}. For ``$\supseteq$'' let $x\in(E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)\cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B)$, i.e., $x=Ev+b_1=Aw+b_2$ for some $v\in\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}, w\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}, b_1,b_2\in\im B$. Then
\[
v\in E^{-1} \{Aw+b_2-b_1\} \subseteq E^{-1} (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B) = \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}
\]
and hence $x\in E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})+\im B$. The second equality in~\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB} can be proved similarly; we omit the proof.
\item The proof of this statement can be easily inferred from the proof of~\cite[Lem.~2.1]{Berg19a}.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proof}
\section{P-feedback forms}\label{Ssec:PFF}
In this section, we recall the concept of P-feedback which allows a decoupling of the DAE~\eqref{eq:EAB}.
This has been successfully used for various purposes, cf.\ the survey~\cite{BergReis13a}. After that, we present the P-feedback form from~\cite{LoisOzca91}, which is a canonical form. As a new contribution, we
derive a quasi P-feedback form using the augmented Wong sequences.
Relevant system theoretic information can be read off this form.
Apart from allowing a calculation via the simple subspace sequences, this also provides some geometric insight in the decoupling.
Concerning applications, the new quasi P-feedback form may be advantageous for instance in observer design problems for differential-algebraic systems. The construction of regular and freely initializable observers in the proof of~\cite[Thm.~3.8]{BergReis17c} completely relies on the P-feedback form. However, in order to implement this design procedure, a method with lower complexity would be favorable, for which the new quasi P-feedback form is predestined.
\subsection{P-feedback equivalence}
We recall the notion of P-feedback equivalence for systems $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$, see e.g.~\cite{BergReis13a}.
Here and in the
following, $GL_p(\mb{R})$ denotes the set of all invertible matrices in~$\mb{R}^{p\times p}$, $p\in{\mb{N}}$.
\begin{Definition}[P-feedback equivalence]\label{Def:PF-equiv}
Two systems
$[E_1, A_1, B_1], [E_2, A_2, B_2] \in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
are called
\emph{P-feedback equivalent}, if
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\exists\, S\in GL_\ell(\mb{R}), T\in GL_n(\mb{R}), V\in GL_m(\mb{R}), F_P\in \mb{R}^{m\times n}: \\
&\begin{bmatrix} sE_1-A_1, & -B_1\end{bmatrix}
=
S
\begin{bmatrix} sE_2-A_2, & -B_2 \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} T & 0 \\ F_P & V \end{bmatrix}\,;
\end{aligned}\label{eq:P-feedbequiv}
\end{equation}
we write
\[
[E_1,A_1,B_1] \ {\cong_{P}} \ [E_2, A_2, B_2]
\quad
\text{or, if necessary,}\quad
[E_1,A_1,B_1] \ \overset{S,T,V,F_P}{\cong_{P}} \ [E_2, A_2, B_2]\,.
\]
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
P-feedback equivalence is an equivalence relation on $\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Reflexivity: Clear with $S=I$, $T=I$, $V=I$, $F_P=0$.
\item Symmetry: For $[E_1,A_1,B_1] \overset{S,T,V,F_P}{\cong_{P}} [E_2, A_2, B_2]$ we have that
\[
[E_2,A_2,B_2] \ \overset{S^{-1},T^{-1},V^{-1},-V^{-1}F_PT^{-1}}{\cong_{P}} \ [E_1, A_1, B_1],
\]
which can be verified by observing that
\[
\begin{bmatrix} T & 0\\ F_P & V\end{bmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{bmatrix} T^{-1} & 0\\ -V^{-1}F_PT^{-1} & V^{-1}\end{bmatrix}.
\]
\item Transitivity: For $[E_1,A_1,B_1] \overset{S_1,T_1,V_1,F_1}{\cong_{P}} [E_2, A_2, B_2]\overset{S_2,T_2,V_2,F_2}{\cong_{P}} [E_3, A_3, B_3]$ we have
\[
[E_1,A_1,B_1] \overset{S_1 S_2,T_2 T_1 ,V_2 V_1,\widetilde{F}}{\cong_{P}} [E_3, A_3, B_3]\quad\text{ where }\quad \widetilde{F} = F_2 T_1 + V_2 F_1.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{Remark}
The augmented Wong sequences change under P-feedback as shown in the following result.
\begin{Lemma}[Augmented Wong sequences under P-feedback]\label{lem:Wong-Pfb}
If the systems $[E_1, A_1, B_1]$, $[E_2, A_2, B_2] \in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
are P-feedback equivalent $[E_1, A_1, B_1] \overset{S,T,V,F_P}{\cong_{P}} [E_2, A_2, B_2]$, then
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:rel-wong-P}
\begin{aligned}
\forall\, i\in{\mb{N}}_0:\quad \mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i\quad \ \text{and} \quad
\mathcal{W}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{W}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} We prove the first statement by induction. It is clear that $\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^0 = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^0$.
Assume that $\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i$ for some $i\geq 0$.
Then~\eqref{eq:P-feedbequiv} yields
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^{i+1}
&= A_1^{-1} (E_1 \mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i + \im B_1)\\
&= \setdef{x\in\mb{R}^n}{ \begin{array}{l} \exists\, y\in\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i\ \exists\, u\in\mb{R}^m:\\[1.5mm] (SA_2 T + SB_2F_P) x = SE_2T y + SB_2V u\end{array}}\\
&= \setdef{x\in\mb{R}^n}{ \exists\, z\in\mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i\ \exists\, v\in\mb{R}^m:\ A_2 T x = E_2 z + B_2 v}\\
&= T^{-1} \left( A_2^{-1} (E_2 \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i + \im B_2)\right) = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^{i+1}.
\end{align*}
The proof of the second statement is similar
and omitted.
\end{proof}
\subsection{P-feedback form (PFF)}
For the definition of the P-feedback form we need to introduce some further notation. For $k\in{\mb{N}}$, consider the matrices
\[
N_k : =\left[\SmallNilBlock{0}{1}{2ex}\right]\in\mb{R}^{k\times k},
\quad
K_k :=\left[\SmallRectBlock{0}{1}{2ex}\right],\ L_k :=\left[\SmallRectBlock{1}{0}{2ex}\right]\in\mb{R}^{(k-1)\times k},
\]
where $K_k = L_k = 0_{0\times 1}$ for $k=1$.
We set, for some multi-index ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in{\mb{N}}^k$, \
$|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}| = \alpha_1 + \ldots + \alpha_k$
and introduce the notation
\begin{align*}
N_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} &:= \diag(N_{\alpha_1},\ldots,N_{\alpha_k}) \in\mb{R}^{|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|\times|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|},\\
K_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} &:= \diag(K_{\alpha_1},\ldots,K_{\alpha_k}) \in\mb{R}^{(|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|-k)\times|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|},\\
L_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} &:= \diag(L_{\alpha_1},\ldots,L_{\alpha_k}) \in\mb{R}^{(|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|-k)\times|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|}.
\end{align*}
By $e_i^{[n]}$ we denote the~$i$-th unit vector in~$\mb{R}^n$
and define
\[
E_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} := \diag(e_{\alpha_1}^{[\alpha_1]},\ldots,e_{\alpha_k}^{[\alpha_k]})\in\mb{R}^{|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|\times k},
\qquad
\text{for} \quad {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in{\mb{N}}^k.
\]
\begin{Definition}[P-feedback form]\label{def:PFF}
The system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
is said to be in
\textit{P-feedback form}~(PFF), if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Pform}
[E, A,B]
\ = \
\left[
\begin{smallbmatrix}
K_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\[-0.5ex]
\vphantom{N_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}^\top} 0 & I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}|} & 0 & 0& 0& 0\\
0 & 0 & I_{n_{\overline{c}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\vphantom{I_{|{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}|}} 0 & 0 & 0 & N_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}} & 0 & 0 \\[-0.5ex]
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & K_{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}^\top & 0 \\[-0.5ex]
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & K_{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}^\top
\end{smallbmatrix},
\begin{smallbmatrix}
L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\[-0.5ex]
\vphantom{I_{|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|}} 0 & N_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}^\top & 0 & 0& 0& 0 \\
\vphantom{I_{n_{\overline{c}}}} 0 & 0 & A_{\overline{c}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & I_{|{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}|} & 0 & 0\\[-0.5ex]
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & L_{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}^\top & 0 \\[-0.5ex]
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & L_{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}^\top
\end{smallbmatrix},
\begin{smallbmatrix}
\vphantom{K_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}}0&0&0 \\[-0.5ex]
\vphantom{I_{|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|}}\vphantom{N_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}^\top}E_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}&0&0 \\
\vphantom{I_{n_{\overline{c}}}}0&0&0\\
\vphantom{I_{|{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}|}}0 &0&0\\[-0.5ex]
\vphantom{L_{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}^\top} 0&0&0 \\[-0.5ex]
\vphantom{K_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}^\top}0 & 0 & E_{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}
\end{smallbmatrix}
\right],
\end{equation}
where ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}},{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}},{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}$ are multi-indices and $A_{\overline{c}}\in\mb{R}^{n_{\overline{c}}\times n_{\overline{c}}}$.
\end{Definition}
We like to note that the~PFF of a system~$[E,A,B]$ can be viewed as a Kronecker canonical form~(KCF)
of the augmented pencil $s[E,0]-[A,B]$ with some additional structure, as shown in~\cite[Rem.~3.10]{BergReis13a}. This is remarkable
because P-feedback equivalence induces an equivalence relation on $\mb{R}^{\ell\times(n+m)}[s]$ which is a subrelation of the system equivalence used to obtain the Kronecker canonical form, and hence it is not clear whether the Kronecker canonical form of~$s[E,0]-[A,B]$ is contained in each of the smaller equivalence classes.
We use the connection between the KCF and the PFF to show that two P-feedback equivalent systems have the same PFF up to permutation of the entries of ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, {\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}, {\boldsymbol{\delta}}, {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}$ and similarity of $A_{\overline{c}}$.
\begin{Proposition}[Uniqueness of indices for PFF]\label{Prop:Indices-uniqueness-PFF}
Let $[E_i,A_i,B_i]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$, $i=1,2$,
be in PFF~\eqref{eq:Pform} with corresponding multi-indices
${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_i}}, {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_i}}, {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i}}, {\boldsymbol{\delta}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\delta}}_i}},{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}_i}}$, and $A_{\overline{c},i}\in\mb{R}^{n_{\overline{c},i}\times n_{\overline{c},i}}$. If $[E_1, A_1, B_1] \cong_{P} [E_2, A_2, B_2]$, then
\[
{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}} {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\delta}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\delta}} {\boldsymbol{\delta}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\kappa}} {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}_2
\]
and
\[
n_{\overline{c},1} = n_{\overline{c},2}, \quad A_{\overline{c},1} = H^{-1} A_{\overline{c},2} H,
\]
for permutation matrices $P_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}$
of appropriate sizes and~$H\inGL_{n_{\overline{c},1}}(\mb{R})$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
This result is a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-Pfb} and~\cite[Thm.~2.2~\&~Prop.~2.3]{BergReis15a}.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to show that any $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ is P-feedback equivalent to a system in PFF.
\begin{Theorem}[PFF]\label{Thm:brundae}
For any system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
there exist $S\in GL_\ell(\mb{R}), T\in GL_n(\mb{R}), V\in GL_m(\mb{R}), F_P\in \mb{R}^{m\times n}$
such that
\[
[SET,SAT+SBF_P,SBV]
\ \
\text{is in PFF~\eqref{eq:Pform}.}
\]
\end{Theorem}
The proof of Theorem 3.6 is omitted. It relies on
subtle transformations and is
proved in~\cite[Thm.~3.1]{LoisOzca91}~-- a paper coauthored by Nicos Karcanias.
\begin{Example}[PFF]\label{Ex:P-form}
For an illustration of Theorem~\ref{Thm:brundae} we consider the system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{7,6,3}$ with
\[
E=\begin{smallbmatrix}-2 & -3 & 0 & -1 & -4 & -3\\ 1 & 4 & 3 & -1 & 4 & 4\\ 0 & -4 & -7 & 1 & -3 & -6\\ 0 & 2 & 1 & -2 & 2 & 1\\ 2 & 5 & 1 & -1 & 6 & 4\\ 2 & 4 & 2 & 1 & 5 & 5\\ -2 & 2 & 9 & -2 & 0 & 5
\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
A=\begin{smallbmatrix} -2 & -2 & 4 & 3 & 1 & -1\\ 0 & -3 & -3 & -2 & -5 & -3\\ -1 & 4 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 3\\ -1 & -2 & 3 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 1 & 1 & -2 & 0 & 3\\ 4 & 0 & -5 & -5 & -2 & -2\\ 2 & -6 & 4 & -5 & -4 & -4
\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
B=\begin{smallbmatrix}1 & -1 & -1\\ 0 & 0 & 2\\ -1 & 2 & -3\\ 1 & -1 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 2\\ 1 & -3 & 2\\ 5 & -9 & 3
\end{smallbmatrix}.
\]
With
\[\begin{aligned}
S &= \begin{smallbmatrix} -15 & 2 & 4 & 5 & -6 & -6 & 4\\ -16 & -1 & 2 & 9 & -8 & -5 & 3\\ -3 & -1 & 0 & 3 & -2 & 0 & 0\\ 8 & 2 & 0 & -5 & 4 & 2 & -1\\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0\\ -6 & 0 & 1 & 3 & -3 & -2 & 1\\ -4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & -2 & -1 & 1
\end{smallbmatrix},&\quad
T &= \begin{smallbmatrix} -17 & 10 & -13 & -3 & -8 & 6\\ 13 & -6 & 9 & 2 & 6 & -4\\ -7 & 4 & -5 & -1 & -3 & 2\\ 6 & -3 & 4 & 1 & 3 & -2\\ -5 & 2 & -3 & 0 & -2 & 1\\ 3 & -2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & -1
\end{smallbmatrix},\\
V &= \begin{smallbmatrix} 2 & 0 & -1\\ 1 & 0 & -1\\ 0 & -1 & -1 \end{smallbmatrix},&
F_P &= \begin{smallbmatrix} 3 & 3 & -2 & -2 & 0 & 2\\ -14 & 10 & -12 & -3 & -7 & 6\\ 7 & -4 & 6 & 3 & 4 & -3
\end{smallbmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\]
it can be verified that
\[\begin{aligned}
SET &= \diag(K_1,I_2, I_1,N_1, K_2^\top, K_1^\top),\\
S(AT+BF_P) &= \diag(L_1,N_2^\top,A_{\overline{c}},1,L_2^\top,L_1^\top),\\
SBV &= \diag (0_{0\times 0},e_2^{[2]},0_{1\times 0},0_{1\times 0}, e_2^{[2]}, e_1^{[1]}),
\end{aligned}
\]
where $A_{\overline{c}} = [1]$; therefore $[E,A,B]$ is P-feedback equivalent to a system in the PFF~\eqref{eq:Pform} with ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=(1)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}=(2)$, $n_{\overline{c}}=1$, ${\boldsymbol{\gamma}}=(1)$, $n_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}=0$, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}=(2,1)$. The details on how to obtain this transformation as well as numerical considerations are out of the scope of this contribution. We will
however revisit this example in the next section in the context of the quasi
P-feedback forms and will briefly discuss numerical issues in Remark~\ref{rem:numerics}.
\end{Example}
\subsection{Quasi P-feedback form (QPFF)}
We will now weaken P-feedback forms to
\textit{quasi} P-feedback forms.
Roughly speaking,
the latter is ``less canonical'' than the former,
it contains less zeros and ones. However~-- and this is
the important message~--
the relevant system theoretic properties can be
read off the quasi P-feedback form and, moreover,
the form provides a geometric insight (as it is obtained via the augmented Wong sequences) and can be easily computed.
\begin{Definition}\label{def:QPFF-neu}
The system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ is said to be in \emph{quasi P-feedback form~(QPFF)}, if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QPFF}
[E,A,B] = \left[\begin{bmatrix} E_{11} & E_{12} & E_{13} \\ 0 & E_{22} & E_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & E_{33} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} A_{11} & A_{12} & A_{13} \\ 0 & A_{22} & A_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & A_{33} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & B_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{bmatrix}\right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{item:QPFF11} $[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]\in\Sigma_{\ell_1,n_{1},m_{1}}$ with $\ell_1 < n_1 + m_1$, $\rk E_{11} = \rk_\mb{C} [\lambda E_{11} - A_{11}, B_{11}] = \ell_1$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$ and $\rk B_{11} = m_1$,
\item \label{item:QPFF22} $E_{22},A_{22}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_{2}\times n_{2}}$ with $\ell_2 = n_2$ and $E_{22}\inGL_{n_2}(\mb{R})$,
\item \label{item:QPFF33}$[E_{33},A_{33},B_{33}]\in\Sigma_{\ell_{3},n_{3},m_{3}}$ satisfies $\rk_\mb{C} [\lambda E_{33}-A_{33},B_{33}] = n_{3} + m_3$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$
\end{enumerate}
and the remaining matrices have suitable sizes.
Furthermore, a~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF} with zero off-diagonal blocks (i.e.\ $E_{12}=A_{12}=0$, $E_{13}=A_{13} = 0$, $B_{13}=0$, $E_{23}=A_{23}=0$) is called \emph{decoupled~QPFF}.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
The three conditions in Definition~\ref{def:QPFF-neu}
describe control theoretic properties as follows (see the survey~\cite{BergReis13a} for the different notions of controllability):
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
The system $[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]$ in the~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF} is completely controllable; the input is not constrained and not redundant.
\item The~ODE system $[E_{22},A_{22},0]$ is uncontrollable.
\item The system $[E_{33},A_{33},B_{33}]$ has only
the trivial solution; in particular, the system is trivially behaviorally controllable but the input corresponding to~$B_{33}$ is maximally constrained (because it has to be zero).
\end{enumerate}
\end{Remark}
The following result will be helpful in due course.
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop:decoupledQPFF}
Any system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ in~QPFF~\eqref{def:QPFF-neu}
is P-feedback equivalent to a system in \emph{decoupled}~QPFF with
identical diagonal blocks.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is structurally similar to the proof of~\cite[Thm.~2.6]{BergTren12}, however, due to the presence of the input some technical adjustments are necessary. Two technical results required for the proof are collected in the Appendix~\ref{app:ProofDecoupledQPFF}.
To show that any~QPFF can be decoupled, we prove existence of matrices $G_S,H_S,F_S$ and $G^x_T, G_T^u, H_T^{x}, H_T^{u}, F^x_T$ of appropriate sizes such that
\begin{multline*}
\begin{bmatrix} sE_{11}-A_{11} & sE_{12}-A_{12} & sE_{13}-A_{13} \\
0 & sE_{22}-A_{22} & sE_{23}-A_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & sE_{33}-A_{33}\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} I & G_T^x & H_T^{x}\\0 & I & F_T^x \\ 0 & 0 & I \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & B_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}0 & G_T^u & H_T^{u} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \\
= \begin{bmatrix}I & -G_S & -H_S \\ 0 & I & -F_S \\ 0 & 0 & I \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} sE_{11}-A_{11} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & sE_{22}-A_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & sE_{33}-A_{33} \end{bmatrix}
\end{multline*}
and
\[
\begin{bmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & B_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}I & -G_S & -H_S \\ 0 & I & -F_S \\ 0 & 0 & I \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{bmatrix}.
\]
This holds
if, and only if, the following matrix equations have solutions:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:GiFiHi}
\begin{align}
&\begin{aligned}
0 &= A_{12} + [A_{11}, -B_{11}] \begin{smallbmatrix} G_T^x \\ G_T^u \end{smallbmatrix} + G_S A_{22}, \\[-0.5ex]
0 &= E_{12} + [E_{11},0] \begin{smallbmatrix} G_T^x \\ G_T^u \end{smallbmatrix} + G_S E_{22};
\end{aligned} \label{eq:Gi}\\[1ex]
&\begin{aligned}
0 &= [A_{23},0] + A_{22} [ F_T^x, 0] + F_S [A_{33},-B_{33}],\\[-0.5ex]
0 &= [E_{23},0] + E_{22} [F_T^x, 0] + F_S [E_{33},0];
\end{aligned}\label{eq:Fi}\\[1ex]
&\begin{aligned}
0 &= {A_{12} F_T^x + A_{13} + [A_{11},-B_{11}] \begin{smallbmatrix} H_T^{x} \\ H_T^{u} \end{smallbmatrix} + H_S A_{33}},\\[-0.5ex]
0 &= {E_{12} F_T^x + E_{13} + [E_{11},0] \begin{smallbmatrix} H_T^{x} \\ H_T^{u} \end{smallbmatrix} + H_S E_{33}},\\[-0.5ex]
0 & = - B_{13} - H_S B_{33}.
\end{aligned}\label{eq:Hi}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In the following we show that each of the sets of equations above admits a solution, where we use Lemmas~\ref{lem:twoEqs2genSylvester} and~\ref{lem:Sylvester-equation}.
\\
\noindent
\emph{We show that~\eqref{eq:Gi} has a solution.}
\\
Clearly, \eqref{eq:Gi} has the form~\eqref{eq:twoMatrixEqs} with $\mathrm{A} = [A_{11},-B_{11}]$, $\mathrm{D} = A_{22}$, $\mathrm{C} = [E_{11},0]$, $\mathrm{B} = E_{22}$.
Since $E_{22}$ is invertible, there exists~$\lambda\in\mb{R}$ such that $\lambda E_{22}-A_{22}$ is also invertible and hence the assumption of Lemma~\ref{lem:twoEqs2genSylvester} is satisfied.
Therefore, it suffices to show solvability of the associated generalized Sylvester equation~\eqref{eq:genSylvester}. By assumption, $\rank[\lambda E_{11} - A_{11},B_{11}]=\ell_1$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}\cup\{\infty\}$, i.e.\ no rank drop occurs at all, so all assumptions of Lemma~\ref{lem:Sylvester-equation} are satisfied and existence of a solution $\begin{smallbmatrix} G_T^x \\ G_T^u \end{smallbmatrix}$ and $G_S$ of~\eqref{eq:Gi} is shown.
\\
\noindent
\emph{We show that~\eqref{eq:Fi} has a solution.}
\\
We consider first a relaxed version of~\eqref{eq:Fi} by replacing $[F_T^x,0]$ by $[F_T^x,F_T^u]$ in both equations of~\eqref{eq:Fi}. With $\mathrm{A} = A_{22}$, $\mathrm{D} = [A_{33},-B_{33}]$, $\mathrm{C}=E_{22}$, $\mathrm{B}=[E_{33},0]$ we again see that all assumptions of Lemmas~\ref{lem:twoEqs2genSylvester} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Sylvester-equation} are satisfied ensuring solvability of the relaxed version of~\eqref{eq:Fi}. From the second relaxed equation of~\eqref{eq:Fi} we see that, in particular,
\[
0 = 0 + E_{22} F_T^u + 0,
\]
which, due to the invertibility of~$E_{22}$,
immediately yields that~$F_T^u=0$.
This shows solvability of the original equations~\eqref{eq:Fi}.
\\
\noindent
\emph{We show that~\eqref{eq:Hi} has a solution.}
\\
Since by assumption $[A_{33},-B_{33}]$ has full column rank, there exists an invertible row operation $R_{33}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_3\times \ell_3}$ such that
\[
[A_{33}, -B_{33}] = R_{33} \begin{bmatrix} A_{33}^x & 0 \\ 0 & I_{m_3}\end{bmatrix},\quad A_{33}^x\in\mb{R}^{(\ell_3-m_3)\times n_3}.
\]
Define $[H_S^x,H_S^u]:=H_S R_{33}$, then the last equation of~\eqref{eq:Hi} simplifies to
\[
0 = - B_{13} + H_S^u.
\]
This is solvable with $H_S^u = B_{13}$. Let $\begin{smallbmatrix} E^x_{33} \\ E^u_{33} \end{smallbmatrix} :=R_{33}^{-1} E_{33}$ with $E_{33}^x\in\mb{R}^{(\ell_3-m_3)\times n_3}$ and $E_{33}^u\in\mb{R}^{m_3\times n_3}$, then the first two equations of~\eqref{eq:Hi} have the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HTHS}
\begin{aligned}
0 &= \widetilde{A}_{13} + [A_{11},-B_{11}] \begin{smallbmatrix} H_T^{x} \\ H_T^{u} \end{smallbmatrix} + H_S^x A^x_{33},\\[-0.5ex]
0 &= \widetilde{E}_{13} + [E_{11},0] \begin{smallbmatrix} H_T^{x} \\ H_T^{u} \end{smallbmatrix} + H_S^x E^x_{33},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{A}_{13} = A_{12} F_T^x + A_{13}$ and $\widetilde{E}_{13} = E_{12}F_T^x + E_{13} + H_S^u E^u_{33}$. Since $A^x_{33}$ has full column rank, the pencil $sE^x_{33}-A^x_{33}$ has full polynomial column rank and by assumption $\rank(\lambda [E_{11},0] - [A_{11},-B_{11}])=\ell_1$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}\cup\{\infty\}$. So Lemma~\ref{lem:Sylvester-equation} together with Remark~\ref{rem:transposeTwoMatrixEqs} is applicable to~\eqref{eq:HTHS} and guarantees existence of $H_T^{x}$, $H_T^{u}$, $H_S^x$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:HTHS}.
Now set $H_S = R_{33}^{-1} [H_S^x,H_S^u]$,
and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
A notable observation from the proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:decoupledQPFF} is that no input transformation is needed (i.e., $V=I$ in~\eqref{eq:P-feedbequiv}) to arrive at a decoupled~QPFF.
We stress some important properties of the augmented Wong limits for systems in
decoupled~QPFF.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lem:Wong-decoupledQPFF}
For any $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ in decoupled~QPFF, the augmented Wong sequences satisfy:
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}\times\{0\}^{n_2+n_3},\quad \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1+n_2} \times \{0\}^{n_3}
\]
and
\[
E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) = \mb{R}^{\ell_1}\times \{0\}^{\ell_2+\ell_3},\quad E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{\ell_1+\ell_2}\times\{0\}^{\ell_3}.
\]
Furthermore, we have that $m_1 = m - m_2 -m_3$, where $m_2 = \dim \ker B$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QPFF-m3}
m_3 = \dim \Big( \im B \cap (\{0\}^{\ell_1+\ell_2}\times \mb{R}^{\ell_3})\Big).
\end{equation}
In particular (in view of Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-Pfb} and Proposition~\ref{Prop:decoupledQPFF}), two~QPFFs which are P-feedback equivalent have the same block sizes in $E$, $A$ and $B$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Proof}
\emph{Step 1}: We show $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1+n_2} \times \{0\}^{n_3}$.
\\
Since $[E,A,B]$ is in decoupled~QPFF, $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}\times \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{22},A_{22},0]}\times \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{33},A_{33},B_{3}]}$. Since both~$E_{11}$ and~$E_{22}$ have full row rank, they are surjective. It follows inductively that
$\mathcal{V}^i_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}=\mb{R}^{n_1}$ and $\mathcal{V}^i_{[E_{22},A_{22},0]}=\mb{R}^{n_2}$ for all~$i\geq 0$. It remains to show that $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{33},A_{33},B_{33}]}=\{0\}^{n_3}$.
Since $\lambda [E_{33},0]-[A_{33},B_{33}]$ has full column rank for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$, its quasi-Kronecker form~\cite{BergTren13}
has only a nilpotent and a overdetermined part, in particular, $\mathcal{V}^*_{[[E_{33},0],[A_{33},B_{33}],0]} = \{0\}^{n_3+m_3}$. Now the claim follows from~\eqref{eq:augWong_WongAug}.
\\
\noindent
\emph{Step 2}: We show $\mb{R}^{n_1}\times\{0\}^{n_2}\times\{0\}^{n_3} \subseteq \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} \subseteq \mb{R}^{n_1}\times\{0\}^{n_2}\times\mb{R}^{n_3}$.
Again, since $[E,A,B]$ is in decoupled~QPFF we have
$\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}\times \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{22},A_{22},0]}\times \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{33},A_{33},B_{3}]}$. Thus, it suffices to show that $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}$ and $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{22},A_{22},0]} = \{0\}$. The latter is a simple consequence of invertibility of~$E_{22}$ and that $\mathcal{W}^0_{[E_{22},A_{22},0]} = \{0\}$; for the former we observe that the augmented matrix pencil $s[E_{11},0]-[A_{11},B_{11}]$ is an underdetermined~DAE in the sense of \cite{BergTren12} and hence $\mathcal{W}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]}=\mb{R}^{n_1+m_1}$. Invoking again~\eqref{eq:augWong_WongAug} we can conclude the claim.
\\
\noindent
\emph{Step 3}: We conclude the claimed properties of the augmented Wong-sequences in the statement of the lemma. The first two equations follow from Steps~1 and~2.
The third and fourth equation follow from the block structure of~$E$ and full row rank of~$E_{11}$ and $E_{22}$.
\\
\noindent
\emph{Step 4}: We show~\eqref{eq:QPFF-m3}. It is easy to see that
\[
\im B \cap (\{0\}^{\ell_1+\ell_2}\times \mb{R}^{\ell_3}) = \{0\}^{\ell_1+\ell_2}\times \im B_{33},
\]
and the full column rank of~$B_{33}$ yields $\dim \im B_{33} = m_3$. This proves~\eqref{eq:QPFF-m3}.
\end{Proof}
In the following we derive the~QPFF by choosing basis matrices according to the augmented Wong sequences. This has the advantage that the transformation provides some geometric insight. We are now in the position to show that any system $[E,A,B]$ is equivalent to a system in~QPFF.
\begin{Theorem}[Quasi P-feedback form]\label{thm:QPFF}
Consider $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ with corresponding augmented Wong limits~$\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ and~$\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$. Choose full column rank matrices $U_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{1}}$, $R_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{2}}$, $O_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{3}}$, $U_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{1}}$, $R_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{2}}$, $O_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{3}}$ such that
\[\begin{aligned}
\im U_T &= \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]},\\
\im R_T \oplus \im U_T &= \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}, \\
\im O_T \oplus \im R_T \oplus\im U_T &= \mb{R}^n, \\[2ex]
\im U_S &= E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B),\\
\im R_S \oplus \im U_S &= E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]},\\
\im O_S \oplus \im R_S \oplus \im U_S &= \mb{R}^{\ell}
\end{aligned}
\]
and, additionally,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond-B-O2}
\im B \subseteq \im [U_S, O_S].
\end{equation}
Let $T:=[U_T,R_T,O_T]$, $S:=[U_S,R_S,O_S]^{-1}$ and further choose (not necessarily full rank) matrices $F_{1}\in\mb{R}^{m\times n_{1}}$, $F_{2}\in\mb{R}^{m\times n_{2}}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F1_F2_choice}
[0,I_{\ell_2+\ell_3}] S (A U_T + B F_1) = 0
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
[0,0,I_{\ell_3}] S (A R_T + B F_2) = 0,
\end{equation}
and let $F_P = [F_{1},F_{2},0]$. Finally, let $V=[V_{1},V_2,V_3]$, where $V_{1},V_2,V_3$ are full column rank matrices with $\im V_1 \oplus \im V_2 \oplus \im V_3 = \mb{R}^m$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:V1_V2_prop}
\im V_2 = \ker B,\quad\text{and}\quad \im [V_{1},V_2] = \ker [0,0,I_{\ell_3}] S B.
\end{equation}
Then $[SET,S(AT+BF_P),SBV]$ is in~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF}.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Proof}
\emph{Step 1}: We show that the block structure of the~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF} is achieved. The subspace inclusions~\eqref{eq:AWS_invariance} imply that
\[
\begin{aligned}
\im E U_T &\subseteq \im U_S,&\quad \im A U_T &\subseteq \im U_S + \im B,\\
\im E R_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S],&\quad \im A R_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S] + \im B,\\
\im E O_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S,O_S]=\mb{R}^n,&\quad \im A O_T &\subseteq \im[U_S,R_S,O_S]=\mb{R}^\ell,
\end{aligned}
\]
hence there exists matrices $E_{11}, E_{12}, E_{13}, E_{22}, E_{23}, E_{33}, A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13}, A_{22}, A_{23}, A_{33}, F_{1}, F_{2}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QPFF-submatrices}
\begin{aligned}
E U_T &= U_S E_{11}, &\quad A U_T &= U_S A_{11} - B F_{1},\\
E R_T &= U_S E_{12} + R_S E_{22},& A R_T &= U_S A_{12} + R_S A_{22} - B F_{2},\\
E O_T &= U_S E_{13} + R_S E_{23} + O_S E_{33}, & A O_T &= U_S A_{13} + R_S A_{23} + O_S A_{33}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that, in particular, $F_1$ and $F_2$ satisfy the equations~\eqref{eq:F1_F2_choice}, which hence have solutions. Conversely, for any solution $F_1$ and $F_2$ of~\eqref{eq:F1_F2_choice}, the matrices $A_{11}:=[I_{\ell_1},0,0] S (A U_T + B F_1)$ and $\begin{smallbmatrix} A_{12} \\ A_{22} \end{smallbmatrix} := [I_{\ell_1+\ell_2},0] S (A R_T + B F_2)$ are suitable choices for satisfying~\eqref{eq:QPFF-submatrices}.
Observe that~\eqref{eq:QPFF-submatrices} implies that $S E T$ and $S(AT+BF)$ have the desired block structure of a~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF}.
Furthermore, since
\[
\im U_S \cap \im B = E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \im B = \im[U_S,R_S] \cap \im B,
\]
one may always choose some~$O_S$
such that~\eqref{eq:cond-B-O2} holds.
Therefore, we may choose matrices $\widetilde{B}_1$, $\widetilde{B}_2$ such that
\[
B = U_S \widetilde{B}_{1} + O_S\widetilde{B}_{2}
\]
holds, or, equivalently,
\[
S B = \begin{bmatrix} \widetilde{B}_{1} \\ 0 \\ \widetilde{B}_{2} \end{bmatrix}.
\]
Finally, by construction we have $[0,0,I_{\ell_3}] S B V_{1} = 0$ and $SBV_2 = 0$, hence
\[
S B V = \begin{bmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & B_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{bmatrix},
\]
which concludes Step~1. For later use we note that $0 = B_{33} x = [0,0,I_{\ell_3}] S B V_3 x$ implies that $V_3 x \in \ker [0,0,I_{\ell_3}] S B \cap \im V_3 = \im [V_1,V_2] \cap \im V_3 = \{0\}$, thus $B_{33}$ has full column rank. Similarly, $0=B_{11}x = [I_{\ell_1},0,0] S B V_1 x$ implies that $V_1 x \in \ker [I_{\ell_1},0,0] S B \cap \im V_1 \subseteq \ker [I_{\ell_1},0,0] S B \cap \ker[0,0,I_{\ell_3}] SB = \ker SB = \im V_2$, hence $V_1 x\in\im V_1 \cap \im V_2 = \{0\}$ which shows that $B_{11}$ is also of full column rank.
\\
\noindent\emph{Step 2}: We show that $[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:QPFF-neu}\,(i).
\\
\noindent\emph{Step 2a}: We show that $\rk E_{11} = \ell_1$.
Observe that $U_S E_{11} = E U_T$ yields
\[
\im U_S E_{11} = \im E U_T = E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) \overset{\rm Prop.~\ref{Prop:AWS_properties}}{=} E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap (A\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}+\im B) = \im U_S.
\]
As a consequence, the full column rank of~$U_S$ gives that~$E_{11}$ has full row rank.\\
\noindent\emph{Step 2b}: We show that $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}$.
\\
Set $[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}] := [SET, S(AT+BF_P), SBV]$. Invoking Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-Pfb} we can conclude that
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}
= T^{-1} (\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) = T^{-1} (\im U_T) = \mb{R}^{n_1} \times \{0\}^{n_2+n_3}.
\]
From~\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB} we may further infer that
\[\begin{aligned}
\widehat{A}(\mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}) &\subseteq \widehat{E}(\mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}) + \im \widehat{B}
\end{aligned}
\]
Hence for all $x_1\in\mb{R}^{n_1}$, there exist $y_1, z_1\in\mb{R}^{n_1}$ and $u_1,v_1\in\mb{R}^{m_1}$, $u_2,v_2\in\mb{R}^{m_2}$, $u_3,v_3\in\mb{R}^{m_3}$ such that
\[
\widehat{A} \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \widehat{E} \begin{pmatrix} y_1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} + \widehat{B} \begin{pmatrix} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ u_3 \end{pmatrix}\quad \text{ and }\quad {\widehat{A}} \begin{pmatrix} y_1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = {\widehat{E}} \begin{pmatrix} z_1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} + \widehat{B} \begin{pmatrix} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ v_3 \end{pmatrix}.
\]
From the block diagonal structure, we can conclude that
\[\begin{aligned}
A_{11} x_1 &= E_{11} y_1 + B_{11} u_1 + B_{13} u_3,\\
0 &= B_{33} u_3.
\end{aligned}
\]
Since $\ker B_{33} = \{0\}$, we find that $u_3 = 0$, thus we may conclude that
\[
x_1 \in A_{11}^{-1} (E_{11} \{y_1\} + \im B_{11})\subseteq \mathcal{V}^1_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}.
\]
With the same reasoning, one may show that
\[
y_1 \in A_{11}^{-1} (E_{11} \{z_1\} + \im B_{11})\subseteq \mathcal{V}^1_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}
\]
and hence $x_1\in\mathcal{V}^2_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}$.
Continuing this reasoning, it finally follows that $x_1\in\mathcal{V}^k_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]}$ for all~$k\in{\mb{N}}$,
and, since~$x_1$ is arbitrary, we have shown that $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}$.
Now, let $j^*,r^*\in{\mb{N}}$ be such that $\mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} = \mathcal{W}^{j^*}_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}$ and $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]} = \mathcal{W}^{r^*}_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]}$ and set $q^* := \max\{j^*,r^*\}$. Again, take arbitrary $x = (x_1^\top, 0, 0)^\top \in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}$, then $x\in \mathcal{W}^{q^*}_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}$ and Definition~\ref{Def:AWS} give that there exist $y_k\in\mathcal{W}^{k}_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}$ and $u_k\in\mb{R}^m$, $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$,
such that $\widehat Ex = \widehat A y_{q^*-1} + \widehat B u_{q^*-1}$ and $\widehat Ey_k = \widehat Ay_{k-1} + \widehat B u_{k-1}$ for all $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$. Now we find that
\[
\widehat Ay_{q^*-1}
= \widehat E x - \widehat Bu_{q^*-1} \in \widehat E\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\big) + \im \widehat B
\ \ \overset{\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB}}{=}
\ \
\widehat A\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\big) + \im \widehat B,
\]
whence
\begin{align*}
y_{q^*-1} &\in \widehat A^{-1}\Big(\widehat A\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}\big) + \im \widehat B\Big)= \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} + \widehat A^{-1}(\im \widehat B)
{{} \subseteq \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\[
y_{q^*-1} \in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^{q^*-1}_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]}.
\]
With the same reasoning,
we may now conclude inductively
\[
y_{k} \in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]} \cap \mathcal{W}^{k}_{[\widehat{E},\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]},\quad k=q^*-2,\ldots,0.
\]
This implies that $y_k = (y_{k,1}^\top, 0, 0)^\top$ and $u_k = (u_{k,1}^\top, u_{k,2}^\top,u_{k,3}^\top)^\top$ for some $y_{k,1}\in\mb{R}^{n_1}$, $u_{k,1}\in\mb{R}^{m_1}$, $u_{k,2}\in\mb{R}^{m_2}$, $u_{k,3}\in\mb{R}^{m_3}$, $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$, and hence
\begin{multline*}
E_{11} y_{1,1} = B_{11} u_{0,1} + B_{13} u_{0,3} ,\ E_{11} y_{2,1} = A_{11} y_{1,1} + B_{11} u_{1,1} + B_{13} u_{1,3},\\
\ldots,\ E_{11} y_{q^*-1,1} = A_{11} y_{q^*-2,1} + B_{11} u_{q^*-2,1} + B_{13} u_{q^*-2,3},\\
E_{11} x_1 = A_{11} y_{q^*-1,1} + B_{11} u_{q^*-1,1} + B_{13} u_{q^*-1,3},
\end{multline*}
and
\[
0 = B_{33} u_{0,3} ,\ 0 = B_{33} u_{1,3},\ \ldots,\ 0 = B_{33} u_{q^*-2,3},\ 0 = B_{33} u_{q^*-1,3}.
\]
Therefore, we obtain $u_{k,3} = 0$ for all $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$ and, as a consequence, $x_1\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]}$. Since~$x_1$ was arbitrary we have proved that
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11}, A_{11}, B_{11}]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}.
\]
\noindent\emph{Step 2c}: We show that $\mathcal{V}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} = \mb{R}^{n_1+m_1}$.
\\
It follows from Proposition~\ref{Prop:AWS_properties} and Step~2b that
\[
[I_n,0] \mathcal{V}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]}\cap [I_n,0]\mathcal{W}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}.
\]
As shown in the proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:AWS_properties} we have that
\[
\mathcal{W}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} = [I_{n_1},0]\mathcal{W}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} \times \mb{R}^{m_1} = \mb{R}^{n_1}\times\mb{R}^{m_1}.
\]
Furthermore,
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{V}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} &=&
[A_{11}, B_{11}]^{-1}\big( [E_{11}, 0] \mathcal{V}^*_{[[E_{11},0],[A_{11},B_{11}],0]} \big)= [A_{11}, B_{11}]^{-1}\big( \im E_{11} \big)\\
&\overset{\rm Step~2a}{=} &
[A_{11}, B_{11}]^{-1}\big( \mb{R}^{\ell_1} \big) = \mb{R}^{n_1 + m_1},
\end{array}
\]
which proves the claim.
\noindent{\emph{Step 2d: Conclusion of Step 2.}}
The result of Step 2c implies that the augmented matrix pencil $s[E_{11},0] - [A_{11},B_{11}]$ is in quasi-Kronecker form, see \cite{BergTren12}, and consists only
of an underdetermined block. In particular,
$\ell_1<n_1+m_1$ and $\rk(\lambda [E_{11},0] - [A_{11},B_{11}]) = \ell_1$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$. Full column rank of $B_{11}$ was already shown in Step 1.
\\
\noindent\emph{Step 3}: We show that $E_{22}$ is square and invertible.\\
\noindent\emph{Step 3a}: We show that $\im U_S \oplus \im E R_T = E \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$.
\\
Since $\im R_T\subseteq\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ and $\im U_S\subseteq E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ it follows that $\im U_S + \im E R_T \subseteq E \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$. Furthermore,
\[
E \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = E \big((\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) \oplus \im R_T\big)
\subseteq E (\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) + \im E R_T
\overset{\eqref{eq:E(VcapW)_A(VcapW)}}{=} \im U_S + \im E R_T,
\]
hence it remains to be shown that the intersection of $\im U_S$ and $\im E R_T$ is trivial. Towards this goal, let $x\in\im U_S \cap \im E R_T$, then there exists $y\in\im R_T$ with $x=E y$ and, in view of~\eqref{eq:E(VcapW)_A(VcapW)}, there exists $z\in\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ such that $x = Ez$. Hence $z-y\in\ker E \subseteq \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$. From $z\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ it then follows that $y\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ and, therefore, $y\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\im R_T = \{0\}$. This implies $x=0$ and completes the proof of Step~3a.\\
\noindent\emph{Step 3b}: We show $\ell_2 = n_2$.
\\
From Step 3a we have $\ell_2 = \rk E R_T \leq n_2$ and hence it suffices to show that~$E R_T$ has full column rank. Let $v\in\mb{R}^{n_2}$ be such that $E R_T v = 0$, then $R_T v \in \im R_T \cap \ker E \subseteq \im R_T \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \{0\}$ and due to full column rank of~$R_T$ the claim follows.\\
\noindent\emph{Step 3c}: We show full column rank of $E_{22}$.
\\
Let $v\in\mb{R}^{n_2}$ be such that $E_{22}v = 0$. Then by~\eqref{eq:QPFF-submatrices} we have $E R_T v = U_S E_{12} v$ and hence, invoking Step 3a, $E R_T v \in \im E R_T \cap \im U_S = \{0\}$. As already shown in Step 3b, $E R_T v =0$ implies $v=0$ and full column rank of $E_{22}$ is shown.
\\
\noindent\emph{Step 4}: We show that $[E_{33},A_{33},B_{33}]$ satisfies Definition~\ref{def:QPFF-neu}\,(iii).
\\
Assume there exist $\lambda\in\mb{C}$, $x_3\in\mb{C}^{n_3}$, $u_3\in\mb{C}^{m_3}$ such that $(\lambda E_{33} - A_{33}) x_3 + B_{33} u_3 = 0$. Then we have, according to~\eqref{eq:QPFF-submatrices}, that
\[
(\lambda E - A) O_T x_3 = U_S (\lambda E_{13}-A_{13}) x_3 + R_S (\lambda E_{23}-A_{23}) x_3 - O_S B_{33} u_3.
\]
Writing the complex variables in terms of their real and imaginary parts, i.e., $\lambda = \mu + \imath \nu$, $x_3 = \overline{x}_3 + \imath \widehat{x}_3$ and $u_3 = \overline{u}_3 + \imath \widehat{u}_3$, we can conclude that
\[\begin{aligned}
(\mu E - A)O_T \overline{x}_3 - \nu E O_T \widehat{x}_3 + O_S B_{33} \overline{u}_3 &\in \im [U_S,R_S],\\
(\mu E - A)O_T \widehat{x}_3 + \nu E O_T \overline{x}_3 + O_S B_{33} \widehat{u}_3 &\in \im [U_S,R_S].\\
\end{aligned}
\]
Furthermore,
\[
\im(O_S B_{33} + U_S B_{13}) = \im [U_S,R_S,O_S] \begin{smallbmatrix} B_{13}\\ 0 \\ B_{33} \end{smallbmatrix} = \im B V_2 \subseteq \im B,
\]
and hence
\[\begin{aligned}
(\mu E - A)O_T \overline{x}_3 - \nu E O_T \widehat{x}_3 &\in \im[U_S,R_S]+\im B = E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B,\\
(\mu E - A)O_T \widehat{x}_3 + \nu E O_T \overline{x}_3 &\in \im[U_S,R_S]+\im B = E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B.\\
\end{aligned}
\]
Assume now inductively that $O_T\overline{x}_3,O_T\widehat{x}_3\in\mathcal{V}^k_{[E,A,B]}$ (which is trivially satisfied for $k=0$), then
\[\begin{aligned}
A O_T \overline{x}_3 = \mu E O\overline{x}_3 - \nu E O \widehat{x}_3 + E\overline{v} + B \overline{u}, \\
A O_T \widehat{x}_3 = \mu E O\widehat{x}_3 + \nu E O \overline{x}_3 + E\widehat{v} + B \widehat{u},
\end{aligned}
\]
for some $\overline{v},\widehat{v}\in\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\subseteq \mathcal{V}^k_{[E,A,B]}$ and $\overline{u},\widehat{u}\in\mb{R}^{m}$. Consequently,
\[
O_T \overline{x}_3 \in A^{-1}(E\mathcal{V}^k_{[E,A,B]} + \im B) = \mathcal{V}^{k+1}_{[E,A,B]}\quad \text{and}\quad O_T \widehat{x}_3 \in A^{-1}(E\mathcal{V}^k_{[E,A,B]} + \im B) = \mathcal{V}^{k+1}_{[E,A,B]}.
\]
Altogether, we can conclude that $O_T\overline{x}_3,O_T\widehat{x}_3\in \im O_T \cap \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} =\{0\}$, which in view of full column rank of~$O_T$ implies that $x_3 = 0$. Therefore, also $B_{33} u_3 = 0$ which, due to full column rank of $B_{33}$, implies that $u_3 = 0$. This completes the proof.
\end{Proof}
\begin{Remark}[Geometric interpretation of QPFF]
From Theorem~\ref{thm:QPFF} it becomes clear that the subspace $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ is the reachability/controllability space of~\eqref{eq:EAB} and $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ is the (augmented) consistency space of~\eqref{eq:EAB} (i.e., the set of all initial values $x_0$ for which a (smooth) solution $(x,u)$ of~\eqref{eq:EAB} with $x(0)=x_0$ exists), cf.\ also~\cite[Sec.~6]{BergReis13a}. A matrix representation of the linear system~\eqref{eq:EAB} restricted to $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ is given by $[E_{11},A_{11},B_{11}]$, and a representation~\eqref{eq:EAB} restricted to the quotient-space $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}/(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})$ (representing the uncontrollable but consistent states) is given by the uncontrollable ODE system $[E_{22},A_{22},0]$.
\end{Remark}
We stress that condition~\eqref{eq:cond-B-O2} in Theorem~\ref{thm:QPFF} cannot be omitted in general, as the following example shows.
\begin{Example}
Consider the system
\[
[E,A,B] = \left[\begin{bmatrix}0\\ 1\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}1\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}1\\ 0\end{bmatrix}\right]
\]
and calculate that $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}$ and $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}=\{0\}$. Then we may choose $T=R_T =[1]$ and
\[
S=[R_S,O_S]^{-1} = \begin{bmatrix} 0&1\\ 1&\alpha\end{bmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{bmatrix} -\alpha&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix},\quad \alpha\in\mb{R}.
\]
Furthermore, we may choose $V = [1]$ and $F_P = F_2 = [\alpha]$
so that~\eqref{eq:F1_F2_choice} is satisfied.
Then
\[
[SET, S(AT+BF_P), SBV] = \left[\begin{bmatrix}1\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}0\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix}-\alpha\\ 1\end{bmatrix}\right],
\]
which is \textit{not} in~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF}, if~$\alpha\neq 0$.
However, we obtain~$\alpha=0$ under the additional condition~\eqref{eq:cond-B-O2}, by which the new system is in~QPFF.
\end{Example}
Finally, we stress that the~QPFF~\eqref{eq:QPFF} is unique in the following sense.
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop:QPFF-uniqueness}
Consider the system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ and assume there are $S_1,S_2\inGL_\ell(\mb{R})$, $T_1,T_2\inGL_n(\mb{R})$, $V_1,V_2\inGL_m(\mb{R})$, $F_P^1,F_P^2\in\mb{R}^{m\times n}$ such that for $i=1,2$
\[
[E,A,B] \overset{S_i,T_i,V_i,F^i_P}{\cong_{P}}
\left[\begin{bmatrix} E^i_{11} & E^i_{12} & E^i_{13} \\ 0 & E^i_{22} & E^i_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & E^i_{33} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} A^i_{11} & A^i_{12} & A^i_{13} \\ 0 & A^i_{22} & A^i_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & A^i_{33} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} B^i_{11} & 0 & B^i_{13} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B^i_{33} \end{bmatrix}\right].
\]
Then the corresponding diagonal blocks (which have the same corresponding sizes as established already in Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-decoupledQPFF}) are P-feedback equivalent, i.e.\
$[E^1_{kk},A^1_{kk},B^1_{kk}]\cong_P [E^2_{kk},A^2_{kk},B^2_{kk}]$ for $k=1,2,3$ (with $B^i_{22} := 0_{\ell_2\times m_2}$).
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider any system $[E,A,B]$ and the following P-feedback equivalent systems
\[
[E_{QPFF},A_{QPFF},B_{QPFF}]\overset{S,T,V,F}{\cong_P}[E,A,B]
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
[E^W_{QPFF},A^W_{QPFF},B^W_{QPFF}]
\overset{S^W,T^W,V^W,F^W}{\cong_P}[E,A,B
\]
where $[E_{QPFF},A_{QPFF},B_{QPFF}]$ is any decoupled~QPFF (not necessarily obtained via the Wong-sequence approach, but probably utilizing Proposition~\ref{Prop:decoupledQPFF}) which is P-feedback equivalent to~$[E,A,B]$,
and the~QPFF $[E^W_{QPFF},A^W_{QPFF},B^W_{QPFF}]$ is obtained from~$[E,A,B]$ via the Wong-sequence approach (Theorem~\ref{thm:QPFF}).
We will now show that the diagonal blocks of $[E_{QPFF},A_{QPFF},B_{QPFF}]$ are P-feedback equivalent to the corresponding diagonal blocks of $[E^{W}_{QPFF},A^{W}_{QPFF},B^{W}_{QPFF}]$, from which the claim of Proposition~\ref{Prop:QPFF-uniqueness} follows
First observe that $[E_{QPFF},A_{QPFF},B_{QPFF}] \overset{\overline{S},\overline{T},\overline{V},\overline{F}}{\cong_P} [E^{W}_{QPFF},A^{W}_{QPFF},B^{W}_{QPFF}]$ with
\[
\overline{S} = S (S^W)^{-1},\quad
\overline{T} = (T^W)^{-1} T,\quad
\overline{V} = (V^W)^{-1} V,\quad
\overline{F} = (V^W)^{-1} \big(F - F^W \overline{T}\big).
\]
Denote by $\mathcal{V}^*$ and $\mathcal{W}^*$ the Wong sequences of the original system $[E,A,B]$.
Then, by construction (cf.\ Theorem~\ref{thm:QPDFF}),
\[\begin{aligned}
\im U^{W}_T &= \mathcal{V}^*\cap\mathcal{W}^*,& \im[U^{W}_T,R^{W}_T]&=\mathcal{V}^*, \\
\im U^{W}_S &=
E(\mathcal{V}^*\cap\mathcal{W}^*), & \im[U^{W}_S,R^{W}_S] &= E\mathcal{V}^*.
\end{aligned}
\]
Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-decoupledQPFF} in conjunction
with Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-Pfb} yields that the decoupled~QPFF $[E_{QPFF},A_{QPFF},B_{QPFF}]$ satisfies
\[\begin{aligned}
T^{-1}(\mathcal{V}^*\cap\mathcal{W}^*) &= \im \begin{smallbmatrix} I \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{smallbmatrix}, &\quad T^{-1}\mathcal{V}^* &= \im \begin{smallbmatrix} I & 0\\ 0 & I \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallbmatrix},\\
E_{QPFF}T^{-1} (\mathcal{V}^*\cap\mathcal{W}^*) & = \im \begin{smallbmatrix} I \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{smallbmatrix},& E_{QPFF}T^{-1}\mathcal{V}^* &= \im \begin{smallbmatrix} I & 0\\ 0 & I \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallbmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\]
This gives, for some invertible $M_U^T$, $M_R^T$, $M_O^T$, $M_U^S$, $M_R^S$ and~$M_O^S$,
\[\begin{aligned}
T = [U^{W}_T,R^{W}_T,O^{W}_T] \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^T & * & * \\ 0 & M_R^T & * \\ 0 & 0 & M_O^T\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
S^{-1} = [U^{W}_S,R^{W}_S,O^{W}_S] \begin{smallbmatrix} (M_U^S)^{-1} & * & * \\ 0 & (M_R^S)^{-1} & * \\ 0 & 0 & (M_O^S)^{-1}\end{smallbmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Therefore,
\[
\overline{S} = \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^S & * & * \\ 0 & M_R^S & * \\ 0 & 0 & M_O^S\end{smallbmatrix},\quad \overline{T} = \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^T & * & * \\ 0 & M_R^T & * \\ 0 & 0 & M_O^T\end{smallbmatrix}
\]
and it follows from $E_{QPFF} = \overline{S} E^{W}_{QPFF} \overline{T}$
that
\[
E_{11} = M_U^S E^{W}_{11} M_U^T,\quad
E_{22} = M_R^S E^{W}_{22} M_R^T,\quad
E_{33}= M_O^S E^{W}_{33} M_O^T,
\]
where $E_{ii}$, $E^{W}_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$, are the corresponding diagonal blocks of the block diagonal matrices~$E_{QPFF}$ and~$E^{W}_{QPFF}$.
This shows the desired P-feedback equivalence for the entries of the $E$-matrix.
Writing $\overline{V} = \begin{smallbmatrix} \overline{V}_{11} & \overline{V}_{12} & \overline{V}_{13} \\ \overline{V}_{21} & \overline{V}_{22} & \overline{V}_{23} \\ \overline{V}_{31} & \overline{V}_{32} & \overline{V}_{33} \end{smallbmatrix}$
and multiplying the equation $B_{QPFF} = \overline{S}B^{W}_{QPFF}\overline{V}$ from the left by~$[0,0,I]$ and from the right by $\begin{smallbmatrix} I & 0 \\ 0 & I \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallbmatrix}$ gives
$M_O^S B^{W}_{33} [\overline{V}_{31},\overline{V}_{32}] = 0$.
Invertibility of~$M_O^S$ and full column rank of~$B^{W}_{33}$
yields~$\overline{V}_{31}=0$ and $\overline{V}_{32}=0$, i.e.
\[
\overline{V} = \begin{smallbmatrix} \overline{V}_{11} & \overline{V}_{12} & \overline{V}_{13} \\ \overline{V}_{21} & \overline{V}_{22} & \overline{V}_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & \overline{V}_{33} \end{smallbmatrix}\quad\text{with $V_{33}$ invertible}.
\]
Furthermore, from $B_{QPFF} = \overline{S}B^{W}_{QPFF}\overline{V}$ we see
that $B_{11} = M_U^S B^{W}_{11} \overline{V}_{11}$ and $B_{33} = M_O^S B^{W}_{33} \overline{V}_{33}$ and we need to show that also $\overline{V}_{11}$ is invertible. Assuming that $\overline{V}_{11}$ is not invertible, we find $u_1\in\mb{R}^{m_1}\setminus\{0\}$ with $\overline{V}_{11} u_1 = 0$, which implies that $0 = M_U^S B^{W}_{11} \overline{V}_{11} u_1 = B_{11} u_1$ contradicting full column rank of $B_{11}$.
Finally, writing $\overline{F} = \begin{smallbmatrix} \overline{F}_{U,1} & \overline{F}_{R,1} & \overline{F}_{O,1} \\ * & * & * \\ \overline{F}_{U,3} & \overline{F}_{R,3} & \overline{F}_{O,3} \end{smallbmatrix}$ we will show that $\overline{F}_{U,3}$ and $\overline{F}_{R,3}$ are both zero, because then
we have
\[
\overline{S} B^{W}_{QPFF} \overline{F} = \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^S & * & * \\ 0 & M_R^S & * \\ 0 & 0 & M_O^S\end{smallbmatrix} \begin{smallbmatrix} B^{W}_{11} \overline{F}_{U,1} &* & * \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
B^{W}_{33} \overline{F}_{U,3} & B^{W}_{33} \overline{F}_{R,3} & B^{W}_{33} \overline{F}_{O,3}. \end{smallbmatrix} = \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^S B^{W}_{11} \overline{F}_{U,1} &* & * \\
0 & 0 & * \\
0 & 0 & M_O^S B^{W}_{33} \overline{F}_{O,3}, \end{smallbmatrix},
\]
which then yields the desired form
\[
A_{QPFF} = \overline{S} (A^{W}_{QPFF} \overline{T} + B^{W}_{QPFF} \overline{F} ) = \begin{smallbmatrix} M_U^S (A^{W}_{11} M_U^T + B^{W}_{11} \overline{F}_{U,1}) & * & * \\ 0 & M_U^S A^{W}_{22} M_U^T & * \\ 0 & 0 & M_O^S(A^{W}_{33} M_O^T + B^{W}_{33} \overline{F}_{O,3}) \end{smallbmatrix}.
\]
From the block structures of $S^W(A T^W + B F^W)$, $\overline{S}$ and $\overline{T}$ it follows that
\[
\begin{smallbmatrix} * & * & * \\ 0 & * & * \\ 0 & 0 & * \end{smallbmatrix} = \overline{S} S^W(A T^W + B F^W) \overline{T} = SAT + SB F^W \overline{T} = S(AT+BF) + SB(F^W\overline{T}-F),
\]
and due to the block structure of $S(AT+BF)$ we therefore have
\[\begin{aligned}
\begin{smallbmatrix} * & * & * \\ 0 & * & * \\ 0 & 0 & * \end{smallbmatrix} &= SB(F-F^W\overline{T}) = SBV \overline{V}^{-1} \overline{F} = \begin{smallbmatrix} B_{11} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & B_{33} \end{smallbmatrix} \begin{smallbmatrix} * & * & * \\ * & * & * \\ 0 & 0 & V_{33}^{-1} \end{smallbmatrix} \begin{smallbmatrix} \overline{F}_{U,1} & \overline{F}_{R,1} & \overline{F}_{O,1} \\ * & * & * \\ \overline{F}_{U,3} & \overline{F}_{R,3} & \overline{F}_{O,3} \end{smallbmatrix}\\
&= \begin{smallbmatrix} * & * & * \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ B_{33} V_{33}^{-1} \overline{F}_{U,3} & B_{33} V_{33}^{-1} \overline{F}_{R,3} & B_{33} V_{33}^{-1} \overline{F}_{O,3} \end{smallbmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\]
This shows that $B_{33} V_{33}^{-1} \overline{F}_{U,3}=0$ and $B_{33} V_{33}^{-1} \overline{F}_{R,3}=0$, which in view of the full column rank of $B_{33}$ implies $\overline{F}_{U,3}=0$ and $\overline{F}_{R,3}=0$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{Example}[Example~\ref{Ex:P-form} revisited]\label{Ex:QPFF}
Consider the system $[E,A,B]$ from Example~\ref{Ex:P-form}. The augmented Wong sequences can be calculated as follows:
\[\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^1_{[E,A,B]} &= \im \begin{smallbmatrix}
5 & 2 & 0 & 2 \\
-2 & 0 & -1 & -2 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{smallbmatrix} = \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]},\\
\mathcal{W}^1_{[E,A,B]} &= \im \begin{smallbmatrix}
3 & -1 & -2 & 0 \\
-1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
\mathcal{W}^2_{[E,A,B]} = \im \begin{smallbmatrix}
-1 & 2 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{smallbmatrix} = \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Based on these subspaces, we can now easily choose, in virtue of Theorem~\ref{thm:QPFF},
\[\begin{aligned}
T &= [U_T,R_T,O_T] = \left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc}
-8 & -5 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 0\\ 4 & 1 & -2 & -1 & 0 & 0\\ -2 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & -1
\end{smallarray}\right],&\quad
S^{-1} &= [U_S,R_S,O_S] = \left[\begin{smallarray}{cc|c|cccc}
1 & 0 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & -1\\ 0 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 0\\ 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & -4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & -3 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 0\\ -1 & 0 & 1 & \frac{7}{2} & -\frac{7}{2} & -1 & 0\\ 1 & 1 & 0 & 3 & -9 & -1 & -1
\end{smallarray}\right]\\
F_P & = [ F_1, F_2 , 0] = \left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc}
9 & 4 & -1 & -5 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 6 & 4 & -3 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{smallarray}\right],&\quad
V &= [V_1,V_2,V_3] =\left[\begin{smallarray}{c||cc}
2 & -1 & 0\\ 1 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & -1 & 1
\end{smallarray}\right],
\end{aligned}
\]
which results in the QPFF
\[
[SET, S(AT+BF_P),SBV] = \left[\left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc} 3 & 3 & -1 & -5 & -\frac{29}{2} & 33\\ 1 & 0 & -2 & 1 & \frac{5}{2} & 0\\\hline 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -\frac{3}{2} & 1\\\hline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -5 & 15\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3 & 9\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{smallarray}\right], \left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc} 6 & 5 & 1 & -5 & 18 & -\frac{679}{6}\\ 4 & 3 & -3 & -1 & 6 & -\frac{47}{2}\\\hline 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & \frac{5}{3}\\\hline 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 15 & -\frac{427}{6}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 7 & -\frac{239}{6}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -\frac{23}{6}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -\frac{5}{6}
\end{smallarray}\right], \left[\begin{smallarray}{c||cc} 1 & 13 & -9\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\\hline 0 & 0 & 0\\\hline 0 & 8 & -5\\ 0 & 6 & -3\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{smallarray}\right]\right].
\]
In particular, we see that the original system can be decomposed into a completely controllable system in $\Sigma_{2,3,1}$, an uncontrollable ODE system in $\Sigma_{1,1,0}$ and a fully constrained system in $\Sigma_{4,2,2}$.
\end{Example}
\begin{Remark}[Numerical considerations]\label{rem:numerics}
The calculation of the QPFF relies on obtaining (bases of) kernels and images of matrices, which is inherently numerically unstable because arbitrary small disturbances in the entries of any non-full rank matrix result generically in a full rank matrix. For moderately sized matrices this problem can be circumvented by carrying out the calculations with exact arithmetics (e.g.\ by working with type \texttt{sym} in Matlab as we actually did in Example~\ref{Ex:QPFF}). For large scale sparse systems it is possible to exploit the structural zeros in the calculation of the augmented Wong-sequences and the sparsity can be preserved in the choice of corresponding basis matrices; however, it is a topic of future research to explore whether our approach may be utilized for the analysis of realistic large scale control systems or whether some adjustments or specialized calculation methods are necessary.
\end{Remark}
\section{PD-feedback forms}\label{Ssec:PDF-form}
In this section, we investigate PD-feedback which allows for a simpler ``(quasi) canonical'' form compared to the (quasi) P-feedback form since the set of allowed transformations is larger. However, unlike the latter, the quasi PD-feedback form can be derived directly from the Kalman controllability decomposition presented in~\cite{BergTren14} by decomposing the first block row.
\subsection{PD-feedback equivalence}
The following concept of PD-feedback equivalence enlarges the transformation class associated with P-feedback equivalence as in Definition~\ref{Def:PF-equiv}.
\begin{Definition}[PD-feedback equivalence]\label{Def32:PD-equi}
Two systems
$[E_1, A_1, B_1], [E_2, A_2, B_2] \in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
are called
\emph{PD-feedback equivalent}, if
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}
&\exists\, S\in GL_\ell(\mb{R}), T\in GL_n(\mb{R}), V\in GL_m(\mb{R}), F_P,F_D\in \mb{R}^{m\times n}: \\
&\begin{bmatrix} sE_1-A_1, & B_1\end{bmatrix}
=
S
\begin{bmatrix} sE_2-A_2, & B_2 \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} T & 0 \\ sF_D-F_P & V \end{bmatrix}\,;
\end{aligned}\label{eq:PD-feedbequiv}\end{equation}
we write
\begin{align*}
[E_1,A_1,B_1] \ {\cong_{PD}} \ [E_2, A_2, B_2] \qquad
\text{or, if necessary,}\qquad [E_1,A_1,B_1] \ \overset{S,T,V,F_P,F_D}{\cong_{PD}} \ [E_2, A_2, B_2]\,.
\end{align*}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
Similarly as for P-feedback equivalence, it can easily be shown that PD-feedback equivalence is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, so it is indeed an equivalence relation.
\end{Remark}
For later use we show how the augmented Wong sequences change under PD-feedback.
\begin{Lemma}[Augmented Wong sequences under PD-feedback]\label{lem:Wong-PDfb}
If the systems $[E_1, A_1, B_1], [E_2, A_2, B_2] \in \Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
are PD-feedback equivalent $[E_1, A_1, B_1] \ \overset{S,T,V,F_P,F_D}{\cong_{PD}} \ [E_2, A_2, B_2]$, then
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:rel-wong}
\begin{aligned}
\forall\, i\in{\mb{N}}_0:\quad \mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i \quad \text{and}\quad
\mathcal{W}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{W}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof} We prove the statement by induction. It is clear that $\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^0 = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^0$.
Assume that $\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i$ for some $i\geq 0$.
Then~\eqref{eq:PD-feedbequiv} yields
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^{i+1} &= A_1^{-1} (E_1 \mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i + \im B_1)\\
&= \setdef{x\in\mb{R}^n}{ \begin{array}{l} \exists\, y\in\mathcal{V}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i\ \exists\, u\in\mb{R}^m:\\[1.5mm] (SA_2 T + SB_2F_P) x = (SE_2T + SB_2F_D) y + SB_2V u\end{array}}\\
&= \setdef{x\in\mb{R}^n}{ \exists\, z\in\mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i\ \exists\, v\in\mb{R}^m:\ A_2 T x = E_2 z + B_2 v}\\
&= T^{-1} \left( A_2^{-1} (E_2 \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i + \im B_2)\right) = T^{-1} \mathcal{V}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^{i+1}.
\end{align*}
The proof of the statements about~$\mathcal{W}_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]}^i$ and~$\mathcal{W}_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]}^i$ is similar and omitted.
\end{proof}
\subsection{PD-feedback form (PDFF)}
\begin{Definition}[PD-feedback form]\label{def:PDFF}
The system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
is said to be in
\textit{PD-feedback form} (PDFF), if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PDform}
[E, A,B]
\ = \
\left[
\begin{bmatrix} K_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & I_{n_{\overline{c}}} & 0
& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & N_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & K_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}^\top \\ 0&0&0&0
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & A_{\overline{c}} & 0 & 0
\\ 0 & 0 & I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}|} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & L_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}^\top \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix} 0&0 \\ 0&0 \\ 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0 & I_{r} \end{bmatrix}
\right],
\end{equation}
where $r=\rk B$,
${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}},{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}}$
denote multi-indices, and $A_{\overline{c}}\in\mb{R}^{n_{\overline{c}}\times n_{\overline{c}}}$.
\end{Definition}
Two PD-feedback equivalent systems have the same~PDFF up to permutation of the entries of ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, {\boldsymbol{\beta}}, {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ and similarity of $A_{\overline{c}}$.
\begin{Proposition}[Uniqueness of indices for~PDFF]\label{Prop:Indices-uniqueness-PDFF}
Let $[E_i,A_i,B_i]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$, $i=1,2$,
be in~PDFF~\eqref{eq:PDform} with corresponding $r_i=\rk B_i$, multi-indices
${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_i}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_i}},{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i\in{\mb{N}}^{n_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i}}$, and $A_{\overline{c},i}\in\mb{R}^{n_{\overline{c},i}\times n_{\overline{c},i}}$.
If $[E_1, A_1, B_1] \cong_{PD} [E_2, A_2, B_2]$, then
\[
{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2,\quad {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1 = P_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}} {\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2,
\]
and
\[
r_1 = r_2,\quad n_{\overline{c},1} = n_{\overline{c},2}, \quad A_{\overline{c},1} = H^{-1} A_{\overline{c},2} H,
\]
for permutation matrices $P_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}, P_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ of appropriate sizes
and~$H\inGL_{n_{\overline{c},1}}(\mb{R})$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Proof} It follows from~\eqref{eq:PD-feedbequiv} that $B_1 = SB_2V$ and hence $r_1 = r_2$. Furthermore, $sE_1-A_1=S(sE_2-A_2)T+SB_2(sF_D-F_P)$, which gives
\[
\begin{smallbmatrix} sK_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1}-L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1} & 0 & 0 & 0\\* 0 & sI_{n_{\overline{c},1}}- A_{\overline{c},1} & 0
& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & sN_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}-I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1|} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & sK_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1}^\top-L_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1}^\top \\ 0&0&0&0
\end{smallbmatrix}
= S \begin{smallbmatrix} sK_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2}-L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2} & 0 & 0 & 0\\* 0 & sI_{n_{\overline{c},2}}- A_{\overline{c},2} & 0
& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & sN_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2}-I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2|} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & sK_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2}^\top-L_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2}^\top \\ sF_1-G_1 & sF_2-G_2 & sF_3-G_3 & sF_4-G_4
\end{smallbmatrix} T
\]
for some matrices $F_i$ and~$G_i$ of appropriate sizes. Set $r:=r_1=r_2$ and write
\[
S = \begin{bmatrix} S_{11} & S_{12}\\ S_{21} & S_{22}\end{bmatrix},\quad S_{22}\in\mb{R}^{r\times r},
\]
and $S_{11}, S_{12}, S_{21}$ of appropriate size. Then $B_1 = SB_2V$
yields
\[
\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0\\ 0 & I_r\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} S_{11} & S_{12}\\ S_{21} & S_{22}\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0\\ 0 & I_r\end{bmatrix} V = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & S_{12}\\ 0 & S_{22}\end{bmatrix} V,
\]
and hence $S_{22}\inGL_r(\mb{R})$ and $S_{12}=0$. Then again $S_{11}\inGL_{\ell-r}(\mb{R})$ and we have
\[
\begin{smallbmatrix} sK_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1}-L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1} & 0 & 0 & 0\\* 0 & sI_{n_{\overline{c},1}}- A_{\overline{c},1} & 0
& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & sN_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1}-I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_1|} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & sK_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1}^\top-L_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_1}^\top \end{smallbmatrix}\\
= S_{11} \begin{smallbmatrix} sK_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2}-L_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_2} & 0 & 0 & 0\\* 0 & sI_{n_{\overline{c},2}}- A_{\overline{c},2} & 0
& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & sN_{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2}-I_{|{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_2|} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & sK_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2}^\top-L_{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_2}^\top
\end{smallbmatrix} T,
\]
which in view of~\cite[Rem.~2.8]{BergTren13} implies the assertion.
\end{Proof}
We are now in the position to show that any $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ is PD-feedback equivalent to a system in~PDFF.
This result has already been observed in the seminal work~\cite{LoisOzca91} co-authored by Nicos Karcanias; it simply consists of a left transformation~$S$ together with an input space transformation~$V$ which puts the matrix~$B$ into the
form $SBV=\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0\\ 0&I_r\end{smallmatrix}\right]$ and an additional transformation which puts the pencil $sNE-NA$,
where $N=[I_{l-r},0]W$, into Kronecker canonical form.
\begin{Theorem}[PDFF~\cite{LoisOzca91}]\label{Thm32:PDform}
For any system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$
there exist $S\in GL_\ell(\mb{R}), T\in GL_n(\mb{R}), V\in GL_m(\mb{R}), F_P, F_D\in \mb{R}^{m\times n}$
such that
\[
[SET+SBF_D,SAT+SBF_P,SBV]
\ \
\text{is in~PDFF~\eqref{eq:PDform}.}
\]
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Remark}[PDFF from PFF]\label{rem:PFF->PDFF}
We may directly derive the~PDFF~\eqref{eq:PDform} from the PFF~\eqref{eq:Pform}. To this end,
observe that the system $[I_{\beta_i},N_{\beta_i}^\top,e_{\beta_i}^{[\beta_i]}]$ can be written as
\[
\tfrac{\text{\normalfont d}}{\text{\normalfont d}t} L_{\beta_i} x_{c[i]}(t) = K_{\beta_i} x_{c[i]}(t),\quad \tfrac{\text{\normalfont d}}{\text{\normalfont d}t} x_{c[i],\beta_i}(t) = u_{c[i]}(t),
\]
and hence it is, after a permutation of the states and the equations, PD-feedback equivalent to the system
\[\left[ \begin{bmatrix} K_{\beta_i}\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} L_{\beta_i}\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ 1\end{bmatrix}\right].\]
On the other hand, the system $[K_{\kappa_i}^\top,L_{\kappa_i}^\top,e_{\kappa_i}^{[\kappa_i]}]$ can be written as
\[
\tfrac{\text{\normalfont d}}{\text{\normalfont d}t} N_{\kappa_i-1} x_{ob[i]}(t) = x_{ob[i]}(t),\quad \tfrac{\text{\normalfont d}}{\text{\normalfont d}t} x_{ob[i],\kappa_{i-1}}(t) = u_{ob[i]}(t),
\]
and hence it is PD-feedback equivalent to the system
\[\left[ \begin{bmatrix} N_{\kappa_i-1} \\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} I_{\kappa_i-1}\\ 0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 0\\ 1\end{bmatrix}\right].\]
It is now easy to see that we obtain a system in the form~\eqref{eq:PDform} after some block permutations.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Example}[PDFF]\label{Ex:PD-form}
We revisit Example~\ref{Ex:P-form} to illustrate Theorem~\ref{Thm32:PDform} and consider again the system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{7,6,3}$. Utilizing Remark~\ref{rem:PFF->PDFF} we can easily chose
\[
\begin{aligned}
S &= \begin{smallbmatrix} -15 & 2 & 4 & 5 & -6 & -6 & 4\\ -3 & -1 & 0 & 3 & -2 & 0 & 0\\ 8 & 2 & 0 & -5 & 4 & 2 & -1\\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0\\ -16 & -1 & 2 & 9 & -8 & -5 & 3\\ -6 & 0 & 1 & 3 & -3 & -2 & 1\\ -4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & -2 & -1 & 1
\end{smallbmatrix},&\quad
T &= \begin{smallbmatrix}
-17 & 10 & -13 & -3 & -8 & 6\\ 13 & -6 & 9 & 2 & 6 & -4\\ -7 & 4 & -5 & -1 & -3 & 2\\ 6 & -3 & 4 & 1 & 3 & -2\\ -5 & 2 & -3 & 0 & -2 & 1\\ 3 & -2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & -1
\end{smallbmatrix},\\
F_P &= \begin{smallbmatrix}
3 & 3 & -2 & -2 & 0 & 2\\ -14 & 10 & -12 & -3 & -7 & 6\\ 7 & -4 & 6 & 3 & 4 & -3
\end{smallbmatrix},&\quad
F_D &= \begin{smallbmatrix}
0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{smallbmatrix},&\quad
V &= \begin{smallbmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1\\ 1 & 0 & -1\\ 0 & -1 & -1
\end{smallbmatrix},
\end{aligned}
\]
which results in
\[\begin{aligned}
S(ET+BF_D) &= \diag(K_1,K_2,I_1,N_1,N_1,0_{3\times 0}),\\ S(AT+BF_P) &= \diag(L_1,L_2,A_{\overline{c}},I_1,I_1,0_{3\times 0}),\\
SBV &= \diag(0_{4\times 0},I_3),
\end{aligned}
\]
with $A_{\overline{c}}=[1]$. In particular, $[E,A,B]$ is PD-feedback equivalent to a PDFF \eqref{eq:PDform} with ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}} = (1,2)$, $n_{\overline{c}}=1$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}=(1,1)$, $n_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}=0$, $r = 3$.
\end{Example}
\subsection{Quasi PD-feedback form (QPDFF)}
We will now weaken the PD-feedback form to a \textit{quasi} PD-feedback form, again exploiting the augmented Wong sequences as the crucial tool to achieve the necessary geometric insight.
\begin{Definition}\label{def:QPDFF}
A system $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ is said to be in \emph{quasi PD-feedback form (QPDFF)}, if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QPDFF}
[E,A,B] = \left[\begin{bmatrix} E_{11} & E_{12} & E_{13} \\ 0 & E_{22} & E_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & E_{33}\\ 0&0&0 \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} A_{11} & A_{12} & A_{13} \\ 0 & A_{22} & A_{23} \\ 0 & 0 & A_{33}\\ 0&0&0 \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 0&0 \\ 0 & 0 \\ 0&0\\ 0 & \hat B \end{bmatrix}\right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item\label{item:QPDFF(i)} $E_{11}, A_{11}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_1\times n_{1}}$ with $\ell_1 < n_1$ and $\rk E_{11} = \rk_\mb{C} [\lambda E_{11} - A_{11}] = \ell_1$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$,
\item\label{item:QPDFF(ii)} $E_{22},A_{22}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_{2}\times n_{2}}$ with $\ell_2 = n_2$ and $E_{22}\inGL_{n_2}(\mb{R})$,
\item\label{item:QPDFF(iii)} $E_{33}, A_{33} \in\mb{R}^{\ell_{3}\times n_{3}}$ satisfy $\rk_\mb{C} (\lambda E_{33}-A_{33}) = n_{3}$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$,
\item $\hat B \inGL_{m_2}(\mb{R})$ for $m_2=\rk B$
\end{enumerate}
and the remaining matrices have suitable sizes. Furthermore, we call a~QPDFF \emph{decoupled}, if all off-diagonal blocks are zero.
\end{Definition}
The control theoretic interpretation of the~QPDFF is that the system can be decomposed in four parts. The first three parts contain only state variables, they form a homogeneous~DAE. The first part consists of an underdetermined~DAE which is completely controllable\footnote{In this context, it may be better to speak of ``complete reachability'' instead of ``complete controllability'', because it seems rather unintuitive to call a system which is not affected by an input ``controllable''; nevertheless, this naming convention also occurs in the context of behavioral controllability, where the trivial behavior consisting of all trajectories is also called ``controllable''.}, the second part is actually an uncontrollable~ODE and the third part is a~DAE which has only the trivial solution (and is therefore trivially behaviorally controllable). The fourth part contains only
the input~$u=(u_1,u_2)$, where the first component of the input is completely free (but does not influence the state) and the second input component is maximally constrained~$(0=u_2)$.
\begin{Remark}
Utilizing Sylvester equations in a very similar way as in Proposition~\ref{Prop:decoupledQPFF} it can be shown that any~QPDFF is PD-feedback equivalent to a decoupled~QPDFF with identical diagonal blocks. Since the input and state are completely decoupled in the~QPDFF this decoupling is actually much easier to achieve than the decoupling in the~QPFF.
\end{Remark}
For later use we derive some properties of the augmented Wong limits for a system $[E,A,B]$ which is in decoupled QPDFF~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{Lem:Wong-QPDFF}
Assume $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ is in decoupled~QPDFF~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QPDFF-Wong}
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}\times\{0\}^{n_2+n_3},\quad \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1+n_2} \times \{0\}^{n_3}
\end{equation}
and
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\im B &=& \{0\}^{\ell_1 + \ell_2+\ell_3} \times \mb{R}^{m_2},\\
E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}) + \im B
&=& \mb{R}^{\ell_1}\times \{0\}^{\ell_2+\ell_3} \times \mb{R}^{m_2},\\
E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B &= &\mb{R}^{\ell_1+\ell_2}\times\{0\}^{\ell_3} \times \mb{R}^{m_2}.
\end{array}
\]
In particular (in view of Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-PDfb}), two~QPDFFs which are PD-feedback equivalent have the same block sizes in $E$, $A$ and $B$.
\end{Lemma}
The proof utilizes the observation that
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,0]} \quad \text{and}\quad \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,0]}
\]
and is very similar to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-decoupledQPFF}.
It is therefore omitted.
We will now show that any system $[E,A,B]$ is PD-feedback equivalent to a system in~QPDFF and that the transformation matrices can be obtained from the augmented Wong sequences; this provides some geometric insight in the decoupling.
\begin{Theorem}[Quasi PD-feedback form]\label{thm:QPDFF}
Consider $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ with corresponding augmented Wong limits $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}$ and $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]}$. Choose full column rank matrices $U_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{1}}$, $R_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{2}}$, $O_T\in\mb{R}^{n\times n_{3}}$, $Q_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times m_2}$, $U_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{1}}$, $R_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{2}}$, $O_S\in\mb{R}^{\ell\times \ell_{3}}$ such that
\[\begin{aligned}
\im U_T &= \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap\mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]},\\
\im R_T \oplus \im U_T &= \mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}, \\
\im O_T\oplus \im R_T \oplus \im U_T &= \mb{R}^n, \\[2ex]
\im Q_S &= \im B,\\
\im U_S \oplus \im Q_S &= E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})+\im B,\\
\im R_S \oplus \im U_S \oplus \im Q_S &= E\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} + \im B,\\
\im O_S \oplus \im R_S \oplus \im U_S \oplus \im Q_S &= \mb{R}^{\ell}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Let $T:=[U_T,R_T,O_T]$, $S:=[U_S,R_S,O_S,Q_S]^{-1}$ and choose (not necessarily full rank) matrices $F_P, F_D\in\mb{R}^{m\times n}$ such that
\[
0 = [0, I_{m_2}] S (E T + B F_D),\quad
0 = [0, I_{m_2}] S (A T + B F_P),
\]
and choose $V=[V_1,V_2]$ with full column rank matrices $V_{1}\in\mb{R}^{m\times m_1}$, $V_2\in\mb{R}^{m\times m_2}$ such that
\[
\im V_{1} = \ker B,\quad \im V_{1} \oplus \im V_2 = \mb{R}^m.
\]
Then $[S(ET+BF_D),S(AT+BF_P),SBV]$ is in~QPDFF~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Proof} \emph{Step 1}: We show that the block structure of the~QPDFF~\eqref{eq:QPDFF} is achieved. The subspace inclusions~\eqref{eq:AWS_invariance} and the equalities~\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB} imply that
\[
\begin{aligned}
\im E U_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,Q_S],&\quad \im A U_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,Q_S],\\
\im E R_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S,Q_S],&\quad \im A R_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S,Q_S],\\
\im E O_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S,O_S,Q_S]=\mb{R}^n,&\quad \im A O_T &\subseteq \im [U_S,R_S,O_S,Q_S]=\mb{R}^\ell,
\end{aligned}
\]
hence there exists matrices $E_{11}, E_{12}, E_{13}, E_{22}, E_{23}, E_{33}, A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13}, A_{22}, A_{23}, A_{33}$, $F_{1}^E$, $F_{2}^E$, $F_3^E$, $F_{1}^A$, $F_{2}^A$, $F_3^A$ such that
\[\begin{aligned}
E U_T &= U_S E_{11} + Q_S F_1^E, &\quad A U_T &= U_S A_{11} + Q_S F_1^A,\\
E R_T &= U_S E_{12} + R_S E_{22} + Q_S F_2^E,& A R_T &= U_S A_{12} + R_S A_{22} + Q_S F_2^A,\\
E O_T &= U_S E_{13} + R_S E_{23} + O_S E_{33} + Q_S F_3^E, & A O_T &= U_S A_{13} + R_S A_{23} + O_S A_{33} + Q_S F_3^A.
\end{aligned}
\]
Furthermore, $B = Q_S \bar B$ for some $\bar B \in\mb{R}^{m_2\times m}$ and $\hat B := \bar B V_2 \in\mb{R}^{m_2\times m_2}$ since $\rk V_2 = m - \dim \ker B = \rk B = m_2$. Then $0 = \hat B x = \bar B V_2 x$
yields
$V_2 x \in \ker \bar B \cap \im V_2 = \ker B \cap \im V_2 = \{0\}$,
thus $\hat B \inGL_{m_2}(\mb{R})$. Therefore,
\[
SBV = S [0, BV_2] = S [U_S,R_S,O_S,Q_S] \begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&\bar B V_2\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&\hat B\end{bmatrix}
\]
has the block structure as in~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}. Set $F^E := [F_1^E, F_2^E, F_3^E]$ and $F^A :=[F_1^A, F_2^A, F_3^A]$, then
$\im [0, I_{m_2}] S B = \im [0, \hat B] = \mb{R}^{m_2}$ and hence the equations
\begin{align*}
F^E + [0, I_{m_2}] S B F_D = 0,\quad F^A + [0, I_{m_2}] S B F_P = 0
\end{align*}
have solutions $F_D, F_P\in\mb{R}^{m\times n}$ which satisfy
\[
[0, I_{m_2}] S (E T + B F_D) = F^E + [0, \hat B] F_D = 0,\quad [0, I_{m_2}] S (A T + B F_P) = F^A + [0, \hat B] F_P = 0.
\]
This proves that $S (E T + B F_D)$ and $S (A T + B F_P)$ have the block structure as in~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}.
\\
\noindent
\emph{Step 2}: We show that $E_{11}, A_{11}$ satisfy Definition~\ref{def:QPDFF}\,\ref{item:QPDFF(i)}.
\\
Denote by $\mathcal{V}^i_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$, $\mathcal{W}^i_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$, $\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$, $\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$ the Wong sequences and Wong limits corresponding to the matrix pencil ${sE_{11}-A_{11}}$. By choice of~$U_T$ we have
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = \im U_T = T (\mb{R}^{n_1}\times \{0\}^{n_2+n_3}).
\]
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-PDfb} that for $[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B] := [S (E T + B F_D), S (A T + B F_P), SBV]$ we have
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} = T\mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]},\quad \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]} = T\mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E,\tilde A, \tilde B]},
\]
hence
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E,\tilde A, \tilde B]} = \mb{R}^{n_1}\times \{0\}^{n_2+n_3}.
\]
Now let $x\in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}$.
Then $x= (x_1^\top, 0, 0)^\top$ for some~$x_1\in\mb{R}^{n_1}$ and
\begin{align*}
\tilde A x \in \tilde A\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\big) + \im \tilde B
\overset{\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB}}{=} \tilde E\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\big) + \im \tilde B,
\end{align*}
and thus there exist $y = (y_1^\top, 0, 0)^\top\in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}$ and $u_2\in\mb{R}^{m_2}$ such that $A_{11} x_1 = E_{11} y_1$ and $0 = \hat B u_2$, thus $u_2 =0$. This implies $x_1\in A_{11}^{-1}(E_{11} \{y_1\}) \subseteq \mathcal{V}^1_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$.
A similar reasoning yields
$y_1\in\mathcal{V}^1_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$,
and therefore
\[
x_1\in A_{11}^{-1}(E_{11} \{y_1\}) \subseteq A_{11}^{-1}(E_{11} \mathcal{V}^1_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}) \subseteq \mathcal{V}^2_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}.
\]
Again, we conclude similarly that
$y_1\in \mathcal{V}^2_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$ and thus $x_1\in\mathcal{V}^3_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$. Proceeding in this way we obtain $x_1\in\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$.
Now let $j^*,r^*\in{\mb{N}}$ be such that $\mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} = \mathcal{W}^{j^*}_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}$ and
$\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]} = \mathcal{W}^{r^*}_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$ and set
$q^* := \max\{j^*,r^*\}$.
Since $x \in \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} = \mathcal{W}^{q^*}_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}$, it follows from Definition~\ref{Def:AWS} that there exist $y_k\in\mathcal{W}^{k}_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}$ and $u_k\in\mb{R}^m$, $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$,
such that $\tilde Ex = \tilde A y_{q^*-1} + \tilde B u_{q^*-1}$
and $\tilde Ey_k = \tilde Ay_{k-1} + \tilde B u_{k-1}$ for all $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$.
We find that
\begin{align*}
\tilde A y_{q^*-1} = \tilde E x - \tilde B u_{q^*-1} \in \tilde A \big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\big) + \im \tilde B
\overset{\eqref{eq:EVBcapAWB}}{=} \tilde A\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\big) + \im \tilde B,
\end{align*}
thus
\begin{align*}
y_{q^*-1} \in \tilde A^{-1}\Big(\tilde A\big( \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\big) + \im \tilde B\Big)
= \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} + \tilde A^{-1}(\im \tilde B) \subseteq \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\[
y_{q^*-1} \in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^{q^*-1}_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}.
\]
Analogously, we may show that
\[
y_{k} \in \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}\cap \mathcal{W}^{k}_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]},\quad k=0,\ldots,q^*-2.
\]
This implies that $y_k = (y_{k,1}^\top, 0, 0)^\top$ for some $y_{k,1}\in\mb{R}^{n_1}$, $k=0,\ldots,q^*-1$, and hence, in particular,
\[
E_{11} y_{1,1} = 0,\ E_{11} y_{2,1} = A_{11} y_{1,1},\ \ldots,\ E_{11} y_{q^*-1,1} = A_{11} y_{q^*-2,1},\ E_{11} x_1 = A_{11} y_{q^*-1,1}.
\]
Therefore, we obtain $x_1\in\mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}$. This proves
\begin{align*}
\big(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{11},A_{11},0]}\big) \times \{0\}^{n_2+n_3} &= \mathcal{V}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[\tilde E, \tilde A, \tilde B]}
= \mb{R}^{n_1}\times \{0\}^{n_2+n_3}.
\end{align*}
To conclude Step~2, it remains to show that $\rk E_{11} = \ell_1$, then the assertion follows from~\cite[Thm.~2.3]{BergTren12}. To this end, observe that $U_S E_{11} + Q_S F_1^E = E U_T$ and $Q_S \bar B = B$ imply that
\[
\im [U_S, Q_S] \begin{bmatrix} E_{11} & 0\\ F_1^E & \bar B\end{bmatrix} = \im E U_T + \im B = E(\mathcal{V}^*_{[E,A,B]} \cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E,A,B]})+\im B = \im [U_S, Q_S].
\]
As a consequence, full column rank of $[U_S, Q_S]$ gives that $\begin{smallbmatrix} E_{11} & 0\\ F_1^E & \bar B\end{smallbmatrix}$ has full row rank, by which $\rk E_{11} = \ell_1$.
\\
\noindent
\emph{Step 3}: The proof of $\ell_2=n_2$, invertibility of~$E_{22}$, and the property $\rk_\mb{C} \lambda E_{33} - A_{33} = n_3$ for all $\lambda\in\mb{C}$ is similar to the proof of~\cite[Thm.~3.3]{BergTren14} and omitted.
\end{Proof}
We revisit again Example~\ref{Ex:P-form} to illustrate how Theorem~\ref{thm:QPDFF} can be utilized to obtain a QPDFF.
\begin{Example}[Example~\ref{Ex:P-form} revisited]
Consider again $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{7,6,3}$ from Example~\ref{Ex:P-form}. The augmented Wong-sequences have been calculated in Example~\ref{Ex:QPFF} and we can choose $T$ and $S$ as
\[ T = [U_T,R_T,O_T] = \left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc} -8 & -5 & 2 & 7 & -1 & 1\\ 4 & 1 & -2 & -5 & -1 & 1\\ -2 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0
\end{smallarray}\right],\quad
S^{-1} = [U_S,R_S,O_S,Q_S] = \left[\begin{smallarray}{c|c|cc|ccc}
0 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -\frac{5}{2} & -2\\ 1 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -4 & -4
\end{smallarray}\right].
\]
Based on this choice for $T$ and $S$, we can furthermore choose
\[
F_P = \begin{smallbmatrix}
-7 & -9 & 0 & 5 & -\frac{37}{2} & \frac{37}{2}\\ -\frac{42}{5} & -\frac{34}{5} & \frac{4}{5} & \frac{28}{5} & -9 & 9\\ \frac{22}{5} & \frac{14}{5} & -\frac{9}{5} & -\frac{13}{5} & -1 & -2
\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
F_D = \begin{smallbmatrix}
-7 & -6 & 4 & 16 & -10 & 9\\ -\frac{18}{5} & -3 & \frac{11}{5} & \frac{36}{5} & -\frac{13}{5} & 2\\ -\frac{2}{5} & 0 & \frac{4}{5} & \frac{4}{5} & -\frac{7}{5} & -1
\end{smallbmatrix},\quad
V = I_3.
\]
This results in the following QPDFF
\[
[S(ET+BF_D),S(AT+BF_P),SBV] = \left[
\left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc}
\frac{1}{5} & 0 & -\frac{2}{5} & \frac{8}{5} & -\frac{24}{5} & 5\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -4 & 4\\ \hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallarray}\right],
\left[\begin{smallarray}{ccc|c|cc}
\frac{4}{5} & \frac{3}{5} & -\frac{3}{5} & \frac{4}{5} & 0 & -1\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & -3 & 1\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{13}{2} & \frac{1}{2}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -8 & 0\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallarray}
\right],
\begin{smallbmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0\\\hline
0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\\hline
1 & -1 & -1\\ 0 & 0 & 2\\ -1 & 2 & -3
\end{smallbmatrix}
\right].
\]
\end{Example}
\begin{Proposition}[Uniqueness of~QPDFF]\label{Prop:QPDFF-unique}
Let $[E,A,B]\in\Sigma_{\ell,n,m}$ and $S_1,S_2\inGL_{\ell}(\mb{R})$, $T_1,T_2\inGL_{n}(\mb{R})$, $V_1, V_2\inGL_m(\mb{R})$, $F_P^1, F_P^2, F_D^1, F_D^2\in\mb{R}^{m\times n}$ be such that, for $i=1,2$,
\[
[E, A , B] \overset{S_i,T_i,V_i,F_P^i,F_D^i}{\cong_{PD}} [E_i, A_i, B_i] = \left[\begin{bmatrix} E_{11,i} & E_{12,i} & E_{13,i} \\ 0 & E_{22,i} & E_{23,i} \\ 0 & 0 & E_{33,i} \\ 0&0&0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} A_{11,i} & A_{12,i} & A_{13,i} \\ 0 & A_{22,i} & A_{23,i} \\ 0 & 0 & A_{33,i} \\ 0&0&0\end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&0\\ 0&\hat B_i \end{bmatrix}\right],
\]
where $[E_i,A_i,B_i]$ is in~QPDFF~\eqref{eq:QPDFF}. Then the corresponding diagonal blocks (which have matching sizes according to Lemma~\ref{Lem:Wong-QPDFF}) are equivalent in the sense that there exist invertible matrices~$S_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3,4$, $T_{ii}$, $i=1,2,3$, and $V_{22}$ such that
\[
E_{ii,1} = S_{ii} E_{ii,2} T_{ii},\quad i=1,2,3, \quad\text{and}\quad \widehat{B}_1 = S_{44} \widehat{B}_2 V_{22}.
\]
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we assume that $S_1=I_\ell$, $T_1=I_n$, $V_1 = I_m$ and $F_P^1 = F_D^1 = 0$.
\noindent
\emph{Step 1}: By Lemma~\ref{lem:Wong-PDfb} we have
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]} = T_2 \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]},\quad \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]} = T_2 \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]},
\]
and from Lemma~\ref{Lem:Wong-QPDFF} we obtain
\[
\mathcal{V}^*_{[E_{i}, A_{i}, B_{i}]}\cap \mathcal{W}^*_{[E_{i}, A_{i}, B_{i}]} = \mb{R}^{n_{1,i}}\times \{0\}^{n_{2,i}+n_{3,i}}
\qquad
\text{for $i=1,2$.}
\]
This implies $n_{1,1}=n_{1,2}$ and
\[
T_2 = \begin{bmatrix} T_{11} &T_{12} &T_{13}\\ 0 & T_{22}&T_{23}\\ 0&T_{32}&T_{33}\end{bmatrix}\quad\text{for}\ T_{11}\inGL_{n_{1,1}}(\mb{R}), T_{22}\in\mb{R}^{n_{2,1}\times n_{2,2}}, T_{33}\in\mb{R}^{n_{3,1}\times n_{3,2}}
\]
and $T_{12}, T_{13}, T_{23}, T_{32}$ of appropriate sizes. Furthermore, Lemma~\ref{Lem:Wong-QPDFF} gives
\[
\mb{R}^{n_{1,1}+n_{2,1}}\times\{0\}^{n_{3,1}} = \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_1,A_1,B_1]} = T_2 \mathcal{V}^*_{[E_2,A_2,B_2]} = T_2 (\mb{R}^{n_{1,2}+n_{2,2}}\times \{0\}^{n_{3,2}}),
\]
which, together with $n_{1,1}=n_{1,2}$, yields
$n_{2,1}=n_{2,2}$, $n_{3,1}=n_{3,2}$ and
\[
T_{32}=0, \quad T_{22}\inGL_{n_{2,1}}(\mb{R}),\quad T_{33}\inGL_{n_{3,1}}(\mb{R}).
\]
\noindent
\emph{Step 2}: Partitioning
\[
S_2 = \begin{bmatrix} S_{11} & S_{12} & S_{13} & S_{14}\\ S_{21} & S_{22} & S_{23} & S_{24}\\ S_{31} &S_{32}& S_{33} & S_{34}\\S_{41}&S_{42}&S_{43}&S_{44}\end{bmatrix}\quad\text{for}\ S_{11}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_{1,2}\times \ell_{1,1}}, S_{22}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_{2,2}\times \ell_{2,1}}, S_{33}\in\mb{R}^{\ell_{3,2}\times \ell_{3,1}}, S_{44}\in\mb{R}^{m_{2,2}\times m_{2,1}}
\]
and
\[
V_2 = \begin{bmatrix} V_{11} & V_{12}\\ V_{21}&V_{22}\end{bmatrix}\quad\text{for}\ V_{11}\in\mb{R}^{m_{1,2}\times m_{1,1}}, V_{22}\in\mb{R}^{m_{2,2}\times m_{2,1}}
\]
and off-diagonal block matrices of appropriate sizes, the equation
$S_2B_1 V_2=B_2$ in conjunction with
$\hat S_4 := [S_{14}^\top, S_{24}^\top, S_{34}^\top]^\top$
gives
\[
\hat S_4 \hat B_1 V_{21} = 0,\ \hat S_4 \hat B_1 V_{22} = 0,\ S_{44} \hat B_1 V_{21} = 0,\ S_{44} \hat B_1 V_{22} = \hat B_2.
\]
Since $\hat B_1 [V_{21}, V_{22}]$ has full row rank, it follows that $S_{14}=0, S_{24}=0$ and $S_{34}=0$. By Definition~\ref{def:QPDFF} we have $m_{2,1} = \rk B = m_{2,2}$ and hence also $m_{1,1} = m_{1,2}$. Since $S_2$ is invertible, this implies that $S_{44}\inGL_{m_{2,1}}(\mb{R})$, thus $V_{21} = 0$, $V_{22}\inGL_{m_{2,1}}(\mb{R})$ and, since $V_2$ is invertible, $V_{11}\inGL_{m_{1,1}}(\mb{R})$.
The equation $S_2(E_1T_2 + B_1 F_P^2)=E_2$ yields
$\begin{smallbmatrix} S_{21}\\ S_{31}\end{smallbmatrix} E_{11,1} T_{11} = 0$ and the full row rank of~$E_{11,1}$ implies~$S_{21}=0$ and~$S_{31}=0$.
Since~$S_2$ is invertible, it follows that $\ell_{1,1}\le \ell_{1,2}$.
Reversing the roles of~$[E_1,A_1,B_1]$ and~~
$[E_2,A_2,B_2]$ gives $\ell_{1,1}\geq \ell_{1,2}$, whence~$\ell_{1,1}=\ell_{1,2}$. We further have the equation
\[
S_{32} E_{22,1} T_{22} = 0
\]
which by invertibility of~$T_{22}$ and~$E_{22,1}$ gives that~$S_{32}=0$.
This finally implies $\ell_{2,1}=\ell_{2,2}=n_{2,1}=n_{2,2}$, $\ell_{3,1}=\ell_{3,2}$, $S_{22}\inGL_{\ell_{2,1}}(\mb{R})$, $S_{33}\inGL_{\ell_{3,1}}(\mb{R})$,
and hence the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}[Geometric interpretation of QPDFF]
Since the state-space transformations $T$ for the QPDFF and the QPFF can be chosen to be identical (the same subspaces are used to define it), it follows that the corresponding augmented Wong limits have the same control-theoretic geometric interpretation. The key geometric difference between the QPDFF and the QPFF is the reinterpretations of states in the QPFF which are completely controllable due to the external input (represented by the subspace $\im B$) as underdetermined (and hence completely controllable) variables in the QPDFF.
\end{Remark}
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented the novel concepts of quasi P-feedback and quasi PD-feedback forms for~DAE control systems which reveal the key structural properties of the control system under P(D)-feedback transformations. Furthermore, the forms are easily obtained via the augmented Wong-sequences, which additionally provides a geometric insight.
\printbibliography[notcategory=bibexclude]
|
\section{Introduction: Aggregation in Graph Neural Networks and its Limitations}
Graph neural networks (GNNs)---neural models that operate on graphs and form node embeddings from its topological neighborhoods---have shown promises in a wide range of domains including social and physical modeling.~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16, xu2018powerful, gilmer2017neural, hamilton2017inductive, battaglia2018relational}
GNNs follow an iterative scheme where the representations of adjacent nodes are pooled with an aggregation function and transformed by a feed-forward neural network.
Working analogously to a Weisfeiler-Lehman (WL) graph isomorphism test~\cite{weisfeiler1968reduction} on a node level~\cite{xu2018powerful} and resembling a series of Laplacian smoothing on a graph level~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16}, such scheme affords GNNs with the ability to generate node embeddings that are rich up to the local symmetry and clustered based on neighborhoods.
Nonetheless, such aggregation scheme also causes limitations of GNNs.
Firstly, without proper choices of aggregation functions, GNNs are not always as powerful as WL test.
When pooling from (transformed) neighborhood representations, if the underlying set for the neighborhood multiset (See Definition 1 of \citet{xu2018powerful}) is countable, as has been studied in detail in \citet{xu2018powerful}, although different multiset functions learn different attributes of the neighborhood---$\operatorname{MAX}$ learns distinct elements and $\operatorname{MEAN}$ learns distributions---only $\operatorname{SUM}$ is injective and thus capable of achieving the expressive power of WL test.
When the features are continuous, however, \citet{corso2020principal} states that multiple aggregators are needed.
Secondly, the number of layers, which corresponds to the number of steps in a WL test, controls the \textit{locality} of a GNN model, and therefore only deep GNNs can learn long-range relationships;
unfortunately, deep GNNs suffer from not only \textit{over-fitting} but also \textit{over-smoothing}, where node representation converge to a stationary point dependent only on its degree but not the initial features.~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1801-07606, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1905-10947}
To alleviate these issues, we replace the deterministic aggregation function with stochastic ones and propose a framework which we call STAG, short for \textit{stochastic aggregation}.
At each round of message-passing, we inject randomness into the system by perturbing the weights of the edges according to some distribution, thereby stochastically reweighing the incoming messages.
When training, the gradient of the loss function w.r.t. the parameters could be estimated without bias using Monte Carlo (MC) estimation;
at inference pass, the predictive posterior distribution is formed by marginalize over the edge weight distribution.
The parameters of the distribution of edge weights could either be treated as hyperparameters or jointly trained in an adaptive way under a variational inference (VI) framework.
We summarize our contributions in this paper as follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a stochastic aggregation (STAG) framework for GNNs which generalizes Dropout~\cite{JMLR:v15:srivastava14a, gal2016dropout}, DropEdge~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903}, and Graph DropConnect~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903} and expand it to include the perturbation of edge weights using continuous noise distribution, which empirically displays better performance.
\item We theoretically prove and experimentally demonstrate that STAG, when used with many classes of noise distributions, alleviates the over-smoothing issue and increase expressiveness.
\item We propose a variational inference (VI) scheme where the parameters of the distributions of edge weights could be learned. Furthermore, such parameters could depend on the graph structure and node embeddings, thus generalizing across graphs.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{stag_distribution.png}
\caption{Aggregators display degeneracy issues under the algebra of vectors but not that of random variables.}
\label{sym}
\end{figure}
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Graph}
A graph is defined as a tuple of collections of nodes and edges $\mathcal{G} = \{\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E}\}$.
In this paper, we only consider cases where only nodes, but not edges, are attributed;
node features $[\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, ..., \mathbf{x}_N] = \mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times C}$ where $N = \mid \mathcal{V} \mid $ is the number of nodes and $C$ the feature dimension.
Adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ associates edges with nodes:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A}_{ij} = \begin{cases}
1, \: (v_i, v_j) \in \mathcal{E};\\
0, \: (v_i, v_j) \notin \mathcal{E}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Graph Neural Networks}
Modern GNNs could usually be better analyzed through the \textit{spatial} rather than \textit{spectral} lens, according to \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1901-00596}'s classification.
Following the framework from \citet{xu2018powerful} and \citet{battaglia2018relational}, the $k$-th layer of a GNN could be written as two steps---\textit{neighborhood aggregation}:
\begin{equation}
\label{agg}
a_v^{(k)} = \rho^{(k)}
\big(
h_u^{(k-1)}, u \in \mathcal{N}(v)
\big),
\end{equation}
and \textit{node update}:
\begin{equation}
h_v^{(k)} = \phi^{(k)}(h_v^{(k-1)}, a_v^{(k)}),
\end{equation}
where $h_v^{k}$ is the feature of node $v$ at $k$-th layer, $h_v^{0} = \mathbf{x}_v$ and $\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$ denotes the operation to return the multiset of neighbors of a node.
Many classical GNNs could be represented in this framework with different choices of \textit{aggregation function} $\rho$ and \textit{update function} $\phi$.
For instance, Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) by \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16}, the graph-level message-passing rule is:
\begin{equation}
\label{kipf-global}
\mathbf{H}^{(k)} = \sigma
\big(
\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\widetilde{\mathbf{A}}
\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\mathbf{H}^{(k-1)}W^{l}
\big)
\end{equation}
could also be analyzed on node-level with $\rho(\cdot)$ being the $\operatorname{MEAN}$ operator and
\begin{equation}
\label{kipf-local}
\phi(h_v^{(l-1)}, a_v^{(l)}) = \sigma(h_v^{(l)} / \widetilde{\mathbf{D}}_{ii} + a_v^{(l)})
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{H}^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times C}$ is the node features at a given $l$-th layer, $\widetilde{\mathbf{A}} = \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{I}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}$ is a diagonal matrix with $\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}_{ii} = \sum_j \widetilde{\mathbf{A}}_{ij}$.
The equivalence between Equation~\ref{kipf-global} and Equation~\ref{kipf-local} could meanwhile serve as an example to show the equivalence between graph-level- and node-level-view of graph convolution / message-passing procedures.
After the message-passing rounds are finished (and perhaps after post-processing steps consisting of feed-forward layers), the final node representation $\mathbf{H}^{(k)} = [\mathbf{h}^{k}_1, \mathbf{h}^{k}_2, ..., \mathbf{h}^{k}_N]$ could either be connected to a regressor for \textit{node-level} regression or classification, or could be pooled together globally using for example a sum function $h_\mathcal{G} = \sum_{v \in \mathcal{V}} h_v^{k}$ to form the graph representation for \textit{graph-level tasks}.
\subsection{Aggregators}
\label{subsec:agg}
Formally, in the context of multisets and GNNs, the aggregator (or aggregation function) is a function that maps a multiset to the same space of the elements in that multiset.
\begin{equation}
\label{dimension}
\rho: \{\mathbb{R}^{C} \} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{C}. \: \text{(dimensionality requirement)}
\end{equation}
Moreover, since there is no notion of ordering in multiset, to qualify for an aggregator, $\rho$ has to be permutation invariant, i.e., for any permutation $P$,
\begin{equation}
\label{invariance}
\rho(\mathbf{X}) = \rho(P\mathbf{X}). \: \text{(invariance requirment)}
\end{equation}
Practically, under the context of GNN, the multiset input is usually the neighborhood of a node.
Common choices of aggregation function includes:
$\operatorname{SUM}(\mathbf{X}) = \sum_i x_i, \operatorname{MEAN}(\mathbf{X}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i x_i$, and
$\operatorname{MAX}(\mathbf{X}) = \max x_i$,
where $\mathbf{X} = \{ x_i, i = 1, 2, ..., N\}.$
More sophisticated architectures, namely attention~\cite{velickovic2018graph}, or Janossy pooling~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1811-01900} with arbitrary composing neural function, as long as they satisfy the dimensionality and invariance requirements (Equation~\ref{dimension} and \ref{invariance}), can be used as aggregators.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Bayesian Neural Networks}
\label{bnn}
Under the Bayesian formalism, given sets of (input graph, measurement) pairs as training data $\mathcal{D} = \{ \mathcal{G}^{(i)}, y^{(i)}, i=1,2,3,...,n\}$, the probability distribution of the unknown quantity of the measurement $y^*$ which corresponds to the new input graph $\mathcal{G}^*$ could be modelled with respect to the posterior distribution of the neural network parameters $\theta$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{b}
p(y^{*} | \mathcal{D}, \mathcal{G}^*) = \int p(y^{*} | \mathcal{G}^*, \mathbf{\theta}) p(\mathbf{\theta} | \mathcal{D}) \operatorname{d} \theta.
\end{equation}
This integral, of course, is not tractable and has to be approximated.
The most straightforward way to approximate Equation~\ref{b} would be to sample the \textit{interesting} regions on the weight space and form an ensemble of predictions from Monte Carlo (MC) samples~\cite{neal2012bayesian, mackay1992practical}.
Alternatively, under variational inference (VI) frameworks, we rewrite the posterior distribution of the parameters as a tractable one depending on another set of variational parameters~\cite{Blei_2017, blundell2015weight}.
Dropout~\cite{JMLR:v15:srivastava14a, gal2016dropout} could be regarded as a Bayesian approximation as well.
When the masks of dropout adopts continuous form under Gaussian distribution, whose parameters are jointly optimized, it is equivalent to a variational inference with multiplicative noise~\cite{kingma2015variational}.
Finally, if one uses a delta distribution to model the parameters and searches for the most likely set of neural network parameters under Equation~\ref{b}: $\theta^\text{MAP} = \underset{\theta}{\arg\max} \, p(\theta | \mathcal{D})$, a standard neural network is recovered.
\subsection{Stochastic Regularization for GNNs}
The methods introduced in Section~\ref{bnn} which quantifies uncertainty on weight spaces are all compatible with GNNs.
Additionally, there have been works that introduce stochasticity into GNNs by randommly modifying the structure of the graph: \citet{zhang2018bayesian} regards the input graph as a realization of an underlying graph generated by some random graph generation process;
\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1801-10247} (FastGCN) randomly removes nodes of input graphs under a Bernoulli distribution;
\citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903} (DropEdge) randomly removes edges of input graphs;
\citet{hasanzadeh2020bayesian} (Graph DropConnect) similarly removes edge, although edges are removed independently for each feature dimension.
Under the scheme we propose in this paper, we do not sample on the weight space but rather inject randomness into the aggregation process.
The noise we inject is different at each message passing step whereas in a Bayesian neural network, the weights are kept constant across rounds of message passing.
In Section~\ref{unifiyng}, we show that Dropout, FastGCN, DropEdge, and Graph DropConnect could be viewed as special cases of STAG where the noise distribution in Bernoulli with various dependency structures.
Expanding on these work, we develop a class of methods where we perturb the aggregation process by a \textit{continuous, multiplicative} noise.
In subsequent sections, we theoretically show that STAG with either discrete or continuous noise distributions remedies the over-smoothing tendency as well as limited expressiveness, while STAG with continuous noise display better empirical performance especially when the noise distribution is adaptive.
\section{Theory: Stochastic Aggregation (STAG)}
\label{stag}
At the aggregation stage of graph convolution, STAG samples a set of weights for the edges in the graph under some distribution to come up with effective weighted adjacency matrix,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z \sim p(Z)\\
\hat{\mathbf{A}} = \mathbf{A} \odot Z
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\odot$ denotes Hadamard product.
In this paper we focus on the continous classes of distribution where $p$ takes a Gaussian
\begin{equation}
p(Z) = \mathcal{N}(\mu_Z, \sigma_Z)
\end{equation}
or uniform form
\begin{equation}
p(Z) = \operatorname{Uniform}(a_Z, b_Z).
\end{equation}
We assume that the random mask $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ has at most $\mid \mathcal{E} \mid$ non-zero elements and are $Z_{ij} = 0$ wherever $\mathbf{A}_{ij} = 0$ (same sparsity).
The weight $Z$ could be either same or different for each layer of message-passing and feature.
If we pack the weight $Z$ across all features and across all message-passing steps, we have a four-dimensional tensor $\mathbf{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{L, C, N, N}$ where $L$ is the number of steps, $C$ is the number of features (assuming uniform across layers albeit practically it could be different, in which case $\mathbf{Z}$ becomes a \textit{ragged tensor}), and $N$ is the number of nodes.
Such tensor $\mathbf{Z}$ then controls the behavior of the STAG scheme across message-passing rounds.
On a node level, during the $l$-th layer, for each feature channel $i = 1, 2, 3, .., C$, for node $v$, Equation~\ref{agg} becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{theory}
a_v^{(l)}[:, i] = \rho^{(k)}
\big(
(\mathbf{A}_{uv} \cdot \mathbf{Z}[l, i, u, v]) h_u^{(l-1)}[:, i], u \in \mathcal{N}(v)
\big),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$ denotes the neighborhood operator of the node.
During inference, with the neural network weights fixed, the joint distribution of the representations at each layer together with the weight tensor can be written as follow:
\begin{multline}
\label{model}
p(\mathbf{H}^{(L)}, \mathbf{H}^{(L-1)}, ..., \mathbf{H}^{(1)}, \mathbf{Z} \mid \mathbf{H}^{(0)}, \mathcal{G}) = \\ \prod\limits_{l=1}^{L} p(\mathbf{Z}[l, :, :, :]) p(\mathbf{H}^{(l)} \mid \mathbf{H} ^{(l-1)}, \mathbf{Z}[l, :, :, :], \mathcal{G}).
\end{multline}
Marginalizing the weights as well as the intermediary representations, we write the marginal distribution of the output of the last layer $\mathbf{H}^{(L)}$ as
\begin{multline}
\label{posterior}
p(\mathbf{H}^{(L)} \mid \mathbf{H}^{(0)}, \mathcal{G}) = \\ \int \prod\limits_{l=1}^{L} p(\mathbf{Z}) P(\mathbf{H}^{(l)} \mid \mathbf{H} ^{(l-1)}, \mathbf{Z}[l, :, :, :], \mathcal{G}) \operatorname{d}\mathbf{Z}.
\end{multline}
Viewed from a graph level this setting is similar to \citet{zhang2018bayesian} as we take an ensemble of noise-perturbed (same in structure but different weights of edges) graphs as the input for inference.
Compared to \citet{zhang2018bayesian}, our formulation does not need the overhead to conduct convolution for drastically different graphs.
Also, our assumption, more mild and conservative, are reflective of the nature of many classes of graphs---in molecules, chemical bonds become shorter and longer as they vibrate; in a society, how strong the friendship between two certain persons are dynamic rather than static.
\section{STAG as a Unifying Framework}
\label{unifiyng}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{survey.png}
\caption{\textbf{Illustration of stochastic regularizing methods on graphs.} Each block denotes a mask on adjacent matrix for each feature. Grey indicates zero.}
\label{block}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Dropout}~\cite{JMLR:v15:srivastava14a} could be regarded as a case of Equation~\ref{theory} with the first two dimensions being independent and last two dimensions shared;
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}[l, i, :, :] \sim q(Z), Z \in \mathbb{R}^{L \times C};
\end{equation}
$q$ adopts an independent Bernoulli form for binary Dropout and independent normal form for Gaussian Dropout.~\cite{kingma2015variational}
\textbf{FastGCN}~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1801-10247} is a case of Equation~\ref{theory} with the first two dimension in $\mathbf{Z}$ sharing samples and
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}[:, :, v, v] \sim q(Z), Z \in \mathbb{R}^{N},
\end{equation}
with $q$ adopting an independent Bernoulli form.
\textbf{DropEdge}~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903} samples the edges the graph:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}[:, :, u, v] \sim q(Z), Z \in \mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid}
\end{equation}
with independent Bernoulli distribution.
\textbf{Graph DropConnect}~\cite{hasanzadeh2020bayesian} samples edges of graph with Bernoulli distribution independent for each feature:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{Z}[l, c, u, v] \sim q(Z), Z \in \mathbb{R}^{L \times C \times \mid \mathcal{E} \mid}.
\end{equation}
See Figure~\ref{block} for an illustration of these regularization methods.
More generally, elements of $\mathbf{Z}$ could adopt arbitrary distributions with arbitrary dependency structures.
For instance, they could be completely independent among each other or they could be dependent on variational parameters per-layer, per-graph, per-node, or per-edge, which could in turn be learned from another neural architecture.
\section{STAG Increases Expressiveness}
\label{sec-expressive}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{multiset.png}
\caption{\textbf{STAG allows multisets to be distinguished by feedforward neural networks. } A feed-forward neural network is trained to classify the identity of multisets with underlying set $\{-4, -2, -1, 1, 2, 4\}$ and maximum multiplicity $4$, aggregated using deterministic and stochastic aggregators.}
\label{fig:multiset}
\end{figure}
The aggregator $\rho$ in Equation~\ref{agg} plays a crucial role in GNNs as it allows neighborhood information to be summarized to form node embeddings, thereby allowing GNNs to approximate Laplacian smoothing on a graph level and WL-test on a node level.
The expressiveness of aggregators has been studied in \citet{xu2018powerful} and \citet{corso2020principal}, for countable and continuous features, respectively.
Particularly, \citet{xu2018powerful} has shown that, among the common aggregation functions, only $\operatorname{SUM}$ is injective if used with \textit{deep multisets} whilst $\operatorname{MEAN}$ and $\operatorname{MAX}$ qualitatively display some desirable merits namely capturing the distribution of elements or distinctive elements.
On the other hand, according to \citet{corso2020principal}, even on $\mathbb{R}$, no aggregator by itself is injective if the support of the multiset is uncountable:
\newtheorem*{number_of_aggregators}{Theorem 1 from \citet{corso2020principal}}
\begin{number_of_aggregators}
In order to discriminate between multisets of size $N$ whose underlying set is $\mathbb{R}$, at least $N$ aggregators are needed.
\end{number_of_aggregators}
Conceptually, such limitation in expressiveness could be seen as a result of the degeneracy under the algebra of vectors (See Figure~\ref{sym}).
For example, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^C$, we always have $x = \operatorname{MEAN}(\{x, x, x\}) = \operatorname{MEAN}(\{x, x\}) = \operatorname{MAX}(\{x, x, x\}) = \operatorname{MAX}(\{x, x\})$, where the brackets $\{\cdot\}$ denotes multisets.
Nonetheless, random variables on $\mathbb{R}^C$ do not always follow the same algebra (See Figure~\ref{sym}).
As such, when the aggregation process is stochastic, the limitation in expressiveness could be overcame.
To formalize this finding, we now treat the stochastic aggregation process as a basic, deterministic aggregation ($\operatorname{SUM}$, $\operatorname{MEAN}$, $\operatorname{MAX}$ or other discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:agg}) over a \textit{perturbed multiset}, with the following definition:
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}
Suppose $X$ is a multiset with support $\mathbb{R}^C$.
A perturbation of multiset $X$ using noise distribution $q$ on the same space is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\xi_q(X) = \{z_i \odot x_i, z_i \sim q, x_i \in X\}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The resulting perturbed multiset is a multiset of random variables.
We now prove that only one stochastic aggregator is needed to discriminate between multisets by proving that a \textit{deterministic} aggregator can discriminate between \textit{perturbed multisets.}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{one}
Only one aggregator $\rho$ is needed to discriminate between multisets $X$ with support $\mathbb{R}^C \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \}$ after perturbation with some noise distribution $q$ on $\mathbb{R}^C$.
More formally, under some distribution $q$, $\rho(\xi_q(\mathbf{X}))$ and $\rho(\xi_q(\mathbf{Y}))$ are equal in distribution iff. there exist a permutation $P$ s.t. $[P\mathbf{X}]_i = [\mathbf{Y}_q]_i, \forall 1 \leq i \leq \mid \mathbf{X} \mid$.\footnote{See proof in Section~\ref{supsec-theorems}}
\end{theorem}
Comparing Theorem~\ref{one} and \citet{corso2020principal}, one can think of the perturbation on the multiset as a method to endow the aggregators the ability to pack multiple aggregators into one.
Moreover, note that Theorem~\ref{one} works on \textit{multisets} as opposed to the transformed \textit{deep multisets} as the Lemma 5 in \citet{xu2018powerful} and is therefore more general.
Finally, such gain in expressiveness would not disappear even if one marginalized over the noise distribution, as long as she does so after nonlinearity.
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{expectation-ok}
There exist some element-wise function $\sigma$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{X \sim q_X}(\sigma(X)) \neq \mathbb{E}_{Y \sim q_Y}(\sigma(Y))
\end{equation}
if $X \sim q_X$ and $Y \sim q_Y$ are not equal in distribution.
\end{lemma}
One example of such activation function $\sigma$ is a switch function that equals $1$ on a region where the density of $X$ is strictly greater than $Y$ and $0$ elsewhere.
Combining Theorem~\ref{one} and Lemma~\ref{expectation-ok}, we have that
\begin{lemma}
For some noise distribution $q$, some aggregation function $\rho$, and some element-wise nonlinearity function $\sigma$ the mapping from a multiset with support $\mathbb{R}^C$ to $\mathbb{R}^C$
\begin{equation}
\label{injective}
f(X) = \mathbb{E}_q(\sigma(\rho(\xi_q(X))))
\end{equation}
is injective.
\end{lemma}
Evidently, the injectivity would sustain if the operation in Equation~\ref{injective} is stacked or injective functions (namely some neural networks) are employed between pooling, activation, and marginalization.
Consequently, following Theorem 3 in \citet{xu2018powerful}, a GNN using STAG with appropriate noise distribution and nonlinearity is as powerful as WL-test regardless of the type of basic deterministic aggregators and the countability of the underlying set of features.
We experimentally illustrate the increased expressiveness of STAG in distinguishing multisets in Table~\ref{table-multiset} and Figure~\ref{fig:multiset}.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c c c | c}
\hline
& $\operatorname{SUM}$
& $\operatorname{MEAN}$
& $\operatorname{MAX}$
& $\operatorname{MIN}$
& $\operatorname{STD}$
& $\mathbb{E}(\sigma(\rho(\xi_{q}(\cdot)))) = \mathbb{E}(\exp(\operatorname{SUM}(\xi_{\operatorname{Uniform}(0, 1)}(\cdot))))$ \\
\hline
$\{2, 2\}; \{0, 4\}$
& $4 = 4$
& $2 = 2$
& $2 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 4$
& $2 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 0$
& $0 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 2$
& $(e^2-1)^2 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} e^4 - 1$
\\
$\{0, 2, 2\}; \{0, 0, 2\}$
& $4 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 2$
& $\frac{4}{3} \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} \frac{2}{3}$
& $2 = 2$
& $0 = 0$
& $\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} = \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}$
& $e^4 - 1 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} e^2 - 1$ \\
$\{0, 2, 2, 4\}; \{0, 0, 4, 4\}$
& $8=8$
& $2=2$
& $4=4$
& $0=0$
& $\sqrt{6} \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 2\sqrt{2}$
& $ (-1 + e^2)^3 (1 + e^2) \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} (e^4-1)^2 $ \\
$\{1, 1, 4\}; \{0, 3, 3\}$
& 6 = 6
& 2 = 2
& $4 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 3$
& $1 \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} 0$
& $\sqrt{2} = \sqrt{2}$
& $ (-1 + e)^3 (1 + e + e^2 + e^3) \textcolor{magenta}{\neq} (e^3-1)^2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\textbf{STAG distinguishes multisets indistinguishable by other aggregators.} Example multisets with underlying set $\mathbb{R}$ are taking from \citet{corso2020principal}. We chose $\rho=\operatorname{SUM}$ as basic aggregator, $q=\operatorname{Uniform}(0, 1)$ as the noise distribution, and $\sigma(\cdot) = \exp(\cdot)$ as activation function. Cases where the aggregator succeed in distinguish the multisets are marked red. It's worth mentioning that we proved Theorem~\ref{one} on the space excluding $\mathbf{0}$ as $\xi_q$ with multiplicative noise $q$ would not be able to count the number of zeros so the aggregated representation for $\{0, 2, 2\}$ and $\{2, 2\}$ are the same. One can circumvent this degeneracy by using an injective mapping onto $\mathbb{R}^+$ before aggregating.}
\label{table-multiset}
\end{table*}
\section{STAG Alleviates Over-Smoothing}
\label{sec-oversmooth}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{dirichlet.png}
\caption{\textbf{STAG slows down the decrease of Dirichlet energy.} A random signal is applied on a random graph and aggregation are conducted multiple times. We perturb the input of aggregation by a multiplicative noise under distributions of various class with 0.5 mean and 0.25 variance and plot the trend of Dirichlet energy.}
\label{dirichlet-plot}
\end{figure}
As more layers go into a GNN model, not only will it experience \textit{over-fitting} which is ubiquitous in all neural models when over-parametrized, but it will also have the tendency of \textit{over-smoothing}---a behavior studied in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1801-07606, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1905-10947} where node representation converge to a subspace dependent only on topology but not the initial features as a result of repetitive Laplacian smoothing.
Worse still, by the equivalence between WL-test and GNN layers~\cite{xu2018powerful}, only deep GNN architectures can capture longer-range dependencies, thus presenting a dilemma.
It has been studied in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903} that dropping sufficient edges in a graph would make its second-smallest eigenvalue of Laplacian smaller, until it approaches zero (disconnected graph), delaying the smoothing process.
Here, to study whether and how STAG alleviates the over-smoothing tendency of GNNs, we adopt \citet{cai2020note}'s framework and focus on the Dirchilet energy of a signal on a graph:
\newtheorem{note-definition}{Definition 3.1 from \citet{cai2020note}}
\begin{note-definition}
Dirichlet energy $\mathcal{E}(f)$ of scalar function $f$ on the graph G is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(f) = f^{T} \widetilde{\Delta}f
= \frac{1}{2} \sum A_{ij}(\frac{f_i}{\sqrt{1+d_i}} - \frac{f_j}{\sqrt{1+d_j}})^2,
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\Delta}$ is the normalized Laplacian $\widetilde{\Delta} = \mathbf{I} - \widetilde{D}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\widetilde{A}\widetilde{D}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $d_i = D_{ii}$.
For a vector field $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times C}$, Dirichlet energy is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{X}) = \operatorname{tr}(\mathbf{X}^T \widetilde{\Delta} \mathbf{X}).
\end{equation}
\end{note-definition}
Now, using $\rho (\mathbf{X})$ to denote the simultaneous application of some neighrbohood aggregation function $\rho$ on node features $\mathbf{X}$, we state that
\begin{theorem}
\label{dirichlet-slow}
For any multiplicative noise distribution $q$ satisfying $\mid \mathbb{E}_{z \sim q}(z) \mid \geq 1$, any deterministic aggregator $\rho$, a node representation $\mathbf{X}$ of a graph, we have:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{q}(\mathcal{E}(\rho(\xi_q(\mathbf{X})))) \geq \mathcal{E}(\rho (\mathbf{X}))
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In other words, the graph convolution with aggregation input perturbed by such distribution $q$ is expected to be less smooth and converge to the subspace independent of the initial features of graphs slower.
The condition $\mid \mathbb{E}_{z \sim q}(z) \mid \geq 1$ is sufficient but not necessary.
This bound also correspond to the finding in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1905-10947} that increasing the scale of the neural network weights alleviates over-smoothing and enhances GNN performance.
We also experimentally illustrate Theorem~\ref{dirichlet-slow} in Figure~\ref{dirichlet-plot} and apply this on the benchmark test from \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} in Figure~\ref{depth}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{depth.png}
\caption{\textbf{STAG alleviates performance deterioration for deep GNN.} We adopt the experiment setting in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} and plot the test set performance on Cora and Citeseer datasets against number of GCN layers with Dropout and STAG.}
\label{depth}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c|c c c c }
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cora}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Citeseer}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{ESOL}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{FreeSolv}\\
\hline
& 2 layers
& 4 layers
& 2 layers
& 4 layers
& 2 layers
& 4 layers
& 2 layers
& 4 layers\\
\hline
Deterministic
& 79.34 ± 0.22
& 77.52 ± 0.33
& 68.20 ± 0.34
& 60.66 ± 1.19
& 0.7003 ± 0.0638
& 0.6435 ± 0.0550
& 1.1643 ± 0.1105
& 1.2230 ± 0.0589
\\
\hline
$\operatorname{Normal}(1, 0.2)$
& 76.36 ± 0.53
& 76.36 ± 0.53
& 67.64 ± 0.43
& 61.72 ± 0.90
& 0.6329 ± 0.0112
& 0.6418 ± 0.0253
& 1.1481 ± 0.0626
& 1.2354 ± 0.0533
\\
$\operatorname{Normal}(1, 0.4)$
& 79.74 ± 0.31
& 77.68 ± 0.78
& 67.90 ± 1.00
& 62.18 ± 0.84
& \textbf{0.5960 ± 0.0375}
& \textbf{0.6096 ± 0.0334}
& 1.1408 ± 0.0710
& 1.1664 ± 0.0406
\\
$\operatorname{Normal}(1, 0.8)$
& \textbf{80.34 ± 0.45}
& 77.68 ± 0.73
& 66.92 ± 1.99
& 62.74 ± 0.62
& 0.6589 ± 0.0323
& 0.6240 ± 0.0349
& 1.1703 ± 0.0767
& 1.2308 ± 0.0904
\\
\hline
$\operatorname{Uniform} (0.8, 1.2)$
& 79.46 ± 0.31
& \textbf{79.72 ± 0.37}
& 67.86 ± 0.52
& 61.38 ± 0.85
& 0.6357 ± 0.0241
& 0.6804 ± 0.0515
& 1.1799 ± 0.0449
& \textbf{1.1317 ± 0.0435}
\\
$\operatorname{Uniform} (0.6, 1.4)$
& 79.72 ± 0.37
& 76.58 ± 0.95
& 67.94 ± 0.63
& 61.26 ± 1.53
& 0.6444 ± 0.0525
& 0.6344 ± 0.0181
& 1.2313 ± 0.1357
& 1.2256 ± 0.1111
\\
$\operatorname{Uniform}(0.2, 1.8)$
& 79.86 ± 0.34
& 77.72 ± 0.84
& 67.60 ± 0.59
& 61.84 ± 1.06
& 0.6712 ± 0.0432
& 0.6478 ± 0.0301
& 1.1549 ± 0.0664
& 1.1614 ± 0.0780
\\
\hline
$\operatorname{Bernoulli}(0.2)$
& 80.08 ± 0.38
& 77.86 ± 1.14
& 68.06 ± 0.72
& 62.26 ± 1.76
& 0.6488 ± 0.0293
& 0.6331 ± 0.0280
& 1.1424 ± 0.0922
& 1.2301 ± 0.1113
\\
$\operatorname{Bernoulli}(0.4)$
& 80.06 ± 0.67
& 77.26 ± 0.55
& 67.16 ± 0.41
& 61.68 ± 0.41
& 0.6069 ± 0.0340
& 0.6368 ± 0.0321
& 1.1732 ± 0.0555
& 1.1717 ± 0.0749
\\
$\operatorname{Bernoulli}(0.8)$
& 15.48 ± 0.58
& 54.06 ± 3.12
& 17.74 ± 0.61
& 18.48 ± 0.82
& 0.6200 ± 0.0184
& 0.6290 ± 0.0207
& \textbf{1.1394 ± 0.0714}
& 1.1365 ± 0.0841
\\
\hline
$\operatorname{DE}(0.2)$
& 79.86 ± 0.38
& 76.75 ± 0.70
& 62.30 ± 1.35
& 61.56 ± 0.85
& 0.7381 ± 0.0202
& 0.7416 ± 0.0248
& 1.4772 ± 0.0463
& 1.5224 ± 0.0488
\\
$\operatorname{DE}(0.4)$
& 79.50 ± 0.81
& 76.86 ± 1.02
& 69.06 ± 0.88
& \textbf{63.66 ± 1.65}
& 0.7133 ± 0.0262
& 0.7200 ± 0.0339
& 1.5640 ± 0.0282
& 1.5161 ± 0.0824
\\
$\operatorname{DE}(0.8)$
& 71.08 ± 1.44
& 67.28 ± 0.46
& 57.52 ± 2.09
& 46.70 ± 1.04
& 0.7368 ± 0.0256
& 0.7336 ± 0.0310
& 1.5406 ± 0.0895
& 1.6025 ± 0.0570
\\
$\operatorname{GDC}(0.2)$
& 79.74 ± 0.32
& 77.38 ± 0.73
& \textbf{69.22 ± 0.87}
& 61.78 ± 1.27
& 0.6178 ± 0.0240
& 0.6133 ± 0.0381
& 1.2004 ± 0.0344
& 1.1346 ± 0.0385
\\
$\operatorname{GDC}(0.4)$
& 79.66 ± 0.45
& 77.80 ± 0.68
& 68.72 ± 0.47
& 62.46 ± 0.87
& 0.6400 ± 0.0426
& 0.6345 ± 0.0200
& 1.1783 ± 0.0457
& 1.2135 ± 0.1248
\\
$\operatorname{GDC}(0.8)$
& 76.14 ± 0.43
& 76.18 ± 0.65
& 60.80 ± 0.64
& 57.60 ± 1.79
& 0.6271 ± 0.0235
& 0.6408 ± 0.0315
& 1.2102 ± 0.0926
& 1.1774 ± 0.0483
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{\textbf{Performance of STAG on citation and molecule graph datasets.} For Cora and Citeseer, we report the node classification accuracy (higher is better); for ESOL and FreeSolv, we report the graph regression RMSE (log mol per liter and kcal/mol) (lower is better). We report the mean and standard deviation across five runs. DE: DropEdge~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903}; GDC: Graph DropConnect~\cite{hasanzadeh2020bayesian}}
\label{bigtable}
\end{table*}
\section{Variational Inference with STAG}
With non-adaptive STAG, we have insofar been sampling the prior distribution whose parameters are treated as hyperparameters.
In this section, we tune such parameters jointly and adaptively.
Having generalized the noise distribution in STAG to continuous distributions affords us the flexibility to apply variational inference to learn interesting uncertainty structures.
We define a variational family $q(\mathbf{Z})$ over the noise injection variables per layer. For this , when operating under a Normal prior, we utilize a factorized Normal distribution which corresponds to a \textit{mean-field} assumption as the approximate posterior over edge weights $\mathbf{Z}$: $q(\mathbf{Z}) = \prod \limits_{l=1}^{L}q(\mathbf{Z}[l,:])$
with $q(\mathbf{Z}[l,:]) = \mathcal{N}(\mu_{\mathbf{Z}}, \sigma_{\mathbf{Z}})$ with $\phi$ denoting the collection of parameters for the variational family.
If we have a target variable $\mathbf{y}$ and a likelihood model $p(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{H}^{(L)})$, with fixed weights, we can maximize the data evidence through the \textit{evidence lower bound} (ELBO) given as:
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{L}(\phi) =\\ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{Z} \sim q(\mathbf{Z})} \text{log}\frac{p(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{H}^L)p(\mathbf{H}^{(L)}, ..., \mathbf{H}^{(1)}, \mathbf{Z}, \mid \mathbf{H}^{(0)}, \mathcal{G})}{q(\mathbf{Z})}.
\end{multline}
A general recipe to construct losses given this would be to descent $-\mathcal{L}(\phi)$.
Now we provide four dependency structures to parametrize $\phi = \{ \mu_{\mathbf{Z}}, \sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \}$.
In the following paragraphs, we denote the various algorithms by the dimensionality of the variational parameters $\{ \mu_{\mathbf{Z}}, \sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \}$.
Since samples are always acquired in the space of $\mathbb{R}^{L, C, N, N}$, the rest of the dimensions are sampled independently.
$\textbf{STAG}_\textbf{VI} (\mathbb{R})$: Firstly, can have a simple variational inference (VI) model where $\mu_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}$ are \textit{gloabl} parameters not dependent upon either the structure of the feature of the graph.
$\textbf{STAG}_\textbf{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{C})$: Similarly to \citet{hasanzadeh2020bayesian}'s improvement over \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903}, we allow each \textit{feature} to learn its own noise, and have $\mu_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$ and $\sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$.
$\textbf{STAG}_\textbf{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid})$: We expand our model into a transductive one by utilizing amortized inference over the variational parameters conditioned on the topology of the graph.
Now $\mu_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid}$ and $\sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid}$ become local variables and are learned from a feedfoward neural network following another graph neural network.
\begin{gather*}
\mathbf{F} = \operatorname{GNN}(\mathcal{G}, \mathbf{X})\\
\mu_{\mathbf{Z}}, \sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} = \operatorname{NN}(\mathbf{F})
\end{gather*}
This would endow the model with generalizability towards unseen graphs.
$\textbf{STAG}_\textbf{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C})$: Finally, if we further enrich the model by learning one set of variational parameter for each edge and for each feature, similarly connecting the node representation from an encoding network, we have $\mu_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C}$ and $\sigma_{\mathbf{Z}} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C}$
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.45\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c c c | c c}
\hline
& Cora & Citeseer & \#Params & Iter. Time \\
\hline
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R})$ & 80.08 ± 0.73 & 66.53 ± 0.33 & 184k & 14.3 ms \\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{C})$ & 81.33 ± 0.62 & 68.53 ± 0.54 & 188k & 15.5 ms \\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid})$ & 80.18 ± 0.73 & 66.48 ± 0.53 & 386k & 24.5 ms\\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C})$ & \textbf{81.38 ± 0.40} & \textbf{71.28 ± 0.65} & 1186k & 30.0 ms\\
\hline
BBGDC & 81.32 ± 0.53 & 70.96 ± 0.72 & 475k & 23.5 ms\\
$\text{STAG}_\text{MLE}$ (best) & 80.34 ± 0.45 & 69.22 ± 0.87 & 184k & 9.3 ms\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Performance of STAG with variational inference (VI) on citation graph datasets}
\label{citation-performance}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\hline
& ESOL & FreeSolv\\
\hline
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R})$ &0.5956 ± 0.0200 & 1.1500 ± 0.0359 \\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^C) $ & 0.6221 ± 0.0142 & 1.1561 ± 0.0803\\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid}) $ & 0.6901 ± 0.0427 & 1.3349 ± 0.1513\\
$\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C})$ & \textbf{0.5928 ± 0.0326} & \textbf{0.9958 ± 0.0768} \\
\hline
$\text{STAG}_\text{MLE}$ (best) & 0.5960 ± 0.0375 & 1.1394 ± 0.0714\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Performance of STAG with variational inference (VI) on molecule graph datasets}
\label{mol-performance}
\end{table}
We experimentally show the performance of $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$ in Section~\ref{sec-expressive}, Table~\ref{citation-performance}, and Table~\ref{mol-performance}.
In Section~\ref{subsec-bbb}, we also compare $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$ with a VI method Bayes-by-Backprop~\cite{blundell2015weight} that quantifies the \textit{weight uncertainty} rather than \textit{structural uncertainty}.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
\subsection{Illustrative Experiments}
\textbf{For Section~\ref{sec-expressive}: STAG Increases Expressiveness}:
To show the superior expressiveness of STAG, we adopt the example from \citet{corso2020principal} and show in Table~\ref{table-multiset} that the aggregator in Equation~\ref{injective} can succeed in distinguishing all the toy set which couldn't be distinguished by other aggregators.
Inspired by this example, we also perform a toy classification task where a feed-forward neural network of two layers with 128 units each is trained to distinguish multisets with underlying set $\{-4, -2, -1, 1, 2, 4\}$ with multiplicity up to $4$, aggregated by $\operatorname{SUM}$, $\operatorname{MAX}$, $\operatorname{MEAN}$ aggregators as well as stochastic aggregator $\mathbb{E}_q(\sigma(\rho(\xi_q(\cdot))))$ with $q$ being $\operatorname{Uniform}(0, 1)$ and $\rho$ being $\operatorname{SUM}$.
This mimics the aggregation-neural transformation process in graph neural networks.
We plot the training curve in Figure~\ref{fig:multiset}.
\textbf{For Section~\ref{sec-oversmooth}: STAG Alleviates Over-Smoothing}:
Following the experimental setting in \citet{cai2020note}, we generate a random geometric graph with 200 nodes and radius 0.125.
A input signal is generated by linearly combining the eigenvectors corresponding to the first 20 eigenvalues of the graph.
In each layer, we set the embedding of the node to be the average of its neighborhood with self-loop and normalization, which corresponds to $P = I - \widetilde{\Delta}$ and the message-passing step in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16}.
The aggregation is either deterministic or perturbed distributions of some class with mean 0.5 and variance 0.25.
Plotting the mean and standard deviation of Dirichlet energy across ten runs against number of layers of graph convolution in Figure~\ref{dirichlet-plot}, we notice that normal, uniform, and Bernoulli (which corresponds to DropEdge~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1907-10903}) noise distribution all slow the decrease of Dirichlet energy.
To show that delaying the over-smoothing effect of GNNs also boost the performance on real-world datasets, we followed the protocols in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} and trained Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) with 16 units, ReLU activation function, and from two to eight number of layers.
Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2017adam} with learning rate 0.01 are used for these experiments with $5 * 10^{-4}$ L2 regularization on the first layer.
The dropout probability is chosen to be 0.5 which is the same as the original paper.
The noise distribution for STAG is randomly set to be $\mathcal{N}(1, 1)$.
We plot the mean and standard deviation of the test set accuracy against the number of layers in Figure~\ref{depth}.
\subsection{None-Adaptive STAG}
We empirically show the benefits in Section~\ref{sec-expressive} and Section~\ref{sec-oversmooth} using node classification tasks on citation networks (Cora and Citeseer) and graph regression tasks on molecular graph (ESOL~\cite{delaney2004esol} and FreeSolv~\cite{mobley2014freesolv}) datasets.
We used Graph Convolutional Network (GCN)~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} for all of our experiments, although STAG is compatible with almost all variants of GNNs (See Section~\ref{supsec-var}).
ReLU activation function is used everywhere.
We used the same training/validation/test split as in \citet{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16}: 140 training nodes, 500 validation nodes, and 1000 testing nodes for Cora and 120 training nodes, 500 validation nodes, and 1000 testing nodes for Citeseer.
For ESOL and FreeSolv, we randomly split training/validation/test with a 80-20-20 proportion with fixed random seed.
Using a similar experimental setting in \citet{hasanzadeh2020bayesian}, we report the performance of two- and four-layer graph convolutional network (GCN)\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} with 128 units each layer and ReLU activation function.
All models are trained for 2000 epochs with early stopping with Adam~\cite{kingma2017adam} optimizer with $5 * 10^{-3}$ learning rate a L2 regularization of $5 * 10^{-3}$ on the input layer.
Five runs are conducted for each experiment and we report the mean and standard deviation.
As shown in Table~\ref{bigtable}, STAG with various noise distributions almost constantly outperforms the deterministic baseline.
It is worth mentioning that the only difference between a STAG with a Bernoulli distribution and the Graph DropConnect~\cite{hasanzadeh2020bayesian} is that Graph DropConnect normalizes the adjacency matrix to have its original in-degree after dropping edges as it has been argued in \citet{hasanzadeh2020bayesian} that normalization remedies vanishing gradient.
When it comes to continuous distribution centered on $1$, however, the effect of normalizing operation is minimal and we empirically observed longer training time and worsened performance if normalizing operations are used for STAG with continuous noise distribution.
\subsection{STAG with Variational Inference}
We tested the $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$ models on the same datasets: Cora, Citeseer, ESOL~\cite{delaney2004esol}, and FreeSolv~\cite{mobley2014freesolv}.
Since we observed that two-layer GNNs generally outperform four-layer ones, we used two-layer GCN~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/KipfW16} throughout the experiments.
The rest of the experiment setting are identical to non-adaptive version of STAG, with the exception that we used a $10^{-3}$ learning rate for all models.
All of the feedforward neural networks to determine the variational parameters consist of two layers connected with ReLU activation function.
Using validation sets, we tuned the initializing values of $\mu$ and $\sigma$ parameters as well as the parameters in the prior on edge weights for each task.
The hyperparameters and settings for Graph DropConnect~\cite{hasanzadeh2020bayesian} is adopted from its original publication.
We notice that $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$ constantly outperform the best of non-adaptive (or maximum-likelihood estimate, MLE) counterparts.
The most sophisticated model, $\text{STAG}_\text{VI} (\mathbb{R}^{\mid \mathcal{E} \mid \times C})$, where the variational parameters are learned for every edge and every feature, consistently achieve the best results among the models.
With the competitive performance on small molecule datasets, we show that $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$ can generalize across graphs.\footnote{For more experimental details, see Section~\ref{supsec-detail} and \url{https://github.com/yuanqing-wang/stag.git}}.
\section{STAG is Lightweight}
\textbf{Engineering Complexity: }The non-adaptive version of STAG could be implemented under the framework of Deep Graph Library (DGL)~\cite{wang2020deep} and PyTorch~\cite{NEURIPS2019_9015} in one line:
\begin{verbatim}
dgl.function.copy_src = lambda edges: {
'm': edges.src['h']
* Normal(1, 1).sample(
edges.src['h'].shape
)
}
\end{verbatim}
\textbf{Runtime Complexity: } For sparse adjacency matrix, the runtime complexity for sampling the weights on edges is $\mathcal{O}(\mid \mathcal{E} \mid)$, which is comparable with the graph convolution itself.
Using the one-line implementation in the previous section, we also benchmarked the running speed of our model with two layers on Cora dataset with 128 units on a Tesla V100 GPU and found a 5.9 to 9.3 ms increase in iteration time.
The iteration time on V100 GPUs of variational inference models are included in Table~\ref{citation-performance}.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper we proposed a unifying framework that injects stochasticity into the GNN systems by sampling the edge weights at each message-passing step.
Our framework increases the expressiveness of GNNs and alleviate their over-smoothing tendencies, as proved by theoretical analysis and evidenced by illustrative and benchmarking experiments.
We also develop a variational inference version of STAG where the parameters of the noise distribution is jointly tuned with the model parameters, which showed even further improvement in benchmark tests.
For $\text{STAG}_\text{VI}$, with more interesting dependency structures in the noise distributions, we would like to study whether GNNs with STAG would be able to surpass the expressiveness of WL-test, especially when used with higher-level variants of GNNs.
For non-adptive versions of STAG, we plan to further optimize the sampling efficiency of STAG models, in order to make STAG a simple and ultra-lightweight trick to boost the performance of GNNs.
We hope this work would encourage the community to develop probabilistic models that are topology-aware for graph-structured tasks.
\section*{Acknowledgements and Disclosures}
YW acknowledges support from NSF CHI-1904822 and the Sloan Kettering Institute.
YW is a member of the Chodera Lab at Sloan Kettering Institute; a complete funding history for the Chodera lab can be found at \url{http://choderalab.org/funding}.
YW is among the co-founders and equity holders of Uli, Inc. and Uli (Shenzhen) Techonology Co.\ Ltd.
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
Solar energetic particles (SEPs) are one of the major causes of geomagnetic disturbances on Earth (\cite{cane1987}; \citealt{gosling1993}; \citealt{reames1999}; \citealt{kahler2001}; \citealt{Aschwanden12}). The timescales, spectra, composition and charge states, and the associated radio bursts observed at 1 AU of these particles categorize them into impulsive SEP events accelerated at coronal flare reconnection sites (\citealt{cane1986}), and gradual SEP events accelerated by coronal mass ejection (CME) shocks or interplanetary shocks (\citealt{gosling1993}; \citealt{reames1995}; \citealt{reames1999}). In the aspect of potential space weather impacts, the gradual SEP events with high proton fluxes are the prime threats that cause disturbances of Earth’s magnetosphere and upper atmosphere.
The diffusive shock acceleration theory has been well studied, and it is a widely accepted mechanism for energizing the ions in gradual SEP events (e.g., \citealt{Jokipii1982}; \citealt{Lee1983}, \citealt{Lee2000}; \citealt{Lee2012}; \citealt{DesaiGiacalone2016}). Charged particles can be accelerated by collisionless shocks, provided the spatial diffusion allows some particles to traverse the shock many times. They gain energy because the scattering centers are embedded in converging plasma flows across the shock. Apart from the CME driver speed, other characteristic speeds (such as the Alfvén speed) of the ambient medium determine the strength of the shock (\citealt{Krogulec1994}; \citealt{Mann1999}; \citealt{gopalswamy01}; \citealt{Mann2003}; \citealt{gopalswamy08a}; \citealt{gopalswamy08b}; \citealt{gopalswamy2010}). As explained by \citealt{makela2011}, the formation of a fast-mode shock occurs in front of the CME when the CME speed relative to the ambient medium exceeds the local Alfvén speed. Thus, the particle acceleration in the CME-driven shocks in the corona and IP space can be affected by the variations in the CME speed due to evolution of the propelling Lorentz and aerodynamic drag forces (\citealt{gopalswamy2000}; \citealt{yashiro2004}; \citealt{gopalswamy2006}) and in the Alfvén speed (see, e.g., \citealt{gopalswamy01}; \citealt{Mann2003}).
The Mach number is an important parameter used to determine the strength of shock fronts. Of the several methods used to calculate the Mach number (e.g., \citealt{Vinas1986}; \citealt{gopalswamy2010}; J. C. Kasper's database\footnote{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/shocks/}), we use the standard approach of considering the Alfvén speed, solar wind speed, and the CME speed. These three parameters change with heliocentric distance (mostly decreasing), which influences the Mach number. Here, the shock forms when the CME speed exceeds the sum of the Alfvén speed and the solar wind speed (\citealt{gopalswamy2010}).
A good indicator of SEPs accelerated due to coronal and interplanetary shocks are type II bursts (\citealt{cliver}). These bursts are caused by electrons accelerated by shocks (see, e.g., \citealt{Kahler1982}; \citealt{Kahler2000}; \citealt{Cane2002}; \citealt{Cliver2004}; \citealt{gopalswamy2005}; \citealt{cho2008}). Gradual SEPs are often associated with metric type II bursts (150 to 15 MHz) and are generated close to the Sun $\leq$ 3 R$_{sun}$ (\citealt{gopalswamy2009b}). Other methods of direct detection of shocks are the in situ measurements of the discontinuous jump in density, temperature, flow speed, and magnetic field in the solar wind data \citealt{gopalswamy2010}.
The average speed of CMEs is the widely used parameter for correlation studies with the associated SEP peak flux (see \citealt{kahler2001}; \citealt{Vourlidas10}; \citealt{Richardson14}; \citet{Richardson15}; \citealt{Pande};; \citealt{Xie19}). However, \citealt{Liou2011} presented the approach of correlating fast-forward shock Mach numbers with the intensity of solar energetic oxygen (O) and helium-4 ($^{4}$He) particles at (E >$\approx$10 MeV n$^{-1}$), and obtained a good linear correlation for two SEP events that occurred on 28--31 October 2003. The results suggest that the Mach number of IP shocks is one of the primary parameters controlling the intensity of SEPs measured in the vicinity of the Earth. \citealt{Anitha2020a} further investigated this approach on a sample of 25 non-interacting CMEs and their associated SEPs that occurred during the period 2009–2013, using multiple spacecrafts: the \emph{Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory} (STEREO)-A and -B and the \emph{SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory} (SOHO) for CMEs, and the \emph{Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite} (GOES-13) for SEPs. Instantaneous speeds such as the CME maximum speed, Mach number at CME maximum speed, and CME speed and Mach number at SEP peak flux were investigated, and better correlations were obtained compared to the average speed.
The main limitation of our work in \citealt{Anitha2020a} was the small population of the considered CMEs (25 events). In the present work we significantly expanded our statistical research with a sample of 38 non-interacting CMEs and their associated SEP events near the quadrature configuration of STEREO. The CME kinematics were determined using the data from STEREO/\emph{Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation} (SECCHI) (\citealt{Brueckner95}; \citealt{Howard08}). STEREO/SECCHI data for CMEs was used instead of SOHO as STEREO offered a larger field of view, and the possibility to determine velocities at instances of SEP onset and peak flux, which occur at varied distances from the Sun, with minimal projection effects. The GOES-13/\emph{Energetic Particle Sensor} (EPS), part of the \emph{Space Environment Monitor} (SEM), was used to study the associated SEP intensities at three energy bands (>10 MeV, >50 MeV, and >100 MeV). We also considered different models of the solar magnetic field to obtain accurate Alfv\'{e}n and solar wind speeds. We verified the obtained the Mach number with the start and end time of type II radio bursts, which are signatures of CME-driven shocks in the interplanetary medium. The start and end time of type II radio bursts should be consistent with instances when the CMEs reach a speed of Mach 1. We carefully consider correlations between different speeds of CMEs and SEP peak fluxes in the three energy channels. We also investigated these coefficients for different subsamples of events based on their longitudes (disk, disk-west, disk-east). The important result of this paper is that the Mach number at SEP peak flux can be very good indicator of peak intensities of SEPs. This good correlation is observed even for eastern limb events where the magnetic connectivity of Sun and the Earth are poor.
This article is organized as follows. The data and method used for the study are described in Section 2. In Section 3 we present results of our study. The conclusions and discussions are presented in Section 4.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=9cm,height=6cm]{LOC.eps}
\caption{Heliographic locations of the solar flares associated with 38 non-interacting CMEs generating SEPs.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure}
\section{Data and method}
In our study we used observations from the STEREO/SECCHI telescopes, and employed the technique to determine the instantanous speed of CMEs \citep{Anitha2020a}. In the following subsection we describe the method we used for our study.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{20120313.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{20110922.eps}
\caption{13 March 2012 event located at the west limb (left panel) and 22 September 2011 event located at the east limb (right panel). The plot shows the CME speed from STEREO (black line) with error bars, SEP flux in the >10 MeV energy band (red line), >50 MeV energy band (blue line), and >100 MeV energy band (green line). The sum of Alfv\'{e}n and solar wind speed [V$_{A}$ + V$_{SW}$] (dashed orange line) and the scaled Mach number (orange line) are shown. The start and end times of the associated type II burst are added (dotted cyan line). The CME maximum velocity [V$_{MAX}$] and time [T$_{MAX}$] and the distance at CME peak velocity [R$_{MAX}$] (dotted black line) at V$_{MAX}$, SEP peak flux in the >10 MeV energy band (dotted red line), and the scaled Mach number=1 (dotted orange line) are shown in the figure.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Event selection}
In our study we concentrate only on CMEs generating SEP events. On further investigation the events were classified into halo (width=360$^{\circ}$) and partial-halo (width >120$^{\circ}$) CMEs by the SOHO/LASCO CME catalog\footnote{cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME$\_$list} (\citealt{yashiro2004}, \citealt{gopalswamy2009a}). These events are better observed from STEREO instruments during their quadrature configuration (\citealt{Bronarska2018}). We constricted the event sample to the period of ascending phase of solar cycle 24 (i.e., 2009–2013) as it marks the approximate quadrature configuration of STEREO. The twin spacecrafts STEREO-A and -B are at $\approx$90$^{\circ}$ separation with respect to the Earth. This position was chosen as it offered advantages in the accurate determination of plane-of-sky speeds, which are close to the true radial speed of halo CMEs with insignificant projection effects. The data from the STEREO/SECCHI coronagraphs COR1 and COR2, and the heliospheric imagers HI1 and HI2 can be obtained from the \emph{UK Solar System Data Centre (UKSSDC)\footnote{https://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/solar/stereo/data.html}} database; they were used to perform manual measurements of height--time data points to determine the speed of CMEs. We focused our study on non-interacting CMEs as the velocities of interacting CMEs could be changed unpredictably along its propagation in the interplanetary medium. Each event in our sample was checked in the images from both of the twin satellites so that the measurements were done from the images that showed better quality.
The SEPs associated with the CMEs were selected in the >10 MeV, >50 MeV, and >100 MeV energy bands. The events with flux value $\geq$1 pfu in the >10 MeV, $\geq$0.1 pfu in >50 MeV, and $\geq$0.05 pfu in >100 MeV energy bands were considered for the study as their proton flux is higher than the average background flux. The threshold value for >100 MeV is changed to $\geq$0.05 pfu from $\geq$0.1 pfu, compared to the criteria taken in \citealt{Anitha2020a} paper, as we observe in our analysis differences in generation of SEP fluxes with respect to the location of event eruption. Hence, we investigate these differences further in this article. The data from the SEM instrument on board the GOES-13 geostationary satellite recorded in the \emph{National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration} (NOAA) database\footnote{https://satdat.ngdc.noaa.gov/sem/goes/data/avg/} was used to analyze the SEP fluxes. Source locations of CMEs were obtained from associated X-ray flares using the Hinode Flare Catalogue\footnote{https://hinode.isee.nagoya-u.ac.jp/flare$\_$catalogue/} (\citealt{watanabe}), and are shown in figure 1. The properties of the DH type II bursts that are signatures of these CME-driven shocks can be obtained from the WIND/Waves and STEREO database\footnote{https://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME$\_$list/radio/waves$\_$type2.html} of (\citealt{bougeret}).
During the quadrature configuration of STEREO (2009 - 2013) we found 61 SEP events with the above-mentioned criteria for their fluxes, but we could only analyze 38 among them due to limitations with their associated CMEs. We observed 15 interacting CMEs, 5 CMEs erupting on the backside of the Sun, and 3 CMEs that are too weak from which we could not obtain sufficient height--time data points for the analysis. Of the 38 events in the sample, 19 events (50\%) originate at the disk center (-20$^\circ$ < longitude < 45$^\circ$), 12 events (31\%) at the west limb (longitude > 45$^\circ$), and 7 events (18\%) at the east limb (longitude < -20$^\circ$). The majority of the observed events originate at the west limb and disk center, and only a few on the east limb. This is due to the magnetic connectivity of Sun with the Earth, which is explained in detail in the following subsections. It is worth noting that the presented sample of events are the complete list of non-interacting halo or partial halo CMEs that generate SEPs with the above-mentioned flux values in the three energy bands during the period 2009 - 2013, which also marks the ascending phase of solar cycle 24. A summary of these 38 events is given in Table 6. The data presented in the table and explained in figure 2 are the basis of our study. They are explained in detail in the following sections.
The SEPs generated by the backside CMEs are of particular interest. \citealt{gopalswamy2020} demonstrated that backside CMEs can produce significant fluxes of energetic protons. In our research we found five such events. A thorough analysis of their associated active region on the Sun allowed us to determine the source location of the backside CME responsible for the production of energetic particles. Two of them (28 January 2011 and 23 July 2012) were located just over the edge of the solar disk, but the other three (21 March 2011, 04 June 2011, and 08 November 2012) were located as far as $\approx$30$^\circ$ behind the west limb of the Sun. This means that SEPs can be produced from sources located not only in the visible part of the Sun's disk, but even very far ($\approx$30$^\circ$) beyond the east (\citealt{gopalswamy2020}) and west (our study) limb of the disk. These results demonstrate the ability of backsided events to cause space weather effects at Earth, and therefore accurate predictions of SEPs will need to include such events.
\subsection{Method}
The average speed determined using the linear fit method in the STEREO field of view is not a good indicator of CME kinematics as the speed varies significantly during its propagation in the interplanetary medium (\citealt{ravishankar}). Therefore, it is important to study other parameters that do not offer approximate relations. \citealt{Anitha2020a} presented the first set of results on comparative studies on average speeds and instantaneous speed to determine which of these parameters offers an accurate correlation with the peak fluxes of the associated SEPs. The results show that instantaneous speeds such as the maximum speed and speed at SEP peak flux offer better correlation. In addition, the Mach number at CME maximum speed and the Mach number at SEP peak flux showed promising results. The comparative study of SOHO/\emph{Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraphs} (LASCO) and STEREO/SECCHI for CMEs shows that the correlation obtained for STEREO is much higher as its quadrature configuraturion point of view helped with accurate measurements of true radial speed of halo events, whereas these halo events are subject to significant projection effects by SOHO/LASCO (\citealt{Bronarska2018}). In this paper we follow the same method, but unlike \citealt{Anitha2020a} the study uses the full STEREO/SECCHI suite of instruments with completely new measurements of height--time data points. To obtain the instantaneous velocities we applied linear fits to five successive height--time points. By shifting the linear fits point by point through all of the height--time points we acquired the instantaneous CME speeds. Practically, two successive height--time points are sufficient to determine the speed, but as manual measurements are subject to unpredictable random errors, we used five successive points to obtain the most reasonable results. Details of this method are described by \citealt{Bronarska2018} in their article. If we have the instantaneous velocities of CMEs, we could determine the instantaneous Mach numbers and other interesting kinematic parameters of CMEs.
In figure 2 two CME events (13 March 2012 and 22 September 2011) and their associated parameters varying with time and distance are presented separately. These panels demonstrate the parameters considered in our study in relation to SEP fluxes. For comparison we present diagrams for a western disk event (left panel) and an eastern limb event (right panel). The figure shows the instantaneous CME speeds (with error bars) obtained from manual measurements of STEREO data (errors were obtained using the bootstrap method (\citealt{Michalek17})). The values of the maximum velocity (V$_{MAX}$) and the time (T$_{MAX}$) and distance at (R$_{MAX}$) are shown on the right corner of the figures. The peak fluxes of the SEPs in the respective energy channels are determined. The start and end time of the type II burst represents the CME-driven shock, obtained from WIND/Waves and STEREO database, are shown as the two vertical dotted cyan lines, respectively.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{201203135corr.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{201109225corr.eps}
\caption{Plots showing correlation between instantaneous velocity and Mach number vs SEP flux for the 13 March 2012 event (panels a and b) and the 22 September 2011 event (panels c and d).}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
The propagation times for accelerated protons to reach the Earth vary in the considered energy range. SEPs take 69 (>10 MeV), 31 (>50 MeV), and 22 (>100 MeV) minutes to reach the Earth. Their detection is formally delayed by about an hour compared to the observations carried out by coronagraphs as this means that the slowest protons arrive one hour later than light. The delay is about 10 minutes less because the peaks of SEPs are reached when the CMEs are at some distance from the Sun. This delay has been taken into account in figure 2 and in our considerations. However, for the consideration of the relationship between SEP flux peak and the maximum CME speed, this problem is completely negligible. This effect can only be relevant to the correct determination of the speed of CME at SEP peak. As can be seen in figure~2 (dotted red line), this speed is determined at some distance from the Sun, where its change is very slow. The CME, after reaching maximum velocity, propagates at almost constant speed. In one hour the CME velocity can change by not more than 5$\%$. On the other hand, the error in determining the speed using a linear fit is about 15$\%$ (\citealt{Michalek17}). Therefore, we could neglect this effect in our study.
Mach number, which is the most important parameter considered in our study, mostly depends on the magnetic field and density of the plasma. We investigated two methods of calculating the magnetic field needed to determine the Alfv\'{e}n speed. The \citet{dulk} method determines the coronal magnetic field above active regions when the CMEs erupt, which is more common during the ascending phase of the solar cycle. The \citet{leblanc}, \citet{Mann1999}, \citet{gopalswamy01}, and \citet{eselevich} method is applicable to determining the magnetic field for quiet regions, mainly related to prominence eruptions, usually during the descending phase of the solar cycle. Using these two methods and the plasma density model by \citet{leblanc}, we determined the Alfv\'{e}n speed for each considered event. Our analysis shows that a much better prediction was obtained with the \citet{dulk} model as it matches the time frame chosen for study (i.e., ascending phase of solar cycle 24), thus in our further considerations we employed the Alfv\'{e}n speed obtained from this model. The solar wind speed was determined using the model presented by \citet{sheeley}. Having determined the Alfv\'{e}n speed (V$_{A}$) and solar wind speed (V$_{SW}$), along with the measured instantaneous CME speed (V$_{CME}$), we can simply determine the instantaneous Mach number (M$_{A}$): M$_{A}$ = V$_{CME}$/(V$_{A}$ + V$_{SW}$). The estimated sum of V$_{A}$ + V$_{SW}$ is shown in both panels of figure 2 as dashed orange line and the Mach number (scaled by 600 for better visualization) is represented by the continuous orange line. The horizontal dotted orange line (at 600 km~s{$^{-1}$}) reflects the value of Mach number equal to 1. The significance of Mach number is explained in detail in section 3.5.
The important factors that determine the peak intensities of these accelerated particles are the CME ejection speed and their magnetic connectivity with the Earth. West limb events (longitude=60$^{\circ}$) have the best connectivity, and this decreases as we move towards east and to the farther western limb (longitude >60$^{\circ}$). Due to this variation in connectivity along the solar disk, we observe delays in the time at which the SEPs reach maximum intensity with respect to the onset of the associated CMEs. For well-connected events, the SEPs reach peak fluxes quickly after the CME onset and maximum velocity from the Sun (see left panel of figure 2) and the delay increases in the case of eastern events as the ejections must expand enough so that their fronts are well connected magnetically to the Earth (right panel of figure 2). Similar delays in both distance and time are observed between the maximum Mach number and SEP peak flux. Consequently, when the CME expands, its speed decreases. This means that when we observe the maximum intensities of energetic particles, especially for eastern events, the ejection speed may be much lower than their maximum value. The V$_A$ and V$_{SW}$ are much lower at these points as they decrease slowly with distance (r), but as V$_{CME}$ decreases signifcantly the observed Mach numbers are consequently lower as well. To be precise, we observe a Mach number <1 for all seven eastern limb events. This occurs due to projection effects. According to \citealt{Bronarska2018}, the real or space velocity should be V$_{INS}$ + 0.5V$_{INS}$, where V$_{INS}$ is the measured instantaneous velocity. As we observe the projected speeds, the Mach number obtained due to these speeds for limb events is less than 1. It could be also be a result of determination of V$_A$, and depends on the model of the magnetic field, which is not perfect.
Interesting observations are made concerning the start and end times of the associated type II bursts shown by the vertical cyan lines in figure 2. In the left panel that shows the western event, we observe the onset of type II burst, CME velocity, Mach number, and SEPs approximately at the same time. However for the eastern event shown in right panel, the SEP peak in the >10 MeV channel is delayed by about 22 hours with respect to the CME onset. Among the seven eastern events in our sample, three are not associated with type II bursts as seen in the database. The remaining four eastern events also display the delays with respect to the CME onset. The type II bursts, which are signatures of CME-driven shocks, do not depend on the magnetic connectivity of the Sun and Earth; instead, the SEP propagation is affected by the connectivity. For the eastern events the determined CME speed and Mach number are lower by 50\% (\citealt{Bronarska2018}) and we observe significant delays in the SEPs. The SEP fluxes for eastern events are among the lowest in our sample, and probably much higher fluxes of energetic particles were produced earlier that could not be detected due to poor connectivity. We observe that the type II bursts start when the Mach number reaches 1 and end when the Mach number goes back to 1 for all events. Therefore, type II bursts are good indicators of production of large SEP fluxes. These delays are discussed in detail in section 3.4. In addition, we observe the decline of the >10 MeV protons at the end of the type II bursts in the left panel, but in the right panel we see that the onset of the SEPs is well beyond the end of the radio bursts. This may be due to the threshold of observations of the instrument measuring the DH type II bursts. The bursts may have prolonged for a longer time, but in the reduced intensity, which the instrument was unable to measure.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{V.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{TVmax.eps}
\caption{Distributions of average (panel a) and maximum (panel b) velocity and the time (T$_{MAX}$, panel c) and distance (R$_{MAX}$, panel d) when CMEs reach maximum velocity.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
Figure 3 shows the correlation between instantaneous velocity and Mach number versus instantaneous fluxes of SEP in the three energy bands, >10 MeV, >50 MeV, and >100 MeV in red, blue, and green, respectively. Panels a and b represent the western disk event on 13 March 2012, and panels c and d represent the eastern limb event on 22 September 2011; their correlations are shown in the bottom left of the figure for the respective energy bands. We observe perfect positive correlations in panels a and b, and anticorrelation in panels c and d. Furthermore, the correlation and anticorrelation tends to 1 and -1, respectively, for the higher energy bands compared to the lower energy band for both the velocity and Mach number parameter with the SEP fluxes. These differences in correlation for the two events are observed due to varying delays caused by magnetic connectivity of the Sun and Earth with respect to the longitude, as explained earlier. These delays can be clearly seen in figure 2, and is observed for SEPs in all three considered energy bands. For this reason we observe the western events showing positive correlation (panels a and b) and the eastern events showing anticorrelation (panels c and d). Additionally, the correlation of the instantaneous Mach number with SEP fluxes, shown in panels b and d, offers improved correlation compared to the instantaneous velocities. This shows that for studying the acceleration of particles driven by the CME the Mach number is the best parameter to consider. A detailed analysis of this is dicussed in section 3.5. It is important to note that significant correlations are observed for >100 MeV compared to >10 MeV SEP fluxes (panels a and b). This is due to the larger delay between the SEP and maximum velocity or maximum Mach number for >10 MeV compared to higher energetic particles. Therefore, few points from the initial phase of propagation decreases this correlation compared to higher energies.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{TonsetSEPmax.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{TonsetSEPmaxr.eps}
\caption{Distributions of time taken by SEPs to reach peak flux after the onset of the CME (panels a, b, and c) and distance at which the SEPs reach peak flux (panels c, d, and e) in three energy channels (>10 MeV [SEP$_{10}$ T$_{MAX}$, R$_{MAX}$], in red), (>50 MeV [SEP$_{50}$ T$_{MAX}$, R$_{MAX}$], in blue), and (>100 MeV [SEP$_{100}$ T$_{MAX}$, R$_{MAX}$], in green).}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
The results presented in figures 3 and 4 are the basis of our study, and are summarized in Table~6. In columns 2-6 we have date and time, average velocity (V$_{AVG}$), maximum velocity (V$_{MAX}$), distance (R$_{MAX}$), and time (T$_{MAX}$) at V$_{MAX}$ of a given CME taken from the STEREO/SECCHI observations. Columns 7-9 show the peak SEP fluxes in the three energy channels. The next three columns present CME speeds at peak SEP fluxes for these energy channels. Columns 13-15 give the maximum Mach number (M$_{MAX}$) and distance (MR$_{MAX}$) and time (MT$_{MAX}$) at M$_{MAX}$ of a given CME. Columns 16-18 show the Mach number at maximum SEP peak flux in the three energy channels. The location of solar flares associated with CMEs from the GOES data is shown in column 19. The start and end times of the associated type II burst are shown in the last two columns.
For all the considered correlation coefficients in the study we tested their significance. These tests confirmed (with a significance level of p=0.05) that there is a significant linear relationship between the considered parameters of CMEs and SEPs except for events originating at eastern longitudes. We also performed statistical test determining the significance of the difference between a pair of correlation coefficients. These tests confirmed that (with a significance level of p=0.95) the respective correlation coefficients are not significantly different from each other. The statistical values are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
\section{Analysis and results}
Our article focuses on recognizing how different kinematic parameters of CME affect the generation of SEP events. In our study we use the STEREO instruments; they allow us to track CMEs to very long distances from the Sun, which is important because the SEPs are generated by the shocks driven by CMEs up to the orbit of the Earth and beyond. The results of the study are presented in following sections.
\subsection{Basic speeds of CMEs generating SEPs}
The CME speeds can be determined in different ways. A linear fit of the height--time measurements can be useful for determining an average CME speed, but will fail to capture the significant changes in velocity that can occur during CME expansion; therefore, in our considerations we use the speeds determined in our new approach. These speeds were described in section 2.2. In figure 4 we present histograms comparing the values of average and maximum velocities in panels a and b, respectively. The considered CMEs in our sample have an average speed range of 345 to 1277 km~s{$^{-1}$} and a maximum speed range of 524 to 2627 km~s{$^{-1}$}. On average, the maximum speeds in the STEREO field of view are 223\% larger than the speed obtained from linear fits to all height--time points (average speeds). This clearly shows that the average speeds in the STEREO field of view are not practical for studies. Panels c and d of figure 4 show the time (T$_{MAX}$) and distance (R$_{MAX}$) when CMEs reach maximum velocity, respectively. The CMEs in our sample have a range of 18 to 187 minutes at a distance in the range 2.63--13.04 R$_{sun}$ to reach maximum velocity. Therefore, on average, they take about 68 minutes at 6.38 R$_{sun}$ distance to reach maximum velocity. Instead, the results obtained in \citealt{Anitha2020a} with 25 events show that the CMEs, on average, take about 60 minutes at 7.61 R$_{sun}$ distance to reach maximum velocity. It is worth noting that the CMEs achieve maximum velocity very close to the Sun, but SEP peak fluxes could be observed when CMEs have propagated very far away from the Sun. This discrepancy is described in the next subsection. Thus, for the purposes of SEP generation, determining speeds closer to the Sun are more important for predicting what is seen at the Earth.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{longitudesep.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{longitudeRTsep.eps}
\caption{Scatter plot of longitude of the solar flare associated with the respective CMEs vs SEP peak flux (left panel) and the time and distance at which SEPs reach peak flux (right panels). Colors are assigned to the SEPs in the energy channels: >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green).}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
A comparison of the errors determined from the standard deviation for average values of T$_{MAX}$ and R$_{MAX}$ for the samples considered in our papers show <T$_{MAX}$>=72.04$\pm$6.66 and <R$_{MAX}$>=6.29$\pm$0.53 for the current paper comprising 38 events, and <T$_{MAX}$>=60.50$\pm$12.71 and <R$_{MAX}$>=7.61$\pm$1.18 for \citet{Anitha2020a} comprising 25 events. The errors in the present study are within the error range of the previous study. The errors are higher for the latter for both the considered parameters, which may be due to inaccuracies in measurements. Hence, our completely new height--time measurements for CMEs in our current sample are much more precise.
\subsection{The CME onset, SEP peak fluxes, and their source location}
The relationship between the CME onset and the SEP peak fluxes are shown in figure 5. Panels a, b, and c show the time taken by the SEPs to reach peak flux after the onset of the CME and panels d, e, and f show the distance at which the SEP peak fluxes are observed. On average, all the events in our considered sample take 655, 523, and 500 minutes and at a distance of about 41.9, 35.0, and 32.6 R$_{sun}$ in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy bands, respectively, to reach peak fluxes. The delay in both time and distance is less for events located in the western limb, and these delays increase as we move towards the eastern limb (\citealt{Dalla2017a}; \citealt{Dalla2017b}). Specifically, the western events, on average, take 437, 348, and 290 minutes and at a distance of about 35, 30, and 25 R$_{sun}$ in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy bands, respectively, to reach peak fluxes. Disk events, on average, take 626, 485, and 470 minutes and at a distance of about 40, 32, and 30 R$_{sun}$ in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy bands, respectively, to reach peak fluxes. The eastern events, on average, take 1109, 926, and 941 minutes and at a distance of about 56, 49, and 50 R$_{sun}$ in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy bands, respectively, to reach peak fluxes. Similarly, in the left panel of Figure 6 we see the variation in SEP peak flux along its location on the heliographic longitude of the Sun. The longitude can be divided into disk center (-20$^\circ$ < longitude < 45$^\circ$), west limb (longitude > 45$^\circ$), and east limb (longitude < -20$^\circ$). A modest trend is observed in the plot where the higher intensity SEPs seem to originate in the west limb and this intensity gradually reduces as we move towards the east limb. This gradual decrease in peak intensity is seen clearly for >10 MeV protons. The trend similar to >10 MeV protons is also seen for >50 and >100 MeV protons at longitudes greater than 0$^\circ$, but at longitudes less than 0$^\circ$; their peak fluxes are constant and lie in the range 0.1-1 cm{$^{-2}$} s{$^{-1}$} sr{$^{-1}$} (i.e., moving towards the east). These are a consequence of the magnetic connectivity of Sun and Earth (i.e., Parker spiral IMF) (\citealt{Marsh2013}). West limb events are well connected to the Earth, and this connectivity decreases as we move towards the east limb. In addition, \citealt{Dalla2017a} and \citealt{Dalla2017b} have pointed out that the SEP propagation is affected, also due to the drifts caused by the gradient and curvation of the Parker spiral IMF, with their importance increasing with the energy of the particle. The peak flux of >50 and >100 MeV particles occur much before the instance when the associated shock gets connected to the Earth. For this reason, though we observe these fluxes, they are much reduced and the instruments missed detecting the maximum fluxes. Hence, the maximum SEP fluxes from the west longitudes can be accurately measured in situ, while those from east longitudes cannot.
Additionally, in figure 5 we observe the delay in both time and distance decrease with increasing energy bands of protons; in other words, >100 MeV protons take less time and distance to reach peak flux and >10 MeV protons take more time and are observed at farther distances away from the Sun. The same delays are represented in figure 6 (right panels) varying with longitude. An explanation provided by \citealt{reames2020} tells us that the distinction between impulsive and gradual SEP events becomes unclear as the CME-driven shock waves can reaccelerate the impulsive ions pre-accelerated in the magnetic reconnection. The impulsive suprathermal seed ions are preferentially accelerated by shock waves at active regions, and can even be dominated and reaccelerated SEPs produced by weaker shocks (\citealt{Desai2003}; \citealt{Tylka2005}; \citealt{Tylka2006}). Thus, the higher energy ions we observe are most likely pre-accelerated in the magnetic reconnection close to the Sun and are further seeded into reacceleration by CME-driven shocks at farther distances from Sun. For this reason, we observe the >50 and >100 MeV protons reaching peak fluxes much earlier than >10 MeV protons.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{22cm}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{VcatSEP.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{VmaxSEP.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{Vinstsep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Scatter plots of the average velocity (panel a), maximum velocity (panel b), and the CME velocity at SEP peak flux (panel c) vs SEP peak flux in the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels. The open symbols represent disk events (longitude -20 < L < 45) and the filled symbols represent west events (longitude > 45) and vertical lines represent east events (longitude < -20).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Correlation coefficients of CME velocities vs SEP peak flux and their probabilities (significance at p-value<0.05), as shown in Figure 7. The number of events in each subdivision of the longitude is given in parentheses.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\\\\a) Average velocity\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Energy channel} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}All events \\ (38)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+West \\ (31)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+East \\ (26)\end{tabular} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk events \\ (19)\end{tabular}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}East events \\ (7)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } \\
\hline
& >10 MeV & 0.69 & .00001 & 0.68 & .000026 & 0.74 & .000016 & 0.74 & .000292 & 0.71 & .073861\\
& >50 MeV & 0.61 & .000048 & 0.63 & .000146 & 0.67 & .000181 & 0.76 & .000159 & 0.0014 & .997623\\
& >100 MeV & 0.57 & .000187 & 0.59 & .000477 & 0.66 & .000244 & 0.76 & .000159 & 0.14 & .764651\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{b) Maximum velocity} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.70 & .00001 & 0.74 & .00001 & 0.68 & .000133 & 0.73 & .000388 & 0.24 & .604195\\
& >50 MeV & 0.68 & .00001 & 0.72 & .00001 & 0.64 & .00043 & 0.72 & .000509 & 0.29 & .528119\\
& >100 MeV & 0.63 & .000023 & 0.67 & .000037 & 0.63 & .000562 & 0.73 & .000388 & 0.06 & .898324\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}c) CME velocity\\at SEP peak flux\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.77 & .00001 & 0.77 & .00001 & 0.81 & .00001 & 0.82 & .00001 & 0.66 & .106682\\
& >50 MeV & 0.73 & .00001 & 0.72 & .00001 & 0.83 & .00001 & 0.87 & .00001 & 0.24 & .604195\\
& >100 MeV & 0.71 & .00001 & 0.70 & .00001 & 0.75 & .00001 & 0.79 & .000057 & 0.52 & .231562\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{table*}
\subsection{CME velocities versus SEP peak flux}
With the above introduction to the fundamental properties of the CMEs and the associated SEPs, we proceed to the main aim of the article, which is to investigate the best velocity parameter to study the acceleration of SEPs to their peak intensities. We chose the average, the maximum, and the CME velocity at SEP peak flux to analyze their correlation with SEP peak fluxes, as shown respectively in panels a, b, and c of figure 7. Linear fits are suitable for all the scatter plots, and their formulae are shown in the left corner of the figures. In addition to dividing the sample into disk center, west, and east limb events, we also classify the sample into disk+west, disk+east, and disk-only events to study the variation of their correlations. The correlation coefficients and their probability values (significance at p-value<0.05) are given in Table 1. Panel a displays a modest correlation (0.69, 0.61, and 0.57 for the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy channels, respectively, for all events) and the least correlation compared to panels b and c. As explained in detail in the first paragraph of section 3.1, the average velocity may not be the best parameter to consider for correlation studies (\citealt{ravishankar}, \citealt{Anitha2020a}). Therefore, this leads to utilizing instantaneous velocities for accurate correlation studies and also to studying SEP peak fluxes that are attained at farther distances away from the Sun.
Figure 7, panel b, shows a good correlation (0.70, 0.68, and 0.63 for the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy channels, respectively, for all events) between CME maximum velocity and SEP peak intensities. This parameter is good, but not the best to use while studying a sample comprising events originating at all locations on the Sun. The west and disk events can be studied well with maximum velocity as they have good magnetic connectivity to the Earth, but the CMEs originating in the eastern longitudes are poorly connected to Earth, which leads to a delay in SEP peak flux with respect to CME maximum speed (as shown in figure 2). Therefore, a better approach to studying all CMEs, irrespective of their location, is to use CME velocity at the SEP peak flux. The fluxes of energetic particles are produced during the entire CME passage to the Earth, so it is also important to determine their velocities during the same distance, if possible. Investigation of this parameter has improved the correlation as shown in panel c (0.77, 0.73, and 0.71 for the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy channels, respectively, for all events).
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{VR.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{VR2.eps}
\caption{Scatter plots showing distance at CME maximum velocity (left panel) and distance at CME maximum Mach number (right panel) vs distance at SEP peak flux in the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Correlation coefficients of parameters and their probabilities (significance at p-value<0.05), as shown in Figure 8. The number of events in each subdivision of the longitude are given in parentheses.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\\\\SEP R$_{MAX}$ vs\\ CME velocity R$_{MAX}$\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Energy channel} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}All events \\ (38)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+West \\ (31)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+East \\ (26)\end{tabular} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk events \\ (19)\end{tabular}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}East events \\ (7)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } \\
\hline
& >10 MeV & 0.15 & .36872 & 0.24 & .193445 & 0.21 & .303165 & 0.34 & .154372 & 0.22 & .635489\\
& >50 MeV & 0.02 & .90513 & 0.09 & .630171 & 0.07 & .734011 & 0.17 & .486556 & 0.11 & .814386\\
& >100 MeV & -0.03 & .858099 & 0.03 & .87272 & 0.03 & .884332 & 0.13 & .595802 & 0.11 & .814386\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}SEP R$_{MAX}$\\ vs CME Mach R$_{MAX}$\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}\\
& >10 MeV & 0.62 & .000033 & 0.50 & .004181 & 0.65 & .000325 & 0.44 & .059404 & 0.22 & .635489\\
& >50 MeV & 0.56 & .000256 & 0.50 & .004181 & 0.51 & .007775 & 0.31 & .196488 & 0.11 & .814386\\
& >100 MeV & 0.50 & .001391 & 0.43 & .015761 & 0.45 & .021073 & 0.20 & .411681 & 0.10 & .831082\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{table*}
A comparison of the correlation coefficients for the subdivided events according to their location, presented in Table 1, shows the best correlation for events located at disk center, the next best for events located at disk+east, and last for disk+west events. These subdivisions give us an even more clear understanding of the magnetic connectivity of the Sun and Earth at different longitudes. In addition we observe that the correlation coefficient decreases with increasing energy band, meaning that >10 MeV protons are best correlated and >100 MeV protons are least correlated for all the considered velocity parameters. For all considered subsamples, the correlation coefficient are highly significant (probability>0.95). Only for the seven eastern events does the test give high p-values (p>0.05), which means that at the significance level 0.05 we should reject the hypothesis that the parameters are linearly correlated.
Since this is a continuation of the results obtained in our work presented in \citet{Anitha2020a}, we wanted to perform comparative studies of the obtained linear fits and correlation coefficients shown in the figures. \citet{Anitha2020a} comprised a sample of 25 events with 1 eastern event, whereas the current work comprises 38 events with 7 eastern events. The number of eastern events are particularly highlighted here because significant delays in observations of the peak fluxes are seen for these events due to their poor magnetic connectivity. For this reason there are notable changes to the overall correlation and the fits applied. The average velocity versus SEP peak flux display the previous paper results (slope=0.001, 0.001, 0.0008 and y-intercept=0.05, -0.74, -0.92 for >10, >50, >100 MeV, respectively) and the current paper results (slope=0.002, 0.002, 0.0001 and y-intercept=-0.57, -1.57, -1.75 for >10, >50, >100 MeV, respectively). The maximum velocity versus SEP peak flux display the previous paper results (the second order quadratic equation coefficients a=-7.205e-07 and b=3.825e-03 and y-intercept=-2.846 for >10 MeV and the slope=0.001, 0.0009 and y-intercept=1.51, -1.72 for >50, >100 MeV, respectively) and the current paper results (slope=0.001, 0.001, 0.0007 and y-intercept=-0.37, -1.49, -1.71 for >10, >50, >100 MeV, respectively). Lastly, the CME velocity at SEP peak flux versus SEP peak flux show the previous paper results (slope=0.001, 0.001, 0.001 and y-intercept=-0.34, -1.14, -1.35 for >10, >50, >100 MeV, respectively) and the current paper results (slope=0.002, 0.001, 0.0001 and y-intercept=-0.56, -1.20, -1.41 for >10, >50, >100 MeV, respectively). All three comparisons show that the slopes do not exhibit much variation, but the values at which the fit intercepts the y-axis are far lower in the current paper.
\subsection{Mach number}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm,height=9cm]{machhistold.eps}
\caption{Distributions of maximum Mach number (panel a), time (Mach T$_{MAX}$ , panel b), and distance (Mach R$_{MAX}$ , panel c) at maximum Mach number of CMEs.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
Mach number (M$_A$) is one of the most significant parameters determining the efficiency of acceleration of particles in the shock vicinity (\citealt{Li2012a}, \citealt{Li2012b}). As explained by \citet{gopalswamy2010} and referenced in section 1, the formation of shock occurs when the velocity of the CME (V$_{CME}$) exceeds the sum of Alfvén (V$_{A}$) and solar wind (V$_{SW}$) speed (i.e., V$_A$ + V$_{SW}$) in interplanetary space. The threshold value for the onset of SEP is, at M$_A$, equal to 1, where the V$_{CME}$ and V$_A$ + V$_{SW}$ are equal. From this point of view, investigating the Mach number parameter with the associated SEP intensities must provide better results than the velocities of CMEs. These parameters are represented in figure 2. The sum V$_A$ + V$_{SW}$ is represented as the dashed orange line and the instant at which the M$_A$=1 is shown as the dotted orange line. The continuous orange line representing the Mach number was calculated using the formula M$_{A}$ = V$_{CME}$/(V$_{A}$ + V$_{SW}$), and mainly varies with the distance parameter (r) away from the Sun; more specifically, the parameters decrease with distance from the Sun. Near the Sun the corona holds dense streamers and tenuous regions that vary the magnetic field significantly; therefore, M$_A$ may vary significantly (\citealt{gopalswamy08a}) compared to a much farther distance in the interplanetary medium away from the Sun. The described models for estimating the V$_A$ are not perfect, hence we must consider the obtained M$_A$ only as an approximate value.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{Machmach.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{longitudemach2.eps}
\caption{Distribution showing the time difference between SEP peak flux and maximum Mach number. Left: panel a for >10 MeV (red), panel b for >50 MeV (blue), and panel c for >100 MeV (green); Right: Variation of the time and distance delay with longitude. }
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{Mmaxsep.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{Machatsep.eps}
\caption{Scatter plot of maximum Mach number (left panel) and Mach number at SEP peak flux (right panel) vs SEP peak flux in the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels. The open symbols represent disk events (longitude -20 < L < 45), the filled symbols west events (longitude > 45), and the vertical lines east events (longitude < -20).}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
In order to choose the Mach number parameter suitable for the study, we first compared maximum velocity and maximum Mach number, and investigated the outcome. In figure 8 we see the relationship between distance at maximum velocity (left panel) and distance at maximum Mach number (right panel) versus distance at SEP peak flux in the considered energy channels. The correlation coefficients and their probability values (significance at p-value<0.05) are given in Table 2. For magnetically well-connected events the distance at which we observe the R$_{MAX}$ for the three considered parameters should be approximately same and must provide good correlation. But as we see in both panels, the correlations are insignificant due to the contribution by disk and east events which show delay at the distance at which the SEP attains peak flux. In the left panel we observe the best correlation for disk events and least good for events located at longitudes less than 0, comprising a few disk+east events. A significant improvement is seen in the right panel. This is evidence that maximum Mach number offers a better correlation for all the considered events to study the SEP peak fluxes.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Correlation coefficients of parameters and their probability (significance at p-value<0.05) as shown in Figure 11. The number of events in each subdivision of the longitude are given in the brackets.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\\\\Maximum Mach number\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Energy channel} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}All events \\ (38)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+West \\ (31)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+East \\ (26)\end{tabular} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk events \\ (19)\end{tabular}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}East events \\ (7)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } \\
\hline
& >10 MeV & 0.83 & 0.00001 & 0.85 & 0.00001 & 0.82 & 0.00001 & 0.85 & 0.00001 & 0.53 & 0.221096\\
& >50 MeV & 0.72 & 0.00001 & 0.75 & 0.00001 & 0.72 & 0.000034 & 0.80 & 0.000039 & 0.004 & 0.993209\\
& >100 MeV & 0.65 & 0.00001 & 0.67 & 0.000076 & 0.64 & 0.00043 & 0.72 & 0.000509 & 0.24 & 0.604195\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Mach number at SEP peak flux} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.85 & 0.00001 & 0.86 & 0.00001 & 0.83 & 0.00001 & 0.85 & 0.000034 & 0.71 & 0.073861\\
& >50 MeV & 0.77 & 0.00001 & 0.78 & 0.00001 & 0.79 & 0.00001 & 0.86 & 0.00001 & 0.08 & 0.864622\\
& >100 MeV & 0.71 & 0.00001 & 0.72 & 0.00001 & 0.72 & 0.000034 & 0.79 & 0.000057 & 0.34 & 0.455574\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{table*}
Figure 9 shows the distribution of maximum Mach number (panel a), and the time (panel b) and distance (panel c) at which they reach maximum Mach number. The average value of maximum Mach number of all the events in our sample is about 1.36 and, on average, they take about 125 minutes at 12.1 R$_{sun}$ to reach the maximum. On comparing these results with figure 4, we observe that CMEs, on average, take about 68 minutes at 6.38 R$_{sun}$ distance to reach maximum velocity. Hence, Mach number takes a longer time and farther distance to reach maximum after the CME eruption. Here, since the estimation of the Mach number depends on the V$_A$ and V$_{SW}$ models along with V$_{CME}$, such differences are seen. The CME speed and Mach number are independent of magnetic connectivity. Therefore, it is obvious that we do not see any parity in these parameters with longitude. We can compare these parameters with similar indicator describing SEP peak fluxes. Panels a, b, and c in the left panel of figure 10 show the time taken by the SEPs to reach peak fluxes after the maximum Mach number is attained. We observe that it takes, on average, 600, 468, and 445 minutes at a distance of about 41, 35, and 32 R$_{sun}$ to reach peak intensities in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy bands, respectively. Panel c shows that the >100 MeV protons take less time to reach peak fluxes compared to the >10 MeV protons, as shown in panel a. The same trend is observed for delay in distance. Similar conclusions to those shown in figure 5 can be drawn from these results. Based on their magnetic connectivity, as explained in detail in section 3.1, we observe the events located at the eastern limb exhibit more delay in time and distance, and this decreases as we move towards the western limb. This means that maximum Mach number is not related very significantly with SEP peak flux, especially for magnetically poorly connected events. Therefore, it is reasonable to analyze the instantaneous Mach number at SEP peak fluxes. These parameters should be best correlated with SEP peak fluxes and should not depend on the source location of CMEs.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{ Probability values (significance at p>0.05) of the difference between two correlation coefficients presented in Tables 1 and 3. A probability value of more than 0.05 indicates that the two correlation coefficients are significantly the same.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\\a) Average velocity\\ vs\\Mach number at SEP peak flux\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Energy channel} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ All events (38) } & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ Disk+West (31) } & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ Disk+East (26) }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Disk events (19) }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{East events (7)} \\
\hline
& >10 MeV & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.83 & 0.38 & 1.00\\
& >50 MeV & 0.19 & 0.25 & 0.69 & 0.40 & 0.91\\
& >100 MeV & 0.31 & 0.38 & 0.82 & 0.83 & 0.76\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}b) Maximum velocity\\ vs\\Mach number at SEP peak flux\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.03 & 0.19 & 0.22 & 0.35 & 0.36 \\
& >50 MeV & 0.42 & 0.60 & 0.28 & 0.27 & 0.75 \\
& >100 MeV & 0.54 & 0.71 & 0.57 & 0.68 & 0.67 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}c) Velocity at SEP peak flux\\ vs\\Mach number at SEP peak flux\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.32 & 0.30 & 0.83 & 0.77 & 0.89\\
& >50 MeV & 0.70 & 0.60 & 0.69 & 0.91 & 0.81\\
& >100 MeV & 1.00 & 0.88 & 0.82 & 1.00 & 0.75\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}d) Maximum Mach number\\ vs\\Mach number at SEP peak flux\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & 0.77 & 0.88 & 0.91 & 1.00 & 0.67 \\
& >50 MeV & 0.63 & 0.78 & 0.57 & 0.58 & 0.91 \\
& >100 MeV & 0.63 & 0.71 & 0.61 & 0.64 & 0.87 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{table*}
We restrict our analysis to using instantaneous parameters of Mach number to study their correlation with SEP intensities. As preliminary evidence seen in \citet{Anitha2020a}, the properties of the Mach number shows better correlation with SEP peak intensities. We further investigate in detail this instantaneous parameter with a larger number of events in our sample. We observe reduced correlation for maximum Mach number versus SEP peak flux (left panel) compared to the Mach number at SEP peak flux versus SEP peak flux (right panel) of figure 11 as shown in Table 3. The reduction in correlation coefficient and its significance is much more prominent while considering east events. This is an important result as the comparison shows that in order to study the correlation between CMEs and the associated SEP peak flux, the best parameter to consider is the Mach number at SEP peak flux. The maximum Mach number is suitable for events magnetically well connected to the Earth as the delay between the peaks of Mach number and SEP flux are not higher or rather are appropriate according to their propagation. Hence the SEP peak flux that we observe is accurate. But for events originating in the eastern longitudes the instances at which we observe the peaks are not accurate as they are poorly connected. As a consequence, we observe significant delays between peaks of Mach number and SEP flux. For such cases the best parameter to consider is the Mach number at SEP peak flux, and we observe high correlations in the right panel of figure 11. The optimum correlation is observed for events located at disk center (i.e., -20<longitude<45) that are well connected to the Earth. Thus, the Mach number parameter does better than CME velocities for eastern SEP events with energies >10 MeV. The coefficients of the linear fits do not display notable differences, but the fits are steeper in the right panel compared to the left panel of figure 11. The y-intercepts do not show any significant change.
While comparing the use of the instantaneous parameters, CME speed and Mach number at SEP peak flux, the latter proves to be a better parameter as it shows higher correlation coefficient. This is evident as Mach number takes into account the major parameters (V$_{CME}$, V$_A$, and V$_{SW}$) involved in the onset and influence of particle acceleration, whereas CME speed alone lacks the necessary information for a detailed study. In addition, we observe in the left panel a Mach number of less than 1 for eight disk events, which can also be seen in the histogram presented in figure 9. These events are among the slowest events having maximum velocity of about 800 km~s{$^{-1}$}, maximum Mach number of about 0.7, and the associated SEP peak flux of about 5 cm{$^{-2}$} s{$^{-1}$} sr{$^{-1}$} in the >10 MeV band. Hence, the low speed may have contributed to the low Mach number. All these events were measured using the data from STEREO-A. With respect to the relative position of STEREO-A and the longitude of the event, the projection effect may have played a role in the decrease in velocity as the STEREO quadrature configuartion is not perfect for disk events. An additional cause may be due to the the model used to calculate the Alfv\'{e}n speed.
Table 4 shows the comparison of probabilty values of the difference between two correlation coefficients of velocity parameters (Table 1) and maximum Mach number (table 3) versus Mach number at SEP peak flux. Inspecting table 4 we have to reject, at significance level p=0.05, that the considered pairs of correlation coeeficients are significantly different. However, we can consider 1-p, which is the probablility that the respective correlation coefficients are different. In a few examples (for >10 MeV particles for All and Disk+West events in figure 7 panel c) this probability could be very high (1-p>0.8; a value of 0.8 means there is an 80\% probability that the difference is significant). The results presented in this paper, showing importance of Mach at SEP peak flux could be useful for future studies and space weather prediction.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm,height=9cm]{20120712acc.eps}
\caption{12 July 2012 CME acceleration profile with the active region located at disk center (longitude=01). The parameters of maximum acceleration (Acc$_{MAX}$, T$_{MAX}$, R$_{MAX}$), minimum acceleration (Acc$_{MIN}$, T$_{MIN}$, R$_{MIN}$), and acceleration at the point of inflection (Acc$_{INF}$, T$_{INF}$, R$_{INF}$) are presented in the top right corner.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
In regards to space weather forecasting, the best CME kinematic parameter that could be used to predict the SEPs is the Mach number at SEP peak flux. As we observe that the Mach number at SEP peak flux and SEP peak occur at the same time, and agrees with events originating at all longitudes, this could be best utilized. Fortunately, SEPs are delayed by 69 (>10 MeV), 31 (>50 MeV), and 22 (>100 MeV) minutes to reach the Earth with respect to white light measurements by coronagraph. So at least for the lower energetic particles that are comparatively slow (>10 MeV), we can determine the Mach number one hour before the SEPs reach the Earth. In figure 2 we have shifted the profiles of the Mach number and the >10 MeV SEP flux by about one hour to take into account the delay, but in reality we first observe the white light and then we measure the height--time data points to determine the Mach number. Therefore, predictions of the arrival of lower energetic SEPs to the Earth can be made by this method.
However, accurate determination of the CME Mach number may be difficult for a few reasons. First, the CMEs in consideration must be strictly non-interacting throughout their propagation in the interplanetary space as in a CME-CME interaction the kinematics can vary significantly. Interacting CMEs are frequent during solar maximum, hence the application of our method could be inaccurate. Next, while the empirical models used in our analysis are satisfactory, the errors on the Mach number depend on the models of plasma density and magnetic field as they are crucial for determining the Alfv\'{e}n speed. To improve our results we considered two different models for magnetic field, but a model never reflects perfectly the real scenario, especially for magnetic fields around active regions where most CMEs appear. Hence, a further investigation and better approach is required for these parameters. Lastly, the SEP peak fluxes are observed to be achieved at average distances of about R$_{MAX}$= 41.9, 35, and 32.6 R$_{sun}$ for >10, >50, and >100 MeV particles (figure 5). The CME associated with the production of SEPs must be sufficiently strong (or rather, not too weak) to be visible in the coronagraphs; farther away from the Sun the CMEs are poorer, making measurements difficult and consequently affecting the determination of the Mach numbers. The errors on the measurements depend on the quality or brightness of the CMEs (\citealt{Michalek17}). Hence, one must take into consideration these limitations in real time prediction of CMEs and their associated SEPs.
An important note on SEP fluxes is that it is impossible to determine their peak flux until after the conclusion of an event at 1 AU using the in situ observations, whereas the CME maximum Mach number, on average, is attained at distance R$_{MAX}$=12.1 R$_{sun}$ (figure 9, panel c). With the help of the linear model presented in figure 11 (left panel), which shows CME maximum Mach number versus SEP peak flux, we can obtain the associated SEP peak flux and the time and/or distance of attaining peak, which can be ultimately used for Mach number at SEP peak flux versus SEP peak flux correlation. This proves to be an important advantage in space weather forecasts, but the determined values must be considered an underestimation due to the limitations mentioned above.
\subsection{CME acceleration and SEP intensities}
In this section we investigate whether the acceleration parameters can influence the intensities of the associated SEPs. Figure 12 shows an interesting trend in the variation of the CME acceleration with heliocentric distance and time for the event on 12 July 2012. The speed and acceleration of the CME after its eruption increases rapidly as their dynamics are dominated by the propelling Lorentz force (e.g., \citealt{Vrsnak06}; \citealt{Bein11}; \citealt{Carley12}). This expansion phase ends when the CMEs reach maximum velocities leading to a drop in their acceleration to zero. At this point the forces acting on the CMEs (i.e., the propelling Lorentz force and the drag force of the surrounding solar wind) are balanced. This first phase of CME propagation is called the initial or main acceleration. After the maximum speed is reached, the CMEs are gradually slowed down by the ambient medium until they reach the speed of the solar wind (e.g., \citealt{Zhang06}; \citealt{Subramanian07}; \citealt{Gopalswamy13}). This phase of expansion is called the residual acceleration. Using the method described by \citet{Anitha2020b}, the initial or main acceleration is obtained from the formula
$$
Acc_{INI}={{V_{MAX}}\over{ Time_{MAX}-Time_{ONSET}}},
$$
where $V_{MAX}$ is the maximum velocity of a given CME, $Time_{MAX}$ is the time at maximum velocity, and $Time_{ONSET}$ is the onset time of a given CME on the Sun. These parameters are obtained for each event as shown in figure 2. The initial acceleration is about 3.7 m~s{$^{-2}$} for the fastest and 145 m~s{$^{-2}$} for the slowest CME, and on average the CMEs have Acc$_{INI}$ of 28 m~s{$^{-2}$} until they reach V$_{MAX}$.
The maximum acceleration (Acc$_{MAX}$) and the time and distance at Acc$_{MAX}$ (T$_{MAX}$, R$_{MAX}$), and the minimum acceleration (Acc$_{MIN}$) and the time and distance at Acc$_{MIN}$ (T$_{MIN}$, R$_{MIN}$) are represented by the first and second vertical dotted lines in figure 12, respectively. On average, Acc$_{MAX}$ is about 161 m~s{$^{-2}$} and is achieved at about 30 minutes at 4 R$_{sun}$, and Acc$_{MIN}$ is about -118 m~s{$^{-2}$} and is achieved at about 80 minutes at 10 R$_{sun}$ after the CME onset. The point at which the CME ceases to decelerate as its kinematics is completely dominated by the interaction with the solar wind is called the point of inflection, and the acceleration at this point is represented by Acc$_{INF}$. The CME acceleration from this point onwards is 0 m~s{$^{-2}$} as it begins to travel at the same velocity as the surrounding solar wind. The Acc$_{INF}$ and the time and distance at Acc$_{INF}$ (T$_{INF}$, R$_{INF}$) is represented by the third vertical dotted line in figure 12. On average, Acc$_{INF}$ is about -10 m~s{$^{-2}$} and is achieved at about 300 minutes at 25 R$_{sun}$.
We compare the correlation between the acceleration parameters, Acc$_{INI}$ (left panel) and Acc$_{MAX}$ (right panel), with the associated SEP peak flux in figure 13. The correlation coefficients and their probability values are given in Table 5. Acc$_{INI}$ displays a higher correlation compared to Acc$_{MAX}$. We can understand that Acc$_{INI}$ is in some sense the total acceleration of a CME in the first or initial phase of expansion. Therefore, it is a better indicator of SEP peak intensities compared to the instantaneous point of Acc$_{MAX}$. Although there is no significant correlation observed in the left panel, a general trend of increasing Acc$_{INI}$ and SEP peak intensity is observed (i.e., higher initial acceleration leads to higher intensity peak fluxes of SEPs). Furthermore, the correlation shows a slight improvement for higher energy channels of SEPs. In comparison, the best correlation is observed for events originating at disk center.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{accini.eps}
\includegraphics[width=9.1cm,height=6cm]{accmax.eps}
\caption{Scatter plots of initial acceleration (left panel) and maximum acceleration (right panel) vs SEP peak flux in the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels. The open symbols represent disk events (longitude -20 < L < 45), filled symbols represent western events (longitude > 45), and the vertical lines represent eastern events (longitude < -20).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Correlation coefficients and their probabilities (significance at p-value<0.05) of CME acceleration versus SEP peak flux, as shown in Figure 13. The number of events in each subdivision of the longitude are given in parentheses.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c |c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c| c|}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\\\\Initial acceleration\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Energy channel} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}All events \\ (38)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+West \\ (31)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk+East \\ (26)\end{tabular} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Disk events \\ (19)\end{tabular}& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}East events \\ (7)\end{tabular} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ p-value } \\
\hline
& >10 MeV & 0.25 & .130083 & 0.23 & .213231 & 0.28 & .165929 & 0.28 & .245625 & 0.29 & .528119\\
& >50 MeV & 0.34 & .036747 & 0.34 & .061285 & 0.40 & .042896 & 0.43 & .066128 & 0.12 & .797745\\
& >100 MeV & 0.34 & .036747 & 0.36 & .046669 & 0.49 & .011052 & 0.55 & .014698 & -0.01 & .983024\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Maximum acceleration} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{ }&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} \\
& >10 MeV & -0.006 & .971481 & -0.07 & .708265 & 0.05 & .808343 & -0.05 & .83892 & 0.87 & .010899\\
& >50 MeV & -0.31 & .058213 & -0.32 & .079269 & -0.24 & .237628 & -0.26 & .282375 & -0.009 & .984722\\
& >100 MeV & -0.27 & .10113 & -0.27 & .141844 & -0.23 & .258336 & -0.25 & .301953 & -0.13 & .781165\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{table*}
\subsection{Shocks and type II bursts}
CME-driven shocks accelerate not just protons, but also the electrons in the solar corona (\citealt{Holman1983}; \citealt{Schlickeiser1984}; \citealt{Kirk1994}; \citealt{Mann1995}; \citealt{Mann2001}; \citealt{Mann2005}). These accelerated electron beams can be observed as type II bursts in the solar radio radiation in the metric wave range (\citealt{Wild1950}; \citealt{Uchida1960}). Type II bursts require electrons escaping from the shock front, and the lack of these bursts implicates the absence of accelerated electrons as type II bursts occur when 0.2-10 KeV electrons are accelerated in the shock front (see, e.g., \citealt{Bale1999}; \citealt{Knock2001}; \citealt{Mann2005}). Energetic electrons are unstable to Langmuir waves, thus they are converted into radio emission at the local plasma frequency and its harmonic (see \citealt{Nelson1985}). Therefore, type II radio bursts hold crucial information of both the shock and the surrounding ambient medium in which the CME-driven shock propagates (\citealt{gopalswamy08a}). Although almost every large SEP event is accompanied by a type II radio burst (\citealt{gopalswamy2003}; \citealt{Cliver2004}) that indicates CME-driven particle acceleration (\citealt{gosling1993}; \citealt{reames1999}), we have ten events in our sample that lack a type II burst: 14 August 2010, 03 August 2011, 04 March 2012, 26 May 2012, 27 May 2012, 14 June 2012, 08 September 2012, 14 December 2012, 21 April 2013, and 06 November 2013. Of the ten events, two originate in the west, three in the east, and five at the disk center. On average, these events have a maximum velocity of about 1000 km~s{$^{-1}$} and maximum Mach number of about 0.94. The protons accelerated by these events have peak fluxes of about 23.2 cm{$^{-2}$} s{$^{-1}$} sr{$^{-1}$} in the >10 MeV band, making these events the slowest and weakest SEPs in the sample. As the propagation of radio bursts does not depend on the magnetic connectivity, a possible explanation for their absence could be that the path of the radio burst did not coincide with the instrument on board the satellite or that the detection of the waves was below the range of the radio instrument, hence missing the signature. Detailed investigation is required to understand the absence of DH type II radio bursts in these events.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18.5cm,height=9cm]{shockhist.eps}
\caption{Distribution showing the time difference between shock and CME onset (panel a), and time at SEP peak flux and shock onset (panels b, c, and d) in the energy channels: >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green), respectively.}
\label{FigGam}%
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{22cm}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{shockv.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{shockm.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm]{shocksep.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Scatter plots showing maximum velocity (panel a), maximum Mach number (panel b), and SEP peak flux (panel c) vs duration of the shock. The SEPs are shown in the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels. The open symbols represent disk events (longitude -20 < L < 45), filled symbols represent western events (longitude > 45), and vertical lines represent eastern events (longitude < -20). The presented correlation coefficient in the top left corner is for all events.}
\end{figure*}
In order to investigate the time taken to observe the start of type II bursts after the onset of the associated CME, figure 14 panel a, clearly shows their distribution. On average, shocks arise 42 minutes after the onset of the CME. The time taken for the shock to accelerate the SEPs to peak fluxes is shown in panel b, c, and d for the >10 MeV (red), >50 MeV (blue), and >100 MeV (green) energy channels, respectively. Again, the >100 MeV protons take less time to reach peak flux compared to the >10 and >50 MeV protons. Comparison with the results presented in figure 2 for all events show that the Mach number is equal to 1 at the same point when we observe the start of a type II burst, so our profiles seem to be correct. Similary, the burst disappears when again the Mach number decreases to approximately 1. Although we still observe the SEP flux, the type II burst disappears due to the threshold of the instruments. The instruments measure the radio signal, but particles are observed in situ; therefore, the threshold is much lower for SEP detection in comparison with the radio signal coming from very far away.
We also explore the relationship between the shock duration, i.e., type II Time$_{END}$ - type II Time$_{START}$ with the CME and SEP parameters. The scatter plots are presented in figure 15 showing CME maximum velocity (panel a) maximum Mach number (panel b) and SEP peak flux (panel c) versus shock duration. Although there are no significant correlations observed in these parameters, a general trend of increasing Mach number and SEP peak intensity in the >10 MeV energy channel leads to the longer duration of shocks. An interesting conclusion that can be drawn from panel c is that the duration of the shock is closely correlated with >10 MeV protons, and less with >50 and >100 MeV protons. The strength of the shock decreases with distance from the Sun, and the reaccelerated suprathermal SEPs may not reach the spacecraft and the maximum fluxes may not be detected. In addition, although shocks accelerate impulsive seed ions when they are available, they can only result in a small fraction of the SEPs observed (\citealt{Mason1999}). Due to this, the >10 MeV protons predominantly accelerated by CME-driven shocks exhibits the best correlation compared to the higher energy protons.
\section{Conclusions}
To determine the best instantaneous kinematic parameter of a CME to conduct correlation studies with the intensities of energetic particles, we conducted a statistical study of 38 non-interacting CMEs and their associated SEPs during the ascending phase of solar cycle 24 (i.e., 2009-2013). On further investigation the events were classified as halo and partial-halo events. This particular period was chosen as the STEREO twin spacecraft were near quadrature configuration with respect to the Earth. This position offered a big advantage in the accurate determination of the plane-of-sky speed, which is close to the true radial speed of the halo CMEs. It is worth noting that the presented sample of events is the complete list of non-interacting halo or partial-halo CMEs that generate SEPs with flux values $\geq$1 pfu in the >10 MeV, $\geq$0.1 pfu in >50 MeV, and $\geq$0.05 pfu in >100 MeV bands during the above-mentioned period. This work is a continuation of our previous paper \citet{Anitha2020a}, where the main limitation was the small population of the considered CMEs (25 events). The comparative studies presented in \citet{Anitha2020a} have also shown that STEREO/SECCHI offers a wider range of observation (1.5 R$_{sun}$ – 318 R$_{sun}$) in contrast to the SOHO/LASCO C2/C3 field of view (1.5 R$_{sun}$ – 32 R$_{sun}$). Therefore, in this paper we completely dedicated the kinematic study of CMEs with STEREO/SECCHI data as we were able to study the CME evolution at large distances from Sun during peak SEP intensities in the heliosphere. Manual measurements of height--time data points were employed to determine instantaneous velocities. Using the empirical models by \citet{dulk}, \citet{leblanc}, \citet{Mann1999}, \citet{gopalswamy01}, \citet{eselevich}, and \citet{sheeley}, for Alfv\'{e}n and solar wind speed, we derived the instantaneous Mach number parameters for the CMEs. The obtained Mach number was verified with the start and end time of type II radio bursts, which are signatures of CME-driven shock in the interplanetary medium. The start and end times of type II radio bursts should be consistent with instances when the speeds of CMEs reach Mach Number=1. GOES-13 and Wind/WAVES data were used to study the SEPs (in the >10, >50, and >100 MeV energy channels) and shock profiles, respectively. Their properties are summarized in Table~6.
Electromagnetic waves such as X-rays and radio bursts travel directly from the Sun to the Earth, but energetic ions and electrons propagate along the interplanetary magnetic field lines. Kinematic studies of SEPs are influenced by two uncertainties: 1) the magnetic field may significantly vary for each event from the Parker spiral and 2) pitch angle scattering may occur due to interplanetary turbulence, thus distorting the propagation profile. Therefore, studies of these energetic protons in varied energy ranges is required for to determine the path length and propagation times as accurately as possible (\citealt{Tylka2003}; \citealt{Li2012c}). The key results of this article are summarized here.
Of the 38 events in the sample, 19 events (50\%) originate at the disk center (-20$^\circ$ < longitude < 45$^\circ$), 12 events (31\%) originate at the western limb (longitude > 45$^\circ$), and 7 events (18\%) originate at the eastern limb (longitude < -20$^\circ$). The location of the event is the most important parameter that affects the propagation of the particles. Western limb events have the best connectivity, and SEPs reach peak fluxes quickly after the CME onset, but the connectivity becomes poor as we move towards the east and to the farther western limb (longitude > 60$^\circ$), causing delay as the CMEs must expand wide enough so that their shock fronts are well connected magnetically to the Earth. Due to this variation in connectivity along the solar disk we observe delays in the time at which the SEPs reach maximum intensity, as shown in figures 2 and 5. Additionally, we observe in figure 6, left panel, a gradual decrease in peak intensity for >10 MeV protons, but >50 and >100 MeV protons exhibit this trend only at longitudes greater than 0$^\circ$. At longitudes less than 0$^\circ$ (i.e., moving towards the east), their peak fluxes are constant and lie in the range 0.1-1 cm{$^{-2}$} s{$^{-1}$} sr{$^{-1}$}. The peak flux of >50 and >100 MeV particles occurs long before the instance when the associated shock gets connected to the Earth. Thus, though we observe these fluxes, they are very reduced and the instruments miss detecting the maximum fluxes. Hence, the maximum SEP fluxes from the western longitudes can be more accurately measured in situ compared to eastern longitudes. A consequence of this can also be seen in figure 6, right panel, showing the delays in protons attaining peak flux after the CME onset. The >10 MeV protons take longer to reach peak fluxes and are observed at farther
distances from the Sun compared to the >100 MeV protons which are observed close to the Sun (in the range 0-30 R$_{sun}$). As pointed out by \citealt{Dalla2017a} and \citealt{Dalla2017b}, the SEP propagation is also affected by the drifts caused by the gradient and curvation of the Parker spiral IMF, with their importance increasing with energy of the particle. \\
We also observe the delay in both time and distance decreases with increasing energy bands of protons, i.e., >100 MeV protons take less time and distance to reach peak flux, and >10 MeV protons take more time and are observed at greater distances from the Sun. CME-driven shock waves can reaccelerate the impulsive ions pre-accelerated in the magnetic reconnection close to the Sun, and are further seeded into reacceleration by CME-driven shocks at farther distances from the Sun. For this reason we observe the >50 and >100 MeV protons reaching peak fluxes much earlier than >10 MeV protons (\citealt{Desai2003}; \citealt{Tylka2005}; \citealt{Tylka2006}; \citealt{reames2020}).\\
The main objective of the paper was to determine the ideal kinematic parameter of the CME that offers the best correlation with the associated SEP peak fluxes, irrespective of the location of their origin. First, in figure 3 we compare instantaneous CME speed and Mach number versus SEP fluxes for the western and eastern events; we observed a high correlation for western events and an anticorrelation for eastern events. The anticorrelation is observed as the SEP peak intensties are achieved farther away from the Sun for poorly connected events. Of the two parameters, the Mach number offers higher correlation. Next, the comparative studies shown in figures 7 and 11 show that the CME velocity and Mach number at SEP peak flux offer high correlation of about 0.77 and 0.85, respectively, for the >10 MeV protons. For all of the considered subsamples, correlation coefficients are highly significant (probability>0.95). Only for the seven eastern events did the test give high p-values (p>0.05), which means that at the significance level 0.05 we should reject the hypothesis that parameters are linearly correlated. Comparatively, the Mach number is recommended as it takes into account the major parameters (V$_{CME}$, V$_A$, and V$_{SW}$) involved in the onset and influence of particle acceleration, whereas CME speed alone lacks the necessary information for a detailed study. This good correlation is observed also for eastern limb events where the magnetic connectivity of the Sun and the Earth are poor. The results support the works of \citealt{Liou2011} on their study of correlating fast-forward shock Mach numbers with the intensity of SEPs. Inspecting Table 4, which shows the difference between two correlation coefficients presented in Table 1 and 3, we have to reject (at significance level p=0.05) that the considered pairs of correlation coefficients are significantly different. However, we can consider 1-p, which is the probablility that the respective correlation coefficients are different. In a few examples (for >10 MeV particles for All and Disk+West events in figure 7 panel c) this probability could be very high (1-p>0.8; a value of 0.8 means there is an 80\% probability that the difference is significant). And the results presented in this paper, showing the importance
of Mach at SEP peak flux, could be useful for future studies and space weather prediction. \\
For space weather forecasting the best CME kinematic parameter that could be used to predict SEPs is the Mach number at SEP peak flux. As we observed that the Mach number at SEP peak flux and SEP peak occur at the same time, and that it agrees with events originating at all longitudes, this could be best utilized. Fortunately, for the >10 MeV particles that are comparatively slow, we can determine the Mach number one hour before the SEPs reach the Earth with respect to white light measurements by coronagraph. In figure 2 we have shifted the profiles of Mach number and >10 MeV SEP flux by about one hour to take into account the delay, but in reality we first observe the white light and then we measure the height--time data points to determine the Mach number. Therefore, a prediction of the arrival of the lower energetic SEPs to the Earth can be made by this method. \\
A thorough analysis of the active regions of five backside events in our sample allowed us to determine the source location that is responsible for the production of energetic particles. Two of them (28 January 2011 and 23 July 2012) were located just over the edge of the solar disk, but the other three (21 March 2011, 04 June 2011, and 08 November 2012) were located as far as $\approx$30$^\circ$ behind the western limb of the Sun. This means that SEPs can be produced from sources located not only on the visible part of the Sun's disk, but even very far ($\approx$30$^\circ$) beyond the eastern (\citealt{gopalswamy2020}) and western (our study) limb of the disk. These results demonstrate the ability of backsided events to cause space weather effects at Earth, and accurate predictions of SEPs will therefore need to include such events. \\
Ten events in our sample do not show the associated type II burst. Additionally, for all events we observed that the Mach number is equal to 1 at the same point when we observe the start of the type II burst and that the burst disapears when again the Mach number decreases to approximately 1. Even though we still observe SEP flux, the type II burst disappears due to threshold of instruments. The instrument measures radio signal, but particles are observed in situ; therefore, the threshold is much lower for SEP detection in comparison with radio signals coming from a very great distance.
Although no significant correlation is observed in these parameters, a general trend of increasing Mach number and SEP peak intensity in the >10 MeV energy channel lead to the longer duration of shocks. The duration of the shock is well correlated with >10 MeV protons compared to >50 and >100 MeV protons. The shock strength decreases with distance from the Sun, and the reaccelerated suprathermal SEPs may not reach the spacecraft and the maximum fluxes may not be detected. In addition, although shocks accelerate impulsive seed ions when they are available, they can only result in a small fraction of the SEPs observed (\citealt{Mason1999}). Consequently, the >10 MeV protons predominantly accelerated by CME-driven shocks exhibit the best correlation compared to the higher energy protons.\\
\begin{sidewaystable*}[!h]
\caption{Observational parameters of 38 CMEs and the associated SEPs and type II bursts during the period 2009-2013.}\label{YSOtable}
\centering
\tiny
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{ |l| c c c c c| c c c| c c c| c c c| c c c| c | c c | }
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{CME observations} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{SEP peak flux }&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{CME speed at SEP peak flux }&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{Maximum Mach number} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Mach number at SEP peak flux}&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Solar Flare} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Type II burst}\\
\hline
\# & Date \& Time & V$_{AVG}$ & V$_{MAX}$ & R$_{MAX}$ & T$_{MAX}$ & >10 MeV & >50 MeV & >100 MeV & >10 MeV & >50 MeV & >100 MeV & M$_{MAX}$ & MR$_{MAX}$ & MT$_{MAX}$ & >10 MeV & >50 MeV & >100 MeV & Location & Start time & End time \\
& & [km/s] & [km/s] & [R$_{SUN}$] & [Minute]& [pfu] & [pfu] & [pfu] & [km/s]& [km/s] & [km/s] & & [R$_{SUN}$]& [Minute] & & & & & & \\
\hline
1 & 20100814 10:06 & 744 & 825 & 8.33 & 107 & 14.17 & 0.45 & 0.12 & 792 & 825 & 782 & 1.12 & 3.53 & 34 & 0.92 & 0.86 & 1.00 & N17W52 & -- & -- \\
2 & 20110215 01:20 & 489 & 1064 & 4.56 & 67 & 2.58 & 0.24 & 0.10 & 477 & 543 & 543 & 0.91 & 20.01 & 292 & 0.76 & 0.86 & 0.86 & S20W12 & 20110215 02:10 & 20110215 07:00\\
3 & 20110307 19:56 & 1147 & 1742 & 9.95 & 72 & 48.36 & 0.79 & 0.16 & 921 & 949 & 1031 & 1.79 & 29.55 & 245 & 1.63 & 1.66 & 1.70 & N30W48 & 20110307 20:00 & 20110308 08:30\\
4 & 20110607 06:08 & 573 & 1406 & 3.88 & 43 & 72.86 & 14.40 & 4.52 & 425 & 587 & 587 & 1.11 & 3.87 & 43 & 1.69 & 1.80 & 1.80 & S21W54 & 20110607 06:45 & 20110607 18:00\\
5 & 20110802 05:42 & 532 & 992 & 7.32 & 101 & 2.89 & 0.33 & 0.10 & 470 & 527 & 504 & 0.88 & 2.63 & 42 & 0.63 & 0.66 & 0.66 & N14W15 & 20110802 06:15 & 20110802 07:30 \\
6 & 20110803 12:36 & 380 & 684 & 7.66 & 125 & 1.08 & 0.19 & 0.09 & 464 & 464 & 439 & 0.62 & 8.75 & 144 & 0.56 & 0.56 & 0.55 & N19W36 & -- & -- \\
7 & 20110804 03:46 & 1277 & 2627 & 3.84 & 18 & 80.05 & 8.42 & 1.79 & 717 & 1121 & 1287 & 2.31 & 24.86 & 144 & 1.25 & 1.83 & 2.04 & N17W69 & 20110804 04:15 & 20110805 17:00 \\
8 & 20110808 17:58 & 615 & 1623 & 3.24 & 23 & 4.03 & 0.34 & 0.10 & 793 & 700 & 700 & 1.31 & 3.24 & 23 & 0.88 & 1.04 & 1.04 & N14W07 & 20110808 18:10 & 20110808 20:10 \\
9 & 20110809 08:02 & 993 & 1574 & 3.49 & 19 & 26.91 & 3.17 & 0.75 & 694 & 694 & 853 & 1.42 & 16.44 & 136 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.19 & N14W18 & 20110809 08:20 & 20110809 08:35 \\
10 & 20110906 01:25 & 405 & 524 & 7.72 & 139 & 1.52 & 0.38 & 0.12 & 493 & 305 & 321 & 0.46 & 7.71 & 139 & 0.45 & 0.33 & 0.34 & N11W47 & 20110906 02:00 & 20110906 23:40 \\
11 & 20110906 21:54 & 667 & 1598 & 3.65 & 45 & 8.84 & 1.61 & 0.41 & 659 & 778 & 771 & 1.26 & 3.64 & 45 & 1.12 & 1.17 & 1.21 & S22W26 & 20110906 22:30 & 20110907 15:40 \\
12 & 20110922 10:19 & 550 & 1587 & 5.23 & 63 & 6.80 & 0.56 & 0.21 & 414 & 414 & 402 & 1.24 & 3.72 & 51 & 0.76 & 0.76 & 0.75 & N27W71 & 20110922 11:05 & 20110922 24:00 \\
13 & 20111126 06:42 & 655 & 1044 & 3.50 & 39 & 80.26 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 652 & 623 & 623 & 1.35 & 33.91 & 447 & 1.22 & 1.18 & 1.18 & N17W66 & 20111126 07:15 & 20111127 24:00 \\
14 & 20111225 17:54 & 345 & 647 & 2.63 & 47 & 3.23 & 0.26 & 0.07 & 293 & 298 & 298 & 0.57 & 2.63 & 47 & 0.35 & 0.37 & 0.37 & N11W76 & 20111225 18:45 & 20111225 18:55 \\
15 & 20120119 13:31 & 467 & 972 & 8.95 & 187 & 3.51 & 0.17 & 0.06 & 436 & 461 & 480 & 0.91 & 8.95 & 187 & 0.81 & 0.80 & 0.82 & S17E06 & 20120119 15:00 & 20120120 02:45 \\
16 & 20120123 02:48 & 956 & 2339 & 13.0 & 114 & 2243 & 60.59 & 2.38 & 1410 & 1455 & 1695 & 2.95 & 22.96 & 168 & 2.65 & 2.70 & 2.71 & S13W59 & 20120123 04:00 & 20120124 15:00 \\
17 & 20120127 17:48 & 850 & 2562 & 11.1 & 78 & 795.5 & 47.19 & 11.8 & 904 & 940 & 1272 & 2.90 & 14.76 & 96 & 1.62 & 1.66 & 1.99 & S15W01 & 20120127 18:30 & 20120128 04:45 \\
18 & 20120304 10:46 & 546 & 1012 & 4.99 & 71 & 2.26 & 0.15 & 0.07 & 430 & 430 & 430 & 0.92 & 3.66 & 54 & 0.62 & 0.62 & 0.62 & S13W88 & -- & -- \\
19 & 20120313 17:21 & 722 & 2397 & 12.3 & 61 & 468.7 & 17.86 & 1.88 & 1148 & 2092 & 2092 & 2.86 & 15.83 & 80 & 1.82 & 2.81 & 2.81 & S19E42 & 20120313 17:35 & 20120313 24:00 \\
20 & 20120517 01:43 & 1009 & 1679 & 10.3 & 67 & 255.4 & 78.29 & 20.4 & 901 & 1587 & 1679 & 1.84 & 10.36 & 42 & 1.44 & 1.79 & 1.69 & S06W34 & 20120517 01:45 & 20120517 17:20 \\
21 & 20120526 20:32 & 657 & 1479 & 3.27 & 34 & 6.94 & 0.21 & 0.08 & 566 & 605 & 605 & 1.19 & 3.26 & 34 & 0.76 & 0.78 & 0.78 & N07E12 & -- & -- \\
22 & 20120527 05:08 & 509 & 1070 & 4.98 & 67 & 14.77 & 0.22 & 0.08 & 528 & 578 & 466 & 0.96 & 3.77 & 53 & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.70 & N14W11 & -- & -- \\
23 & 20120614 13:00 & 562 & 1327 & 4.46 & 41 & 0.95 & 0.20 & 0.06 & 457 & 457 & 457 & 1.12 & 7.46 & 68 & 0.84 & 0.84 & 0.84 & N10W33 & -- & -- \\
24 & 20120706 22:39 & 621 & 1890 & 3.65 & 46 & 25.24 & 1.82 & 0.36 & 496 & 499 & 475 & 1.50 & 3.64 & 46 & 0.78 & 0.76 & 0.68 & S11W88 & 20120706 23:10 & 20120707 03:40 \\
25 & 20120712 16:10 & 712 & 1504 & 5.57 & 58 & 96.08 & 0.85 & 0.25 & 695 & 656 & 1176 & 1.28 & 4.27 & 47 & 1.07 & 0.90 & 1.36 & S18E07 & 20120712 16:45 & 20120713 09:00 \\
26 & 20120719 05:01 & 898 & 2004 & 4.65 & 47 & 79.60 & 5.16 & 0.73 & 833 & 858 & 848 & 1.56 & 4.65 & 47 & 1.42 & 1.39 & 1.31 & S13W59 & 20120719 05:30 & 20120719 06:20 \\
27 & 20120831 19:19 & 853 & 1590 & 4.33 & 50 & 47.44 & 0.20 & 0.06 & 654 & 684 & 684 & 1.65 & 44.05 & 450 & 1.35 & 1.36 & 1.36 & S15W01 & 20120831 20:00 & 20120831 23:45 \\
28 & 20120908 09:48 & 482 & 773 & 2.91 & 39 & 1.16 & 0.22 & 0.09 & 414 & 414 & 434 & 0.65 & 2.90 & 39 & 0.55 & 0.55 & 0.54 & S13W88 & -- & -- \\
29 & 20120927 23:12 & 801 & 1610 & 12.3 & 114 & 28.43 & 0.79 & 0.15 & 818 & 808 & 676 & 1.76 & 12.34 & 114 & 1.24 & 1.27 & 1.16 & S19E42 & 20120927 23:55 & 20120928 10:15 \\
30 & 20121214 01:35 & 596 & 1090 & 12.5 & 181 & 9.36 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 485 & 663 & 663 & 1.26 & 15.04 & 211 & 0.92 & 0.99 & 0.99 & S06W34 & -- & -- \\
31 & 20130116 17:57 & 544 & 1604 & 2.82 & 56 & 1.65 & 0.12 & 0.04 & 530 & 524 & 530 & 1.37 & 2.82 & 56 & 0.88 & 0.88 & 0.88 & N07E12 & 20130116 22:00 & 20130117 01:30\\
32 & 20130315 06:01 & 593 & 2039 & 3.95 & 61 & 7.43 & 0.19 & 0.08 & 406 & 406 & 406 & 1.61 & 3.95 & 61 & 0.79 & 0.79 & 0.79 & N14W11 & 20130315 07:00 & 20130315 21:30\\
33 & 20130411 06:53 & 695 & 1747 & 3.63 & 46 & 113.1 & 8.41 & 2.02 & 623 & 669 & 669 & 1.38 & 3.63 & 46 & 1.02 & 1.03 & 1.03 & N10W33 & 20130411 07:10 & 20130411 15:00\\
34 & 20130421 07:13 & 473 & 798 & 4.04 & 67 & 3.27 & 0.27 & 0.09 & 448 & 503 & 477 & 0.72 & 4.04 & 67 & 0.64 & 0.58 & 0.48 & S11W88 & -- & -- \\
35 & 20130929 21:29 & 715 & 1376 & 12.6 & 125 & 131.1 & 1.82 & 0.18 & 592 & 745 & 768 & 1.64 & 21.23 & 209 & 1.12 & 1.30 & 1.31 & S18E07 & 20130929 21:53 & 20130930 21:00\\
36 & 20131106 22:50 & 422 & 973 & 7.09 & 123 & 6.64 & 0.19 & 0.07 & 457 & 663 & 663 & 0.84 & 7.09 & 123 & 0.59 & 0.79 & 0.79 & N10W33 & -- & -- \\
37 & 20131119 10:00 & 402 & 1072 & 3.53 & 46 & 4.03 & 0.32 & 0.10 & 397 & 488 & 599 & 0.85 & 3.53 & 46 & 0.55 & 0.67 & 0.69 & S11W88 & 20131119 10:39 & 20131119 20:20\\
38 & 20131228 17:08 & 550 & 1062 & 6.97 & 82 & 29.27 & 1.51 & 0.27 & 593 & 708 & 841 & 1.09 & 11.97 & 138 & 0.87 & 1.00 & 1.00 & S18E07 & 20131228 17:31 & 20131228 18:05\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\endgroup
\end{sidewaystable*}
\begin{acknowledgements}
Anitha Ravishankar and Grzegorz Micha$\l$ek were supported by NCN through the grant UMO-2017/25/B/ST9/00536 and DSC grant N17/MNS/000038. This work was also supported by NASA LWS project led by Dr. N. Gopalswamy. The authors thank the referee for the useful comments and suggestions that have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank all the members of the STEREO/SECCHI and GOES consortium who built the instruments and provided the data used in this study.\\
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
The quantum Yang--Baxter equation is a fundamental equation arising in theoretical physics and has deep connections with mathematics specially braid groups and knot theory. A solution of the quantum Yang--Baxter equation is a linear map $R:V \otimes V \to V\otimes V$ satisfying $$R_{12}R_{13}R_{23} = R_{23}R_{13}R_{12},$$ where
$V$ is a vector space over a field and $R_{ij}:V \otimes V \otimes V \to V \otimes V \otimes V$ acts as $R$ on the $(i,j)$ tensor factor and as the identity on the remaining factor. If $F: V \otimes V \to V \otimes V$ is the flip operator $F(v \otimes w) = w \otimes v$, then $R:V \otimes V \to V\otimes V$ is a solution of the quantum Yang--Baxter equation if and only if $\overline{R} = F \circ R$ satisfies the braid relation
$$\overline{R}_{12}\overline{R}_{23}\overline{R}_{12} = \overline{R}_{23}\overline{R}_{12}\overline{R}_{23},$$
in which case one says that $\overline{R}$ is a solution of the Yang--Baxter equation. Topologically, the braid relation is simply the third Reidemeister move of planar diagrams of links as shown in Figure \ref{fig1}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=2cm, width=4cm]{braid.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The braid relation} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
If $X$ is a basis of the vector space $V$, then a map $r: X \times X \to X \times X$ satisfying
$r_{12}r_{23}r_{12}= r_{23}r_{12}r_{23}$ induces a solution of the Yang--Baxter equation. In this case, we say that $(X,r)$ is a set-theoretic solution of the Yang--Baxter equation. Writing $r(x, y) = (\sigma_x(y), \tau_y(x))$ for $x, y \in X$, we say that the solution $r$ is non-degenerate if $\sigma_x$ and $\tau_x$ are invertible for all $x \in X$. The problem of finding these set-theoretic solutions was posed by Drinfeld \cite{Drinfeld} and has attracted a lot of attention.
\par
A \emph{(left) cycle set}, as defined by Rump \cite{Rump2005}, is a non-empty set $X$ with a binary operation $\cdot$ having bijective left translations $X \to X$, $x \mapsto y \cdot x$,
and satisfying the relation
\begin{align}\label{E:Cyclic}
(x\cdot y)\cdot (x\cdot z)=(y\cdot x)\cdot (y\cdot z)
\end{align}
for all $x, y, z \in X$. A cycle set is \emph{non-degenerate} if the squaring map $a \mapsto a \cdot a$ is invertible. It is known that every finite cycle set is non-degenerate \cite[Theorem 2]{Rump2005}. Rump showed that cycle sets are in bijection with non-degenerate unitary set-theoretic solutions of the Yang--Baxter equation. These solutions give a rich class of structures and are connected with semigroups of special type, Bieberbach groups \cite{IvanovaBergh}, biquandles \cite{FJSK, KM2005}, colourings of plane curves \cite{ESS1999}, Hopf algebras \cite{EtingofGelaki1998} and Garside groups \cite{Chouraqui}, to name a few. Special solutions, particularly, the ones possessing self-distributivity are intimately connected to invariants of knots and links in the 3-space and thickened surfaces \cite{FJSK, KM2005, LebedJKTR2018}. Cycle sets have been proved to be very useful in understanding the structure of solutions of the Yang--Baxter equation and for obtaining general classification results. Cycle sets as braces give only unitary solutions whereas skew braces, racks, bi-quandles etc. give general solutions. The structure of cycle sets is still far from being completely understood, and many important questions on the topic are yet not answered. The reader is referred to \cite{CJO2010, CJO2014, Chouraqui, Dehornoy2015, ESS1999, GI2018, LV2016, LV2017, YanZhu2000, RumpJA2007, Smok2018, Smoktunowicz2018, Soloviev2000} for some recent works.
\par
A \emph{(left) brace} is an abelian group $(A,+)$ with an additional group operation $\circ$ such that
\begin{align}\label{E:Brace}
a\circ (b+c)+a=a\circ b+a\circ c
\end{align}
holds for all $a,b,c \in A$. Braces were introduced by Rump \cite{RumpJA2007} in a slightly different but equivalent form where he showed that these algebraic systems give set-theoretic solutions of the Yang--Baxter equation. The preceding definition is due to Ced{\'o}, Jespers and Okni{\'n}ski \cite{CJO2014}. Each abelian group is trivially a brace with $a+b=a \circ b$. In addition, regular rings give a large supply of braces. Relations between the additive and the multiplicative groups of a brace have been explored in many recent works, for example, \cite{CedoSmokVendramin, GorshkovNasybullov, Nasybullov2019}.
\par
A \emph{(left) linear cycle set} is a cycle set $(X,\cdot)$ with an abelian group operation $+$ satisfying the conditions
\begin{equation}\label{E:LinCyclic}
x\cdot (y+z) =x\cdot y+x\cdot z
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{E:LinCyclic2}
(x+y)\cdot z =(x\cdot y)\cdot (x\cdot z)
\end{equation}
for all $x, y, z\in X$. This notion goes back to Rump \cite{RumpJA2007}, who showed it to be equivalent to the brace structure via the relation $$x\cdot y=x^{-1}\circ(x+y),$$
where $x^{-1}$ is inverse with respect to $\circ$. An abelian group can be viewed as a linear cycle set by taking $x\cdot y=y$ for all $x, y \in X$, and referred as a {\it trivial} linear cycle set. Rump \cite{RumpJA2007} showed that linear cycle sets are closely related to radical rings.
\par
It was pointed out in \cite{BCJO2017} that an extension theory for cycle sets (equivalently braces) would be crucial for a classification of these objects. This led to development of an extension theory by Lebed and Vendramin \cite{LV2016, LV2017}. A homology and cohomology theory for linear cycle sets (and hence for braces) was developed recently in \cite{LV2016}. As in case of groups, Lie algebras, quandles or any nice algebraic system, the second cohomology groups were shown to classify central cycle set extensions. A cohomology theory for general cycle sets was developed in \cite{LV2017}. We will follow the linear cycle set language of \cite{LV2016} since it gives a neat construction of cohomology and extension theory. It is worth noting that the right and the two-sided analogues of braces and cycle sets can be defined analogously and have been considered in the literature.
\par
In this paper, we derive an exact sequence relating 1-cocycles, certain group of automorphisms and second cohomology groups of linear cycle sets. This can be thought of as a linear cycle set analogue of a fundamental exact sequence for groups due to Wells \cite{Wells1971}. For notational convenience, sometimes, we will denote the value of a map $\phi$ at a point $x$ by $\phi_x$. We use the notation $\operatorname{Aut}$, $\operatorname{Z}^1$ and $\operatorname{H}^2$ to denote group of automorphisms, group of 1-cocycles and second cohomology group of a linear cycle set, respectively. To distinguish linear cycle sets from groups, we use the bold notation $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}$, $\operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1$ and $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2$ to denote group of automorphisms, group of 1-cocycles and second cohomology of a group, respectively.
\par
Section \ref{prelim} contains preliminaries and some basic results. We prove that there is a natural group homomorphism from the second linear cycle set cohomology to the second symmetric cohomology of the underlying abelian group (Proposition \ref{homo-cycle-group-cohomology}) and also examine this homomorphism for trivial cycle sets (Proposition \ref{trivial-cycle-group-cohomology}). Section \ref{sec-action-auto-cohomo} prepares the foundation for the main result. Given a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ and an abelian group $A$, we define an action of $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ on $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. As a consequence, we obtain a lower bound on the size of $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ (Corollary \ref{cor-order-cohom}). In Section \ref{sec-exact-seq}, we prove our main theorem (Theorem \ref{abelian-main-theorem}) that associates to each central extension of linear cycle sets a four term exact sequence relating group of 1-cocycles, certain group of automorphisms and second cohomology groups. Section \ref{properties of map theta} explores properties of the important connecting map in this exact sequence (Theorem \ref{main-thm-3}). In Section \ref{comparision-sequences}, we relate the exact sequence with the corresponding Wells exact sequence for the underlying extension of abelian groups via the forgetful functor (Theorem \ref{comparison-wells}). Finally, in Section \ref{dynamical-2-cocycle}, we discuss some generalities on bi-groupoids and dynamical extensions of (linear) cycle sets.
\medskip
\section{Preliminaries and some basic results}\label{prelim}
Recall that a bi-groupoid is a non-empty set with two binary algebraic operations. We begin with the following immediate observation.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(X, \cdot, *)$ be a bi-groupoid and $S : X \times X \to X \times X$ given by $S(x, y) = (x \cdot y, y * x)$ for $x, y \in X$. Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The pair $(X, S)$ is a set theoretic solution of the Yang--Baxter equation if and only if the equalities
\begin{eqnarray*}
(x \cdot (y \cdot z)) &=& (x \cdot y) \cdot ((y*x)\cdot z),\\
((y\cdot z)* x) \cdot (z *y) &=& ((y*x) \cdot z) *(x \cdot y)~\textrm{and}\\
(z*y) *((y \cdot z) *x) &=& z* (y * x)
\end{eqnarray*}
hold for all $x, y, z \in X$.
\item If $x \cdot y = y$ for all $x, y \in X$, then the pair $(X, S)$ is a set theoretic solution of the Yang--Baxter equation if and only if the operation $*$ is left distributive, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{rack-eqn}
z *(y * x) = (z*y) * (z* x)
\end{equation}
for all $x, y, z \in X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Recall that $(X, *)$ is a {\it (left) rack} if the maps $x \mapsto y*x$ are bijections and \eqref{rack-eqn} holds for all $x,y,z \in X$. Thus, assertion (2) of the preceding lemma gives a non-degenerate solution of the Yang--Baxter equation if and only if $(X, *)$ is a rack. Racks are useful in defining invariants of framed links in the 3-space. We look for conditions under which a rack is a cycle set. Following \cite{LebedMortier}, we say that a rack $X$ is {\it abelian} if
$$
x * (y * z) = y * (x * z)
$$
for all $x, y, z \in X$. Note that this condition is equivalent to the group $$\operatorname{Inn}(X)= \langle S_x, ~x \in X~|~ S_x(y):= x*y,~ x, y \in X\rangle $$ of inner automorphisms of $X$ being abelian.
\begin{proposition}
If $(X, *)$ is a rack such that $\operatorname{Inn}(X)$ is abelian, then it is a cycle set.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the rack axiom that
$$
x * (y * z) = (x * y) * (x * z)$$
and
$$y * (x * z) = (y * x) * (y * z)
$$
for all $x, y, z \in X$. Since $\operatorname{Inn}(X)$ is abelian, we get $$(x * y) * (x * z)= (y * x) * (y * z),$$ which is desired.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\subsection{Cohomology and extensions of linear cycle sets}
A \emph{morphism} between linear cycle sets $X$ and $Y$ is a map $\varphi \colon X\to Y$ satisfying $\varphi(x+x')=\varphi(x)+\varphi(x')$ and $\varphi(x \cdot x')=\varphi(x) \cdot \varphi(x')$ for all $x,x'\in X$. The \emph{kernel} of $\varphi$ is defined by $\operatorname{Ker} (\varphi) = \varphi^{-1}(0)$. The notion of \emph{image}, of a \emph{short exact sequence} of linear cycle sets, and of \emph{linear cycle subsets} are defined in the usual manner.
\par
Two linear cycle set extensions $A \overset{i}{\rightarrowtail} E \overset{\pi}{\twoheadrightarrow} X$ and $A \overset{i'}{\rightarrowtail} E' \overset{\pi'}{\twoheadrightarrow} X$ are called \emph{equivalent} if there exists a linear cycle set isomorphism $\varphi \colon E \to E'$ such that the diagram
$$
\xymatrix{
A \ar[r]^{i} \ar[d]^{\mathrm{id}} & E \ar[d]^{\varphi} \ar[r]^{\pi} & X \ar[d]^{\mathrm{id}} \\
A \ar[r]^{i'} & E' \ar[r]^{\pi'} & X}
$$
commutes. A cohomology theory for linear cycle sets is developed in the recent works of Lebed and Vendramin \cite{LV2016, LV2017}. Following \cite{LV2016}, a {\it 2-cocycle} for a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ with coefficients in the (additively written) abelian group $A$ consists of two maps $f,g \colon X \times X \to A$ satisfying the conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
g(x,y) &=& g(y,x),\label{g-symmetric}\\
g(x,y) + g(x+y,z) &=& g(y,z) + g(x,y+z),\label{CocycleFull3}\\
f(x+y,z) &=& f(x \cdot y,x \cdot z) + f(x,z)~\textrm{and}\label{CocycleFull}\\
f(x,y+z) - f(x,y) - f(x,z) &=& g(x \cdot y, x \cdot z) - g(y,z)\label{CocycleFull2}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $x, y, z \in X$. Note that, if $(f,g)$ is a $2$-cocycle of a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ with coefficients in an abelian group $A$, then conditions \eqref{g-symmetric}-\eqref{CocycleFull3}-\eqref{CocycleFull}\eqref{CocycleFull2} imply that
\begin{align*}
&f(0,x) = f(x,0) = 0~\textrm{and}\\
&g(0,x) = g(x,0) = g(0,0)
\end{align*}
for all $x \in X$. A pair of maps $f,g \colon X \times X \to A$ is called a {\it 2-coboundary} if there exists a map $\lambda \colon X \to A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x,y) &=& \lambda (x \cdot y) - \lambda(y)~\textrm{and}\label{Coboundary1}\\
g(x,y) &=& \lambda (x + y) - \lambda(x) - \lambda(y)\label{Coboundary2}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $x, y \in X$.
\par
A $2$-cocycle $(f,g)$ is called normalised if $g(0,0) = 0$, whereas a $2$-coboundary $(f,g)$ is called normalised if the map
$\lambda: X \to A$ satisfy $\lambda(0) = 0$. We denote the group of normalised 2-cocycles by $\operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, and the group of normalised 2-coboundaries by $\operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. The quotient $\operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)/\operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ is the {\it normalised cohomology} group $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ of $X$ with coefficients in $A$. We shall also need the group of normalised 1-cocycles defined as
\begin{equation}\label{1-cocycles}
\operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A)= \big\{\lambda: X \to A~|~ \lambda (x + y) = \lambda(x) + \lambda(y)~\textrm{and}~\lambda (x \cdot y) = \lambda(y)~\textrm{for all}~x, y \in X \big\}.
\end{equation}
The following is an analogue of a similar classical result for groups \cite[Lemma 5.2]{LV2016}.
\begin{lemma}\label{linear-cycle-structure}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set, $A$ an abelian group and $f,g \colon X\times X\to A$ two maps. Then the set $X \times A$ with the operations
\begin{align*}
(x, a) + (y, b) &= \big( x + y, a + b + g(x,y)\big) ~\textrm{and}\\
(x, a) \cdot (y, b) &= \big(x \cdot y, b + f(x,y)\big)
\end{align*}
for $a,b \in A$,\, $x,y \in X$, is a linear cycle set if and only if $(f,g)$ is a $2$-cocycle.
\end{lemma}
The linear cycle set of Lemma \ref{linear-cycle-structure} is denoted by $X \oplus_{f,g} A$. A reformulation of Lemma \ref{linear-cycle-structure} for braces is as follows \cite[Lemma 5.4]{LV2016}.
\begin{lemma}\label{brace-structure-cocycle}
Let $(X, \circ, +)$ be a brace, $A$ be an abelian group, and $f,g\colon X\times X\to A$ be two maps. Then the set $X \times A$ with the operations
\begin{align*}
(x, a)+(y, b)&=\big(x+y, a+b+g(x,y)\big)~\textrm{and}\\
(x, a) \circ (y, b)&=\big(x \circ y, a+b+f(x,y)\big)
\end{align*}
for $a,b\in A$,\, $x, y\in X$, is a brace if and only if for the corresponding linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$, the pair $(\overline{f}, g)$
is a $2$-cocycle, where
\begin{align}
\overline{f}(x,y) = -f(x, x \cdot y) + g(x,y)
\end{align}
for all $x, y \in X$.
\end{lemma}
A linear cycle subset $X'$ of a linear cycle set $X$ is called \emph{central} if $x \cdot x' = x'$ and $x' \cdot x = x$ for all $x \in X$ and $x' \in X'$. A \emph{central extension} of a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ by an abelian group $A$ is the datum of a short exact sequence of linear cycle sets
\begin{align}\label{ShortExactSeq}
&0 \to A \overset{i}{\to} E \overset{\pi}{\to} X \to 0,
\end{align}
where $A$ is endowed with the trivial cycle set structure, and its image $i (A)$ is central in $E$. Notice that an extension
\begin{equation}\label{group-ext}
0 \to A \to E \to X \to 0
\end{equation}
of abelian groups can be thought of as a central extension of linear cycle sets by viewing each group as a trivial linear cycle set. Let $\operatorname{Ext}(X,A)$ denote the set of equivalence classes of central extensions of $X$ by $A$. The linear cycle set $X \oplus_{f,g} A$ from Lemma~\ref{linear-cycle-structure} is a central extension of $X$ by $A$ in the obvious way. More precisely, we have a central extension of linear cycle sets
$$0 \to A \overset{i}{\to} X \oplus_{f,g} A \overset{\pi}{\to} X \to 0,$$
where $i(a)=(0, a)$ and $\pi(x, a)=x$ for all $a \in A$ and $x \in X$. Trivially, the underlying extension
$$0 \to A \overset{i}{\to} (X \oplus_{f,g} A, +) \overset{\pi}{\to} (X, +) \to 0$$
of abelian groups is also central. As in case of groups, all central linear cycle set extensions of $X$ by $A$ arise in this manner \cite[Lemma 5.6]{LV2016}.
\begin{lemma}\label{extension-to-cocycle}
Let $0 \to A \overset{i}{\to} E \overset{\pi}{\to} X \to 0$ be a central linear cycle set extension and $s \colon X \to E$ be a set-theoretic section of~$\pi$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The maps $f, g\colon X \times X \to E$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
f (x,y) &=& s(x) \cdot s(y) - s(x \cdot y) ~\textrm{and}\\
g (x,y) &=& s(x) + s(y) - s(x + y)
\end{eqnarray*}
take values in $i(A)$ and $(f,g)$ is a 2-cocycle.
\item The cocycle above is normalised if and only if $s(0)=0$.
\item Extensions $E$ and $X \oplus_{f,g} A$ are equivalent.
\item A cocycle $(f',g')$ obtained from another section~$s'$ of~$\pi$ is cohomologous to $(f,g)$. If both cocycles are normalised, then they are cohomologous in the normalised sense.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{extension-to-cocycle} yields a bijective correspondence
\begin{equation}\label{ext-equiv-cohomo}
\operatorname{Ext}(X,A) \longleftrightarrow \operatorname{H}_{\Norm}^2(X; A).
\end{equation}
Thus, central extensions of linear cycle sets (and hence of braces) are completely determined by their second normalised cohomology groups.
The rest of the paper centres around the extension $X \oplus_{f,g} A$ of a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ by an abelian group $A$ with respect to a given $2$-cocycle $(f,g)$. Thus, in view of lemmas \ref{linear-cycle-structure} and \ref{extension-to-cocycle}, we would only use the 2-cocycle conditions \eqref{g-symmetric}--\eqref{CocycleFull2} rather than the defining axioms of a linear cycle set.
\medskip
\subsection{Homomorphism from linear cycle set cohomology to group cohomology}
Let $G$ be a group, $A$ a $G$-module and $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(G; A)$ the second group cohomology of $G$ with coefficients in $A$. It is well-known that $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(G; A)$ classifies group extensions of $G$ by $A$ inducing the given action of $G$ on $A$ \cite{Brown1981}. Recall that a group theoretical 2-cocycle $g: G \times G \to A$ satisfying \eqref{g-symmetric} is called a {\it symmetric 2-cocycle}. Let $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}(G; A)$ be the subgroup of $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(G; A)$ consisting of cohomology classes of group theoretical symmetric 2-cocycles (that is, maps satisfying conditions \eqref{g-symmetric} and \eqref{CocycleFull3}). An easy check shows that if both $G$ and $A$ are abelian groups, then $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}(G; A)$ classifies extensions of the form $$0 \to A \to E \to X \to 0,$$ where $E$ is an abelian group. It follows that $A$ is necessarily a trivial $G$-module in this case. There is a natural group homomorphism from linear cycle set cohomology to symmetric group cohomology.
\begin{proposition}\label{homo-cycle-group-cohomology}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set and $A$ an abelian group viewed as a trivial $(X, +)$-module. Then there is a group homomorphism
$$\Lambda: \operatorname{H}^2_N(X; A) \to \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}((X, +); A)$$ given by $\Lambda[(f, g)]= [g]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given a normalised $2$-cocycle $(f,g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ for the linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ with coefficients in the abelian group $A$, conditions \eqref{g-symmetric} and
\eqref{CocycleFull3} imply that $g$ is a group theoretical symmetric $2$-cocycle of the abelian group $(X,+)$ with coefficients in the abelian group $A$. Further, if $(f,g) \in \operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, then condition \eqref{Coboundary2} imply that $g$ is a group theoretical 2-coboundary. Thus, there is a well-defined map $\Lambda: \operatorname{H}^2_N(X; A) \to \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}((X, +); A)$ given by $\Lambda[(f, g)]= [g]$. That $\Lambda$ is a group homomorphism follows from the fact that addition of 2-cocycles is point-wise for both linear cycle sets and groups.
\end{proof}
Given two abelian groups $G$ and $A$, let $\operatorname{Bilin}(G \times G, A)$ denote the group of bilinear maps from $G \times G$ to $A$. For trivial cycle sets, the map $\Lambda$ is surjective and its kernel can be determined precisely.
\begin{proposition}\label{trivial-cycle-group-cohomology}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a trivial linear cycle set and $A$ an abelian group viewed as a trivial $(X, +)$-module. Then
$$\operatorname{H}_{\Norm}^2(X; A) \cong \operatorname{Bilin}((X,+) \times (X,+), A) \times \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}((X, +); A).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We begin by noting that if $f,g \colon X \times X \to A$ is a 2-cocycle of the trivial linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$, then conditions \eqref{g-symmetric}-\eqref{CocycleFull3} imply that $g$ is a group theoretical symmetric 2-cocycle, whereas conditions \eqref{CocycleFull}-\eqref{CocycleFull2} imply that $f$ is a bilinear map, that is, $f \in \operatorname{Bilin}((X,+) \times (X,+), A)$. Further, by conditions \eqref{Coboundary1}-\eqref{Coboundary2}, $(f, g)$ is a 2-coboundary if there exists a map $\lambda \colon X \to A$ such that $$ f(x,y) =0$$ and $$g(x,y) =\lambda (x + y) - \lambda(x) - \lambda(y)$$
for all $x, y \in X$. Thus, it follows that $$\operatorname{H}_{\Norm}^2(X; A) \cong \operatorname{Bilin}((X,+) \times (X,+), A) \times \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}((X, +); A),$$
and the map $\Lambda$ is simply projection onto the second factor.
\end{proof}
Given two abelian groups $(X, +)$ and $A$ where $A$ is viewed as a trivial $(X,+)$-module, it follows from Proposition \ref{trivial-cycle-group-cohomology} that the group $\operatorname{Bilin}((X,+) \times (X,+), A) \times \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}((X,+); A)$ classifies meta-trivial linear cycle sets, that is, extensions of a trivial linear cycle set by a trivial linear cycle set.
\begin{question}
What can we say about the homomorphism $\Lambda$ for non-trivial linear cycle sets?
\end{question}
\bigskip
\section{Action of automorphisms on cohomology of linear cycle sets}\label{sec-action-auto-cohomo}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set and $A$ an abelian group. Let $\operatorname{Aut}(X)$ denote the group of all linear cycle set automorphisms of $X$ and $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ the usual automorphism group of $A$. For $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $(f, g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, we define
$$^{(\phi, \theta)}(f, g)=\big(^{(\phi, \theta)}f, ~^{(\phi, \theta)}g \big),$$
where $^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x, y):=\theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)\big)$ and $^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x, y):=\theta \big( g \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)\big)$ for all $x, y \in X$.
\begin{proposition}
The group $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ acts by automorphisms on the group $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ as
$$^{(\phi, \theta)}[f, g]= [^{(\phi, \theta)}(f, g)]$$
for $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $(f, g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $(f, g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, we first show that $^{(\phi, \theta)}(f, g)$ is a normalised 2-cocycle of the cycle set $X$. For $x, y \in X$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x+y, z) &=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x+y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)\\
&=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x)+\phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)\\
&=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x)\cdot \phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(x)\cdot \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big) + \theta \big(f \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)~\textrm{due to}~\eqref{CocycleFull}\\
&=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x \cdot y), \phi^{-1}(x \cdot z) \big)\big) + \theta \big(f \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big) \\
&=& ^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x \cdot y, x \cdot z) +~ ^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x, z),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& ^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x, y+z)- ~^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x, y)- ~^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x, z)\\
&=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y)+\phi^{-1}(z)\big) - f \big( \phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)-f \big( \phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)\\
&=& \theta \big( g \big(\phi^{-1}(x) \cdot \phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(x) \cdot \phi^{-1}(z)\big) - g \big( \phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)~\textrm{due to}~\eqref{CocycleFull2}\\
&=& \theta \big( g \big(\phi^{-1}(x \cdot y), \phi^{-1}(x \cdot z)\big)\big) - \theta \big(g \big( \phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)\\
&=& ^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x \cdot y, x \cdot z)-~ ^{(\phi, \theta)}g(y, z)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x,y)+~^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x+y,z) &=& \theta \big( g\big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)+ g\big(\phi^{-1}(x)+\phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big) \big)\\
&=& \theta \big( g\big(\phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)+ g\big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y)+\phi^{-1}(z) \big) \big)~\textrm{due to}~\eqref{CocycleFull3}\\
&=& \theta \big( g\big(\phi^{-1}(y), \phi^{-1}(z) \big)\big)+ \theta \big(g\big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y+z) \big) \big)\\
&=& ^{(\phi, \theta)}g(y, z) + ~^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x, y+ z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Further, $^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x,y)=~^{(\phi, \theta)}g(y,x)$ and $^{(\phi, \theta)}g(0, 0)=0$. Hence, $^{(\phi, \theta)}(f, g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Now, given $(\phi_i, \theta_i) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ for $i=1,2$, we see that
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)(\phi_2, \theta_2)}f(x, y) &=& ^{(\phi_1\phi_2, \theta_1\theta_2)}f(x, y)\\
&=& \theta_1\theta_2 \big( f \big(\phi_2^{-1}\phi_1^{-1}(x), \phi_2^{-1}\phi_1^{-1}(y)\big) \big)\\
&=& \theta_1 \big(~^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}f \big(\phi_1^{-1}(x), \phi_1^{-1}(y)\big) \big)\\
&=& ^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}\big({^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}f}\big)(x, y)
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $x, y \in X$. Similarly, one can show that $^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)(\phi_2, \theta_2)}g(x, y)=~^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}\big({^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}g}\big)(x, y)$. It can now easily be deduced that the group
$\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ acts on $\operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ by automorphisms. It only remains to be shown that the action preserves $\operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Let $(f, g) \in \operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Then there exists $\lambda: X \to A$ such that conditions \eqref{Coboundary1} and \eqref{Coboundary2} holds. For $x, y \in X$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x,y) &=& \theta \big( f \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)\big)\\
&=& \theta \big( \lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(x) \cdot \phi^{-1}(y) \big) -\lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(y)\big) \big)\\
&=& \theta \big( \lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(x \cdot y) \big) \big) - \theta \big( \lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(y)\big) \big)\\
&=& \lambda'(x \cdot y)- \lambda'(y)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x,y) &=& \theta \big( \lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(x) + \phi^{-1}(y) \big) -\lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(x) \big)-\lambda \big(\phi^{-1}(y) \big) \big)\\
&=& \lambda'(x+y)-\lambda'(x)-\lambda'(y),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\lambda'=\theta \lambda \phi^{-1}: X \to A$. Hence, $^{(\phi, \theta)}(f, g) \in \operatorname{B}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ and we are done.
\end{proof}
Applying the orbit-stabiliser theorem to the action of $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ on $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ yields
\begin{corollary}\label{cor-order-cohom}
If $X$ is a finite linear cycle set, $A$ a finite abelian group and $(f, g)\in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, then
$$|\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)| \ge \frac{|\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)|}{|{(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A))}_{[f, g]}|},$$
where ${(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A))}_{[f, g]}$ is the stabiliser subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ at $[f, g]$.
\end{corollary}
In general, we have $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \le \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}((X, +))$ for any linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ and the equality holds for trivial linear cycle sets. Corollary \ref{cor-order-cohom} and Proposition \ref{trivial-cycle-group-cohomology} then yields
the following.
\begin{corollary}
If $G$ and $A$ are finite abelian groups with $A$ viewed as a trivial $G$-module and $(f, g)\in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(G; A)$, then
$$|\operatorname{\textbf{H}}_{sym}^2(G; A)| \ge \frac{|\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(G) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)|}{|\operatorname{Bilin}(G \times G, A)|~|{(\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(G) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A))}_{[f, g]}|},$$
where ${(\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(G) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A))}_{[f, g]}$ is the stabiliser subgroup of $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(G) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ at $[f, g]$.
\end{corollary}
\medskip
\section{An exact sequence relating automorphisms and cohomology}\label{sec-exact-seq}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set, $A$ an abelian group and
\begin{equation}\label{central-extension}
\mathcal{E}: 0 \to A \overset{i}{\to} E \overset{\pi}{\to} X \to 0
\end{equation}
a central extension of $X$ by $A$. In view of Lemma \ref{extension-to-cocycle}, there exists a normalised 2-cocycle $(f, g)$ such that $$E \cong X \oplus_{f,g} A.$$ Further, the extension $\mathcal{E}$ determines a unique cohomology class $[f, g] \in \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$.
\par
Fix a central extension \eqref{central-extension} of a linear cycle set $(X, \cdot, +)$ by an abelian group $A$ and its corresponding cohomology class $[f, g] \in \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ as in Lemma \ref{extension-to-cocycle}. For each $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$, we have $^{(\phi, \theta)}[f, g] \in \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Since the group $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ acts freely and transitively on itself by (left) translation, there exists a unique element $\Theta_{[f, g]} (\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ such that
$$\Theta_{[f, g]} (\phi, \theta) +~ ^{(\phi, \theta)}[f, g]= [f, g].$$
This gives a map
\begin{equation}\label{wells-map}
\Theta_{[f, g]}: \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \to \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A).
\end{equation}
We denote $\Theta_{[f, g]}$ by $\Theta$ for convenience of notation. Our aim is to relate certain group of automorphisms of $E$ to groups $\operatorname{Aut}(X)$, $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$, $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ and $\operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A)$. For this purpose, we define
\begin{small}
$$\operatorname{Aut}_A(E) = \big\{\psi \in \operatorname{Aut}(E)~|~ \psi(x, a)=(\phi(x), \lambda(x) +\theta(a))~\textrm{for some}~(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{Aut}(A)~\textrm{and map}~\lambda: X \to A \big\} .$$
\end{small}
\begin{proposition}
$\operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$ is a subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(E)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi_i(x, a)=(\phi_i(x), \lambda_i(x) +\theta_i(a))$ for $i=1, 2$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber \psi_1\psi_2 (x, a) &=&\psi_1 \big(\phi_2(x), ~\lambda_2(x) +\theta_2(a) \big)\\
\nonumber &=&\big(\phi_1\phi_2(x), ~ \lambda_1\big(\phi_2(x)\big) + \theta_1\big(\lambda_2(x)\big) +\theta_1\theta_2(a) \big)\\
&=& \big(\phi_1\phi_2(x), ~ \lambda(x) +\theta_1\theta_2(a) \big)\label{psi1-psi2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda: X \to A$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{lambda1-lambda2}
\lambda(x)=\lambda_1\big(\phi_2(x)\big) + \theta_1\big(\lambda_2(x)\big)
\end{equation}
for $x \in X$ and $a \in A$. Consequently, $\operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$ is closed under composition. It remains to show that if $\psi \in \operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$, then $\psi^{-1} \in \operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$. But a direct computation shows that if $\psi(x, a)=(\phi(x), \lambda(x) +\theta(a))$, then $$\psi^{-1}(x, a)=\big(\phi^{-1}(x),~ \theta^{-1}\big(-\lambda(\phi^{-1}(x))\big) + \theta^{-1}(a) \big),$$ and hence $\operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$ is a subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(E)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{condition for automorphism}
Let $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $\lambda: X \to A$ a map. Then the map $\psi:E \to E $ given by $\psi(x, a)=(\phi(x), \lambda(x) +\theta(a))$ is an automorphism of $E$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{homo-eq1}
\lambda(x + y) + \theta\big(g(x, y)\big) = \lambda(x) +\lambda(y) + g\big(\phi(x), \phi(y)\big)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{homo-eq2}
\lambda(x \cdot y) + \theta\big(f(x, y)\big)= \lambda(y) + f\big(\phi(x), \phi(y)\big)
\end{equation}
for all $x, y \in X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
A direct computation shows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi \big((x, a) +(y, b) \big) &=& \psi \big(x + y,~ a + b + g(x, y) \big)\\
&=& \big(\phi(x + y), ~\lambda(x + y) + \theta\big(a + b + g(x, y)\big) \big),\\
& &\\
\psi(x, a) +\psi (y, b) &=& \big(\phi(x), ~\lambda(x) +\theta(a)\big) + \big(\phi(y), \lambda(y) +\theta(b) \big)\\
&=& \big(\phi(x) + \phi(y),~ \lambda(x) +\lambda(y) + \theta(a) + \theta(b) + g\big(\phi(x), \phi(y)\big)\big),\\
& &\\
\psi \big((x, a) \cdot (y, b) \big) &=& \psi \big(x \cdot y, ~b + f(x, y) \big)\\
&=& \big(\phi(x \cdot y), ~\lambda(x \cdot y) + \theta\big(b + f(x, y)\big) \big),~\textrm{and} \\
& &\\
\psi(x, a) \cdot \psi (y, b) &=& \big(\phi(x), ~\lambda(x) +\theta(a)\big) \cdot \big(\phi(y), \lambda(y) +\theta(b) \big)\\
&=& \big(\phi(x) \cdot \phi(y), ~\lambda(y) + \theta(b) + f\big(\phi(x), \phi(y)\big)\big).
\end{eqnarray*}
The result now follows immediately from the preceding equalities.
\end{proof}
In view of \eqref{psi1-psi2}, the map
$$\Psi: \operatorname{Aut}_A(E) \to \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$$
given by
$\Psi (\psi)=(\phi, \theta)$ is a group homomorphism.
\begin{proposition}\label{im-phi-ker-theta}
$\operatorname{Im}(\Psi)=\Theta^{-1}\{0\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First note that
$$\Theta^{-1}\{0\}=\big\{(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)~|~ ^{(\phi, \theta)}[f, g]= [f, g]\big\},$$
the stabiliser subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ at $[f, g]$. Suppose that $(\phi, \theta) \in \Theta^{-1}\{0\}$. Then, by definition of cohomologous 2-cocycles, there exists a map $\lambda:X \to A$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{(\phi, \theta)}g(x,y)- g(x,y) &=& \lambda (x + y) - \lambda(x) - \lambda(y)~\textrm{and}\\
^{(\phi, \theta)}f(x,y)-f(x,y) &=& \lambda (x \cdot y) - \lambda(y)
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $x, y \in X$. The preceding equations can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{imp-eq1} \theta \big(g(x,y)\big)- g\big(\phi(x),\phi(y)\big) &=& \lambda \big(\phi(x) + \phi(y)\big) - \lambda\big(\phi(x)\big) - \lambda\big(\phi(y)\big)~\textrm{and}\label{CoboundaryNew2}\\
\label{imp-eq2} \theta \big(f(x,y)\big)-f\big(\phi(x),\phi(y)\big) &=& \lambda \big(\phi(x) \cdot \phi(y)\big) - \lambda\big(\phi(y)\big)\label{CoboundaryNew1}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $x, y \in X$. We define $\psi: E \to E$ by setting
$$\psi(x, a)= \big(\phi(x), ~-\lambda\big(\phi(x)\big)+\theta(a)\big)$$
for $x \in X$ and $a \in A$. Notice that equations \eqref{imp-eq1} and \eqref{imp-eq2} are precisely equations \eqref{homo-eq1} and \eqref{homo-eq2}, respectively. Hence, it follows from Proposition \ref{condition for automorphism} that $\psi \in \operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$. Since $\Psi (\psi)=(\phi, \theta)$, we get $\Theta^{-1}\{0\}\subseteq \operatorname{Im}(\Psi)$. Conversely, if $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Im}(\Psi)$, then there exists a map $\lambda:X \to A$ such that $\psi:E \to E$ given by $\psi(x, a):= (\phi(x), ~\lambda(x)+ \theta(a))$ lies in $\operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$. Again, by Proposition \ref{condition for automorphism}, the map $\psi$ being a morphism of linear cycle sets gives equations \eqref{CoboundaryNew2} and \eqref{CoboundaryNew1}. As seen above, this implies that $^{(\phi, \theta)}[f, g]= [f, g]$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{ker-phi}
$ \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A) \cong \operatorname{Ker}(\Psi)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $\psi \in \operatorname{Ker}(\Psi)$ if and only if there exists a map $\lambda:X \to A$ such that $\psi(x,a)=(x,~\lambda(x)+a)$ for all $x \in X$ and $a \in A$. Now, $\psi$ is a morphism of linear cycle sets if and only if conditions \eqref{CoboundaryNew1} and \eqref{CoboundaryNew2} hold with $\phi=\mathrm{id}_X$ and $\theta=\mathrm{id}_A$. These conditions take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda (x \cdot y) &=& \lambda\big(y)~\textrm{and}\label{CoboundaryNewTrivial1}\\
\lambda (x+y) &=& \lambda\big(x) + \lambda(y)\label{CoboundaryNewTrivial2}
\end{eqnarray}
for $x, y \in X$, and hence $\lambda \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A)$. Conversely, given $\lambda \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A)$, we see that $\psi: E \to E$ defined as $\psi(x,a)=(x,~\lambda(x)+a)$ is an element of $\operatorname{Ker}(\Psi)$. In view of \eqref{lambda1-lambda2}, it follows that the map $$\iota: \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^1(X; A) \to \operatorname{Ker}(\Psi)$$ given by $\iota(\lambda)=\psi$ is an isomorphism of groups.
\end{proof}
Combining \eqref{wells-map}, Proposition \ref{im-phi-ker-theta} and Proposition \ref{ker-phi} gives the following exact sequence
\begin{theorem}\label{abelian-main-theorem}
Let $X$ be a linear cycle set, $A$ an abelian group and $E=X \oplus_{f, g} A$ the central extension of $X$ by $A$ corresponding to the 2-cocycle $(f, g)\in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Then there exists an exact sequence of groups
\begin{equation}\label{abelian-well-sequence}
1 \longrightarrow \operatorname{Z}^1(X;A) \stackrel{\iota}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{Aut}_A(E) \stackrel{\Psi}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \stackrel{\Theta}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A),
\end{equation}
where exactness at $ \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ means that $\operatorname{Im}(\Psi)=\Theta^{-1}\{0\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ be a linear cycle set and $A$ an abelian group such that $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ is trivial. Then every automorphism in $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ extends to an automorphism in $ \operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$.
\end{corollary}
Restricting the action of $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ on $\operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A)$ to that of its subgroups $\operatorname{Aut}(X)$ and $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ gives the following result.
\begin{corollary}
Every automorphism in $\operatorname{Aut}(X)_{[f]}$ and $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)_{[g]}$ can be extended to an automorphism in $\operatorname{Aut}_A(E)$.
\end{corollary}
\bigskip
\section{Properties of map $\Theta$}\label{properties of map theta}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set and $A$ an abelian group. Since the group $\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ acts on the group $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$, we have their semi-direct product $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)$. Further, the group $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ acts on itself by (left) translation.
\begin{proposition}
$\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)$ acts on $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ by setting
$$^{[\alpha](\phi, \theta)} [\beta]=~^{[\alpha]}{(^{(\phi, \theta)} [\beta])}$$
for $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $[\alpha], [\beta]\in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $ (\phi_1, \theta_1), (\phi_2, \theta_2) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$ and $[\alpha_1], [\alpha_2], [\beta] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
^{\big([\alpha_1](\phi_1, \theta_1)\big)\big([\alpha_2](\phi_2, \theta_2)\big)}[\beta] & = & ^{\big([\alpha_1]~^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}[\alpha_2] \big) \big((\phi_1, \theta_1)(\phi_2, \theta_2)\big)}[\beta]\\
& = & ^{\big([\alpha_1]~^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}[\alpha_2]\big)}{\big(^{\big((\phi_1, \theta_1)(\phi_2, \theta_2)\big)}[\beta] \big)}\\
& = & ^{[\alpha_1]}{\big(^{^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{[\alpha_2]}}{\big(^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{\big(^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}[\beta]\big)} \big)} \big)}\\
& = & ^{[\alpha_1]}{\big({^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{[\alpha_2]}} +{^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{\big(^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}[\beta]} \big)} \big)},\\
& & \textrm{since}~^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{[\alpha_2]} \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A),~\textrm{which acts on itself by translation}\\
& = & ^{[\alpha_1]}{\big({^{(\phi_1, \theta_1)}{\big([\alpha_2] +~^{(\phi_2, \theta_2)}[\beta]}} \big)\big)},\\
& & \textrm{since}~\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)~\textrm{acts by automorphisms on}~\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)\\
& = & ^{\big([\alpha_1](\phi_1, \theta_1)\big)}{\big(^{\big([\alpha_2](\phi_2, \theta_2)\big)}[\beta] \big)},\\
& & ~ \textrm{since}~\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)~\textrm{acts on itself by translation}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)$ acts on $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
Let $G$ be a group and $A$ an abelian group equipped with an action of $G$. Then
$$\operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1(G; A) = \big\{f:G \to A~|~ f(xy)= f(x)+~{^{x}}f(y)~ \textrm{for all}\ x,y\in G\big\}$$
is called the group of {\it 1-cocycles} and
$$\operatorname{\textbf{B}}^1(G;A) = \big\{f:G\to A~|~\textrm{there exists}~a \in A~\textrm{such that}~ f(x)={^x}a-a~\textrm{for all}~x\in G \big\}$$
the group of {\it 1-coboundaries} \cite[Chapter 4]{Brown1981}. Further, a complement of a subgroup $H$ in a group $G$ is another subgroup $K$ of $G$ such that $G=HK$ and $H\cap K=1$. The following result relating 1-cocycles and complements is well-known \cite[11.1.2]{Robinson1982}.
\begin{lemma}\label{1-cocycle-complement}
Let $H$ be an abelian group and $G$ a group acting on $H$ by automorphisms. Then the map $f \mapsto \{f(g)g~|~g \in G \}$ gives a bijection from the set $\operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1(G; H)$ of 1-cocycles to the set $\{K \mid G=HK~\textrm{and}~H \cap K=1 \}$ of complements of $H$ in $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm-3}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set, $A$ an abelian group and $\Theta_{[\alpha]}: \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \longrightarrow \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ the map corresponding to a cohomology class $[\alpha]\in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$. Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Theta_{[\alpha]}$ is a group theoretical 1-cocycle.
\item Any two such maps corresponding to distinct linear cycle set cohomology classes are cohomologous as group theoretical 1-cocycles.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\Theta=\Theta_{[\alpha]}$ for $[\alpha] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ and $\bold{g} \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big( \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)\big)$. Then for elements $[\alpha], ~^{\bold{g}}[\alpha] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$, there exists a unique $[\beta] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ such that $~^{[\beta]}[\alpha]=~^{\bold{g}}[\alpha]$. Viewing $[\beta]$ as an element of $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big( \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)\big)$, it follows that $[\beta]^{-1}\bold{g} \in \mathbb{S}_{[\alpha]}$, the stabiliser subgroup of $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big( \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)$ at $[\alpha]$, and hence
$$ \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big( \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)= \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)\mathbb{S}_{[\alpha]}.$$ Further, since $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ acts freely on itself, it follows that $\mathbb{S}_{[\alpha]}$ is a complement of $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ in $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big)$. By Lemma \ref{1-cocycle-complement}, let $f:\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \to \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ be the unique 1-cocycle corresponding to the complement $\mathbb{S}_{[\alpha]}$ of $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ in $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A) \rtimes \big(\operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)\big)$. Then
$$\mathbb{S}_{[\alpha]}= \big\{f(\phi, \theta)(\phi, \theta)~|~(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \big\},$$
that is, $$[\alpha]=~^{f(\phi, \theta)(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha]=~^{f(\phi, \theta)}{\big(^{(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha]\big)}.$$
Now, by definition of $\Theta$ as in \eqref{wells-map}, we obtain $f(\phi, \theta)=\Theta (\phi, \theta)$, and hence $\Theta$ is a 1-cocycle.
\par
For the second assertion, let $\Theta=\Theta_{[\alpha]}$ and $\Theta'=\Theta'_{[\alpha']}$ for $[\alpha], [\alpha'] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$. Then for any $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A)$, we have
$$ ^{\Theta(\phi, \theta)} \big(^{(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha] \big)= [\alpha]~\textrm{and}~ ^{\Theta'(\phi, \theta)} \big(^{(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha'] \big)= [\alpha'].$$
Since $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ acts transitively on itself by (left) translation, there exists a unique $[\beta] \in \operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$ such that $ ^{[\beta]}[\alpha']=[\alpha]$. This gives
$$ ^{\Theta(\phi, \theta)} \big(^{^{(\phi, \theta)}{[\beta]}}{\big(^{(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha'] \big)} \big)= ~^{[\beta]}{\big(^{\Theta'(\phi, \theta)} \big(^{(\phi, \theta)}[\alpha'] \big)\big)}.$$
Since $[\beta], ~\Theta(\phi, \theta), {^{(\phi, \theta)}{[\beta]}}$ and $\Theta'(\phi, \theta)$ all lie in $\operatorname{H}^2_\Norm(X; A)$, which acts freely on itself, we must have $$\Theta(\phi, \theta) + {^{(\phi, \theta)}{[\beta]}}= \Theta'(\phi, \theta) + [\beta].$$
Thus, $\Theta$ and $\Theta'$ differ by a 1-coboundary, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\section{Comparison with Wells exact sequence for groups}\label{comparision-sequences}
In \cite{Wells1971}, Wells derived an exact sequence relating 1-cocycles, automorphisms and second cohomology of groups corresponding to a given extension of groups. The sequence has found applications in some long standing problems on automorphisms of finite groups. We refer the reader to \cite[Chapter 2]{PSY2018} for a detailed account of the same, and recall the construction of this exact sequence for central extension of groups. Consider a central extension
\begin{equation}\label{extension-groups}
\mathcal{E}': 0 \to N \to G \to H \to 0
\end{equation}
of (additively written) groups. In this case $N$ is a trivial $H$-module, and hence the group $\operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1(H;N)$ of 1-cocycles is simply the group of all homomorphisms from $H$ to $N$. Let $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H;N)$ be the second group cohomology of $H$ with coefficients in $N$, and $g:H \times H \to N$ be a group theoretical normalised 2-cocycle corresponding to the extension \eqref{extension-groups}. It follows from classical extension theory of groups that $$G \cong H \times_g N,$$ where $H \times_g N$ has underlying set $H \times N$ and group operation
$$(x, a)+(y, b)=(x+y, a +b+ g(x, y))$$
for $x, y \in H$ and $a, b \in N$.
\par
Let $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_N(G)$ be the group of automorphisms of $G$ keeping $N$ invariant as a set. In view of the identification $G \cong H \times_g N$, we have
\begin{Small}
$$\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_N(G) = \big\{\psi \in \operatorname{Aut}(G)~|~ \psi(x, a)=(\phi(x), \lambda(x) +\theta(a))~\textrm{for some}~(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{Aut}(H) \times \operatorname{Aut}(N)~\textrm{and map}~\lambda: H \to N \big\}.$$
\end{Small}
There is a monomorphism of groups $$\j: \operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1(H, N) \to \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_N(G)$$ given by $\j(\lambda)=\psi$, where $\psi(x, a)=(x, \lambda(x)+a)$ \cite[Proposition 2.45]{PSY2018}. Also, there is a natural homomorphism $$\Phi: \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_N(G) \to \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N)$$ given by $$\Phi(\psi)=(\phi, \theta).$$ As in Section \ref{sec-action-auto-cohomo}, there is an action of $\operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N)$ on $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H;N)$. In fact, given any $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N)$ and $[h] \in \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H;N)$, setting $$^{(\phi, \theta)} [h]=[^{(\phi, \theta)} h],$$ where $^{(\phi, \theta)} h(x, y)= \theta \big( h \big(\phi^{-1}(x), \phi^{-1}(y) \big)\big)$ for $x, y \in X$, defines this action. Further, the action restricts to an action on the subgroup $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2_{sym}(H;N)$ of $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H;N)$ consisting of symmetric cohomology classes. Notice that the group $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H; N)$ acts freely and transitively on itself by (left) translation. Now, for each $(\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N)$, we have cohomology classes $^{(\phi, \theta)}[g], [g] \in \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H; N)$. Thus, there exists a unique element $\Omega (\phi, \theta) \in \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H; N)$ such that
$$\Omega (\phi, \theta) + ~^{(\phi, \theta)}[g]= [g].$$
This gives a map
\begin{equation}\label{group-wells-map}
\Omega: \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N) \to \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H; N),
\end{equation}
which depends on the equivalence class of the extension $\mathcal{E}'$ or equivalently on its corresponding cohomology class. Further, $\Omega$ is a 1-cocycle with respect to the action of $ \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N)$ on $\operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H; N)$ \cite[Corollary 2.41]{PSY2018}. With the preceding set-up, Wells derived the following exact sequence of groups
\begin{equation}\label{central-group-wells}
1 \longrightarrow \operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1(H, N) \stackrel{\j}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_N(G) \stackrel{\Phi}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(H) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(N) \stackrel{\Omega}{\longrightarrow} \operatorname{\textbf{H}}^2(H;N).
\end{equation}
\par
Let $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ denote the categories of linear cycle sets and abelian groups, respectively. Then there is a forgetful functor $$\mathcal{F}: \mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{A}$$ that maps a linear cycle set to its underlying abelian group. The preceding discussion shows that the functor $\mathcal{F}$ induces a map from the exact sequence \eqref{abelian-well-sequence} to the exact sequence \eqref{central-group-wells}.
\begin{theorem}\label{comparison-wells}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set, $A$ an abelian group viewed as a trivial $(X, +)$-module and $E=X \oplus_{f, g} A$ the central extension corresponding to the 2-cocycle $(f, g)\in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$. Then the following diagram of groups commutes
$$
\xymatrix{
1 \ar[r] &\operatorname{Z}^1(X;A) \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{inclusion} \ar[r]^{\iota} &\operatorname{Aut}_A(E) \ar[r]^{\Psi \hspace{1cm}} \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{inclusion} & \operatorname{Aut}(X) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \ar[r]^{\hspace{5mm} \Theta} \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{inclusion} & \operatorname{H}_\Norm^2(X; A) \ar[d]^{\Lambda}\\
1 \ar[r] & \operatorname{\textbf{Z}}^1((X, +); A) \ar[r]^{\j} & \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}_A((E, +)) \ar[r]^{\Phi \hspace{1cm}} & \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}((X, +)) \times \operatorname{\textbf{Aut}}(A) \ar[r]^{\hspace{5mm} \Omega } & \operatorname{\textbf{H}}_{sym}^2((X, +); A),}
$$
where $\Lambda$ is as in Proposition \ref{homo-cycle-group-cohomology}.
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
\section{Extensions of bi-groupoids and dynamical cocycles}\label{dynamical-2-cocycle}
During the last decade many new examples of bi-groupoids, namely, bi-racks, bi-quandles, braces, skew braces, linear cycle sets, etc, have been introduced in connection to virtual knot theory and solutions of the Yang--Baxter equation. Let $X$ and $S$ be two non-empty sets, $\alpha, \alpha' : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ and $\beta, \beta' : S \times S \to \operatorname{Map}(X \times X, X)$ maps. Then $X \times S$ with the binary operations
\begin{equation}
(x, s) \cdot (y, t)= \big( \beta_{s, t}(x, y), ~\alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(x, s) * (y, t)= \big( \beta'_{s, t}(x, y), ~\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
forms a bi-groupoid. Naturally, to obtain a bi-groupoid of special type it is essential to have functions $\alpha, \alpha', \beta, \beta'$ with nice properties. Using defining axioms of a cycle set, we can deduce a generalisation of \cite[Lemma 2.1]{Vendramin2016}, which itself is a linear cycle set analogue of a similar result for quandles \cite[Lemma 2.1]{AndruskiewitschGrana2003}.
\begin{proposition}
Let $X$ and $S$ be two sets, $\alpha : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ and $\beta : S \times S \to \operatorname{Map}(X \times X, X)$ two maps. Then the set $X \times S$ with the binary operation
\begin{equation}
(x, s) \cdot (y, t)= \big( \beta_{s, t}(x, y), ~\alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
forms a cycle set if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the map $(y, t) \mapsto \big( \beta_{s, t}(x, y),~ \alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)$ is a bijection for all $(x, s) \in X \times S$,
\item $\beta_{\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), \alpha_{x, z}(s, q)}\Big(\beta_{s, t}(x, y),~ \beta_{s, q}(x, z) \Big)= \beta_{\alpha_{y, x}(t, s), \alpha_{y, z}(t, q)}\Big(\beta_{t, s}(y, x),~ \beta_{t, q}(y, z) \Big)$
\item[] and
\item[] $\alpha_{\beta_{s, t}(x, y), \beta_{s, q}(x, z)}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)= \alpha_{\beta_{t, s}(y, x), \beta_{t, q}(y, z)}\Big(\alpha_{y, x}(t, s), ~\alpha_{y, z}(t, q) \Big)$ for all $x, y, z \in X$ and $s, t, q \in S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
If one of the sets is a cycle set, then we obtain
\begin{corollary}
Let $(X, \cdot)$ be a cycle set, $S$ a set and $\alpha : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ a map. Then the set $X \times S$ with the binary operation
\begin{equation}
(x, s) \cdot (y, t)= \big( x \cdot y, ~\alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
forms a cycle set if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the map $(y, t) \mapsto \big( x \cdot y,~ \alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)$ is a bijection for each $(x, s) \in X \times S$,
\item $\alpha_{x \cdot y, x \cdot z}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)= \alpha_{y \cdot x, y \cdot z}\Big(\alpha_{y, x}(t, s), ~\alpha_{y, z}(t, q) \Big)$ for all $x, y, z \in X$ and $s, t, q \in S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
A map $\alpha$ satisfying condition (2) of the preceding corollary is referred as a {\it dynamical cocycle} of $X$ with values in $S$ and the cycle set structure on $X \times S$ is called a {\it dynamical extension} of $X$ by $\alpha$. One can prove a similar result for linear cycle sets. Before stating the result, note that condition \ref{E:Cyclic} in the definition of a linear cycle set is redundant \cite[Section 3]{MR3881192}.
\begin{proposition}
Let $X$ and $S$ be two sets, $\alpha, \alpha' : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ and $\beta, \beta' : S \times S \to \operatorname{Map}(X \times X, X)$ maps. Then the set $X \times S$ with the binary operations
\begin{equation}
(x, s)\cdot (y, t)= \big( \beta_{s, t}(x, y), ~\alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(x, s) + (y, t)= \big( \beta'_{s, t}(x, y), ~\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
forms a linear cycle set if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the map $(y, t) \mapsto \big( \beta_{s, t}(x, y),~ \alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)$ is a bijection for each $(x, s) \in X \times S$,
\item $\beta_{s, \alpha'_{y, z}(t, q)}\Big(x,~ \beta'_{t, q}(y, z) \Big)= \beta'_{\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), \alpha_{x, z}(s, q)}\Big(\beta_{s, t}(x, y),~ \beta_{s, q}(x, z) \Big)$
\item[] and
\item[] $\alpha_{x, \beta'_{t, q}(y, z)}\Big(s, ~\alpha'_{y, z}(t, q) \Big)= \alpha'_{\beta_{s, t}(x, y), \beta_{s, q}(x, z)}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)$,
\item $\beta_{\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t), q}\Big(\beta'_{s, t}(x, y),~ z \Big)= \beta_{\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), \alpha_{x, z}(s, q)}\Big(\beta_{s, t}(x, y),~ \beta_{s, q}(x, z) \Big)$
\item[] and
\item[] $\alpha_{\beta'_{s, t}(x, y), z}\Big(\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t), ~q \Big)= \alpha_{\beta_{s, t}(x, y), \beta_{s, q}(x, z)}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)$
\end{enumerate}
for all $x, y, z \in X$ and $s, t, q \in S$.
\end{proposition}
As before, if one of the sets is already a linear cycle set, then we have
\begin{corollary}
Let $(X, \cdot, +)$ be a linear cycle set, $S$ a set and $\alpha, \alpha' : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ two maps. Then the set $X \times S$ with the binary operations
\begin{equation}
(x, s)\cdot (y, t)= \big( x \cdot y, ~\alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(x, s) + (y, t)= \big( x + y, ~\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t) \big)
\end{equation}
forms a linear cycle set if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the map $(y, t) \mapsto \big( x \cdot y,~ \alpha_{x, y}(s, t) \big)$ is a bijection for each $(x, s) \in X \times S$,
\item $\alpha_{x, y+z}\Big(s, ~\alpha'_{y, z}(t, q) \Big)= \alpha'_{x \cdot y, x \cdot z}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)$,
\item $\alpha_{x + y, z}\Big(\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t), ~q \Big)= \alpha_{x \cdot y, x \cdot z}\Big(\alpha_{x, y}(s, t), ~\alpha_{x, z}(s, q) \Big)$
\end{enumerate}
for all $x, y, z \in X$ and $s, t, q \in S$.
\end{corollary}
The pair of maps $\alpha, \alpha' : X \times X \to \operatorname{Map}(S \times S, S)$ satisfying conditions (2)-(4) of the preceding corollary is called a {\it dynamical cocycle} of the linear cycle set $X$ with values in $S$ and the linear cycle set structure on $X \times S$ is called the {\it dynamical extension} of $X$ by $S$. Taking $$\alpha_{x, y}(s, t)= t+f(x, y)$$ and $$\alpha'_{x, y}(s, t)= s + t + g(x, y)$$ for some 2-cocycle $(f,g) \in \operatorname{Z}_\Norm^2(X; A)$, we see that the dynamical extension generalises the extension obtained in Lemma \ref{linear-cycle-structure}.
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgments.}
The authors are grateful to the referee for the elaborate report which substantially improved the clarity and exposition of the paper. Bardakov is supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia (agreement No. 075-02-2020-1479/1). Singh is supported by the SwarnaJayanti Fellowship grants DST/SJF/MSA-02/2018-19 and SB/SJF/2019-20/04 and the Indo-Russian grant DST/INT/RUS/RSF/P-19.
\medskip
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of mass distribution in galaxies allows to obtain valuable information about the universe structure on a large scale and the process of stellar evolution. For this reason, the rotation curves and the GLE present in galaxies are relevant, because they allow the analysis of the distribution of baryonic and dark matter in these systems. With this approach we can obtain significant restrictions on values such as cosmological densities, the Hubble constant, and the cosmological constant among others.
The analysis of the rotation curves is done based on the Newtonian gravitation theory, in this case is important to point out that the flatness in the contours of these curves is the cause why dark matter is included by other authors in different mass reconstructions \cite{galrotpy, Dutt, Dutt2, Curv}. From this perspective, dark matter reconciles the keplerian decrease with the observations done along the astronomy history, which forces to include the superposition of different mass components in the fitting of the rotation curves with observational data.
In addition to the rotation present in the galaxies, GLE has been evidenced in many of them, an effect related to the deflection that the light coming from a background source presents due to gravitational potential of these stellar systems. Thanks to the achievements of the General Relativity Theory, it is possible to estimate the mass distribution of these galaxies based on the deflector angle of the light beams \cite{Cast,Sch}. For this reason this effect can be complemented with the dynamical analysis of mass reconstruction profiles in galaxies.
Between the types of GLE observations present in galaxies and clusters, the formation of Einstein rings and giant arcs is very common. This is evidenced in this work by the mass reconstructions of the galaxies SDSSJ2141-001 and SDSSJ1331+3628, regarding to the rotational velocity data of this galaxies it is important to clarify that these were obtained from Dutton et.al. \cite{Dutt,Curv} hence the mass profiles reconstruction was done with both methods.
Finally it is important to point out that in this work, the advantages of combining GLE and galactic dynamics are presented, showing that both methods are complementary and powerful in mass reconstructions.
\section{Galactic Dynamics}\label{sec: Galactic Dynamics}
In the past years, has been evidenced that the disk-like galaxies have different mass components, these can be classified into four kinds: dark matter halo, stellar halo, disk, and bulge. These components interact in concordance with Newtonian dynamics, where each mass distribution is essential in the understanding of the functional form of the gravitational potential for these stellar systems.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{masscomp.pdf}
\caption{ Scheme of the main mass components of disk-like galaxies.\\}
\label{fig:masscomp}
\end{figure}
Since the gravitational force ($\vec{F}$) present in galaxies is conservative \cite{Binney}, it can be related to the gravitational potential ($\Phi$) like:
\begin{equation} \label{force_grav}
\vec{F}=-\nabla\Phi,
\end{equation}
This implies that to the mass volumetric density ($\rho$) and $\Phi$ are related by means of the Poisson equation \cite{galrotpy}:
\begin{equation} \label{poisson}
\nabla^2\Phi(\vec{r},t)= 4\pi G \rho(\vec{r},t),
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the universal gravitation constant.
Due to the linearity of the Poisson equation \cite{Galactic, galrotpy}, in the case of a galaxy with N components and respective volumetric mass densities $\rho_{1}$, $\rho_{2}$, ...$\rho_{N}$, the total density of this system is:
\begin{equation} \label{densidad}
\rho=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N} \rho_i,
\end{equation}
Therefore the total gravitational potential is expressed like $\Phi=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N} \Phi_i$.
As the circular velocity (in the equatorial plane) associated to a gravitational potential $\Phi(R,z=0)$ in disc-like galaxies is described by:
\begin{equation} \label{vel_pot}
V^{2}_{c}(R)=R\dfrac{\partial\Phi}{\partial r}|_{r=R},
\end{equation}
the total circular velocity of this kind of galaxies is expressed as a superposition of the velocities belonging to each gravitational potential, which is evidenced in the equation \ref{vel}:
\begin{equation} \label{vel}
V_c^2=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N} V_{c(i)}^2,
\end{equation}
and therefore it is possible to make reconstructions of mass profiles in disk-like galaxies through the fitting of rotation curves with the observational values of circular velocity, as shown in figure \ref{fig:ej_rotcurv}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{ej_rotcurv.pdf}
\caption{Fitting of rotational velocities with the rotation curve belonging to the galaxy NGC6361 (the observational data are presented with black dots and the fitting curve is the continuous line), in this case the Miyamoto-Nagai profile was used for the bulge (gray dotted line) and the stellar disk (red dotted line), while the Navarro-Frenk-White (green dotted line) belongs to the dark matter halo.\\}
\label{fig:ej_rotcurv}
\end{figure}
\section{Gravitational Lensing Effect}\label{sec:Gravitational Lensing Effect}
In GLE, the relation between the coordinates of the images $\vec{\theta}$ and the source $\vec{\beta}$ is given by the equation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq_len}
\vec{\beta}=\vec{\theta}-\nabla_{\vec{\theta}} \psi(\vec{\theta}),
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ is the deflector potential, which has the information of the lens and the cosmological distances. For the case of mass profiles with spherical symmetry, it is possible to assume that \cite{Rog}
\begin{equation}\label{potential_deflec}
\psi(\vec{\theta})=2\int_{0}^{|{\vec{\theta}}|} \theta^{'} \kappa(\theta^{'})ln\bigg(\dfrac{|{\vec{\theta}|}}{\theta^{'}}\bigg) d\theta^{'},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the convergence, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{convergence}
\kappa=\dfrac{\Sigma}{\Sigma_{crit}}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ is the superficial mass density and $\Sigma_{crit}$ is given by the relation
\begin{equation}\label{sigma_crit}
\Sigma_{crit}=\dfrac{c^2}{4\pi G} \dfrac{D_s}{D_{d}D_{ds}},
\end{equation}
in this case, $c$ is the speed of light, $D_d$, $D_s$ and $D_{ds}$ are the angular diameter distances between observer-lens, observer-source and lens-source respectively.
Additionally, the mapping between the planes of the lens and the source is done through the jacobian transformation matrix
\begin{equation}
A_{i,j}=\dfrac{\partial\beta_{i}}{\partial\theta_{j}},
\end{equation}
for $i,j = 1,2$.
With this transformation matrix, the magnification of the images can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{magnification}
\mu=\dfrac{1}{\vert detA\vert},
\end{equation}
therefore the critical curve is the set of points in the lens plane where ${\vert detA\vert}=0$.
\textbf{Note:} The set of points in the source plane, which through the equation \ref{eq_len} belongs to the critical points is denominated caustic curve.
\section{Combining GLE and Galactic Dynamics}\label{sec:Combining GLE and Galactic Dynamics}
Due to the superposition between the different mass distributions in galaxies, there are mass profiles reconstructions done with galactic dynamics and other with lensing where the obtention of parameters does not occur within acceptable reliability regions \cite{Dutt}.
A solution proposal for this problem has been proposed by other authors \cite{Koopmans,Dutt}, regarding the combination of these mass reconstructions methods, which means taking advantage of the geometry used for each one of them.
For this purpose it must be taken into account, that while the mass projection in the galactic dynamics is done in the equatorial plane of the galaxy, in the case of the GLE the operator $\Sigma$ is projected in the plane ($\theta_1$, $\theta_2$) where the deflected images are formed.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{proyeccionesmasa.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the geometries used in galactic dynamics and GLE for the mass projection in 2-D based on what was stated by Dutton et al \cite{Dutt2}.\\}
\label{fig:geometry}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig:geometry}, the geometries belonging to the methods of mass reconstruction used in this work are illustrated, wherein the GLE the projection of mass in a cylinder through the line of sight $z$ and within a radius $R_{eins}$ restricted by the position of the deflected images is done, which from the formalism of strong lensing is related to the formation of the Einstein ring \cite{Dutt} and is described by the equation \ref{radio_eins}.
\begin{equation}\label{radio_eins}
R_{eins}\approx \Bigg(\dfrac{M_{eins}}{\pi \Sigma_{crit}}\Bigg)^{1/2},
\end{equation}
with $M_{eins}$ the mass projected in the cylinder of figure \ref{fig:geometry}.
In the case of mass projection from galactic dynamics, it corresponds to enclosed spheres of differents radius due to the estimated circular velocities in the galaxy. This geometrical approach is optimal, as long as the disc has an inclination, so that the observer can see it from its edges.
Based on the theory previously shown, the combination of GLE and galactic dynamics for this work is proposed around the restrictions in the parameter space that both methods can provide, in such a way that it is possible to distinguish more clearly the gravitational contribution of each mass component in disc-like galaxies.
\section{Gallenspy}
\textbf{Gallenspy} is an open source code created in python, designed for the mass profiles reconstruction in disk-like galaxies using GLE. It is important to note that this algorithm allows to invert numerically the lens equation (equation \ref{eq_len}) for gravitational potentials with spherical symmetry, in addition to the estimation in the position of the source ($\beta_1$,$\beta_2$), given the positions ($\theta_1$, $\theta_2$) of the images produced by the lens.
The main libraries used in this routine are: \textbf{numpy} \cite{Numpy} for the data handling, \textbf{matplotlib} \cite{Matplotlib} regarding the generation of graphic interfaces, \textbf{galpy} \cite{galpy} to obtain mass superficial densities, as to the parametric adjust with Markov-Montecarlo chains (MCMC) it was used \textbf{emcee} \cite{emcee} and for the graphics of reliability regions \textbf{corner} \cite{corner} is used.
The deflector potential is obtained numerically in \textbf{Gallenspy} by means of the equation \ref{potential_deflec}, which is very helpful because some mass distribution models do not have analytical solutions for the equations \ref{densidad}, \ref{eq_len} and \ref{potential_deflec}.
Also it is important to note others tasks of \textbf{Gallenspy} like computing of critical and caustic curves and obtaining the Einstein ring. For a more detailed description, it is recommended to see the repository page where the source code \footnote{https://github.com/ialopezt/GalLenspy} is available together with its requirements and instructions for its use.
\subsection{Tested case with Isotherm Singular Sphere (SIS)}
A way by which \textbf{Gallenspy} was tested, was the comparison with the analytical solutions given by Hurtado \cite{Rog} of the isotherm singular sphere (SIS) under certain specific conditions. In figure \ref{fig:Comparacion1_SIS_galenspy} some of these comparisons are shown for the obtention of deflection angle, the images formation, and deflector potential in the case of a circular source of radius $1kpc$ to a distance of $2kpc$ with respect to the observer, this mass profile was modeled with a dispersion velocity of $100 km/s$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{compar2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{compar3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{compar1.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the results obtained by the analytical solution of Hurtado (left side) and \textbf{Gallenspy} (right side). These results of deflection angle, images formation and deflection angle were evaluated in a grid of $100X100$ points.\\}
\label{fig:Comparacion1_SIS_galenspy}
\end{figure}
As it is possible to observe in each comparative graphic, the results obtained numerically with \textbf{Gallenspy} present high reliability where the percentage error is of $0.1$ due to the grid used in this case.
\subsection{Gallenspy input}
To use \textbf{Gallenspy}, it is important to give the values of cosmological distances in $Kpc$ and critical density in $M_{\odot}/Kpc^2$, which are introduced by means of a file named \verb+Cosmological_distances.txt+. On the other hand, the user must introduced the coordinates of the observational images (in radians) in the file \verb+coordinates.txt+.(\textbf{Note:} for the case of a circular source it is present the file \verb+alpha.txt+, where the user must introduce angles value belonging to each point of the observational images.)
\subsection{Visual fitting with Gallenspy}
Gallenspy presents an interactive fitting of parameters through a routine developed in Jupyter Notebook named \verb+Interactive_data+, in this case the user has the possibility of choose freely the parametric range for each value, however it is suggested a parametric space illustrated in table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy} which is based on the values used by other authors and with the ones used to model dwarf and milky-way type galaxies \cite{galrotpy}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Range of values with Gallenspy}} \\
\hline
\textbf{Component} & \textbf{Range of parameters} & \textbf{Units} \\
\hline \hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Bulge I} & $a=0$ & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.0 $< b <$ 0.5 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.1 $< M <$ 1.0 & $10^{10}M_{\odot}$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Bulge II} & 0.01 $< a <$ 0.05 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.5 $< b <$ 1.5 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 1 $< M <$ 5 & $10^{10}M_{\odot}$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Disk thin} & 1 $< a <$ 10 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.1 $< b <$ 1.0 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.5 $< M <$ 1.5 & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$ \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{2cm}{Disk thick} & 1 $< a <$ 10 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.1 $< b <$ 15.0 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.5 $< M <$ 1.5 & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$ \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{2cm}{Exponential Disk} & 2 $< h_{r} <$ 6 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 1 $< \Sigma_0 <$ 15 & $10^{2}M_{\odot}/pc^{2}$\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{2cm}{Halo NFW} & 0.1 $< a <$ 30 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.1 $< M_0 <$ 10 & $10^{11}M_{\odot}$\\ \hline
\multirow{2}{2cm}{Halo Burket} & 2 $< a <$ 38 & $kpc$ \\ \cline{2-3}
& 0.1 $< \rho_0 <$ 10 & $10^{6}M_{\odot}/kpc^{3}$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parametric space used in \textbf{Gallenspy}}
\label{tabla:Param_Gallenspy}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:interactive_gallenspy} shows the interactive panel, for the fitting of an Exponential Disk lens model and a circular source, this observational data belong to the galaxy J2141 which is analyzed later.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{interactive_gallenspy.pdf}
\caption{Interactive panel of \textbf{Gallenspy}, for the Exponential disk lens model and the fitting of a circular source.\\}
\label{fig:interactive_gallenspy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bayesian statistics with Gallenspy}
In mass reconstructions, \textbf{Gallenspy} allows assigning a mass profile to each component of the lens galaxy, where each free parameter has a range of possible values for the obtention of a set of initial values in the parametric exploration.
Also, it is important to point out that for the mass reconstruction of each component of the galaxy, it is possible to choose between different profiles for the parametric fitting with \textbf{Gallenspy}: for example, in the case of galactic disk it is possible choose between the options of Miyamoto-Nagai and Exponential Disk \cite{galrotpy} \cite{Binney}, for the dark matter halo between Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) and Burket \cite{galrotpy} \cite{Binney}, while in the bulge is used the Miyamoto-Nagai even though there are two possible ranges of data in this profile.
When the positions ($\theta_1$, $\theta_2$) of the GLE are known, the work with \textbf{Gallenspy} is to find the model and parameters set which can reproduce these provided data, for this reason in this routine the bayesian statistics is not only based on the exploration of all possible positions of the source.
For this parametric exploration, \textbf{Gallenspy} implements the Metropolis-Hasting algorithm through MCMC \cite{Bayesians}, where it is obtained a posterior probability distribution $P(p|D,M)$ for each parameter set of the lens model selected of the table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy}, which is given by the relation:
\begin{equation}\label{mcmc}
P(p|D,M)=\dfrac{P(D|p,M)P(p|M)}{P(D|M)},
\end{equation}
with:
\begin{itemize}
\item $P(p|D,M)$ the probability that this parameter set $p$ is appropriate for the model $M$ and the data $D$.
\item $P(D|p, M)$ the probability that the data $D$ are obtained with the model $M$ and the parameter set $p$, is known as \textbf{likelihood} \cite{Bayesians} and it is denoted with $L$.
\item$P(p|M)$ the \textbf{prior} which is the reliability that the parameter set is correct for the model.
\item $P(D|M)$ is denoted as $Z$, this is the normalization factor and is the probability of obtaining the data $D$ with the model $M$.
\end{itemize}
It is important to note that in \textbf{Gallenspy} the normalization factor is not considered, hence the fundamental work is the compute of the \textbf{likelihood} (this is because the \textbf{prior} for this parameter set has the same value). From this perspective the method for obtaining the initial values of $P(D|p, M)$ is through a visual fitting in the \verb+Interactive_data+ routine from which it is possible to make a first approximation between the data set $D$ and the model values.
Later in this process, the user must execute the code created in the respective file.py (for the estimation of the source \verb+source_lens.py+ and in the case of mass reconstruction \verb+parameters_estimation.py+) where \textbf{Gallenspy} requests to introduce the initial values obtained in the visual fitting. Next, \textbf{Gallenspy} lets the user choose the number of steps and walkers, which is enough for the MCMC of this computational routine.
In \textbf{Gallenspy} the minimization function $\chi^2$, for a source with a number $n_i$ of images in the GLE is given by:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2_i =\sum_{j=1}^{n_i} \dfrac{\vert \theta_{obs}^{j} -\theta^{j}(p) \vert^2}{\sigma_{ij}^2},
\label{chi_cuadrado}
\end{equation}
where in this equation $\theta_{obs}^{j}$ is the position of observed image j in the data set $D$, $\sigma_{ij}$ the error in position $\theta_{obs}^{j}$ due to the noise in the image and $\theta^{j}(p)$ the image j predicted by the mass model used with the parameter set.
The index $i$ appears in the function $\chi^2$, this because in the GLE the formation of images with various sources is possible, for this reason the \textbf{likelihood} for each explored parameter set is expressed through the Gaussian distribution
\begin{equation}
L = P(D|p, M) = \prod_{i=1}^{N} \dfrac{1}{\prod_{j}\sigma_{ij}\sqrt{2\pi}}exp\bigg(-\dfrac{\chi_i^2}{2}\bigg),
\label{likelihood_GLE}
\end{equation}
where N is the number of sources.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{diagrama_de_flujo1.pdf}
\caption{Process flow diagram of the parametric exploration with \textbf{Gallenspy}.\\}
\label{fig:diagrama_flujo1}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig:diagrama_flujo1}, the algorithm of \textbf{Gallenspy} is shown whereas in the next section an example of this with the SIS profile is illustrated.
Finally it is important to note that \textbf{Gallenspy} generates a file.txt with the final parameters obtained: in the case of source estimation \verb+parameters_lens_source.txt+ and \verb+parameters_MCMC.txt+, these files are then request by \textbf{Gallenspy} for other tasks as compute of Einstein ring and mass estimations.
\subsection{Illustrative example with the SIS profile}
Although the SIS is not included in the profiles of \textbf{Gallenspy}, it is possible to show an illustration of the mode which this routine performs the parameters exploration with this mass distribution.
Because of the analytical solutions shown by Hurtado \cite{Rog} to the lens equation in the SIS profile, the formation of images in the GLE are given by the relations:
\begin{equation}\label{image_sis1}
\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert=\vert{\vec{\beta}}\vert+\dfrac{4\pi\sigma^{2}D_{ds}}{c^{2}D_{s}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{image_sis2}
\vert{\vec{\theta_{n}}}\vert=-\vert{\vec{\beta}}\vert+\dfrac{4\pi\sigma^{2}D_{ds}}{c^{2}D_{s}},
\end{equation}
with $\sigma$ the dispersion velocity, $\theta_{p}$ and $\theta_{n}$ are the positive and negative solutions respectively where the images are formed.
Figure \ref{fig:images_sis} evidences the images formation, when $\sigma=1X10^5km/s$ for a circular source of radius $r=1$arcs whose center has coordinates (h = 0.8arcs, k = 0.8arc) and where the cosmological distances are $D_{ds} = 1Kpc$ and $D_{s} = 2Kpc$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{sis_analit.pdf}
\caption{Images formed with the SIS profile for $\vert{\vec{\theta_{n}}}\vert$ (left-down image) and $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$ (right-up image) in the case of a circular source (blue image).\\}
\label{fig:images_sis}
\end{figure}
If for this specific case the parametric exploration with \textbf{Gallenspy} is applied, then it is necessary to assume that the values of $\sigma$, $r$, h y k are not known and that the objective is the obtention of the parameters family which through of GLE can reproduce the images illustrated in figure VI, where in this example only values of $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$ are supposed to be known. This time, the ranges established for the parametric exploration were $10^4km/s<\sigma<2X10^5km/s$, $0.1$arcs$<r<2$arcs, -8arcs<h<8arcs and 8arcs<k<8arcs.
With the application of the function $\chi^2$ based on the equation \ref{chi_cuadrado}, and with an error of $0.1$ in the position of the images, the initial parameters set of the \textbf{likelihood} for the MCMC was obtained. In figure \ref{fig:chi_sis}, the comparison between the images of $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$ with those produced by the parameters obtained of $\chi^2$ is evidenced.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{chi_sis.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Red} Image formed in the GLE for a SIS with dispersion velocity $0.38X10^5km/s$ and a circular velocity of radius $2$arc, the center of this source is in $(2,2)arcseg$. \textbf{Black} Image to reproduce by means of \textbf{Gallenspy}.\\}
\label{fig:chi_sis}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{mcmc_sis.pdf}
\caption{MCMC in the exploration of the $\sigma$ parameter.\\}
\label{fig:mcmc_sis}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of the arc belonging to the initial guess and evolution of the MCMC for the $\sigma$ parameter, in this case the values converge around the 300th step.}
\end{figure}
From these values obtained with the multiparametric minimization, the MCMC was executed with \textbf{Gallenspy}. The best result was obtained for a number of 100 walkers and 1000 steps. In figure \ref{fig:mcmc_sis} the chain convergence in the obtention of parameter $\sigma$ is shown, where it is possible to observe that from the obtained data in step 400 the parameter estimation can be done.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{graf_mcmc_sis.pdf}
\caption{Results obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy}, in the exploration of parameters for the SIS profile.\\}
\label{fig:graph_mcmc}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{mcmc_sis_fin.pdf}
\caption{Comparative graph between the produced images by the SIS model and the images of $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$.\\}
\label{fig:mcmc_sis_fin}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Final results obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for the fitting of the arc generated with a SIS model. }
\end{figure}
The graphs illustrated in figure \ref{fig:graph_mcmc} show the reliability regions, under which the parameters family was obtained for the reproduction of the images belonging to $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c ||| c| }
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & $\textbf{95\%}$ \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{ |c| }{\textbf{SIS}}\\
\hline
\hline
$\sigma \, \left(10^5 \text{km/s} \right)$ & $0.999_{-0.266}^{+4.456X10^{-6}}$\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{ |c| }{\textbf{Source}}\\
\hline
\hline
$Radio \, \left(\text{arcseg} \right)$ & $1.000_{-0.039}^{+0.999}$ \\
$h \, \left(\text{arcseg} \right)$ & $0.800_{8.393X10^{-5}}^{+0.199}$ \\
$k \, \left(\text{arcseg} \right)$ & $0.800_{5.267X10^{-5}}^{+0.199}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for the
SIS model.}
\label{tabla:Param_SIS}
\end{table}
In table \ref{tabla:Param_SIS} the parameters obtained are shown with its uncertainties for the quantile of 95\%, these values are consistent with those established for the obtention of the images of $\vert{\vec{\theta_{p}}}\vert$, for this reason with this illustrative example it was possible to observe the way in which \textbf{Gallenspy} proceeds and its efficiency in the estimation of the parameters from the GLE.
Finally the figure \ref{fig:mcmc_sis_fin} shows the superposition of images, where the reliability of results obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} becomes evident.
\subsection{Critical and caustic curves with Gallenspy}
Another process that \textbf{Gallenspy} performs is the obtention of critical and caustic curves for distinct lens model. To understand this method, it is important to remember that $detA$ depends on the convergence $\kappa$ and the shear $\gamma$, which are relation to the deflector potential computed by \textbf{Gallenspy} in the fitting of images $(\theta_1, \theta_2)$ \cite{Sch,Rog}.
In this way, the first step given by \textbf{Gallenspy} is the obtention of $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ with the equation \ref{shear1} and \ref{shear2}
\begin{equation}\label{shear1}
\gamma_{1}\Big(\vec{\theta}\Big)= \dfrac{1}{2}\Bigg(\dfrac{\partial^{2}\psi\Big(\vec{\theta}\Big)}{\partial\theta^{2}_{1}}-\dfrac{\partial^{2}\psi\Big(\vec{\theta}\Big)}{\partial\theta^{2}_{2}}\Bigg),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{shear2}
\gamma_{2}\Big(\vec{\theta}\Big)=\dfrac{\partial^{2}\psi\Big(\vec{\theta}\Big)}{\partial\theta_2 \partial\theta_1},
\end{equation}
and from these results, \textbf{Gallenspy} computes the points of the lens plane where $detA=0$ based on the given relation by Hurtado \cite{Rog}
\begin{equation}\label{matriz_A}
A=
\begin{pmatrix}
1-\kappa-\gamma_{1} & -\gamma_{2} \\
-\gamma_{2} & 1-\kappa+\gamma_{1}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
As the obtention of this critical points is not a trivial process, \textbf{Gallenspy} makes this process with the Bartelmann method \cite{Bartelmann}, in which the critical curve in the lens plane is a border that changes the sign of the determinant ($detA$) as illustred the figure \ref{fig:metodo_critic}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{metodo_critic.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the Bartelmann method for the obtention of critical points in \textbf{Gallenspy}, in this case the change in the sign of $detA$ determinant from the critical curve it is taken into account.\\}
\label{fig:metodo_critic}
\end{figure}
As it is shown in this image, there are points of the plane $(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})$ even though do not belong to the critical curve, can be considered close to it: from this perspective, if $S=Sign(detA)$ then a point $S_{00}$ is considered adjacent to the curve in a grid when $S$ changes between $S_{00}$ and any of these neighboring points.
In figure \ref{fig:metodo_critic} presents the estimation of each point for a grid with dimension $NXN$ based on the sign $S$, this means that for positive values $S_{i,j}=1$ and in the case of negative values $S_{i,j}=-1$, where $i$ and $j$ are in a range of $0$ to $N-1$. From this perspective, the established restriction in \textbf{Gallenspy} to know if a point $S_{i,j}$ is adjacent to the critical curve in the grid is based on the condition:
\begin{equation} \label{restricc_curv_crit}
S_{i,j}(S_{i-1,j}+S_{i+1,j}+S_{i,j-1}+S_{i,j+1})<4,
\end{equation}
This method is very effective to compute the critical curve as the grid is refined since it allows to reduce the range in which each critical point can be.
Figure \ref{fig:flow_diagram_critical} shows the process flow diagram for the estimation of critical curves with \textbf{Gallenspy}, it is important to highlight that the error range is low due to the grid's refinement of $100X100$ points. From this perspective, the set of critical points with a percentage error of $0.1$ is estimated as those points $S_{i,j}$ in which the condition of equation \ref{restricc_curv_crit} is met.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.2in,width=3.6in]{diagrama_flujo_curvas_criticas.pdf}
\caption{Process flow diagram in the computation of critical curves with \textbf{Gallenspy}.\\}
\label{fig:flow_diagram_critical}
\end{figure}
When the critical points are computed by \textbf{Gallenspy}, the obtention of the caustic points is an easy process because the application of the equation \ref{eq_len} is enough.
Going back to the example of SIS profile of the previous section, the critical curve was obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy}. The result is shown in figure \ref{fig:crit_curv}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{curva_crit_sis.pdf}
\caption{(Red dots) Critical curve obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for the case of the SIS profile developed along this work. (Blue) Plotted circle with the averaged radius of the points obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy}.\\}
\label{fig:crit_curv}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{curva_crit+imagenes_sis.pdf}
\caption{(Right) Caustic curve and circular source (Left) Critical curve and images formed in the SIS model.\\}
\label{fig:critcurv+images}
\end{figure}
This graph evidences that the critical curve belongs to a circle with a radius of $6.278$ arcs. In this case, it is important to consider the analytical solution to the SIS profile for $detA=0$ \cite{Rog}, where the critical curve is a circumference of radius $r$ given by the relation
\begin{equation}\label{radio_sis}
r = \dfrac{4\pi\sigma^{2}D_{LS}}{c^{2}D_{OS}},
\end{equation}
Based on the data provided above regarding the SIS, the radius obtained from the equation \ref{radio_sis} is of $6.283$ arcs. This is very close to the obtained result with \textbf{Gallenspy}, where it is possible to check a percentage error of $0.1$ in this numerical process.
In this way, in the analytical solution of the SIS it it possible to conclude that the caustic curve in this mass profile belongs to a point in the origin of the plane ($\beta_{1}, \beta_{2}$)\cite{Rog}, this is evidenced in figure \ref{fig:critcurv+images} where the source is near to this caustic point and for this reason the magnification of the images is significant.
\section{GALROTPY}
\textbf{Galrotpy}\cite{galrotpy} is an interactive tool focused on the visualization and exploration of parameters through MCMC, in such a way that it is possible to make mass reconstructions from the fitting of rotational curves in disk-like galaxies.
The main python packages used in this routine are: \textbf{matplotlib}\cite{Matplotlib} for the generation of a graphic environment, \textbf{numpy}\cite{Numpy} for data management, \textbf{astropy}\cite{Astropy}, which is useful for units assignation, \textbf{Galpy}\cite{galpy} for the construction of rotational curves with each mass profile, \textbf{emcee}\cite{emcee} used in the exploration and fitting of data with MCMC, and \textbf{corner}\cite{corner} for the reliability regions of the parametric fitting.
The space of parametric exploration in this routine is the same as \textbf{Gallenspy} due to the reasons given in the previous section. On the other hand, the rotational velocity data from which the parametric fitting is done should be consigned in a file denominated \textbf{rot\_curve.txt}, in which the units belonging to the radial coordinates must be expressed in $Kpc$ and the velocities in $Km/s$.
Figure \ref{fig:Ej1_galrotpy} is shows the panel for the selection of gravitational potentials in \textbf{Galrotpy}, in which the variation parameters is done. Thus the user can do a visual fitting between the rotational curve and the observational data of rotational velocity (this is evidenced in figure \ref{fig:Ej2_galrotpy}).
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{panel_galrotpy.pdf}
\caption{Panel for the selection of gravitational potentials.\\}
\label{fig:Ej1_galrotpy}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{ej_galrotpy.pdf}
\caption{Rotation curve created from the superposition of distinct mass distributions.\\}
\label{fig:Ej2_galrotpy}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Graphic environment in \textbf{Galrotpy}, wherein the left side the selection of potentials for the curve fitting is possible.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bayesian statistics in Galrotpy}
In the case of \textbf{Galrotpy} the MCMC has similar characteristics with \textbf{Gallenspy} even in the consideration of the \textbf{prior} and in their approach to evaluation of the \textbf{likelihood}.
However, the process of parametric exploration with \textbf{Galrotpy} presents greater facilities due to the visual fitting that is possible to do with this routine and for this reason, the parametric minimization done with \textbf{Gallenspy} is not necessary.
In this way, with the visual parameter fitting \textbf{Galrotpy} proceeds to run the MCMC where as in \textbf{Gallenspy} the user can choose the number of walkers and steps. It is important to point out that in this routine, the \textbf{likelihood} es given by the relation
\begin{equation}
L =exp\bigg(-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \Bigg[\dfrac{ v_{obs}^{i} -v^{i}_{model}}{v_{i}^{error}}\Bigg]^2\bigg),
\label{likeli_galrotpy}
\end{equation}
with:
\begin{itemize}
\item N the number of observationally obtained data.
\item $v_{obs}$ the observed velocity.
\item $v_{model}$ the rotational velocity of the mass model chosen for the fitting.
\item $v_{error}$ the error in the velocity observational data.
\end{itemize}
Once \textbf{Galrotpy} does the parametric exploration, the behavior of the MCMC is illustrated and the values with uncertainties of 68\% and 95\% are shown. Finally \textbf{Galrotpy} generates two types of graphics, one with the fitting rotation curve and other with the reliability regions.
\subsection{Mass reconstruction of galaxy M33 with Galrotpy}
M33 is a spiral galaxy without bar structure \cite{galrotpy}, and its set of rotational velocity data was obtained from Corbelli et al. \cite{Corbelli}. For the mass reconstruction with \textbf{Galrotpy}, it is important to point out that the parametric exploration was done with a number of 100 walkers and 3000 steps.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{cadena_hr.pdf}
\caption{Behavior of the MCMC in the exploration of parameter $h_r$.\\}
\label{fig:M33_galrotpy}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig:M33_galrotpy}, is presented the way in which MCMC explores the parameter $h_{r}$, where the convergence is given in a lower number of steps less than \textbf{Gallenspy}, thanks to the visual fitting of \textbf{Galrotpy}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{M33_galrotpy.pdf}
\caption{Rotation curves and reliability regions of the Galaxy M33 with \textbf{Galrotpy}, where the fitting was done with NFW profile for the dark matter halo and Exponential Disk in the case of baryonic matter.\\}
\label{fig:curv_galrotpy}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $68\%$ & $95\%$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Exponential Disk}\\
\hline
$h_{\text{r}} \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $1.52_{-0.11}^{+0.10}$ & $1.52_{-0.23}^{+0.20}$ \\
$\Sigma_{0} \, \left(X10^{2} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{ pc}^{-2} \right)$ & $2.50_{-0.43}^{+0.37}$ & $2.50_{-0.99}^{+0.66}$ \\
$M_{\star} \, \left( X10^{9} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $3.61_{-0.91}^{+0.96}$ & $3.61_{-1.74}^{+1.89}$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{NFW}\\
\hline
$a \, \left( \text{X10kpc} \right)$ & $1.46_{-0.29}^{+0.42}$ & $1.46_{-0.49}^{+1.02}$ \\
$M_{\text{0}} \, \left( X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $2.37_{-0.55}^{+0.91}$ & $2.37_{-0.91}^{+2.45}$ \\
$\rho_{\text{\text{0}}} \, \left( X10^{6} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{Kpc}^{-3} \right)$ & $6.05_{-2.13}^{+2.96}$ & $6.05_{-3.55}^{+6.88}$ \\
$M_{\text{h}} \, \left(X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $4.16_{-0.72}^{+1.11}$ & $4.16_{-1.21}^{+2.86}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{ \texttt{Estimated parameters with \textbf{GalRotpy} for the galaxy M33.}}
\label{tabla:Valores_m33}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig:curv_galrotpy} shows the fitting done with \textbf{Galrotpy}, where the NFW profile was used for the dark matter halo while the contribution of baryonic matter was analyzed with the Exponential Disk profile. The right side of this figure shows the reliability regions, these values are consigned in the table \ref{tabla:Valores_m33}.
The obtained values and its uncertainties are in concordance with the results reported by L\'{o}pez Fune et.al. \cite{Corbelli2}, where $M_{\star}\left( X10^{9} M_{\odot} \right) = 4.9 \pm1.5$ for the Exponential Disk and $M_{h}\left( X10^{11} M_{\odot} \right) = 5.4 \pm0.6$ in the case of the dark matter halo. With this example, it was possible to show a set of results with high reliability in the use of this routine, and for this reason in the next section \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy} are combined for the mass reconstructions of two disk-like galaxies.
\section{Mass Reconstruction of galaxies J2141 and J1331}
The galaxies SDSSJ2141-001(J2141) and SDSSJ1331+3628(J1331) are systems that show strong lensing effect, its rotation velocities data were given by Dutton et.al. \cite{Dutt,Curv}; for these mass reconstructions the profiles of Miyamoto-Nagai, Exponential Disk, and NFW were taken into account \cite{Binney, galrotpy}. Regarding the GLE, in the case of J2141 an extended circular source was modeled considering that the deflected image is an arc, while for J1331 it was considered a punctual source in which four images are produced in the lens plane.
As to the mass distribution of these galaxies, other authors have reported a high contribution of baryonic matter \cite{Curv,Dutt} and this coincides with the obtained results in the use of \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy}.
\subsection{Galaxy J2141}
J2141 is a type S0 spiral galaxy, with a dominant gravitational contribution coming from its disk\cite{Curv}. This object was initially observed in 2006 by means of the Hubble Spatial Telescope(HST)\cite{Curv}, with an ACS camera in a F814 filter and an exposure time of 420 seconds. In 2009 the Keck telescope took again images of these object with a NIR camera and K filter.
From these images the GLE in this galaxy was evidenced, with the formation of an arc belonging to a source with a redshift different to J2141 ($z_{L}=0.3180$,$z_{s}=0.7127$)\cite{Curv}, for this reason it was considered important to study the mass distribution of this galaxy.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{SDSSJ2141-001.pdf}
\caption{Images obtained of J2141 by means of HST and KeckII telescopes with distinct filters.\cite{Curv}\\}
\label{fig:SDSSJ2141-001}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{arco.pdf}
\caption{Adjusted image by Dutton et.al. of the arc generated by GLE in the J2141 plane. \cite{Curv}\\}
\label{fig:arc_J2141}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.47\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{h_alpha.pdf}
\caption{Spectral emission lines of $H_\alpha$ belonging to J2141. \cite{Curv}\\}
\label{fig:H_alpha}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Observational data obtained from the galaxy J2141 in relation with lensing and rotation velocities.}
\end{figure}
The rotational velocity data of this galaxy was derived from spectral lines Mg b 5177, Fe II5270, Na D 5896, O II 3727 and $H_{\alpha}$ 6563, obtained from the Keck telescope. In figure \ref{fig:H_alpha}, the inclination of these emission lines are shown for the case of $H_{\alpha}$ 6563.
Table \ref{tabla:Velocidad_rotacional_SDSSJ2141-001} contains the rotational velocity data for different values of galactocentric radius.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
Radius(arcsec) & Radius(kpc) & Velocity(km/s) & Error(km/s) \\
\hline
\hline
0.000 & 0.00 & 3.5 & 5.3 \\
0.593 & 1.45 & 114.1 & 5.8\\
1.185 & 2.89 & 153.8 & 2.9\\
1.778 & 4.33 & 212.7 & 2.6\\
2.370 & 5.78 & 243.8 & 2.6\\
2.963 & 7.22 & 259.8 & 2.3\\
4.148 & 10.11 & 254.9 & 7.5\\
4.740 & 11.56 & 263.4 & 2.3\\
5.333 & 13.00 & 265.9 & 3.5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{ Rotational velocity values obtained from Dutton et.al. \cite{Curv} for J2141.}
\label{tabla:Velocidad_rotacional_SDSSJ2141-001}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Data concerning the GLE}
For the coordinates of the arc in the lens plane ($\theta_{1},\theta_{2}$), a restriction of its contours was made in the way of lower the computational cost in \textbf{Gallenspy}.
This image treatment was made in \textbf{python}, trough a pixel to pixel discrimination based on its position and luminosity, which makes it possible to get the contour showing in figure \ref{fig:contours_arc}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=2.0in]{contornos.pdf}
\caption{Arc contours generated by GLE in J2141. The scale of this plane is in $1X10^6$ radians.}
\label{fig:contours_arc}
\end{figure}
As it is possible to observe, this obtained contour is incomplete given the noise of image \ref{fig:arc_J2141}, even so, the number of obtained coordinates was enough for an appropriate adjustment with a circular source.
In this case the equivalence between arc seconds and pixels was made based on the observed scale of figure \ref{fig:arc_J2141}, and in this way it was possible to get each coordinate of the image in radians as observed in figure \ref{fig:contours_arc}.
For the determination of cosmological distances, the $\Lambda$CDM model was assumed due to the fact that it has been used by other authors in this galaxy \cite{Curv}; in this way the current matter density is $\Lambda_{m}=0.3$ and the Hubble parameter $H_{0}=70kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$.
With these considerations, the cosmological distances given by Dutton et al. \cite{Curv} are $D_{OL}=497.6Mpc$, $D_{OS}=1510.2Mpc$ and $D_{LS}=1179.6Mpc$; which leads to $\Sigma_{crit}=4285.3M_{\odot}pc^{-2}$.
In relation to the source, its ranges of possible values for the position and the radius are displayed in table \ref{tabla:Valores_fuente}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
\hline
Parameter & Range & Units \\
\hline
\hline
Radius & 0.05<r<1.5 & arcs \\
x-center & -2.5<h<2.5 & arcs\\
y-center & -2.5<k<2.5 & arcs\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Range of values to explore for the source.}
\label{tabla:Valores_fuente}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Mass reconstruction of J2141.}
In this mass reconstruction, the profiles selected in table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy} were Bulge I, Exponential Disk, and NFW. The first parametric exploration was done with \textbf{Galrotpy}, where the more reliable result for the MCMC was obtained for a number of 100 walkers and 1500 steps. The parametric exploration roads are shown in figures \ref{fig:MN_road_exploration}, \ref{fig:ED_road_exploration} and \ref{fig:NFW_road_exploration}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para1.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para2.pdf}
\caption{Exploration roads for the parameters of the Miyamoto-Nagai profile.}
\label{fig:MN_road_exploration}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para3.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para4.pdf}
\caption{Exploration roads for the parameters of the Exponential Disk profile.}
\label{fig:ED_road_exploration}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para5.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=3.0in]{para6.pdf}
\caption{Exploration roads for the parameters of the NFW profile.}
\label{fig:NFW_road_exploration}
\end{figure}
In these graphics, the initial values of the MCMC are in red lines, whereas for the dark matter halo and bulge is not evidenced a convergence of the values; this is pointed out by Dutton as the problem of degeneracy among the disk and the different mass components of the galaxy.\cite{Curv}
These authors \cite{Curv} affirm that the main reason of this degeneracy is the gravitational dominance of the disc in this system, to adress this problem, it is possible to adjust the rotation curve only with the profile of this mass component. Therefore it is very difficult to know with clarity the circular velocity contribution of other components.
Because of this situation, this mass reconstruction was done through the integration of galactic dynamics and GLE, where the restrictions of each method occur in different geometries. Therefore this combination is a powerful tool to break this degeneracy.
In this way and with the arc coordinates, the parameters of the source were estimated as shown in figure \ref{fig:circular_source_J2141} under a lens model of Exponential Disk, where these values are presented in table \ref{tabla:fuente_gal1} with a source radius of 0.03$arcs$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $68\%$ & $95\%$ \\
\hline
$h \, \left( X10^{2}\text{arcs} \right)$ & $3.56_{-1.108}^{+1.082}$ & $3.56_{-2.106}^{+2.395}$ \\
$k \, \left( X10^{3}\text{arcs} \right)$ & $5.938_{-2.470}^{+2.372}$ & $5.938_{-4.849}^{+4.546}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{ Source values estimated by \textbf{Gallenspy} in the case of J2141.}
\label{tabla:fuente_gal1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{source_J2141.pdf}
\caption{Estimation of circular source with Gallenspy for the galaxy J2141.\\}
\label{fig:circular_source_J2141}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.50\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{Einstein_radius_AND_imagesJ2141.pdf}
\caption{Deflected image and Einstein ring (scale in arcs).\\}
\label{fig:curvs_crit_gal1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Compute of \textbf{Gallenspy} for source parameters (left side) and Einstein radius (right side).}
\end{figure}
With the position and size of the source, the mass reconstruction of J2141 based on the GLE was done with the restrictions obtained of the rotation curves in relation with the parametric space. For this specific case, the amplitude of the parametric exploration established was three times of the table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy}.
The combination of lensing and Galactic Dynamics was a very efficient process in breaking of the degeneracy between the mass components of J2141, this allowed a lower mass density value for the disc as it is shown in figure \ref{fig:contours_gallenspy1}. Based on the result, it is important to point out how the combination of \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy} is a great alternative for galaxies where the gravitational contribution of each mass component is not easy to distinguish.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8.5in, width=6.5in]{contours_J2141.pdf}
\caption{Contours obtained through the combination of restrictions between \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy} for the galaxy J2141.}
\label{fig:contours_gallenspy1}
\end{figure*}
In table \ref{tabla:Gallenspy_gal1} the parameters and its uncertainties are consigned, where the parameters with major dispersion belong to NFW profile, which is related to the degeneracy of this system.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $68\%$ & $95\%$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{NFW}\\
\hline
$a \, \left( \text{kpc} \right)$ & $47.653_{-16.696}^{+8.786}$ & $47.653_{-0.036}^{+0.020}$ \\
$m_{\text{\text{0}}} \, \left( X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $2.171_{-1.610}^{+3.18}$ & $2.171_{-2.009}^{+6.815}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Exponential Disc}\\
\hline
$h_{\text{r}} \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $29.312_{-1.111}^{+0.520}$ & $29.312_{-2.620}^{+0.663}$ \\
$\Sigma_{0} \, \left(X10^{9} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{ pc}^{-2} \right)$ & $4.368_{-0.012}^{+0.012}$ & $4.368_{-0.026}^{+0.031}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Miyamoto-Nagai}\\
\hline
$b \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $1.778_{-0.296}^{+0.166}$ & $1.778_{-0.643}^{+0.212}$ \\
$M \, \left(X10^{9} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $1.492_{-0.367}^{+0.781}$ & $1.492_{-0.043}^{+0.474}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{ Values of parameters obtained in the mass reconstruction for J2141.}
\label{tabla:Gallenspy_gal1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Based on the values of these parameters, the Einstein ring and Einstein radius $(\theta_{Eins})$ were computed. In figure \ref{fig:curvs_crit_gal1}, this curve obtained by \textbf{Gallenspy} is evidenced, where the Einstein radius $\theta_{Eins}$ presented a value of $0.943_{-0.144}^{+0.128}$.
The compute of enclosed mass for J2141, was done taking into account the relation:
\begin{equation}\label{calc_masa}
M=\dfrac{\Sigma_{cr}}{2}\int_{S} \nabla^{2} \psi(\theta_{1},\theta_{2}) d^{2}\theta,
\end{equation}
Table \ref{tabla:Gallens_gal1} shows the estimated values.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $Log_{10} \, \left( \dfrac{\text{M}}{\text{M}_{\odot}} \right)$ \\
\hline
$\text{M}_{Eins}$& $10.906_{-0.160}^{+0.030}$\\
\hline
$\text{Mbar}_{Eins}$& $10.905_{-0.027}^{+0.023}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{ Enclosed mass with Einstein radius, M being the total mass and Mbar the baryonic matter.}
\label{tabla:Gallens_gal1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
These results are in concordance with the range of values given by Dutton et al. \cite{Curv}, where they reported for J2141 a value of $Log_{10} \, \left(\dfrac{\text{Mbar}}{\text{M}_{\odot}}\right)= 10.99_{-0.25}^{+0.11}$ within the Einstein radius.
The results obtained in this work show separately mass estimation of the bulge and disc, different from results of Dutton et al., where they obtain the stellar mass without discriminating each contribution of these baryonic matter components. These mass values are shown in Table \ref{tabla:Masa_comp_gal1}, and the fitting made to the rotation curve and arc generated in the GLE with these results is illustrated in images \ref{fig:ajust_lens_gal1} and \ref{fig:ajust_curv_gal1}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
Component of the galaxy & $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)$ \\
\hline
Bulge & $8.004_{-0.0009}^{+0.010}$\\
Disk & $10.905_{-0.028}^{+0.034}$\\
Dark Matter Halo & $7.740_{-0.0027}^{+0.0094}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Mass values for each component of J2141.}
\label{tabla:Masa_comp_gal1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{fittingJ2141.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the observational data and lens model data for a circular source in galaxy J2141 with \textbf{Gallenspy}, in this case the lens model choose let us obtain a set of images which overlap the observational images.\\}
\label{fig:ajust_lens_gal1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{fit_galrotpy_gal1.pdf}
\caption{Fitting of rotation curve with the model data.\\}
\label{fig:ajust_curv_gal1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Fit obtained for lensing and rotation curves through the combination of restrictions between \textbf{Gallenspy} and \textbf{Galrotpy}.}
\end{figure}
In the rotational curve's fitting, it is possible to evidence how the dark matter halo is gravitationally dominant in a radius less than $1.5\text{Kpc}$, this observation could be done due to the combination of GLE and galactic dynamics, since the generated arc is in a near radius to this galaxy zone and therefore the combination of restrictions between \textbf{Gallenspy} and \textbf{Galrotpy} is a great option.
\subsection{Galaxy J1331}
SDSSJ1331+3628 (J1331) is a spiral galaxy with a counter-rotating massive core \cite{Dutt}, where just like J2141, the inclination of this galaxy allows to get its rotational velocity values in function of the galactocentric radius.
J1331 is localet in RA = 202.9188$^{\circ}$ and DEC = 36.469990$^{\circ}$, and in the observation of this system Treut et.al (2011) \cite{Treu} observed 2 distinct redshifts within a radius of 1 arcs ($z_{L}=0.113, z_{s}=0.254$), given the GLE in this galaxy.
The images of this galaxy, were obtained by means of the SWELLS(Sloan WFC Edge-on late-type lens survey)(WFC-Wide Field Camera)\cite{SWELLS}; In figure \ref{fig:image_gal2} these images are illustrated with the HST telescope in the F450W and F814W filters, where the high size of its core is evidenced, for this reason in the right side it is evidenced a slit done by Trick et. al \cite{Dutt}, where they reconstructed the brightness surfaces.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5in, width=3.5in]{imagenes_gal2.pdf}
\caption{Images of J1331 obtained with the HST telescope in F450W and F814W filters.(Image taken from Trick et.al \cite{Dutt})}
\label{fig:image_gal2}
\end{figure}
The images produced for the GLE are shown in figure \ref{fig:lens_gal2}, which are labeled with letters A,B,C y D, also it is important to clarify that the other 3 unlabeled images do not belong to this group, since according to what Trick et.al indicate\cite{Dutt} these are part of a stellar formation region.
Regarding dynamical aspect of J1331, Dutton et al.(2013) obtained its rotational velocity values with the use of Keck I telescope by means of a LRIS spectrograph (Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph)\cite{Dutt}, where these data were obtained of the absortion lines $M_{gb}(5177$ $\textup{\r{A}}$), $Fe_{II}(5270.5335$ $\textup{\r{A}}$) and $Fe_{II}(5406$ $\textup{\r{A}}$), while the gas velocity was estimated with emision lines $H_{\alpha}(6563$ $\textup{\r{A}}$) and $N_{II}(6583$ $\textup{\r{A}}$).
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{lensing_gal2.pdf}
\caption{Quadruplet of images formed through the ELG for a point source, in this case G is the galactic center. (Image taken from Trick et.al \cite{Dutt}).\\}
\label{fig:lens_gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{curvrot_gal2.pdf}
\caption{Rotational velocity values of J1331, where the effective radius is distinguished by Trick et.al with 2.6 arcs, which contains is a supermassive and counter-rotating core \cite{Dutt}.\\}
\label{fig:curvrot_gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Observational data of lensing and rotational velocities for the galaxy J1331.}
\end{figure}
An important aspect of J1331 is its supermassive core, according to what is exposed by other authors \cite{Dutt} about half the brightness is enclosed in the effective radius illustrated in figure \ref{fig:curvrot_gal2}. For this reason, this galaxy has been and object of interest in different works \cite{Treu, Brewer}, where a possible merger event in the past of this system which changes its structure and kinematics is speculated.
\subsubsection{Mass reconstruction based on the GLE}
Unlike J2141, the mass profiles for J1331 within its core can not be used by \textbf{Galrotpy}, due to the rotational negative velocity values present in this part of the galaxy.
Therefore, the galaxy region enclosed in the effective radius was analyzed totally with lensing, such that the only restrictions applied in \textbf{Gallenspy} are in the parametric ranges used with \textbf{Galrotpy} for the fitting of the rotation curves in close radii to the galaxy periphery.
In this way, other authors note how the breaking of the degeneracy is not an easy task \cite{Dutt,Dutt2}, and even if different advances have been obtained this objective has not been achieved yet.
The observational data of the images (A-D) are consigned in table \ref{tabla:Datos_Lensing}, where it was necessary to express these coordinates in arcs for a scale $1$ pixel $=0.05$ arcs.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
Coordinates & A & B & C & D & G \\
\hline
$\theta_{1}$ & 12.1 & -8.5 & 21.7 & -3.3 & 0.5\\
$\theta_{2}$ & 16.6 & -10.4 & -0.5 & 19.2 & 0.5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{(In pixels) Positions of the images (A-D) and galactocentric center (G) given by Trick et al.\cite{Dutt}. The error in each image is of 0.05, while of the G is 0.07.}
\label{tabla:Datos_Lensing}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For the determination of the cosmological distances, the redshifts were taken into account in the numerical solution to the Dyer-Roeder equation \cite{Rog}, which \textbf{Gallenspy} carries out based on the Jimenez code \cite{Julian}. For this case, the cosmological model $\Lambda$CDM was used. The obtained results were $D_{LS} = 442.7X10^3$Kpc, $D_{OL} = 422X10^3$Kpc and $D_{OS} = 817.9X10^{3}$Kpc.
The next step in \textbf{Gallenspy} was the estimation of the source position, for which the obtained values are in table \ref{tabla:fuente_gal2}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $68\%$ & $95\%$ \\
\hline
$\beta_1 \, \left( X10^{-3}\text{arcseg} \right)$ & $6.496_{-0.078}^{+0.085}$ & $6.496_{0.0787}^{+0.0853}$ \\
$\beta_2 \, \left( X10^{11}\text{arcseg} \right)$ & $2.104_{-0.037}^{+0.038}$ & $2.104_{-0.074}^{+0.079}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Source position obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for the case of the GLE in J1331.}
\label{tabla:fuente_gal2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In the parameters exploration for the mass reconstruction, the established ranges of the bulges I and II belonging to the table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy} were not enough for the fitting of the observational images, and this is shown in figure \ref{fig:ajuste_antiguo}. For this reason a very massive bulge was considered, where the selected most appropriate profile is of the Miyamoto-Nagai with parametric exploration ranges of thick disc evidenced in table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ajuste_antiguo.pdf}
\caption{Adjustment obtained by \textbf{Gallenspy} with the parametric space of the Bulge II belonging to the table \ref{tabla:Param_Gallenspy}.}
\label{fig:ajuste_antiguo}
\end{figure}
This process was done in \textbf{Gallenspy} with 100 walkers and 100 steps in the MCMC, and in figure \ref{fig:triangle} these contours are shown.
\begin{figure*}[]
\includegraphics[height=4.0in, width=5.0in]{contours_J1331.pdf}
\caption{Reliability regions of obtained parameters in the case of J1331.}
\label{fig:triangle}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{Einstein_radius_AND_images.pdf}
\caption{Einstein ring obtained with the mass distribution of J1331, the lens plane is in an $arcs$ scale.\\}
\label{fig:einsRadius_gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{Ajuste_Gal2.pdf}
\caption{Adjustment obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for J1331, where it is important to highlight how the model images are very close to the observational images for the lens model choose.\\}
\label{fig:Ajuste_Gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of observational images with Einstein ring and lens model images computed in \textbf{Gallenspy}.}
\end{figure}
Under this estimation, the most appropriate set of parameters for the mass distribution of J1331 obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} is in table \ref{tabla:Gallenspy_J1331}, these values allowed to get the fit shown in figure \ref{fig:Ajuste_Gal2}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $95\%$ & $68\%$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{NFW}\\
\hline
$a \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $8.131_{-2.451}^{+2.982}$ & $8.131_{-3.972}^{+8.973}$\\
$m_{0} \, \left(X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $5.734_{-2.095}^{+2.752}$ & $5.734_{-5.066}^{+3.820}$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Exponential Disk}\\
\hline
$h_{\text{r}} \, \left(\text{Kpc} \right)$ & $9.902_{-3.824}^{+5.140}$ & $9.902_{-5.851}^{+10.923}$ \\
$\Sigma_{\text{0}} \, \left(10^{9} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{Kpc}^{-2} \right)$ & $7.487_{-0.838}^{+0.958}$ & $7.487_{-1.645}^{+1.826}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Miyamoto-Nagai}\\
\hline
$b \, \left( \text{kpc} \right)$ & $4.647_{-2.968}^{+3.759}$ & $4.647_{-3.882}^{+8.607}$ \\
$a \, \left( \text{kpc} \right)$ & $2.826_{-1.442}^{+1.324}$ & $2.826_{-2.551}^{+3.756}$ \\
$M \, \left( 10^{10} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $7.542_{-5.010}^{+4.871}$ & $7.542_{-7.221}^{+7.055}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Set of parameters obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for J1331.}
\label{tabla:Gallenspy_J1331}
\end{center}
\end{table}
With this mass distribution, the critical and caustic curves and the Einstein ring are presented in figure \ref{fig:critica_gal2},\ref{fig:caustica_gal2} and \ref{fig:einsRadius_gal2} where the Einstein radius and critical radii have values of $0.915\text{arcseg}_{-0.020}^{+0.013}$, $1.280\text{arcseg}_{-0.001}^{+0.001}$ and $0.410\text{arcseg}_{-0.001}^{+0.001}$ respectively. It is important to point that with this lens model was possible to estimate the mass within the effective radius under which Trick et al. \cite{Dutt} got restrictions for the mass estimation through the luminosity of J1331.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{adjust_critical2.pdf}
\caption{Critical curves obtained with the mass distribution of J1331, the lens plane is in an $arcs$ scale.\\}
\label{fig:critica_gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=\textwidth]{caustic.pdf}
\caption{Caustic curves obtained with the mass distribution of J1331, the source plane is in a scale of $1X10^6$ radians.\\}
\label{fig:caustica_gal2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Critical and caustic curves obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} for the selected lens model.}
\end{figure}
In table \ref{tabla:Masa_eins_gal2} the mass values restricted by the Einsten radius are consigned; the results reported by Trick et al. under the lens model that they assumed \cite{Dutt}, the Einstein radius estimated is $0.91\pm0.02\text{arcseg}$ with an enclosed mass of $7.8\pm0.3\text{X}10^{10}\text{M}_\odot$. This is in concordance with the results obtained in this work with \textbf{Gallenspy}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
Mass components & Mass value $\bigg(1\text{X}10^{10}M_{\odot}\bigg)$ \\
\hline
Bulge & $0.052_{-0.035}^{+0.045}$\\
Disk & $7.830_{-0.758}^{+1.210}$\\
Dark matter halo & $0.298_{-0.198}^{+0.161}$\\
\textbf{Einstein Mass} & $\mathbf{8.181_{-0.959}^{+1.417}}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Mass Values within Einstein radius.}
\label{tabla:Masa_eins_gal2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Regarding the restriction within the critical radius, the values obtained of baryonic and dark matter are $2.190_{-0.403}^{+0.257}\text{X}10^{11}\text{M}_\odot$ and $2.179_{-0.399}^{+0.289}\text{X}10^{11}\text{M}_\odot$ respectively, these results are also consistent with the reported by Trick et al. \cite{Curv}, where for the effective radius these values are $2.352\pm0.2\text{X}10^{11}\text{M}_\odot$ for the total mass and $1.970\pm0.39\text{X}10^{11}\text{M}_\odot$ of baryonic matter, also it should be clarified that these authors obtain their results with alternative methods to the GLE of J1331\cite{Dutt}.
The results obtained with \textbf{Gallenspy} show that this is a very effective tool for the mass reconstructions within the critical curve and Einstein radius. However for J1331, the estimation is not enough with radii greater than $2.6$ arcs, and therefore in this case \textbf{Galrotpy} was used.
In other works \cite{Dutt, Dutt2} it is evidenced how the mass reconstructions for J1331 from a dynamics analysis have many complications due to the complexity of its rotation curve. This is the reason why Trick et al. \cite{Dutt} restricted this mass reconstruction to the effective radius, while Dutton et al. in 2013 \cite{Dutt2} dedicated efforts in studying the periphery of the galaxy. Based on what was previously shown, each routine in this work was applied separately in different galaxy regions.
\subsubsection{Mass reconstruction of J1331 with Galrotpy}
The best result in the fitting of the rotation curve with \textbf{Galrotpy} was made with 20 walkers and 100 steps, wherein the image \ref{fig:contornos_galrotpy_gal2} the contours of each parameter obtained are presented in figure \ref{fig:Ajustecurva_Gal2}.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5in, width=6.0in]{Conf_Regions.pdf}
\caption{Credibility regions of obtained parameters with \textbf{Galrotpy} for J1331.}
\label{fig:contornos_galrotpy_gal2}
\end{figure*}
In table \ref{tabla:Galrotpy_J1331} are presented these values and its uncertainties for each parameter. The estimated mass distribution with these indicated parameters was restricted to 7.56 arcs (in this radius are all data of rotational velocity), and therefore the enclosed mass in this amplitude was estimated in $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)=11.448_{-0.131}^{+0.224}$ where the baryonic matter has a value of $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)=10.898_{-0.164}^{+0.303}$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $95\%$ & $68\%$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{NFW}\\
\hline
$a \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $11.080_{-0.801}^{+0.129}$ & $11.080_{-0.314}^{+0.417}$\\
$m_{0} \, \left(X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $1.277_{-0.098}^{+0.136}$ & $1.277_{-0.055}^{+0.088}$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Exponential Disk}\\
\hline
$h_{\text{r}} \, \left(\text{Kpc} \right)$ & $1.066_{-0.087}^{+0.114}$ & $1.066_{-0.023}^{+0.033}$ \\
$\Sigma_{\text{0}} \, \left(10^{2} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{pc}^{-2} \right)$ & $3.423_{-0.327}^{+0.393}$ & $3.423_{-0.222}^{+0.185}$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Miyamoto Nagai}\\
\hline
$b \, \left( \text{kpc} \right)$ & $7.892_{-0.648}^{+0.451}$ & $7.892_{-0.325}^{+0.167}$ \\
$a \, \left( \text{kpc} \right)$ & $3.114_{-0.299}^{+0.228}$ & $3.114_{-0.211}^{+0.111}$ \\
$M \, \left( 10^{10} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $7.677_{-0.715}^{+0.112}$ & $7.677_{-0.520}^{+0.249}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Estimated parameters with \textbf{Galrotpy} for J1331 galaxy.}
\label{tabla:Galrotpy_J1331}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The results given by Dutton et al. in 2013 \cite{Dutt2} indicate that the baryonic matter in this radius is of $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)=11.03\pm0.07$ which is in concordance with the result obtained through of \textbf{Galrotpy}. Also, it is important to note, the great relation in the estimation of the bulge mass, where they report a value of $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)=10.89\pm0.10$ and in this work the obtained value is $log_{10}\bigg(\dfrac{M}{M_{\odot}}\bigg)=10.885_{-0.520}
^{+0.249}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{GalRotpy_fit.pdf}
\caption{Rotation curve of J1331 obtained with \textbf{Galrotpy}, in this case it is possible to observe how the bulge is dominant gravitationally which is in concordance with the analysis done with \textbf{Gallenspy} from lensing. }
\label{fig:Ajustecurva_Gal2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Analysis of the mass reconstruction for J1331}
From the mass reconstructions performed for this galaxy with \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy}, it follows that about of the 78\% of the mass of J1331 is enclosed in the effective radius, this confirmed the presence of a supermassive core, which due to presenting a negative direction in its rotation opens the possibility to think that this galaxy is the result of a merger process between two stellar systems, with angular momentum oriented in distinct orientations.\cite{Dutt}
Also it is important to mention the high effectiveness of \textbf{Galrotpy} in this process, where the obtained results for radii close to the galaxy periphery were very successful in comparison with the results of Dutton et al. in 2013 \cite{Dutt2}, all this taking into account that these estimations were done with the fitting from just 3 values of rotational velocity.
Besides, it is important to remember that the degeneracy between the disc and halo is still a research topic \cite{Dutt,Dutt2}, and for this reason, the possibility of adjusting \textbf{Galrotpy} for negative values of the rotational velocity is open, since this would allow to combine lensing and galactic dynamics for similar galaxies to J1331.
\section{HE 0435-1223 test case}
An additional case of tested for \textbf{Gallenspy} was the Quasar HE 0435-1223, in which the GLE is evidenced through a quadruply imaged belonging to a background source \cite{Courbin_circular}. HE 0435-1223 was discovered by Wisotzki et al. (2000) and since then it has been a research object in distinct works\cite{Courbin_circular}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{image_HE_0435_1223.pdf}
\caption{Quadruply imaged formed through the GLE in the case of quasar 0435-1223. (Image taken from Courbin et.al.(2011)\cite{Courbin_circular}.}
\label{fig:Courbin_circular}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:Courbin_circular} shows these formed images by means of GLE, where the redshifts of the lens and source are $z_{s}=1.689$ and $z_{L}=1.4546$ respectively, with a value of $6.666Kpc$ for the Einstein radius.
Based on these redshifts value, the cosmological distances estimated by \textbf{Gallenspy} are $D_{ds}=1070.3Mpc$, $D_d=1163.3Mpc$ and $D_{s}=1700.4Mpc$. Also it is important to point out that the positions of the images formed in the GLE were obtained from Courbin et al.(2011) \cite{Courbin_circular}, and in this way it was possible to perform the mass reconstruction for this quasar with the Exponential Disk and NFW profiles, where the estimated parameters are presented in table \ref{tabla:Quasar}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
Parameter & $95\%$ & $68\%$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{NFW}\\
\hline
$a \, \left( \text{Kpc} \right)$ & $52.792_{-27.014}^{+0.133}$ & $52.792_{-0.122}^{+0.073}$\\
$m_{0} \, \left(X10^{11} \text{ M}_{\odot} \right)$ & $19.961_{-13.156}^{+0.037}$ & $19.961_{-0.054}^{+0.030}$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{| c |}{Exponential Disk}\\
\hline
$h_{\text{r}} \, \left(\text{Kpc} \right)$ & $11.999_{-0.007}^{+0.0005}$ & $11.999_{-0.001}^{+0.0003}$ \\
$\Sigma_{\text{0}} \, \left(10^{2} \text{ M}_{\odot} \text{pc}^{-2} \right)$ & $2.999_{-0.0025}^{+0.00004}$ & $2.999_{-0.0007}^{+0.0003}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Values of the obtained parameters with \textbf{Gallenspy}}
\label{tabla:Quasar}
\end{center}
\end{table}
With these parameters, the obtained images are illustrated in figure \ref{fig:ajuste_cuasar}, where the values of baryonic and dark matter are consigned in table \ref{tabla:masa_cuasar}. The results given by Courbin et al.(2011) for this system, reveal that the total mass of this quasar is of $3.16\pm0.31X10^{11}M_{\odot}$ which is very close to the obtained value in this work, other important aspect is the baryonic matter fraction which in this work is of $0.764\pm0.15$ while Courbin et al.(2011) reported $0.65^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ with the Sapelter IMF; in this way it is possible to confirm that \textbf{Gallenspy} is an efficient tool.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
Mass & Value $\bigg(1\text{X}10^{11}M_{\odot}\bigg)$ \\
\hline
Baryonic & $2.395_{-0.0031}^{+0.0003}$\\
Dark & $0.618_{-0.066}^{+0.001}$\\
\textbf{Einstein Mass} & $\mathbf{3.014_{-0.069}^{+0.006}}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\\
\caption{Mass Values within Einstein radius.}
\label{tabla:masa_cuasar}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.0in, width=2.5in]{Ajuste.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between model and observational images formed through the GLE.}
\label{fig:ajuste_cuasar}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this work the \textbf{Gallenspy} code was presented, which is very useful in mass reconstructions based on GLE; in this way it is important to highlight, the way in which this routine allows to obtain the mass distribution of bulge and disc separately unlike to the methods of reconstruction applied by other authors \cite{Curv, Dutt, Dutt2}.
Also, the advantages of combining Lensing and Galactic Dynamics were illustrated with the use of \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy}, in this case, with the restrictions given by each routine, it was possible to have significant progress in breaking the degeneracy in J1331 and J2141. Additionally, \textbf{Gallenspy} was used for J1331 in the mass reconstruction within the critic radius, while with \textbf{Galrotpy} the peripheral region was analyzed and although this degeneracy could not be broken completely, the estimated parameters have concordance with the obtained results of other authors \cite{Dutt,Dutt2}. This gives reliability to the constructed routines.
On the other hand, it is important to highlight the use of mass models with spherical symmetry, the ones are used by distinct authors \cite{Petter_circular} \cite{Courbin_circular}, and which allows to get results as in mass reconstructions as in estimations of Hubble parameter.
Regarding future improvements for \textbf{Gallenspy}, the increase in the number of mass profiles used in this routine is considered, besides there is the possibility of extending this code for reconstructions of superficial brightness functions in lens galaxies, like the estimation of temporary cosmological delays for the study of the universe expansion.
Finally it is important to mention the advantages of performing visuals fitting with \textbf{Galrotpy} and \textbf{Gallenspy} for rotation curves and GLE, since through this process it is possible get the initial set of values for the MCMC in both routines.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num-names}
|
\chapter*{#1}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{#1}}
\def\prefacesection#1{%
\chapter*{#1}
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{#1}}
\if@twoside
\ifodd\c@page\else
\null\thispagestyle{chapterverso}\newpage
\if@twocolumn\null\newpage\fi
\fi
\fi
\def\ps@chapterverso{\ps@empty}%
\newcommand{\tnorm}[1]{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert #1
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\newcommand{\BlackBox}{\rule{1.5ex}{1.5ex}}
\newenvironment{solution}{\par\noindent{\bf Solution.\
}}{\hfill\BlackBox\\[2mm]}
\makeatletter
\newcommand{\tagsleft@true}{\tagsleft@true}
\newcommand{\tagsleft@false}{\tagsleft@false}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\newcommand{\let\veqno\@@leqno}{\let\veqno\@@leqno}
\makeatother
\title{\bf\large Theoretical and numerical study of the decay in a viscoelastic Bresse System}
\date{\vspace{-5ex}}
\author[1]{\small Jamilu Hashim Hassan}
\author[2,3]{\small Salim A. Messaoudi}
\author[4]{\small Toufic El-Arwadi}
\author[5]{Mohamad El Hindi}
\affil[1,3]{\small \it Department of Mathematics and Statistics, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals\\ P.O. Box 546, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia.}
\affil[2]{\small \it Department of Mathematics, University of Sharjah, P.O. Box 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.}
\affil[4,5]{\it Department of Mathematics and Computer Science,Beirut Arab University\\ P.O. Box 11-5020, Beirut, Lebanon.}
\affil[1]{\small <EMAIL>}
\affil[2]{\small <EMAIL>}
\affil[4]{\small <EMAIL>}
\affil[5]{\small <EMAIL>}
\begin{document}
\tagsleft@false
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
In this paper, we consider a one-dimensional finite-memory Bresse system with homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann-Neumann boundary conditions. We prove some general decay results for the energy associated with the system in the case of equal and non-equal speeds of wave propagation under appropriate conditions on the relaxation function. In addition, we show by giving an example that in the case of equal speeds of wave propagation and for certain polynomially decaying relaxation functions, our result gives an optimal decay rate in the sense that the decay rate of the system is exactly the same as that of the relaxation function considered.
\end{abstract}
\section{\small{Introduction}}
\label{sec1}
Bresse system is a mathematical model that describes the vibration of a planar, linear shearable curved beam. The model was first derived by Bresse \cite{Bresse1859} and it consists of three coupled wave equations given by
\begin{equation}\label{e1s1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)_x-lk_3(w_x-\varphi)+F_1=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-k_2\psi_{xx}+k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+F_2=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-k_3(w_x-\varphi)_x+lk_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+F_3=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi,\psi,w$ represent the vertical displacement, the shear angle, and the longitudinal displacement, respectively; $\rho_1,\rho_2,k_1,k_2,k_3,l$ are positive parameters and $F_1,F_2,F_3$ are external forces.
\par A lot of results dealing with well-posedness and asymptotic behaviour of the above system have been published. We start with the work of Santos $et \ al.$ \cite{Santos2010} from 2010, where they studied the Bresse system with Dirichlet-Dirichlet-Dirichlet boundary conditions and linear frictional damping acting on each equation, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{e2s1}
(F_1,F_2,F_3)=(\gamma_1\varphi_t,\,\gamma_2\psi_t,\,\gamma_3w_t),
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3>0$. They established an exponential decay rate for the system using spectral theory approach developed by Z. Liu and S. Zheng in \cite{Liu1999}. They also gave a numerical scheme using finite difference method to illustrate their theoretical result. Soriano $et \ al.$ \cite{Soriano2014} used the method developed by Lasiecka and Tataru in \cite{Lasiecka1993} and proved a uniform decay rate for the same system with a nonlinear frictional damping acting on the second equation and locally distributed nonlinear damping acting on the other equations. Precisely, the external forces are given by \[(F_1,F_2,F_3)=(\alpha(x)g_1(\varphi_t),\, g_2(\psi_t),\, \gamma(x)g_3(w_t))\] with $\alpha,\gamma\in L^\infty(0,L)$ and the $g_i$'s are continuous and monotone increasing functions. The results of \cite{Santos2010} and \cite{Soriano2014} were established without imposing any restriction on the speeds of wave propagation given by
\begin{equation}\label{e3s1}
s_1=\sqrt{\frac{k_1}{\rho_1}},\qquad s_2=\sqrt{\frac{k_2}{\rho_2}},\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad s_3=\sqrt{\frac{k_3}{\rho_1}}.
\end{equation}
Alves $et \ al.$ \cite{Alves2015a} used the semigroup and spectral theory to obtain the exponential stability of the Bresse system with three controls at the boundary.
\par In the presence of dissipating terms in only one or two of the equations in system \eqref{e1s1}, the decay rates of the energy associated to the system depend totally on the speeds of the wave propagation. As illustrated in \cite{Alabau-Boussouira2011a}, Alabau-Boussouira $et \ al.$ studied \eqref{e1s1} with linear frictional damping acting on the second equation; that is, they used \eqref{e2s1}, with $\gamma_1=\gamma_3=0$ and $\gamma_2>0$ and showed that the system is exponentially stable if and only if it has equal speeds of wave propagation,
\begin{equation}\label{e4s1}
\frac{k_1}{\rho_1}=\frac{k_2}{\rho_2}=\frac{k_3}{\rho_3}.
\end{equation}
As mentioned by many authors \cite{Alabau-Boussouira2011a, Alves2015}, relation \eqref{e4s1} is physically unrealistic. In the case of non-equal speeds of wave propagation, they proved polynomial stability with rates which can be improved with the regularity of the initial data. Fatori and Monteiro \cite{Fatori2012} improved this result in the case of non-equal speeds of wave propagation by proving optimal decay rate. Soriano $et \ al.$ \cite{Soriano2012} established the same exponential stability result as in \cite{Alabau-Boussouira2011a} by replacing the frictional damping with indefinite one; that is, they replaced $\gamma_2$ in \cite{Alabau-Boussouira2011a} with a function $a:(0,L)\longrightarrow\mathbb R$ such that $\displaystyle\bar a=\frac{1}{L}\int_0^La(x)dx>0$ and $\displaystyle\|a-\bar a\|_{L^2(0,L)}$ is small enough. Wehbe and Youcef \cite{Wehbe2010} inspected the situation of two locally distributed dampings acting on the last two equations; that is, \[(F_1,F_2,F_3)=(0,\, a_1(x)\psi_t,\, a_2(x)w_t),\] where $a_i:(0,L)\longrightarrow\mathbb R$ are non-negative functions which can take value zero on some part of the interval $(0,L)$. By using the frequency domain and the multiplier method, they proved that the system is exponentially stable if and only if $s_1=s_2$. When $s_1\neq s_2$ they established a polynomial decay rate which can be improved with the regularity of the initial data. The same result was established by Alves $et \ al.$ in \cite{Alves2015}, in the case of non-equal speeds of wave propagation, they used the recent result of Borichev and Tomilov in \cite{Borichev2010} to show that the solution is polynomially stable with optimal decay rate.
\par Concerning the dissipation via heat effect, we mention the work of Liu and Rao \cite{Liu2009c} where the following system
\begin{equation}\label{e5s1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)_x-lk_3(w_x-\varphi)+l\gamma\chi=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-k_2\psi_{xx}+k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\gamma\theta_x=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-k_3(w_x-\varphi)_x+lk_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\gamma\chi_t=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_3\theta_t-\theta_{xx}+\gamma\psi_{xt}=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_3\chi_t-\chi_{xx}+\gamma(w_x-l\varphi)_t=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with boundary and initial conditions was considered. They showed that the exponential stability of the system is equivalent to the validity of the identity \eqref{e4s1}. In the case where \eqref{e4s1} does not hold, they established a polynomial-type decay rate. Fatori and Mu{\~{n}}oz Rivera \cite{Fatori2010} obtained a similar result as in \cite{Liu2009c} for the thermoelastic Bresse system \eqref{e5s1} when the fifth equation is omitted. They also showed that the polynomial decay rate is optimal in the case of non-equal speeds of wave propagation. Filippo Dell'Oro \cite{DellOro2015} gave a detail stability analysis of the thermoelastic Bresse-Gurtin-Pipkin system of the form:
\begin{equation}\label{e6s1}
\begin{array}{ll}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-k(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)_x-lk_0(w_x-\varphi)=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-k_2\psi_{xx}+k(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\gamma\theta_x=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-k_0(w_x-\varphi)_x+lk(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\\
\rho_3\theta_t-k_1\displaystyle\int_0^\infty g(s)\theta_{xx}(t-s)ds+\gamma\psi_{xt}=0& \mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,\infty),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $g$ is a bounded convex integrable function on $[0,\infty)$ satisfying \[\int_0^\infty g(s)ds=1,\] and there exists a non-increasing absolutely continuous function $\mu:(0,\infty)\longrightarrow[0,\infty)$ such that
\[\mu(0)=\lim_{s\rightarrow0}\mu(s)\in(0,\infty),\qquad g(s)=\int_s^\infty\mu(\tau)d\tau,\qquad\forall \,s\in[0,\infty)\]
and
\[\mu'(s)+\nu\mu(s)\leq0 \quad\mathrm{for\ \ some\ \ }\nu>0\quad\mathrm{and\quad} a.e.\ s\in(0,\infty).\]
By introducing a new stability number of the form
\[\chi_g=\left(\frac{\rho_1}{\rho_3k}-\frac{1}{g(0)k_1}\right)\left(\frac{\rho_1}{k}-\frac{\rho_2}{b}\right)-\frac{1}{g(0)k}\frac{\rho_1\gamma^2}{\rho_3bk},\]
he proved that the semigroup generated by \eqref{e6s1} is exponentially stable if and only if
\[\chi_g=0\qquad\mathrm{and\qquad}k=k_0.\]
As a special case, he showed that his stability result gave the stability characterization of Bresse systems with Fourier, Maxwell-Cataneo and Coleman-Gurtin thermal dissipation. The reader is referred to \cite{Afilal2016, Gallego2017, Keddi2016, Najdi2014, Qin2014, Said-Houari2015, Said-Houari2016, Said-Houari2015a} and the references therein for more recent results on thermoelastic Bresse system.
\par There are few results that dealt with stabilization of Bresse system via infinite memory. We begin with the work of Guesmia and Kafini \cite{Guesmia2015} in 2015. They studied the following system
\begin{equation}\label{p1s1}
\begin{cases}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)_x-lk_3(w_x-l\varphi)+\displaystyle\int_0^\infty g_1(s)\varphi_{xx}(x,t-s)ds=0,\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-k_2\psi_{xx}+k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\displaystyle\int_0^\infty g_2(s)\psi_{xx}(x,t-s)ds=0,\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-lk_3(w_x-l\varphi)_x+lk_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\displaystyle\int_0^\infty g_3(s)w_{xx}(x,t-s)ds=0,\\
\varphi(0,t)=\psi(0,t)=w(0,t)=\varphi(L,t)=\psi(L,t)=w(L,t)=0,\\
\varphi(x,-t)=\varphi_0(x,t),\ \varphi_t(x,0)=\varphi_1(x),\\
\psi(x,-t)=\psi_0(x,t),\ \psi_t(x,0)=\psi_1(x),\\
w(x,-t)=w_0(x,t),\ w_t(x,0)=w_1(x),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $(x,t)\in(0,L)\times\mathbb R_+$, $g_i:\mathbb R_+\longrightarrow\mathbb R_+$ are differentiable non-increasing and integrable functions, and $L,\,l_i,\,\rho_i,\,k_i$ are positive constants. They proved the well-posedness and the asymptotic stability of \eqref{p1s1}. Later, Guesmia and Kirane \cite{Guesmia2016} used two infinite memories to obtain the same stability result of \cite{Guesmia2015} under the following conditions on the speeds of wave propagation:
\begin{equation*}\label{e9s1}
\frac{k_1}{\rho_1}=\frac{k_2}{\rho_2}\quad\mathrm{in\ case\ } g_1=0,\quad \frac{k_1}{\rho_1}=\frac{k_2}{\rho_2}\quad\mathrm{in\ case\ } g_2=0,\quad \frac{k_1}{\rho_1}=\frac{k_3}{\rho_3}\quad\mathrm{in\ case\ } g_3=0.
\end{equation*}
Santos $et \ al.$ \cite{DeLimaSantos2015} discussed the Bresse system with only one infinite memory acting on the shear angle displacement equation. Precisely, they studied problem \eqref{p1s1} with
\[g_1=g_3=0\qquad\mathrm{and\qquad} g_2\mathrm{\quad satisfying:\quad} -\alpha_1 g_2(t)\leq g_2'(t)\leq -\alpha_2g_2(t),\quad\forall\,t\geq0,\]
for some $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>0.$ They showed that the solution of the system decays exponentially to zero if and only if \eqref{e4s1} holds, otherwise a polynomial stability of the system with an optimal decay rate of type $t^{-1/2}$ was obtained. Recently, Guesmia \cite{Guesmia2017} analysed the asymptotic stability of Bresse system with one infinite memory in the longitudinal displacement.
\par \textbf{To the best of our knowledge, there is no result in the literature that deals with the stability of Bresse system via viscoelastic damping of finite memory-type}. In this paper we will discuss the decay property of the following finite memory-type Bresse system:
\begin{equation}\label{p1}
\begin{cases}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)_x-lk_3(w_x-l\varphi) =0,&\mathrm{in}\,\,\,(0,L)\times(0,+\infty),\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-k_2\psi_{xx}+k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)+\displaystyle\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xx}(s)ds=0,&\mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,+\infty),\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-k_3(w_x-l\varphi)_x+lk_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)=0,&\mathrm{in\,\,\,}(0,L)\times(0,+\infty),\\
\varphi(0,t)=\varphi(L,t)=\psi_x(0,t)=\psi_x(L,t)=w_x(0,t)=w_x(L,t)=0,&\mathrm{for\,\,\,}t\geq0,\\
\varphi(x,0)=\varphi_0(x),\,\,\,\,\varphi_t(x,0)=\varphi_1(x),&\mathrm{for}\,\,\, x\in (0,L),\\
\psi(x,0)=\psi_0(x),\,\,\,\,\psi_t(x,0)=\psi_1(x),&\mathrm{for}\,\,\, x\in (0,L),\\
w(x,0)=w_0(x),\,\,\,\,w_t(x,0)=w_1(x),&\mathrm{for}\,\,\, x\in (0,L),
\end{cases}\tag{$P$}
\end{equation}
where $l,\,\,k_1,\,\,k_2,\,\,k_3,\,\,\rho_1,\,\,\rho_2$ are positive constants, $\varphi_0,\,\,\varphi_1,\,\,\psi_0,\,\,\psi_1,\,\,w_0,\,\,w_1$ are given data and $g$ is a relaxation function satisfying some conditions to be specified in the next section. Our problem is motivated by the following classical Bresse system
\[\begin{array}{lll}
\rho_1\varphi_{tt}-S_x-lN &=0&\mathrm{in}\quad (0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\rho_2\psi_{tt}-M_x+S &=0&\mathrm{in}\quad (0,L)\times(0,\infty),\\
\rho_1w_{tt}-N_x-lS &=0&\mathrm{in}\quad (0,L)\times(0,\infty),
\end{array}\]
where $t$ and $x$ represent the time and space variables, respectively, and $N$, $S$ and $M$ denote the axial force, the shear force and the bending moment given by
\[S=k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+w),\quad M=k_2\psi_x-\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{x}(\cdot,s)ds,\quad N=k_3(w_x-\varphi).\]
\textbf{We will prove, under a smallness condition on $l$, generalized energy decay results for the system in the case of equal and different speeds of wave propagation}. This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec2}, we state some preliminary results. In Section \ref{sec3}, we state and prove some technical lemmas. The statement and proof of our main results are given in Sections \ref{sec4} and \ref{sec5}, while in Section \ref{sec6} we present some numerical illustrations to validate our results. Through out this work we use $c$ to represent a generic positive constant, independent of $t$ but may depend on the initial data.
\section{\small{Preliminaries}}
\label{sec2}
In this section, we introduce our assumptions, present some useful lemmas and state the existence theorem.\\
\textbf{Assumptions:} We assume that the relaxation function $g$ satisfies the following hypotheses:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)] $g:[0,\infty)\longrightarrow[0,\infty)$ is a non-increasing differentiable function such that
\[g(0)>0\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad k_2-\int_0^{+\infty}g(s)ds>0.\]
\item[(A2)] There exists a non-increasing differentiable function $\xi\!:[0,\infty)\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ and a constant $p$, with $1\leq p<\frac{3}{2}$, such that \[g'(t)\leq-\xi(t)g^p(t),\qquad \forall t\geq0.\]
\end{itemize}
\begin{lemma}\label{l1s2}
Assume that $g$ satisfies hypotheses $(A1)$ and $(A2)$. Then,
\[\int_0^{+\infty}\xi(t)g^{1-\sigma}(t)dt<+\infty,\qquad\forall\,0<\sigma<2-p.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From (A1), we have \[\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}g(t)=0.\]
Using (A2), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^{+\infty}\xi(t)g^{1-\sigma}(t)dt&=&\int_0^{+\infty}\xi(t)g^p(t)g^{1-\sigma-p}(t)dt\leq-\int_0^{+\infty}g'(t)g^{1-\sigma-p}(t)dt\\
&=&-\left[\frac{1}{2-\sigma-p}g^{2-\sigma-p}(t)\right]_{t=0}^{t=+\infty}<+\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
since $\sigma<2-p$.
\end{proof}
\par Now, integrating both sides of the second and third equations in $\eqref{p1}$ over $(0,L)$ and using the boundary conditions, we get
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\int_0^L\psi(x,t)dx+\frac{k_1}{\rho_2}\int_0^L\psi(x,t)dx+\frac{lk_1}{\rho_2}\int_0^Lw(x,t)dx=0\quad\forall t\geq0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\int_0^Lw(x,t)dx+\frac{l^2k_1}{\rho_1}\int_0^Lw(x,t)dx+\frac{lk_1}{\rho_1}\int_0^L\psi(x,t)dx=0\quad\forall t\geq0.
\end{equation}
Solving these ODEs simultaneously yields
\begin{equation}\label{}
\int_0^L\psi(x,t)dx=a_1\cos(a_0t)+a_2\sin(a_0t)+a_3t+a_4
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{}
\int_0^Lw(x,t)dx=\frac{a_1}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)\cos(a_0t)+\frac{a_2}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)\sin(a_0t)-\frac{a_3}{l}t-\frac{a_4}{l},
\end{equation}
where
\[
\begin{cases}
a_0=\displaystyle{\sqrt{\frac{k_1}{\rho_2}+\frac{l^2k_1}{\rho_1}}}\\
\\
a_1=\displaystyle{\frac{k_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\int_0^L\psi_0(x)dx+\frac{lk_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\int_0^Lw_0(x)dx},\\
\\
a_2=\displaystyle{\frac{k_1}{\rho_2a_0^3}\int_0^L\psi_1(x)dx+\frac{lk_1}{\rho_2a_0^3}\int_0^Lw_1(x)dx},\\
\\
a_3=\displaystyle{\left(1-\frac{k_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\right)\int_0^L\psi_1(x)dx-\frac{lk_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\int_0^Lw_1(x)dx},\\
\\
a_4=\displaystyle{\left(1-\frac{k_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\right)\int_0^L\psi_0(x)dx+\frac{lk_1}{\rho_2a_0^2}\int_0^Lw_0(x)dx}.
\end{cases}
\]
Therefore, we perform the following change of variables
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{\widetilde\psi =\psi-\frac{1}{L}\big(a_1\cos(a_0t)+a_2\sin(a_0t)+a_3t+a_4\big)}\\
\\
\displaystyle{\widetilde w= w-\frac{1}{L}\left[\frac{a_1}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)\cos(a_0t)+\frac{a_2}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)\sin(a_0t)-\frac{a_3}{l}t-\frac{a_4}{l}\right]}
\end{array}
\]
to get \[\int_0^L\widetilde\psi(x,t)dx=\int_0^L\widetilde w(x,t)dx=0, \qquad\forall\,t\geq0.\]
Furthermore, $(\varphi,\,\widetilde\psi,\,\widetilde w)$ satisfies the equations and the boundary conditions in \eqref{p1} with the initial data
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\widetilde\psi_0=\psi_0-\frac{1}{L}(a_1+a_4)},&{\displaystyle\widetilde\psi_1=\psi_1-\frac{1}{L}(a_0a_2+a_3)}\\
\\
\displaystyle{\widetilde w_0=w_0-\frac{1}{L}\left[\frac{a_1}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)-\frac{a_4}{l}\right]},&\displaystyle{\widetilde w_1=w_1-\frac{1}{L}\left[\frac{a_2a_0}{l}\left(\frac{\rho_2a_0^2}{k_1}-1\right)-\frac{a_3}{l}\right].}
\end{array}
\]
From now on, we work with $\widetilde\psi,\,\,\widetilde w$ and, respectively, write $\psi,\,\,w$ for convenience. We also introduce the following spaces,\[L^2_*(0,L):=\left\lbrace w\in L^2(0,L):\int_0^Lw(x)dx=0\right\rbrace,\qquad H^1_*(0,L):= H^1(0,L)\cap L^2_*(0,L),\] and \[H^2_*(0,L):= \left\lbrace w\in H^2(0,L):w_x(0)=w_x(L)=0\right\rbrace.\]
Then, Poincar\'e's inequality is applicable to the elements of $H^1_*(0,L)$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\exists\,\,c_0>0\qquad\mathrm{such\,\,\,\,that}\qquad \int_0^Lv^2dx\leq c_0\int_0^Lv_x^2dx\qquad\forall\,v\in H^1_*(0,L).
\end{equation}
For completeness, we state, without proof the global existence and regularity result which can be established by repeating the steps of the proof of the existence result in \cite{Messaoudi2016b}.
\begin{theorem}\label{t1s2}
Let $(\varphi_0,\varphi_1)\in H^1_0(0,L)\times L^2(0,L)$ and $(\psi_0,\psi_1),\,(w_0,w_1)\in H^1_*(0,L)\times L^2_*(0,L)$ be given. Assume that $g$ satisfies hypothesis $(A1)$. Then, the problem \eqref{p1} has a unique global (weak) solution
\[\varphi\in C(\mathbb R_+;H^1_0(0,L))\cap C^1(\mathbb R_+;L^2(0,L)),\quad \psi,\,\,w\in C(\mathbb R_+;H^1_*(0,L))\cap C^1(\mathbb R_+;L^2_*(0,L)).\] Moreover, if \[(\varphi_0,\varphi_1)\in (H^2(0,L)\cap H^1_0(0,L))\times H^1_0(0,L)\] and \[(\psi_0,\psi_1),\,\,(w_0,w_1)\in {(H^2_*(0,L)\cap H^1_*(0,L))\times H^1_*(0,L)},\] then \[\varphi\in C(\mathbb R_+;H^2(0,L)\cap H^1_0(0,L))\cap C^1(\mathbb R_+;H^1_0(0,L))\cap C^2(\mathbb R_+;L^2(0,L)),\] and \[\psi,\,\,w\in C(\mathbb R_+;H^2_*(0,L)\cap H^1_*(0,L))\cap C^1(\mathbb R_+;H^1_*(0,L))\cap C^2(\mathbb R_+;L^2(0,L)).\]
\end{theorem}
Now, we introduce the energy functional
\begin{equation}\label{e1s2}
\begin{split}
E(t):= \,\,\,&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^L\left[\rho_1\varphi_t^2+\rho_2\psi_t^2+\rho_1w_t^2+\left(k_2-\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\psi_x^2\right.\\
&+\left.\vphantom{\int_0^t}k_3(w_x-l\varphi)^2+k_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2\right]dx+\frac{1}{2}(g\circ\psi_x)(t),\quad\forall\,t\geq0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where for any $v\in L^2_{loc}([0,+\infty);L^2(0,L))$, \[(g\circ v)(t):=\int_0^L\int_0^tg(t-s)\big(v(t)-v(s)\big)^2dsdx.\]
By multiplying the equations in \eqref{p1} by $\varphi_t,\,\psi_t,\,w_t$, respectively, integrating over $(0,L)$ and exploiting the boundary conditions we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{l2s2}
Let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the weak solution of \eqref{p1}. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{e2s2}
E'(t)=-\frac{1}{2}g(t)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx+\frac{1}{2}(g'\circ\psi_x)(t)\leq0,\qquad\forall t\geq0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
From the Cauchy-Schwarz and Poicar\'e's inequalities we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Messaoudi2007}]\label{l3s2}
There exists a constant $c>0$ such that for any $v\in L^2_{loc}(\mathbb R_+;H^1_*(0,L))$, we have \[\int_0^L\left(\int_0^tg(t-s)(v(t)-v(s))ds\right)^2dx\leq c(g\circ v_x)(t),\quad\forall t\geq0.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Messaoudi2007}]\label{l4s2}
Assume that conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold and let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the weak solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, for any $0<\sigma<1$, we have \[g\circ\psi_x\leq c\left[\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(s)ds\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}(g^p\circ\psi_x)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}.\] For $\sigma=\tfrac{1}{2}$, we obtain the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{e3s2}
g\circ\psi_x\leq c\left(\int_0^tg^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}(g^p\circ\psi_x)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}\label{c1s2}
Assume that $g$ satisfies $(A1)$, $(A2)$ and $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ is the weak solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, \[\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_x)(t)\leq c(-E'(t))^{\frac{1}{2p-1}},\quad\forall t\geq0.\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Multiplying both sides of the inequality \eqref{e3s2} by $\xi(t)$ and using Lemmas \ref{l1s2} and \ref{l2s2}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_x)(t)&\leq& c\xi^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}(t)\left(\int_0^tg^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}(\xi g^p\circ\psi_x)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}(t)\\
&\leq&c\left(\int_0^t\xi(s)g^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}(-g'\circ\psi_x)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}\leq c(-E'(t))^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Jensen's inequality]\label{l8s2}
Let $G:[a,b]\longrightarrow\mathbb R$ be a concave function. Assume that the functions $f:\Omega\longrightarrow[a,b]$ and $h:\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb R$ are integrable such that $h(x)\geq0$, for any $x\in\Omega$ and $\displaystyle\int_\Omega h(x)dx=k>0$. Then,
\[\frac{1}{k}\int_\Omega G(f(x))h(x)dx\leq G\left(\frac{1}{k}\int_\Omega f(x)h(x)dx\right).\] In particular, for $\displaystyle G(y)=y^{\frac{1}{p}},\,\,y\geq0,\,\,p>1$, we have \[\frac{1}{k}\int_\Omega f^{1/p}(x)h(x)dx\leq\left(\frac{1}{k}\int_\Omega f(x)h(x)dx\right)^{1/p}.\]
\end{lemma}
\section{\small{Technical Lemmas}}
\label{sec3}
In this section, we state and prove some lemmas needed to establish our main results. All the computations are done for regular solutions but they still hold for weak and strong solutions by a density argument.
\begin{lemma}\label{l1s3}
Assume that conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then, the functional $I_1$ defined by
\[I_1(t):=-\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi(t)-\psi(s))dsdx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1}, the estimates
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e1s3}
I_1'(t)&\leq&-\rho_2\left(\int_0^tg(s)ds-\delta\right)\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+\delta \int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\nonumber\\
&&+c\delta\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x-g'\circ\psi_x),\qquad\forall\,\delta>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Differentiating $I_1$, using equations in \eqref{p1} and integrating by parts, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_1'(t)&=&-\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t\int_0^tg'(t-s)(\psi(t)-\psi(s))dsdx-\rho_2\left(\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx\\
&&+k_2\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx\\
&&+k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi(t)-\psi(s))dsdx\\
&&-\int_0^L\left(\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)ds\right)\left(\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))ds\right)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, we estimate the terms on the right-hand side of the above equation.
\par Using Young's inequality and Lemma \ref{l3s2} for $(-g')$, we obtain, for any $\delta>0$,
\[-\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t\int_0^tg'(t-s)(\psi(t)-\psi(s))dsdx\leq \delta\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx-\frac{c}{\delta}(g'\circ\psi_x).\]
Similarly, we have
\[k_2\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx\leq \delta\int_0^L\psi_x^2+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x),\]
\[k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi(t)-\psi(s))dsdx\leq k_1\delta\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x),\]
and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
-\int_0^L\left(\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)ds\right)\left(\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))ds\right)dx
\leq& c\delta\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\\&+c\left(\delta+\frac{1}{\delta}\right)(g\circ\psi_x).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
A combination of these estimates gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l2s3}
Assume that the hypotheses $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then, for any $\varepsilon_0,\,\delta_1>0$, the functional $I_2$ defined by
\[I_2(t):=-\rho_1k_3\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\int_0^xw_t(y,t)dydx-\rho_1k_1\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^x(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)(y,t)dydx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1}, the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e2s3}
I_2'(t)&\leq&k_1^2\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx-k_3^2\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\varepsilon_0-\rho_1k_1+\frac{l\rho_1|k_3-k_1|\delta_1}{2}\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx\\
&&+\rho_1\left(k_3+\frac{c_0l|k_3-k_1|}{2\delta_1}\right)\int_0^Lw_t^2dx.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Differentiation of $I_2$, using equations in \eqref{p1} and integration by parts yield
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_2&=&\rho_1k_3\int_0^Lw_t^2dx+l\rho_1k_3\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^xw_t(y,t)dydx-k_3^2\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&+k_1^2\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx-\rho_1k_1\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx-\rho_1k_1\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^x(\psi_t+lw_t)(y,t)dydx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using Young's inequality, we get, for any $\varepsilon_0,\,\delta_1>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_2&\leq&k_1^2\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx-k_3^2\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx\\
&&+\left(\varepsilon_0-\rho_1k_1+\frac{l\rho_1|k_3-k_1|\delta_1}{2}\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx+\rho_1\left(k_3+\frac{c_0l|k_3-k_1|}{2\delta_1}\right)\int_0^Lw_t^2dx.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l3s3}
Under the conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$, the functional $I_3$ defined by
\[I_3(t):=-\rho_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)w_tdx-\frac{k_3\rho_1}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\varphi_tdx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1} and for any $\varepsilon_0>0$, the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e3s3}
I_3'(t)&\leq&lk_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx-\frac{lk_3^2}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{l\rho_1k_3}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx+(\varepsilon_0-l\rho_1)\int_0^Lw_t^2dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Differentiating $I_3$, using equations in \eqref{p1} and integrating by parts, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_3&=&-\rho_1\int_0^L\psi_tw_tdx-l\rho_1\int_0^Lw^2_tdx+lk_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\\
&&+\frac{l\rho_1k_3}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx-\frac{lk_3^2}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Use of Young's inequality for the first term in the right-hand side gives \eqref{e3s3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l4s3}
Assume that conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then for any $\delta>0$, the functional $I_4$ defined by
\[I_4(t):=-\int_0^L(\rho_1\varphi\vp_t+\rho_2\psi\psi_t+\rho_1ww_t)dx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1}, the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e4s3}
I_4'(t)&\leq&-\int_0^L(\rho_1\varphi_t^2+\rho_2\psi_t^2+\rho_1w_t^2)dx+k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\nonumber\\
&&+k_3\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx+\left(k_2+\delta-\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Differentiation of $I_4$, using equations of \eqref{p1} gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_4'(t)&=&-\int_0^L(\rho_1\varphi_t^2+\rho_2\psi_t^2+\rho_1w_t^2)dx+k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx+k_3\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&+\left(k_2-\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx-\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Repeating the above computations yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l5s3}
Assume that conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then for any $\delta,\,\delta_2>0$, the functional $I_5$ defined by
\[I_5(t):=-\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^x\psi_t(y,t)dydx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1}, the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e5s3}
I_5'(t)&\leq&\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+\left(\frac{k_1}{2\delta_2}+\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta-k_2\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{c_0k_1\delta_2}{2}\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using equations of \eqref{p1} and repeating similar computations as above, we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_5'(t)&=&\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx-k_2\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx+k_1\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^x(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)(y,t)dydx\\
&&+\int_0^L\psi_x\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)dsdx\\
&\leq&\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+\left(\frac{k_1}{2\delta_2}+\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta-k_2\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\\
&&+\frac{k_1\delta_2}{2}\int_0^L\left(\int_0^x(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)(y,t)dy\right)^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Poincar\'e's inequality for the third term yields \eqref{e5s3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l6s3}
Assume that the hypotheses $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold. Then, for any $\varepsilon_0,\,\varepsilon_1,\,\varepsilon_2,\,\delta>0$, the functional $I_6$ defined by
\[I_6(t):=\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)dx+\frac{b\rho_1}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_xdx-\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)dsdx\]
satisfies, along the solution of \eqref{p1}, the estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e6s3}
I_6'(t)&\leq&-k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx+\left(\frac{lk_2k_3\varepsilon_1}{2k_1}+\frac{lk_3\varepsilon_2}{2k_1}\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta\right)\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx \nonumber\\
&&+\delta\int_0^L\varphi^2_tdx+\left(\frac{lk_2k_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_1}+\frac{lk_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_2}\int_0^tg(s)ds+\frac{c}{\delta}g(t)\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\\
&&+\varepsilon_0\int_0^Lw_t^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x-g'\circ\psi_x)+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Use of equations of \eqref{p1} and integration by parts lead to
\begin{eqnarray*}
I'_6(t)&=&-k_1\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx+\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+l\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_tw_tdx\\
&&+\frac{lk_2k_3}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\psi_xdx-\frac{lk_3}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)dsdx\\
&&-\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}g(t)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_xdx+\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg'(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_x\psi_{xt}dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, we estimate the terms in the right-hand side of the above equation.
\par Exploiting Young's inequality, we get
\[l\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_tw_tdx\leq\varepsilon_0\int_0^Lw^2_tdx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx,\qquad\forall\,\varepsilon_0>0.\]
Using Young's inequality and Lemma \ref{e3s2}, we obtain, for any $\varepsilon_1,\,\varepsilon_2,\,\delta>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\frac{lk_2k_3}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\psi_xdx-\frac{lk_3}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_x(s)dsdx}\\
&=&\frac{lk_3}{k_1}\left(k_2-\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\psi_xdx\\
&&+\frac{lk_3}{k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx\\
&\leq&\left(\frac{lk_2k_3\varepsilon_1}{2k_1}+\frac{lk_3\varepsilon_2}{2k_1}\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta\right)\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&+\left(\frac{lk_2k_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_1}+\frac{lk_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_2}\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}(g\circ\psi_x)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{-\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}g(t)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_xdx+\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg'(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(s))dsdx}\\
&\leq&\delta\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx+\frac{c}{\delta}g(t)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx-\frac{c}{\delta}(g'\circ\psi_x).
\end{eqnarray*}
A combination of these estimates gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{\small{General Decay Rates for Equal Speeds of Wave Propagation}}
\label{sec4}
In this section, we state and prove a general decay result under equal speeds of wave propagation condition. The exponential and polynomial decay results are only special cases.
\begin{theorem}\label{t1s4}
Let $(\varphi_0,\varphi_1)\in H^1_0(0,L)\times L^2(0,L)$ and $(\psi_0,\psi_1),\,(w_0,w_1)\in H^1_*(0,L)\times L^2_*(0,L)$. Assume that $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold and that
\begin{equation}\label{e1's4}
\frac{k_1}{\rho_1}=\frac{k_2}{\rho_2}\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad k_1=k_3.
\end{equation} Then for $l$ small enough and for any $t_0>0$, the solution of \eqref{p1} satisfies, for $t> t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e1s4}
E(t)\leq C\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{t_0}^t\xi(s)ds\right),\qquad\mathrm{for\,\,\,\,} p=1,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e2s4}
E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-2}},\qquad \mathrm{for\,\,\,\,} 1<p<\frac{3}{2},
\end{equation}
where $C>0$ is a constant independent of $t$ but may depend on the initial data and $\lambda>0$ is a constant independent of both $t$ and the initial data.
Moreover, if
\begin{equation}\label{e3s4}
\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-2}}dt<+\infty,\qquad \mathrm{for\,\,\,\,} 1<p<\frac{3}{2},
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}\label{e4s4}
E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}},\qquad \mathrm{for\,\,\,\,} 1<p<\frac{3}{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{r1s4}
Inequalities \eqref{e2s4} and \eqref{e3s4} together give
\[\int_0^{+\infty}E(t)dt<+\infty.\]
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The smallness condition on $l$ makes the Bresse system close to Timoshenko system and, hence, inherits some of its stability properties.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t1s4}]
Define a functional $\mathcal{L}$ by
\[\mathcal{L}:=NE+\sum_{j=1}^{6}N_jI_j,\]
where $N,\,N_j>0$ for $j=1,2,\dots,6$ with $N_3=N_6=1$. Then from \eqref{e1s3} $-$ \eqref{e6s3} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&\left[-\rho_1(k_1N_2+N_4)+\frac{l\rho_1|k_3-k_1|\delta_1N_2}{2}+\frac{l\rho_1k_3}{k_1}+\varepsilon_0N_2+\delta\right]\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx\\
&&+\left[-\rho_2\left(N_1\int_0^tg(s)ds+N_4-N_5\right)+\rho_2\delta N_1+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}(1+N_2)\right]\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx\\
&&+\left[-l\rho_1+\rho_1(k_3N_2-N_4)+\frac{c_0l\rho_1|k_3-k_1|N_2}{2\delta_1}+\varepsilon_0\right]\int_0^Lw_t^2dx\\
&&+\left[(N_5-N_4)\int_0^tg(s)ds+k_2(N_4-N_5)+\frac{k_1N_5}{2\delta_2}+\frac{lk_2k_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_1}\right.\\
&&\left.+\frac{lk_3}{2k_1\varepsilon_2}\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta(cN_1+N_4+N_5)+\frac{c}{\delta}g(t)\right]\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\\
&&+\left[-\frac{lk_3^2}{k_1}-k_3(k_3N_2-N_4)+\frac{lk_2k_3\varepsilon_1}{2k_1}+\frac{lk_2k_3\varepsilon_2}{2k_1}\int_0^tg(s)ds+\delta\right]\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&+\left[-k_1\left(1-k_1N_2-l-N_4-\frac{c_0\delta_2N_5}{2}\right)+\delta N_1\right]\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\\
&&+\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1+N_4+N_5)g\circ\psi_x-\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1)g'\circ\psi_x+NE'(t)\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{eqnarray*}
By setting $\delta_1=1,\,\,\,N_4=k_3N_2,\,\,\,N_5=4k_3N_2,\,\,\,\delta_2=\frac{k_1}{k_2-g_0},\,\,\,\varepsilon_1=\frac{k_3}{k_2},\,\,$ and $\varepsilon_2=\frac{k_3}{2g_0},\,\,$ where ${\displaystyle g_0=\int_0^\infty g(s)ds}$, we arrive at
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-\rho_1\left[(k_1+k_3)N_2-l\left(\frac{|k_3-k_1|}{2}N_2+\frac{k_3}{k_1}\right)\right]\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx\\
&&-\rho_2\left(N_1\int_0^tg(s)ds-3k_3N_2\right)\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx-l\rho_1\left(1-\frac{c_0|k_3-k_1|}{2}N_2\right)\int_0^Lw_t^2dx\\
&&-\left[(k_2-g_0)k_3N_2-\frac{l}{k_1}\left(\frac{k_2^2}{2}+g_0^2\right)\right]\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx-\frac{lk_3^2}{4k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&-k_1\left[1-\left(k_1+k_3+\frac{2c_0k_1k_3}{k_2-g_0}\right)N_2-l\right]\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\\
&&+(1+N_2)\varepsilon_0\int_0^L(\varphi_t^2+w_t^2)dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}(1+N_2)\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+NE'(t)\\
&&+\delta\int_0^L\Big(\varphi_t^2+\rho_2N_1\psi_t^2+c(N_1+5k_3N_2)\psi_x^2+N_1(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2\Big)dx\\
&&+\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1+5k_3N_2)g\circ\psi_x+\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1)\left[g(t)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx-g'\circ\psi_x\right]\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, we set $\varepsilon_0=\frac{l\rho_1}{2(1+N_2)}$, to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-\rho_1\left[(k_1+k_3)N_2-l\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k_3}{k_1}+\frac{|k_3-k_1|}{2}N_2\right)\right]\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx\\
&&-\rho_2\left(N_1\int_0^tg(s)ds-3k_3N_2-\frac{c(1+N_2)^2}{l\rho_1\rho_2}\right)\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx-\frac{lk_3^2}{4k_1}\int_0^L(w_x-l\varphi)^2dx\\
&&-\frac{l\rho_1}{2}\left(1-c_0|k_3-k_1|N_2\right)\int_0^Lw_t^2dx-\left[(k_2-g_0)k_3N_2-\frac{l}{k_1}\left(\frac{k_2^2}{2}+g_0^2\right)\right]\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx\\
&&-k_1\left[1-\left(k_1+k_3+\frac{2c_0k_1k_3}{k_2-g_0}\right)N_2-l\right]\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi+lw)^2dx\\
&&+\delta c_{N_1,N_2}E(t)+\left[N-\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1)\right]E'(t)+\frac{c}{\delta}(1+N_1+5k_3N_2)g\circ\psi_x\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Fix $t_0>0$ and choose $N_2$ so small that
\[1-c_0|k_3-k_1|N_2>0\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad 1-\left(k_1+k_3+\frac{2c_0k_1k_3}{k_2-g_0}\right)N_2>0.\]
Next, we select $l$ small enough so that
\[(k_1+k_3)N_2-l\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k_3}{k_1}+\frac{|k_3-k_1|}{2}N_2\right)>0,\qquad (k_2-g_0)k_3N_2-\frac{l}{k_1}\left(\frac{k_2^2}{2}+g_0^2\right)>0,\]
and
\[1-\left(k_1+k_3+\frac{2c_0k_1k_3}{k_2-g_0}\right)N_2-l>0.\]
After that, we pick $N_1$ very large so that \[N_1\int_0^{t_0}g(s)ds-3k_3N_2-\frac{c(1+N_2)^2}{l\rho_1\rho_2}>0.\] Therefore, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-(\beta-c\delta) E(t)+\left(N-\frac{c}{\delta}\right)E'(t)+\frac{c}{\delta}g\circ\psi_x\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
for some $\beta>0$. At this point, we take $\displaystyle\delta<\frac{\beta}{c}$. Consequently, we obtain, for some $k>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e5s4}
\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-kE(t)+(N-c)E'(t)+c(g\circ\psi_x)\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx,\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we choose N so large that $N>c$ and $\mathcal{L}\sim E$, therefore we have, $\forall\, t\geq t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e6s4}
\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-kE(t)+c(g\circ\psi_x)+\left(\frac{k_2\rho_1}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx+\rho_1\left(\frac{k_3}{k_1}-1\right)\int_0^L\varphi_{xt}w_tdx.
\end{equation}
\par Note that from this point, the proof goes similarly as in \cite{Messaoudi2017}. But we will continue for the sake of completeness.
\par By recalling \eqref{e1's4} and multiplying both sides of \eqref{e6s4} by $\xi(t)$ and using Corollary \ref{c1s2}, we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{e7s4}
\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq -k\xi(t)E(t)+c\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_x)(t)\leq-k\xi(t)E(t)+c(-E'(t))^{\frac{1}{2p-1}},\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.
\end{equation}
\par For $p=1$, it follows from non-increasing property of $\xi$ and \eqref{e7s4} that
\[\big(\xi(t)\mathcal{L}(t)+cE(t)\big)'\leq\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)+cE'(t)\leq-k\xi(t)E(t),\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.\]
Using the fact that $\mathcal{F}=\xi\mathcal{L}+cE\sim E$, there exists a $\lambda>0$ such that
\[\mathcal{F}'(t)\leq-\lambda\xi(t)\mathcal{F}(t),\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.\]
A simple integration over $(t,t_0)$ leads to
\[E(t)\leq C\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{t_0}^t\xi(s)ds\right),\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.\]
\par For $1<p<\frac{3}{2}$, we multiply both sides of \eqref{e7s4} by $(\xi E)^\alpha(t)$, with $\alpha=2p-2$, to obtain
\[\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-k(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)+c(\xi E)^\alpha(t)(-E'(t))^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}.\]
Applying Young's inequality with $\displaystyle q=\frac{\alpha+1}{\alpha}$ and $q'=\alpha+1$, we get
\[\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq -(k-c\gamma)(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)-c_\gamma E'(t),\qquad\forall\gamma>0.\]
We choose $\gamma$ such that $\lambda_1:=k-c\gamma>0$ and use the non-increasing property of $\xi$ and $E$, to have
\[(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L})'(t)\leq\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-\lambda_1(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)-cE'(t),\]
this entails that
\[(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE)'(t)\leq-\lambda_1(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t).\]
Let $\mathcal{F}=\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE\sim E$, then
\[\mathcal{F}'(t)\leq-\lambda\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)\mathcal{F}^{\alpha+1}(t),\]
for some $\lambda>0$.
Integration over $(t_0,t)$ gives
\[E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-2}},\qquad\forall t\geq t_0.\]
This establishes \eqref{e2s4}.
\par To prove \eqref{e4s4}, we treat \eqref{e7s4} as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e8s4}
\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-k\xi(t)E(t)+c\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_x)(t)\nonumber\\
&\leq&-k\xi(t)E(t)+c\frac{\eta(t)}{\eta(t)}\int_0^t\big(\xi^p(s)g^p(s)\big)^{\frac{1}{p}}\|\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2ds,
\end{eqnarray}
for any $t\geq t_0$, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta(t)&=&\int_0^t\|\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2ds\leq 2\int_0^t(\|\psi_x(t)\|^2_2+\|\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2)ds\\
&\leq& 4\int_0^t(E(t)+E(t-s))ds\leq 8\int_0^tE(t-s)ds=8\int_0^tE(s)ds\\
&\leq& 8\int_0^{+\infty}E(s)ds<+\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
by Remark \ref{r1s4}.
Applying Jensen's inequality to the second term in the right-hand side of \eqref{e8s4}, with $\displaystyle G(y)=y^{\frac{1}{p}},$ $y>0$, $f(s)=\xi^p(s)g^p(s)$ and $h(s)=\|\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2$, we obtain
\[\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-k\xi(t)E(t)+c\eta(t)\left(\frac{1}{\eta(t)}\int_0^t\xi^p(s)g^p(s)\|\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2ds\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},\]
where we assume that $\eta(t)>0$, otherwise we get, from \eqref{e6s4},
\[E(t)\leq C\exp(-kt),\qquad\forall t\geq t_0.\]
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-k\xi(t)E(t)+c\eta^{\frac{p-1}{p}}(t)\left(\xi^{p-1}(0)\int_0^t\xi(s)g^p(s)\|\psi_x(t)-\psi_x(t-s)\|^2_2ds\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\
&\leq&-k\xi(t)E(t)+c(-g'\circ\psi_x)^{\frac{1}{p}}(t)\leq-k\xi(t)E(t)+c(-E'(t))^{\frac{1}{p}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Multiplying both sides of the above inequality by $(\xi E)^\alpha(t)$, for $\alpha=p-1$, and repeating the above computations, we arrive at
\[E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}},\qquad\forall t> t_0,\]
which establishes \eqref{e4s4}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{ex1s4}
Let $\displaystyle g(t)=\frac{a}{(1+t)^q}$ with $q>2$, and $a>0$ is to be chosen so that $(A1)$ is satisfied. Then
\begin{equation*}
g'(t)=-a_0\left(\frac{a}{(1+t)^q}\right)^{\frac{q+1}{q}}=-\xi(t)g^p(t),
\end{equation*}
with $\displaystyle\xi(t)=a_0=\frac{q}{a^{1/q}}$ and $\displaystyle p=\frac{q+1}{q}<\frac{3}{2}$, we have, for any fixed $t_0>0$,
\[\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-2}}dt=\int_{t_0}^{+\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1+c(t-t_0)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-2}}dt<+\infty.\] Therefore, inequality \eqref{e4s4} entails that there exists $C>0$ such that
\[E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{1+\int_{t_0}^t\xi^p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}=\frac{c}{(1+t)^{q}},\]
with the optimal decay rate $q$. For more examples, see \cite{Messaoudi2017}.
\end{example}
\section{\small{General Decay Rate for Different Speeds of Wave Propagation}}\label{sec5}
In this section, we state and prove a generalized decay result in the case of non-equal speeds of wave propagation. We start by differentiating both sides of the differential equations in \eqref{p1} with respect to $t$ and use the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xx}(s)ds\right]&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\int_0^tg(s)\psi_{xx}(t-s)ds\right]=g(t)\psi_{xx}(0)+\int_0^tg(s)\psi_{xxt}(t-s)ds\\
&=&\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xxt}(s)ds+g(t)\psi_{0xx},
\end{eqnarray*}
to obtain the following system
\begin{equation}\label{p2}
\begin{cases}
\rho_1\varphi_{ttt}-k_1(\varphi_{xt}+\psi_t+lw_t)_x-lk_3(w_{xt}-l\varphi_t) =0,\\
\rho_2\psi_{ttt}-k_2\psi_{xxt}+k_1(\varphi_{xt}+\psi_t+lw_t)+\displaystyle\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xxt}(s)ds+g(t)\psi_{0xx}=0,\\
\rho_1w_{ttt}-k_3(w_{xt}-l\varphi_t)_x+lk_1(\varphi_{xt}+\psi_t+lw_t)=0.
\end{cases}\tag{$P_*$}
\end{equation}
The energy functional associated to \eqref{p2} is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
E_*(t):= \,\,\,&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^L\left[\rho_1\varphi_{tt}^2+\rho_2\psi_{tt}^2+\rho_1w_{tt}^2+\left(k_2-\int_0^tg(s)ds\right)\psi_{xt}^2\right.\\
&+\left.\vphantom{\int_0^t}k_3(w_{xt}-l\varphi_t)^2+k_1(\varphi_{xt}+\psi_t+lw_t)^2\right]dx+\frac{1}{2}(g\circ\psi_{xt})(t),\quad\forall\,t\geq0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using similar arguments as in \cite[Lemma~3.11]{Guesmia2013} we have the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{l5s2}
Let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the strong solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, the energy of \eqref{p2} satisfies, for all $t\geq0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e5s2}
E_*'(t)=-\frac{1}{2}g(t)\int_0^L\psi_{xt}^2dx+\frac{1}{2}(g'\circ\psi_{xt})-g(t)\int_0^L\psi_{tt}\psi_{0xx}dx
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e6s2}
E_*(t)\leq c\left(E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{l6s2}
Assume that hypotheses $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold and let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the strong solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, for any $0<\sigma<1$, we have
\[g\circ\psi_{xt}\leq\left[c\left(E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right)\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(s)ds\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}\big(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\big)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}.\]
In particular, for $\sigma=\frac{1}{2}$, we get the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{e7s2}
g\circ\psi_{xt}\leq c\left(\int_0^tg^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}\left(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By setting $\displaystyle r=\frac{p+\sigma-1}{p-1}$ and $\displaystyle q=\frac{(p-1)(1-\sigma)}{p+\sigma-1}$, we have $\displaystyle \frac{r}{r-1}=\frac{p+\sigma-1}{\sigma}$ and $\displaystyle 1-q=\frac{\sigma p}{p+\sigma-1}$. Then exploiting H\"older's inequality and \eqref{e6s2}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
g\circ\psi_{xt}&=&\int_0^L\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^2dsdx\\
&=&\int_0^L\int_0^t\left[g^q(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^{\frac{2}{r}}\right]\left[g^{1-q}(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^{\frac{2r-2}{r}}\right]dsdx\\
&\leq&\left[\int_0^L\int_0^tg^{qr}(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^2dsdx\right]^{\frac{1}{r}}\\&&\times\left[\int_0^L\int_0^tg^{\frac{(1-q)r}{r-1}}(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^2dsdx\right]^{\frac{r-1}{r}}\\
&\leq&\left[\int_0^L\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))^2dsdx\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}\left(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\right)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}\\
&\leq&\left[2\int_0^L\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(s)(\psi_{xt}^2(t)+\psi_{xt}^2(t-s))dsdx\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}\left(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\right)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}\\
&\leq&\left[\frac{4}{k_2-g_0}\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(s)(E_*(t)+E_*(t-s))ds\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}\left(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\right)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}\\
&\leq&\left[c\left(E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right)\int_0^tg^{1-\sigma}(s)ds\right]^{\frac{p-1}{p+\sigma-1}}\left(g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\right)^{\frac{\sigma}{p+\sigma-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\sigma=\frac{1}{2}$, we get \eqref{e7s2}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{c2s2}
Assume that conditions $(A1)$ and $(A2)$ hold and let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the strong solution of \eqref{p1}. Then,
\[\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_{xt})(t)\leq c\big(-E_*'(t)+c_1g(t)\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}},\qquad\forall t\geq0,\]
for some positive constant $c_1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From equation \eqref{e5s2} and inequality \eqref{e6s2} we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e8s2}
0\leq-g'\circ\psi_{xt}&=&-2E_*'(t)-g(t)\int_0^L\psi_{xt}^2dx-2g(t)\int_0^L\psi_{tt}\psi_{0xx}dx\notag\\
&\leq&-2E_*'(t)-2g(t)\int_0^L\psi_{tt}\psi_{0xx}dx\notag\\
&\leq&-2E_*'(t)+g(t)\int_0^L(\psi_{tt}^2+\psi_{0xx}^2)dx\notag\\
&\leq&-2E_*'(t)+g(t)\left(\frac{2}{\rho_1}E_*(t)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right)\notag\\
&\leq&c\left(-E_*'(t)+c_1g(t)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
for some positive constant $c_1$. Multiplication of both sides of \eqref{e7s2} by $\xi(t)$ and use of Lemma \ref{l1s2} and inequality \eqref{e8s2} give
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_{xt})(t)&\leq&c\left(\xi(t)\int_0^tg^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}\big(\xi g^p\circ\psi_{xt}\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}(t)\\
&\leq&c\left(\int_0^t\xi(s)g^{1/2}(s)ds\right)^{\frac{2p-2}{2p-1}}\big(-g'\circ\psi_{xt}\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}(t)\\
&\leq&c\big(-E_*'(t)+c_1g(t)\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Now we estimate the third term in the right-hand side of \eqref{e6s4} as in \cite{Guesmia2013}.
\begin{lemma}\label{l1s5}
Let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the strong solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e2s5}
\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx\leq \varepsilon E(t)+\frac{c}{\varepsilon}(g\circ\psi_{xt}-E'(t)+g(t)),\quad\forall t\geq t_0.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e1's5}
\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)\int_0^L\varphi_t\psi_{xt}dx&=&\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_2}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))dsdx\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xt}(s)dsdx.
\end{eqnarray}
By observing that $\displaystyle \int_0^tg(s)ds\geq \int_0^{t_0}g(s)ds$, for all $t\geq t_0$ and exploiting Young's inequality and\\
\\
Lemma \ref{l3s2} (for $\psi_{xt}$), we get, for $\varepsilon>0$ and $t\geq t_0$,
\[\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)(\psi_{xt}(t)-\psi_{xt}(s))dsdx\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\rho_1\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon}(g\circ\psi_{xt}).\]
On the other hand, by integration by parts and using Lemma \ref{l3s2} (for $-g'$ and $\psi_x$) and the fact that $E$ is non-increasing, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\int_0^tg(t-s)\psi_{xt}(s)dsdx}\\&=&\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\left(g(0)\psi_x-g(t)\psi_{0x}+\int_0^tg'(t-s)\psi_{x}(s)ds\right)dx\\
&=&\frac{\left(\frac{\rho_1k_2}{k_1}-\rho_2\right)}{\int_0^tg(s)ds}\int_0^L\varphi_t\left(g(t)(\psi_x-\psi_{0x})-\int_0^tg'(t-s)(\psi_x(t)-\psi_{x}(s))ds\right)dx\\
&\leq&\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\rho_1\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx +\frac{c}{\varepsilon}g(t)\int_0^L(\psi_x^2+\psi_{0x}^2)dx-\frac{c}{\varepsilon}g'\circ\psi_x\\
&\leq&\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\rho_1\int_0^L\varphi_t^2dx+\frac{c}{\varepsilon}E(0)g(t)-\frac{c}{\varepsilon}g'\circ\psi_x.
\end{eqnarray*}
Inserting the last two inequalities in \eqref{e1's5}, we get \eqref{e2s5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}\label{l2s5}
Let $(\varphi,\psi,w)$ be the strong solution of \eqref{p1}. Then, for any $t\geq t_0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e3s5}
\mathscr L'(t)\leq-kE(t)+c(g\circ\psi_x+g\circ\psi_{xt})+c\left(E(0)+E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}dx\right)g(t).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Young's inequality and \eqref{e6s2} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e4s5}
-\int_0^L\psi_{tt}\psi_{0xx}dx&\leq&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^L(\psi_{tt}^2+\psi_{0xx}^2)dx\leq c\left (E_*(t)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq& c\left(E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Then plugging \eqref{e2s5} and \eqref{e4s5} into \eqref{e1s5}, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathscr L'(t)&\leq&-\frac{K}{4}\int_0^L(\varphi_x+\psi)^2dx-\left(\frac{lN_3}{2}-\frac{5}{4}c\right)\int_0^L\psi_x^2dx-\big(\tau-(N_3+1)\varepsilon_0\big)\int_0^L\rho_1\varphi_t^2dx\\
&&-\left(N_2g_0-\frac{1}{4}-\frac{cN_3}{\varepsilon_0}-c\right)\rho_2\int_0^L\psi_t^2dx+c\left(4N_2^2+N_3+\frac{5}{4}\right)g\circ\psi_x+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}g\circ\psi_{xt}\\
&&+\left(\frac{N_1}{2}-4cN_2^2-c-\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}\right)g'\circ\psi_x+\frac{c}{\varepsilon_0}E(0)g(t)+c\left(E_*(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\right)g(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
At this point, we choose $N_3,\,\varepsilon_0,\,N_2$ and $N_1$ as in \eqref{e5s4} to get \eqref{e3s5}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{t1s5}
Let \[(\varphi_0,\varphi_1)\in \left(H^2(0,L)\cap H^1_0(0,L)\right)\times H^1_0(0,L)\] and \[(\psi_0,\psi_1),\,\,(w_0,w_1)\in (H^2_*(0,L)\cap H^1_*(0,L))\times H^1_*(0,L).\] Assume that conditions $(A1)$, $(A2)$ hold and that
\[\frac{\rho_1}{k_1}\neq\frac{\rho_2}{k_2}\qquad\mathrm{and}\qquad k_1=k_3.\]
Then for $l$ small enough and for any $t_0>0$, there exists a positive constant $C$ that may depend on the initial data but independent of $t$, for which the strong solution of \eqref{p1} satisfies, for $t> t_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e5s5}
E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}},\qquad\mathrm{for\,\,\,\,}1\leq p<\frac{3}{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Repeating the steps of the proof of Theorem \ref{t1s4} up to inequality \eqref{e5s4}, then inserting \eqref{e2s5} into \eqref{e5s4} we obtain
\[\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-(k-\varepsilon)E(t)+\left[N-c\left(1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)\right]E'(t)+cg\circ\psi_x+\frac{c}{\varepsilon}g\circ\psi_{xt}+\frac{c}{\varepsilon}g(t),\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0.\]
Now we choose $\varepsilon$ so small that $k-\varepsilon>0$, and then pick $N>c\left(1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)$ to get
\[\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-k_0E(t)+c(g\circ\psi_x+g\circ\psi_{xt})+cg(t),\qquad\forall\,t\geq t_0,\]
for some $k_0>0$.
We then multiply both sides of the above inequality by $\xi(t)$ and use Corollaries \ref{c1s2} and \ref{c2s2} to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)&\leq&-k_0\xi(t)E(t)+c\xi(t)(g\circ\psi_x+g\circ\psi_{xt})+c\xi(t)g(t)\\
&\leq&-k_0\xi(t)E(t)+c\left[\big(-E'(t)\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}+\big(-E_*'(t)+c_1g(t)\big)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}\right]+c\xi(t)g(t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, we set $\alpha=2p-2$, then multiply both sides of the above inequality by $(\xi E)^\alpha(t)$ and exploit Young's inequality, with $\displaystyle q=\frac{\alpha+1}{\alpha}$ and $q'=\alpha+1$, to obtain
\[\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)\mathcal{L}'(t)\leq-(k_0-c\gamma)(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)-cE'(t)-cE_*'(t)+c_1g(t)+c\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)g(t),\,\,\,\,\forall \gamma>0.\]
We choose $\gamma>0$ so small such that $\lambda_2:=k_0-c\gamma>0$ and use the non-increasing property of $\xi$ and $g$ to get
\[(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE+cE_*)'(t)\leq-\lambda_2(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)+c\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)g(t)+c_1g(t),\]
which implies that
\[\lambda_2(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(t)\leq -(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE+cE_*)'(t)+c\xi^{\alpha+1}(t)E^\alpha(t)g(t)+c_1g(t).\]
Then integration over $(t_0,t)$ together with the non-increasing property of $E$ and $\xi$, and the hypothesis $(A1)$ yield, for $t\geq t_0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_2E^{\alpha+1}(t)\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{\alpha+1}(s)ds&\leq&\lambda_2\int_{t_0}^t(\xi E)^{\alpha+1}(s)ds\leq-(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE+cE_*)(t)\\
&&+(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE+cE_*)(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\\&&+(c\xi^{\alpha+1}(0)E^\alpha(0)+c_1)\int_{t_0}^tg(s)ds\\
&\leq&(\xi^{\alpha+1}E^\alpha\mathcal{L}+cE+cE_*)(0)+\int_0^L\psi_{0xx}^2dx\\&&+(c\xi^{\alpha+1}(0)E^\alpha(0)+c_1)\int_0^\infty g(s)ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, we get
\[E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}},\qquad\forall t> t_0.\]
This completes the proof of the Theorem \ref{t1s5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let $\displaystyle g(t)=e^{-at}$, where $a>0$. Then $g'(t)=-\xi(t)g(t)$ with $\xi(t)=a$. It follows from \eqref{e5s5} that for any fixed $t_0>0$, there exists $C>0$ such that \[E(t)\leq\frac{C}{t-t_0},\qquad\forall\,t> t_0.\]
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider the same function $g$ as in Example \ref{ex1s4} and write $g'$ as in Example \ref{ex1s4}. Then it follows from \eqref{e5s5} that for any fixed $t_0>0$, there exists $C>0$ such that
\[E(t)\leq C\left(\frac{1}{\int_{t_0}^t\xi^{2p-1}(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p-1}}=\frac{c}{(1+t)^{\frac{q}{q+2}}}\qquad\forall\,t> t_0.\]
For more examples, see \cite{Guesmia2013}.
\end{example}
\section{Full discrete problem}\label{sec6}
In this section, we introduce a scheme for the problem based on $P_{1}$%
-finite element method in space and implicit Euler scheme for time
discretization. Then we draw graphs for the discredited energy showing it's
decay in both cases, polynomial and exponential. Finally, we implement the
approximation of the solutions $\varphi ,$ $\psi $ and $w$ in $3D$ and their
cross section at $x=0.5$.
\subsection{Finite element setup}
We denote by $(\Gamma _{h})_{h}$ a partition of $\Omega $ which fulfills the
following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Gamma _{h}=\{R\subset \bar{\Omega};$ $R$ is closed in $\Omega \}$;
\item $\forall (R,R^{\prime })\in \Gamma _{h}\times \Gamma _{h}; \ \left\vert
R\right\vert =\left\vert R^{\prime }\right\vert $, where their intersection
is either empty or an end point;
\item $\bar{\Omega}=\bigcup\limits_{R\in \Gamma _{h}}R$.
\end{enumerate}
We define the uniform partition of $\Omega $ as $0=x_{0}<x_{1}<\cdots <x_{s}$
and denote the length of $(x_{j},x_{j+1})$ as $h=\frac{L}{s}$. Now for
time discretization, denote by $\Delta t=\frac{T}{N}$ the step time, where $T$
is the total time and $N$ is a positive integer. Finally we define the discrete finite
element space by
\[ s_{h}=\{u_{h}\in H^{1}(0, L):\forall R\in \Gamma _{h};u_{h}|_{R}\in P_{1}(R)\}, \]
where $P_{k}(R)$ denotes the space of restrictions of $R$ of polynomials
with one variable and of order less than or equal to $k$.
Now we introduce the scheme and the discrete energy by using implicit Euler
scheme
\[
\begin{cases}
\frac{\rho _{1}}{\Delta t}(\Phi _{h}^{n}-\Phi _{h}^{n-1},\bar{\varphi}%
_{h})+ k _{1}(\varphi _{h,x}^{n}+\psi _{h}^{n}+lw_{h}^{n},\bar{\varphi}%
_{h,x})-lk _{3}(w_{h,x}^{n}-l\varphi _{h}^{n},\bar{\varphi}_{h})=0 \\
\frac{\rho _{2}}{\Delta t}(\Psi _{h}^{n}-\Psi _{h}^{n-1},\bar{\psi}%
_{h})+k _{2}(\psi _{h,x}^{n},\bar{\psi}_{x})+k _{1}(\varphi
_{h,x}^{n}+\psi _{h}^{n}++lw_{h}^{n},\bar{\psi}_{h}) \\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -\Delta t\sum\limits_{m=1}^{n}g(t_{n-m})(\psi _{h,x}^{m},\bar{\psi}_{h,x})=0
\\
\frac{\rho _{1}}{\Delta t}(W_{h}^{n}-W_{h}^{n-1},\bar{w}_{h})+k
_{3}(w_{h,x}^{n}-l\varphi _{h}^{n},\bar{w}_{h,x})+k _{1}l(\varphi
_{h,x}^{n}+\psi _{h}^{n}++lw_{h}^{n},\bar{w}_{h})=0%
\end{cases}
\]
where $t_{j}=j\Delta t$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
E^{n} &=& \rho _{1}\left\vert \left\vert \Phi _{h}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert
^{2}+\rho _{1}\left\vert \left\vert W_{h}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert
^{2}+\rho _{2}\left\vert \left\vert \Psi _{h}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert
^{2}+k _{1}\left\vert \left\vert \varphi _{h,x}^{n}+\psi
_{h}^{n}+lw_{h}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} \\
&& + k _{3}\left\vert
\left\vert w_{h,x}^{n}-l\varphi _{h}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert ^{2}+k
_{2}\left\vert \left\vert \psi _{h,x}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert
^{2}- \left( \int\limits_{0}^{t_{n}}g(t) dt \right) \left\vert \left\vert \psi
_{h,x}^{n}\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} \\
&& +\frac{1}{2}\Delta
t\int\limits_{0}^{L}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{n}g(t_{n-m})(\psi _{h,x}^{n}-\psi
_{h,x}^{m})^{2}dx
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Numerical Experiments}
By using the following data
\[ k_{1} = k_{2} = k_{3} = 1,\ \rho_{1} = \rho_{2} = 0.1, \ \Delta t = 0.012, \ h = 0.024, \ T=7.4 \ \ \mathrm{and} \ \ g(x)=e^{-3x}; \]
we draw the solutions $\varphi ,$ $\psi ,$ and $w$ in $3D$ (see Figures \ref{fig:1}, \ref{fig:2} and \ref{fig:3}, respectively) and their cross section at $x=0.5$ (see Figures \ref{fig:4}, \ref{fig:5} and \ref{fig:6}, respectively).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{phi}
\caption{The evolution in time and space of $\varphi$}\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{psi}
\caption{The evolution in time and space of $\psi$}\label{fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{w}
\caption{The evolution in time and space of $w$}\label{fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{phi1}
\caption{The evolution in time of $\varphi$ at $x=0.5$}\label{fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{psi1}
\caption{The evolution in time of $\psi$ at $x=0.5$}\label{fig:5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{w1}
\caption{The evolution in time of $w$ at $x=0.5$}\label{fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the energy we have two cases, taking the conditions of equal and non-equl speeds of wave propagation.
If $\frac{k _{1}}{k _{2}}=\frac{\rho _{1}}{\rho _{2}}$ and $k
_{1}=k _{3}$ we obtain an exponential decay by using the same data taken for the solutions as shown in the following Figures \ref{fig:7} -- \ref{fig:10}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{Energyex}
\caption{The evolution in time of $E^n$}\label{fig:7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{lnEwrtt}
\caption{The evolution in time of $ln(E^n)$ that shows the exponential decay}\label{fig:8}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{lnEtwrttwithregressionline}
\caption{The evolution in time of $ln(E^n)$ with it's regression line}\label{fig:9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{logEtbyt}
\caption{The evolution in time of $ln(E^n)/t$ }\label{fig:10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
If $\frac{k _{1}}{k _{2}}\neq \frac{\rho _{1}}{\rho _{2}}$ and $%
k _{1}\neq k _{3}$ we obtain a polynomial decay by taking the following data
$k _{1}=5$, $k _{2}=k _{3}=1,$ $\rho _{1}=0.02$, $\rho _{2}=0.1,$ $\Delta
t=0.03125,$ $h=0.0625,~$ and total time $T=16.4.$ with $g(x)=1/(x+1)^2$
as show in the following Figures \ref{fig:11} -- \ref{fig:13}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{ply}
\caption{The evolution in time of $E^n$ }\label{fig:11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{logEtwrtLogt}
\caption{The variation of $-ln(E^n)$ with respect to $ln(t)$}\label{fig:12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{regressionintheply}
\caption{The variation of $-ln(E^n)$ with respect to $ln(t)$ with it's regression line}\label{fig:13}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
\section*{\small{Acknowledgement}}
The authors would like to express their gratitude to King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) for its continuous support. This work is partially funded by KFUPM under Project SB181018.
\bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION} \label{sec: intro}
Preview control has been a subject of study in the
field of control theory for many decades.
The main idea behind preview control is to incorporate known or estimated information on the future values of the disturbances or references (i.e., ``preview" information) in the computation of the current control command. Such preview may be computed from models or may be available from measurements. For example, in a wind turbine control application, preview information on wind velocity may be available from measurements taken elsewhere in the wind farm. Incorporating this information in the calculation of the control command can result in improved system performance \cite{koerber2013combined}.
Common methods for preview control are $H_\infty$ preview control \cite{takaba2003tutorial}, LQR preview control \cite{farooq2005path}, and mixed $H_2$-$H_\infty$ method, just to mention a few (see \cite{birla2015optimal} for a comprehensive review). These methods, however, are not able to enforce pointwise-in-time state and control constraints, which is important to ensure safe and efficient system operation. A preview control method that can, in fact, enforce these constraints is Model Predictive Control (MPC) \cite{bemporad2002model,morari1999model,camacho2013model}, which is an optimization-based method that can naturally incorporate preview information in the cost function \cite{gohrle2012active}. Some applications of preview-MPC can be found in
active suspension \cite{Gohrle_2014},
swing leg trajectories of biped walking robots \cite{shimmyo2012biped}, and wind turbines \cite{koerber2013combined}. Since MPC is computationally demanding, its applicability has been limited to systems with slow or low-order dynamics, or systems controlled by fast processors \cite{Cairano_2012}.
A relatively new constraint management strategy, which alleviates the above computational challenges of MPC, is the Reference Governor, also referred to as the Scalar Reference Governor (SRG) \cite{gilbert1995discrete,Garone_2017,Kolmanovsky_2014,liu2020decoupled, garone2015explicit,ossareh2020reference}. It is an add-on mechanism that enforces pointwise-in-time state and control constraints by governing, whenever is required, the {\it reference} signal of a pre-stabilized closed-loop system (see Figure~\ref{fig:RGblock}). However, standard SRG uses only the value of the reference signal at the current time and is unable to take preview information into account. This paper fills this gap and presents a novel reference governor-based solution, referred to as the Preview Reference Governor (PRG), to enforce the constraints while incorporating the preview information of the reference and disturbance signals, which yields superior transient performance as compared to SRG.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=1.5cm,>=latex']
\node [input, name=rinput] (rinput) {};
\node [block, right of=rinput,text width=1.5cm,align=center] (controller) {{\footnotesize Reference Governor}};
\node [block, right of=controller,node distance=3cm,text width=1.6cm,align=center] (system)
{{\footnotesize Closed-Loop Plant, $G(z)$}};
\node [output, right of=system, node distance=2cm] (output) {};
\node [tmp, below of=controller,node distance=0.9cm] (tmp1){$s$};
\draw [->] (rinput) -- node{\hspace{-0.4cm}$r(t)$} (controller);
\draw [->] (controller) -- node [name=v]{$v(t)$}(system);
\draw [->] (system) -- node [name=y] {$y(t)$}(output);
\draw [->] (system) |- (tmp1)-| node[pos=0.75] {$x(t)$} (controller);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Scalar reference governor block diagram. The signals are as follows: $y(t)$ is the constrained output, $r(t)$ is the reference, $v(t)$ is the governed reference, and $x(t)$ is the system state (measured or estimated).} \label{fig:RGblock}
\label{fig: Governor scheme}
\end{figure}
To explain PRG, we first summarize the main ideas behind SRG.
The SRG employs the so-called Maximal Admissible set (MAS) \cite{Gilbert_1991}, which is defined as the set of all initial conditions and inputs that ensure constraint satisfaction for all times. This set is computed offline. In real-time, SRG computes an optimal $v(t)$ (See Figure \ref{fig:RGblock}) to maintain the system state inside the MAS and, thus, enforce the constraints. This is achieved by solving, at every time step, a simple linear program, whose solution can be computed explicitly.
Now reconsider the closed-loop plant $G(z)$ in Figure~\ref{fig: Governor scheme}, but assume that the preview information of the reference signal is available. More specifically, ${r(t)}, {r(t+1)}, \ldots, {r(t+N)}$, are known to the controller at time $t$, where $N$ is the ``preview horizon". We initially assume that $G(z)$ has a single input (we will extend the theory to multi-input systems in Section \ref{sec: PRG for multi-inputs}). Similar to SRG, the goal of PRG is to select $v(t)$ as close as possible to $r(t)$ (to ensure that the tracking performance does not suffer) such that the output constraints are satisfied for all times.
However, the PRG must take into consideration the preview information of $r(t)$ in order to improve the tracking performance as compared to SRG. To achieve these goals, we first lift $r(t)$ and $v(t)$ from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{(N+1)}$ in order to describe them over the entire preview horizon. Next, the system $G$ is represented based on the lifted input, and a new MAS is calculated based on this new representation. Finally, PRG is formulated as an extension of SRG, where a new optimization problem is solved based on the new MAS and a new update law is used to compute $v(t)$. A high-level block diagram of the PRG is shown in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}, where the availability of the preview information of the reference is explicitly displayed.
As we show in this paper, PRG guarantees constraint satisfaction, recursively feasibility, and closed-loop stability. However, it may calculate conservative inputs under certain conditions, especially for long preview horizons. To overcome this issue and further improve performance, we present an extension of PRG. The extension, which we refer to as Multi-horizon PRG (abbreviated as Multi-$N$ PRG), is based on solving multiple PRGs with different preview horizons and optimally fusing the outputs of the PRGs.
We next consider the case where the system is affected by disturbances, whose preview information is available (in addition to the reference preview). The PRG solution for this case involves formulating a new MAS, wherein the disturbance preview appears explicitly as parameters of the MAS. To guarantee constraint satisfaction, the MAS is robustified to the worst-case realization of disturbances beyond the preview horizon.
In practice, systems are affected by uncertainties in the model as well as the preview information. Therefore, we also consider systems under parametric uncertainties and inaccurate preview information (in either reference or disturbance). We propose a ``robust" PRG formulation to robustify the design against these uncertainties.
Finally, we propose two solutions to handle multi-input systems. The first solution comprises the same ideas as in PRG for single-input systems, except that we lift $r(t)$ and $v(t)$ from $\mathbb{R}^m$ to $\mathbb{R}^{(N+1)m}$, where $m$ is the number of inputs. However, as will be shown by an example, this solution might lead to a conservative response since a single optimization variable is used to govern all input channels. To overcome this shortcoming, we propose another solution, which combines the Decoupled Reference Governor scheme \cite{liu2018decoupled} and PRG theory. Detailed information will be explained in Section \ref{sec: PRG for multi-inputs}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=1.5cm,>=latex']
\node [input, name=rinput] (rinput) {};
\node [block, right of=rinput,text width=1.5cm,align=center] (controller) {{\footnotesize Preview RG}};
\node [block, right of=controller,node distance=3cm,text width=1.6cm,align=center] (system)
{{\footnotesize Closed-Loop Plant, $G(z)$}};
\node [output, right of=system, node distance=2cm] (output) {};
\node [tmp, below of=controller,node distance=0.9cm] (tmp1){$s$};
\draw [->] (rinput) -- node{\hspace{-0.4cm}$r_N(t)$} (controller);
\draw [->] (controller) -- node [name=v]{$v(t)$}(system);
\draw [->] (system) -- node [name=y] {$y(t)$}(output);
\draw [->] (system) |- (tmp1)-| node[pos=0.75] {$x(t)$} (controller);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Preview Reference Governor block diagram. $r_N(t)$ represents the lifted reference over the preview horizon, i.e., $r_N(t)=(r(t),\ldots,r(t+N))$.}
\label{fig: preview Governor scheme}
\end{figure}
In summary, the original contributions of this work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item A novel RG-based constraint management scheme with preview capabilities, namely the PRG, which incorporates preview information of the references into the reference governor framework and is more computationally efficient than existing methods such as MPC or Command Governors (CG) \cite{Garone_2017};
\item An extension of PRG (Multi-$N$ PRG) to further improve the performance of PRG;
\item Analysis of recursively feasibility, closed-loop stability, and convergence under constant inputs.
\item Comparison of the computational footprint and performance of these schemes.
\item Extensions of PRG to systems with disturbance preview, parametric uncertainties, inaccurate preview information, and multi-input systems.
\end{itemize}
The following notations are used in this paper. $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_+$ denote the set of all integers and non-negative integers, respectively. The identity matrix with dimension $p\times p$ is denoted by $I_p$. The variable $t\in \mathbb{Z}_+$ is the discrete time. For vectors $x$ and $y$, $x \leq y$ is to be interpreted component-wise. A zero matrix with dimension $p \times q$ is denoted as $0_{p \times q}$.
\section{Review of Maximal Admissible Sets And Scalar Reference Governors}\label{sec: Review O_inf}
\subsection{Maximal Admissible Set (MAS)} \label{sec: review_maximal}
Consider Figure \ref{fig:RGblock}, where $G$ represents the closed-loop system whose dynamics are described by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:system linear}
\begin{aligned}
x(t+1)&=Ax(t)+Bv(t)\\
y(t)&=Cx(t)+Dv(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $x(t)\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the state vector, $v(t)\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the input, and $y(t)\in \mathbb{R}^p$ is the constrained output vector. Since $G$ represents the closed-loop system with a stabilizing controller, it is assumed that $G$ is asymptotically stable. Over the output, the following polyhedral constraint is imposed:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: constraint set}
y(t)\in \mathbb{Y}:=\{y:Sy\leq s\}
\end{equation}
The MAS,
denoted by $O_\infty$, is the set of all initial states and constant control inputs that
satisfy \eqref{eq: constraint set} for all future time steps:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definition of O_inf}
O_\infty := \{(x_0,v_0)\in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}: x(0)=x_0,v(t)=v_0,
y(t)\in \mathbb{Y}, \forall t\in \mathbb{Z}_+ \}
\end{equation}
As seen in \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf}, to construct MAS, $v(t)=v$ is held constant for all $t\in \mathbb{Z}_+$. Using this assumption, the evolution of the output $y(t)$ can be expressed explicitly as a function of the initial state $x(0)=x_0$ and the constant input $v_0$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: model recursion}
\begin{aligned}
y(t)&=CA^tx_0+C(I-A)^{-1}(I-A^t)B v_0 +D v_0 .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the MAS in \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf} can be characterized by a polytope defined by an infinite number of inequalities, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:definition of O_inf polytope}
\begin{aligned}
&O_\infty := \{(x_0,v_0)\in \mathbb{R}^{n+m}:
H_x x_0 + H_v v_0 \leq h\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $H_x=[CA^t], H_v=[C(I-A)^{-1}(I-A^t)B +D] $, and $h=[s^\top,s^\top,\ldots]^\top$. Reference \cite{Gilbert_1991} shows that under mild assumptions on $C$ and $A$, it
is possible to make the set \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf polytope} finitely determined (i.e., the matrices $H_x$, $H_v$ and $h$ are finite dimensional) by constraining the steady-state
value of $y$, denoted by $y(\infty)$, to the interior of the constraint set, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq: y_infty}
y(\infty):=(C(I-A)^{-1}B+D)v\in (1-\epsilon) \mathbb{Y}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon>0$ is a small number. By introducing \eqref{eq: y_infty} in \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf polytope}, there exists a finite prediction time $t^*$, where the inequalities corresponding to all future prediction times ($t>t^*$) are redundant. This yields an inner approximation of \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf polytope}, denoted by $\bar{O}_\infty$, which is finitely determined.
\subsection{Scalar Reference Governors (SRG)}
The SRG calculates $v(t)$ based on $\bar{O}_\infty$ by introducing an internal state, whose dynamics are governed by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: RG formulation}
v(t)=v(t-1)+\kappa(r(t)-v(t-1)),
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is found by solving the following linear program (LP):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:RG_kappa}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{\kappa\in [0,1]}{\text{maximize}}\quad
& \mathrm{\kappa} \\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& (x(t),v(t)) \in \bar{O}_\infty\\
& v(t)=v(t-1)+\kappa(r(t)-v(t-1))\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eq: RG formulation}), the SRG computes an input $v(t)$ based on the convex combination of the previous admissible input value (i.e., $v(t-1)$) and the current reference $r(t)$ in order to guarantee constraint satisfaction. Also, if the pair \mbox{$(x(t),v(t-1))$} is admissible, then $(x(t+1),v(t))$ is also admissible, implying recursively feasibility of the SRG \cite{Garone_2017}.
\section{Preview Reference Governors (PRG) for single-input systems} \label{sec: preview RG}
In this section, the PRG for single-input systems is introduced and analyzed. In addition, PRG is compared with SRG using a numerical example to show that it can significantly improve the closed-loop system performance while enforcing the constraints. An extension of PRG to multi-input systems will be explained in Section \ref{sec: PRG for multi-inputs}. As mentioned in the Introduction, PRG is based on lifting the reference (i.e., $r(t)$) and the governed reference (i.e., $v(t)$) from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{(N+1)}$ and representing the system using the lifted input. Based on the new representation, a modified maximal admissible set is characterized and a new formulation of reference governor is proposed, as explained in detail below.
Consider the system shown in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}. Assume $r(t)$, $r(t+1)$, $\ldots$, $r(t+N)$ are available at time $t$, where $r(t) \in \mathbb{R}$ is the current value of the setpoint and $r(t+1),\ldots,r(t+N) \in \mathbb{R}$ are the preview information, and $N\geq 0$ represents the preview horizon. Note that $N=0$ corresponds to the case where no preview information is available. We now define the lifted signals $r_N(t)\in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1)}$ (shown in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}) and $v_N(t)\in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1)}$, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: def of v_bar}
\begin{aligned}
r_N(t)=(r(t), \ldots, r(t+N)), \quad v_N(t)=(
v(t), \ldots, v(t+N))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using the lifted signals, $G(z)$ can be equivalently expressed as:
\begin{equation}\label{augment state-space system}
\begin{aligned}
x(t+1) = A x(t) +
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
B & 0 & \ldots &0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\widetilde{B}} v_N(t),\\
y(t) = C x(t) +
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
D & 0 & \ldots &0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\widetilde{D}} v_N(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We now describe the Maximal Admissible Set (MAS) for this system. Recall from \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf} that in order to characterize MAS in the SRG framework, it is assumed that $v(t)$ is held constant for all time. This will ensure that the optimization problem \eqref{eq:RG_kappa} will always have a feasible solution, namely ${\kappa=0}$. In order to extend these ideas to PRG, we assume that $v(t)$ may vary within the preview horizon, but is held constant beyond the preview horizon.
Therefore, the dynamics of $v_N(t)$ are chosen to be:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: A_bar}
\begin{aligned}
v_N(t+1)= \bar{A} v_N(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with initial condition $v_N(0)=v_{N_0}$, where $\bar{A}$ is defined by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: A_bar_def}
\bar{A}=
\left[
\begin{array}{c:c}
\smash{\underbrace{\begin{matrix}
0 & 1 &\ldots &0\\
\vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots &1 \\
0 & 0 &\ldots &0\\ \hdashline
0 & 0 &\ldots &0 \\
\end{matrix}}_{N}}&
\begin{matrix}
0 \\[0.1mm] \vdots \\[0.1mm] 0 \\[0.1mm] 1 \\[1.5mm]\hdashline 1
\end{matrix}
\end{array}
\right]
\end{equation}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\par \noindent This choice of $\Bar{A}$, together with the definition of $v_N(t)$ in \eqref{eq: def of v_bar}, enforce that for all $t \geq N$, $v(t)= v(N)$. With these dynamics, the new MAS is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:O_inf for preview}
\begin{aligned}
O_\infty^N:=&\{(x_0,v_{N_0})\in \mathbb{R}^{n+(N+1)}: x(0)=x_0,v_N(0)=v_{N_0}\\
& v_N(t+1)=\Bar{A} v_N(t), y(t)\in \mathbb{Y}, \forall t \in \mathbb{Z}_+ \}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Similar to \eqref{eq: y_infty}, a finitely determined inner approximation of this set can be computed by tightening the steady-state constraint (to prove finite determinism, note that after $N$ time steps, $v(t)$ converges to a constant, which reduces the problem to that in the standard MAS theory). In the rest of this paper, with an abuse of notation, we use $O_\infty^N$ to denote the finitely determined inner approximation (instead of using $\bar{O}_\infty^N$).
With the new MAS defined, we are now ready to present the PRG formulation. Recall that the SRG computes $v(t)$ using the update law in \eqref{eq: RG formulation}, where $\kappa$ is obtained by solving the linear program (LP) in \eqref{eq:RG_kappa}. Note from \eqref{eq: RG formulation} that $v(t) \in \mathbb{R}$ can be regarded as the internal state of the SRG (i.e., the SRG strategy consists of a single internal state). To extend these ideas to PRG, we introduce $(N+1)$ new states in the formulation, where the state update law is as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kapa}
v_N(t)=\Bar{A} v_N(t-1)+\kappa(r_N(t)-\Bar{A} v_N(t-1))
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the solution of the following linear program:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: LP to compute kappa}
\begin{aligned}
&\underset{\kappa\in [0,1]}{\text{maximize}}
& & \mathrm{\kappa} \\
& \hspace{10pt} \text{s.t.}
& & v_N(t)=\Bar{A} v_N(t-1)+\kappa(r_N(t)-\Bar{A} v_N(t-1))\\
&&&(x(t),v_N(t)) \in O_\infty^N
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
An explicit algorithm, similar to the one in SRG \cite{liu2018decoupled}, can be developed to solve this LP efficiently (see Section \ref{sec:computation} for details). The PRG solves the above LP at every time step to compute $\kappa$, updates $v_N(t)$ using \eqref{eq:kapa}, and applies the first element of $v_N(t)$ to the system $G$.
Note that the variables in the LP in \eqref{eq: LP to compute kappa} at time step $t$ are $v_{N}(t-1)$, $r_N(t)$, and $x(t)$.
\begin{remark}
When $N=0$, PRG reduces to SRG because $\bar{A}$ turns into the scalar with value $1$
in this case. Therefore, PRG is a proper extension of SRG.
\end{remark}
Several important properties of the PRG are described in the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:1}
The PRG formulation is recursively feasible, bounded-input and bounded-output stable (BIBO), and for a constant $r$, $v(t)$ converges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To show recursively feasibility, consider the update law \eqref{eq:kapa}. As can be seen, $\kappa=0$ implies that $v_N(t)=\bar{A}v_N(t-1)$, which matches the dynamic of $v_N$ that is assumed in $O_\infty^N$ (see \eqref{eq:O_inf for preview}). Positive invariance of $O_\infty^N$ implies that if the pair $(x(t-1),v_N(t-1))$ is admissible, then $(x(t),v_N(t-1))$ is also admissible. In conclusion, $\kappa=0$ is always a feasible solution to the LP in \eqref{eq:RG_kappa}, implying recursively feasibility of the PRG. As for BIBO stability, recall that $v_N(t)$ is the convex combination of $\bar{A}v_N(t-1)$ and the current reference $r_N(t)$. Thus, if $r(t)$ is bounded, then so is $v_N(t)$. This, together with the asymptotic stability of $G$, implies BIBO stability of the system. To prove the convergence property, assume $r(t) = r, \forall t\in \mathbb{Z}_+$. From \eqref{eq:kapa}, it can be shown that every element in $v_N(t)$ is monotonic $\forall t \geq N$ and bounded by $r$. Thus, $v_N(t)$ must converge to a limit. Note that, since the closed-loop system $G$ is asymptotically stable, $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ would also converge.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that the definition of $v_N$ in \eqref{eq: def of v_bar} is consistent with the delay structure in the dynamics \eqref{eq: A_bar}--\eqref{eq: A_bar_def}. However, the definition in \eqref{eq: def of v_bar} may appear inconsistent with the update law in \eqref{eq:kapa} because the delay structure vanishes when ${\kappa \neq 0}$. We remark that this is not an error. The definition in \eqref{eq: def of v_bar} and the dynamics in \eqref{eq: A_bar}--\eqref{eq: A_bar_def} are only introduced to construct $O_\infty^N$. For real-time implementation, $v_N$ should not be thought of as defined by \eqref{eq: def of v_bar}, but instead should be thought of as the PRG's internal states.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For the case where the state of $G(z)$ (i.e., $x(t)$ shown in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}) is not measured, standard Luenberger observers can be designed to estimate the state.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[arrowmark/.style 2 args={decoration={markings,mark=at position #1 with \arrow{#2}}}]
\draw[->](-2,0)-- (2,0);
\draw[->](0,0)--(0,-2);
\fill[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=black] (-1.5,0) rectangle (1.5,0.5);
\node (a) at (0, 0) {};
\node (p) at (2,-2) {};
\draw[black,rounded corners]
let \p1=($(a)!-1mm!(p)$),
\p2=($(p)!-1mm!(a)$),
\p3=($(\p1)!2mm!90:(\p2)$),
\p4=($(\p1)!2mm!-90:(\p2)$),
\p5=($(\p2)!2mm!90:(\p1)$),
\p6=($(\p2)!2mm!-90:(\p1)$)
in
(\p3) -- (\p4)-- (\p5) -- (\p6) -- cycle;
\draw (2.5,0)node
[color=black,font=\fontsize{12}{12}\selectfont]{$Y$};
\draw (0,-2.5)node
[color=black,font=\fontsize{12}{12}\selectfont]{$X$};
\draw[black,fill=white] (0,0) circle (0.2);
\draw[dashed](0,0)-- (3,-3);
\draw (0.4,-1.7)node
[color=black,font=\fontsize{12}{12}\selectfont]{$\theta$};
\draw[
postaction={decorate},
arrowmark={0.5}{>},
](0,-1.5)to[bend right=45](0.87,-0.87);
\draw[
postaction={decorate},
arrowmark={1}{>},
](0.1,-0.7)to[bend right=45](0.7,-0.1);
\draw (0.85,-0.3)node
[color=black,font=\fontsize{12}{12}\selectfont]{$\tau$};
\draw[->](2.8,-0.5)--(2.8,-1.5);
\draw (3,-1)node
[color=black,font=\fontsize{12}{12}\selectfont]{$g$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{One-link arm.}
\label{fig: One-link arm}
\end{figure}
We now illustrate the PRG using a numerical simulation of a one-link arm robot, shown in Figure~\ref{fig: One-link arm}. A state-space model of the arm is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: model for robot}
\begin{aligned}
&\begin{bmatrix}\dot{x_1}\\ \dot{x_2}
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1\\
-14.7 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}x_1\\ x_2
\end{bmatrix}
+ \begin{bmatrix}0\\
3
\end{bmatrix}\tau, \quad y=\begin{bmatrix}1 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}x_1\\ x_2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $x_1 \triangleq \theta$, $x_2 \triangleq\dot{\theta}$ are the states and $\tau$ (i.e., external torque) is the control input.
For this example, we assume that both states are measured (if not, an observer can be designed).
In order to design a controller and consequently implement the PRG, the system model~\eqref{eq: model for robot} is first discretized at $T_s=0.01s$. Then, a state-feedback controller with a pre-compensator is applied to ensure that the output, $\theta$, tracks the desired angle, $v$, perfectly, that is:
$
\tau=66.67v-
61.77 x_1 - 9.64 x_2.
$
This results in the closed-loop system $G$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}.
We simulate a trajectory-following maneuver, wherein we use the PRG to ensure that the output, $\theta$, remains within $[-45^{\circ}, 45^{\circ}]$. The preview horizon, $N$, is chosen to be $25$ (i.e., $0.25$ seconds). We assume that the preview information is available from the given pre-set trajectory.
The comparison between the performance of PRG and SRG is shown in Figure \ref{fig: previewRG on robot}.
As can be seen, $v(t)$ given by PRG is closer to $r(t)$ (less conservative) when $t\in[0.3,0.5]$. This is because when $t=0.3$, the PRG has the future information that the reference would drop down to $0$ in future $25$ time steps so that it allows a larger $v(t)$ than SRG. For the same reason, $v(t)$ given by PRG is less conservative when $t \in [0.7,0.9]$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{prevew_rg_robot2.eps}
\caption{Comparison of PRG and SRG. The blue lines represent the results of SRG and the red lines refer to the results of PRG. The top plot shows the outputs and the bottom plot shows the control inputs and the setpoint.}
\label{fig: previewRG on robot}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig: previewRG on robot} shows a limitation of PRG as well. Specifically, it can be seen that when $t\in[0.54,0.64]$, $v(t)$ given by PRG can not reach $r(t)=0$, even though $0$ is an admissible input. To explain the root cause of this behavior, note that when $t=0.54$, the preview information available to the PRG is that $r(t)$ drops down to $-69^{\circ} $ at $t=0.7$ and stays constant afterwards (the increase of $r(t)$ back to 0 at $t=0.9$ is beyond the preview horizon and unavailable to PRG). To enforce the lower constraint for $t>0.7$, the PRG calculates a $\kappa$ smaller than 1. However, since $\kappa$ affects all elements of $v_N(t)$ (see \eqref{eq:kapa}), this leads to a $v(t)$ that is different from $r(t)$ when $t \in [0.54,0.64]$, leading to a conservative solution.
Of course, the above limitation of PRG can be addressed by decreasing the preview horizon $N$. However, if $N$ is too short, the tracking performance of the system might not be improved significantly as compared with SRG. In order to have the superior system performance while addressing the above limitation of PRG, we provide an extension of PRG in the following section.
\section{Multi-Horizon PRG (Multi-$N$ PRG)}\label{sec: multi-horizon PRG}
To overcome the limitation of PRG described in the previous section and improve performance, this section introduces the Multi-Horizon Preview Reference Governor (Multi-$N$ PRG). As the name suggests, instead of having a single preview horizon, multiple preview horizons are considered. For each horizon, a MAS is characterized, and multiple PRGs are solved at each time step, one for each MAS. A technical challenge for this approach is that $v_N(t)$'s for different preview horizons would have different dimensions and different interpretations. In addition, a practical challenge is that storing multiple MASs may lead to a significant increase in the memory requirements. Our novel solution overcomes these challenge by unifying the $v_N$'s so that only one MAS is required, and fusing the PRG solutions in a special way to guarantee constraint satisfaction and recursively feasibility.
To begin, consider the following set of $q$ preview horizons: $N_1 < N_2<\ldots<N_q$. Let $O_\infty^{N_i}$ be defined as in \eqref{eq:O_inf for preview}, i.e., the MAS of the lifted system with preview horizon $N_i$. We first show that there exists a simple relationship between $O_\infty^{N_i}$, $i=1,\ldots, q-1$, and $O_\infty^{N_q}$. Recall from \eqref{eq:O_inf for preview} and \eqref{eq: def of v_bar} that in order to construct $O_\infty^{N_i}$, it is assumed that $v(t)$ is held constant beyond the preview horizon (i.e., after ${t=N_i}$). Similarly, to construct $O_\infty^{N_q}$, it is assumed that $v(t)$ is held constant after ${t=N_q}$. Thus, $O_\infty^{N_i}$ and $O_\infty^{N_q}$ have the following relationship:
$$
(x,v_{N_i}) \in O_\infty^{N_i} \Leftrightarrow
(x, [v_{N_i}^T, \underbrace{v_{N_i}(N_i+1)^T, \ldots, v_{N_i}(N_i+1)^T}_{N_q-N_i \text{ terms}}]^T) \in O_\infty^{N_q}
$$
where $\Leftrightarrow$ denotes the bidirectional implication and ${v_{N_i}(N_i+1)}$ is the last element in $v_{N_i}$. Therefore, given this relationship, we only need to compute and store $O_\infty^{N_q}$.
We now introduce the Multi-$N$ PRG, which solves $q$ PRGs at each time step, one for each $N_i$. All PRGs use the same MAS, namely $O_\infty^{N_q}$, as justified above. To provide more details, recall from Section \ref{sec: preview RG} that PRG contains an internal state with an update law given by \eqref{eq:kapa}. Similarly, we introduce an internal state, denoted here by $\widetilde{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{(N_q+1)}$, for the Multi-$N$ PRG. PRG $i$ in the Multi-$N$ PRG framework assumes the update law:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:updatemulti}
\widetilde{v}(t)=M_i (\bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1)+\kappa_i(r_{N_q}(t)-\bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1)) \end{equation}
where $\bar{A}$ is defined the same as \eqref{eq: A_bar_def} but with $N=N_q$, and $r_{N_q}(t)$ is the lifted version of $r$ at time $t$ (defined as in \eqref{eq: def of v_bar}). The matrix $M_i$ is introduced above to force the control inputs beyond the preview horizon $N_i$ to be constant (this is to maintain consistency with the fact that PRG $i$ has a preview horizon of length $N_i$). The matrix $M_i$ that achieves this is:
\[M_i = \begin{bmatrix}
I_{(N_i+1)} & 0_{(N_i+1) \times (N_q-N_i)}\\
\widetilde{I}_{(N_q-N_i)\times (N_i+1)}
& 0_{(N_q-N_i) \times (N_q-N_i)}
\end{bmatrix}\]
where $\widetilde{I}_{(N_q-N_i)\times (N_i+1)}$ is a matrix with zeros everywhere except the rightmost columns, which are given by $[1,1,\ldots,1]^T$. In the update law \eqref{eq:updatemulti}, for PRG $i$, the scalar $\kappa_i$ is computed by solving the following LP:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: kappa for multi kappa}
\begin{aligned}
&\underset{\kappa_i \in [0,1]}{\text{maximize}}
\quad \mathrm{\kappa_i} \\
& \hspace{10pt} \text{s.t.}
\quad \widetilde{v}(t)= M_i ( \bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1)+\kappa_i(r_{N_q}(t)-\bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1))\\
& \quad \quad\quad (x(t), \widetilde{v}(t)) \in O_\infty^{N_q}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent To fuse the solutions of the PRGs, the maximum value among $\{ \kappa_i \}, i=1,\ldots,q$ is selected, denoted by $\kappa_{i^*}$. The index that corresponding to $\kappa_{i^*}$ is denoted by $i^*$. Then, the final update law of Multi-$N$ PRG is obtained by fusing the PRGs as follows:
\[ \widetilde{v}(t)=M_{i^*} (\bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1)+\kappa_{i^*}(r_{N_q}(t)-\bar{A}\widetilde{v}(t-1))\]
This formulation maintains recursively feasibility. Indeed, suppose PRG $i^*$ is the PRG that computes $\kappa_{i^*}$ at time step $t$. Then, the same PRG can calculate a feasible solution at time $t+1$, due to the recursively feasibility of the PRG formulation, which was proven in Proposition \ref{prop:1}.
Note that not all PRGs in the Multi-$N$ PRG formulation will have feasible solutions at every time step. If a feasible solution to these PRGs does not exist, $\kappa_i$'s for these PRGs are set to be $0$. Note also that even though multiple preview horizons are considered in Multi-$N$ PRG, only $O_\infty^{N_q}$ is required to be computed and stored offline, implying that if $N_q$ for Multi-$N$ PRG is equal to $N$ for PRG, then the memory requirements of the two formulations are the same. We will study the processing requirements in the next section.
The simulation results of Multi-$N$ PRG on the one-link arm robot example are shown in Figure \ref{fig: multi kappa previewRG}. For comparison, the results of the implementation of PRG with $N=25$ is also provided (this is the same as Figure \ref{fig: previewRG on robot}). For the sake of illustration, we consider the extreme case where the Multi-$N$ PRG uses all preview horizons between 0 and 25; i.e., $q=26$ and $N_1 = 0$, $N_2 = 1$, \ldots , $N_{26} = 25$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{robot_multi_kappa_new1.eps}
\caption{Comparison of Multi-$N$ PRG and PRG with $N=25$.
}
\label{fig: multi kappa previewRG}
\end{figure}
From Figure \ref{fig: multi kappa previewRG}, the outputs for both Multi-$N$ PRG and PRG satisfy the constraints, as expected. However, from the bottom plot of Figure \ref{fig: multi kappa previewRG}, it can be seen that when ${t\in [0.54,0.64]}$, $v(t)$ given by Multi-$N$ PRG reaches $r(t)$ while $v(t)$ computed by PRG is above $r(t)$. The reason for this behavior is that when $t\in [0.54,0.64]$, the PRG corresponding to $N_1=0$ computes $\kappa=1$, which leads to $v(t)=r(t)$. Note that the actual performance improvement (as seen on the output plot) is not large for this specific example but it could be large in general.
Next, we will discuss the impact of the value of $q$ in the Multi-$N$ PRG on the system performance. Consider two extreme cases for the sake of illustration: first, $N_1$ and $N_2$ are chosen to be $0$ and $100$ (i.e., $q=2$); second, $N_1,\ldots,N_{100}$ are chosen to be all numbers from $0$ to $100$ (i.e., $q=101$). The reason $N_q=100$ is selected is that the preview horizon in this case is $1s$ (recall the sample time is $T_s=0.01$), which is longer than the variation of the reference in our example, and can clearly show the difference of the system performance between the two cases. The comparison between the two cases implemented on the one-link arm robot example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig: comparison of q}, which demonstrates performance improvements when a larger $q$ is used. Generally, when the preview horizon is longer than the expected variations of the reference, it is better to use the Multi-$N$ PRG formulation with a larger $q$. However, this leads to an increase in the computational burden, which is discussed next.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{comparison_of_q1.eps}
\caption{Comparison of Multi-$N$ PRG with $q=2$ and $q=101$.
}
\label{fig: comparison of q}
\end{figure}
\section{Computational considerations}\label{sec:computation}
In this section, we provide a comparison between the computation time of PRG, Multi-$N$ PRG, and standard SRG by simulating the one-link arm robot example with all three methods. Recall that SRG and PRG require the solution to one linear program (LP) at each time step, while Multi-$N$ PRG requires the solutions to $q$ LP's ($q=26$ for our example). However, we do not use generic LP solvers to solve them. Instead, we use the Algorithm presented in \cite{liu2018decoupled} to solve the LPs in SRG and Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:algorithm1} below to solve the LPs in PRG. The LPs in Multi-$N$ PRG can be solved using a similar algorithm. The notation in Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:algorithm1} is as follows. It is assumed that $O_\infty^{N}$ is finitely determined and given by polytopes of the form \eqref{eq:definition of O_inf polytope}. In addition, $j^*$ denotes the number of rows of $H_x$, $H_v$, and $h$
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Custom Explicit PRG Algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE let $a=H_{v}(r_N(t)-\bar{A}v_N(t-1))$
\STATE let $b=h-H_{x}x(t)-H_{v}\bar{A}v_N(t-1)$
\STATE set $\kappa=1$
\FOR {$i = 1$ to $j^*$}
\IF {$b(i) < 0$}
\STATE $\kappa=0$
\ELSE
\IF {$a(i) > 0$}
\STATE $\kappa=\min(\kappa,b(i)/a(i))$
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\kappa=\max(\kappa,0)$
\end{algorithmic}
\label{Algorithm:algorithm1}
\end{algorithm}
We simulate the one-link arm robot example with all three methods, namely SRG, PRG, and Multi-$N$ PRG. All simulations were performed for 150 time steps in Matlab on an Apple Macbook Pro with $1.4$ GHz Intel Core i5 processor and $8$ GB memory. In order to eliminate the effects of background processes running on the computer, each of the above experiments were run $10$ times and the averages are calculated. We calculate the per-timestep averages and maximums of each of the three methods. The results are shown in Table \ref{table: computation time}.
As can be seen, PRG runs two orders of magnitude slower than SRG (because the matrices that arise in the computations are larger). The Multi-$N$ PRG is slower by one order of magnitude (because $q$ PRGs are solved at each time step).
Finally, to provide a comparison of these computation times with those of other existing preview control methods, we simulate the one-link arm robot example with the PRG replaced by a Command Governor (CG). Similar to MPC, a CG solves a Quadratic Program (QP) at each time step to directly optimize over $v(t)$. In addition, similar to MPC, it can incorporate preview information into the cost function. In brief, our CG solves the following QP:
\begin{align*}
\text{minimize}\quad
& (r_N(t)-v_N(t))^TQ(r_N(t)-v_N(t)) \\
\text{s.t.} \quad
& (x(t),v_N(t)) \in O_\infty^N
\end{align*}
where $Q=Q^T>0$. We simulate the system with above CG. The QP above is solved at every time step using explicit Multi-Parametric Quadratic Programming (MPQP), which is introduced in \cite{tondel2003algorithm}. The computation times of CG are shown in Table \ref{table: computation time}.
As can be seen, CG is one order of magnitude slower than Multi-$N$ PRG. Note that we also implemented online QP for the CG with $N=25$, provided by MPT3 Toolbox in Matlab and Gurobi, and found that the computation times for both cases were longer than that of MPQP.
\begin{table}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\caption{Comparison of the computation time between SRG, PRG, Multi-$N$ PRG, and CG for one-link arm robot example}
\label{table: computation time}
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.9}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
& \bfseries SRG & \bfseries PRG ($N=25$)\\
\hline
avg & $ 6.8\times 10^{-7}$s & $3.1 \times 10^{-5}$s \\
\hline
max & $9.2 \times 10^{-7}$s & $4.74 \times 10^{-5}$s\\
\hline
\hline
& \bfseries Multi-$N$ PRG $(N_q=25)$ & \bfseries CG $(N=25)$\\
\hline
avg & $6.54 \times 10^{-4}$s & $6.3 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
\hline
max & $8.5 \times 10^{-4}$s & $0.0162$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\end{table}
\section{Robust Preview Reference Governor}\label{sec: robust PRG}
In this section, PRG is extended to systems with disturbance preview, as well as systems with parametric uncertainties and preview information uncertainties.
\subsection{Preview Reference Governor with Disturbance Preview}
\label{sec: PRG with prevew disturbance}
In previous sections, we considered systems in which the preview information of the reference signal is available. However, there are situations wherein preview information of disturbance signals may be available as well. For example, in printing systems, the effect of paper (i.e., the disturbance) on the heating or charging systems are known with some preview, since the timing of the paper leaving the printing tray is precisely controlled \cite{ching2010modeling}. Hence, in this section, we consider systems where preview information of disturbances is available within a given preview horizon. For simplicity, we do not consider preview for the reference signal, though the results can be combined with those of the previous sections to consider preview on both references and disturbances.
Consider a system with additive bounded disturbance given by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: LTI with disturbance}
\begin{aligned}
& x(t+1)=A x(t) + B v(t) + B_w w(t) \\
& y(t)= C x(t) + D v(t) + D_w w(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $w \in \mathbb{W}$ and $\mathbb{W}$ is a compact polytopic set with origin in its interior.
Essentially, we incorporate the disturbance preview into the RG formulation as follows: the maximal admissible set (MAS) is characterized as a function of the current state, input, and the known disturbances within the preview horizon. The set is then shrunk to account for the worst-case realization of the unknown disturbance beyond the preview horizon. Specifically, the robust MAS for systems with disturbance preview can be defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: O_inf for preview dist}
\begin{aligned} O_\infty^w=& \{(x_0,v_0,w_0,\ldots,w_N): x(0)=x_0,v(0)=v_0,
w(i)=w_i, \\ &0\leq i \leq N, y(t) \in \mathbb{Y}, \forall t \in \mathbb{Z}_+,
\forall w(j) \in \mathbb{W}, j> N \}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To compute this set, define $\mathbb{Y}_t=\mathbb{Y}$ for $t=0,\ldots,N$, $\mathbb{Y}_{N+1}=\mathbb{Y} \sim D_w \mathbb{W}$, and $\mathbb{Y}_{t+1}=\mathbb{Y}_t \sim CA^{t-N-1} B_w \mathbb{W}$ for $t \geq N+1$, where $\sim$ represents the Pontryagin subtraction \cite{gilbert1995discrete}. Then, the condition $y(t) \in \mathbb{Y}$ in \eqref{eq: O_inf for preview dist} can be characterized equivalently by:
$$
CA^t x_0+\left(\sum\limits_{k=0}^{t-1}CA^{k}B+D\right)v_0 + h_d(t) \in \mathbb{Y}_t
$$
where $h_d(t)$ is defined as:
$$
h_d(t)=
\begin{cases}
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{t-1}CA^{t-1-k}B_ww(k)+D_ww(t) \quad \text{if $t \leq N$}\\
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{N}CA^{t-1-k}B_w w(k) \quad \quad \quad\quad\quad\,\,\, \text{if $t > N$}\\
\end{cases}
$$
Note that if $N=0$, PRG with previewed bounded disturbance reduces to robust SRG with unknown bounded disturbance. In summary, by shrinking the MAS to take the worst case disturbance into consideration, robust PRG guarantees constraints satisfaction for all values of disturbance beyond the preview horizon.
\begin{prop}\label{prop: robustPRG to disturbances}
The robust PRG formulation to disturbance previews is BIBO stable, recursively feasible, and for a constant $r$, $v(t)$ converges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Similar to the proof for Proposition \ref{prop:1}
\end{proof}
We now illustrate the above idea with the one-link arm robot example. The disturbance is assumed to come from the joint torque, i.e. $B_w=B$ and $D_w=0$. We also assume that the disturbance satisfies $w \in \mathbb{W}:=[-0.1,0.1]$. For the purpose of simulations, the disturbance is generated randomly and uniformly from the interval $[-0.1, 0.1]$. The results of PRG with the disturbance as the preview information are shown in Figure~\ref{fig: previewRG disturbance}. Two preview horizons are chosen, namely $N=20$ and $N=50$ in order to illustrate the relationship between the system performance and the length of the preview horizon. For comparison, Figure~\ref{fig: previewRG disturbance} also shows the response of robust SRG with unknown bounded disturbance (i.e., no preview).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{preview_disturbance_new.eps}
\caption{Comparison of PRG with disturbance preview and SRG with bounded unknown disturbance.}
\label{fig: previewRG disturbance}
\end{figure}
The following observations can be made. First, the output from all methods satisfy the constraints for all time steps, as expected. Second, it can be seen that $v(t)$ given by PRG is closer to $r(t)$ (less conservative) than that of SRG. The reason
is that the constraint set for PRG with disturbance preview is less conservative than that for SRG with unknown disturbance. Third, the longer the preview horizon, the better the performance (less conservative) becomes.
Finally, note that for the case where the future information of both reference and disturbance is available, the methods from Sections \ref{sec: preview RG} and \ref{sec: PRG with prevew disturbance} can be combined to take the preview of reference and disturbance into consideration simultaneously.
\subsection{Robust PRG for systems with Parametric Uncertainties}
Reconsider system $G(z)$ in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme}, but now with modeling uncertainty on the $A$ and $B$ matrices:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: LTI with uncertainties}
\begin{aligned}
& x(t+1)=A(t) x(t) + B(t) v(t) \\
& y(t)= C x(t) + D v(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the pair $(A(t),B(t))$ is assumed to belong to an uncertainty polytope defined by the
convex hull of the matrices:
\[ (A(t),B(t))\in \mbox{conv}\{(A^{(1)},B^{(1)}), \ldots, (A^{(L)},B^{(L)})\}\]
where $L$ is the number of vertices in the uncertainty polytope. It is shown in \cite{pluymers2005efficient} that a robust MAS can be constructed for this uncertain system. We note that a similar idea can be implemented for the PRG. Similar to \eqref{augment state-space system}, we write the dynamics in terms of the lifted input, but now we consider the uncertainties:
\begin{equation}\label{augment state-space system with uncertainty}
\begin{aligned}
& x(t+1) = A(t) x(t) +
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\setlength\arraycolsep{1pt}
B(t) & 0& \ldots&0
\end{bmatrix}}_{\widetilde{B}(t)} v_N(t),\\
& y(t) = C x(t) +
\widetilde{D}v_N(t)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then, the pair $(A(t),\widetilde{B}(t))$ must belong to a convex hull of the following matrices:
\[ (A(t),\widetilde{B}(t))\in \mbox{conv}\{(A^{(1)},\widetilde{B}^{(1)}),\ldots (A^{(L)},\widetilde{B}^{(L)})\}\]
where $\widetilde{B}^{(l)}= \begin{bmatrix}
B^{(l)} & 0& \ldots&0
\end{bmatrix}, \quad l=1,\ldots,L.$
By doing this, the method in \cite{pluymers2005efficient} can be used to compute the robust MAS for PRG with system uncertainties. For the sake of brevity, we will not provide numerical examples in this section.
\begin{prop}\label{prop: robustPRG to parametric}
The robust PRG formulation described above is BIBO stable, recursively feasible, and for a constant $r$, $v(t)$ converges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As proved in \cite{pluymers2005efficient}, the robust MAS for PRG is positively invariant. The results follow using a similar approach as the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{PRG for Systems with Uncertain Preview Information}
In previous sections, we assumed that the preview information is accurate along the preview horizon. However, this assumption might not hold in practice since the preview information may come from inaccurate measurements or uncertain models. In this section, we present an extension of PRG that can handle inaccurate preview information of references. As can be seen from \eqref{eq: LP to compute kappa}, if $r_N(t)$ has incorrect values, then $v_N(t)$ will be calculated incorrectly. The implication of this is that, in the next time step, $v_N(t+1)$ will be computed based on the delayed version of this incorrect $v_N(t)$, which, for example, might cause $v(t)$ to change before $r(t)$ does. This behavior is unacceptable for most systems. Note that the constraints will still be satisfied; however, as argued above, performance may suffer. Thus, our solution in this section focuses on avoiding this loss of performance when the preview information is inaccurate.
Essentially, we achieve this goal by modifying the update law for $v_N(t)$.
To begin, we assume that at time $t$, $r(t)$ is accurately known, but there is uncertainty on the value of $r$ along the preview horizon, i.e., $r(t+1),\ldots,r(t+N)$ are inaccurate.
To accommodate this uncertainty, we modify \eqref{eq: A_bar_def} to:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: A_bar_wrong_preivew}
\bar{A}=\begin{bmatrix}
1-\lambda_1 & \lambda_1 &0 &\ldots &0\\
1-\lambda_1 & \lambda_1-\lambda_2 &\lambda_2 &\ldots &0 \\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots & \vdots\\
1-\lambda_1 & \lambda_1-\lambda_2 &\lambda_2-\lambda_3 & \ldots &\lambda_{N} \\
1-\lambda_1 & \lambda_1-\lambda_2 &\lambda_2-\lambda_3 & \ldots &\lambda_{N}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_i \in [0,1]$ are tuning parameters to account for preview uncertainties. This means that instead of the delayed structure of \eqref{eq: A_bar_def}, $v_N(t)$ now evolves such that the value of $v$ at each time along the preview window is a convex combination of the value at that time and the values in the previous times. This effectively incorporates ``forgetting" into the formulation to counteract the uncertainties in preview information.
We tune $\lambda_i$ according to the relative level of uncertainty on the $i$-th preview information, $r(i)$. Specifically, if the uncertainty is large, $\lambda_i$ is chosen to be close to $0$. If this is the case, PRG with the new $\bar{A}$ matrix (i.e.,~\eqref{eq: A_bar_wrong_preivew}) will turn to SRG. If $r_i$ is very accurate, on the other hand, $\lambda_i$ will be chosen close to $1$. Then, PRG with the new $\bar{A}$ will turn to standard PRG (as shown in Section \ref{sec: preview RG}). Thus, robust PRG is a proper extension of both standard PRG and SRG. Note that typically the level of uncertainty on $r_i$ increases along the preview horizon, which means that the sequence of $\lambda_i$ is increasing.
The construction of $O_\infty^N$ and the computation of $v_N$ are the same as \eqref{eq:O_inf for preview} and \eqref{eq: kappa for multi kappa}, except that $\bar{A}$ is changed from \eqref{eq: A_bar_def} to \eqref{eq: A_bar_wrong_preivew}. Now, we will illustrate this approach using the one-link arm robot example (see the example in Section \ref{sec: preview RG}). Suppose first that the preview horizon, $N$, is equal to $1$. The slice of $O_\infty^N$ at $x=0$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig: slice of MAS}. The red region corresponds to the slice of $O_\infty^N$ given by the standard PRG at $x=0$. The green region represents the slice of $O_\infty^N$ given by the robust PRG at $x=0$, where we have chosen $\lambda_1=0.2$. Note that in this case ($N=1$), the matrix $\bar{A}$ has only one $\lambda$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{O_inf_robust_PRG_new.eps}
\caption{The slice of $O_\infty^N$ at $x=0$. $v_{N,0}$ and $v_{N,1}$ represent the first and second element in $v_N$, respectively.}
\label{fig: slice of MAS}
\end{figure}
The situation we consider is as follows. Suppose at $t=0$, the preview information is given by $r_N(0):=(r(0),r(1))=(0,0.5)$ (yellow dot in Figure \ref{fig: slice of MAS}). However, assume that the {\it actual} preview information is $(\bar{r}(0),\bar{r}(1))=(0,0)$ (purple dot), which is unknown to the PRG. Note that $r(0)=\bar{r}(0)$ since we assume that the current information is accurate. Obviously, $v_N(0)$'s given by standard PRG and robust PRG (discussed in previous paragraph) will be equal to $r_N(0)$ (i.e., $v_N(0)=(0,0.5)$) since $r_N(0)$ is in both MASs (red and green regions in Figure \ref{fig: slice of MAS}).
In the next time step ($t=1$), if $\kappa \neq 1$, $v_N(1)$ given by standard PRG (i.e., \eqref{eq: LP to compute kappa}) is a convex combination between the delay version of $v_N(0)$ (i.e., $(0.5,0.5)$) and $r_N(1)$. For robust PRG, $v_N(1)$ is a convex combination between $\bar{A}v_N(0)=(0.45,0.45)$ and $r_N(1)$. Note that if the uncertainty is large, $\lambda_1$ would be chosen close to $1$ and $\bar{A}v_N(0)$ will be close to $(0,0)$. By doing so, robust PRG decreases the impact of the wrong previous information on the computation of current $v_N$ by multiplying the previous information with values smaller than $1$ (i.e., $\lambda$'s).
\begin{remark}
By comparing \eqref{eq: A_bar_wrong_preivew} and \eqref{eq: A_bar_def}, it can be seen that, for robust PRG, the last element in $v_N$ is multiplied by a value less than $1$ and the first element in $v_N$ is multiplied by a value that is not equal to $0$, which is different from those in standard PRG. This implies that the MAS for robust PRG will stretch along the $v_{N,N}$ axis and shrink along the $v_{N,0}$ axis as compared with the MAS for standard PRG (as shown in Figure \ref{fig: slice of MAS}). Thus, unlike the robust MAS for disturbances and polytopic uncertainties, it is not the case that the robust MAS for inaccurate preview information is a subset of the MAS for standard PRG.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{convex_PRG_4.eps}
\caption{Comparison of standard PRG and robust PRG. Red lines represent the simulation results of standard PRG and blue lines refer to the simulation results of robust PRG.}
\label{fig: convex PRG}
\end{figure}
We now perform numerical simulations of the one-link arm robot example. We change the preview horizon to $N=4$ for the sake of illustration. We consider the scenario where the assumed preview information is larger than the actual preview information along the preview horizon. The $\bar{A}$ is chosen to be:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: A_bar_example}
\bar{A}=\begin{bmatrix}
0.1 & 0.9 &0 &0 &0 \\
0.1 & 0.15 &0.75 &0&0\\
0.1 & 0.15 &0.3 &0.45&0\\
0.1 & 0.15 &0.3 &0.35 &0.1\\
0.1 & 0.15 &0.3 &0.35 &0.1
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
Note that several sets of $\lambda$'s were tried and the above $\bar{A}$ was found to result in the best performance (will be explained later). We acknowledge that there are other possibilities to choose $\bar{A}$ and finding the optimal set of $\lambda$s will be explored in future work. The comparison between standard PRG and robust PRG is shown in Figure \ref{fig: convex PRG}. It can be seen that when $t \in~ [0.21,0.24]$, $v(t)$ given by robust PRG (blue line) is closer to $r(t)$ than that given by standard PRG (red line). The reason for the behavior can be explained as follows. At $t=0.20$, $v_N(20)$'s given by standard PRG and robust PRG are both equal to $r_N(20)$. Recall that the first element in $r_N(20)$ is accurate and the rest elements in $r_N(20)$ are inaccurate. Then, in the next time step, for standard PRG, $v(21)$ is calculated as a convex combination between the delayed version of $r_N(20)$ (inaccurate) and $r_N(21)$. With $\kappa=0.25$, $v(21)$ is calculated as $0.13$. For robust PRG, $v(21)$ is computed as a convex combination between $\bar{A}r_N(20)$, where $\bar{A}$ is shown in \eqref{eq: A_bar_example}, and $r_N(20)$. With $\kappa=0.69$, $v(21)=0.05$. Note that by increasing the value of $\lambda_1$ in \eqref{eq: A_bar_example} (i.e., $0.1$), $v(21)$ would become closer to $r(21):=0$. However, the tracking performance would not be improved significantly as compared with SRG.
\begin{prop}\label{prop: robustPRG to inaccurate preview}
The robust PRG formulation to inaccurate preview information is BIBO stable, recursively feasible, and for a constant $r$, $v(t)$ converges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of BIBO stable and recursively feasibility are the same as the proof for Proposition \ref{prop:1}. To prove the convergence property, assume $r(t) = r, \forall t\in \mathbb{Z}_+$. Note that $\lim_{j\to\infty} \bar{A}^j=~\bar{A}_0$, where $\bar{A}_0$ is a static matrix, since $\bar{A}$ shown in \eqref{eq: A_bar_wrong_preivew} is a stochastic matrix. Then, from \eqref{eq:kapa}, it can be shown that every element in $v_N(t)$ is monotonic increasing after $\bar{A}^j$ converges and bounded by $r$. Thus, $v_N(t)$ must converge to a limit.
\end{proof}
\section{PRG for multi-input system}\label{sec: PRG for multi-inputs}
In this section, we will briefly introduce an extension of PRG to multi-input systems. One possible, straightforward solution is to apply the PRG ideas from above directly to multi-input systems. However, as will be shown in an example later, this approach might lead to a conservative response since PRG uses a single decision variable to simultaneously govern all the channels of the multi-input system. To address this shortcoming, we propose another solution, which combines the PRG idea with the Decoupled Reference Governor (DRG) scheme \cite{liu2018decoupled}. Detailed information will be introduced below.
To begin, suppose that system $G(z)$ in Figure \ref{fig: preview Governor scheme} has $m$ inputs, i.e., $v(t), r(t)\in\mathbb{R}^m$. Let us denote the preview horizon for the $m$ different inputs (i.e., $r_1, \ldots, r_m$) by $N_1, \ldots, N_m$, respectively. Define the lifted signals $r_N $ and $v_N$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: def of v_bar_multi_inputs}
\begin{aligned}
\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
r_N(t)=(r_1(t), \hdots, r_1(t+N_1),
\hdots,
r_m(t), \hdots, r_m(t+N_m))\\
\setlength\arraycolsep{2pt}
v_N(t)=(
v_1(t), \hdots, v_1(t+N_1), \hdots,
v_m(t), \hdots, v_m(t+N_m))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We can select the dynamics of $v_N(t)$ to be the same as \eqref{eq: A_bar} but with $\bar{A}$ constructed as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: A_bar_multi_inputs}
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{.1}
\bar{A}=\begin{bmatrix}
\bar{I}_{N_1} & \ldots & 0_{N_1\times N_m}\\
\vdots & \ddots &\vdots\\
0_{N_m \times N_1} & \ldots &\bar{I}_{N_m}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{I}_{N_i}$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) is defined the same as \eqref{eq: A_bar}, with $N$ replaced by $N_i$.
The construction of $O_\infty^N$ and the calculation of $v_N$ are the same as \eqref{eq:O_inf for preview} and \eqref{eq: LP to compute kappa}, except that $\bar{A}$ is modified to \eqref{eq: A_bar_multi_inputs}. Below, we will provide an illustrative example to show that this approach works as required but might lead to a conservative response. Consider a two-link arm robot, which has dynamics as follows \cite{mahil2016modeling}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\begin{bmatrix}
\dot{x_1}\\\dot{x_2}\\\dot{x_3}\\\dot{x_4}
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0& 1 &0\\
0 & 0& 0 &1\\
-0.46 & -0.62 & 0 & 0\\
0.25 & -6.62 & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\x_2\\x_3\\x_4
\end{bmatrix}+\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 0\\
0.78 & -0.04\\
0.04 & 0.13
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\tau_1\\\tau_2
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\tau_1$ and $x_1:=\theta_1$ are the external torque and the joint angle for the first link, respectively. Similarly, $\tau_2$ and $x_2:=\theta_2$ are the torque and the joint angle for the second link, respectively. The constrained outputs are $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. The constraints on both joint angles are $[-60,60]$. To implement PRG, the system is first discretized at $T_s=0.01s$. Then, a state feedback controller is designed to ensure that $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ track desired joint angles, $v_1$ and $v_2$, respectively, that is:
{\small
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
\tau_1 \\ \tau_2
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
769.23 & 0\\
0 & 3333.3
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
v_1\\
v_2
\end{bmatrix}-\begin{bmatrix}
750 & 155 & 59 & 19\\
-226 & 2867& -18 & 350
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\x_2\\x_3\\x_4
\end{bmatrix}
$$}\par
\noindent The preview horizons for both references are chosen to be $40$ (i.e., $N_1=N_2=40$). The simulation results of PRG of this multi-input system are shown in Figure \ref{fig: prg multi inputs 1}. As can be seen, the outputs both satisfy the constraints, as required. However, when $t \in [0.8,1.2]$, $v_2$ can not reach $r_2$, which is shown by the purple dashed line in the bottom plot, even though $y_2$ (i.e., red line in the top plot) is far from the lower constraint. This is caused by the fact that $y_1$ (i.e., the blue line in the top plot of Figure \ref{fig: prg multi inputs 1}) reaches the constraint when $t \in [0.8,1.2]$, which results in $\kappa$ being equal to $0$. Since a single $\kappa$ is used in PRG scheme, $v_2$ can not reach $r_2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{prg_multi_inputs_new_1.eps}
\caption{Simulation results of PRG for the two-link arm robot. The blue lines represent the response of joint $1$ and the red lines represent the response of joint $2$.}
\label{fig: prg multi inputs 1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[L1Node/.style={rectangle,draw=black,minimum size=5mm},
L2Node/.style={rectangle,draw=black, minimum size=13mm},
L3Node/.style={rectangle,draw=black, minimum size=30mm}]
\node[L2Node] (n3) at (1.4, 0){$F^{-1}(z)$};
\node[L1Node] (n4) at (3.3, 0.5){$PRG_{1}$};
\draw (3.2,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\draw (2.4,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\draw (4.2,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\draw (6.3,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\draw (8.3,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\draw (0.2,0.1)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\vdots};
\node[L1Node] (n4) at (3.3, -0.5){$PRG_{m}$};
\node[L2Node] (n5) at (5.2, 0){$F(z)$};
\node[L2Node] (n6) at (7.2, 0){$G(z)$};
\draw[dashed](4.4,1)-- (7.9,1);
\draw[dashed](4.4,1)-- (4.4,-1);
\draw[dashed](4.4,-1)-- (7.9,-1);
\draw[dashed](7.9,-1)-- (7.9,1);
\draw[->](0,0.5)--(0.65,0.5);
\draw(6,1)--(6,1.2);
\draw(6,1.2)--(3.2,1.2);
\draw[->](3.2,1.2)--(3.2,0.8);
\draw(6,-1)--(6,-1.2);
\draw(6,-1.2)--(3.2,-1.2);
\draw[->](3.2,-1.2)--(3.2,-0.8);
\draw[->](0,-0.5)--(0.65,-0.5);
\draw[->](2.1,0.5)--(2.6,0.5);
\draw[->](2.1,-0.5)--(2.55,-0.5);
\draw[->](3.95,0.5)--(4.5,0.5);
\draw[->](3.99,-0.5)--(4.5,-0.5);
\draw[->](5.85,0.5)--(6.5,0.5);
\draw[->](5.85,-0.5)--(6.5,-0.5);
\draw[->](7.83,0.5)--(8.4,0.5);
\draw[->](7.83,-0.5)--(8.4,-0.5);
\draw (0,0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$r_{1,N_1}$};
\draw (0,-0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$r_{m,N_m}$};
\draw (2.4,0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$r_{1,N_1}'$};
\draw (2.4,-0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$r_{m,N_m}'$};
\draw (4.2,0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$u_{1}$};
\draw (4.2,-0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$u_{m}$};
\draw (6.3,0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$v_{1}$};
\draw (6.3,-0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$v_{m}$};
\draw (8.3,0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$y_{1}$};
\draw (8.3,-0.75)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$y_{m}$};
\draw (6.5,-1.4)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{10}{10}\selectfont]{\hspace{1cm} $W(z)$};
\draw (4.8,1.35)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$x_{1}$};
\draw (4.8,-1.35)node [color=black,font=\fontsize{6}{6}\selectfont]{$x_{m}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{PRG block diagram for square MIMO systems. $r_{i,N_i}(t)$ represents the lifted $r_i$ over the preview horizon, i.e., $r_{i,N_i}(t)=(r_i(t),\ldots,r_i(t+N_i))$.} \label{fig:Decoupled with RG}
\label{fig: PRG system block for mimo systems}
\end{figure}
From the above discussion, it can be seen that this approach might lead to a conservative response. To address this shortcoming, we propose another method, which combines the PRG theory with the DRG scheme in \cite{liu2020decoupled}. As a quick review, DRG is based on decoupling the input-output dynamics of the system, followed by the application of SRG to each decoupled channel. In our solution, instead of using SRGs to govern the decoupled channels, we use the PRG presented in Section \ref{sec: preview RG}. This leads to the block diagram shown in Figure \ref{fig: PRG system block for mimo systems}. For ease of presentation, we will assume the system is square (i.e., equal number of inputs and outputs). Non-square systems can be handled as well by considering the DRG scheme for non-square systems presented in \cite{liu2020decoupled}.
Thus, we suppose the closed-loop system $G(z)$ is described by a $m \times m$ transfer function system matrix with elements $G_{ij}$.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig: PRG system block for mimo systems}, we decouple $G(z)$ by introducing $F(z)$, leading to a diagonal system: $W(z)$. As discussed in \cite{liu2018decoupled}, there are several ways to construct $W(z)$. For the sake of brevity, we only consider the case where $W(z)$ is given by: $W(z)=\mathrm{diag}(G_{11},G_{22},\ldots,G_{mm})$.
Note that the same process to combine PRG idea and DRG scheme can be applied to other formulations of $W(z)$ as well. Then, $m$ different PRGs for single-input systems (see Section \ref{sec: preview RG}) are implemented, one for each $W_{ii}$. Finally, as discussed in \cite{liu2018decoupled}, $F^{-1}$ is introduced to ensure that $v$ and $r$ are close if $r$ is not constraint-admissible. Simulation results of the second approach on the two-link arm robot are shown in Figure \ref{fig: prg multi inputs 2}. As can be seen, the outputs satisfy the constraints, as required. Also, when $t \in [0.8,1.2]$, $v_2$ reaches $r_2$, which is represented by the purple dashed line in the bottom plot. This behavior can be explained as follows. When $t=0.8$, the PRGs have the future information that $r_2$ will drop down to $-56$ at $t=1$ and then go up towards $-20$ at $t=1.2$ (recall that $N_1=N_2=40$). Also, from the top plot of Figure \ref{fig: prg multi inputs 2}, it can be seen that when $t \in [0.8,1.2]$, $y_2$ (red line in the top plot) does not reach the lower constraint, which leads to $\kappa_2=1$ (recall that $\kappa_2$ refers to the optimization variable given by the second PRG). Hence, $v_2$ reaches $r_2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{prg_multi_inputs_new_2.eps}
\caption{Simulation results of PRG for the two-link arm robot. The blue lines represent the response of joint $1$ and the red lines represent the response of joint $2$.
}
\label{fig: prg multi inputs 2}
\end{figure}
Note that both approaches discussed above can be easily extended to multi-$N$ PRG by combining DRG scheme and Multi-N PRG idea.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\section{CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS }\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, a reference governor-based method for constraint management of linear systems is proposed. The method is referred to as Preview Reference Governor (PRG) and can systematically account for the preview information of reference and disturbance signals. The method is based on lifting the input of the system to a space of higher dimension and designing maximal admissible sets based on the system with lifted input. We showed a limitation of PRG and proposed an alternative method, which we refered to as Multi-horizon PRG (multi-$N$ PRG), to overcome the limitation. Disturbance previews, parametric uncertainties, and inaccurate preview reference information were also addressed. We also showed that the PRG for multi-input systems using the lifting idea (i.e., first solution in Section \ref{sec: PRG for multi-inputs}) might cause conservative response. Thus, we proposed another method, which combines the Decoupled Reference Governor scheme and PRG, to overcome this limitation.
Future work will explore preview control in the context of Vector Reference Governors, as well as finding the optimal set of $\lambda$s that gives the best performance in our robust PRG formulation. We will also investigate the extension of PRG to nonlinear systems.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\medskip
|
\section{Discussion}
The winning solutions mentioned above have achieved promising results on the CelebA-Spoof Challenge, these solutions focus on different aspects in developing a robust and efficient face anti-spoofing model. To briefly sum up, among their solutions, there are two key points are essential for improving the performance of the face anti-spoofing task. \textit{1) Spoofing Cues Model:} Besides the commonly used deep learning models, such as ResNet and EfficientNet, these solutions not only inherit the models which are published recently~\cite{feng2020learning,yztCDC}, but also devise novel framework for detecting spoofing cues, such as attack-type based model, Noise Print based model as mentioned in the first place solution, and CDC-DAN proposed by the third place solution. \textit{2) Ensemble Strategy:} These winning methods leverage on different ensemble strategies to boost their model performance, such as the heuristic voting scheme of the first place solution and “weight-after-sorting” strategy of the second place solution. Moreover, we believe that there is still much room for improvement in the future face anti-spoofing challenge. For example, \textit{1) Size:} The size of hidden set could be larger in the future. \textit{2) Diversity:} The live images could be more realistic instead of inheriting from the CelebA~\cite{CelebA}.
\vspace{8pt}
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgments.} We thank Amazon Web Services for
sponsoring the prize of this challenge. Besides, we sincerely thank the codebase from DeeperForensics Challenge~\footnote{\url{https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/25228}.}, especially for the helpful discussions from Zhengkui Guo and Liming Jiang.
\end{document}
\section{Introduction}
Face interaction systems have become an essential part in real-life applications, with the successful deployments in electronic identity authentication.
Meanwhile, it is challenging to deal with Presentation Attacks (PA)~\cite{PA1} in practical usage.
In order to protect our privacy and property from being illegally used by others,
Face Anti-Spoofing (FAS)~\cite{PA2,FAS1,AtoumFaceAU}, which aims to determine whether a presented face is an attacker or client, has emerged as a crucial technique and attracted extensive interests in recent years~\cite{Galbally2014FASsurvey}.
Leveraging on the CelebA-Spoof~\cite{CelebA-Spoof} dataset, we organize the \textit{CelebA-Spoof Challenge 2020 on Face Anti-Spoofing} (CelebA-Spoof Challenge) collocated with the Workshop on Sensing, Understanding and Synthesizing Humans at ECCV2020~\footnote{Workshop website: \url{https://sense-human.github.io/}.}. The goal of this challenge is to boost the research on face anti-spoofing. Specifically, the CelebA-Spoof is comprised of 625,537 pictures of 10,177 subjects, which is the largest face anti-spoofing dataset in terms of the numbers of the data and the subjects. The dataset also features a hidden test set containing around 30000 images for online evaluation of this challenge. The dataset construction of the hidden dataset is the same as the public dataset.
In the following sections, we will describe this challenge, analyze the top ranked solutions and provide discussions to draw conclusion derived from the competition and outline future work directions.
\end{document}
\section{Challenge Overview}
\subsection{Platform}
The CelebA-Spoof Challenge is hosted on the CodaLab platform~\footnote{Challenge website: \url{https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/26210}.}. After registering on the CelebA-Spoof Challenge, each team is allowed to submit their models to the Amazon Web Services (AWS)~\footnote{Online evaluation website: \url{https://aws.amazon.com}.}, and each team is allocated one 16 GB Tesla V100 GPU to perform online evaluation on the hidden test set. The encrypted prediction files including results of each data in hidden test set are sent to the teams through automatic email when their requested online evaluation has done. Teams are required to upload their encrypted prediction files to the CodaLab platform for the ranking.
\subsection{Dataset}
The CelebA-Spoof Challenge 2020 on Face Anti-Spoofing employs the CelebA-Spoof dataset~\cite{CelebA-Spoof} that was proposed in ECCV 2020. CelebA-Spoof is a large-scale face anti-spoofing dataset that has 625,537 images from 10,177 subjects, which includes 43 rich attributes on face, illumination,environment and spoof types. Live image selected from the CelebA dataset~\cite{CelebA}. We collect and annotate spoof images of CelebA-Spoof. Among 43 rich attributes, 40 attributes belong to Live images including all facial components and accessories such as skin, nose, eyes, eyebrows, lip, hair, hat, eyeglass. 3 attributes belong to spoof images including spoof types, environments and illumination conditions.CelebA-Spoof can be used to train and evaluate algorithms of face anti-spoofing. The hidden test set is devised for the CelebA-Spoof Challenge, the data construction of the hidden test is as the same as the public test set. All the teams participating the CelebA-Spoof Challenge are restricted to train their algorithms on the publicly available CelebA-Spoof training dataset.
\subsection{Evaluation Metric}
Considering face anti-spoof as binary classification, we can leverage FPR@TPR as evaluation criteria. Specifically, spoof class is Positive, live class is Negative.
\begin{equation}
FPR = \frac{FP}{FP+TN}, \quad TPR = \frac{TP}{TP+TN}
\end{equation}
Specifically, \textit{FPR}, \textit{TPR}, \textit{TP}, \textit{TN} and \textit{FP} correspond to False Positive Rate, True Positive Rate, True Positive, True Negative and False Negative. The TPR@FPR=$\text{5}^\text{-3}$ determines the final ranking. Besides, we also provide TPR@FPR=$\text{10}^\text{-3}$ and TPR@FPR=$\text{10}^\text{-4}$. Among all the uploaded results, if their TPR@FPR=$\text{5}^\text{-3}$ is the same, the one with higher TPR@FPR=10E-4 will achieve a higher ranking.
\subsection{Timeline}
The CelebA-Spoof Challenge lasted for nine weeks from August 28, 2020 to October 31, 2020. During the challenge, participants had access to the public CelebA-Spoof dataset, and they are restricted to used the public CelebA-Spoof training dataset for the training of their model. The challenge results were announced in February 10, 2021. A total of 134 participants registered for the competition, and 19 teams made valid submissions.
\end{document}
\section{Results and Solutions}
Among the 19 teams who made valid submissions, many participants achieve promising results. We show the final results of the top-5 teams in Table~\ref{table:all_result}. In the following sections, we will present the solutions of the top-3 entries.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\ra{1.1}
\caption{Final results of the top-5 teams in the CelebA-Spoof Challenge 2020 on Face Anti-Spoofing.}
\vspace{3pt}
\label{table:all_result}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\Xhline{1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{Ranking} & \multirow{2}{*}{TeamName} & \multirow{2}{*}{UserName} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{TPR (\%)$\uparrow$} \\ \cmidrule{4-6}
& & & FPR=$\text{10}^\text{-3}$ & FPR=$\text{5}*\text{10}^\text{-3}$ & FPR=$\text{10}^\text{-6}$ \\ \hline
1 & ZOLOZ & ZOLOZ & 1.00000 & 1.00000 & 1.00000 \\
2 & MM & liujeff & 1.00000 & 1.00000 & 0.99991 \\
3 & AFO & winboyer & 1.00000 & 1.00000 & 0.99918 \\
4 & RealFace & zkyezhang & 0.99991 & 0.99936 & 0.92268 \\
5 & k\_ & k\_ & 0.99973 & 0.99927 & 0.98026 \\ \Xhline{1pt}
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Solution of First Place}
\textit{Team members: Yan Xu, Man Luo, Jian Liu, Jianshu Li, Zhijun Chen, Mingyu Guo}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure/first_place.pdf}
\caption{The framework of the first-place solution.}
\label{figure:the first place}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{General Method Description.}
The champion team propose a robust method for face anti-spoofing. It
has two components:
\textbf{1) Spoof modeling}: in which they adopt several state-of-art models to predict spoof cue of each testing image.
\textbf{2) Spoof fusion}: in which they propose a heuristic voting strategy for robust multiple scores combination.
\noindent \textbf{Spoof Modeling.}
In order to obtain the spoof cue for the attacked images, they combine a bag of start-of-the-art models to find the spoof evidence of each testing image in this competition. Specifically, they propose a novel framework named FOCUS (\textbf{F}inding sp\textbf{O}of \textbf{CU}e for face anti-\textbf{S}poofing) to handle with face anti-spoofing problem. A multi-task learning based model AENet~\cite{CelebA-Spoof}, a binary task based model ResNet~\cite{ResNet} and a attack types classification base model are adopted to enhance the ability to detect the spoof cue. Furthermore, a noise print method is adopted to recognize the device type of attacked image.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{FOCUS:}
As shown in Figure~\ref{figure:the first place}, inspired by~\cite{CelebA-Spoof,feng2020learning}, they propose a novel framework FOCUS for face anti-spoofing. It mainly includes two modules: a Spoof Cue Generator and an Aux Classifier. The spoof cue generator adopts the U-Net structure with an encoder and a decoder to generate spoof cue of the same size as the input image. Regression loss is utilized during training process to minimize the spoof cue of live images. Meanwhile, it does not apply any constraints on the spoof images. In order to improve the generalization ability of unknown attack types, they design a two-path encoder and adopt ResNet18\_CDC~\cite{yztCDC} as the backbone of each encoder. In addition, they introduce a reflection map~\cite{zhang2018single} and a depth map~\cite{KimBASN} in the latent space of the encoder, and adopt 3D geometric information as an auxiliary constraint. As a result, the features of the latent space will have higher responses on the spoof image. In the decoder part, they introduce multi-branch arcface loss~\cite{deng2018arcface} to improve the compactness within the live class and the distinction bettheyen the live-spoof classes. For the auxiliary classifier, they design a binary classification model connected after the generator to assist the end-end training of the whole framework.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{AENet:}
AENet~\cite{CelebA-Spoof} is adopted to predict the spoof score of each testing image.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{ResNet:}
Through bad-case analysis, they find that AENet is not good at detecting spoof images for mask and outdoor scenarios. To this end, they deploy a binary classification model ResNet-18~\cite{ResNet} to enhance the spoof-detecting ability. During the training status, the training samples of spoof images are only from masks and outdoor attacks. Furthermore, focal loss is adopted to solve the over fitting problem from easy samples. Meanwhile, a series of data argumentation strategies, such as random crop, image flip and color distortion, are adopted to improve its generalization ability.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{Attack types:}
By analyzing the CelebA-Spoof train data, they find that the different spoof images have similar attack clues, such as similar display borders, similar backgrounds, and similar paper printing edges. To this end, they train a attack-type based model to predict the attack clue. Specifically, they first remove the foreground area which containing face context, since the spoof clue is the feature in a attack image. Then they train a classification module on various spoof types.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{Noise Print:}
Different camera's digital imaging pipeline have common processes like data compression, interpolation, and gamma correction, and also have unique processes to offer more advanced functionalities. The unique process varies from camera model to camera model, and the acquired images from different cameras have artifacts which are peculiar to the camera itself, and hence can be used to perform face anti-spoof task. In this competition, One feature has been observed from train set, the live images are collected from internet or social medial while the spoof images are directly captured from device cameras, e.g. Phone camera, Pad camera or PC camera. they find that the different noise prints on different device cameras, therefore they utilize noise print as a feature to represent the camera type. To extract the noisy print, they fist apply DCT transformation and quantization on this image, then total 64 frequency density histograms are calculated based on 8x8 macro block of DCT coefficients. For each frequency density histogram, FFT is applied to obtain the the number of peaks that is exceeding the pre-defined threshold t. Finally, they can use 64 dimensional vector to represent noise print of different camera type. During training procedure, they first divide the train set as four groups, group 1 from live images, group 2 from spoof images of Phone, group 3 from spoof images of Pad and group 4 from spoof images of PC. Then noise prints of four group are extracted and send them to a network to distinguish the different distribution of each noise print.
\noindent \textbf{Spoof Fusion.}
To obtain the best performance of TAR (True accepted rate) at given FAR (False accepted rate) in the face anti-spoofing task, they propose a heuristic voting scheme at the score level for robust combinations of different models. they first normalize all confidence scores of each trained
model to 0-1, and they assign the model with the best performance as the main model while they regard the others as auxiliary models. Then, they change the confidence score to 0 or 1 if all models have similar prediction ranges. The scores are amended to 0 or 1 if other auxiliary models have strong confidence of belonging to live face or spoofing face, respectively. For images whose scores are not close to 0 or 1, they consider them as hard cases, because they are laying on the edge of decision boundaries of each model. For these cases, they re-arrange the scores to around 0.1.
\noindent \textbf{Implementation details:}
For fusion strategy, they adopt a heuristic voting scheme to obtain the best performance on TAR and FAR, please refer to “Testing description” for more details. The fusion strategy allow us to achieve $100\%$ TAR when FAR is $\text{5}*\text{10}^\text{-3}$ and $\text{10}^\text{-4}$.
FOCUS is implemented with Pytorch and trained end-to-end. In the training stage, models are trained with Adam optimizer and the initial learning rate (lr) and the weight decay (wd) are $\text{2}*\text{10}^\text{-4}$ and $\text{5}*\text{10}^\text{-5}$, respectively. they train models with maximum 25 epochs while lr decays every 6 epochs by a factor of 0.3. During training, the training samples are resampled to keep the live-spoof ratio as close to 1:1. The training batch size is 64 on four 1080Ti GPUs. they initialize the backbone ResNet18\_CDC in the encoders with MSRA method. Besides, their pipeline spend 24h for training/0.8s for testing each image (not including the pre-processing)
\subsection{Solution of Second Place}
\textit{Team members: Hui Li, Junfu Liu, Pengfei Gao, Tianqi Hong, Hao Han, Shijie Liu}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure/second_place_1.pdf}
\caption{The framework of the second-place solution.}
\label{figure:the second place 1}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{General Method Description.}
In this challenge, they adopt five different models and ensemble with a ``weight-after-sorting" strategy for face anti-spoofing. In the training and test stage of several networks, they use patches to keep the model focusing on the spoof cues instead of other irrelevant face features, which makes the trained networks more robust and generalizable. In the fusion stage, they propose a novel ensemble strategy, naming ``weighting-after-sorting". The output scores of different methods will first be sorted and they select the top $k$ scores and assign which with different weights, searched by the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm. This strategy is rank-specific instead of model-specific, which further enhances the performances of their method.
\noindent \textbf{Training Description.}
They used 5 single models for the further model ensemble. The details of the single models are as follows.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{CDCNpp:} They used the Central Difference Convolutional Network~\cite{yztCDC}. Instead of training on the whole image, they used random patches of the face images as inputs. They trained the CDCNpp on two scales of patches, 64*64 and 96*96 respectively. They adopted grayscale images as the depth supervision in CDCNpp, the sizes of the grayscale images are 16*16 and 24*24 respectively.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{LGSC:} They adopted the LGSC~\cite{feng2020learning}. The input images were resized to 224*224 and the model was initialized with the pre-trained ResNet18 model. They used batch balance sampler to balance the positive samples and negative ones in a batch.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{SeResNet50:} They adopted SeResNet50 for a simple binary classification. They used images resized to 224*224 as inputs and the pre-trained SeResNet50 model.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{EfficientNet-b7:} All settings~\cite{tan2019efficientnet} are same as the SeResNet50, with inputs with sizes of 224*224 and a pre-trained model on ImageNet.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{SeResNeXt50:} The training took random patches with sizes of 64*64 as inputs. To take advantage of other supervision information like the spoof types and the illumination types provided in the training set, they adopted a multi-task learning similar to the AENet~\cite{CelebA-Spoof} and added two fully connected layers in the tail of SeResNeXt50, predicting the spoof types and the illumination types respectively. The losses are all softmax cross entropy losses, the weights of spoof types loss and the illumination types loss are set to 0.1 and 0.01 respectively.
Besides, the fusion strategy and the image transforms used by the above-mentioned methods are shown in Fig~\ref{figure:the second place 1} and Table~\ref{table:the second place 1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure/second_place_2.pdf}
\caption{The framework of the second-place solution.}
\label{figure:the second place 2}
\end{figure}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\ra{1.1}
\caption{Image transforms in the training stage of the second place solution.}
\vspace{3pt}
\label{table:the second place 1}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\Xhline{1pt}
Methods & CDCNpp & LGSC & SeResNet50 & EfficientNet-b7 & SeResNeXt50 \\\hline
RandomHonrizontalFlip & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &\checkmark\\
RandomRotation & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &\checkmark \\
RandomErasing & \checkmark & & & & \\
Cutout &\checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark &\checkmark \\
ColorJitter & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &\checkmark \\
Mixup & & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\ \Xhline{1pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\noindent \textbf{Testing Description.}
The testing strategies of the above single models are as follows:
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{CDCNpp}: The input image was first split into 3*3 parts and they crop the upper left corner with size of 64*64 and the lower right corner with size of 96*96 of each part to generate test patches of the two CDCNpp trained on different size of patches. Figure~\ref{figure:the second place 2} illustrates how they generate the patches. They applied the horizontal flip to the 96*96 patches. For each CDCNpp, they calculated the mean value of the nine patches of a test image as the prediction score of the image.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{SeResNeXt50}: They cropped the center part with size of 64*64 of the image and flip the patch horizontally. The prediction score of SeResNeXt50 is calculated as the mean value of the two patches.
\noindent $\bullet$ \textit{Others}: For other models mentioned above, the inputs images are resized to 224*224, then sent to the LGSC, the SeResNet50 and the EfficientNet-b7.
\noindent \textbf{Implementation details.}
As has been introduced above, they tested an image with six models (two CDCNpp with different sizes of patches and four other models) and get six scores of the input image belonging to the spoof class. They proposed a novel ``weighting-after-sorting" strategy for the model ensembles. Specifically, they first sorted six scores in descending order, then selected the top $k$ scores for score fusion. They used the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to find the $k$ weights assigned to the top $k$ scores at different ranks with the best performance on the validation set. It can be seen with that such strategy, the weights are not model-specific, but rank-specific. Considering a spoof image with only one model giving high score, such model may not weight enough in previous model-specific fusion strategy, but its score will certainly be noticed in their weighting-after-sorting strategy. The $k$ was set to 4 in their final submission. Besides, their pipeline spend 18h for training/0.076s for testing each image (pre-processing included).
\subsection{Solution of Third Place}
\textit{Team members: Xinhua Chen, Di Qiu, Cheng Zhen, Dashuang Liang, Yufeng Jin, Zhanlong Hao}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure/third_place_1.png}
\caption{The framework of the third-place solution.}
\label{figure:the third place 1}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{General Method Description.}
AS shown in Fig~\ref{figure:the third place 2}, they propose a novel method based on fusing CDCN~\cite{yztCDC} and DAN~\cite{fu2019dual}. CDCN is able to capture detailed patterns via aggregating both intensity and gradient information, while DAN with self-attention mechanism can enhance the discriminated ability of feature representations through spatial inter-dependencies and channel inter-dependencies. When combined, they can significantly improve the face anti-spoofing performance by modeling rich contextual information over local intensity and gradient features. In addition, motivated by the insight that artificial spoofing information of the image is independent on semantic information, they utilize facial patches~\cite{AtoumFaceAU} as the input for models that they tend to decouple the spoofing feature from its full-face feature. The full-face image is divided into many different facial patches which can force the proposed networks to focus on the spoof-specific discriminative information. Finally, the introduced multi-scale strategy aims at generating multi-scale patches from the original image. Random crop is applied to produce patches on the different scales that they use five scales of patches, i.e., 32*32, 48*48, 64*64, 112*112, and 128*128 respectively as the input size for the proposed CNN-based networks. In general, they propose a multi-scale patch-based CDC-DAN method for face anti-spoofing detection.
\noindent \textbf{Training Description.}
In the training stage, to reduce overfitting, convolutional neural networks are typically trained with data augmentation. For face anti-spoofing, they find that mixed-example data augmentation is very useful. they utilize a variety of methods including cutout, vh-mixup, mixed-concat, random square and random interval, to generate mixed-example data augmentation, which result in improvements over models trained without any form of mixed-example data augmentation. Moreover, if the image size is smaller than the preset input size, they enlarge the image by mirroring instead of scaling, which greatly improves the performance.
\noindent \textbf{Testing Description.}
In the test stage, they do not use any type of data augmentation methods. They only adjust the image size by mirroring to meet different network input requirements. Then, they uniformly sample multiple small patches of different sizes and input them into the corresponding neural network models. Finally, they ensemble the output results of different patches and different models.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure/third_place_2.png}
\caption{The backbone of the purposed CDC-DAN.}
\label{figure:the third place 2}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{Implementation details.}
As shown in Fig~\ref{figure:the third place 2}, their fusion strategy is a simple method that adjusts the weights of CNN
models based on the best performance of the validation dataset. The main benefit of using fusion is that the performance of average prediction is better than any contributing member in the fusion. The mechanism for improving performance through fusion is usually the reduction of the variance of the predictions made by each individual model. Besides, CDCN-DAN spends 2 days for training with 8 GPUs, Se-resnext26 spends 12 hours for training with 8 GPUs, and Light-weighted Network spends 4 hours for training with 4 GPUs.
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}\noindent
In this paper, we investigate the decay properties of axially symmetric solutions to the steady Magnetohydrodynamics equations (MHD), which are listed as follows.
\begin{equation}\lab{s-mhd}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textbf{u}\cdot\nabla \textbf{u}+\nabla p=\textbf{h}\cdot\nabla \textbf{h}+\triangle \textbf{u}+\textbf{f}, \\
\textbf{u}\cdot\nabla \textbf{h}-\textbf{h}\cdot\nabla \textbf{u}=\triangle \textbf{h}+\rm{curl} \,\textbf{g},\\
\na\cdot\textbf{u} = \na \cdot \textbf{h}=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with the additional condition at infinity
\be\lab{infinity condition}
\lim\limits_{|x|\to\infty}\textbf{u}(x)=\lim\limits_{|x|\to\infty}\textbf{h}(x)=0,
\ee
and the finite Dirichlet integral
\begin{equation}\lab{dirichlet integral}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|\nabla\textbf{u}(x)|^2 + |\na {\bf h} (x)|^2 dx<+\infty.
\end{equation}
Here $\bf{u}$ is the velocity field, $\bf{h}$ is the magnetic field, $p$ is the pressure, $\bf{f}$ and $\na \times {\bf g}$ are the external forces on the magnetically charged fluid flows. Set $\bar{\g} \= \curl \g$ and $\bar{\ff} \= \curl \ff $ in the following. It is well known that Leray \cite{leray33} constructed the weak solutions to the stationary Navier-Stokes equations with no-slip boundary conditions and constant velocity at infinity. Leray's solution has finite Dirichlet integral, and is usually refereed as D-solution. One may refer to the reference \cite{farwig98,finn59,finn65,fujita,lady69} for different construction methods and solutions in different kinds of function spaces. One can show that any weak solution to (\ref{s-mhd}) satisfying (\ref{infinity condition}) and (\ref{dirichlet integral}) is smooth, by following the argument developed in \cite{galdi11}.
Recently there are several papers working on decay rate estimates for the axisymmetric D-solutions to the steady Navier-Stokes equations. Our goal here is to extend the results in \cite{CPZ18,cj9,weng15} to the axisymmetric steady MHD equations. Note that the weighted energy method developed in \cite{cj9,weng15} needs to use the special structure of the vorticity equations, such an extension may be quite nontrivial, although the steady MHD equations has the same scaling as the steady Navier-Stokes equations, the scaling technique developed in \cite{CPZ18} still works in the MHD setting.
Let us first introduce the cylindrical coordinate
\be\no
r=\sqrt{x^2_1+x_2^2},\q \tan \theta=\frac{x_2}{x_1},\q z=x_3,
\ee
and the basis vectors $\textbf {e}_r$, $\textbf {e}_{\theta}$, $\textbf {e}_z$ are
\be\no
{\textbf {e}_r}=(\cos\,\theta, \sin\,\theta,0),\quad {\textbf {e}_{\theta}}=(-\sin\,\theta,\cos \,\theta ,0),\quad {\textbf {e}_z}=(0,0,1).
\ee
For convenience, we write $\textbf{x}^{\prime}=(x_1,x_2)$ and $x_3=z.$
We call a function $f$ is \textit{axially symmetric} if it does not depend on $\th$. A vector-valued function $\textbf{u} = (u_r, u_{\th}, u_z)$ is called \textit{axially symmetric} if $u_r,\, u_{\th}, \, u_z$ do not depend on $\th$. And we call a vector-valued function $\textbf{u} = (u_r, u_{\th}, u_z)$ is \textit{axially symmetric without swirl} if $u_{\th}=0$ while $u_r$ and $u_z$ do not depend on $\th$.
Assume that the vector field
$\textbf{u}({\bf x})=u_r(r,z){\textbf {e}_r}+u_{\theta}(r,z){\textbf {e}_{\theta}}+u_z(r,z){\textbf {e}_z}$ and the magnetic field $\textbf{h}({\bf x})=h_r(r,z){\textbf {e}_r}+h_{\theta}(r,z){\textbf {e}_{\theta}}+h_z(r,z){\textbf {e}_z}$ is the axially symmetric solution of (\ref{s-mhd}), then we have the following asymmetric steady MHD equations,
\begin{equation}\lab{asymmetric steady mhd}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)u_r-\frac{u^2_{\theta}}{r}+\partial_rp
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)h_r-\frac{h^2_{\theta}}{r}+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})u_r+f_r, \\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)u_{\theta}+\frac{u_ru_{\theta}}{r}
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)h_{\theta}+\frac{h_rh_{\theta}}{r}+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})u_{\theta}+f_{\theta},\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)u_z+\partial_zp=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)h_z+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)u_z+f_z, \\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)h_r
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)u_r+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})h_r-\partial_zg_{\theta},\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)h_{\theta}+\frac{h_ru_{\theta}}{r}=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)u_{\theta}+\frac{u_rh_{\theta}}{r}
+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})h_{\theta}+(\partial_zg_r-\partial_rg_z),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)h_z
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)u_z+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)h_z+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r(rg_{\theta}),\\
\partial_ru_r+\frac{u_r}{r}+\partial_zu_z=0,\\
\partial_rh_r+\frac{h_r}{r}+\partial_zh_z=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The vorticity $ {\bf \omega^u}$ and the current density ${\bf \omega^h}$ are defined as ${\bf \omega^u}({\bf x})=\nabla\times {\bf u(x)}=\omega_r^u(r,z){\textbf {e}_r}+\omega_{\theta}^u(r,z){\textbf {e}_{\theta}}+\omega_z^u(r,z){\textbf {e}_z}$ and ${\bf \omega^h}(x)=\nabla\times {\bf h(x)}=\omega_r^h(r,z){\textbf {e}_r}+\omega_{\theta}^h(r,z){\bf e_{\theta}}+\omega_z^h(r,z){\textbf {e}_z}$, where
\be\no\lab{general-vorticity}
&\omega_r^u(r,z)=-\partial_zu_{\theta},\;\omega_{\theta}^u=\partial_zu_r-\partial_ru_z,\; \omega_z^u=\frac{1}{r}\partial_r(ru_{\theta}),\\
&\omega_r^h(r,z)=-\partial_zh_{\theta},\;\om_{\th}^h=\p_z h_r -\p_r h_z,\; \omega_z^h=\frac{1}{r}\partial_r(rh_{\theta}).
\ee
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}\lab{vorticity eq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_r^u-(\omega_r^u\partial_r+\omega_z^u\partial_z)u_r
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\omega_r^h-(\omega_r^h\partial_r+\omega_z^h\partial_z)h_r\\
\quad\quad\quad+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_r^u- \p_z f_{\th},\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^u-\frac{u_r\omega_{\theta}^u}{r}
+2\frac{u_{\theta}}{r}\omega_r^u
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^h-\frac{h_r\omega_{\theta}^h}{r}
+2\frac{h_{\theta}}{r}\omega_r^h\\
\quad\quad\quad+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_{\theta}^u+ ( \p_z f_r - \p_r f_z ),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_z^u-(\omega_r^u\partial_r+\omega_z^u\partial_z)u_z
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\omega_z^h-(\omega_r^h\partial_r+\omega_z^h\partial_z)h_z\\
\quad\quad\quad+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)\omega_z^u + \f 1r \p_r (r f_{\th}),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_r^h
-(\omega_r^h\partial_r+\omega_z^h\partial_z)u_r
+\frac{2}{r}\partial_z(u_rh_{\theta})=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\omega_r^u-(\omega_r^u\partial_r+\omega_z^u\partial_z)h_r\\
\quad\quad\quad
+\frac{2}{r}\partial_z(u_{\theta}h_r)+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_r^h - \p_z ( \p_z g_r - \p_r g_z ),
\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^h
-\frac{u_r}{r}\omega^h_{\theta}
+2\partial_zu_r\partial_rh_r+2\partial_zu_z\partial_rh_z
=(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^u
-\frac{h_r}{r}\omega_{\theta}^u\\
\quad\quad\quad
+2\partial_zh_r\partial_ru_r+2\partial_zh_z\partial_ru_z+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_{\theta}^h - \p_z (\p_z g_{\th}) - \p_r (\f 1r \p_r (r g_{\th})) ,
\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_z^h
+(\p_r u_r \p_r + \p_r u_z \p_z)h_{\th}
+ \p_r(\f {u_{\th} h_r}{r})
= (h_r\partial_r+h_z\p_z)\omega_z^u\\ \quad\quad\quad
+(\p_r h_r \p_r + \p_r h_z \p_z)u_{\th}
+ \p_r(\f {u_r h_{\th}}{r})
+(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)\omega_z^h + \f 1r \p_r ( r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Finn \cite{finn65} have studied the physically reasonable solutions to the steady Navier-Stokes with $O(|x|^{-1})$ decay at infinity. Borchers-Miyakawa \cite{bm95}, Galdi-Simader \cite{gs94} and Novotny-Padula \cite{np95} obtained the existence of such ${\bf u}$ with decay rate $O(|x|^{-1})$ at infinity provided the forcing term is sufficiently small in different function spaces. Under the assumption that $|{\bf u}(x)|=O(|x|^{-1})$ as $|x|\to \oo$, Sverak and Tsai \cite{st2000} had showed that $|\na^k {\bf u}(x)|\leq O(|x|^{-k-1})$ for any $k\geq 1$ by employing a scaling argument and an interior estimate for the Stokes system. In \cite{dg00}, Deuring and Galdi showed that when these solutions are asymptotically expanded near infinity, the leading term cannot be the product of a non-zero vector with the Stokes fundamental solution. One may refer to \cite{np00} for a decomposition of the asymptotic profile at infinity. Korolev and Sverak \cite{ks11} showed that Landau's solution is the right leading term describing the asymptotic behavior when the solution satisfied some smallness assumptions.
The decay properties of the smooth D-solutions to the steady Navier-Stokes and MHD equations are closely related to the uniqueness and energy conservation of the D-solutions. There is a famous open problem which concerns whether ${\bf u}\equiv 0$ is a unique D-solution to steady Navier-Stokes equations. Galdi \cite{galdi11} showed that the D-solution must be trivial if ${\bf u} \in L^{9/2}(\mbR^3)$, which was logarithmically improved in \cite{cwo16}. Many authors have identified different integrability or decay conditions on ${\bf u}$, which lead to many interesting Liouville type results, one may refer to \cite{cpzz19,chae14,cwe16,cw19,chae20,kpr15,ktw17,seregin16} for more details. The Liouville theorem in the case of the axisymmetric three dimensional flows without swirl can be derived from \cite{KNSS09}. Chae \cite{chae14} explored the maximum principle for the total head pressure, and proved the triviality of ${\bf u}$ by assuming $ \De {\bf u} \in L^{\f 65} (\mbR^3)$. Seregin \cite{seregin16,seregin19} applied Caccioppoli type inequality to show that any smooth solution to the stationary Navier-Stokes system in $\mbR^3$, belonging to $L^6(\mbR^3)$ and $BMO^{-1}$, must be zero. Kozono, Terasawa and Wakasugi \cite{ktw17} proposed a decay condition on the vorticity to guarantee that ${\bf u}\equiv 0$. For the MHD system, Liu and Zhang \cite{lz18} proved the Liouville theorem for the bounded ancient solution. In \cite{ww19}, it was shown that there are not non-trivial solutions to MHD equations under the finite Dirichlet integral or the $L^p$ integrability of the velocity and magnetic fields. In their proof, the smallness of the magnetic field plays a vital role.
For the investigation of the decay properties of D-solutions to the exterior stationary Navier-Stokes equations with large external force, Gilbarg and Weinberger \cite{gw74} had made great progress in the two dimensional exterior domain, showed that the weak solution constructed by Leray \cite{leray33} was bounded and converged to a limit $\textbf{u}_0$ in a mean square sense, while the pressure converged pointwise. In \cite{gw78}, they further found that the weak solution with finite Dirichlet integral may not be bounded, but it must grow more slowly than $(\ln r)^{1/2}$. By further adapting the ideas in \cite{gw74,gw78} to the 3D axisymmetric setting, the authors in \cite{cj9,weng15} obtained some decay rates for smooth axially symmetric solutions to steady Navier-Stokes equations. On the other hand, it is well-known that if $(\textbf{u},p)$ solves stationary Navier-Stokes equations, so does $(\textbf{u}_{\la}, p_{\la})$ for all $\la > 0$, where $\textbf{u}_{\la}(\textbf{x}) = \la \textbf{u} (\la \textbf{x})$ and $p_{\la} (\textbf{x}) = \la^2 p(\la \textbf{x})$. According to this, the authors in \cite{CPZ18} utilized the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet inequality} to improve the decay rate of the vorticity in \cite{cj9,weng15}. Recently, the decay properties of the second order derivatives were investigated in \cite{lw20}. Combining the results in \cite{CPZ18,cj9,weng15}, one has: for $\textbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^3$,
\be\no
&&|\textbf{u}(\textbf{x})| \le C (\f {\ln r}{r})^{1/2},\ \ \ \ |\om_r^u(\textbf{x})|+|\om^u_z (\textbf{x})| \le C \f {(\ln r)^{11/8}}{r^{9/8}},\\\no
&&|\om_{\th}^u(\textbf{x})|+ |\na \om_{\th}^u(\textbf{x})| \le C \f {(\ln r)^{3/4}}{r^{5/4}},\\\no
&&|\na u_r| + |\na u_z| \le C \f {(\ln r)^{7/4}}{r^{5/4}},
\ee
where $C$ is a positive constant.
As was noticed in \cite{CPZ18}, the derivation of the decay of the velocity itself almost had no use of the Navier-Stokes equations, it is straightforward to gain the same decay rates for the magnetic field. However, the estimates of the vorticity does depend on the structure of the vorticity equations. For the steady MHD equations, the equations for the electric current $\nabla \times {\bf h}$ are more complicate than those of the vorticity, therefore the decay rates of ${\bf \om^u}$ and ${\bf \om^h}$ obtained here are weaker than those of Navier-Stokes equations. Our first result is stated as follows.
\bt\label{main11}
{\it
Support $\ff \in H^1 (\mbR^3)$ and $\g \in H^2 (\mbR^3)$ be axially symmetric vector field with
\be\lab{fg}
\|(\ff,\curl \g)\|_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}(\mbR^3)}+\|\textbf{f} \|_{H^1 (\mbR^3)} + \| r^{\f 12} (\ff, \curl \g)\|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} + \| \textbf{g} \|_{H^2 (\mbR^3)} \leq M
\ee
for some constant $M$. Let $(\textbf{u},\textbf{h},p)$ be a smooth axially symmetric solution to the steady MHD equations (\ref{s-mhd}) with (\ref{infinity condition})-(\ref{dirichlet integral}), then there exist a constant $C (M) >0$, such that
\be\lab{uhdecay}
&&|\textbf{u}| + |\textbf{h}|\le C(M)(\f {\ln r}{r})^{\f 12},\\\lab{omthetadecay}
&&|\omega_{\theta}^u| + |\omega_{\theta}^h| \le C(M) \frac{\ln r}{r},\\\lab{omrzdecay}
&&|\omega_r^u| + |\omega_z^u| + |\omega_r^h|+ |\omega_z^h| \le C(M) \frac{\ln r}{r},
\ee
for large $r$.
}\et
Next we consider a special class of axisymmetric D-solutions to the steady MHD equations with $\textbf{h}(r,z) = h_{\th}(r,z) \boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}$. In this situation, we obtain better decay results for the vorticity field by employing the \textit{Biot-Savart law} as in \cite{CPZ18}. However, this argument does not improve the decay rates of $\om_r^h$ and $\om_z^h$. Here we resort to the weighted energy estimates in \cite{weng15} to get a better decay for $\om_r^h$ and $\om_z^h$.
\bt\label{main12}
{\it
Support $\ff \in H^2 (\mbR^3)$ and $\g \in H^3 (\mbR^3)$ be axially symmetric vector field without swirl, and satisfying (\ref{fg}) and
\be\lab{fg1}
&& \| (\f r {\ln r})^{\f 12} f_{\th} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} + \| r (f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} + \| r^2 \curl \emph{\textbf{f}} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} \le M,\\\lab{fg2}
&& \| r^2 \p_r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z) \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} \le M,
\ee
for some constant $M$.
Let $(\textbf{u},\textbf{h},p)$ be a smooth axially symmetric solution to the steady MHD equations (\ref{s-mhd}) with (\ref{infinity condition})-(\ref{dirichlet integral}), where $\textbf{h}(r,z)=h_{\theta}(r,z)\boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}$. Then we have better estimates as follows:
\be\lab{decay-om-th-u}
&&|\omega_{\theta}^u| \leq C(M) \frac{(\ln r)^{3/4}}{r^{5/4}},\\\lab{decay-om-rz-u}
&&|\omega_r^u|+|\omega_z^u| \leq C(M) \frac{(\ln r)^{11/8}}{r^{9/8}},\\\lab{decay-na-u-rz}
&&|\nabla u_r|+|\nabla u_z| \leq C(M) \frac{(\ln r )^{7/4}}{r^{5/4}},\\\lab{decay-na-h-th}
&&|\om^h_r|+ |\om^h_z| + |\na h_{\th} | \leq C(M) r^{- (\f {35}{32})^-},
\ee
where $a^-$ denotes any number less than $a$.
}\et
The last result examines the decay rate in the $Oz$-direction for the axisymmetric D-solution of steady MHD equations with the magnetic field having only the swirl component ${\bf h} (r,z) = h_{\th} (r,z) {\bf e}_{\th}$. The quantity $\Pi \=\frac{h_{\theta}}{r}$ satisfies an elliptic equation, from which weighted energy estimates are available for the weight $\rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}$. Furthermore, if the swirl of the velocity $u_{\th}\equiv 0$, we can deduce some decay estimates for the velocity as in steady axisymmetric Navier-Stokes case \cite{weng15}. However, the decay rates are worse than the Navier-Stokes case.
\bt\label{main13}
{\it
Suppose $ \ff \in H^1 (\mbR^3)$ and $ \g \in H^2 (\mbR^3)$ be axially symmetric vector field without swirl, and satisfying (\ref{fg}), (\ref{fg2}) and
\be\lab{fg3}
&&\| \rho \f {\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z}{r} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} \le M,\\
\lab{fg4}
&&\| \rho \f {\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z}{r} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} \le M\\\lab{fg5}
&& \| (\f r {\ln r})^{\f 12} g_{\th} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)} + \| r^2 \curl \emph{\textbf{g}} \|_{L^2 (\mbR^2)} \le M,
\ee
for some constant $M$.
Let $(\textbf{u},\textbf{h},p)$ be a smooth axially symmetric solution to the steady MHD equations (\ref{s-mhd}) with (\ref{infinity condition})-(\ref{dirichlet integral}), where $\textbf{h}(r,z)=h_{\theta}(r,z)\boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}$.
Then there holds
\be\no
|h_{\th} (r,z)| \le C(M) (\rho + 1)^{- \f {31}{168}}, \quad \quad \rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}.
\ee
Moreover, if the swirl velocity $u_{\th}\equiv 0$, then
\be
|u_r(r,z)| +|u_z(r,z)|&\leq& C(M) (\rho+1)^{-(\f {13}{179})^-},\\\lab{omgea300}
|\om_{\th}(r,z)| &\leq& C(M)(\rho+1)^{-(\f {39}{179})^-},\\\lab{htheta30}
|h_{\th}(r,z)|&\leq & C(M) (\rho + 1)^{-(\f {3041}{15036})^-}.
\ee
}\et
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce some preliminary tools. In Section 3, we prove the decay rates of $({\bf u}, {\bf h})$ and $({\bf \om^u}, {\bf \om^h})$ by applying the scaling argument and the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet inequality}. In Section 4, we will use the \textit{Biot-Savart law} and also weighted energy estimates for the magnetic field to get some improved decay rate estimates for the special class of solutions with ${\bf h}(r,z) = h_{\th} (r,z) {\bf e}_{\th}$. In Section 5, we will investigate the decay properties of $({\bf u}, {\bf h})$ in the $O_z$-direction also within the special class of solutions with ${\bf h}(r,z) = h_{\th} (r,z) {\bf e}_{\th}$.
\section{Preliminary}
\bl\lab{BG ineq}\emph{\cite[Theorem 1]{bj80}}
{\it Let $f\in H^2(\Omega)$ where $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$. Then there exists a constant $C_{\Omega}$, depending only on $\Omega$, such that
\begin{equation}\no
\| f \|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\le C_{\Omega}(1+\| f \|_{H^1(\Omega)})\ln^{1/2}\big(e+\| \Delta f \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\big).
\end{equation}
}
\el
\bl\lab{lemma CZ}\emph{\cite[Lemma 3.2]{CPZ18}}
{\it Assume that $K(x,y)$ be a Calderon-Zygmund kernel and $f$ is a smooth axisymmetric function satisfying, for ${\bf x}=({\bf x^{\prime}}, z) \in \mbR^3$
\be\no
|f(x)| + |\na f(x)| \le \f {\ln^b (e+ |x^{\prime}|)}{(1+ |x^{\prime}|)^a} \q for \q 0<a<2,\q b>0.
\ee
Define $Tf(x) \= \int K(x,y)f(y) dy$. Then there exists a constant $c_0$ such that
\be\no
|Tf(x)|\le c_0 \f {\ln^{b+1} (e+ |x^{\prime}|)}{(1+ |x^{\prime}|)^a}.
\ee
}\el
\bl\lab{a decay lemma}\emph{\cite[Lemma 2.1]{weng15}}
{\it Suppose a smooth axially symmetric function $f(x)$ satisfies the following weighted energy estimates
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left( r^{e_1}|f(r,z)|^2+ r^{e_2}|\nabla f(r,z)|^2 + r^{e_3}|\partial_z\nabla f(r,z)|^2\right)dx\leq C,
\end{equation}
with nonnegative constants $e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3$. Then for any $r>0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\no
&&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|f(r,z)|^2dz\leq Cr^{-\frac{1}{2}(e_1+e_2)-1},\\\no
&&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|\partial_zf(r,z)|^2dz\leq Cr^{-\frac{1}{2}(e_3+e_2)-1},\\\no
&&|f(r,z)|^2\le Cr^{-\frac{1}{4}(e_1+2e_2+e_3)-1}, \quad \text{$\forall z\in\mathbb{R}^3$}.
\end{eqnarray}
}\el
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main11}} \noindent
Before starting to prove Theorem \ref{main11}, we want to sketch the proof as follows. Following \cite{CPZ18}, the decay rate of $(\u, \h)$ can be shown by a scaling argument and the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet} inequality. Next utilizing the localized energy estimates of $\om^u$ and $\om^h$ and the $\textit{Brezis-Gallout}$ inequality, it will be deduced that
\be\no
& &
{|\om_{\th}^u (r,z) | + |\om_{\th}^h (r,z) | \le}
{C(M ) (\f {\ln r}r)^{\f 12} \| (\u, \h) \|_{L^{\oo} ([\f r2, \f {3r}2] \times [-r, r])},}\\\no
& &
{|\om_r^u (r,z)| + |\om_z^u (r,z)| + |\om_r^h (r,z) | + |\om_z^h (r,z)|}
{\le}
{C (M) (\f {\ln r}r)^{\f 12} \| (\u, \h) \|_{L^{\oo} ([\f r2, \f {3r}2] \times [-r, r])}.}
\ee
The details can be found in (\ref{lam-rz}) and (\ref{lam-th}). The estimates \eqref{omthetadecay} and \eqref{omrzdecay} follow directly from the above two inequalities.
Now we start to prove Theorem \ref{main11}. Assume that \eqref{fg} holds, the standard existence theory tells us that there exists a weak solution $({\bf u}, {\bf h} ,p)$ to MHD equation (1.1)-(1.2) with the finite Dirichlet integral (1.3) (see Chapter X in \cite{galdi11} for more details). Since $({\bf u}, {\bf h})\in L^6(\mbR^3)$ and $(\nabla {\bf u},\nabla {\bf h})\in L^2(\mbR^3)$, then $({\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf u},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf h}, {\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf h},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf u})\in L^\frac{3}{2}(\mbR^3)$. According to the $L^p$ estimates to the Stokes system (See Chapter IV.2 in \cite{galdi11}), if $(\ff,\text{curl }{\bf g})\in L^{\frac{3}{2}} (\mbR^3)$, then $(\nabla^2 {\bf u}, \nabla^2{\bf h})\in L^{\frac{3}{2}} (\mbR^3)$, which implies that $(\nabla {\bf u},\nabla {\bf h})\in L^3(\mathbb{R}^3)$ by Sobolev embedding. Thus $({\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf u},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf h}, {\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf h},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf u})\in L^2(\mbR^3)$, yielding that
\be\label{dd}
\|(\na^2 \u,\na^2 \h)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \le C(M),
\ee
where the positive constant $C(M)$ depending only on $M$. And there also hold $\|({\bf u}, {\bf h})\|_{W^{1,6}(\mathbb{R}^3)}+\|({\bf u}, {\bf h})\|_{L^{\oo} (\mbR^3)} \leq C (M)$. Simple calculations show that $({\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf u},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf h}, {\bf u}\cdot\nabla {\bf h},{\bf h}\cdot\nabla {\bf u})\in H^1(\mbR^3)$. Then the $L^p$ theory to the Stokes system yields that
\be\label{third}
\|(\na^3 \u,\na^3 \h)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \leq C(M).
\ee
Fix any point ${\bf x_0} \in\mathbb{R}^3$ such that $|{\bf x_0^{\prime}}|=\lambda$ is large, and consider the scaled solutions $\tilde{\textbf{u}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, $\tilde{\textbf{h}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})$ and the two dimensional domain $\tilde{D}$,
\be\no
&&\tilde{\textbf{u}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})= \la {\textbf{u}}(\la\tilde{\textbf{x}}),\ \ \ \tilde{\textbf{h}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})= \la {\textbf{h}}(\la\tilde{\textbf{x}}),\\\no
&&\tilde{D}= \{(\tilde{r}, \tilde{z})|1/2\le \tilde{r}\le2,|\tilde{z}|\le1\},
\ee
where ${\textbf{x}}= \la \tilde{\textbf{x}}$.
To prove the estimate \eqref{uhdecay}, by carefully checking the argument developed in \cite{CPZ18} for the steady axisymmetric Navier-Stokes equations without external force, only the estimates \eqref{dd} and the finite Dirichlet integral are used in their proof, the structure of equations play no role, thus the estimate \eqref{uhdecay} holds.
It remains to derive the decay rates of $\bf{\omega^u}$ and $\bf{\omega^h}$. According to previous scaling, we have
\be\no
&\tilde{\om}^u (\tilde{\textbf{x}})= \lambda^2 \om^u(\lambda \tilde{\textbf{x}}) = \lambda^2 \om^u({\textbf{x}}),\\\no
&\tilde{\om}^h (\tilde{\textbf{x}})= \lambda^2 \om^h(\lambda \tilde{\textbf{x}}) = \lambda^2 \om^h({\textbf{x}}),\\\no
& \tilde{\ff} (\tilde{\x}) = \la^3 \ff (\la \tilde{\x}) = \la^3 \ff (\x),\\\no
& \curl_{\tilde{\x}} \tilde{\g} (\tilde{\x}) = \la^3 \curl_{\x} \g (\la \tilde{\x}) = \la^3 \curl_{\x} \g (\x).
\ee
For simplification of notation, we will drop the $`` \sim "$ when computations take place under the scaled sense. Select the domains
\be\no
&\mathcal{C}_1 = \{ (r, \th, z) : \f 12 < r < \f 32, 0 \le \th \le 2\pi, |z| \le 1 \},\\\no
&\mathcal{C}_2 = \{ (r, \th, z) : \f 34 < r < \f 54, 0 \le \th \le 2\pi, |z| \le \f 12 \}.
\ee
Let $\phi(y)$ be a cut-off function satisfying supp $\phi(y) \subset \mathcal{C}_1$ and $\phi(y)=1$ for $y\in\mathcal{C}_2$ such that the gradient of $\phi$ is bounded. Now testing the vorticity equation (\ref{vorticity eq}) with $\omega_r^u\phi^2$, $\omega_{\theta}^u\phi^2$, $\omega_z^u\phi^2$, $\omega_r^h\phi^2$, $\omega_{\theta}^h\phi^2$ and $\omega_z^h\phi^2$ respectively, and integrating over $\mathcal{C}_1$, after direct computations we obtain
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_{\theta}^u\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_{\theta}^u\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\omega_{\theta}^u|^2|\nabla\phi|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|\omega_{\theta}^u|^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)\\\no
&&\quad\quad+ \f {u_r}{r} (\om_{\th}^u \phi)^2
-\frac{2}{r}u_{\theta}\omega_r^u\omega_{\theta}^u\phi^2
+\frac{2}{r}h_{\theta}\omega_r^h\omega_{\theta}^u\phi^2+\omega_{\theta}^u\phi(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)(\omega_{\theta}^h\phi)-\frac{h_r}{r}\omega_{\theta}^u\omega_{\theta}^h\phi^2\\\no
&&\quad\quad-\omega_{\theta}^u\omega_{\theta}^h\phi(h_r\partial_r+h_z\partial_z)\phi
+ \phi(f_z \p_r - f_r \p_z) (\om_{\th}^u \phi) + \om_{\th}^u \phi (f_z \p_r - f_r \p_z) \phi+ f_z \f {\om_{\th}^u \phi}{r} \phi
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq
C
(1+\|({\bf u}, {\bf h})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| (f_r, f_z ) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2
\\\no
&& \q
+\frac{1}{8}\| (\nabla(\omega^u_{\theta}\phi), \nabla(\omega^h_{\theta}\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},
\\\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_{\theta}^h\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_{\theta}^h\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
|\na \phi|^2 |\om_{\th}^h|^2 + \f 12 |\om_{\th}^h|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2) \\\no
&&\quad\quad+ 2 \p_z(\om_{\th}^h \phi^2) (u_z \p_r h_z - h_r \p_r u_r)+ 2 \p_r(\om_{\th}^h \phi^2) (h_r \p_z u_r - u_z \p_z h_z)+ \f{u_r}{r} (\om_{\th}^h \phi)^2\\\no
&&\quad\quad+ \om_{\th}^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) (\om_{\th}^u \phi) - \om_{\th}^u \om_{\th}^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) \phi- \f {h_r}{r} \om_{\th}^u \phi \cdot \om_{\th}^h \phi \\\no
&&\quad\quad+ 2 \f {\om_{\th}^h \phi}{r} (h_r \p_z u_r - u_z \p_z h_z)\phi + \p_z g_{\th}(\p_z (\om_{\th}^h \phi))+ \om_{\th}^h \phi \p_z \phi) \\\no
&& \q\q + \p_r (r g_{\th}) (\phi \p_r (\om_{\th}^h \phi) + \om_{\th}^h \phi \p_r \phi + \f {\om_{\th}^h \phi}{r} \phi )
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| \bar{\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2
\\\no
&&\quad\quad+ C\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla h_z)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\frac{1}{8}\|(\na (\om_{\th}^u \phi),\nabla(\omega_{\theta}^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}.
\ee
Combining these two estimates, we find
\be\nonumber
&&\|(\nabla\omega_{\theta}^u,\nabla\omega_{\theta}^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)}\leq C (1+\|(\textbf{u},\textbf{h})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\\lab{C1-om-th}
&&\quad \q
+C \| (f_r, f_z , \bar{\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2
+
C \|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla h_z)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}.
\ee
There also holds
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_r^u\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy= \int_{\mathcal{C}_1} \bigg(|\na \phi|^2 |\om_r^u|^2 + \f 12 |\om_r^u|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2) \\\no
&&\quad\quad- \f {u_r}{r} (\om_r^u \phi)^2 - u_r (\p_r (\om_r^u \phi)^2
+\p_z (\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi)) + \om_r^u \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z)(\om_r^h \phi)
\\\no &&\quad\quad- \om_r^u \om_r^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) \phi
+ h_r \p_r(\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi) + h_r\p_z (\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^h \phi)\\\no
&& \q\q + \f {h_r}{r} \om_r^u\phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi + f_{\th}\phi (\p_z (\om_r^u \phi) + \om_r^u \p_z \phi)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq C
(1+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 \\\no
&&\quad\quad
+\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},
\ee
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}|\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi)|^2dy= \int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
|\na \phi|^2 |\om_z^u|^2 + \f 12 |\om_z^u|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2)
-u_z \p_r (\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi)\\\no
&&\quad\quad
- \f {u_z}{r} \om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi + \om_z^u \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) (\om_z^h \phi)
-\om_z^u \om_z^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z )\phi\\\no
&&\quad\quad
+ h_z (\p_r (\om_z^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi) + \p_z (\om_z^u \phi \cdot \om_z^h \phi))
- u_z \p_z (\om_z^u \phi)^2+ \f {h_z}{r} \om_z^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi
\\\no
&& \q\q
- f_{\th} \phi (\p_r (\om_z^u \phi) + \om_z^u \p_r \phi)
\bigg) dy\\\no
&&\leq C
(1+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 \\\no
&&\quad\quad
+ \f 18 \|(\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},
\\\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_r^h\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
|\na \phi|^2 |\om_r^h|^2 + \f 12 |\om_r^h|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2) \\\no
&&\quad\quad- u_r \p_r(\om_r^h \phi)^2 - u_r \p_z (\om_r^h \phi \cdot \om_z^h \phi)-\f {u_r}{r} |\om_r^h \phi|^2 + \om_r^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) (\om_r^u \phi) \\\no
&&\quad\quad- \om_r^u \om_r^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) \phi + h_r \p_r (\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi) + h_r \p_z (\om_z^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi)\\\no
&&\quad\quad + \f {h_r}{r} \om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_r^h \phi - \f 2r \p_z (u_r h_{\th}) \om_r^h \phi^2 + \f 2r \p_z (u_{\th} h_r) \om_r^h \phi^2\\\no
&& \q\q + \p_z (\om_r^h \phi) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq
C
(1+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| \bar{\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 \\\no
&&\quad\quad
+
C
\|(u_r,u_{\theta},h_r,h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\|\nabla (u_r,u_{\theta},h_r,h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\\no
&& \q\q+\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}.
\\\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}|\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi)|^2dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
|\omega_z^h|^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}(\omega_z^h)^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)\\\no
&&\quad\quad + \p_r(\om_z^h \phi^2) (h_{\th} \p_r u_r -u_{\th} \p_r h_r)+ \p_z(\om_z^h \phi^2) (h_{\th} \p_r u_z - u_{\th} \p_r h_z )\\\no
&&\quad\quad + \f {\om^h_z \phi^2}r (\p_r (u_r h_{\th}) - \p_r (u_{\th} h_r)) + \om_z^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z) (\om_z^u \phi)\\\no
&& \q\q- \om_z^u \om_z^h \phi (h_r \p_r + h_z \p_z)\phi - \p_r (\om_z^h \phi^2) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq C
(1+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_z^u,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
&&\quad\quad
+C
\|(u_r, u_{\theta},h_r, h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(\na \u, \na \h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+
C \| \bar{\g}\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2.
\ee
Then we obtain
\be\nonumber
&&\|(\nabla\omega_r^u,\nabla\omega_z^u,\nabla\omega_r^h,\nabla\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)}\leq C (1+\|(u_r, u_z, h_r, h_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\lab{C1-om-rz}
&&\quad\quad +C \|(u_r,u_{\theta},h_r,h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\| (\na \u, \na \h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)} +C \| (f_{\th }, \bar{\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 .
\ee
Set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2 \= \{(r,z):\frac{3}{4}<r<\frac{5}{4},|z|\le1/2\}.
\end{equation*}
Utilizing the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet inequality} in Lemma \ref{BG ineq} and the localized energy estimates (\ref{C1-om-th}) and (\ref{C1-om-rz}), we can conclude
\be\nonumber
&&\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C \bigg(1+
(1+\|(u_r, u_z, h_r, h_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\\no
&&\quad \quad+\|(u_r,u_{\theta},h_r,h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\|(\na \u, \na \h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+
\| (f_{\th }, \bar{\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}
\bigg)\\\no
&&\quad\quad\times
\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|\De(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\bar{\mc{C}}_2)}\bigg),\\\nonumber
&&\|(\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\le C \bigg(1+
(1+\|(\textbf{u},\textbf{h})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+
\| (f_r, f_z , \bar {\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}\\\no
&&\q\q+\|(u_r,u_z,h_r,h_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla h_z)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\bigg)
\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|(\De\omega_{\theta}^u,\De\omega_{\theta}^h)\|_{L^2(\bar{\mc{C}}_2)}\bigg).
\ee
Then scaling back to the domains
\be\no
\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda} & = & \{(r,\theta,z):\frac{\lambda}{2}<r<\frac{3\lambda}{2},0\le\theta\le2\pi,|z|\le\lambda\},\\\no
\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda} & = & \{(r,\theta,z):\frac{3\lambda}{4}<r<\frac{5\lambda}{4},0\le\theta\le2\pi,|z|\le\frac{\lambda}{2}\},
\ee
we derive
\be\nonumber
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\leq
C \bigg( 1 +
(1+\lambda\|(\textbf{u},\textbf{h})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\lambda^{1/2}\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\\\no
&&\quad +\lambda^{3/2}\|(u_r,u_{\theta},h_r,h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\|( \nabla \u, \na \h) \|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+
\la^{3/2} \| ( f_{\th }, \bar {\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la})} \bigg) \\\lab{lam-rz}
&& \q \times \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|\De(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg),
\\\no
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\le
C \bigg(1 + (1+
\lambda\|(\textbf{u},\textbf{h})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})
\lambda^{1/2}\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\th}^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_{\th}^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\\\no
&& \quad+\lambda^{3/2}\|(u_z, h_r)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla h_z)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+
\la^{3/2} \| ( f_r, f_z , \bar {\g}) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la})}
\bigg)\\\lab{lam-th}
&& \q \times \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|(\De\omega_{\th}^u,\De\omega_{\th}^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg).
\ee
By the finite Dirichlet integral assumption (\ref{dirichlet integral}), the estimates \eqref{uhdecay} and \eqref{third}, we conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}\no
&&\|(\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_{\theta}^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\leq C (M ) \frac{\ln \lambda}{\lambda},\\\no
&&\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u,\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\leq C (M ) \frac{\ln \lambda}{\lambda},
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the boundedness of $\| ( \na^3 \u, \na^3 \h) \|_{L^2 (\mbR^3)}$ to control $ \| (\De \om^u, \De \om^h )\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la })} $. These verify \eqref{omthetadecay} and \eqref{omrzdecay}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main12}}\noindent
In this section, we will consider the special class of axisymmetric D-solution to the steady MHD equations, where the magnetic field has only the swirl component $\textbf{h}(r,z)= h_{\th} (r,z) \bf{e_{\th}}$. In this case, ${\bf \omega^h}(r,z)=\nabla\times \textbf{h(x)}=\omega_r^h(r,z){\bf e_r}+\omega_z^h(r,z){\bf e_z}$, the equations (\ref{vorticity eq}) reduce to
\begin{equation}\lab{special-vorticity}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_r^u-(\omega_r^u\partial_r+\omega_z^u\partial_z)u_r=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_r^u
- \p_z f_{\th},\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^u-\frac{u_r\omega_{\theta}^u}{r}+\frac{1}{r}\partial_z(h_{\theta}^2-u_{\theta}^2)=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_{\theta}^u
+ (\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_z^u-(\omega_r^u\partial_r+\omega_z^u\partial_z)u_z=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)\omega_z^u
+ \f 1r \p_r (r f_{\th}),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_r^h-(\omega_r^h\partial_r+\omega_z^h\partial_z)u_r+\frac{2}{r}\partial_z(u_rh_{\theta})=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_r^h\\
\q\q - \p_z (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z),\\
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_z^h-(\omega_r^h\partial_r+\omega_z^h\partial_z)u_z-\frac{2}{r}\partial_r(u_rh_{\theta})=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z)\omega_z^h
\\ \q\q+ \f 1r \p_r (r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Comparing with \eqref{vorticity eq}, \eqref{special-vorticity} has a simpler form, from which we derive better localized energy estimates and it turns out that we can obtain better decay rates.
The proof of theorem \ref{main12} will be divided into the following steps. Firstly, the decay rate of $\om_{\th}^u$ and a weaker decay rates of $(\om_r^u, \om_z^u)$ will be deduced by using the simpler structure of the equations in \eqref{special-vorticity}. Secondly, note that $\na (u_r \e_r + u_z \e_z ) = \mb{C}(\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th}) + \mb{K} \ast (\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th})$, where $\mathbb{C}(\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th})$ is a matrix whose entries are components of $\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th}$ and $\mathbb{K}$ is a \textit{Calderon-Zymund kernel}, then Lemma \ref{lemma CZ} and the estimate \eqref{decay-om-th-u} will be used to improve the decay rates of $(\om_r^u, \om_z^u)$:
\be\no
|\na u_r| + |\na u_z| \le C (M) r^{-5/4}(\ln r)^{7/4},
\ee
and
\be\no
&& |\om_r^u (r,z)| + |\om_z^u (r,z)| \le C (M ) r^{- 9/8} (\ln r)^{11/8},\\\no
& &
|\om_r^h (r,z)| + |\om_z^h (r,z)| \le C (M) r^{-1} (\ln r)^{11/8},
\ee
for large $r$. Thirdly, we utilize the weighted energy estimates to obtain better decay rates of $\na h_{\th }$:
\be\no
|\om^h_r|+ |\om^h_z| + |\na h_{\th} | \leq C(M) r^{- (\f {35}{32})^-}.
\ee
\textbf{Step 1: }Proof of \eqref{decay-om-th-u} for $\omega_{\theta}^u$ and a weaker decay of $(\omega_r^u, \omega_z^u)$.
Same as in section 3, consider the scaled solution $\tilde{\textbf{u}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, $\tilde{\textbf{h}}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, $\tilde{\om}(\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, and $\tilde{\ff} (\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, $\curl_{\tilde{\textbf{x}}} \tilde{\g} (\tilde{\textbf{x}})$, where $\tilde{\textbf{x}}=\lambda {\textbf{x}}$. Drop the "$\sim$" for simplification of notation when computations take place under the scaled sense. Taking the same cut-off function $\phi(y)$ as previous, and testing the vorticity equation (\ref{special-vorticity}) with $\omega_r^u\phi^2$, $\omega_{\theta}^u\phi^2$, $\omega_z^u\phi^2$, $\omega_r^h\phi^2$ and $\omega_z^h\phi^2$ respectively, we deduce that
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_{\theta}^u\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_{\theta}^u\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
|\omega_{\theta}^u|^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}|\omega_{\theta}^u|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2)\\\no
&&\quad\quad+\frac{u_r}{r}(\omega_{\theta}^u)^2\phi^2- 2 \frac{\omega_{\theta}^u\phi^2}{r}(-\omega_r^hh_{\theta}+\omega_r^uu_{\theta})
+ f_z \f {\om_{\th}^u \phi}{r} \phi \\\no
&&\q\q + \phi(f_z \p_r - f_r \p_z) (\om_{\th}^u \phi) + \om_{\th}^u \phi (f_z \p_r - f_r \p_z) \phi
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq C (1+\|(u_r,u_{\theta},u_z,h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \|(f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2\\\no
&& \q \q
+ \f 18 \| \na (\om_{\th}^u \phi) \|^2_{L^2 (\mathcal{C}_1)},
\ee
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_r^u\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
(\omega_r^u)^2|\nabla\phi|^2+ \f 12 |\om_r^u|^2 (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\phi^2) \\\no
&&\quad - u_r (\p_r((\om_r^u \phi)^2) + \p_z (\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi))- \f {(\om_r^u \phi)^2}{r} u_r
+ f_{\th}\phi (\p_z (\om_r^u \phi) + \om_r^u \p_z \phi)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg((\omega_r^u)^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}(\omega_r^u)^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)
+ (|\om_r^u|^2 \phi^2 \p_r + \om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi \p_z) u_r \\\no
&& \q\q + f_{\th}\phi (\p_z (\om_r^u \phi) + \om_r^u \p_z \phi)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq \begin{cases}
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u, \om_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}+ C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2\\\no
\q\q +\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi), \na(\om_z^u \phi)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},\\\no
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|\nabla u_r\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2\\\no
\q\q +\frac{1}{8}\|\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},
\end{cases}\ee
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}|\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi)|^2dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(
(\omega_z^u)^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}(\omega_z^u)^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)\\\no
&&\quad\quad- u_z \p_r(\om_r^u \phi \cdot \om_z^u \phi) - u_z \p_z(\om_z^u \phi)^2- \f {u_z}{r} \om_r^u \om_z^u \phi^2
- f_{\th} \phi (\p_r (\om_z^u \phi) + \om_z^u \p_r \phi)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg((\omega_z^u)^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}(\omega_z^u)^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)
+ (\omega_z^u)^2\phi^2\partial_z u_z\\\no
&&\q\q+ \omega_r^u\omega_z^u\phi^2\partial_r u_z - f_{\th} \phi (\p_r (\om_z^u \phi) + \om_z^u \p_r \phi)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq \begin{cases}
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\om_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \|f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 \\\no
\q\q +\frac{1}{8} \|(\nabla(\omega_r^u\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi)) \|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|\nabla u_z\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)} + C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2\\\no
\q\q +\frac{1}{8} \|\nabla(\omega_z^u\phi) \|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)},
\end{cases}\ee
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi)|^2+\frac{(\omega_r^h\phi)^2}{r^2}\bigg)dy=
\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\omega_r^h|^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}(\omega_r^h)^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)
\\\no
&&\quad\quad- u_r \p_r(\om_r^h \phi)^2 - u_r \p_z (\om_r^h \phi \cdot \om_z^h \phi) - \f {u_r}{r} (\om_r^h \phi)^2 + 2 \f {u_r h_{\th}}{r} \p_z (\om_r^h \phi^2)\\\no
&& \q\q + \p_z (\om_r^h \phi) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&= \int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\omega_r^h|^2|\nabla\phi|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|\omega_r^h|^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)
+ ((\om_r^h)^2 \phi^2 \p_r + \om_r^h \om_z^h \phi^2 \p_z ) u_r\\\no
&& \q\q - 2 (\p_r u_r + \p_z u_z) h_{\th} \p_z(\om_r^h \phi^2)
+ \p_z (\om_r^h \phi) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&\leq \begin{cases}
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\
\quad\quad+ C (M) \|u_r\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\int_{\mbR^3} \f {h_{\th}^2}{r^2} dy + C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 \\
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|\nabla u_r\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+\frac{1}{8}\|\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\
\quad\quad+C \|h_{\theta}\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(\nabla u_r, \na u_z)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)} + C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 ,
\end{cases}\ee
\be\no
&&\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}|\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi)|^2dy=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\omega_z^h|^2|\nabla\phi|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|\omega_z^h|^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)- u_z \p_r (\om_r^h \phi \cdot \om_z^h \phi) \\\no
&&\quad\quad - \f {u_z}{r} \om_r^h \om_z^h \phi^2 - u_z \p_z (\om_z^h \phi)^2 - 2 \f {u_r h_{\th}}{r} \p_r (\om_z^h \phi^2)
- \p_r (\om_z^h \phi^2) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg)dy\\\no
&&=\int_{\mathcal{C}_1}\bigg(|\omega_z^h|^2|\nabla\phi|^2+\frac{1}{2}|\omega_z^h|^2(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)(\phi^2)
+ (\om_r^h \om_z^h \phi^2 \p_r + (\om_z^h \phi)^2 \p_z) u_z\\\no
&& \quad\quad+ 2 \f {\om_z^h \phi^2} r \p_r (u_r h_{\th})- \p_r (\om_z^h \phi^2) (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\bigg) dy\\\no
&&\leq \begin{cases}
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}^2)\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+\frac{1}{8}\|(\nabla(\omega_r^h\phi),\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi))\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\
\quad\quad+C
\|u_r\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\int_{\mbR^3} \f {h_{\th}^2}{r^2} dy + C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 ,\\
C (1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|\nabla u_z\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+\frac{1}{8}\|\nabla(\omega_z^h\phi)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\
\quad\quad+C
\|(\nabla u_r, \na h_{\th})\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|( u_r, h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)} + C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2 .
\end{cases}\ee
Thus we deduce
\be\lab{om-th}
&& \|\nabla\omega_{\theta}^u\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)} \leq C(1+\|(u_r,u_{\theta},u_z,h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
&& \q \q \q\q\q\q\q
+ C \|(f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2,
\\\lab{om-rzu}
&& \|(\nabla\omega_r^u,\nabla\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)} \leq C(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2,
\\\lab{om-rzh}
&& \|(\nabla\omega_r^h,\nabla\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)} \leq C(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)} \\\no
&& \q \q \q \q \q \q \q\q\q\q+ C \| u_r \|^2_{L^{\oo} (\mathcal{C}_1)} +C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2,
\ee
and
\be\no
&& \|\nabla(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)} \leq C(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|\nabla (u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\\\label{na-om-rzu}
&& \q\q\q\q\q\q\q \q \q + C \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2,\\\no
&& \|\nabla(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_2)} \leq C(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\lab{na-om-rzh}
&& \q\q\q\q\q\q\q \q \q
+C\|(\nabla u_r,\na h_{\th})\|^2_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\|(u_r, h_{\theta})\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ C \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}^2.
\ee
As previous, utilizing the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet's inequality} and (\ref{om-th})-(\ref{na-om-rzh}), we are led to
\be\no
&&\|\omega_{\theta}^u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\|(u_r,u_{\theta},u_z,h_{\theta})\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ \| (f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)} \bigg)\\\no
&&\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\times \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|\De\omega_{\theta}^u\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg),
\ee
\be\no
&&\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)} \bigg)\\\no
&&\quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\times\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg),\\\no
&&\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)} + \| u_r \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
&& \quad\quad\quad \quad\quad
+ \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)}
\bigg) \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg).
\ee
and
\be\no
&&\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
&& \quad \quad + \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)} \bigg) \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg),\\\no
&&\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\|(u_r,u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}+\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)})\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}\\\no
&& \quad\quad +\|(\nabla u_r,\na h_{\th})\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_1)}
\|(u_r,h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_1)}
+ \|\bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_1)} \bigg)
\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg).
\ee
Then scaling back to find
\be\no
&&\lambda^2\|\omega_{\theta}^u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\lambda^{1/2} \|(u_r,u_{\theta},u_z,h_{\theta})\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\lambda^{1/2} \|(\omega_r^u,\omega_{\theta}^u,\omega_r^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\\\no
&& \quad \quad + \la^{3/2} \| (f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la })} \bigg) \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|\De\omega_{\theta}^u\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg),
\\\no
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\leq C\lambda^{1/2}\bigg(1+(1+\lambda\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\\\no
&& \quad \quad
+ \la^{3/2} \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la })} \bigg) \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg),\\\no
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la})}\leq C\bigg(1+(1+\lambda\|(u_r,u_z)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\lambda^{1/2}\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
\\\no
&&\quad \quad
+\lambda\|u_r\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+ \la^{ 3/2} \|\bar { \g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la })} \bigg)
\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|(\De\omega_r^h,\De\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg),
\ee
and
\be\lab{na-om-rzu-lam}
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\le C\lambda^{1/2}\bigg(1+(1+\lambda^{1/2}\|(u_r,u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+ \la^{3/2} \| f_{\th } \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la })} \\\no
&&\q +\lambda\|(\nabla u_r,\nabla u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}\bigg) \ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|(\De\omega_r^u,\De\omega_z^u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}\bigg),
\ee
\be\no
&&\lambda^2\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la})}
\leq C \bigg(
1+(1+\lambda^{1/2}\|(u_r,u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+\lambda \|(\nabla u_r,\nabla u_z)\|^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})})\\\no
&& \q
\times \lambda^{1/2} \|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})} + \lambda^{\frac32}\|(\nabla u_r,\na h_{\th})\|_{L^2(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})} \|(u_r, h_{\theta})\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{1,\lambda})}
+ \la^{ 3/2} \| \bar {\g} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{1, \la })} \bigg)\\\lab{na-om-rzh-lam}
&&\quad \times
\ln^{1/2}\bigg(e+\lambda^{5/2}\|(\De\omega_r^h,\De\omega_z^h)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{\bar{C}}_2)}\bigg).
\ee
By the a priori bound in \eqref{uhdecay}, we have
\be\no
\|\omega_{\theta}^u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})} & \le & C (M) \f {(\ln \la)^{3/4}}{\la^{5/4}} ,\\
\|(\omega_r^u,\omega_z^u)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}& \le & C (M) \frac{\ln \lambda}{\lambda},\\\no
\|(\omega_r^h,\omega_z^h)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2,\lambda})}& \le & C (M) \frac{\ln \lambda}{\lambda}.
\ee
This verifies (\ref{decay-om-th-u}).
We further derive the decay of $\nabla \omega_{\theta}^u$ under the additional assumption that $\ff \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $ \g \in H^3(\mathbb{R}^3)$. Recall that
\begin{equation}\lab{4-1}
(u_r\partial_r+u_z\partial_z)\omega_{\theta}^u-\frac{u_r\omega_{\theta}^u}{r}+\frac{1}{r}\partial_z(h_{\theta}^2-u_{\theta}^2)=(\partial^2_r+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r+\partial^2_z-\frac{1}{r^2})\omega_{\theta}^u
+ (\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z).
\end{equation}
Choose the domain
\be\no
\mc{C}_3 = \{ (r, \th, z): \f 78 < r < \f 98, 0 \le \th \le 2 \pi, |z| \le \f 14 \}.
\ee
Take a cut-off function $\phi (y) \in C_0^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)$, satisfying $0 \le \phi \le 1 $, $\phi (y) = 1 $ for $y \in \mc{C}_3$ and $ | \na \phi | \le C $, for some positive constant $C$. Taking $\p_r$ to the equation in \eqref{4-1} and multiplying the resulting equation by $\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2$, and integrating over $\mathcal{C}_2$, we deduce that
\be\no
&& \int_{\mc{C}_2} |\na (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi)|^2 dy
+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} 2 \f{|\p_r \om_{\th}^u|^2 \phi^2}{r^2} dy
\\\no
&&
= \int_{\mc{C}_2} |\p_r \om_{\th}^u|^2 |\na \phi|^2 dy
+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} \f 2{r^3} \om_{\th}^u \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2 dy
+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} u_z \f 1r \p_z \om_{\th}^u \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2 dy\\\no
&& +
\int_{\mc{C}_2} 2 u_r \p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi) \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi dy
- \int_{\mc{C}_2} \f 1{r^2} u_r \om_{\th}^u \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2 dy
+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} \f 1r u_r |\p_r \om_{\th}^u|^2 \phi^2 dy
\\\no
&&+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} u_z [\p_z (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi) \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi - | \p_r \om_{\th}^u|^2 \phi \p_z \phi + \p_z \om_{\th}^u \p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi) \phi + \p_z \om_{\th}^u \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi \p_r \phi ] dy\\\no
&&
- \int_{\mc{C}_2} (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi) \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi - (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) \phi |\p_r \om_{\th}^u|^2 \phi dy\\\no
&&
- \int_{\mc{C}_2} u_r \bigg[ \f 1r \om_{\th}^u \p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi ) \phi + \f 1r \om_{\th}^u \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi \p_r \phi \bigg]dy
+ \int_{\mc{C}_2} \f 2{r^2} (u_{\th} \om_r^u - h_{\th} \om_r^h ) \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2 dy\\\no
&& +
2 \int_{\mc{C}_2} h_{\th} [\p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi ) \f {\om_r^h \phi}{r} + \f 1r \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi \om_r^h \p_r \phi ]
-
u_{\th } [\p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi ) \f {\om_r^u \phi}r + \f 1r \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi \om_r^u \p_r \phi] dy\\\no
&& - \int_{\mc{C}_2} (\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z) (\p_r (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi) \phi + \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi \p_r \phi + \f 1r \p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi^2) dy
\\\no
& \le & C (1 + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)} + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)}^2 )
\| \na \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2 + C \| \bar{\ff} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2
\\\no
&&
+C (1 + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)}^2 ) \| (\om_r^u,\om_{\th}^u, \om_r^h) \|^2_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)} + \f 18 \| \na (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi)\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2\\\no
& \leq &
C (1+\|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)} + \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)}^2 + \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)}^3) \| (\om_r^u,\om_{\th}^u, \om_r^h) \|^2_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}\\\no
&& + (1 + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)} + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)}^2 ) \| (f_r, f_z) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2 + C \| \bar{\ff} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2\\\no
&& + \f 18 \| \na (\p_r \om_{\th}^u \phi)\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}^2,
\ee
where the second inequality follows from \eqref{om-th}.
Set
\be\no
\bar{\mc{C}}_3 \= \{ (r,z): \f 78 < r< \f 98, |z| \le \f 14 \}.
\ee
Utilizing the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet} inequality in Lemma \ref{BG ineq} and the above localized energy estimates, we conclude
\be\no
&& \| \p_r \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^{\oo} (\bar{\mc{C}}_3)} \\\no
& \leq & C
(1 + \| \na (\p_r \om_{\th}^u) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_3)}) \ln^{1/2} (e + \| \De (\p_r \om_{\th}^u )\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_3)})\\\no
&\leq &
C \bigg(1 +
(1+\|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)}^{\f 12} + \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)} + \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_2)}^{\f 32}) \| (\om_r^u,\om_{\th}^u, \om_r^h) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)} \\\no
&& \q + (1 + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|^{\f 12}_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)} + \| (\u, \textbf{h} ) \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_2)} )\| (f_r, f_z ) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)} + \| \bar{\ff} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_2)}\bigg)\\\no
&& \q
\times
\ln^{1/2} (e + \| \De (\p_r \om_{\th}^u )\|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_3)}).
\ee
Then scaling back to the domains $\mc{C}_{2,\la}$ and
\be\no
\mc{C}_{3,\la} = \{ (r, \th, z): \f {7 \la}{8} < r < \f {9 \la}{8}, 0 \le \th \le 2 \pi, |z| \le \f {\la }{4} \},
\ee
we derive that
\be\no
& &\la^3 \| \p_r \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_{3, \la})} \\\no
& \leq &
C \bigg( 1 + ( 1 + \la^{\f 12} \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la })}^{\f 12}+ \la \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la})} + \la^{\f 32}\|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la})}^{\f 32})
\\\no
&& \q \times \la^{\f 12}\| (\om_r^u,\om_{\th}^u, \om_r^h) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la})}
+ (1 + \la^{\f 12} \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la })}^{\f 12}+ \la \|(\u, \textbf{h} )\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{C}_{2, \la})}) \\\no
&& \q \times
\la^{ \f 32} \| (f_r, f_z ) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la })} + \la^{\f 52} \| \bar{\ff} \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la })}\bigg)
\ln^{\f 12}
(
e + \la^{\f 72} \| \De (\p_r \om_{\th}^u) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la})}
)\\\no
& \leq & C (M) \la^{\f 32} (\f {\ln \la }{\la })^{\f 34} \la^{\f 12} (\ln \la)^{\f 12}\\\no
& \le & C (M) \la^{- \f 54} (\ln \la)^{\f 54},
\ee
where we use the boundedness of $\|\nabla^4 {\bf u}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$ to control $\| \De (\p_r \om_{\th}^u) \|_{L^2 (\mc{C}_{2, \la})}$, which follows from the $L^p$ theory to steady Stokes system and a bootstrap argument under the assumption that ${\bf f}\in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and ${\bf g}\in H^3(\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Thus
\be\no
\| \p_r \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_{3, \la})} \le C (M) \f{(\ln \la)^{5/4}}{\la^{ 7/4} }.
\ee
Similarly, there holds
\be\no
\| \p_z \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_{3, \la})} \le C (M) \f{(\ln \la)^{5/4}}{\la^{ 7/4} }.
\ee
Then
\be\no
\| \na \om_{\th}^u \|_{L^{\oo} (\mc{C}_{3, \la})} \le C (M)\f{(\ln \la)^{5/4}}{\la^{ 7/4} }.
\ee
\textbf{Step 2:} we employ the \textit{Biot-Savart law} to get better decay estimates of $|\omega_r^u|+|\omega_z^u|$ and $|\omega_r^h|+|\omega_z^h|$.
Since $- \De (u_r \e_r + u_z \e_z ) = \curl (\om_{\th }^u \e_{\th })$, then according to the formula (2.105) in \cite[Page 77]{mb},
\be\lab{cz-kernel}
\na (u_r \e_r + u_z \e_z) = \mb{K} \ast (\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th }) + \mathbb{C}(\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th}),
\ee
where $\mathbb{C}(\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th})$ is a matrix whose entries are components of $\om_{\th}^u \e_{\th}$ and $\mathbb{K}$ is a \textit{Calderon-Zymund kernel}.
Applying Lemma \ref{lemma CZ} to (\ref{cz-kernel}) and note the decay of $\om_{\th}^u$, we can get
\begin{equation}\lab{na-u-rz}
|\nabla u_r|+|\nabla u_z|\le C\frac{(\ln \lambda)^{7/4}}{\lambda^{5/4}}.
\end{equation}
Now go back to (\ref{na-om-rzu-lam}) and (\ref{na-om-rzh-lam}), we get better decay on $|\omega_r^u|+ |\omega_z^u|$ and $|\omega_r^h| + |\omega_z^h|$,
\be\no
|\omega_r^u|+|\omega_z^u|&\le& C\lambda^{-3/2}\bigg(\lambda^{1/2}(\lambda^{-1/2}(\ln \lambda)^{1/2})^{1/2}+\lambda(\lambda^{-5/4}(\ln \lambda)^{7/4})^{1/2}\bigg)(\ln \lambda)^{1/2}\\
&\le& C \lambda^{-9/8}(\ln\lambda)^{11/8},\q \text{ for large $\lambda$},\\\no
|\omega_r^h|+|\omega_z^h|
&\le&
C\lambda^{-2} \la (\ln \la )^{7/8} (\ln \la)^{1/2}\\
&\le& C \la^{-1} (\ln \la)^{11/8},\q \text{ for large $\lambda$}.
\ee
{\bf Step 3:} Improved decay rate of $\na h_{\th}$ by weighted energy estimates.
By slightly modifying the proof in Lemma 3.2 in \cite{weng15} (taking $\delta=(\frac{1}{2})^-$ in that lemma), we obtain the following estimates, which will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{main13}.
\bl\lab{weighted estimate1}
{\it Let $({\bf u}, {\bf h}, p)$ be an axially symmetric smooth D-solutions to inhomogeneous stationary MHD equations with \emph{\textbf{f}} and \emph{\textbf{g}} satisfying (\ref{fg}) and (\ref{fg1}), where ${\bf h}(r,z) = h_{\theta} (r,z){\bf e}_{\theta}$. Then the following estimates hold
\begin{eqnarray}\no
&&\int_{\mbR^3}|\om^u_{\th}|^2 dx+\int_{\mbR^3}r^{(\frac{3}{2})^-}|\na\om^u_{\th}|^2 dx + \int_{\mbR^3}r^{(\frac{5}{2})^-}|\p_z\na\om^u_{\th}|^2 dx\leq C(M).
\end{eqnarray}
}
\el
\bl\lab{weighted estimate3}
{\it Let $({\bf u},{\bf h},p)$ be an axially symmetric smooth D-solutions to inhomogeneous stationary MHD equations with \emph{\bf{f}} satisfying (\ref{fg}), (\ref{fg1}) and \emph{\bf{g}} satisfying (\ref{fg2}), where ${\bf h}(r,z) = h_{\th} (r,z){\bf e}_{\th}$, suppose that
\be\lab{uh}
|u_r(r,z)| + |u_{\th}(r,z)| + |u_z(r,z)| + |h_{\th}(r,z)| &\le& C (1+r)^{- \de},\\\lab{na-u}
|\na u_r(r,z)| +|\na u_z(r,z)| &\le& C (1+r)^{-1-\ga},
\ee
holds for some $\de, \ga \in [0,1]$. Then the following estimates holds
\be\lab{naomu}
&&\int_{\mathbb R^3} r^{1+\de \land \ga} (|\na \om_r^u|^2 + |\na \om_z^u|^2) dx \le C(M),\\\lab{naomh}
&&\int_{\mathbb R^3} r^{1+\de \wedge \ga} (|\na \om_r^h|^2 + |\na \om_z^h|^2) dx \le C(M),\\\lab{pnaomu}
&&\int_{\mathbb R^3} r^{1 + \de \wedge \ga + 2\de} (|\partial_z \na \om_r^u|^2 + |\partial_z \na \om_z^u|^2) dx \le C(M),\\\lab{pnaomh}
&&\int_{\mathbb R^3} r^{1 + \de \wedge \ga + 2\de} (|\p_z \na \om_r^h|^2 + |\p_z \na \om_z^h|^2) dx \le C(M),
\ee
where $\de \wedge \ga = \mathrm{min} \{\de, \ga\}$.
In particular, by Lemma \ref{a decay lemma}, we obtain the following decay rate:
\be\no
|\om_r^u(r,z)|+|\om^u_z(r,z)| &\le& C(M) r^{-\frac{7}{8}-\frac {1}{8} (3(\de \wedge \ga) + 2 \de)},\\\no
|\om_r^h(r,z)|+|\om^h_z(r,z)| &\le& C(M) r^{-\frac{7}{8}-\frac {1}{8} (3(\de \wedge \ga) + 2 \de)}.
\ee
}\el
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma 3.8 in \cite{weng15}, we have (\ref{naomu}) and (\ref{pnaomu}). Similarly, we can prove (\ref{naomh}). It remains to prove (\ref{pnaomh}).
We start to derive the weighted estimates of $\na \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}$.
\be\lab{mag111}
&& \p_{rz}^2 \b[(u_r\p_r+ u_z\p_z) h_{\theta}-\f{u_r}{r} h_{\theta}\b]= \b(\p_r^2+\f1r\p_r+\p_z^2-\f1{r^2}\b)\p_{rz}^2 h_{\theta} \\\no
&&\q\q -\f1{r^2}\p_{rz}^2 h_{\theta}+ \f{2}{r^3}\p_z h_{\theta} + \p_{rz}^2 (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)
\ee
take $\eta^2 r^{a_2} \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}$ as a test function to (\ref{mag111}) and integrating over $\mbR^3$, we obtain
\be\no
0&=& \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} |\na \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx
+\f12\int_{\mbR^3} \b[\p_r(\eta^2 r^{a_2-1})- \p^2_r(\eta^2 r^{a_2})\b] |\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx\\\no
&\q&+2\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2-2} |\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx
-\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \p_{rzz}^3 h_{\theta} (u_r\p_r+ u_z\p_z)\p_r h_{\th}dx\\\no
& \q &- \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \p_{rzz}^3 h_{\theta}(\p_r u_r\p_r + \p_r u_z\p_z) h_{\theta}dx
- \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \p^3_{rzz} h_{\th} \b(\f {u_r}{r}- \f {\p_r u_r}{r}\b)\f{h_{\th}}{r} dx\\\no
&\q& +\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \p^3_{rzz} h_{\th} \f{u_r}{r} \p_r h_{\th} dx
+2 \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2-2} \p^3_{rzz} h_{\th} \f{h_{\th}}{r} dx\\\no
&\q&- \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \p_{rzz}^3 h_{\th} \p_r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z) dx
\\\no
& \eqqcolon & - \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} |\na \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx + \sum_{i=1}^2 D_{2i} + \sum_{j=1}^6 E_{2j}.
\ee
Using previous estimates, we can bound these terms as follows.
\be\no
|D_{21}|&\leq& C \int_{r\geq r_0} r^{a_2-2} |\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx\leq C \int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+\ga} | \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx,\q\text{if } a_2\leq 3+\ga,\\\no
|D_{22}|&\leq& C \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2-2} |\p^2_{rz} h_{\th}|^2 dx \leq C \int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+\ga} |\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx,\q \text{if }a_2\leq 3+\ga,
\\\no
|E_{21}
&\leq&\f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx+ \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}(|u_r|+|u_z|)^2 |\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx\\\no
&\leq& \f{1}{16} \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} |\na \p^2_{rz} h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+\ga} |\p^2_{rz} h_{\th}|^2 dx,\q\text{if } a_2\leq 1+\ga+2\de,
\\\no
|E_{22}|
&\leq&\f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx+ \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}(|\na u_r|+|\na u_z|)^2 |\na h_{\th}|^2 dx\\\no
&\leq& \f{1}{16} \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} |\na \p^2_{rz} h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \|\na h_{\th}\|_{L^2}^2,\q\text{if }a_2\leq 2(1+\ga),
\ee\be\no
|E_{23}|
&\leq&\f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx+ \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}\b(\f {|u_r|^2}{r^2} + |\na u_r|^2\b)|\f{h_{\theta}}{r}|^2 dx\\\no
&\leq& \f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx+ C\int_{\mbR^3} \f {h_{\th}^2}{r^2},\q\text{if } a_2\leq 2\min\{1+\ga, 1+\de\},
\\\no
|E_{24}|
&\leq&\f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} \f{u_r^2}{r^2} |\na h_{\th}|^2 dx,\q\text{if } a_2\le 2(1+\de),
\\\no
|E_{25}|
&\leq& \f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2-4} \f {h_{\th}^2}{r^2} dx\\\no
&\le& \f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \f {h_{\th}^2}{r^2} dx,\q\text{if } a_2\le 4,\\\no
| E_{26}|
& \leq & \f1{16}\int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2}|\na\p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \eta^2 r^{a_2} |\p_r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z)|^2 dx.
\ee
We infer that
\be\lab{htheta33}
\int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+2\de +\ga}|\na \p_{rz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx<\oo.
\ee
Similarly, there also holds
\be\lab{htheta34}
\int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+2\de +\ga} |\na\p_{zz}^2 h_{\th}|^2 dx<\oo.
\ee
Therefore
\be\no
\int_{\mbR^3} r^{1+2\de +\ga}(|\na \p_z \om^h_r|^2+ |\na \p_z \om^h_z|^2) dx<\oo.
\ee
\end{proof}
By \eqref{uhdecay} and (\ref{na-u-rz}), choose $\delta=(\frac12)^-$ and $\gamma=(\frac14)^-$ in Lemma \ref{weighted estimate3}, and we are led to
\be\lab{htheta48}
\int_{\mbR^3} r^{(\f54)^-}(|\na \om^h_r|^2 +|\na \om^h_z|^2 ) dx<\oo, \\\lab{htheta49}
\int_{\mbR^3} r^{(\f 94)^-} (|\na \p_z \om^h_r|^2 + |\na \p_z \om^h_z|^2) dx<\oo,
\ee
and
\be\lab{htheta50}
|\om^h_r(r,z)| + |\om_z^h (r,z)|\leq C(M) r^{-(\f{35}{32})^-}.
\ee
Note that $\omega_r^h= -\p_z h_{\theta}$ and $\p_r h_{\theta}= \omega_z^h- \frac{h_{\theta}}{r}$, we also have (\ref{decay-na-h-th}). The proof of Theorem \ref{main12} is finished.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main13}}\noindent
Note that the scaling technique by employing the \textit{Brezis-Gallouet inequality} can not be applied to get any decay along the axis, the only way we know is to do the weighted energy estimates with the weight $\rho = \sqrt{r^2 + z^2}$.
The proof is organized as follows. In Step 1, some weighted energy estimates for $\Pi \= \f {h_{\th }}{r}$ were derived by using the weight $\rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}$ as in \cite{weng15}. In Step 2, we further infer that $|\Pi (r,z)|^2 \le \f{C}{r^2|z|^{(\f{31}{84}+\f{41}{84}\tau)^-}}$ and
\be\no
|h_{\theta}(r,z)| &\leq & C(M)(\rho+1)^{-(\f{31}{168}+\f{41}{168}\tau)^-},\q \forall (r,z)\in \mbR_+\times \mbR, \rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}.
\ee
In Step 3, where the special case $u_{\th} \equiv 0$ is considered, it will be shown that
\be\no
|\om_{\th}^u (r,z)| & \leq & C(M) (1+\rho)^{-(\f {13}{64} (1+\tau))^-}, \q \forall (r,z) \in \mbR_+\times \mbR, \rho = \sqrt{r^2 + z^2},
\ee
using similar arguments in the previous two steps on the equation of $\Om \= \f {\om_{\th}^u }r$. In Step 4, the decay of $(u_r, u_z)$ will be obtained from $\omega_{\theta}^u$ by the Biot-Savart law. Finally, we complete the proof by an iteration of $\tau$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main13}]
{\bf Step 1.} We first notice that the quantity $\Pi \= \f{h_{\th}}{r}$ satisfies the following elliptic equation
\be\lab{Pi}
(u_r\p_r+ u_z\p_z)\Pi = \b(\p_r^2+\f{3}{r}\p_r+ \p_z^2\b)\Pi + \f 1r (\p_z g_r - \p_r g_z).
\ee
Following the argument developed in \cite{weng15}, we have the following weighted estimates for $\Pi$.
{\it Suppose that
\be\lab{urz100}
|u_r(r,z)| + |u_z(r,z)|\leq C (1+\rho)^{-\tau},\q \rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}
\ee
for some $\tau\in [0,1]$, and \emph{\bf{g}} satisfies (\ref{fg4}) and (\ref{fg5}), then we have
\be\lab{pi1}
&& \int_{\mbR^3} |\Pi(r,z)|^2 r dr dz < \oo,\\
&&\int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{1+\tau}|\nabla\Pi(r,z)|^2 rdr dz <\oo,\\\lab{pi2}
&&\int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{1+3\tau} |\nabla\p_z\Pi(r,z)|^2 rdr dz <\oo.
\ee
}
{\bf Step 2.} Derive the decay rate for $h_{\th}$.
By a priori estimates, we have
\be\lab{nahth}
&&\int_{\mbR^3} \f {|h_{\th}(r,z)|^2}{r^2}+ |\na h_{\th} (r,z)|^2 dx < \oo.
\ee
Combining the results in \eqref{naomh} and (\ref{pi1})-(\ref{nahth}), then
\be\lab{pi3}
&&\int_{\mbR^3} |\Pi(r,z)|^2 dx<\oo,\\\lab{pi4}
&&\int_{\mbR^3} (r^{2}+|z|^{1+\tau}) |\na\Pi(r,z)|^2 dx<\oo,\\\lab{pi5}
&&\int_{\mbR^3} (r^{3+\ga}+|z|^{1+3\tau}) |\na\p_z\Pi(r,z)|^2 dx<\oo,
\ee
where $\ga$ can be any constant less than $\f 14$. Fix $d>1$, then for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
\be\no
\int_{2^n}^{2^{n+1}} \int_d^{\oo} |\Pi(r,z)|^2 rdr dz<\oo.
\ee
By mean value theorem, there exists $z_n\in [2^n, 2^{n+1}]$ such that
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\Pi(r,z_n)|^2 rdr \leq \f{C}{z_n}.
\ee
Then for any $z$, choose $z_n>z$ and
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\Pi(r,z)|^2 r dr &=&\int_d^{\oo} |\Pi(r,z_n)|^2 r dr- 2\int_d^{\oo} \int_z^{z_n}\Pi(r,t)\p_t \Pi(r,t) r dr dt=: I_1 +I_2,\\\no
|I_2|&\leq&\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\p_t\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\\\no
&\leq& \f{C}{|z|^{\f12(1+\tau)}}.
\ee
Letting $z_n\to \oo$, then $I_1\to 0$ and
\be\lab{pi6}
\int_d^{\oo}|\Pi(r,z)|^2 rdr\leq \f{C}{|z|^{\f12(1+\tau)}}.
\ee
Similarly, one can find $z_n\in [2^n, 2^{n+1}]$ such that
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na\Pi(r,z_n)|^2 rdr &\leq& \f{C}{z_n^2},\\\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na\Pi(r,z)|^2 r dr&=&\int_d^{\oo} |\na\Pi(r,z_n)|^2 r dr- 2\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} \na\Pi(r,t)\cdot \p_t\na\Pi(r,t) r dr dt\\\no
& \eqqcolon & J_1+J_2,\\\no
|J_2|&\leq&\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\na\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\p_t\na\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\\\no
&\leq&\begin{cases}
\f{C}{d^{\f{5+\ga}{2}}},\\
\f{C}{|z|^{1+2\tau}}.
\end{cases}
\ee
Letting $n\to \oo$, $J_1\to 0$. Recall that $\ga=(\f 14)^-$, then $J_2\leq \min\b\{\f{C}{d^{\f{5+\ga}{2}}}, \f{C}{|z|^{1+2\tau}}\b\}$ and by interpolation
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na\Pi(r,z)|^2 r dr\leq \b(\f{C}{d^{(\f{21}{8})^-}}\b)^{\f{16}{21}} \b(\f{C}{|z|^{1+2\tau}}\b)^{\f{5}{21}}\leq \f{C}{d^2 |z|^{(\f5{21}(1+2\tau))^-}}.
\ee
Finally,
\be\no
|\Pi(d,z)|^2 &=&\f{1}{r_1-d}\int_d^{r_1} |\Pi(r,z)|^2 dr+ (|\Pi(r,z)|^2-\f{1}{r_1-d}\int_d^{r_1}|\Pi(r,z)|^2 dr)\\\no
& \eqqcolon & H_1 +H_2,
\ee
\be\no
|H_2|&=&\b||\Pi(d,z)|^2-|\Pi(d_*,z)|^2\b| \leq 2\int_d^{r_1} |\Pi(r,z)\p_r\Pi(r,z)|dr\\\no
&\leq&\f{C}{d}\b(\int_d^{\oo}|\Pi(r,z)|^2 rdr\b)^{1/2}\b(\int_d^{\oo}|\na \Pi(r,z)|^2 r dr\b)^{1/2}\\\no
&\leq&\f{C}{d}\b(\f{C}{|z|^{\f12(1+\tau)}}\b)^{1/2}\b(\f{C}{d^2 |z|^{(\f 5{21} (1 + 2 \tau))^-}}\b)^{\f 12}\leq \f{C}{d^2|z|^{(\f{31}{84}+\f{41}{84}\tau)^-}},
\ee
It follows from \eqref{pi-z} that $\displaystyle\lim_{r_1\to \infty} H_1=0$ and
\be\lab{pi-z}
|h_{\theta}(d,z)|\leq C(M) |z|^{-(\f{31}{168}+\f{41}{168}\tau)^-}.
\ee
Together with previous decay results on $r$, we have
\be\lab{htheta-decay}
|h_{\theta}(r,z)| &\leq & C(M)(\rho+1)^{-(\f{31}{168}+\f{41}{168}\tau)^-},\q \forall (r,z)\in \mbR_+\times \mbR, \rho=\sqrt{r^2+z^2}.
\ee
In general case where $u_{\th} \neq 0$, we only have $\tau=0$, which implies that $|h_{\theta}| \le C(M) (\rho +1)^{- \f {31}{168}}$. We remark here that we do not obtain any decay rate for $\Pi$, since the weighted estimate for $\na \p_r \Pi$ is not available.
{\bf Step 3.} For the special case where the flow has zero swirl $u_{\th}\equiv 0$, we can further derive the decay rates of ${\bf u}$.
In this case, one has
\be\no
(u_r\p_r + u_z\p_z )\om_{\th}^u -\f{u_r}{r} \om^u_{\th} + \f1r\p_z (h_{\theta}^2) =\b(\p_r^2+\f1r\p_r+\p_z^2-\f1{r^2}\b) \om^u_{\th} - (\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z) ,
\ee
and
\be\no
(u_r\p_r+ u_z\p_z)\Om +\p_z \Pi^2= \b(\p_r^2+\f{3}{r}\p_r + \p_z^2\b)\Om + \f 1r (\p_z f_r -\p_r f_z) ,
\ee
for $\Om \= \f{\om^u_{\th}(r,z)}{r}$. We run the same argument as in \cite{weng15} for $\Om$ to derive the estimate $\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \rho^{d_1}|\nabla \Omega|^2 dx$, there is an additional term
\be\no
\b|\int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2\rho^{d_1}\Om \p_z \Pi^2 dx\b| & \le & 2 \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_1} |\Pi| |\Om| |\p_z \Pi| dx\\\no
& \le & C \|\Pi \|_{L^{\oo}} \| \Om\|_{L^2} (\int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{2 d_1} |\p_z \Pi|^2 dx)^{1/2} \\\no
& < & \oo,\q \text{if } d_1 \le \f {1+ \tau}{2},
\ee
where $\phi$ is a cut-off function satisfying $\phi \in C^{\oo}_0 (\mbR^3)$, $\phi = \phi (\rho)$, $0 \le \phi \le 1$, $\phi(\rho) =1$ on $2 \rho_0 \le \rho \le \rho_1$, $\phi (\rho) =0$ on $\rho \le \rho_0$ or $\rho \ge 2 \rho_1$, such that $|\na \phi| \le \f {C}{\rho_0}$ on $\rho_0 < \rho < 2 \rho_0$ and $|\na \phi| \le \f {C}{\rho_1}$ on $\rho_1 < \rho < 2 \rho_1$, and $\na \phi =0$ elsewhere.
Thus
\be\lab{Om1}
\int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{\f {1 + \tau}2} |\na \Om(r,z)|^2 dx<\oo.
\ee
To derive the estimate of $\na \p_z\Om$, we see that $\p_z\Om$ satisfies
\be\lab{pz-Om}
\p_z[(u_r\p_r + u_z\p_z) \Om + \p_z \Pi^2] = \b(\p_r^2 +\f{3}{r}\p_r+ \p_z^2\b)\p_z \Om + \p_z (\f 1r (\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z)).
\ee
Multiplying (\ref{pz-Om}) by $\phi^2 \rho^{d_2} \p_z \Om$ and integrating over $\mbR^3$, then we get
\be\no
0 & = & \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx - \f 12 \int_{\mbR^3} [\p_r^2 (\phi^2 \rho^{d_2}) + \p_z^2 (\phi^2 \rho^{d_2})] |\p_z \Om|^2 dx \\\no
&&+ \f 12 \int_{\mbR^3} \p_r (\phi^2 \rho^{d_2}) \f {|\p_z \Om|^2} {r} dx - \int_{\mbR^3} \p_z (\phi^2 \rho^{d_2}) \p_z \Om (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) \Om dx \\\no
&&- \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} \p_z^2 \Om (u_r \p_r + u_z \p_z) \Om dx
- \int_{\mbR^3} \p_z(\phi^2 \rho^{d_2}) \p_z \Om \cdot \p_z \Pi^2 dx\\\no
&& - \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} \p_z^2 \Om \cdot \p_z \Pi^2 dx
+ \int_{\mbR^3} \p_z (\phi^2 \rho^{d_2}) \p_z \Om (\f {(\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z)}{r}) dx \\\no
&& + \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} \p_z^2 \Om \f {(\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z)}{r}dx\\\no
& \eqqcolon & \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx + \sum_{i=1}^6 K_i + \sum_{j=1}^2 Q_j.
\ee
These terms can be bounded as follows.
\be\no
|K_1| + |K_2| & \le & C \int_{\rho \ge \rho_0} \rho^{d_2-2} |\na \Om|^2 dx \le \oo, \q \text{if } d_2 \le \f {5 + \tau}{2},
\\\no
|K_3| & \le & C \int_{\rho \ge \rho_0} \rho^{d_2-1} |(u_r, u_z)| |\na \Om|^2 dx \le \oo, \q \text{if } d_2 \le \f 32(1+ \tau),\
\\\no
|K_4| & \le & \f 18 \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |(u_r, u_z)|^2 |\na \Om|^2 dx, \q \text{if } d_2 \le \f 12 + \f {5\tau} 2,
\\\no
|K_5|&\le& C \int_{\mbR^3} \phi \rho^{d_2-1} |\na\Om||\Pi||\p_z\Pi| dx\\\no
&\leq& C \int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{\f {1 + \tau} 2} |\na\Om|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{2(d_2-1)-\f {1+ \tau} 2} |\Pi|^2 |\p_z\Pi|^2 dx\\\no
&\leq& C \int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{1+\tau} |\na\Om|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{1+\tau}|\p_z\Pi|^2 dx,\q\text{if } d_2\leq \f 74 + \f 34 \tau,\\\no
|K_6|&\leq& \f{1}{8} \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2}|\p_z^2\Om|^2 dx+ C \int_{\mbR^3}\phi^2 \rho^{d_2} \Pi^2 |\p_z \Pi|^2 dx\\\no
&\leq& \f{1}{8} \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2}|\p_z^2\Om|^2 dx+ C \int_{\mbR^3}\rho^{1+\tau}|\p_z \Pi|^2 dx, \q\text{if } d_2\leq 1 + \tau,
\ee
and
\be\no
| Q_1| & \le & C \int_{\rho \ge \rho_0} \rho^{2 (d_2 -1)- (1+\tau)} |\f {\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z}r|^2 dx + C \int_{\rho \ge \rho_0} \rho^{\f {1+ \tau} 2} |\na \Om|^2 dx, \q \text{if } d_2 \le \f {4+\tau}{2},\\\no
| Q_2 | & \le & \f 18 \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx + C \int_{\mbR^3} \phi^2 \rho^{d_2} |\f {\p_z f_r - \p_r f_z}r|^2 dx.
\ee
Letting $\rho_1\to \infty$, we obtain
\be\lab{Om2}
\int_{\mbR^3} \rho^{1+\tau} |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx<\oo.
\ee
Combining the weighted energy estimate in Lemma \ref{weighted estimate1} and \eqref{Om1}-\eqref{Om2}, we find
\be\no
&&\int_{\mbR^3} r^2 |\Om|^2 dx<\oo,\\\no
&&\int_{\mbR^3} (r^{3+\de} +|z|^{ \f {1 + \tau}2 }) |\na \Om|^2 dx<\oo,\\\no
&&\int_{\mbR^3} (r^{3+3\de}+|z|^{1+\tau}) |\na \p_z \Om|^2 dx <\oo.
\ee
Same as {\bf Step 2}, fix any $d >1$, we have
\be\no
\int_{d}^{\oo} |\Om (r,z)|^2 r dr \le \f {C}{ d |z|^{\f {1+ \tau}{4}}}.
\ee
For each $n \in \mathbb{N}$,
\be\no
\int_{2^n}^{2^{n+1}} \int_d^{\oo} |z|^{\f {1+\tau}{2}} |\na \Om(r,z)|^2 r dr dz < \oo.
\ee
By mean value theorem, one can find $z_n \in [2^n, 2^{n+1}]$ such that
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na \Om (r, z_n)|^2 r dr & \le & \f {C}{|z_n|^{3/2}},\\\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na \Om (r,z)|^2 r dr & =& \int_d^{\oo} |\na \Om (r,z_n)|^2 r dr - 2 \int_d^{\oo} \int_z^{z_n} \na \Om (r,t) \cdot \p_t \na \Om(r,t) r dr dt \\\no
& \=& L_1 + L_2,
\\\no
|L_2|&\leq&\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\na\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\b(\int_d^{\oo}\int_z^{z_n} |\p_t\na\Pi(r,t)|^2 r drdt\b)^{1/2}\\\no
&\leq&\begin{cases}
\f{C}{d^{3 + 2 \delta}},\\
\f{C}{|z|^{\f 34 (1 +\tau)}}.
\end{cases}
\ee
Letting $n \to \oo$, $L_1 \to 0$. Take $\delta = (\f 12)^-$ and $L_2 \le \textrm{min} \{\f{C}{d^{3 + 2 \delta}} ,\f{C}{|z|^{\f 34 (1 +\tau)}} \}$,
\be\no
\int_d^{\oo} |\na \Om (r,z)|^2 r dr \le \b(\f C{d^{4-}}\b)^{\f 14} \b( \f C {|z|^{\f 34 (1+\tau)}}\b)^{\f 34} \le \f C{d |z|^{\f 9{16} (1+\tau)^-}}.
\ee
Hence,
\be\no
|\Om(d,z)|^2 &=& \f 1{r_1 - d} \int_d^{r_1} |\Om(r,z)|^2 dr + \b(|\Om(d,z)|^2 - \f 1{r_1 - d} \int_d^{r_1} |\Om(r,z)|^2 dr \b) \\\no
& \eqqcolon & G_1 + G_2.
\ee
\be\no
|G_2| & =& \b||\Om(d,z)|^2 - |\Om(d_*,z)|^2 \b| \\\no
& \le & 2 \int_d^{r_1} |\Om(r,z) \cdot \p_r \Om(r,z)| dr\\\no
&\le & \f Cd \b(\int_d^{\oo} |\Om(r,z)|^2 r dr \b)^{1/2} \b(\int_d^{\oo} |\na \Om(r,z)|^2 r dr \b)^{1/2}\\\no
& \le & \f Cd \b(\f C{d |z|^{\f 14 (1+\tau)^-}} \b)^{1/2} \b(\f C{d |z|^{\f 9 {16} (1+ \tau)^-}} \b)^{1/2} \le \f {C}{d^2 |z|^{\f {13}{32} (1+\tau)^-}}.
\ee
Therefore we have
\be\no
|\om_{\th}^u (r,z)| & \le & C(M) (1+\rho)^{-(\f {13}{64} (1+\tau))^-}, \q \forall (r,z) \in \mbR_+\times \mbR, \rho = \sqrt{r^2 + z^2}.
\ee
{\bf Step 4.} Decay rate of ${\bf u}$.
Following the argument developed in \cite{weng15}, fix any $\textbf{x} \in \mbR^3 \setminus\{0\}$, define a cut-off function $\varphi \in C_0^{\oo} (\mbR^3)$ satisfying $\varphi({\bf y}) \equiv 1$ for $\forall \, {\bf y} \in B_{\rho/4}({\bf x})$ and $\varphi ({\bf y}) \equiv 0$ for $\forall \,{\bf y} \notin B_{\rho/2}({\bf x})$, where $\rho = |{\bf x}|$ and $|\na \varphi ({\bf y})| \le \f C{|y|}$, $|\na^2 \varphi ({\bf y})| \le \f C{|y|^2}$ for ${\bf y} \in D:= B_{\rho/2}({\bf x}) \setminus B_{\rho/4} ({\bf x})$. For ${\bf u} ({\bf x}) = u_r {\bf e}_r + u_z {\bf e}_z $, since $\textrm{curl } {\bf u} = \om_{\th}^u {\bf e}_{\th}$, then
\be\no
{\bf u}({\bf x}) & = & - \int_{\mbR^3} \na_{\bf y} \Ga ({\bf x},{\bf y})\times (\om_{\phi}^u({\bf y}) \varphi({\bf y}) {\bf e}_{\phi}) d{\bf y}
- \int_{\mbR^3} \Ga ({\bf x},{\bf y}) ( \na_{\bf y}\varphi({\bf y}) \times {\bf e}_{\phi} ) \om_{\phi}^u({\bf y}) d{\bf y} \\\no
&& \int_{\mbR^3} \Ga ({\bf x},{\bf y}) (\De_{\bf y} \varphi) ({\bf y}) {\bf u} ({\bf y}) d{\bf y}
+ 2 \int_{\mbR^3} (\na_{\bf y} \Ga )({\bf x},{\bf y}) \cdot (\na_{\bf y} \varphi ) ({\bf y}) {\bf u} ({\bf y}) d{\bf y}
\\\no
& \= & \sum_{i=1}^4 R_i
\ee
According to \cite{weng15}, we have $|R_i| \le \f C{\rho^{1/2}}, \q i=2,3,4$. For the estimate of $R_1$, fix a $d \in (0, \f {\rho}{2})$, which will be determined later, then
\be\no
|R_1| & \le & \sup \limits_{{\bf y} \in B_d ({\bf x})} |\om_{\phi}^u({\bf y})| \int_{B_d ({\bf x})} |\na \Ga ({\bf x}-{\bf y})| d{\bf y}\\\no
&& + \b(\int_{B_{\rho/2} ({\bf x}) \setminus B_d ({\bf x})}|\na \Ga ({\bf x}-{\bf y})|^2 d{\bf y} \b)^{\f 12} \b(\int_{B_{\rho/2} ({\bf x}) \setminus B_d ({\bf x})}|\om_{\phi}^u({\bf y})|^2 d{\bf y} \b)^{\f 12}\\\no
& \le & C\rho^{-(\f {13}{64} (1+\tau))^-}d + C d^{-\f 12}.
\ee
By choosing $d= \rho^{\f {13}{96} (1+ \tau)^-}$, we obtain the bound for $|R_1| \le \f C{\rho^{\f {13}{192} (1+\tau)^-}}$. Hence we have
\be
|(u_r, u_z) (r,z)| \le C(M) (1+ \rho)^{- \f{13}{192}(1+\tau)^-}.
\ee
{\bf Step 5.} Iteration.
At the beginning, we have $\tau=0$ in \eqref{urz100}, then by using the arguments developed in {\bf Step 1} to {\bf Step 4}, we have a new $\tau$ in \eqref{urz100}, which will be denoted by $\tau_1=(\f{13}{192})^-$. Running a second iteration of these three steps, we get a new $\tau_2= \tau_1+ \f {13}{192}\tau_1$, and after $n$ iteration, we get
\be\no
\tau_n= \tau_{1}+ \f {13}{192}\tau_{n-1}= \tau_1 \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(\f {13}{192})^i.
\ee
Let $n\to \oo$, $\tau_n\to (\f {13}{179})^-$ as $n\to \oo$. In a word, we infer the following decay rates
\be\lab{urz300}
|u_r(r,z)| +|u_z(r,z)|&\leq& C(M) (\rho+1)^{-(\f {13}{179})^-},\\\lab{omgea300}
|\om_{\th}(r,z)| &\leq& C(M) (\rho+1)^{-(\f {39}{179})^-},\\\lab{htheta30}
|h_{\th}(r,z)|&\leq & C(M) (\rho + 1)^{-(\f {3041}{15036})^-}.
\ee
\end{proof}
{\bf Acknowledgement.} Weng is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China 11701431, 11971307, 12071359. We sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and thoughtful suggestions that help to improve this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
Cosmic-ray (CR) secondary nuclei such as lithium, beryllium, and boron are considered to be produced via spallation of heavier nuclei such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, which are mainly produced at Galactic supernova remnants (SNRs), during their propagation in the interstellar medium (ISM). The amount of secondary CR nuclei produced per primary nucleus is proportional to the grammage traversed by the primaries in the ISM. Therefore, the fluxes and rigidity dependence of secondary CRs are considered to be a probe of the propagation of CRs in our Galaxy. The boron-to-carbon (B/C) ratio has been measured up to $\sim {\rm TeV}$ per nucleon by AMS-02 \citep{2016PhRvL.117w1102A}, and it has been shown that above the rigidity $R$ of $65~{\rm GV}$ the B/C ratio can be well fitted with a power law, $\propto R^{\Delta}$ with the index $\Delta \simeq -0.333$. This agrees well with what is expected from the Kolmogorov turbulence theory, in which $\Delta$ is asymptotically equal to $-1/3$ \citep{1941DoSSR..30..301K}, and therefore it is suggested that the spatial diffusion coefficient $D$ as a function of rigidity is proportional to $R^{1/3}$. However, AMS-02 later reported that the spectra of CR lithium, beryllium, and boron deviate from a single power law above $\rm 200~{\rm GV}$ in an identical way and that they harden even more than the primary CRs \citep{PhysRevLett.120.021101} which have already been known to harden at higher rigidities from measurements by PAMELA \citep{2011Sci...332...69A}, CREAM \citep{2010ApJ...714L..89A}, and AMS-02 \citep{2015PhRvL.114q1103A,2015PhRvL.115u1101A,PhysRevLett.119.251101}.
Several scenarios have been discussed to account for the deviation of the index of the secondary-to-primary ratio at high rigidities from what is expected from the diffusion coefficient in the bulk of the ISM, including the effect of propagation in the Galaxy \citep{2010PhRvD..82b3009C,2012ApJ...752L..13T,2014ApJ...786..124C,2016ApJ...827..119C,2015PhRvD..92h1301T}, re-acceleration of secondary CRs \citep{2019MNRAS.488.2068B, 2020JCAP...11..027Y}, contribution from different kinds of sources \citep{2018PhRvL.120d1103K, 2020ApJ...889..167B, 2021ChPhC..45d1004N, 2021ApJ...911..151M} and the effect of acceleration of secondary CRs in supernova remnants (SNRs) \citep{2009PhRvL.103h1104M,2009PhRvD..80l3017A,2013PhRvD..87d7301K,2014PhRvD..90f1301M,2014PhRvD..89d3013C}. These models are proposed mainly to explain the positron fraction measured by PAMELA and AMS-02 \citep{2009Natur.458..607A, 2013PhRvL.110n1102A}, the antiproton-to-proton ratio measured by AMS-02 \citep{2016PhRvL.117i1103A}, or the spectral hardening of proton and helium \citep{2011Sci...332...69A, 2015PhRvL.114q1103A, 2015PhRvL.115u1101A}. Especially, in the last scenario, secondary CR nuclei are produced inside the SNRs via the spallation of primary CR nuclei being accelerated at the SNR shock, and are accelerated at the same shock. Since the spectra of secondary CR nuclei produced in this way are harder than that of primary CR nuclei, if their contributions are comparable to the background CR fluxes above a certain rigidity, the rigidity dependence of the secondary-to-primary ratio would deviate from what is expected from simple ISM diffusion. Very recently, \cite{2020arXiv201212853M} performed a comprehensive study on this scenario by searching for the best fit parameters to account for the recent AMS-02 measurements of CR protons, helium, positrons, anti-protons, and primary/secondary nuclei. However, they discuss the spectra of secondary CRs that are shock-accelerated and advected to the downstream (i.e., inside the SNRs), and they do not consider the spectra of CRs escaping from the SNRs, which are what we observe.
In this paper we discuss the energy-dependent escape of primary and secondary CRs that are accelerated in the SNR shock, and predict their energy spectrum assuming that they come from a local SNR. The escape of CR particles from an SNR has been intensively investigated to interpret the observed CR spectra and the gamma-ray emission feature of SNRs interacting with molecular clouds \citep{2005A&A...429..755P,2009ApJ...694..951R,2009MNRAS.396.1629G,2010MNRAS.407.1773C,2010A&A...513A..17O,2011MNRAS.410.1577O,2012MNRAS.427...91O,2016PhRvD..93h3001O,2011ApJ...729L..13O,2011MNRAS.415.1807D,2011ApJ...729...93K,2013MNRAS.431..415B}. If CRs escape the SNR in an energy-dependent way, the spectrum of escaping CRs would be steeper than that of CRs trapped inside the SNR \citep{2010A&A...513A..17O,2010MNRAS.407.1773C}, which may account for the steepness of the observed CR spectral index. Therefore, it is worth investigating theoretically the production, acceleration, and escape of secondary CRs in an SNR, and comparing them with observational data. In this work, we consider CR accelaration in SNRs not only within a uniform ISM but also those surrounded by a dense circumstellar medium (CSM). Recent intense optical and near-infrared transient searches have revealed that many SNe show signs of strong interaction between their ejecta and the CSM surrounding them. There are various classes of CSM-interacting SNe: Type IIn, Ibn, Ia-CSM, type I superluminous SN, etc (for a comprehensive review, see \citealp{2017hsn..book..403S}). The origin of such dense CSM is still uncertain, but many observations indicate that their progenitors had expelled the stellar material shortly before their explosions, and the mass-loss rates estimated from their observational properties are up to $\sim 10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ (assuming their wind velocities are $\sim 100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$), continuing for decades \citep{2014MNRAS.439.2917M}. The non-thermal emissions of photons or neutrinos due to the strong interactions between an SN ejecta and a dense CSM have been investigated in some studies \citep{2016APh....78...28Z, 2019ApJ...874...80M, 2019ApJ...872..157W, 2019ApJ...885...41M, 2020MNRAS.494.2760C, Matsuoka_2020}, and the nature of such a system as the origin of CRs has also been investigated \citep{2011PhRvD..84d3003M, 2014MNRAS.440.2528M}. However, the production and acceleration of secondary CRs in such a system, as well as their escape into the ISM, have not been discussed yet.
In Section 2, we describe our model of CR production inside a SNR surrounded by a CSM and energy-dependent escape of primary and secondary CRs. In Section 3 we solve the transport equations for primary and secondary CR nuclei to evaluate the spectra of the escaping CRs, compare them with observations, and discuss our results in light of stellar evolution scenarios. We conclude our work in Section 4.
\section{Model}
\subsection{Energy-dependent Cosmic-ray Escape Scenario}
Here we describe how CR particles accelerated at the SNR shock escape the source into the ISM depending on their energy, following \cite{2010A&A...513A..17O}. In the context of the diffusive shock acceleration (DSA) theory \citep{1987PhR...154....1B}, particles can go back and forth across the shock front and gain kinetic energy because they are scattered by the turbulent magnetic field around the shock. Especially, the turbulence in the upstream (i.e. the outside of the SNR shock) may be amplified by the streaming instability caused by the accelerating particles themselves \citep{1978MNRAS.182..147B,2000MNRAS.314...65L}. Since the turbulence is generated only in the vicinity of the shock front, if accelerated particles have sufficiently high energy, they can escape the SNR into the far upstream region without being trapped by the turbulent magnetic field. Using the diffusion coefficient of accelerated particles as a function of their momentum $D(p)$, the shock velocity $u_{\rm sh}$, and the distance from the shock beyond which the turbulence is negligible $l$, the escape condition for a particle accelerated at the shock can be described as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{D(p)}{u_{\rm sh}}\gtrsim l, \label{escapecondition}
\end{eqnarray}
where the left hand side represents the diffusion length of a particle with momentum $p$. \cite{2008ApJ...678..939Z} investigated the generation of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence driven by the non-resonant streaming instability using numerical MHD calculations, and show that $l$ should be the same order as the radius of the SNR, $R_{\rm sh}$.
As a SNR evolves with time, the magnetic field around the shock decays and the speed of the SNR shell slows down. As a result, the escape condition Eq.(\ref{escapecondition}) also evolves with time. Especially, if the diffusion length of a particle with a specific momentum increases faster than the SNR radius ($\sim l$), the required momentum of particles for escaping the SNR decreases with time. In other words, CR particles accelerated at the SNR shock can escape the SNR to far-upstream in an energy-dependent way. In the following subsections, we will evaluate the energy distribution of CR particles produced in a SNR taking into account the spallation of primary CRs, the production of secondary CRs, and their energy-dependent escape.
\subsection{Primary and Secondary Cosmic-rays in the Supernova Remnant Shock}
Here we present our formalism to derive the energy distributions of primary and secondary CRs produced in the SNR and their escaping fluxes as functions of time. In the following discussion, we focus on the CR nuclei of lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Among them, only oxygen is regarded as a pure primary element, while other lighter elements are partly or entirely produced via spallation of heavier nuclei during their propagation. Such an approximation is often used in calculating the fluxes of light nuclei \citep{2009PhRvL.103h1104M,2021ChPhC..45d1004N}.
We assume that the CR particles can be regarded as test particles during DSA in a SNR. Letting the shock front be at $x=0$, the stationary transport equation for the distribution functions of CR nuclei $f_i(x,p)$ ($i$ represents the type of nuclei) in the shock rest frame is
\begin{eqnarray}
u(x)\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[ D_i(p)\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x} \right] + \frac{p}{3}\frac{du}{dx}\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial p}-\Gamma_i f_i + q_i \nonumber \\
&&+ u_-Q_i\delta(x)\delta(p-p_0), \label{transport}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u(x)$ is the fluid velocity, $D_i(p)$ is the diffusion coefficient for a nuclei of $i$ with momentum $p$, $\Gamma_i$ is the total spallation rate of a nuclei $i$ (i.e. $\Gamma_i=\sum_{i > j}\Gamma_{i\rightarrow j}$), $q_i$ is the source term due to the spallation of parent particles, and $Q_i$ is the injection rate of a nuclei $i$ at the shock front (the injection momentum is $p_0$). Considering that the kinetic energy per nucleon of a nucleus is conserved before and after the spallation, $q_i$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
4\pi p^2 \frac{dp}{d\varepsilon_k} q_i(p)=\sum_{i<j}\Gamma_{j\rightarrow i}N_j(\varepsilon_k),
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_j(\varepsilon_k)=4\pi p^2f_j(p)(dp_j/d\varepsilon_k)$ ($p_j$ is the momentum of a nucleus $j$ with kinetic energy of $\varepsilon_k$) is the kinetic energy distribution function of nuclei $j$, and $\Gamma_{j\rightarrow i}$ is the rate at which a nucleus $i$ is produced via spallation of a heavier nucleus $j$. Here we adopt the table of the spallation cross sections in \cite{1990acr..book.....B}. The fluid velocity is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
u(x) = \begin{cases}
u_- & (x<0) \\
u_+ & (x>0),
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_-=u_{\rm sh}$ and $u_+=u_{\rm sh}/r$ are constants, and $r$ is the shock compression ratio, which is assumed to be equal to 4 (the strong shock limit, ignoring non-linear effects from CR feedback) hereafter.
We then solve the transport equation (\ref{transport}) by imposing the following boundary conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
&{\rm (i)}& \lim_{x\rightarrow -0}f_i = \lim_{x\rightarrow +0}f_i, \\
&{\rm (ii)}& \lim_{x\rightarrow -l} f_i = 0, \\
&{\rm (iii)}& \left| \lim_{x\rightarrow +\infty} f_i \right| < \infty, \\
&{\rm (iv)}& \left[ D_i(p)\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x} \right]^{x=-0}_{x=+0} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{3}(u_+-u_-)p\frac{\partial f_{i,0}}{\partial p}+u_-Q_i \delta(p-p_0), \label{bc4}
\end{eqnarray}
where condition (i) means that the distribution functions should be continuous across the shock, and condition (ii) means the free escape of CR particles from the outer boundary. Condition (iv) comes from the integration of Eq.(\ref{transport}) across the shock front ($x=0$), and it yields the differential equation for the distribution function at $x=0$ with respect to $p$, $f_{i,0}(p)$. Hereafter we solve Eq.(\ref{transport}) for the relativistic regime, i.e., the kinetic energy per nucleon $\varepsilon_k$ is greater than a few ${\rm GeV}/{\rm n}$, so that we can approximate $p\approx A\varepsilon_k/c$.
Following \cite{2009PhRvL.103h1104M} we can solve for the energy distribution function of nuclei $i$, $N_i(\varepsilon_k)=4\pi p_i^2 f_i(p)(dp_i/d\varepsilon_k)$ separately in the downstream ($x>0$) and the upstream ($x<0$), where we can neglect the second and fifth terms on the right hand side of Eq.(\ref{transport}). In the downstream and upstream, the solutions of Eq.(\ref{transport}) are described respectively as
\begin{eqnarray}
N_i^+&=&\sum_{j\ge i} E_{ji}e^{\lambda_j x/2}, \\
N_i^-&=&\sum_{j\ge i} F_{ji}e^{\kappa_j x/2} +G_i,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_j&=&\frac{u_+}{D_j}\left( 1-\sqrt{1+4D_j\Gamma_j/u_+^2} \right), \\
\kappa_j&=&\frac{u_-}{D_j}\left( 1+\sqrt{1+4D_j\Gamma_j/u_-^2} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
and $E_{ji}$ and $F_{ji}$ are determined recursively as
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{ji}&=&\frac{-4\sum_{m\le j}\Gamma_{m\rightarrow i}E_{jm}}{D_i\lambda_j^2-2u_+\lambda_j-4\Gamma_i} ~ ({\rm for}~j>i), \\
E_{ii}&=&N_{i,0}-\sum_{j>i}E_{ji}, \\
F_{ji}&=&\frac{-4\sum_{m_\le j}\Gamma_{m\rightarrow i}F_{jm}}{D_i\kappa_j^2-2u_-\kappa_j-4\Gamma_i} ~ ({\rm for}~j>i),\\
F_{ii}&=&\frac{N_{i,0}-\sum_{j>i}F_{ji}(1-e^{-\kappa_j l/2})}{1-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}}, \\
G_i&=&N_{i,0}\left( 1-\frac{1}{1-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}} \right)-\sum_{j> i}F_{ji}\frac{e^{-\kappa_j l/2}-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}}{1-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_{i,0}=4\pi p_i^2f_{i,0}(p_i)(dp_i/d\varepsilon_k)$. The differential equation for the distribution function at the shock front $f_{i,0}$ can be derived from the boundary condition (iv) as
\begin{eqnarray}
p\frac{\partial f_{i,0}}{\partial p}
&=&-\frac{3D_i}{2(u_- -u_+)}\left[ \left( \frac{\kappa_i}{1-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}}-\lambda_i \right)f_{i,0} \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. +\sum_{j>i} \left\{ \tilde{F}_{ji} \left( \kappa_j-\frac{1-e^{-\kappa_j l/2}}{1-e^{-\kappa_i l/2}}\kappa_i \right) - \tilde{E}_{ji} \left( \lambda_j-\lambda_i\right) \right\} \right] \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{3u_-}{u_- -u_+}Q_i \delta(p-p_0),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{E}_{ji}&=&\frac{E_{ji}}{4\pi p_i^2 (dp_i/d\varepsilon_k)}, \\
\tilde{F}_{ji}&=&\frac{F_{ji}}{4\pi p_i^2 (dp_i/d\varepsilon_k)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The difference between \cite{2009PhRvL.103h1104M} and this study is the position of the (effective) escape boundary: the former assumes that $f_i$ should damp at $x=-\infty$, while we impose the outer boundary condition $f_i=0$ at a finite distance, $x=-l$. When the acceleration timescale is much shorter than the spallation timescale (i.e., $\Gamma_i D_i/u_-^2 \ll 1$) and the escape boundary is very far from the shock front (i.e., $e^{-\kappa_i l/2} \ll 1$), this equation is asymptotically identical to Eq. (17) in \cite{2009PhRvL.103h1104M}.
We can evaluate the escape flux of CR nuclei from the SNR at $x=-l$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_i(p)&=&u_- f_i|_{x=-l}-D_i(p)\left. \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x}\right|_{x=-l} \nonumber \\
&=&-D_i(p)\sum_{j\ge i}\frac{\kappa_j}{2} \tilde{F}_{ji}e^{-\kappa_j l/2},
\end{eqnarray}
which is the function of time through the size of the escape boundary, $l$. The energy spectrum of CR particles escaping the SNR per unit time is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN_{{\rm esc},i}(\varepsilon_k)}{dt}\simeq 4\pi R_{\rm sh}^2 \cdot 4\pi \left( \frac{A\varepsilon_k}{c} \right)^2\left| \phi_i (p)\right| \frac{dp_i}{d\varepsilon_k}, \label{escaping}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{\rm sh}$ is the radius of the SNR shock.
To understand the nature of the escape flux $\phi_i(p)$, let us assume that the $i$-nuclei are purely primary (i.e., they are not produced via spallation of heavier nuclei), and that the loss due to spallation is negligible. In this case, the escape flux can be described as
\begin{eqnarray}
-\phi_i(p)=\frac{u_- f_{i,0}(p)}{\exp (u_- l/D_i)-1},
\end{eqnarray}
Here we assume Bohm-type diffusion, in which the mean free path of a charged particle is proportional to its Larmor radius, inside the SNR:
\begin{eqnarray}
D_i(p)=\eta_g\frac{c^2p}{3ZeB},
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ is the magnetic field strength and $\eta_g$ is the gyro factor. We can see that the momentum at which the absolute value of the escape flux of the $i$-nuclei attains its maximum value is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
p=p_{i,m}\equiv \frac{3u_- l Z e B}{\gamma c^2 \eta_g}, \label{pmax}
\end{eqnarray}
and the maximum value of the escape flux is
\begin{eqnarray}
-\phi_i(p_{i,m})=\frac{u_- f_{i,0}(p_{i,m})}{e^{\gamma}-1},
\end{eqnarray}
\citep{2009MNRAS.396.2065C, 2010A&A...513A..17O}. Noting that the distribution function at the shock front behaves as $f_{i_0} \propto p^{-\gamma}$ when $p\ll p_{i,m}$ where $\gamma=3u_-/(u_- - u_+)=3r/(r-1)$, and that $f_{i,0}(p)\propto \exp(-p/p_{i,m})$ when $p\gg p_{i,m}$, the particles accelerated at the SNR shock with momentum $p_{i,m}$ can escape the SNR most efficiently, i.e., $p_{i,m}$ can be regarded as the maximum momentum of the escaping particles.
We can also consider the particles that are accelerated at the shock but cannot escape the shock are advected downstream. These particles are confined in the SNR and are finally released into the ISM as CRs when the SNR is disrupted. The energy spectrum of this CR component can be evaluated in the following way. First, the number of the advected particles per unit momentum per unit time is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN_{\rm adv}(p)}{dt}=4\pi R_{\rm sh}^2\cdot 4\pi p^2 f_{i,0}(p)\frac{u_{\rm sh}}{r},
\end{eqnarray}
where $u_{\rm sh}/r$ is the fluid velocity in the downstream in the shock rest frame. The momentum loss of particles due to the expansion of the SNR (i.e., adiabatic cooling; \citealp{2005A&A...429..755P}) is described as $dp/dt= -(u_{\rm sh}/R_{\rm sh})p$. Assuming the shell radius expands as $R_{\rm sh}\propto t^q$ where $q$ is a constant, the momentum evolves with time as $p \propto t^{-q}$. As a result, the energy spectrum of CR particles that were once advected downstream and are released at the end of the SNR's life is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\int_{t_{\rm ini}}^{t_{\rm fin}} dt^{\prime} \frac{dN_{{\rm adv},i}(\varepsilon_k)}{dt^{\prime}} \nonumber \\
&\simeq& \int_{t_{\rm ini}}^{t_{\rm fin}} dt^{\prime} 4\pi R_{\rm sh}^2 \cdot 4\pi \left(\frac{A\varepsilon_k}{c}\right)^2 f_{i,0}(p^{\prime})\frac{u_{\rm sh}}{r}\frac{p^{\prime 2}dp^{\prime}}{p^2dp},
\end{eqnarray}
where $p^{\prime}$ is the momentum at the time of injection $t^{\prime}$ of a particle whose momentum is $p$ at the time of release into the ISM, $t_{\rm fin}$ (i.e., $p^{\prime}=p(t^{\prime}/t_{\rm fin})^{-q}$).
To evaluate the resulting CR spectra, we need a model for the spatial diffusion coefficient, $D_i(p)$, which in general depends on time because of the evolution of the magnetic field around the shock, and the primary CR injection rate at the shock, $Q_i$. In the next section, we describe a phenomenological model to determine these quantities based on analytic formulae of SNR evolution and the observed spectra of Galactic CRs.
\subsection{Evolution of SNRs and CR fluxes}
Neglecting the back reaction of particle acceleration, the dynamics of the SNR shock can be well described by analytic solutions. When an SNR is surrounded by the ISM or a CSM, the SNR expands freely until it sweeps up a mass comparable to its own mass from the surrounding medium, and afterward the SNR shell is decelerated and expands in a self-similar way. This is so called the Sedov-Taylor phase, and the evolution of the SNR shell radius is determined by the explosion energy of a supernova $E_{\rm SN}$, the ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}$, and the number density of the ambient medium $n$. In the case with the uniform ISM, the SNR shell radius is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm sh}=R_{\rm S} \left( \frac{t}{t_{\rm S}} \right)^{2/5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{\rm S}$ and $t_{\rm S}$ are the Sedov radius and Sedov time, respectively, and they are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm S}&=&4.59~{\rm pc}\left( \frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}} \right)^{1/3} \left( \frac{n}{0.1~{\rm cm}^{-3}} \right)^{-1/3}, \\
t_{\rm S}&=&450~{\rm yr}\left(\frac{E_{\rm SN}}{10^{51}~{\rm erg}} \right)^{-1/2}\left( \frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}} \right)^{5/6} \left( \frac{n}{0.1~{\rm cm}^{-3}} \right)^{-1/3},
\end{eqnarray}
while in the case that the ambient density profile is wind-like (i.e. $n\propto r^{-2}$), the SNR shell radius is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm sh}= R_{\rm S} \left( \frac{t}{t_{\rm S}} \right)^{2/3}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm S}&=&1.26~{\rm pc}\left(\frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}} \right)\left( \frac{\dot{M}}{10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}} \right)^{-1}\left( \frac{v_w}{100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}} \right), \\
t_{\rm S}&=&178~{\rm yr}\left(\frac{E_{\rm SN}}{10^{51}~{\rm erg}} \right)^{-1/2}\left( \frac{M_{\rm ej}}{1M_{\odot}}\right)^{3/2}\left( \frac{\dot{M}}{10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}} \right)^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left( \frac{v_w}{100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\dot{M}$ and $v_w$ are the mass loss rate and wind velocity, respectively. Here we use the density profile for a steady wind, i.e., $n=\dot{M}/(4\pi m_p v_w r^2)$.
We here adopt a phenomenological model proposed by \cite{2009MNRAS.396.1629G} (see also \citealp{2010A&A...513A..17O}), which is based on the assumption that Galactic SNRs are responsible for CRs with energy below the knee ($\sim 10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}$). In this model it is assumed that the maximum momentum of a CR particle $p_{i,m}$ accelerated at the SNR is limited by its escape during the Sedov-Taylor phase, and that the maximum energy of an escaping particle, $\sim cp_{i,m}$, at the beginning of the Sedov phase is equal to the knee energy ($\sim 10^{15.5}~{\rm eV}$). Using a variable $\chi$ to describe the evolution of an SNR (e.g., the SNR's age, the shock radius of an SNR, etc.), we assume that the maximum momentum of an escaping CR particle decreases with time as $p_{i,m}\propto \chi^{-\alpha}$, and that the spectrum of CRs accelerated at the SNR is proportional to $\chi^{\beta}p^{-s}$ (i.e., CRs inside the SNR have a power-law spectrum with index of $s$ and their total number increases with time). One can then see that the spectrum of CRs escaping the SNR is proportional to $p^{-s+\beta/\alpha}$. This means that if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are positive (i.e., the maximum momentum decreases and the total number of accelerated CRs increases with time), the spectrum of escaping CRs become steeper than that inside the SNR. Here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the phenomenological parameters that are determined so that the resulting CR spectra are consistent with observations. Following \cite{2010A&A...513A..17O}, we hereafter adopt $R_{\rm sh}$ as $\chi$, and fix the parameters as $\alpha=6.5$ and $\beta=2.1$. Actually, with these parameters, the maximum energy of escaping CRs evolves from the knee energy at the beginning of the self-similar phase to $1~{\rm GeV}$ at the end of the Sedov phase, when the radius of the SNR shell becomes 10 times larger than $R_S$, and the spectral index of escaping primary CRs would be similar to what is inferred from observations, assuming that the diffusion coefficient in the ISM, $D_{\rm ISM}(R)$, is proportional to a power of rigidity, $R$.
One can determine the diffusion coefficient and the normalization factor of the escaping CR flux in the following way. First, the time dependence of $p_{i,m}$ ($\propto \chi^{-\alpha}$) is related to the evolution of the diffusion coefficient, which depends on the amplification and decay of magnetic field and the turbulence around the shock \citep{2003A&A...403....1P, 2005A&A...429..755P, 2012ApJ...745..140Y}. Assuming the Bohm diffusion inside the SNR, one can determine the evolution of the diffusion coefficient in the SNR using the relation in Eq.(\ref{pmax}). Assuming $l\propto R_{\rm sh}$, we can describe the evolution of the diffusion coefficient at a specific momentum as $\propto \chi^{\alpha-1/2}$ in the case with uniform ISM, while $\propto \chi^{\alpha+1/2}$ in the case with the wind-like ambient density profile. Second, the normalization factor of the spectrum of CRs accelerated at the SNR ($\propto \chi^{\beta}$) is related to the CR injection rate at the shock, $Q_i$. If we assume that $Q_i$ evolves with time as $\propto \chi^{\beta^{\prime}}$ where $\beta^{\prime}$ is a constant, since the escaping CR spectrum per unit time is expressed as Eq.(\ref{escaping}), where $\phi(p)$ is proportional to $u_{\rm sh}f_{i,0}$, one can see that the time-integrated spectrum of escaping CRs would be
\begin{eqnarray}
\int dt \frac{dN_{{\rm esc},i}}{dt}&\propto& \chi^{\beta^{\prime}+3}p_{i,m}^{\gamma-2} \nonumber \\
&\propto & p^{-(\gamma-2)-\frac{\beta^{\prime}+3}{\alpha}},
\end{eqnarray}
where we use $p_{i,m}\propto \chi^{-\alpha}$. Considering that the power-law index of the on-site CR spectrum is $\sim \gamma-2$, we can see how $Q_i$ should increase with time as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta^{\prime}=\beta-3.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Observed CR Spectra from a Local Single SNR}
In this study, we try to explain the observed CR spectral hardening above $\sim 200~{\rm GV}$ by introducing a single local SNR surrounded by the ISM or a dense CSM. The propagation of CR particles in the ISM can be described by the diffusion equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}f_{i,{\rm ISM}}(r,p,t)=D_{\rm ISM}(p)\nabla^2 f_{i,{\rm ISM}}(r,p,t)+q_i(r,p,t),
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{i,{\rm ISM}}(r,p,t)$ is the distribution function of CR particles in the ISM at a distance $r$ from the source and the time $t$, with momentum $p$, and $q_i(r,p,t)$ is the CR injection rate from the source, which is located at $r=0$ (i.e., $q_i\propto \delta(r)$). In our case, this diffusion equation can be solved as
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{i,{\rm ISM}}(r,p,t)=\int _0^t dt^{\prime} \frac{4\pi R_{\rm sh}(t^{\prime})^2 p^2 \left| \phi_i(p) \right|}{\left(4\pi D_{\rm ISM}t\right)^{3/2}}\exp \left( -\frac{r^2}{4D_{\rm ISM}t} \right). \label{observedsnr}
\end{eqnarray}.
The observed spectra can then be obtained by summing this distribution function and the background flux due to the myriad of sources in the Galaxy.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Time integrated energy spectra of CR nuclei escaping the SNR}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{f1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Time-integrated energy spectra of CR nuclei escaping the SNR surrounded by a uniform interstellar medium ({\it solid lines}) and those once advected downstream and confined in the SNR ({\it dashed lines}). The ambient density is assumed to be $0.1~{\rm cm}^{-1}$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{f2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Time-integrated energy spectra of CR nuclei escaping the SNR surrounded by a wind-like circumstellar medium ({\it solid lines}) and those once advected downstream and confined in the SNR ({\it dashed lines}). The mass loss rate and wind velocity are assumed to be $3\times 10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$, respectively.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Fig. 1 depicts the time-integrated spectra of CRs that have escaped the SNR surrounded by a uniform ISM during the Sedov phase and those that had been advected downstream and confined in the SNR until it was disrupted at the end of the Sedov phase\footnote{Here we assume that the advected CRs are released instantaneously when the SNR is disrupted, which may overestimate the effect of adiabatic cooling.}. Here the ISM density is assumed as $0.1~{\rm cm}^{-3}$). Fig. 2 depicts the same spectra but in the case that the SNR is surrounded by a wind-like medium whose mass loss rate and velocity are $3\times 10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$, respectively. In both cases, the explosion energy and ejecta mass of the supernova are assumed to be $10^{51}~{\rm erg}$ and 3 $M_{\odot}$ respectively, and the elemental abundance in CRs are assumed to be identical to that of the background CRs. First of all, we can see that in both cases the contributions of CRs that had once been advected into the SNR are much lower than those escaping the SNR during the Sedov phase. This means that we can consider only the CR particles that escape the SNR during the Sedov phase to discuss the observed spectral feature of CRs. Second, in the former case, the spectra of escaping secondary nuclei (lithium, beryllium, and boron) are softer than those of the primary nuclei (carbon and oxygen), while in the latter case the spectra of secondary nuclei are a bit harder than those of primary nuclei. These spectral features and the difference between two cases can be interpreted in the following way. Since the secondary CR nuclei escaping the SNR are produced by the spallation of primary CR nuclei being accelerated at the shock, the number of CR particles escaping the SNR per unit time is proportional to $u_- f_{\rm pr}n_{\rm amb}t_{\rm int}$, where $f_{\rm pr}$ is the distribution function of their parent nuclei accelerated at the shock ($\chi^{\beta}$), $n_{\rm amb}$ is the density of the ambient gas (constant, or $\propto \chi^{-2}$), and $t_{\rm int}$ is the time during which their parent nuclei interact with the ambient gas before escape. Especially, in the escape-limited regime, $t_{\rm int}$ is equal to their acceleration time in the SNR, $\sim D_i/u_-^2$. Since we are assuming Bohm diffusion in the SNR, $D_i\propto p$, the intrinsic spectral index of secondary nuclei inside the SNR would be $s-1$. On the other hand, the normalization factor of the secondary CR flux evolves with time as $\propto D_i/u_-^2\cdot \chi^{\beta}$ in the case of a uniform ISM and $\propto D_i/u_-^2 \cdot \chi^{-2} \cdot \chi^{\beta}$ in the case of a wind-like ambient medium. Taking into account the time-dependence of the shell expansion velocity ($u_-\propto \chi^{-3/2}$ in the case of uniform ISM and $u_-\propto \chi^{-1/2}$ in the case with the wind-like ambient medium) and the diffusion coefficient (see the previous section), we can evaluate the spectral index of the distribution function of secondary CR nuclei escaping the SNR per unit time as
\begin{eqnarray}
(s-1)+\frac{-3/2+\beta+(\alpha+5/2)}{\alpha}=s+\frac{\beta+1}{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
in the case of uniform ISM, and
\begin{eqnarray}
(s-1)+\frac{-1/2+\beta-2+(\alpha+3/2)}{\alpha}=s+\frac{\beta-1}{\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
in the case of wind-like ambient medium. Now we can see that in the former case the spectrum of secondary nuclei is softer, while in the latter case it is harder compared to that of the primary nuclei, regardless of the value of $\alpha$ or $\beta$. This difference is caused mainly by the difference in the density profile of the ambient medium. Generally, the CR particles with higher energy would escape the SNR earlier, so the time for primary CRs with higher energy to produce secondary CRs due to the interaction with ambient matter would be shorter. This makes the number of escaping secondary CRs with higher energy smaller when the ambient matter distribution is uniform. By contrast, when the SNR is surrounded by a wind-like CSM, the primary CRs escaping into the ISM earlier can interact with larger amount of matter than those escaping later, and then the number of secondary CRs produced by them is enhanced. As a result, the energy spectrum of secondary CRs escaping the SNR would be harder than that of primary CRs. Note that this spectral hardening of secondary nuclei is essentially different from what have been studied in \cite{2009PhRvL.103h1104M} and \cite{2014PhRvD..90f1301M}, in that they discussed the acceleration of secondary CRs produced inside the SNR assuming that the maximum energy of accelerated CRs is limited by the age of the SNR. In this scenario, the primary CRs with higher energy can interact with ambient medium longer and produce more secondary CRs than those with lower energy. However, they did not take into account the energy-dependent escape of primary and secondary CRs, or the non-uniform distribution of ambient medium, both of which have been implied by recent observations of SNRs and SNe.
According to the recent measurements of secondary CR nuclei by AMS-02 \citep{PhysRevLett.120.021101}, the spectra of lithium, beryllium, and boron are hardened at $\sim 200~{\rm GV}$ as has been observed for primary CR nuclei, but they harden more than the primaries. To account for such a feature, we will introduce the CR contribution from a past local SN. In this context, the case with a wind-like CSM, which can make the spectra of secondary CRs harder, is more relevant. In the following discussions, therefore, we will show results for the wind-like CSM case only. In addition to the elements shown in Figure 2, we also show the spectra of protons and helium nuclei expected from the SNR in the next section.
\subsection{Observed spectra of CR nuclei}
In our scenario, we assume that the flux of CR nuclei observed by AMS-02 is a superposition of two components: one is from a local SNR with a wind-like CSM that is supposed to reproduce the hardenings observed in the CR nuclei spectra at $\sim 200~{\rm GV}$, and the other is the background flux due to average SNRs without dense CSM (i.e., these SNRs do not produce hard secondary CRs efficiently inside themselves). As for the first component, we can calculate its flux using Eq.(\ref{observedsnr}), choosing the parameters such as the distance and age of the SNR, total CR energy, CSM properties, abundance ratio in CRs, etc. On the other hand, the background flux of $i$-th nuclei ${\mathcal N}_i$ is given recursively by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal N}_i(\varepsilon_k)=\frac{\sum_{i<j}\Gamma_{j\rightarrow i}{\mathcal N}_j(\varepsilon_k)+\mathcal{R}N_{{\rm esc},i}(\varepsilon_k)}{1/\tau_{{\rm esc},i}(\varepsilon_k)+\Gamma_i},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\mathcal R}\simeq 0.03~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ is the Galactic SN rate and $\tau_{{\rm esc},i}(\varepsilon_k)$ is the timescale for an $i$-th nucleus with kinetic energy per nucleon of $\varepsilon_k$ to escape from the Galaxy, which is modeled using an expression of $D_{\rm ISM}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{{\rm esc},i}\simeq \frac{H^2}{D_{\rm ISM}(A_i\varepsilon_k/Z_i)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $H\simeq 3~{\rm kpc}$ is half the thickness of the Galactic halo. In our calculation, we assume the diffusion coefficient in the ISM as $D_{\rm ISM}(R)=D_0(R/1~{\rm GV})^{0.45}$ where $D_0=2\times 10^{28}~{\rm cm}^2~{\rm s}^{-1}$ (see e.g., \citealp{2018ApJ...858...61B}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{f3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparisons of our model spectra of CR oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon with AMS-02 data. The background fluxes ({\it dashed lines}) and the contributions from our hypothetical past CSM-interacting SN ({\it dotted lines}) are also shown.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{f4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparisons of our model spectra of CR boron, beryllium, and lithium with AMS-02 data. The background fluxes ({\it dashed lines}) and the contributions from our hypothetical past CSM-interacting SN ({\it dotted lines}) are also shown.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f5-1.eps}
\hspace{1.6cm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f5-2.eps}
\hspace{1.6cm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.33\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{f5-3.eps}
\hspace{1.6cm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Li/C ({\it left}), Be/C ({\it center}), and B/C ({\it right}) ratios in the observed CRs reported by AMS-02 along with our model predictions.}
\label{fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|c} \hline
age & $1.6\times 10^5~{\rm year}$ \\ \hline
distance & $1.6~{\rm kpc}$ \\ \hline
total energy & $10^{51}~{\rm erg}$ \\ \hline
ejecta mass & $3~M_{\odot}$ \\ \hline
mass loss rate & $2.5\times 10^{-3}M_{\odot}~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ \\ \hline
wind velocity & $100~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Properties of the past local SN we introduced to explain the AMS-02 data.}
\end{table}
Figure 3 depicts the observed spectra of proton, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen nuclei, and Figure 4 depicts the observed spectra of lithium, beryllium, and boron nuclei as functions of rigidity reported by AMS-02, fitted by our model. Figure 5 depicts the predicted ratios of lithium to carbon, beryllium to carbon, and boron to carbon in the observed CRs as functions of rigidity compared with the ratios reported by AMS-02. In making these plots, we assume a local SNR surrounded by dense wind-like CSM with parameters summarized in Table 1. As for the elemental abundance in CRs, we assume that the fractions of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are three times as much as those in the background CRs. We can see that the hard component appearing above $\sim 200~{\rm GV}$ in each spectrum is well explained by introducing this local SNR. The important point here is that we can fit not only the spectra of primary CRs (i.e., oxygen and carbon) but also that of secondary CRs (i.e., lithium, beryllium and boron) by taking into account the production, acceleration, and escape of secondary CRs inside a local SNR surrounded by a dense CSM. Another remarkable thing is that our model can be tested by the secondary to primary ratios at rigidity of $\gtrsim 1~{\rm TeV}$: within our model, they are predicted to show rising or flattening with rigidity. Such a feature is never expected as long as we consider the ISM propagation effects as the origin of spectral hardening of CR nuclei. As shown in Section 3.1, the energy spectra of secondary CR nuclei escaping a SNR surrounded by wind-like medium would be harder than those of the primary CR nuclei. Since the observed CR spectra above $\sim 200~{\rm GV}$ are dominated by the contribution from a hypothetical SNR in our model, the predicted secondary-to-primary ratios in this rigidity range would reflect the hardening of secondary CRs escaping the SNR. The secondary-to-primary ratios above $\sim~{\rm TeV}$ will be explored by future experiments such as AMS-100 \citep{2019NIMPA.94462561S}, which will provide a critical test for the existence of such a local SNR with dense wind-like CSM.
\subsection{Origin of the local SNR with a dense CSM}
While it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss in depth about the progenitor nature and detailed mass loss mechanism of the proposed local SNR, it is instructive to briefly account on its possible origin, and the feasibility of invoking such a local source without violating current observations. There exists a few possible scenarios for an enhanced mass loss rate during a certain period prior to core-collapse, such as giant eruptions at the envelope, envelope stripping in a binary system by Roche-lobe overflow (RLOF) to a companion star and a possible common envelope phase, and so on \citep[see, e.g.,][]{doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025}. The hypothetical close-by SNR invoked here in particular can possibly be the result of a past SN of type Ib/c, originating from the explosion of a Wolf-Rayet (WR) star in a close binary system \citep[e.g.,][and reference therein]{2010ApJ...725..940Y, 2012MNRAS.424.2139D}. For example, a RLOF phase that lasts for $\sim 10^4$ yrs with a mass loss rate of $\sim 10^{-3}$ M$\mathrm{sun}$/yr and a velocity $\sim 100$ km/s can result in a dense CSM extending up to a radius $R_w \sim 1$ pc. Assuming an ejecta mass of $3 M_\odot$ typical for SN Ib/c, and for simplicity a $r^{-2}$ density profile for the CSM structure and the mass loss parameters in Table 1, the Sedov radius $R_S$ of the SNR is about $0.1$ pc.\footnote{We are ignoring any anisotropy and episodic history of the mass loss from the progenitor here.} This is much smaller than $R_w$, and the transition to Sedov phase happened at an age of roughly 10 yrs old. Therefore, the escape of the highest energy CRs must have occurred when the SNR blastwave was still in the midst of interacting with the dense CSM material, which is consistent with our picture above.
On the other hand, the required chemical enhancement of heavy metal abundances in the CRs produced by this local accelerator is also consistent with a stripped envelope SN origin, in that the CSM in the vicinity of the ejecta of a type Ib/c progenitor is expected to be rich in metals in comparison to that around a SN IIP from the explosion of a red super-giant star \citep[e.g.,][]{yoon_2015}. The blast wave colliding with this metal-rich CSM shell in the early phase after SN should then be able to accelerate these heavy ions to high energies\footnote{We note that ejecta of SN Ib/c can reach trans-relativistic velocities right after explosions, for which particle acceleration at the shock can be modelled self-consistently using methods such as Monte-Carlo simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{Ellison_2013, 2015MNRAS.452..431W}. A more accurate approach with treatment of DSA at trans-relativistic shocks will be done in a future work.}. This interaction between the blastwave and a chemically-enriched CSM shell has been suggested by recent observations of type Ibn SNe \citep[e.g., see review in][]{2017hsn..book..403S}, or even the hypothetical type Icn that may be detected in the future. Meanwhile, at a current age of $1.6 \times 10^5$ yrs, the shock should have long died out already due to radiative loss, and the SNR should have merged with and become indistinguishable from the surrounding ISM, rendering it invisible in various wavebands at a distance $> 1$~kpc. A more detailed model for the evolution and broadband emission of such a stripped-envelope SNR interacting with a dense CSM using a method similar to \citet{2019ApJ...876...27Y} will be presented in a follow-up paper (Matsuoka et al., in preparation).
\subsection{About the nonlinear effects}
In this study, we assume that the CR particles in the SNR can be treated as test particles, and neglect the nonlinear effects from the back reaction of CRs on the incoming flow that is known to modify the shock structure and amplify the magnetic fields. In general, we should take into account these nonlinear effects in the calculation of CR production by DSA coupled to the hydrodynamics, in a way similar to some existing frameworks in the literature \citep[e.g.,][]{LEN2012}. First, the acceleration efficiency and maximum energies of CRs are expected to increase due to the nonlinear effects. Second, shock modification by CR feedback can harden the CR spectra around the maximum energies to some extent (for reviews see \citealp{2001RPPh...64..429M, 2012SSRv..173..491S}). The inclusion of nonlinear effects in our model can therefore necessitate some adjustments of our parameters to maintain a good fit to the data. However, even in that case, our main conclusion that shock interaction of SNR with a dense wind in the CSM can explain the enhanced hardening of the secondary CR nuclei will not change. In this work, we decide to focus on demonstrating this new possibility using a simpler test-particle picture, and reserve a nonlinear description for a follow-up paper.
\section{Summary}
In this paper, we investigated the effect of the production of secondary CR nuclei at supernova remnants by the diffusive shock acceleration mechanism on the CR population measured near the Earth using an analytic approach. By including nuclear spallation effects and acceleration locally at the acceleration sites, we predicted the spectra of the accelerated ions escaping from the SNR shocks. Our results show that the secondary CR nuclei escaping the SNR have a softer spectral index compared to the primary CRs when the SNR is surrounded by uniform ISM, while they have a harder spectral index when they are surrounded by the CSM with a wind-like density profile. We show that, by introducing a past and relatively close-by SN event surrounded by a wind-like CSM, the current CR measurements including the spectral hardening recently discovered above a few $100$~GV in ion species up to oxygen can be successfully reproduced. We suggest that this past local accelerator can be a SN of type Ib/c with its progenitor enclosed by a CSM from pre-SN mass loss highly enriched in heavy metals. Our model also predicts a characteristic spectral flattening of CR secondary-to-primary ratios, such as Li/C, Be/C and so on, above a rigidity $\sim 1$~TV. Future CR measurements by next-generation experiments such as AMS-100 with an extended high energy range will put this to the test.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are grateful to Kohta Murase for his comments. N.K. acknowledges support by the Hakubi project at Kyoto University. S.H.L. acknowledges support by JSPS Grant No. JP19K03913 and the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI), MEXT, Japan.
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The flavor evolution of neutrinos in dense astrophysical environments have, by now, a long history. It has been pointed out by Pantelone, Raffelt, and Sigl~\cite{Pantaleone:1992eq,Sigl:1993} and others that, through forward scattering, neutrinos can exchange their flavors. Given an anisotropic initial distribution in energy and/or angle as found in supernovae, neutron star mergers, or the early universe, the neutrino energy flux versus energy and flavor may be impacted by this non-trivial quantum many-body evolution.
This can in turn affect the dynamics of these environments and other observable signatures, including nucleosynthesis in the ejected material (see~\cite{Duan:2010bg,Chakraborty2016b} for recent reviews).
The Hamiltonian for neutrino flavor evolution in a dense neutrino environment includes three terms: the vacuum mixing that has been determined from solar and accelerator neutrino experiments~\cite{GonzalezGarcia:2003}, the forward scattering in matter leading to the well known MSW effect~\cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue,Mikheev:1986gs},
and neutrino-neutrino forward scattering.
In the neutrino flavor basis, the vacuum term includes diagonal contributions describing the mass differences between different neutrino flavors and an off-diagonal term characterized by a mixing angle $\theta_v$.
The interaction describing forward scattering in matter is diagonal in the flavor basis.
The neutrino-neutrino interaction can exchange
flavors of two neutrinos and has a forward scattering amplitude that depends on the angle between their momenta.
For the two-flavor case considered here, this interaction is proportional to the dot product $\vec{\sigma}_i \cdot \vec{\sigma}_j$ of the SU(2) matrices
describing the different flavor amplitudes of the two neutrinos
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fws_int}
V_{ij}\propto \left(1-\frac{\vec{q}_i\cdot\vec{q}_j}{\|\vec{q}_i\|\|\vec{q}_j\|}\right)\vec{\sigma}_i\cdot\vec{\sigma}_j\;.
\end{equation}
Here we denoted by $\vec{q}_k$ the momentum of the $k$-th neutrino and with $\vec{\sigma}_k=(\sigma_k^x,\sigma_k^y,\sigma_k^z)$ the vector of Pauli operators acting on its amplitude. Generalization to the three-flavor case is straightforward in principle;
here we assume the $\mu$ and $\tau$ flavors evolve similarly.
For this simplified two-flavor case, we seek to understand the time and space evolution of the set of amplitudes from a Schr\"{o}dinger equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:schroedinger-eq}
\ket{\Phi (t)} = \exp [ -iH t] \ket{\Phi_0},
\end{equation}
with $H$ the total Hamiltonian including both the vacuum and forward-scattering interaction contributions. For simplicity here we
consider $\ket{\Phi_0}$ to be a product state, but generalizations to arbitrary states are straightforward.
Most often these quantum equations have been treated on the mean-field level by replacing one of the spin operators in Eq.~\eqref{eq:fws_int} by its expectation value, yielding a set of non-linear coupled differential equations. This makes the calculations tractable for several hundred energies and angles on modern computers (see eg.~\cite{Duan:2006}).
More recently, studies of neutrino propagation as a quantum many-body problem have appeared,
including for example \cite{Bell2003,Friedland2003,sawyer2004classical,Pehlivan2011,Rrapaj2020,Cervia:2019,Roggero2021a,Roggero2021b}. These works highlight the importance of understanding the role of quantum correlations, such as entanglement, in order to quantify beyond mean-field effects in out-of-equilibrium neutrino simulations. A direct solution of the Schr\"{o}dinger equation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:schroedinger-eq}, for a system of $N$ configurations in energy and angle, incurs a computational cost that is exponential in $N$. This has limited early explorations of the problem to systems with $N=\mathcal{O}(10)$ neutrinos. An alternative to reach larger system sizes, explored recently by one of us in Refs.~\cite{Roggero2021a,Roggero2021b}, employs a Matrix Product State representation for $\ket{\Phi(t)}$ which allows one to track the exact time evolution in situations where entanglement never grows too much. For conditions leading to strong entanglement instead, simulations on digital/analog quantum computers have the potential to tackle the full neutrino dynamics while still enjoying a polynomial computational cost in system size $N$~\cite{Lloyd96}.
In this work we explore the time-dependent many-body evolution of the neutrinos on a current-generation digital quantum computer. In Sec.~\ref{sec:spin_model} we introduce in more detail the SU(2) spin model used to describe collective neutrino oscillations and describe an implementation of the time evolution operator appearing in Eq.~\eqref{eq:schroedinger-eq} suitable for an array of qubits with linear connectivity. We present the results obtained for a a small system with $N=4$ neutrino amplitudes in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} and provide a summary and conclusions in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Spin model for neutrino oscillations}
\label{sec:spin_model}
For the simplified two-flavor case studied here, the state of the system can be described as an amplitude for a neutrino of each energy $E_i$ (equal to the magnitude of momentum $\|\vec{q}_i\|$) and direction of momentum (denoted by $\hat{q}_i$), with $\alpha_\uparrow$ and $\alpha_\downarrow$ describing the amplitude of being in the electron flavor or in a heavy ($\mu$ or $\tau$) flavor respectively. These two amplitudes can be encoded in an SU(2) spinor
basis. In this basis, the Hamiltonian can be written in terms of Pauli operators as the sum of a one-body term, describing both vacuum oscillations and forward scattering in matter,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ham_init}
H_1 = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \left[ \left(-\Delta_i\cos{2 \theta_v} + A\right)\sigma^z_i + \Delta_i\sin {2 \theta_v} \sigma^x_i \right]\;,
\end{equation}
and a two-body term, coming from the neutrino-neutrino forward-scattering potential $V_{ij}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:fws_int}, which takes the following form~\cite{Pehlivan2011}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H_2 & = \sum_{i<j} \eta [1- \hat{q}_i \cdot \hat{q}_j ] \vec{\sigma}_i \cdot \vec{\sigma}_j\;.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the one-body term, $\theta_v$ represents the vacuum mixing angle, while the strength is given by $\Delta_i = \delta m^2/(2 E_i)$ with $\delta m^2$ the mass squared difference for neutrinos of different flavor. The matter potential enters as the diagonal contribution in the one-body term through the constant $A = \sqrt{2} G_\mathrm{F} n_e$, with $G_\mathrm{F}$ the Fermi coupling constant and $n_e$ the electron density.
As described in the introduction, the two-body term is a sum over spin-spin interactions with a coupling depending upon the relative angle between them. The overall strength depends on the neutrino density as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eta}
\eta=\frac{G_\mathrm{F} }{\sqrt{2}V}=\frac{G_\mathrm{F} n_\nu}{\sqrt{2}N}\;,
\end{equation}
with $N$ the number of neutrino momenta considered, given by the neutrino density $n_\nu$ times the quantization volume $V$. The Hamiltonian is similar to a Heisenberg model, but the two-body term
is all-to-all rather than nearest neighbor. Its coupling strength $\eta\propto1/N$ assures that the energy of the system is extensive. This allows us to obtain a well-defined many-body solution, in the limit of large
numbers of neutrino momenta by extrapolating in system size $N$.
Currently available quantum devices are able to perform only a relatively limited number of operations while maintaining a high fidelity~\cite{Preskill2018}, this in turn poses limits on the maximum time that could be reached in the simulation of neutrino dynamics. Given this practical constraint, it is then useful to consider a test case where the one- and two-body interaction terms are similar in magnitude and the evolution can occur rapidly.
An example is the environment of order $\approx100$ km from the surface of a proto-neutron star in a core collapse supernovae. Here the background matter density has decreased to a point where its contribution to the Hamiltonian is similar in magnitude to the neutrino-neutrino forward scattering. The relative angles of neutrino propagation are fairly small as neutrinos are emitted from a typical proto-neutron star radius of order 10 km. In the neutrino bulb model~\cite{Duan:2006} one further assumes the evolution in a supernovae depends only on the energy and the angle from the normal. Averaging over the azimuthal angles results in an average
coupling $\langle 1-{\hat {q}}_i \cdot {\hat {q}}_j \rangle = 1 - \cos(\theta_i) \cos(\theta_j).$
Often a further simplification, usually called single-angle approximation, is made where an average coupling is taken between all pairs of neutrinos, resulting in a two-body term simply related to the square of the total spin $S$ of the many-body state.
For our test case, we take a monochromatic neutrino beam with energy $E_\nu=\delta m^2/(4\eta)$ and measure energies in units of the two-body coupling $\eta$. In order to avoid the symmetries introduced by the single angle approximation, we employ an anisotropic distribution of momentum directions
using a simple grid of angles with
\begin{equation}
\theta_{pq} = \arccos(0.9) \frac{|p-q|}{N-1}\;.
\end{equation}
This is similar to the standard bulb model as the relative couplings $1- \cos(\theta_{pq})$ are small.
The final Hamiltonian for the simple model we implement here can be written compactly, in units of $\eta$, as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spin_ham}
H = \sum_{k=1}^N \vec{b} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_k + \sum_{p<q}^N J_{pq} \vec{\sigma}_p\cdot\vec{\sigma}_q\;,
\end{equation}
with the external field $\vec{b}=\left(\sqrt{1-0.925^2},0,-0.925\right)$ obtained by choosing the mixing angle $\theta_v=0.195$ and pair coupling matrix $J_{pq}=\left(1-\cos\left(\theta_{pq}\right)\right)$. Note that in this model we set the matter potential $A$ in the one-body contribution to the Hamiltonian Eq.~\eqref{eq:Ham_init} to zero.
\subsection{Real time evolution}
\label{sec:real_time}
The major challenge in implementing the time evolution in Eq.~\eqref{eq:schroedinger-eq} in a quantum simulation is to find an accurate approximation to the evolution operator $U(t)=\exp[-iHt]$ that can also be decomposed efficiently into local unitary operations~\cite{Lloyd96}. A simple and popular approach is to use a first-order Trotter-Suzuki decomposition~\cite{Suzuki91} of the propagator leading to the approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:trotter1}
U_1(t) =
\prod_{j=1}^Ne^{-it\vec{b}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_j}
\prod_{p<q}^N e^{-itJ_{pq}\vec{\sigma}_p\cdot\vec{\sigma}_q}\;,
\end{equation}
which is correct up to an additive error $\epsilon=\mathcal{O}(t^2)$. Past experience with the Euclidean version of this evolution operator in Quantum Monte Carlo suggests that a better approximation to the full propagator $U(t)$ can be obtained by using the exact propagators for pairs (see eg.~\cite{Ceperley1995,Carlson2015}). In order to construct this alternative approximation, we first rewrite the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_ham} manifestly as a sum of $\binom{N}{2}$ two-body Hamiltonians acting on each pair of qubits
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ham_decomp}
H =\sum_{p<q}^N \left(\frac{\vec{b}\cdot\left(\vec{\sigma}_p+\vec{\sigma}_q\right)}{N-1} + J_{pq}\;\vec{\sigma}_k\cdot\vec{\sigma}_q\right) \coloneqq \sum_{p<q}^N h_{pq}\;.
\end{equation}
We can then define an approximate propagator $U_2$ using the exact pair propagator as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pair_prop_app}
U_2(t) = \prod_{p<q}^N e^{-ith_{pq}} \coloneqq \prod_{p<q}^N u_{pq}\;.
\end{equation}
Note that the implementation of this operator is efficient since each pair Hamiltonian acts non-trivially only on a $4\times4$ subset of the total Hilbert space and therefore, as shown for instance in Refs.~\cite{vidal2004,vatan2004}, can be implemented exactly using at most $3$ entangling operations. Note that the error in this approximation still scales as $\mathcal{O}(t^2)$ but now with a possibly reduced prefactor. In Appendix~\ref{app:pair_prop} we present a direct comparison between the two approximations. Finally, the approximation order could also be improved by symmetrizing over the ordering of operators or by applying symmetry transformations (see eg.~\cite{Tran2021}).
Owing to the long range of the interactions, a naive implementation of this scheme will require either a device with all-to-all connectivity (like trapped ion systems~\cite{Monroe2019}) or an extensive use of the SWAP operation, represented in matrix form as
\begin{equation}
\text{SWAP} = \begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&0&1\\
\end{pmatrix}\;.
\end{equation}
The effect of this operation is to exchange the state of two qubits. One can then use this operation to bring a pair of qubits that we want to interact close to each other by applying a sequence of SWAP gates of order $N$. Since we need to apply all possible pair interactions, we will show that it is actually possible to carry out a complete step, under the unitary in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pair_prop_app}, without incurring any overhead due to the application of the SWAP operations. The scheme is inspired by the more general fermionic swap network construction presented in Ref.~\cite{Kivlichan2018}.
We illustrate this idea using the diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:swap_network} for a simple case with $N=4$ neutrinos. Starting from the initial state on the left, we first apply the unitaries $u_{pq}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:pair_prop_app} to the odd bonds: for the $N=4$ case, these are the bonds between the $(1,2)$ and $(3,4)$ pairs of qubits. Before moving to the next pairs, we also apply a SWAP operation to the same pairs we just acted upon. The resulting unitary operation is denoted as a double line joining qubits in Fig.~\ref{fig:swap_network} and the net effect is that at the next step the qubits that have interacted get interchanged. Given the discussion following Eq.~\eqref{eq:pair_prop_app} above, this modified two-qubit unitary still requires at most 3 entangling operations.
At the end of a sequence of $N$ such combined operations we will have implemented the full unitary in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pair_prop_app} while, at the same, we inverted the ordering of qubits, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:swap_network}. This approach requires exactly the minimum number $\binom{N}{2}$ of nearest-neighbor pair operations, while the shifted ordering can be controlled completely, and efficiently, by classical means. Note that if we were to repeat at this point the same swap network in reverse order, the full unitary will correspond to a second order step for time $2t$ and the final ordering of qubits will be restored to it's original one. This is the strategy used in Refs.~\cite{Roggero2021a,Roggero2021b} to study the neutrino Hamiltonian with Matrix Product States. In this first implementation on quantum hardware, we focus instead on a single, linear-order, time step.
Note that since we are only using nearest neighbor two-qubit gates, the total number of entangling gates required for a full time evolution step is bounded from above by $3\binom{N}{2}$ while the maximum number of single qubit operations is bounded by $15\binom{N}{2}$. As we will see in the results presented below, the presence of a large number of arbitrary single qubit rotations seems to be the limiting factor in implementing this scheme on the quantum device we used in this first exploration.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{swap.png}
\caption{(Color online) Pictorial representation of the swap network used in our simulation in the case of $N=4$ neutrinos.}
\label{fig:swap_network}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{vigo.png}
\caption{(Color online) Layout of the IBM Quantum Canary Processor Vigo~\cite{IBMQ_Vigo}. Shown are the five qubits, labeled from 0 to 4, and their connectivity denoted as solid black lines.}
\label{fig:vigo}
\end{figure}
\section{Results with four neutrinos}
\label{sec:results}
In order to study the build up of correlations and entanglement generated by the time-evolution under the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_ham}, we first initialize a system of $N=4$ qubits in the following product state
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Phi_0} = \ket{e}\otimes\ket{e}\otimes\ket{x}\otimes\ket{x} = \ket{\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow\downarrow}\;.
\end{equation}
We then preform one step of time evolution for time $t$ by applying the $N$ layers of nearest-neighbor gates as described in the previous section. This corresponds to a single Trotter-Suzuki step for different values of the time-step.
The four SU(2) spins representing the neutrinos are mapped to qubits $(2,1,3,4)$ on the IBMQ Vigo quantum processor~\cite{IBMQ_Vigo}, whose connectivity is schematically depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:vigo}. The resulting qubits are linearly connected, allowing us to carry out natively the complete simulation scheme depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:swap_network} above.
The first observable we compute is the flavor polarization of individual neutrinos as a function of time. Since the spin Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_ham} is invariant under the simultaneous exchanges $1\leftrightarrow4$ and $2\leftrightarrow3$, while the flavor content of the initial state $\ket{\Phi_0}$ gets reversed by it, we show directly the probability $P_{\text{inv}}(t)$ to find a neutrino in the opposite flavor to the starting one it had at $t=0$. In the limit of no error, $P_{\text{inv}}(t)$ should then by the same for the pair of neutrinos $(1,4)$ and $(2,3)$. The errors in the approximation of the propagator in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pair_prop_app} do not exactly follow this symmetry, with deviations in the range $3-7\%$. We show the results for $P_{inv}$ obtained with the approximate evolution operator $U_2(t)$ as solid black lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_03}, for the pair $(1,4)$, and in Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_12} for the pair $(2,3)$. The ideal, and symmetric, result is shown instead as a purple dashed line. We see that the approximation error is very small up to relatively large time $\eta t\approx 6$. As we discuss more in detail in Appendix~\ref{app:pair_prop}, this is in large part an effect of using the pair propagator $U_2(t)$ instead of the naive first order formula in Eq.~\eqref{eq:trotter1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pop_03.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Inversion probability $P_{inv(t)}$ for neutrinos 1 and 4: the red circle and brown square correspond to the bare results, the blue triangle and the green diamond are obtained after error mitigation(see text). The left panel (VM) are virtual machine results while the right panel (QPU) are results obtained on the Vigo~\cite{IBMQ_Vigo} quantum device.}
\label{fig:pop_03}
\end{figure}
The results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_03} and Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_12} were obtained using either the real quantum device (right panels denoted QPU) or a local virtual machine simulation employing the noise model implemented in Qiskit~\cite{qiskit} (left panels denoted by VM) initialized with calibration data from the device. In both plots we report the results (denoted by [bare]) obtained directly from the simulation and including only statistical errors coming from a finite sample size (here and in the rest of the paper we use $8192$ repetition, or ``shots", for every data point), as well as results obtained after performing error mitigation (denoted by [mit]). This corresponds to a final post-processing step that attempts to reduce the influence of the two main sources of errors: the read-out errors associated with the imperfect measurement apparatus and the gate error associated with the application of entangling gates. The latter error is dealt with using a zero noise extrapolation strategy (see~\cite{Endo2018,Dumitrescu2018} and Appendix~\ref{app:error_mit} for additional details).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pop_12.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Inversion probability $P_{inv}(t)$ for neutrinos 2 and 3. The notation is the same as for Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_03}.}
\label{fig:pop_12}
\end{figure}
As seen also in previous similar calculations (see for instance~\cite{roggero2020A,Roggero_nptodg}), the VM results obtained using the simulated noise are much closer to the ideal result than those obtained with the real device. This is also reflected in the fact that the error mitigation protocol is not as successful with the real QPU data as it is with the simulated VM data. This behaviour is possibly linked to the substantial noise caused by the presence of a large number of single qubit operations (up to 90 rotations for time evolution + 2 for state preparation) together with the relatively large CNOT count of 18. In fact, the performance of error mitigation for the results with the largest state preparation circuits presented in~\cite{Roggero_nptodg} is superior to the one obtained here, despite the use of the same device, the same error mitigation strategy and a comparable number of entangling gates (15 CNOT in that case) while the number of rotations was only 14. This suggests coherent errors constitute a considerable fraction of the overall error seen in the results above.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{extrap_at_t0.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Inversion probability $P_{\text{inv}}$ at the initial time $t=0$ for the first neutrino. Black solid circles are results from the Vigo QPU~\cite{IBMQ_Vigo} while the red squares correspond to results obtained using the VM with simulated noise. Also shown are extrapolations to the zero noise limit, for both the QPU (green line) and the VM (blue line), together with the extrapolated value (greed triangle up and blue triangle down respectively). The dashed orange line denotes the result for a maximally mixed state.}
\label{fig:pop_extrap}
\end{figure}
In order to highlight the difficulties encountered when performing noise extrapolation for this data, we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:pop_extrap} the results obtained from both the QPU (black circles) and the VM (red squares) for the inversion probability of the first neutrino at the initial time $t=0$ together with a linear extrapolation using the first two points for the QPU (green line) and the first three points for the VM (blue line). The exact result is of course $P_{\text{inv}}(0)=0$ and we see that neither strategy is able to predict the correct value. The horizontal dashed line is the value expected when the system is in the maximally mixed state, corresponding to full depolarization. As shown in the data, for the real QPU results, only the first level of noise extrapolation contains useful information and a more gentle noise amplification strategy, like the one proposed in Ref.~\cite{He2020}, could provide a substantial advantage over the strategy adopted here.
\subsection{Dynamics of entanglement}
In order to track the evolution of entanglement in the system we perform complete state tomography for each of the $6$ possible qubit pairs in our system by estimating, for each pair $(k,q)$, the 16 expectation values
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:simple_mat_els}
M^{k,q}_{\alpha,\beta}(t) = \langle \Phi(t)\lvert P_k^\alpha\otimes P_q^\beta \rvert \Phi(t)\rangle\;,
\end{equation}
with $P_k=\{\mathbb{1},X,Y,Z\}$ the basis for $U(2)$ and $\ket{\Phi(t)}$ the state obtained from $\ket{\Phi_0}$ by applying the time-evolution operator as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:schroedinger-eq}. In principle, we might reconstruct the density matrix for the pair of qubits $(k,q)$ directly from these expectation values as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:naive_dm}
{\bm \rho}^D_{kq}(t) = \sum_{\alpha=1}^4\sum_{\beta=1}^4M^{k,q}_{\alpha,\beta}(t)P_k^\alpha\otimes P_q^\beta\;.
\end{equation}
In practice however, we can only estimate the matrix elements $M^{k,q}_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ to some finite additive precision, and the approximation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:naive_dm} is not guaranteed to be a physical density matrix (positive definite and with trace equal to 1). In this work we use the common approach (see eg.~\cite{Banaszek1999}) of performing a maximum-likelihood (ML) optimization, while enforcing the reconstructed density matrix ${\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)$ to be physical. We note in passing that it is possible to devise operator basis that are more robust than the choice used in Eq.~\eqref{eq:simple_mat_els} (see eg.~\cite{Czartowski2020}) but we didn't explore this further in our work.
In order to propagate the effect of statistical errors into the final estimator for ${\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)$, we use a resampling strategy similar to what was introduced in~\cite{Roggero_nptodg} but using a Bayesian approach to determine the empirical posterior distribution. We provide a detailed description of the adopted protocol in Appendix \ref{app:posterior_sampling}.
\subsubsection{Entanglement entropies}
As we mentioned in the introduction, one of the main differences between a mean field description and the full many-body description of the dynamics of the neutrino cloud is the absence of quantum correlations, or entanglement, in the former. Past work on the subject~\cite{Cervia:2019,Rrapaj2020} looked at the single spin entanglement entropy defined as
\begin{equation}
S_k(t) = - {\rm Tr} \left[{\bm \rho}_k(t)\log_2\left({\bm \rho}_k(t)\right)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
with ${\bm \rho}_k(t)$ the reduced density matrix of the $k$-th spin. A value of the entropy $S_k(t)$ different from zero indicates the presence of entanglement between the $k$-th neutrino and the rest of the system.
In our setup, we compute the one-body reduced density matrix from the maximum-likelihood estimator of the pair density matrix defined above, explicitly
\begin{equation}
S^{ML}_{k;q}(t) = - {\rm Tr} \left[{\bm \rho}^{ML}_{k;q}(t)\log_2\left({\bm \rho}^{ML}_{k;q}(t)\right)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
where the reduced density matrices are computed from
\begin{equation}
{\bm \rho}^{ML}_{k;q}(t) = {\rm Tr}_q \left[{\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
and ${\rm Tr}_q$ denotes the trace over the states of the $q$-th qubit.
We combine the 3 values obtained in this way for each neutrinos as follows: the estimator for the single-spin entanglement entropy is obtained from the average
\begin{equation}
S^{\text{avg}}_k(t) = \frac{1}{3} \sum_{q}S^{ML}_{k;q}(t)\;,
\end{equation}
summing over pairs containing the k-th spin, while as an error estimate we use the average of the 3 errors.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sq1_ent.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Single spin entanglement entropy for neutrino 2. Black square are bare results obtained from the QPU, red triangles are results obtained by amplifying the noise to $\epsilon/\epsilon_0=3$, the blue circles are obtained using Richardson extrapolation, the turquoise plus symbols indicate results obtained using the standard exponential extrapolation and the green diamonds correspond to the results obtained from a shifted exponential extrapolation using the maximum value of the entropy (indicated as a dashed orange line).}
\label{fig:sq_ent1}
\end{figure}
As for the case of the inversion probability $P_{\text{inv}}(t)$ studied in the previous section, the substantial noise present in the QPU data prevents us from using the full set of results at the 4 effective noise levels. In order to overcome this difficulty, we have performed zero noise extrapolations using only results for effective noise levels $r=\epsilon/\epsilon_0=(1,3)$ and performed a Richardson extrapolation (in this case equivalent to a simple linear fit as done in Ref.~\cite{Dumitrescu2018}), a two point exponential extrapolation~\cite{Endo2018}, and an exponential extrapolation with shifted data. The latter technique consists in shifting the data for the entropy by $-1$ (it's maximum value) so that the result, in the limit of large noise, tends to 0 instead of $\log_2(2)=1$. We then shift back the result obtained after extrapolation. The exponential extrapolation method is well suited for situations where expectation values decay to zero as a function of the noise strength $\epsilon$, while maintaining a consistent sign, and this shift allows us to make the data conform to this ideal situation (see Appendix~\ref{app:error_mit} for more details on the method). The impact on the efficacy of the error mitigation is dramatic as can be seen in the results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:sq_ent1} for the entropy of the second neutrino (the entropies for the other neutrinos follow a similar pattern; see Appendix~\ref{app:sq_ent} for all four results). The results with the standard exponential extrapolation are presented as the turquoise plus symbols, they are almost the same as those obtained using Richardson extrapolation (blue circles) and show a significant systematic error. On the contrary, the results obtained with the Shifted Exponential extrapolation (green diamonds) are much more close to the expected results with our pair propagator (solid black curve). We expect more general multi-exponential extrapolation schemes, like those proposed in Refs.~\cite{giurgicatiron2020,cai2020}, to enjoy a similar efficiency boost in the large noise limit achieved with deep circuits.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pairs04_ent.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Pair entanglement entropy for the neutrino pair $(1,2)$ starting as $\ket{e}\otimes\ket{e}$ (left panel) and pair $(2,4)$ which starts as the flavor state $\ket{e}\otimes\ket{x}$ (right panel). Results obtained directly from the QPU are shown as black squares ($r=1$) and red triangles ($r=3$) while blue circles and green diamonds indicate mitigated results using Richardson and the Shifted Exponential extrapolations respectively. For the Shifted Exponential ansatz we use the maximum value of the entropy (indicated as a dashed orange line).The magenta triangle indicates a mitigated result with Shifted Exponential extrapolation below zero within errorbars.}
\label{fig:pair_ent_04}
\end{figure}
Using the reconstructed pair density matrix ${\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)$, we can clearly also evaluate directly the entanglement entropy of the pair
\begin{equation}
S^{ML}_{kq}(t) = - {\rm Tr} \left[{\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)\log_2\left({\bm \rho}^{ML}_{kq}(t)\right)\right]\;.
\end{equation}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:pair_ent_04} we show the result of this calculation for the pair $(1,2)$, which started as electron flavor at $t=0$, and the pair $(2,4)$ which started instead as heavy flavor states.
\subsubsection{Concurrence}
In order to better understand these quantum correlations, we also compute the concurrence~\cite{Wooters1998} for all the pair states. This measure of entanglement is defined for a 2 qubit density matrix as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:concurr}
C(\rho) = \max\left\{0,\lambda_0-\lambda_1-\lambda_2-\lambda_3\right\}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_i$ are the square roots of the eigenvalues, in decreasing order, of the non-Hermitian matrix
\begin{equation}
M = \rho\left(Y\otimes Y\right)\rho^*\left(Y\otimes Y\right)\;,
\label{eq:concurr_M}
\end{equation}
with the star symbol indicating complex conjugation. The usefulness of this measure is its relation with the entanglement of formation~\cite{Hill1997,Wooters1998}, which is the minimum number of maximally-entangled pairs needed to represent $\rho$ with an ensemble of pure states~\cite{Hill1997}.
The definition of concurrence in Eq.~\eqref{eq:concurr} does not lend itself as easily to be adapted in an error extrapolation procedure as the one we used to obtain the mitigated results in the previous sections. This is due to the presence of the $max$ function in the definition of the concurrence: when the error is sufficiently strong to make the difference in eigenvalues
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{C}(\rho) = \lambda_0-\lambda_1-\lambda_2-\lambda_3
\end{equation}
negative, the concurrence in Eq.~\eqref{eq:concurr} ceases to carry information about the error free result. For this reason, we will regard $\widetilde{C}$ as an ``extended concurrence" which varies smoothly for large error levels and perform the truncation to positive values only after the zero noise extrapolation.
The results obtained from the simulation on the Vigo QPU are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:conc_pair_04} for two pairs of neutrinos: pair $(1,2)$ starting as like spin at $t=0$ and pair $(2,4)$ which started as opposite flavors. The complete set of results for all pairs can be found in Fig.~\ref{fig:sq_all} in Appendix~\ref{app:sq_ent}.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{conc_pair04.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Extended concurrence $\widetilde{C}$ for two pairs of neutrinos, $(1,2)$ in the left and $(2,4)$ in the right panel. The convention for the curves and date point used here is the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:pair_ent_04}. The gray area indicates the region where the concurrence $C(\rho)$ is zero. The maximum value for the concurrence is shown as a dashed orange line.}
\label{fig:conc_pair_04}
\end{figure}
The bare results are shown as black squares and we can immediately notice why the definition of $\widetilde{C}$ is so important in our case: the only bare data point with a measurable concurrence $C(\rho)$ is at $t\approx6.7\eta^{-1}$ for pair $(2,4)$ (the right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:conc_pair_04}) while all the other results, including those obtained with a larger noise level (red triangles), are compatible with zero. In this situation, no mitigation of $C(\rho)$ would be possible.
By keeping the negative contributions, we see that the bare results often contain a substantial signal, while those at a higher error rate are already almost at the asymptotic value $\widetilde{C}=-0.5$ expected for a completely depolarized system~\footnote{Note that our results seem to converge to a larger asymptotic value of {$\widetilde{C}\approx-0.44$} instead of {$\widetilde{C}=-0.5$}. We can empirically explain this difference as the effect of statistical fluctuations.}. This allowed us to perform error extrapolation using both the Richardson and Shifted Exponential ansatz. Similarly to what we observed for the entanglement entropies in the previous section, the Shifted Exponential ansatz (with shift $-0.5$) produces consistently better results than Richardson extrapolation. This indicates that we are more close to the asymptotic large error regime than the small error limit used to motivate a polynomial expansion. The resilience of the exponential extrapolations to large errors, especially augmented by an appropriate shift, is seen here to be critical in extracting physical information from quantum simulations carried out near the coherence limit of the device used for the implementation.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we presented the first digital quantum simulation of the flavor dynamics in collective neutrino oscillations using current quantum technology. The results reported for the evolution of flavor and entanglement properties of a system with $N=4$ neutrino amplitudes show that current quantum devices based on superconducting qubits are starting to become a viable option for studying out-of-equilibrium dynamics of interacting many-body systems. The reduced fidelity in the results obtained here, compared to the simulations reported previously in Ref.~\cite{Roggero_nptodg} employing the same quantum processor and a comparable number of entangling gates, points to the importance of controlling unitary errors associated with the imperfect implementation of arbitrary single-qubit rotations (on average $<1\%$ for the device used in both works). In future work we plan to explore the use of more advanced error mitigation strategies, such as Pauli twirling~\cite{Wallman2016} or symmetry protection~\cite{Tran2021}, to achieve a better overall fidelity.
We showed the zero-noise error extrapolation using a shifted Gaussian ansatz to be remarkably efficient in predicting the expected error-free estimator of observables. Given the large circuits employed in this work, past experience with zero-noise extrapolations (see eg.~\cite{roggero2020A,Roggero_nptodg}) suggest the exponential ansatz to be appropriate due to the large noise rates, and we find it to indeed outperforms Richardson extrapolation in this regime. The current results highlight the importance of using alternative measures of entanglement to the entropy in order to extract reliable information about quantum correlations in the states generated on the quantum device. Using the pair concurrence together with the entropy provides a robust way to detect entanglement even in the presence of substantial noise, like in the results shown here. We expect these insights, and the mapping of the neutrino evolution problem into a swap network, to prove very valuable in future explorations of out-of-equilibrium neutrino dynamics with near-term, noisy, quantum devices.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the InQubator for Quantum Simulation under U.S. DOE grant No. DE-SC0020970, by the Quantum Science Center (QSC), a National Quantum Information Science Research Center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-00ER41132, DE-SC0021152 and by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY-1404159 and PHY-2013047.
Benjamin Hall acknowledges support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through a quantum computing program sponsored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Information Science \& Technology Institute.
We acknowledge use of the IBM Q for this work. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of IBM or the IBM Q team.
\end{acknowledgments}
\input{biblio.bbl}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ambiguity, or uncertainty about uncertainty, in stochastic systems is one of the most fundamental challenges in the practical implementation of stochastic optimal controllers~\cite{Petersen2000, Tzortzis2015}.
The true probability distribution of underlying uncertainty is unknown in ambiguous stochastic systems.
In practice, we often only have access to samples generated according to the distribution.
Estimating an accurate distribution from such observations is challenging due to insufficient data and imperfect statistical models, among others.
Using inaccurate distributions in the construction of an optimal policy may significantly decrease the control performance~\cite{Nilim2005, Samuelson2017} and can even cause unwanted system behaviors, such as unsafe operation~\cite{Yang2018aut}.
The focus of this work is to develop a discrete-time minimax control method using the Wasserstein metric and to analyze its robustness against uncertainties or errors in such distributional information.
Our work is closely related to the literature in \emph{distributionally robust control} (DRC).
DRC methods seek to design a control policy that minimizes an expected cost of interest under the worst-case distribution in a so-called \emph{ambiguity set}.
Several types of ambiguity sets have been employed in DRC
using moment constraints~\cite{Xu2012, VanParys2016}, confidence sets~\cite{Yang2017cdc}, relative entropy~\cite{Petersen2000, Ugrinovskii2002},
total variation distance~\cite{Tzortzis2015, Tzortzis2016}, and Wasserstein distance~\cite{Yang2017lcss, Yang2020}.\footnote{This paper focuses on distributionally robust extensions of stochastic optimal control problems although distributionally robust techniques have also been studied in other control methods such as model predictive control~\cite{Coulson2019, Mark2020, Schuurmans2020, Ning2020}, and learning-based control~\cite{Schuurmans2019, Hakobyan2020}, among others.}
Such choices of ambiguity sets have largely been motivated by the literature in distributionally robust optimization (DRO)~\cite{Delage2010, BenTal2013, Wiesemann2014, Esfahani2015, Zhao2018, Gao2016}.
In particular, DRO and DRC with the Wasserstein ambiguity set possess salient features such as a probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee and computational tractability~\cite{Esfahani2015, Zhao2018, Gao2016, Blanchet2018, Kuhn2019, Yang2020}.
In this paper, we propose a minimax linear-quadratic control method for ambiguous stochastic systems, inspired by Wasserstein DRC.
To pursue distributional robustness, our method adopts a hypothetical opponent selecting the worst-case distribution to maximize a cost of interest, while the controller aims to minimize the same cost.
To limit the conservativeness of the resulting control policy,
our method penalizes the opponent by the amount (measured in the Wasserstein metric) of deviation from an empirical distribution.
The minimax control problem is challenging to solve due to the infinite-dimensionality of the inner maximization problem in the Bellman equations. In the finite-horizon setting, we derive a Riccati equation and a closed-form expression of the unique optimal policy and the opponent's policy generating the worst-case distribution.
In the infinite-horizon setting, we identify a nontrivial stabilizability condition under which the solution to the Riccati equation converges to a symmetric positive semi-definite (PSD) solution to an algebraic Riccati equation (ARE).
Taking a generalized eigenvalue approach, our result is strengthened so that the converged solution corresponds to a unique symmetric PSD solution to the ARE under an additional observability condition.
We also show that the resulting steady-state policy pair is an optimal solution to the infinite-horizon average cost minimax problem.
The stability properties of the closed-loop system are further studied regarding the expected value of the system state.
We examine the distributional robustness of the resulting control policy, using Wasserstein ambiguity sets, motivated by the DRC formulation~\cite{Yang2020}.
Specifically, we evaluate our policy under the worst-case distribution in the ambiguity set.
A simple upper-bound of this worst-case cost is derived using the optimal value function of our minimax problem.
A penalty parameter minimizing the upper-bound can be computed by solving a convex optimization problem, which is obtained exploiting the structure property of the value function.
This study of our minimax method under a DRC lens yields another salient feature that our policy attains a performance guarantee evaluated under a new sample, independent of data used in the controller design.
The probabilistic \emph{out-of-sample performance} guarantee is shown using the measure concentration inequality for the Wasserstein metric.
Another interesting observation is a theoretical connection between our minimax method and the $H_\infty$-method.
Our method with Wasserstein distance can be understood as a distributional generalization of the $H_\infty$-method, thereby bridging the gap between stochastic and robust control.
This connection yields the robust stability property of our minimax controller.
Conversely, our stochastic interpretation of the $H_\infty$-method enables us to analyze the $H_\infty$-controller from the perspective of distributional robustness.
This paper is significantly expanded from its preliminary conference version~\cite{Kim2020}. The study of our minimax method using
the DRC formulation with a Wasserstein ambiguity set is newly presented along with the out-of-sample performance guarantee.
Furthermore, the infinite-horizon total cost results in~\cite{Kim2020} are extended to the average cost setting, identifying optimality conditions and the guaranteed cost property.
Last but not least, this paper contains the results regarding the bounded-input, bounded-output stability and the robust stability of the closed-loop system.
\section{Problem Formulations}\label{sec:setup}
Let $\mathbb{S}_+^n$ (resp. $\mathbb{S}_{++}^n$) denote the set of symmetric positive semi-definite (resp. positive definite) matrices in $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$.
Given a Borel set $\mathcal{W}$, let $\mathcal{P} (\mathcal{W})$ denote the set of Borel probability measures on $\mathcal{W}$.
Moreover, $\| \cdot \|$ represents the standard Euclidean norm.
\subsection{Ambiguity in Stochastic Systems}
Consider a discrete-time linear stochastic system of the form
\begin{equation} \label{sys}
x_{t+1} = Ax_t + Bu_t + \Xi w_t,
\end{equation}
where $x_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $u_t \in \mathbb{R}^m$ represent the system state and input, respectively.
Here, $w_t \in \mathbb{R} ^k$ is a random disturbance vector with probability distribution $\mu_t \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k)$.
In addition,
$A \in\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, $B\in\mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$, and $\Xi\in\mathbb{R}^{n \times k}$ are time-invariant system matrices.
In practice, it is challenging to obtain the true probability distribution $\mu_t$ of $w_t$.
One of the most straightforward ways to estimate the distribution is to construct the following empirical distribution from sample data $\{ \hat{w}^{(1)}_t, \ldots, \hat{w}^{(N)}_t\}$ of $w_t$:
\begin{equation}\label{emp}
\nu_t := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{\hat{w}^{(i)}_t},
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{\hat{w}^{(i)}_t}$ denotes the Dirac measure concentrated at $\hat{w}^{(i)}_t$.
However, it is undesirable to use this empirical distribution in controller design because the control performance would deteriorate as the true distribution deviates from $\nu_t$.
\subsection{Minimax Control with Wasserstein Penalty}
Let $\pi := (\pi_0, \pi_1, \ldots)$ denote a deterministic Markov control policy, where $\pi_t$ maps the current state $x_t$ to
an input $u_t$.\footnote{For ease of exposition, we focus on deterministic Markov policies. However, all the results in this paper are valid even when considering randomized history-dependent policies for both players by the optimality result in~\cite{Yang2020}.}
More precisely, the set of admissible control policies is given by
$\Pi:= \{ \pi \mid \pi_t (x_t) = u_t \in \mathbb{R}^m, \: \pi_t \mbox{ is measurable} \; \forall t\}$.
To design a controller that is robust against errors in the empirical distributions,
we employ an (hypothetical) opponent that selects the probability distribution $\mu_t$ in an adversarial way.
The opponent policy $\gamma := (\gamma_0, \gamma_1, \ldots)$ is also assumed to be deterministic and Markov, where $\gamma_t$ maps the current state $x_t$ to a probability distribution $\mu_t$.
Specifically, the set of admissible opponent's policies is defined by
$\Gamma := \{\gamma \mid \gamma_t (x_t) = \mu_t \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k) \; \forall t\}$.
We first consider the finite-horizon case and later extend our results to the infinite-horizon case.
Suppose for a moment that the controller aims to minimize the standard quadratic cost function
\begin{equation} \label{cost0}
\begin{split}
&J_{\bm{x}}(\pi, \gamma) = J_{\bm{x}, T}(\pi, \gamma) := \frac{1}{T}\mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg [x_T^\top Q_f x_T
+ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \big ( x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t \big )~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x}
\bigg ],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $Q, Q_f \in \mathbb{S}_+^n$ and $R \in \mathbb{S}_{++}^m$, while the opponent determines $\gamma$ to maximize the same cost.
If this were the case,
however, that would give too much freedom to the opponent, thereby causing the optimal controller to be overly conservative.
To systematically adjust conservativeness, we penalize the opponent according to the degree of deviation from the empirical distributions $\nu_t$'s.
By doing so, we can also incorporate the prior information provided by the sample data directly into the controller design.
Specifically, the penalty is measured by the Wasserstein distance $W_2(\mu_t, \nu_t)$ between $\mu_t$ and $\nu_t$.
The Wasserstein metric of order $2$ between two distributions $\mu$ and $\nu$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
W_2(\mu,\nu):= \inf_{\eta\in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{W}^2)}
\bigg\{ \left ( \int_{\mathcal{W}^2} \|x - y\|^2 \mathrm{d}\eta(x,y) \right ) ^{\frac{1}{2}}~\bigg \vert~\Pi^1\eta=\mu, \Pi^2 \eta=\nu \bigg\},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\Pi^i \eta$ is the $i$th marginal distribution of $\eta$.
The cost function is then modified by adding a Wasserstein penalty term as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{cost1}
\begin{split}
&J^\lambda_{\bm{x}}(\pi, \gamma) = J_{\bm{x}, T}^\lambda (\pi, \gamma) := \frac{1}{T}\mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg [x_T^\top Q_f x_T
+ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \big ( x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t - \lambda W_2 (\mu_t, \nu_t)^2 \big )~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x}
\bigg ],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda >0$ is the penalty parameter. By definition, $J_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma) = J_{\bm{x}}^0 (\pi, \gamma)$.
Tuning the parameter $\lambda$, we can adjust the conservativeness of our control policy that is obtained by solving the following minimax stochastic control problem:
\begin{equation} \label{opt}
\min_{\pi \in \Pi} \max_{\gamma \in \Gamma} J^\lambda_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma).
\end{equation}
The inner maximization problem yields a worst-case distribution policy given $\pi$.
Thus, an optimal solution $\pi^\star$ to the outer problem minimizes the worst-case cost.
Our first goal is to develop a Riccati equation-based solution to \eqref{opt} and analyze the properties of $\pi^\star$ such as closed-loop stability.
\subsection{Distributional Robustness}\label{sec:dual}
A closely related minimax stochastic control formulation is the distributionally robust control problem~\cite{Yang2020}.
This formulation uses Wasserstein ambiguity sets instead of the Wasserstein penalty term.
Specifically, the Wasserstein ambiguity set is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:const}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}_t &:= \{ \mu_t \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^{k}) ~\vert~W_2(\mu_t, \nu_t) \leq \theta \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The set $\mathcal{D}_t$ is a statistical ball centered at the empirical distribution $\nu_t$, where the distance between any two elements is measured by the Wasserstein metric.
The opponent's policy $\gamma$ is then be restricted in the following space:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_\mathcal{D} &:= \{ \gamma \in \Gamma~\vert~ \gamma_t(x_t) \in \mathcal{D}_t \; \forall t \}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In words, the probability distribution produced by the opponent's policy must be contained in the Wasserstein ambiguity set.
To achieve distributional robustness,
it is desirable to design a controller that minimizes the expected cost under the worst-case distribution policy in $\Gamma_\mathcal{D}$.
Such a control policy can be obtained by solving the following Wasserstein distributionally robust control problem:
\begin{equation}\label{opt2}
\min_{\pi \in \Pi} \max_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\mathcal{D}} J_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma),
\end{equation}
which can be solved by dynamic programming (DP).
Unfortunately, the DP solution is not scalable due to the curse of dimensionality unlike our Riccati equation-based method.
We claim that the optimal policy $\pi^\star$ of \eqref{opt} is a reasonable suboptimal solution to the DR control problem since
it has the following guaranteed-cost property:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reform}
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\mathcal{D}} J_{\bm{x}} (\pi^\star(\lambda^\star), \gamma)
\leq \lambda^\star \theta^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda^\star),
\end{equation}
where
$\pi^\star (\lambda)$ denotes the optimal policy of \eqref{opt} with $\lambda$,
\[
V(\bm{x}; \lambda) := \inf_{\pi \in \Pi} \sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} J^\lambda_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma)
\]
denotes the optimal value function of \eqref{opt}, and
$\lambda^\star \in \argmin_{\lambda \geq 0} [ \lambda \theta^2 + V(\bm{x}; \lambda)]$
Note that the objective function of the minimization problem on the right-hand side can be evaluated by solving~\eqref{opt}.
Thus, the right-hand side provides a provable upper-bound on the worst-case cost of employing $\pi^\star(\lambda^\star)$.
This upper-bound can be used to speculate the distributional robustness of $\pi^\star(\lambda^\star)$ and to quantify a probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee of $\pi^\star(\lambda^\star)$ as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:dr}.
In the following section, we first study the problem~\eqref{opt} to obtain an explicit solution in both finite-horizon and infinite-horizon cases and identify useful properties.
These results will then be used to analyze the distributional robustness of $\pi^\star(\lambda^\star)$ in Section~\ref{sec:dr}.
\section{Minimax Linear Quadratic Control with Wasserstein Penalty}\label{sec:penalty}
\subsection{Finite-Horizon Case}\label{sec:finite}
To begin with, we consider the regularized problem~\eqref{opt} in the finite-horizon setting with cost function $J^\lambda_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma)$, defined in \eqref{cost1}. Later, we establish the connection between the finite-horizon and infinite-horizon cases by letting $T \to \infty$.
We use dynamic programming to solve the finite-horizon problem:
let the optimal value function be defined by
$V_t(\bm{x}) = V_t(\bm{x}; \lambda) :=\inf_{\pi \in \Pi} \sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} [ \sum_{s=t}^{T-1} (x_s^\top Q x_s + u_s^\top R u_s -\lambda W_2(\mu_s, \nu_s)^2)
+ x_T^\top Q_f x_T \mid x_t = \bm{x} ]$,
which represents the optimal worst-case expected cost-to-go from stage $t$ given $x_t = \bm{x}$.
By definition, $V (\bm{x}; \lambda) = V_0 (\bm{x}; \lambda) / T$.
The dynamic programming principle yields
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
V_t (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top Q \bm{x} &+ \inf_{\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^m} \sup_{\bm{\mu} \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k)} \bigg [ \bm{u}^\top R \bm{u} - \lambda W_2(\bm{\mu}, \nu_t)^2 +\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} V_{t+1} (A \bm{x} + B \bm{u} + \Xi w) \mathrm{d} \bm{\mu} (w) \bigg ]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $t = 0, \ldots, T-1$, and $V_T(\bm{x}) := \bm{x}^\top Q_f \bm{x}$.
Note that the inner maximization problem is an infinite-dimensional optimization problem over $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k)$.
For a tractable reformulation, we use a modern DRO technique based on Kantorovich duality~\cite{Gao2016}, which yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:backward}
\begin{split}
&V_t (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top Q \bm{x} + \inf_{\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^m} \bigg[ \bm{u}^\top R \bm{u} + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sup_{ w\in \mathbb{R}^k} \big \{ V_{t+1}(A \bm{x}
+ B \bm{u} + \Xi w)-\lambda \lVert \hat{w}^{(i)}_t - w \rVert^2 \big \} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let the mean and the covariance matrix of the empirical distribution be denoted by
\[
\bar{w}_t:= \mathbb{E}_{\nu_t} [w_t], \quad \Sigma_t:=\mathbb{E}_{\nu_t} [w_t w_t^\top].
\]
We also let
\begin{equation}\label{phi}
\Phi := BR^{-1} B^\top - \frac{1}{\lambda} \Xi \Xi^\top.
\end{equation}
We now consider the following ansatz of the value function:
$V_t (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top P_t \bm{x} + 2 r_t^\top \bm{x} + z_t$, where $P_t \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n}$, $r_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $z_{t} \in \mathbb{R}$.
Our goal is to identify an explicit solution to the minimax optimization problem in \eqref{eq:backward}.
In what follows, we show that the quadratic structure of the value function is preserved through the Bellman recursion, and the proposed parameterization would thus be exact if matrices $P_t$ satisfy a Riccati equation.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sol}
Suppose that
\[
V_{t+1} (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top P_{t+1} \bm{x} + 2r_{t+1}^\top \bm{x} + z_{t+1}
\]
for some $P_{t+1} \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n}$, $r_{t+1} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $z_{t+1} \in \mathbb{R}$.
We further assume that the penalty parameter satisfies $\lambda > \bar{\lambda}_{t+1}$, where $\bar{\lambda}_{t+1}$ is the maximum eigenvalue of $\Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi$.
Then, the inner maximization problem
$\sup_{ w\in \mathbb{R}^k} \{ V_{t+1}(A \bm{x}
+ B \bm{u} + \Xi w)-\lambda \lVert \hat{w}^{(i)}_t - w \rVert^2 \}$
in \eqref{eq:backward} has a unique maximizer $w_t^\star := (w^{\star,(1)}_{t}, \ldots, w^{\star,(N)}_{t})$, defined as
\begin{equation}\label{w_opt}
\begin{split}
w^{\star,(i)}_{t} &:= (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi)^{-1} (\Xi^\top P_{t+1} (A\bm{x} + B \bm{u}) + \Xi^\top r_{t+1} + \lambda \hat{w}_t^{(i)}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the outer minimization problem in \eqref{eq:backward} has a unique minimizer
\begin{equation}\label{u_opt}
\begin{split}
\bm{u}^\star := K_t \bm{x} + L_t,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&K_t := -R^{-1} B^\top (I + P_{t+1} \Phi)^{-1} P_{t+1} A,\\
&L_t := -R^{-1} B^\top (I + P_{t+1} \Phi)^{-1} ( P_{t+1}\Xi \bar{w}_t + r_{t+1}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Note that $w_t^\star$ is linear in $(\bm{x}, \bm{u})$ and $\bm{u}^\star$ is linear in $\bm{x}$.
The explicit derivation with this linear structure yields the following Riccati equation:
\begin{equation}\label{ric}
\begin{split}
P_t &= Q + A^\top (I + P_{t+1}\Phi )^{-1} P_{t+1} A\\
r_t &= A^\top (I + P_{t+1} \Phi)^{-1} ( P_{t+1}\Xi \bar{w}_t + r_{t+1} )\\
z_t &= z_{t+1} + \mathrm{tr} [ (I - \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi/\lambda )^{-1} \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi \Sigma_t ]\\
&+\bar{w}_t^\top \Xi^\top [(I+P_{t+1}\Phi)^{-1}-(I- P_{t+1} \Xi \Xi^\top/\lambda)^{-1}] P_{t+1} \Xi \bar{w}_t\\
& + (2 \bar{w}_t^\top \Xi^\top - r_{t+1}^\top \Phi)(I+P_{t+1} \Phi)^{-1} r_{t+1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with the terminal conditions $P_T = Q_f$, $r_T =0$, and $z_T = 0$.
Note that $P_t$, $t = 0, \ldots, T-1$, are symmetric since $P_T$ is symmetric.
For the well-definedness of the recursion, we make the following assumption:
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:pen}
The penalty parameter satisfies $\lambda > \bar{\lambda}_{t}$ for all~$t\geq1$, where $\bar{\lambda}_{t}$ is the maximum eigenvalue of $\Xi^\top P_{t} \Xi$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{theorem}[Optimal policy]\label{thm:fin}
Suppose that Assumption~\ref{ass:pen} holds.
Then, the matrices $P_t$ are well-defined and
the value function can be expressed as
\[
V_t(\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top P_t \bm{x} + 2 r_t^\top \bm{x} + z_t, \quad t = 0, \ldots, T.
\]
Furthermore, the regularized problem~\eqref{opt} in the finite-horizon case has a unique optimal policy, defined as
\begin{equation} \label{opt_policy}
\pi^\star_t (\bm{x}) := K_t \bm{x} + L_t, \quad t = 0, \ldots, T-1.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As in the standard LQG, the optimal policy is linear in system state and gain matrix $K_t$ can be obtained by solving a Riccati equation.
Note that the Riccati equation in the standard LQG is given by (e.g.,~\cite{Astrom2012})
\begin{equation}\label{ric_lqg}
\begin{split}
P_t &= Q + A^\top (I + P_{t+1} B R^{-1}B^\top )^{-1} P_{t+1} A\\
r_t &= A^\top (I + P_{t+1} B R^{-1}B^\top )^{-1} ( P_{t+1}\Xi \bar{w}_t + r_{t+1})\\
z_t &= z_{t+1} + \mathrm{tr}[ \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi \Sigma_t ]\\
&- \bar{w}_t^\top \Xi^\top P_{t+1} B R^{-1}B^\top (I + P_{t+1} B R^{-1}B^\top )^{-1} P_{t+1} \Xi \bar{w}_t \\
& + (2 \bar{w}_t^\top \Xi^\top - r_{t+1}^\top B R^{-1}B^\top)(I+P_{t+1} B R^{-1}B^\top)^{-1} r_{t+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and it can be obtained by letting $\lambda \to \infty$ in \eqref{ric}.
Increasing $\lambda$ encourages the opponent not to deviate much from the empirical distribution $\nu_t$. Thus, in the limit, our minimax method is equivalent to the standard LQG.
This shows that our proposed framework is a generalization of LQG.
Another immediate consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:sol} and Theorem~\ref{thm:fin} is that one of the worst-case distributions can be explicitly obtained with a finite support, as follows:
\begin{cor}[Worst-case distribution]\label{cor:dist}
Suppose that Assumption~\ref{ass:pen} holds.
Let
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&w_t^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x}) := (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi)^{-1} (\Xi^\top P_{t+1} (A \bm{x} + BK_t \bm{x} + BL_t) + \Xi^\top r_{t+1} + \lambda \hat{w}_t^{(i)}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, the policy $\gamma^\star$ defined by
\[
\gamma^\star_t (\bm{x}) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{w_t^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x})}
\]
generates the worst-case distribution, i.e., $(\pi^\star, \gamma^\star)$ is an optimal minimax solution to \eqref{opt} in the finite-horizon case.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Infinite-Horizon Case}\label{sec:infinite}
In this subsection, we investigate an optimal controller for the infinite-horizon case when the number of stage $T$ increases to $\infty$.
We consider the following infinite-horizon average cost criterion:
\begin{equation}\label{ac_cost}
\begin{split}
J^{\lambda}_{\bm{x},\infty}(\pi, \gamma) := \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} &\frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t
+ u_t^\top R u_t - \lambda W_2(\mu_t, \nu)^2)~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Based on the results in the finite-horizon case, we begin by identifying the steady-state policy that our optimal policy converges to.
Our specific goal is to derive an algebraic Riccati equation (ARE) and characterize the condition under which the recursion~\eqref{ric} converges to
a unique symmetric PSD solution of the ARE.
Throughout this subsection, we assume the following for the stationarity of the problem.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:st}
The random disturbance process $\{w_t\}_{t=0}^\infty$ is i.i.d.,
and its empirical distribution is constructed as
$\nu \equiv \nu_t := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{\hat{w}^{(i)}}$ from the dataset $\{ \hat{w}^{(1)}, \ldots, \hat{w}^{(N)} \}$.
\end{assumption}
Under Assumption~\ref{ass:st}, we denote the mean value and the covariance matrix of $\nu$ by $\bar{w}$ and $\Sigma$.
Based on the iteration~\eqref{ric}, our focus is on finding a solution to the following algebraic Riccati equation (ARE):
\begin{equation}\label{are}
P = Q + A^\top \bigg [ I + PBR^{-1} B^\top - \frac{1}{\lambda} P \Xi \Xi^\top \bigg ]^{-1} PA.
\end{equation}
Note that the ARE \eqref{are} has an equivalent form to the ARE in the classical $H_\infty$-optimal control (see \cite{Basar2008}[Section 3.2]). The specific relationship between our minimax method and the $H_\infty$-method will be discussed in the Section~\ref{sec:Hinfinity}.
\subsubsection{Algebraic Riccati Equation}
We first show that
$P_t$ updated by~\eqref{ric} converges to a unique PSD solution of the ARE~\eqref{are} under suitable nontrivial stabilizability and observability conditions.
Recall that the symmetric matrix $\Phi$ is defined as \eqref{phi}.
We make the following assumption on $\Phi$:
\begin{assumption} \label{ass:W}
$\Phi \succeq 0$, and $(A, {\Phi}^{1/2})$ is stabilizable.
\end{assumption}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:are}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:W} hold.
Then, a bounded limiting solution $P_{ss}:= \lim_{T \to \infty} P_t$ to the Riccati equation~\eqref{ric} exists for any $P_T \in \mathbb{S}_+^n$.
Furthermore, $P_{ss}$ is a symmetric PSD solution to the ARE \eqref{are}.
\end{proposition}
To solve the ARE~\eqref{are}, we use the method proposed in~\cite{Pappas1980}, considering the generalized eigenvalue problem of $F$ and $G$
\begin{equation}\label{gen}
F v = \gamma G v,
\end{equation}
where $F := \begin{bmatrix} A & 0 \\ -Q & I\end{bmatrix}$ and $G :=\begin{bmatrix} I & \Phi \\ 0 & A^\top\end{bmatrix}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sol2}
Any solution of the ARE~\eqref{are} can be expressed as
\[
P = U_2 U_1^{-1},
\]
where each column of $\begin{bmatrix} U_1 \\ U_2 \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n \times n}$ solves the generalized eigenvalue problem~\eqref{gen} of $F$ and $G$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lem:sol2} shows that all solutions of the ARE~\eqref{are} can be obtained from the generalized eigenvalue problem of $F$ and $G$.
Unfortunately, most of them are unstabilizing solutions.
However, we are only interested in the symmetric PSD solution $P_{ss}$ to which the Riccati recursion~\eqref{ric} converges.
To identify the steady-state solution, we need the following assumption and lemma:
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:ob}
$(A, {Q}^{1/2})$ is observable.
\end{assumption}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:stable}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:W} and \ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, $P = U_2 U_1^{-1}$ is a symmetric PSD solution to the ARE~\eqref{are} if and only if each column of $\begin{bmatrix} U_1 \\ U_2 \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n \times n}$ solves the generalized eigenvalue problem~\eqref{gen} of $F$ and $G$ with a stable generalized eigenvalue.\footnote{A generalized eigenvalue is stable if its absolute value is less than $1$.}
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lem:stable} motivates us to investigate the condition on $F$ and $G$ under which \eqref{gen} has $n$ stable generalized eigenvalues.
Note that the following symplectic property holds
\[
F \Omega F^\top = G \Omega G^\top = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & A \\ -A^\top & 0\end{bmatrix},
\]
where $\Omega = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & I_n \\ -I_n & 0\end{bmatrix}$.
Thus, if $\gamma$ is a generalized eigenvalue, so is ${1}/{\gamma}$ with the same multiplicity.
This implies that if no generalized eigenvalue lies on the unit circle, then exactly $n$ generalized eigenvalues are stable, and there exists a unique symmetric PSD solution to the ARE by Lemma~\ref{lem:stable}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:circ}
Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:W} and \ref{ass:ob}, $(F, G)$ does not have any generalized eigenvalue on the unit circle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The existence of generalized eigenvalues on the unit circle contradicts Assumptions \ref{ass:W} and \ref{ass:ob}. See \cite[Theorem 3]{Pappas1980} for details.
\end{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:circ}, there exist $U_1, U_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{gen2}
FU=GU \Lambda
\end{equation}
with $U=\begin{bmatrix} U_{1}\\ U_{2}\end{bmatrix}$, where
the columns of $V$ solve \eqref{gen} with $n$ stable generalized eigenvalues, and
$\Lambda$ is the corresponding Jordan normal form.
We obtain the following lemma that yields to construct a solution of the ARE~\eqref{are} from $U_1$ and $U_2$.
\begin{lemma}
Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:W} and \ref{ass:ob}, $U_1$ is nonsingular.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This can be shown directly using the proof of \cite[Theorem 6]{Pappas1980}.
\end{proof}
Using the previous lemmas, we finally obtain the following conclusion that connects the Riccati equation~\eqref{ric} in the finite-horizon case and the ARE~\eqref{are} in the infinite-horizon.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, the recursion~\eqref{ric} converges to the unique symmetric PSD solution $P_{ss} := U_2 U_1^{-1}$ of the ARE~\eqref{are} as $T \to \infty$.
\end{theorem}
This result can further be simplified
when the system matrix $A$ is nonsingular.
In this particular case, we let
\begin{equation*}
H := G^{-1}F =\begin{bmatrix} A + \Phi A^{-\top} Q & - \Phi A^{-\top} \\ - A^{-\top} Q & A^{-\top} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and construct $\hat{U}_1, \hat{U}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ so that each column of $\begin{bmatrix} \hat{U}_{1} \\ \hat{U}_{2} \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n \times n}$ is an eigenvector of $H$ associated with a stable eigenvalue.
We then obtain the following result:
\begin{cor}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold and that $A$ is nonsingular.
Then, the recursion~\eqref{ric} converges to the unique symmetric PSD solution $P_{ss} := \hat{U}_2 \hat{U}_1^{-1}$ of the ARE~\eqref{are}.
\end{cor}
The convergence of $r_t$ in the recursion \eqref{ric} directly follows from the convergence of $P_t$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:r}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, $r_t$ in the recursion~\eqref{ric} converges to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oss}
\begin{split}
r_{ss} := &[I - A^\top (I+P_{ss} \Phi)^{-1}]^{-1} A^\top (I+P_{ss} \Phi)^{-1} P_{ss} \Xi \bar{w}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
as $T \to \infty$.
\end{proposition}
The steady-state control policy in the infinite-horizon case
can be obtained using the symmetric PSD solution to the ARE~\eqref{are} as in the finite-horizon case.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:inf}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, the optimal policy $\pi^\star_t(\bm{x})$ converges to the steady-state policy
\[
\pi^\star_{ss} (\bm{x}) := K_{ss} \bm{x} + L_{ss}
\]
as $T \to \infty$, where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
K_{ss} := & -R^{-1} B^\top (I + P_{ss} \Phi)^{-1} P_{ss} A,\\
L_{ss} := & -R^{-1} B^\top (I + P_{ss} \Phi)^{-1}( P_{ss}\Xi \bar{w} + r_{ss}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, the policy generating the worst-case distribution converges to the steady-state policy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:steady}
\gamma^\star_{ss} (\bm{x}) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{w^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x})}
\end{equation}
with
$w^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x})
:= (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{ss} \Xi)^{-1} (\Xi^\top P_{ss} (A \bm{x} + BK_{ss} \bm{x} + BL_{ss}) + \Xi^\top r_{ss} + \lambda \hat{w}^{(i)})$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:avgcost}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, the steady-state average cost
\begin{equation*}
\rho := \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \min_{\pi \in \Pi} \max_{\gamma \in \Gamma} J^\lambda_{\bm{x}, T} (\pi, \gamma)
\end{equation*}
is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\rho &= \mathrm{tr} [ (I -\Xi^\top P_{ss} \Xi /\lambda )^{-1} \Xi^\top P_{ss} \Xi \Sigma ]+ \bar{w}^\top \Xi^\top [(I+P_{ss} \Phi )^{-1}-(I- P_{ss} \Xi \Xi^\top/\lambda)^{-1}] P_{ss} \Xi \bar{w} \\
&+ (2 \bar{w}^\top \Xi^\top - r_{ss}^\top \Phi)(I+P_{ss} \Phi )^{-1} r_{ss},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
independent of the initial state $\bm{x}$.
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{Average Cost Optimality}
We now examine the optimality of the stationary policy pair $(\pi^\star_{ss}, \gamma^\star_{ss})$ using the average cost criterion~\eqref{ac_cost}.
Consider the following average cost problem with a Wasserstein penalty:\footnote{It follows from the definition of $\Pi$ that $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \pi_{ss}^\star, \ldots) \in \Pi$.
However, with a slight abuse of notation, we simply denote it as $\pi_{ss}^\star$ and
regard stationary policy $\pi_{ss}^\star$ (resp. $\gamma_{ss}^\star$) as an element of $\Pi$ (resp. $\Gamma$). }
\begin{equation}
\min_{\pi \in \Pi} \max_{\gamma \in \Gamma} J^{\lambda}_{\bm{x}, \infty} (\pi, \gamma).
\end{equation}
The optimality equation for this problem can be obtained as follows:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:acoe}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, the following Bellman equation holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:acoe}
\begin{split}
& \rho + h (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top Q \bm{x} + \inf_{\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^m} \sup_{\bm{\mu} \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k)} \bigg [ \bm{u}^\top R \bm{u} - \lambda W_2(\bm{\mu}, \nu)^2 +\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} h (A \bm{x} + B \bm{u} + \Xi w) \mathrm{d} \bm{\mu} (w) \bigg ],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $h(\bm{x}) := \bm{x}^\top P_{ss} \bm{x} + 2r_{ss}^\top \bm{x}$ and $\rho$ is the steady-state average cost defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:avgcost}.
Moreover, $(\pi_{ss}^\star (\bm{x}), \gamma_{ss}^\star (\bm{x}))$ is an optimal minimax solution of the problem on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:acoe}.
\end{proposition}
In the Bellman equation (or the average cost optimality equation), $h$, called the \emph{bias}, represents the transient cost, whereas $\rho$, called the \emph{gain}, represents the stationary cost.
We now introduce an extended average cost function including the bias $h$ as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
\tilde{J}^{\lambda}_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi, \gamma;h) := \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t
+ u_t^\top R u_t - \lambda W_2(\mu_t, \nu)^2 )+ h(x_T)~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using the extended cost, we can show the average cost optimality of the stationary policy pair $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma_{ss}^\star)$ in a way similar to the average cost LQG (e.g., \cite{Bertsekas2012}[Section 5.6.5]).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:inf}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Consider the steady-state policy pair $(\pi^\star_{ss}, \gamma^\star_{ss})$ defined in Corollary~\ref{cor:inf}.
Then,
the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
For any $(\pi, \gamma) \in \Pi \times \Gamma$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:saddle}
\tilde{J}^{\lambda}_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma;h) \leq \rho
\leq \tilde{J}^{\lambda}_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi, \gamma_{ss}^\star;h),
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the stationary cost defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:avgcost}.
\item The stationary policy pair $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma_{ss}^\star)$ is optimal to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:avgopt}
\min_{\pi \in \Pi}\max_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \; \tilde{J}^{\lambda}_{\bm{x},\infty}(\pi, \gamma;h).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the optimal value of this problem is equal to $\rho$.
\item The stationary policy pair $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma_{ss}^\star)$ is optimal to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:acopt}
\min_{\pi \in \bar{\Pi}}\max_{\gamma \in \bar{\Gamma}} \; J^{\lambda}_{\bm{x},\infty}(\pi, \gamma)
\end{equation}
for any policy spaces $\bar{\Pi} \subset \Pi$ and $\bar{\Gamma} \subset \Gamma$ satisfying
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma} [h(x_T) \mid x_0 = \bm{x}] = 0 \quad \forall \gamma \in \bar{\Gamma}\label{eq:avg}\\
&\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma_{ss}^\star} [h(x_T) \mid x_0 = \bm{x}] = 0 \quad \forall \pi \in \bar{\Pi}. \label{eq:avg2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Moreover, the optimal value of this problem is equal to $\rho$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:inf} guarantees the optimality of $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma_{ss}^\star)$ in the average cost case under the conditions \eqref{eq:avg} and \eqref{eq:avg2}.
Note that if the mean-state is bounded under $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma)$ so that $\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \lVert \mathbb{E}^{\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma}[x_T] \rVert< \infty$, then the condition \eqref{eq:avg} is automatically satisfied.
In the following subsection, we will show that $\pi_{ss}^\star$ is BIBO stable, and thereby any $\gamma$ generating a bounded-mean distribution should be contained in $\bar{\Gamma}$.
The condition \eqref{eq:avg2} is a generalization of the one required in the standard average cost LQG to guarantee the optimality of such a steady-state policy. If $h(x_T)$ is bounded uniformly over all stages under some policy $\pi$, it clearly satisfies the condition.
\subsubsection{Closed-Loop Stability}
We now discuss the stability properties of the closed-loop system
\begin{equation}\label{cl}
x_{t+1}^\star = (A + B K_{ss})x_t^\star + \Xi w_t + B L_{ss}
\end{equation}
when the optimal policy $\pi_{ss}^\star$ is employed.
Our first result concerns the expected value of the closed-loop system state $\mathbb{E}[x_t^\star]$, which evolves according to
\begin{equation}\label{ms}
\mathbb{E}[x_{t+1}^\star] = (A + B K_{ss})\mathbb{E}[x_t^\star] + \Xi \mathbb{E}[w_t] + BL_{ss}.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:stable1}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Under the optimal policy pair $(\pi_{ss}^\star, \gamma_{ss}^\star)$,
the expected state of the closed-loop system~\eqref{cl} converges to the following value:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&[I - (I + \Phi P_{ss})^{-1}A ]^{-1} [ I-\Phi (I+P_{ss} \Phi - A^\top)^{-1} P_{ss} ]\Xi \bar{w}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus, if in addition $\bar{w} = 0$, then the system is linear and
$\pi_{ss}^\star$ stabilizes the expected state under $\gamma_{ss}^\star$.
\end{theorem}
We can further show that $\pi_{ss}^\star$ guarantees the bounded-input, bounded-state (BIBO) stability when viewing the disturbance as input.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:stable2}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold.
Then, the closed-loop gain $(A+BK_{ss})$ is a stable matrix.
Therefore, the mean-state system \eqref{ms} with $\pi_{ss}^\star$ is BIBO stable.
\end{theorem}
\section{Distributional Robustness with Wasserstein Ambiguity Sets}\label{sec:dr}
\subsection{Finite-Horizon Case}
In the previous section, the minimax control problem with a Wasserstein penalty has been studied in both finite and infinite-horizon settings.
These results can be used to design a guaranteed-cost controller in the distributionally robust control setting with Wasserstein ambiguity sets~\eqref{eq:const}, as previewed in Section~\ref{sec:dual}.
We first show that the total cost under the worst-case distribution in the ambiguity set is bounded as follows:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:bd}
For any $\pi \in \Pi$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bd}
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathcal{D}} } J_{\bm{x}}(\pi, \gamma) \leq \inf_{\lambda \geq 0} \sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \big ( \lambda \theta^2 + J^\lambda_{\bm{x}} (\pi, \gamma)\big ) \quad \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
It is nontrivial to compute the upper-bound for arbitrary $\pi$.
However, if the optimal policy $\pi^\star$ of our minimax control problem~\eqref{opt} is employed,
this bound has a tractable form, which is evaluated using the optimal value function of~\eqref{opt}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bd}
Let $\pi^{\star, \lambda}$ be the optimal policy of \eqref{opt} with $\lambda \geq 0$.
Then, the cost incurred by $\pi^{\star, \lambda}$ under the worst-case distribution policy in $\Gamma_{\mathcal{D}}$ is bounded as follows:
\[
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\mathcal{D}} J_{\bm{x}} (\pi^{\star, \lambda}, \gamma)
\leq \lambda \theta^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda) \quad \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\]
\end{theorem}
The dependence of the upper-bound on penalty parameter $\lambda$
indicates that the distributional robustness of our policy $\pi^{\star, \lambda}$ can be controlled by tuning $\lambda$.
This theorem can be used to select an optimal penalty parameter $\lambda^\star$ that provides the least upper-bound.
Given $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n$,
let $\lambda^\star$ be defined by
\begin{equation}\label{opt_lambda}
\lambda^\star \in \argmin_{\lambda \geq 0} \big (\lambda\theta^2 +V (\bm{x}; \lambda) \big ).
\end{equation}
Then, the cost incurred by $\pi^{\star, \lambda^\star}$ under the worst-case distributions in the ambiguity sets is bounded as follows:
\[
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_\mathcal{D}} J_{\bm{x}} (\pi^{\star, \lambda^\star}, \gamma)
\leq \lambda^\star \theta^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda^\star).
\]
To solve the minimization problem in \eqref{opt_lambda},
we first identify some structural properties of $V (\bm{x}; \lambda)$ using the results in Section~\ref{sec:finite}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lam}
Let $P_t^\lambda$, $r_t^\lambda$ and $z_t^\lambda$, $t = 0, \ldots, T$, be obtained by the Riccati equation~\eqref{ric} with $P_T^\lambda=Q_f$, $r_T^\lambda=0$, and $z_T^\lambda=0$, given $\lambda \geq 0$.
Let
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\hat{\lambda} := \inf \{\lambda \mid \lambda I - \Xi^\top P_t^\lambda \Xi \succ 0, \; t=1,2, \ldots, T\}.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation*}
V(\bm{x}; \lambda) =
\begin{cases}
\infty & \text{if} \; \; \lambda \in [0, \hat{\lambda})\\
c_1 & \text{if} \; \; \lambda = \hat{\lambda}\\
c_2(\lambda) & \text{if} \; \; \lambda \in (\hat{\lambda}, \infty),
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where
$c_2(\lambda) := (\bm{x}^\top P_0^\lambda \bm{x} + 2(r_0^\lambda)^\top \bm{x} + z_0^\lambda)/T$ and $c_1$ is a constant satisfying the boundary condition $c_1 \geq c_2(\hat{\lambda}+\epsilon)$ for all $\epsilon >0$.
\end{lemma}
This structural property of the optimal value function yields the following simple way to find a minimizer $\lambda^\star$ of \eqref{opt_lambda}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:lam}
Suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:min}
\lambda_* \in \argmin_{\lambda > \hat{\lambda}} \bigg [ \lambda \theta^2 + \frac{1}{T} \big (\bm{x}^\top P_0^\lambda \bm{x} + 2(r_0^\lambda)^\top \bm{x} + z_0^\lambda \big ) \bigg ].
\end{equation}
Then, $\lambda_*$ is a minimizer of the optimization problem \eqref{opt_lambda}, i.e., $\lambda_* = \lambda^\star$.
Moreover, the optimization problem~\eqref{eq:min} is convex.
\end{proposition}
As shown in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:lam}, $\hat{\lambda}$ is the unique boundary point that separates the range of $\lambda$ by whether it satisfies Assumption~\ref{ass:pen} or not.
Therefore, $\hat{\lambda}$ can be obtained by binary search.
An optimal $\lambda^\star$ can then be computed by solving \eqref{eq:min} with existing convex optimization algorithms.
\subsection{Infinite-Horizon Case}
In this subsection, we examine the distributional robustness of the steady-state optimal policy using the following average cost criterion:
\begin{equation}\label{av_cost}
\begin{split}
&J_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi, \gamma) := \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t
+ u_t^\top R u_t )~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Fix any penalty parameter $\lambda > 0$ satisfying Assumptions~{\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob}}.
Let $P_{ss}^\lambda$ be the unique symmetric PSD solution of the ARE~\eqref{are} and $r_{ss}^\lambda$ be defined as \eqref{eq:oss} with given $\lambda \geq 0$.
The corresponding stationary cost in Proposition~\ref{prop:avgcost} is denoted by $\rho(\lambda)$.
As in Section~\ref{sec:infinite}, we use an extended average cost function including the bias $h^\lambda (\bm{x}) := \bm{x}^\top P_{ss}^\lambda \bm{x} + 2 (r_{ss}^\lambda)^\top \bm{x}$, defined as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
&\tilde{J}_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi, \gamma; h^\lambda) := \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \gamma} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t
+ u_t^\top R u_t ) + h^\lambda (x_T)~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Consider $\pi^{\star, \lambda}_{ss}$
obtained in Corollary~\ref{cor:inf} with the penalty parameter $\lambda$.
The average cost incurred by this policy under the worst-case distribution in the Wasserstein ambiguity set
\[
\mathcal{D} := \{ \mu \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^k) \mid W_2 (\mu, \nu) \leq \theta \}
\]
is computed as
\[
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathcal{D}}} J_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi_{ss}^{\star, \lambda}, \gamma).
\]
The worst-case cost is uniformly bounded by a constant depending on $\lambda$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:gc}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold for some penalty parameter $\lambda$.
If the stationary policy $\pi^{\star, \lambda}_{ss}$, defined in Corollary~\ref{cor:inf}, is employed,
then the worst-case extended average cost is bounded as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{gc1}
\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathcal{D}}} \tilde{J}_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi^{\star, \lambda}_{ss}, \gamma; h^\lambda) \leq {\lambda} \theta^2 + \rho({\lambda}) \quad \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for any policy space $\bar{\Gamma}_{\mathcal{D}} \subset \Gamma_{\mathcal{D}}$ satisfying
\[
\limsup_{T \to \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi_{ss}^{\star, \lambda}, \gamma}[ h^\lambda (x_T) \mid x_0 = \bm{x} ] = 0 \quad \forall \gamma \in \bar{\Gamma}_{\mathcal{D}},
\]
the worst-case average cost has the same upper-bound:
\begin{equation}\label{gc2}
\sup_{\gamma \in \bar{\Gamma}_{\mathcal{D}}} J_{\bm{x}, \infty}(\pi^{\star, \lambda}_{ss}, \gamma) \leq {\lambda} \theta^2 + \rho({\lambda}) \quad \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This theorem indicates the robustness of our policy $\pi_{ss}^{\star, \lambda}$ against any distribution errors within the Wasserstein ball.
Since the upper-bound depends on the penalty parameter $\lambda$,
it is important to select an appropriate value of $\lambda$.
Here, we present a way to obtain a suboptimal $\lambda$ that minimizes the upper-bound over a certain range of $\lambda$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:gc}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:st} and \ref{ass:ob} hold, and $(A, B)$ is stabilizable.
Then, there exists $\hat{\lambda}_1>0$ such that Assumption \ref{ass:W} holds for any $\lambda > \hat{\lambda}_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:gc}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:st} and \ref{ass:ob} hold, and $(A, B)$ is stabilizable.
Let $\hat{\lambda}_1$ be the constant defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:gc} and assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pen}
\hat{\lambda}_2 := \inf \{\lambda \mid \lambda I - \Xi^\top P_t^\lambda \Xi \succ 0 \;\; \forall t \geq 1, \forall T\geq 1\}
\end{equation}
is finite.
Let $\hat{\lambda}_\infty:= \max_{i=1,2}\{\hat{\lambda}_{i}\}$.
Then, $\rho(\lambda)$ defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:avgcost} is a monotonically nonincreasing convex function on $(\hat{\lambda}_\infty, \infty)$.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{lqgavgcost}
\begin{split}
\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow \infty} \rho(\lambda) &= \mathrm{tr}[ \Xi^\top \tilde{P}_{ss} \Xi \Sigma] - \bar{w}^\top \Xi^\top \tilde{P}_{ss} B R^{-1}B^\top (I + \tilde{P}_{ss} B R^{-1}B^\top )^{-1} \tilde{P}_{ss} \Xi \bar{w}\\
& + (2 \bar{w}^\top \Xi^\top - \tilde{r}_{ss}^\top B R^{-1}B^\top)(I+ \tilde{P}_{ss} B R^{-1}B^\top)^{-1} \tilde{r}_{ss}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here,
$\tilde{P}_{ss}:=\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \tilde{P}_t$ and $ \tilde{r}_{ss}:=\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \tilde{r}_t$, where $\tilde{P}_t$ and $\tilde{r}_t$ are generated by the Riccati equation \eqref{ric_lqg} for the standard LQG with $\tilde{P}_T =Q_f$, $\tilde{r}_T = 0$, and $\tilde{z}_T =0$.
\end{proposition}
Under the assumptions in Proposition~\ref{prop:gc}, one may
consider the convex optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{conv}
\min_{\lambda > \hat{\lambda}_\infty} [\lambda\theta^2 + \rho(\lambda)]
\end{equation}
to find a reasonably tight upper-bound of the average-cost.
The values of $\hat{\lambda}_1$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:gc} and $\hat{\lambda}_2$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:gc} are required for computing $\hat{\lambda}_\infty$.
The first parameter $\hat{\lambda}_1$ can be obtained by examining the eigenvalues of $\Phi$ and $A+ \Phi^{1/2} R^{1/2}K$.
Specifically, reducing $\lambda$ from a sufficiently large value, one can compute the biggest value of $\lambda$ such that $\Phi \succeq 0$ and
all eigenvalues of $A+ \Phi^{1/2} R^{1/2}K$ lie inside the unit circle.
The second parameter $\hat{\lambda}_2$ can be considered as the infinite-horizon extension of $\hat{\lambda}$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:lam}.
As in the finite-horizon case, one can obtain $\hat{\lambda}_2$ via binary search.
Note that the optimization problem~\eqref{conv} provides the least upper-bound over the range of $\lambda$ that the existence of $\rho(\lambda)$ is guaranteed.
Nevertheless, when $\hat{\lambda}_\infty = \hat{\lambda}_2 \geq \hat{\lambda}_1$, \eqref{conv} provides the least bound for a nearly entire range, $\lambda \in [0, \hat{\lambda}_2)\cup (\hat{\lambda}_2, \infty)$, since the optimal value is $+\infty$ for $\lambda < \hat{\lambda}_2$.
\subsection{Out-of-Sample Performance Guarantee}
An advantage of using the Wasserstein metric in distributionally robust control is to attain a performance guarantee measured under a new sample, independent of $\hat{w} = (\hat{w}^{(1)}, \ldots, \hat{w}^{(N)})$ used in the controller design. Such an out-of-sample performance guarantee has been studied in the infinite-horizon discounted cost setting~\cite{Yang2020}.
In this section, we extend this result to the finite-horizon and the infinite-horizon average cost cases. Throughout this subsection, we fix $\lambda >0$.
\subsubsection{Finite-Horizon Case}
Let $(\pi^\star_{\hat{w}}, \gamma^\star_{\hat{w}})$ denote the optimal policy pair of the finite-horizon minimax control problem~\eqref{opt} with sample $\hat{w} = (\hat{w}^{(1)}, \ldots, \hat{w}^{(N)})$ and the penalty parameter $\lambda$.
The out-of-sample performance of $\pi^\star_{\hat{w}}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{T}\mathbb{E}_{w \sim \mu}^{\pi^\star_{\hat{w}}} \bigg [
\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} (x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t) + x_T^\top Q_f x_T~\bigg\vert~x_0 = \bm{x}
\bigg],
\end{equation}
where $\mu := \mu_0 \times \cdots \times \mu_{T-1} \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}^{k\times T})$ represents the true but unknown distribution of $w$.
Note that it is intractable to explicitly evaluate the out-of-sample performance since $\mu$ is unknown.
As an alternative, the following probabilistic guarantee can be considered:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:out}
\begin{split}
\mu^N \bigg\{ \hat{w} : \frac{1}{T} &\mathbb{E}^{\pi^\star_{\hat{w}}}_{w \sim \mu} \big[C_T(x, u) \mid x_0 = \bm{x} \big] \leq \lambda \theta^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda) \quad \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n \bigg \} \geq 1-\beta,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\[
C_T(x, u) := x_T^\top Q_f x_T + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} (x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^T R u_t)
\]
denotes the total cost,
and
$\beta \in (0, 1)$ represents an acceptable error in probability.
Our goal is to identify a condition on the size of the Wasserstein ambiguity set for satisfying the probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee.
To begin, we assume that $\mu$ has a light tail.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:tail}
There exist $p > 0$ and $q > 2$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} \exp({p \|w\|^q}) \mathrm{d} \mu_t(w) < \infty
\end{equation*}
for $t = 0, \ldots, T-1$.
\end{assumption}
Under this assumption, the following measure concentration inequality holds for the Wasserstein metric \cite{Fournier2015}[Theorem 2].
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:out}
Suppose that Assumption~\ref{ass:tail} holds.
Let $\nu_{\hat{w}_t}$ denote the empirical distribution~\eqref{emp} obtained using sample $\hat{w}_t$.
Then, for all $N \geq 1$, $\theta >0$ and $t = 0, \ldots, T-1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mu_t^N \big \{ \hat{w}_t : W_2 &(\mu_t, \nu_{\hat{w}_t})^2 \geq \theta \big \} \leq c_1 [b_1(N, \theta) \mathbf{1}_{\{\theta \leq 1\}} + b_2(N, \theta) \mathbf{1}_{\{\theta >1\}}],
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
b_1(N, \theta) := \begin{cases}
\exp(-c_2 N \theta^2) & \text{if} \; \; k<4\\
\exp(-c_2 N (\frac{\theta}{log(2+1 / \theta)})^2) & \text{if} \; \; k=4\\
\exp(-c_2 N \theta^{k/2}) & \text{if} \; \; k>4,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
b_2(N, \theta):= \exp(-c_2 N \theta^{q / 2}).
\end{equation*}
The positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depend only on $k$, $p$ and $q$.
\end{lemma}
This lemma provides a sufficient condition for the probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee~\eqref{eq:out}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:out}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen} and~\ref{ass:tail} hold. Let the radius $\theta$ be chosen as
\begin{equation*}
\theta (N, \beta) =
\begin{cases}
c^{1/q} & \text{if} \; \;c>1 \\
c^{1/4} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1 \wedge k<4 \\
c^{1/k} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1 \wedge k>4\\
\bar{\theta} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1/(\log 3)^2 \wedge k=4,\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
c:= \frac{1}{N c_2} \log \bigg( \frac{c_1}{1-(1-\beta)^{1/T}} \bigg),
\end{equation*}
$c_1$ and $c_2$ are the positive constants defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:out}, and $\bar{\theta}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\bar{\theta}^2}{\log (2+ 1/\bar{\theta}^2)} = {c}^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Then, the probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee \eqref{eq:out} holds.
\end{theorem}
Under the more strict assumption that each $\mu_t$ is compactly supported rather than having a light tail, a simpler concentration inequality holds as proposed in~\cite{Boskos2020}[Proposition 3.2].
Define the diameter of a set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^{k}$ as $\mathrm{diam}(S):=\sup\{\lVert x-y\rVert_\infty \mid x, y \in S\}$.
Let $\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$ denote the smallest closed set that has measure $1$ with $\mu$.
Then, using the same argument as that in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:out},
we can show that the following guarantee holds.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:comp}
Suppose that Assumption~\ref{ass:pen} holds and $\mu_t$'s are compactly supported for all $t = 0, \ldots, T-1$ with $\zeta := \frac{1}{2} \max\{ \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{supp}(\mu_t)) \mid t=0,\ldots,T-1\}$.
Let the radius $\theta$ be chosen as
\begin{equation*}
\theta(N, \beta):=
\begin{cases}
c^{1/4}\zeta & \text{if} \;\; k<4 \\
c^{1/k}\zeta & \text{if} \;\; k>4\\
\bar{\theta} & \text{if} \;\; k=4, \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
c:= \frac{1}{N c_2} \log \bigg( \frac{c_1}{1-(1-\beta)^{1/T}} \bigg),
\end{equation*}
$c_1$ and $c_2$ are the positive constants depend only on $k$, and $\bar{\theta}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\bar{\theta}^2}{\zeta^2 \log (2+ \zeta^2/\bar{\theta}^2)} = {c}^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Then, the probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee \eqref{eq:out} holds.
\end{cor}
A potential disadvantage of directly employing the radius suggested in Theorem~\ref{thm:out} or Corollary~\ref{cor:comp} is that the guaranteed upper-bound $\lambda \theta(N, \beta)^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda)$ grows with the number of stage $T$.
Specifically, $c$ increases logarithmically with $T$, since $1-(1-\beta)^{1/T} \approx \beta/T$ when $T$ is sufficiently large.
The stationarity assumption for $\mu_t$ can be used to alleviate this issue.
For instance, if we assume that $T' \in [1, T]$ stages have a stationary probability distribution and therefore use only one sample for $T'$ stages, then we can reduce $T$ to $T-T'+1$ in our formulation of $\theta(N, \beta)$.
Thus, in the case with Assumption~\ref{ass:st}, we can simply replace $T$ by $1$.
\subsubsection{Infinite-Horizon Case}
We now consider the infinite-horizon case with the average cost criteria \eqref{av_cost}.
Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob}, let $\pi^{\star}_{ss,\hat{w}}$ denote the optimal policy obtained in Corollary~\ref{cor:inf} with sample $\hat{w} = (\hat{w}^{(1)}, \ldots, \hat{w}^{(N)})$.
We assume that the true distribution is stationary, i.e., $\mu_t \equiv \mu$ for all $t$.
In this average cost setting, our interest is to study the following probabilistic bound on the out-of-sample performance of $\pi^{\star}_{ss,\hat{w}}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:out2}
\begin{split}
\mu^N \bigg \{ \hat{w} : \limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi^{\star}_{ss,\hat{w}}}_{w \sim \mu} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t
+ u_t^\top R u_t ) \bigg\vert x_0 = \bm{x} \bigg]
\leq \lambda \theta^2 + \rho(\lambda) \; \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n \bigg \} \geq 1-\beta,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda \theta^2 + \rho(\lambda)$ is the upper-bound on the average cost in Theorem~\ref{thm:gc}.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:out}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:tail} hold. Let the radius $\theta$ be chosen as
\begin{equation*}
\theta(N, \beta):=
\begin{cases}
c^{1/q} & \text{if} \; \;c>1 \\
c^{1/4} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1 \wedge k<4 \\
c^{1/k} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1 \wedge k>4\\
\bar{\theta} & \text{if} \; \;c \leq 1/(\log 3)^2 \wedge k=4,\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
c:= \frac{1}{N c_2} \log \bigg( \frac{c_1}{\beta} \bigg),
\end{equation*}
$c_1$ and $c_2$ are the positive constants defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:out}, and $\bar{\theta}$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\bar{\theta}^2}{\log (2+ 1/\bar{\theta}^2)} = c^{1/2}.
\end{equation*}
Then, the probabilistic out-of-sample performance guarantee \eqref{eq:out2} holds.
\end{cor}
If $\mu$ is contained in $\mathcal{D}$, then the policy $\gamma_t \equiv \mu$ must be contained in $\bar{\Gamma}_{\mathcal{D}}$, implying that the guaranteed-cost property~\eqref{gc2} holds.
Since the rest of proof is similar to that for Theorem~\ref{thm:out}, we have omitted the proof.
Note that the radius in Corollary~\ref{cor:out} can be obtained by letting $T=1$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:out} due to the stationarity assumption of $\mu$ and $\nu$.
The case of compactly supported distributions can be considered similarly to Corollary~\ref{cor:comp}.
\section{Relations to $H_\infty$-Optimal Control}\label{sec:Hinfinity}
In this section, we discuss relations between our minimax control method and the $H_\infty$-method.
For comparison,
we consider the classical dynamic game formulation for minimizing the $H_\infty$-norm of the cost function with respect to the disturbance~(e.g., \cite{Basar2008}).
\subsection{Finite-Horizon Case}
We first examine the finite-horizon case with the initial condition $x_0 = 0$.
For $H_\infty$-control, we consider a modified dynamic game problem, where the opponent's policy $\tilde{\gamma}_t$ now maps the current state $x_t$ to disturbance vector $w_t$ rather than its distribution~\cite{Basar2008}. Note that the disturbance vector is no longer random in the $H_\infty$-setting.
The set of admissible opponent's policies is accordingly modified and is denoted by~$\tilde{\Gamma}$.
Consider the following quadratic cost function:
\[
\tilde{J} (\pi, \tilde{\gamma}) := \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \tilde{\gamma}} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} ( x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t ) + x_T^\top Q_f x_T~\bigg\vert~x_0 = 0 \bigg].
\]
Given a control policy $\pi$,
we seek to find the infimum of $\lambda > 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma} : \lVert w \rVert \leq 1} \tilde{J} (\pi, \tilde{\gamma}) = \sup_{\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma} } \frac{\tilde{J}(\pi, \tilde{\gamma})}{\| w \|^2 } \leq \lambda,
\end{equation*}
where $\| w \|^2 := \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \lVert w_t \rVert^2$.
The first equality holds since $\tilde{J} (\pi, \tilde{\gamma})$ is homogeneous with respect to $\| w\|^2$ when $x_0 = 0$.
Note also that ${\tilde{J}(\pi, \tilde{\gamma})}/{\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \lVert w_t \rVert^2} \leq \lambda$ for all $\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma}$ if and only if $\tilde{J}(\pi, \tilde{\gamma}) - \lambda \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \lVert w_t \rVert^2 \leq 0$ for all $\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma}$.
Thus, the inequality above can be rewritten as
\[
\sup_{\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma} } \bigg [
\tilde{J}(\pi, \tilde{\gamma}) - \lambda \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \| w_t \|^2
\bigg ]\leq 0.
\]
This motivates us to consider the following augmented cost function with an additional disturbance-norm term:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\tilde{J}^{\lambda} (\pi, \tilde{\gamma}) := \mathbb{E}^{\pi, \tilde{\gamma}} \bigg[ \sum_{t=0}^{T-1}
( x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t - \lambda \| w_t \|^2 )
+ x_T^\top Q_f x_T~\bigg\vert~x_0 = 0 \bigg],
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
as well as the following minimax control problem:
\[
\tilde{J}^{\lambda, \star} := \inf_{\pi \in \Pi} \sup_{\tilde{\gamma} \in \tilde{\Gamma}} \tilde{J}^{\lambda} (\pi, \tilde{\gamma}).
\]
Let $\Lambda:= \{ \lambda \mid \tilde{J}^{\lambda, \star} \leq 0\}$.
The desired $\lambda^\star$ can be obtained as
$\lambda^\star := \inf \{ \lambda \mid \lambda \in \Lambda \}$.
More details about the dynamic game formulation of $H_\infty$-control can be found in~\cite[Section 1.4]{Basar2008}.
Let $\tilde{V}_t:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ denote the value function of this problem. The dynamic programming principle gives the following Bellman equation:
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{split}
&\tilde{V}_t (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top Q \bm{x} + \inf_{\bm{u} \in \mathbb{R}^m} \bigg [
\bm{u}^\top R \bm{u} + \sup_{\bm{w} \in \mathbb{R}^k} \{
\tilde{V}_{t+1} (A\bm{x} + B\bm{u} + \Xi \bm{w}) - \lambda \| \bm{w} \|^2
\}
\bigg ]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{V}_T (\bm{x}) := \bm{x}^\top Q_f \bm{x}$.
If we parameterize $\tilde{V}_t (\bm{x}) = \bm{x}^\top P_t \bm{x}$ under Assumption~\ref{ass:pen}, the Riccati equation and the control gain $K_t$ are obtained as those in Section~\ref{sec:finite}.
Note that there are no $r_t$, $z_t$, and $L_t$ terms in the $H_\infty$-control.
The worst-case disturbance policy is then given by
\[
\tilde{\gamma}_t^\star (\bm{x}) = (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi)^{-1} \Xi^\top P_{t+1} (A+ BK_t) \bm{x}.
\]
Since $x_0 = 0$, we deduce that
\[
\tilde{J}^{\lambda, \star} = \tilde{V}_0 (0) = 0^\top P_0 0 = 0.
\]
In this case, any $\lambda$ satisfying Assumption~\ref{ass:pen} must be contained in $\Lambda$.
However, if $\lambda$ does not satisfy Assumption~\ref{ass:pen}, then the cost value would be $+\infty$, and thus $\lambda$ cannot belong to $\Lambda$.
Thus, we conclude that $\lambda^\star$ is the infimum of $\lambda$ that satisfies Assumption~\ref{ass:pen}. See \cite{Basar2008}[Section 3.3] for further details on the optimal disturbance attenuation level $\lambda^\star$ of $H_\infty$-control.
The worst-case disturbance $\tilde{\gamma}_t^\star (\bm{x})$ in the $H_\infty$-method is related with the support elements $w_t^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x})$ of the worst-case distribution in Corollary~\ref{cor:dist} in our method as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
w_t^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x}) = \tilde{\gamma}_t^\star (\bm{x}) &+ (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{t+1} \Xi)^{-1} (\Xi^\top P_{t+1} BL_t + \Xi^\top r_{t+1} + \lambda \hat{w}^{(i)}_t ).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This indicates that each support element of the worst-case distribution in Corollary~\ref{cor:dist} can be considered to be shifted from $\tilde{\gamma}_t^\star (\bm{x})$ by the scaled terms generated from the sample data $\hat{w}^{(i)}_t$ and $L_t$, $r_{t+1}$.\footnote{If the sample mean is zero, i.e., $\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{w}^{(i)}_t =0$, for all stages, then $\tilde{\gamma}_t^\star (\bm{x})$ corresponds to the mean value of the worst-case distribution.}
Thus, our minimax control method with Wasserstein distance can be understood as a distributional generalization of the $H_\infty$-method.
\subsection{Infinite-Horizon Case}
In the infinite-horizon case, the corresponding $H_\infty$-control can be obtained using a limiting solution of the Riccati equation.
This yields the same ARE as \eqref{are} for our minimax control methods~\cite[Section 3.4]{Basar2008}.
Under Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob}, the ARE has a symmetric PSD solution $P_{ss}$ from which we obtain the same control gain $K_{ss}$.
Regarding the worst-case disturbance, we have
\[
\tilde{\gamma}^\star (\bm{x}) = (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{ss} \Xi)^{-1} \Xi^\top P_{ss} (A+ BK_{ss}) \bm{x}.
\]
Thus,
the worst-case disturbance in the $H_\infty$ method is related to our worst-case distribution $\gamma^\star_{ss} (\bm{x}) := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{w^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x})}$ through
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
w^{\star, (i)} (\bm{x}) = \tilde{\gamma}^\star (\bm{x}) &+ (\lambda I - \Xi^\top P_{ss} \Xi)^{-1} (\Xi^\top P_{ss} BL_{ss} + \Xi^\top r_{ss} + \lambda \hat{w}^{(i)}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The relationship between our method and the $H_\infty$-method enables us to analyze our controller using the classical robust stability results.
Consider a dynamical system of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&x_{t+1} = Ax_t + Bu_t + \Xi w_t, \\
&z_t = \begin{bmatrix} {Q}^{1/2}\; \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} x_t + \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ {R}^{1/2}\; \end{bmatrix} u_t, \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $z_t$ is the error output and $w_t$ is the disturbance input.
Let $T_\pi$ denote the closed loop transfer function from input $w$ to output $z$ under control policy $\pi$.
As mentioned above, our minimax controller is equivalent to the $H_\infty$-controller when $x_0 = 0$ and the empirical distribution has zero mean, i.e., $\bar{w} = 0$.
This equivalence yields the following robust stability property of our controller (see e.g., \cite{Basar2008} and \cite{Glover1988} for further details about robust stability).
\begin{proposition}
Suppose that Assumptions~\ref{ass:pen}--\ref{ass:ob} hold, $x_0 = 0$, and $\bar{w}=0$.
Then, the optimal minimax control policy $\pi^\star_{ss}$ in Corollary~\ref{cor:inf} satisfies the following robust stability property:
\[
\| T_{\pi^\star_{ss}} \|_\infty := \sup_{w \in \mathbb{R}} \bar{\sigma} (T_{\pi^\star_{ss}}(jw)) \leq \lambda,
\]
where $\bar{\sigma} (T(jw))$ denotes the largest singular value of $T(jw)$.
\end{proposition}
Conversely, our stochastic interpretation of the classical $H_\infty$-method enables us to analyze the $H_\infty$-controller
from the distributional perspective, particularly when the sample of $w_t$ is available.
For instance, in such data-driven scenarios, one can obtain the probabilistic performance guarantee of the $H_\infty$-controller using the out-of-sample performance result in the previous section.
To be more precise, for the $H_\infty$-controller with a fixed $\lambda$,
its out-of-sample performance satisfies the probabilistic bound~\eqref{eq:out2}.
\section{Numerical Experiments}
In this section, the performance of our minimax control method is demonstrated through a power system frequency regulation problem.
Stability is an important issue in power transmission systems, as the penetration of variable renewable energy sources
and the potential of data integrity attacks
increase.
We apply the minimax control method on the IEEE 39 bus system, which models the New England power grid and has been frequently used to evaluate frequency control methods (e.g. \cite{Dorfler2014, Dizche2019}).
This model consists of 39 buses, 46 lines, and 10 generators.
We use a classical generator model without an excitation system, such as a power system stabilizer and an automatic voltage regulator, for simplicity.
Let $\delta_i$ and $\omega_i$ denote the rotor angle and the frequency of the $i$th generator. Then, $\dot{\delta_i} = \omega_i - \omega_s$, where $\omega_s$ is a constant synchronous speed.
The electromechanical swing equation for the $i$th generator is given by the following damped oscillator:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{2H_i}{\omega_s} \dot{\omega_i} = P_{i} - d_i \omega_i - \sum_{j \neq i} \vert Y_{ij} \vert E_i E_j \sin(\delta_i - \delta_j),
\end{equation*}
where
$H_i$, $P_i$, $d_i$, and $E_i$ denote the inertia, the power injection, the damping coefficient, and the voltage of the $i$th generators, and
$Y$ denotes the admittance matrix of the power network.
Linearizing the swing equations at an operating point $(\delta^*, \omega^*)$ yields
\begin{equation*}
M \Delta \ddot{\delta} + D \Delta\dot{\delta} + L \Delta\delta = \Delta P,
\end{equation*}
where
$M := (2/\omega_s)\mathrm{diag}(H)$, $D := \mathrm{diag}(d)$, and the Kron-reduced Laplacian matrix $L$ is defined by $L_{ij} := - \vert Y_{ij} \vert E_i E_j \cos(\delta^*_i-\delta^*_j)$ for $i \neq j$ and $L_{ii} := -\sum_{j \neq i} L_{ij}$.
The second-order ordinary differential equation can be expressed in the following state-space form:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}\Delta \dot{\delta} \\\Delta \dot{\omega} \end{bmatrix} = \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} 0 & I \\ -M^{-1} L & -M^{-1} D \end{bmatrix}}_{=: A} \begin{bmatrix} \Delta \delta \\ \Delta \omega \end{bmatrix}+ \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ M^{-1} \end{bmatrix}}_{=:B}\Delta P,
\end{equation*}
with system state $x(t):=(\Delta\delta^\top(t), \Delta\omega^\top(t))^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{20}$ and control input $u(t):=\Delta P(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{10}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figure_1}
\caption{
Box plots (1,000 test cases) of $\Delta \omega_{10}$, controlled by
(a) the standard LQG method under the worst-case distribution generated with $\theta = 0.5$,
(b) our minimax method under the worst-case distribution generated with $\theta = 0.5$,
(c) the standard LQG method under the worst-case distribution generated with $\theta = 1$,
and
(d) our minimax method under the worst-case distribution generated with $\theta = 1$.}
\label{fig:result}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
To model uncertainty in power injection or net demand,
a disturbance $w(t)$ is assumed to be added to the input $u(t)$.
Then, $\Xi = B$.
For the quadratic cost function, we set $x^\top Q x= \frac{1}{2} \Delta \delta^\top (I_{10}-\frac{1}{10}\mathbf{1}_{10} \mathbf{1}_{10}^\top) \Delta \delta + \frac{1}{2} \Delta \omega^\top \Delta \omega$ and $R=I_{10}$,
where $I_{10}$ denotes the 10 by 10 identity matrix and $\mathbf{1}_{10}$ denotes the 10 dimensional vector of all ones.
The system is discretized by a zero-order hold method with sample time $0.1$ seconds.
Suppose that the initial value of rotor speed $\Delta \omega_{10}$ is perturbed by $1$, $10$ samples of disturbances are generated according to the normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0.02, 0.1^2 I)$,
and the worst-case distribution in Corollary~\ref{cor:dist} is applied to the system in the finite-horizon setting with the number of stages $T=150$.\footnote{All the simulation codes and data can be downloaded at https://github.com/hahakhkim/WassersteinLQ.}
\begin{table}
\caption{The settling time (in seconds) required for each generator to maintain the mean frequency less than $0.03$.}
\label{table:time}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{4.5em}| *{10}{p{1.75em}}}
\hline
Gen \# & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
LQG & 4.8 & 4.9 & 4.7 & 4.9 & 5.1 & 4.2 & 4.4 & 4.1 & 3.9 & 7.1\\
Minimax & 1.9 & 3.2 & 3.2 & 2.9 & 3.1 & 2.7 & 2.7 & 3.7 & 3.4 & 4.5\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figure_2}
\caption{(a) Optimal value of $\lambda$ depending on $\theta$,
(b) average control energy depending on $\theta$, and
(c) reliability depending on $\theta$.
}
\label{fig:result2}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:result} shows the box plot of frequency $\Delta \omega_{10}$, controlled by the standard LQG and the proposed minimax control methods.
The finite-horizon optimal policy \eqref{opt_policy} is used, where the optimal penalty coefficient $\lambda^\star$ is obtained using Proposition~\ref{prop:lam} with the ambiguity set radius $\theta=0.5, 1.0$.
The results demonstrate that our method significantly reduces the fluctuation of the frequency compared to the standard LQG method.
Additionally, the proposed control policy successfully drives the expected value of the system state to zero, while the standard LQG fails to do so.
The results also show that the size of the Wasserstein ambiguity set or equivalently the value of $\theta$ plays an important role in the performance of our method.
As $\theta$ increases, the resulting policy with the penalty $\lambda^\star$ must guarantee the upper-bound of the cost function for a larger size of the ambiguity set.
Therefore, it is robust against a wider range of distributions, and the worst-case distribution is selected as a more extreme one.
As $\theta$ decreases, the worst-case distribution converges to the empirical distribution, and thus the robustness advantage of our policy over the standard LQG diminishes.
The settling time required for each generator to maintain the mean frequency less than $3\%$ of the initial deviation is shown in Table~\ref{table:time}, when the worst-case distribution with $\theta=0.5$ is applied to the system.
It takes $4.8$ seconds on average when using the standard LQG method, while the proposed minimax method requires $3.1$ seconds on average.
Fig.~\ref{fig:result2} (a) displays the optimal penalty parameter $\lambda^\star$ obtained using Proposition~\ref{prop:lam}, depending on the radius $\theta$.
The value of $\lambda^\star$ decreases as $\theta$ increases and eventually converges to the infimum of $\lambda^\star$ satisfying Assumption~\ref{ass:pen}.
This observation is consistent with our intuition that the distributional robustness of the control policy can be tuned using the penalty parameter instead of $\theta$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:result2} (b) shows the average control energy required for our method depending on the value of $\theta$.
The control energy is measured for the first 5 seconds, i.e., $\sum_{t=0}^{49}\lVert u_t \rVert^2 / 50$, and is averaged over 1,000 test cases.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:result2}~(b), the required energy increases as $\theta$ increases.
If $\theta$ decreases, the required energy declines and eventually converges to the energy required for the standard LQG method.
This implies that a tradeoff between robustness and control energy exists in our method.
Therefore, the value of $\theta$ should be properly selected based on the reliability of available data to balance robustness and control energy.
To test the out-of-sample performance of our control policy,
the \emph{reliability}
$\mu^N \{ \hat{w} : \frac{1}{T} \mathbb{E}^{\pi^\star_{\hat{w}}}_{w \sim \mu}$ $[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}(x_t^\top Q x_t + u_t^\top R u_t) + x_T^\top Q_f x_T \mid x_0 = \bm{x} ] \leq \lambda \theta^2 + V (\bm{x}; \lambda) \; \forall \bm{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n \} $ is computed using 10,000 simulations with sample size $N = 10$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:result2} (c), the reliability increases with $\theta$ as expected.
More specifically, the reliability sharply increases in $[10^{-4}, 3\times 10^{-3}]$ and then saturates as $\theta$ increases further.
Given that the control energy also increases with $\theta$,
it may be reasonable to choose $\theta \approx 3\times 10^{-3}$ in this problem to attain a sufficiently robust policy, which is not overly conservative.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented a minimax LQ control method with a Wasserstein penalty to address the issue of ambiguity inherent in practical stochastic systems.
Our method has several salient features including $(i)$ a closed-form expression of the optimal policy pair, $(ii)$ the convergence of a Riccati equation to the unique symmetric PSD solution to the corresponding ARE, $(iii)$ closed-loop stability, $(iv)$ distributional robustness, and $(v)$ an out-of-sample performance guarantee.
The relation to the $H_\infty$-method indicates that our method may open an exciting avenue for future research that connects stochastic and robust control from the perspective of distributional robustness.
Moreover, it remains as future work to address partial observability and extensions to continuous-time settings.
|
\section{Introduction}
While mass loss is one of the key mechanisms regulating the evolution of massive stars, a complete understanding of it is still missing, specially during the final phases before the supernova (SN) explosion \citep[e.g.,][]{smith14}. The mass loss history $\lesssim 100-1000$ yrs before core-collapse supernova explosions can be inferred from the radio and X-ray emission resulting from the propagation of the SN shock through the circumstellar material (for a review see, e.g., \citealt{chevalier17}).
While the bulk of the SN ejecta emits in optical, the shock heated gas resulting from the interaction with the environment might be observed in X-ray and radio due to bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation from relativistic electrons accelerated at the shock front.
The forward shock of type Ib/c SNe, originated from the collapse of Wolf-Rayet progenitor stars, interacts with the wind of the progenitor star, which has typical mass loss rates of $\dot{M}_w \sim 10^{-4}-10^{-6}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. The wind is often inhomogenous, as proven by radio emission, showing small flux fluctuations of $\sim$ a few over timescales of tens-hundreds of days after the explosion \citep[e.g.,][]{bietenholz05, soderberg06, schinzel09, wellons12, salas13, bietenholz14, corsi14, palliyaguru19}.
In a few cases, type Ib/c SNe show signs of much stronger interaction between the ejecta and shells of material ejected before the explosion. For instance, SN 2006jc exploded inside a dense He rich environment \citep[e.g.,][]{foley07}, likely produced by an outburst ejected $\sim$ two years before the SN.
SN 2001em, initially classified as type Ib SN, presented prominent H$\alpha$ emission lines at 2.5 yrs. Associated with strong radio and X-ray emission, this was interpreted as evidence of the interaction between the SN ejecta and a massive ($\sim 3$ M$_\odot$) hydrogen-rich shell located at $\sim 7\times 10^{16}$ cm \citep{chugai06, chandra20}. Several other SNe show similar signs of early interaction with massive shells \citep[see, e.g.,][]{anupama05, moriya14, chen18, pooley19, dwarkadas10, Ben-Ami14, Mauerhan18, suzuki21}.
Nevertheless, while in all these cases the intermediate phases of the transition between type Ib and type IIn SN were not observed, this transition has been observed in detail in the SN\,2014C.
Discovered by the \textit{Lick Observatory Supernova Search} \citep{kim14} in the NGC 7331 galaxy at a distance of 14.7 Mpc and initially classified as a type Ib SN, SN\,2014C made a transition to a type IIn SN about $\sim 100$ days after the explosion, showing strong H$\alpha$ emission \citep{milisavljevic15}.
The modelling of the optical/UV light curve shows that SN\,2014C has a kinetic energy of 1.75 $\pm$ 0.25 $\times 10^{51}$ erg, with an ejecta mass of 1.7 $\pm$ 0.2 M$_\sun$ and a Nickel mass of 0.15 $\pm$ 0.02 M$_\sun$ \citep{margutti17}.
SN\,2014C has also been extensivel observed with X-rays Telescope (XRT, \citep{Burrows05}) on board the \textit{Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory (XRT)} \citep{Gehrels04} and the \textit{Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO)} in the 0.3-10 keV energy band, and by the \textit{Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR)} from 3 keV to 79 keV \citep{margutti17,brethauer20,brethauer21}. Most of the detected X-ray emission is concentrated in the 1-40 keV energy band, while emission below $\sim 1$ keV is strongly absorbed.
The observed X-ray emission increased at 250 days, although the lack of temporal coverage between 100 and 250 days implies that likely the onset of the X-ray increase was at a smaller time.
Integrated over the spectral range 0.3-100 keV, it raised from $5 \times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ to $5 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
Then, it peaked $\sim 850 - 1000$ days and maintained a nearly constant flux until $\sim 2000$ days after the explosion \citep{brethauer20}.
Radio observations showed a similar behaviour. Light curves of the SN at 15.7 GHz taken with the \emph{Arcminute Microkelvin Imager} between 16 and 567 days showed that the flux increased rapidly at $\sim$ 100-150 days \citep{anderson17}. A similar increase (by more than one order of magnitude) was observed by the \emph{Very Large array} \citep{margutti17}.
Furthermore, observations done by using the \emph{Very Long Baseline Interferometry} found that the shock expansion has already strongly decelerated 384 days after the explosion \citep{bietenholz18,bietenholz20}.
Altogether, the evolution of optical, radio and X-ray emission have been interpreted by considering the interaction of the SN ejecta with a wind with $\dot{M}= 5 \times 10^{-5}$ M$_\sun$ yr$^{-1}$ around the progenitor star, and a massive shell located at R$_{\rm sh} = 5 \times 10^{16}$ cm, with an extension of approximately 0.25 R$_{\rm sh}$ and a density of $\sim$10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{milisavljevic15, anderson17, margutti17, bietenholz18, bietenholz20}. Assuming a velocity of 10-100 km s$^{-1}$ for the shell, its position implies that it was ejected $\sim 100$-$1000$ yrs before the SN explosion \citep{milisavljevic15, anderson17, margutti17, bietenholz18, bietenholz20}.
Late infrared, optical and UV observations confirm that the SN shock is still interacting with the massive shells five years after the explosion \citep{tinyanont19, son20}.
Radio and X-ray emission from the SN shock are typically described by considering a self-similar behaviour for the dynamics \citep[e.g.,][]{chevalier82, chevalier89, chevalier98}. In the case of a supernova interacting with a massive shell, we can not assume a self-similar behaviour for the flow as the interaction with the shell leads to the formation of a strong reverse shock (see Figure \ref{fig1}). Then, although an analytical description gives a qualitative picture of the problem, a detailed understanding of the dynamics can be achieved only employing numerical simulations.
Typically, running a large number of models covering a predefined number of parameters provides sufficient detail of the dynamics. When running computational intensive hydrodynamical simulations, however, this approach necessarily limits the parameter space explored. To handle this limitation, in this paper we use an optimization method (a genetic algorithm) to iteratively determine a relatively large number of parameters by running a limited number of numerical simulations. Although there have been a wide range of applications of genetic algorithms in astrophysics \citep[e.g.,][]{Charbonneau1995}, it is the first time that this method has been applied by coupling hydrodynamic simulations with radiative transfer, in order to obtain an optimized solution for the CSM density profiles.
Specifically, we run a set of numerical simulations coupled to a genetic algorithm (GA). The GA changes the shell density with time by minimizing the difference between the synthetic X-ray emission (computed by post-processing the results of the hydrodynamical simulations) and observations of this SN presented in \citet{margutti17, brethauer20, brethauer21}. In this approach, each density $\rho(r_i)$ (being $i=1$, \dots, $N$) is considered a parameter of the model.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we describe the hydrodynamics code and the initial conditions of the simulations, the bremsstrahlung radiation transfer code and the genetic algorithm employed to solve the optimization problem and to find the density stratification of the shell. In Section 3 we present the results of our numerical calculations. In Section 4 we discuss the limits of the simulations presented, and the implications of our findings. Finally, in Section 5 we draw our conclusions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.3\linewidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Schematic evolution of a supernova
shock interacting with an external shell
(not-to-scale). (A) the supernova explosion
produces a outwardly
propagating shock; (B) the reverse shock becomes stronger as the shock front collides with the external shell, moving back towards (in mass coordinates) the
supernova center.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Numerical codes and initial conditions}
We study the interaction of a SN shock with a massive shell by running a set of one-dimensional (1D), spherically symmetric simulations with the adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) code \emph{Mezcal} \citep{decolle12}. The code solves the special relativistic hydrodynamics equations, and has been extensively used to run numerical simulations of astrophysical flows
\citep[e.g.,][]{gonzalez14, decolle14, decolle18a, decolle18b}.
We follow the propagation of the SN shock front as it moves through a computational grid covering $\sim$ nine orders of magnitude in space, from $\sim 2\times 10^8$ cm (the outer edge of the iron core) to $\sim 2 \times 10^{17}$ cm. We do so by running two sets of simulations. First, we follow the propagation of the SN shock front as it moves through the progenitor star, e.g., from $\sim 10^8$ cm to $10^{11}$ cm. Then, after remapping the results of the small scale simulation into a much larger computational box, we follow its propagation through the wind of the progenitor star and its interaction with the massive shell located at $\gtrsim 10^{16}$ cm.
In the small scale simulation, we set the density profile of the progenitor star by using the E25 pre-supernova model from \citet{heger20}. This corresponds to a star
which has lost its hydrogen and helium envelope. The resulting Wolf-Rayet star has a mass of 5.25 M$_{\odot}$ and a radius of $3 \times 10^{10}$ cm.
The computational grid extends radially from $2.2 \times 10^8$ cm to $6.6 \times 10^{11}$ cm. We employ 20 cells at the coarsest level of refinement, with 22 levels of refinement, corresponding to a resolution of $1.6\times 10^4$ cm. The SN energy ($E_{\rm SN} \approx 10^{51}$ erg) is imposed by setting the pressure of the two inner cells of the computational box as $p=E_{\rm SN}(\Gamma_{\rm ad}-1)/V$, being $\Gamma_{\rm ad}=4/3$ the adiabatic index and $V$ the volume of the two cells. Outside the stellar surface, we take $\rho=\dot{M}_w/(4\pi r^2 v_w)$, being
$\dot{M}_w = 5 \times 10^{-6}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $v_w=10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$ the mass loss rate and velocity of the wind launched by the Wolf-Rayet star before the collapse. As the velocity of the SN shock front is about two orders of magnitude larger than the Wolf-Rayet wind (i.e., $\sim 10^{10}$ cm s$^{-1}$ vs. $\sim 10^{8}$ cm s$^{-1}$), we assume that the wind medium is static. The propagation of the SN shock front is followed as it breaks out of the progenitor star and arrives to $4.5 \times 10^{11}$ cm in 50 seconds.
In the large scale simulations, the computational box goes from $10^{10}$ cm to $5 \times 10^{17}$ cm. For $r < 4.5 \times 10^{11}$ cm we set the density, pressure and velocity by using the values determined from the small scale simulation. For larger radii, we take the density stratification as $\rho=\dot{M}_w/(4\pi r^2 v_w)$, with $\dot{M}_w=5 \times 10^{-6} $ and $v_w=10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$ as in the small scale simulation. We employ 150 cells, with 20 levels of refinement in the AMR grid, corresponding to a resolution of $2.5\times 10^9$ cm. By running different simulations in which we change the number of levels of refinement between 14 and 22 levels, we verify that 20 levels of refinement are enough to achieve convergence.
Trying to reproduce the observed X-ray emission, we have first considered a massive, uniform cold shell located at the radius $R_s$, with mass $M_s$ and thickness $\Delta R_s$.
To determine the best values for these three parameters, we run a grid of $1815$ models by using 11 values of $M_s$ (in the range 1.5 $M_{\odot}$ to 2.5 $M_{\odot}$), 15 values of $\Delta R_s$ (ranging from $7.5 \times 10^{14}$ up to $2.5 \times 10^{15}$ cm), and 11 values of $R_s$ (from $1.8 \times 10^{16}$ to $7.8 \times 10^{16}$ cm). To compare the results of the numerical simulations with observations, we have then employed a ray-tracing code (see Section \ref{free}).
Unfortunately, none of these models give an acceptable fit to the observations, implying that the density of the massive shell is not constant.
To find the density at several radii is a task that is not possible to achieve with a grid of numerical models. For instance, a grid of ten values for the density at 10 different radii implies running $10^{10}$ simulations.
Thus, to determine the density stratification of the shell, we decided to solve the ``full'' optimization problem.
This is done by coupling the \emph{Mezcal} code with other two codes: a radiation transfer code which computes the bremsstrahlung radiation (see Section \ref{free}), and a genetic algorithm (described in Section \ref{GA}) that automatically and randomly changes the density profile inside the shell by minimazing the variance between the synthetic observations computed from the numerical model and the X-ray observations.
\subsection{Bremsstrahlung Emission Code}
\label{free}
We post-process the results of the numerical simulations by computing synthetic spectra.
The specific flux is given by
\begin{equation}
F_{\nu} = \int I_{\nu} \cos \theta d \Omega\;,
\end{equation}
where $d \Omega = 2 \pi \sin \theta d \theta / D^2 $, being $D = 14.7$ Mpc the luminosity distance from the SN\,2014C \citep{freedman01}, and $I_\nu$ is the specific intensity.
The observed X-rays radiation is due to thermal bremsstrahlung emission caused by the interaction between the SN shock and a massive shell \citep{margutti17}. To determine the specific intensity, we solve the radiation transfer equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d I_{\nu}}{d \tau_{\nu}} = S_{\nu} - I_{\nu}\;,
\end{equation}
where $S_{\nu}=j_{\nu}/\alpha_{\nu}$ is the source function, $\tau_\nu = \int \alpha_\nu dl$ is the optical depth, and $j_\nu$ and $\alpha_\nu$ are the emissivity and the absorption coefficient respectively. In addition to the bremsstrahlung self-absorption, we also consider photo-electric absorption, which at early times dominates absorption for frequencies $\lesssim 10^{18}$ Hz, so that
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\nu} = \alpha_{\nu, {\rm ff}} + \alpha_{\nu, {\rm bf}}\;, \qquad j_{\nu} = j_{\nu, {\rm ff}} \;.
\label{alphaeff}
\end{equation}
To compute the bound-free absorption, we use tabulated cross-sections for solar metallicity \citep{morrison83}.
For the bremsstrahlung coefficients we take
\citep[e.g.,][]{rybicki86}
\begin{eqnarray}
j_\nu = \frac{6.8}{4 \pi} \times 10^{-38} Z^2 n_e n_i T^{-1/2} e^{-\frac{h \nu}{kT}} G \\
\alpha_\nu = 3.7 \times 10^{8}T^{-1/2} \frac{Z^2 n_e n_i}{\nu^{3}} \left(1 - e^{-\frac{h \nu}{kT}}\right) G\;,
\label{jalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z$, $n_e$ and $n_i$ are the atomic number, electron and ion densities respectively, and $G$ is the Gaunt Factor ($\sim 1$ for the range of parameters considered here).
All other variables have their usual meaning and everything is in cgs units.
The electron/ion densities and the temperature are directly determined from the numerical simulations by assuming solar metallicity and composition for an ideal gas.
Cooling is not included in the numerical simulations as the bremsstrahlung cooling timescale is $t_{\rm ff} = 60 (T/10^8 {\rm \,K}) (n_e/10^6 {{\rm cm}^{-3}})$ yrs, so it is much larger than the timescales studied here.
\subsection{Genetic Algorithm}
\label{GA}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.5\linewidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Flowchart showing the genetic algorithm employed to determine the density stratification of the massive shell interacting with the SN\,2014C. First, we initialize a population of random densities at different shell radii. We modify the initial population by mutations and cross-over (see the text for details).
We run hydrodynamical simulations following the interaction of the SN ejecta with the shell and we compute synthetic X-ray spectra which are compared with the observations. We select the ``best'' elements of the population using a ``fitness function'' (the $\chi^2$ test). The process is repeated a thousand times.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Genetic algorithms \citep[GA hereafter, e.g.,][]{rajpaul12} are based on the theory of natural selection. GA are commonly used optimization methods\footnote{We have employed GA in this paper but the results obtained are independent on the particular optimization method chosen.}, employed also in astrophysics to solve problems with many degrees of freedom, in which finding the optimal solution would be very hard otherwise
\citep[e.g.,][]{canto09, degeyter13, morisset16}.
Nevertheless, this is the first time, as far as we know, that optimization methods are coupled directly to hydrodynamical simulations.
As mentioned before, we made a single small scale simulation for the propagation of the shock-wave in the interior of the star, and we applied the GA to find the best density stratification of the shell by running several simulations of the interaction of the SN ejecta with the massive shell.
Figure \ref{fig2} shows schematically the GA algorithm implemented. A population formed by 10 elements (the ``chromosomes'' in the GA terminology) is chosen at the beginning of the iterative process. Each element of the population is defined by setting 11 values of the density at different radii inside the shell (the ``genes'').
Nine of the densities are defined at a radius given by each of the nine observational epochs available. Additionally, we define two densities, one at a smaller and one at a larger radius. At each step, we create 90 new elements of the population. Half of them are defined by randomly choosing two elements of the original population and applying to them cross-over and mutation (see below), while the other half is initialized by directly copying the density values from one random element of the population and modifying it only by mutation.
In the cross-over process, the two ``parents'' are mixed by choosing randomly a certain number of densities from each element (e.g., the first and second densities from the first element, the third density from the second element and so on). This process is inspired by the genetic mixing present in biological evolution. In the mutation process we modify randomly one density in each element. We do so by setting a Gaussian distribution around the original value of the density $\rho_0$, with a width given, in 90\% of the cases, by $\rho_0/2$, and in 10\% of the cases by $10 \rho_0$, so that in a few cases the system explores density values far away from the initial one (to avoid being trapped by a local minimum).
The shell densities were then mapped as initial conditions into the HD code. Then, after the simulation was completed, the bremsstrahlung X-ray emission was computed by post-processing the results of the HD calculation.
A fitness function (a reduced $\chi^2$ test) was applied to compare the synthetic spectra produced by the model and the observational data at 9 epochs: 308, 396, 477, 606, 857, 1029, 1257, 1574 and 1971 days after explosion.
The fittest 10 elements (out of the new 90 and the old 10 elements of the population) were saved and used as initial condition for a new step.
This process was repeated for $\sim 100$ iterations, for a total number of $\sim$ 10$^4$ simulation. Each simulation took $\sim 10$ minutes so that the entire process could be completed in less than a day.
The simulations were done on a cluster of CPUs, by using the ``Message Passing Interface'' library. At each iteration, the master node initialized and synchronised the simulations, selected the best elements and managed the cross-over/mutation processes, while the other nodes run (in parallel) each of the 90 hydrodynamics simulation, compute the X-ray spectra and the fitness function (a $\chi^2$ test).
\section{Results}
\subsection{SN shock propagation through the progenitor wind}
\label{Dy}
The propagation of the shock wave through the star has been extensively studied both for the non-relativistic \citep[e.g.,][]{sakurai60, matzner99} and mildly relativistic regime \citep[e.g.,][]{tan01, Nakar10, Waxman17}.
As the shock approaches the surface of the progenitor star and it moves in the stellar envelope, in which the density drops steeper than $\rho\propto r^{-3}$, the shock velocity increases to mildly relativistic speeds (see the blue line in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig3}).
As a result, once the SN shock breaks out in $\sim 25$ s, most of the mass (and energy) of the SN moves at velocities $\sim 10^4$ km s$^{-1}$, while a small fraction of the mass (corresponding to a kinetic energy $\approx 10^{47}$ ergs) expands with larger velocities (up to $v_{\rm sh} \sim 0.5$ c in our simulations).
Self-similar solutions describing the propagation of the SN shock through a politropic envelope (with $\rho_{\rm env}\propto (R/r-1)^k$) predict an ejecta density stratification $\rho\propto r^{-n}$ after the break-out, with $n=7-11$, depending on the structure of the progenitor star. As we employ a realistic model for the progenitor star structure (which slightly differs from a politrope), we get $n\sim10$ in the inner part of the ejecta, and a transition to a less steep profile as we approach the shock front (with $n\sim 9$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.3\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Time evolution of the SN shock as it moves through the wind of the progenitor star. From top to bottom: density, temperature and velocity profiles of the SN shock as it interacts with the wind of the progenitor star (at $r \lesssim 1.6\times 10^{16}$ cm) and the outer shell (at $\gtrsim 1.6\times 10^{16}$ cm). }
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Then, we run a set of simulations by using as input the outcome of the small scale simulations, i.e., density, pressure and velocity profiles (blue lines in Figure \ref{fig3}).
As described in section \ref{GA}, we compute the shell density profile that minimizes the variance between the bremsstrahlung emission computed from the numerical model and the observations.
In the following, we discuss the evolution of the SN shock front while it propagates into the progenitor wind and interacts with the shell density profile obtained after the GA algorithm has converged.
Figure \ref{fig3} shows the evolution of the ejecta before interacting with the outer shell.
The expansion of the SN ejecta through the progenitor wind leads to the formation of a double shock structure, formed by the forward shock (FS), which accelerates and heats the WR wind, and the reverse shock (RS), which decelerates and heats the SN ejecta.
Following \citet{chevalier82}, the evolution of the
forward and reverse shocks is self-similar, with $R \sim t^m$, where $m = (n-3)/(n-2)$. By taking $n\sim 9$, we get $m\sim 8.5$, which is consistent with the evolution of the shock wave obtained in our simulation (see Figure \ref{fig3}, bottom panel, and Figure \ref{fig4}).
The FS velocity is much larger than the wind velocity. Thus, the post-shock temperature achieves values $\gtrsim 10^{11}$ K, while the SN bulk temperature quickly drops by adiabatic expansion (heating by Ni$^{56}$ and Co$^{56}$ decay is not included in the calculation).
In our simulations, the SN shock acceleration stops only when the shock arrives to the very edge of the progenitor star. This leads to an overestimation of the true shock velocity, as the shock acceleration should stop once the stellar envelope becomes optically thin to the radiation coming from the post-shock region. A detailed calculation of the shock acceleration and break-out is an open problem, which requires a radiation hydrodynamics code.
Once the SN ejecta interacts with the shell (see below), the shock velocity quickly drops. Then, the late evolution of the system will be independent on particular shock velocity obtained, while it? will depend strongly on the pre-shock structure of the ejecta.
\subsection{SN shock interaction with the massive shell}
\label{SNshell}
At $\sim 50$ days after the explosion, the shell begins interacting with the massive shell (see Figure \ref{fig4}). Radio and optical observations showed that the interaction started $\sim 100$ days after the explosion \citep{milisavljevic15, anderson17}. Then, our simulations overestimate the average shock velocity by a factor of $\sim 2$. A lower shock velocity can be due, as mentioned above, to the loss of thermal energy during the shock breakout or, alternatively, to a less steep density profile in the outer layers of the progenitor stars.
The interaction of the ejecta with the shell is shown in Figures \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}. The shell presents large density fluctuations (see the upper panel of figure \ref{fig5}). Then, the shock propagation leads to the formation of strong reverse shocks which interaction produces the complex shock structure observed in Figure \ref{fig5}.
Once interacting with the shell, the shock velocity quickly drops to $\sim 7500$ km s$^{-1}$\footnote{From the Hydrogen line, a velocity of $\sim$ half of this value is inferred \citep{milisavljevic15}. This is consistent with the hydrogen lines being produced in the post shock clumpy medium or by recombination of the upstream medium.}, then maintain an approximately constant velocity (see Figure \ref{fig4}). Small fluctuations in the shock velocity are present at $\sim 10^3$ days (see the bottom panel of Figure 3), with increases (drops) in velocity by $\sim 3000$ km s$^{-1}$ corresponding to drops (increases) in the density.
Initially, the reverse shock is stronger then the forward shock. Thus, the shocked ejecta is hotter than the shocked wind (Figure \ref{fig5}, blue and green lines in the middle panel). As the ejecta crosses the reverse shock and approaches the reverse shock velocity, the RS temperature drops becoming smaller than the FS temperature. Thus, the bremsstrahlung specific emission (larger at smaller temperatures) is initially dominated by the shocked wind, and later mostly originated into the shocked ejecta.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.6\linewidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{\emph{Top panel}: position of the SN shock as function of time. The break seen at $\sim 50$ days corresponds to the beginning of the interaction with the shell. \emph{Bottom panel}: shock velocity.
During the self-similar phase, the shock velocity drops from $\sim 0.35$c to $\sim 0.15$c. After interacting with the shell, it drops to $\sim 0.025$c.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
A fit to the density profile gives $\rho \propto r^{-3.00\pm 0.06}$ (although there are large fluctuations), consistently with the constant shock velocity seen in Figure \ref{fig5} (as $E\sim M v^2\sim R^3 \rho v^2$ implies that the velocity is constant as long as $\rho\propto R^{-3}$ and the shock is adiabatic). The shell mass is 2.6 M$_\odot$. This value is consistent with the 3.0 M $\pm$ 0.6 M$_\odot$ (VLB model) determined by \citet{brethauer21} which also assumes spherical symmetry and within the range of typical shell masses observed in type IIn SNe (0.1-10 M$_\odot$, see, e.g., \citealt{smith17, branch17}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.3\linewidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{The same as Figure \ref{fig3}, but for larger radii, showing in detail the interaction between the SN ejecta and the shell. The lines corresponds to epoch in which there are X-ray observations available. ``IC'' represents the initial shell density profile. In addition to nine densities corresponding to the epochs with X-ray data available, the amount of unshocked neutral mass is estimated by considering bound-free X-ray absorption. As the absorption does not depend on the density stratification but only on the amount of mass crossed by the X-rays, we show this region as uniform in the figure (dashed line in the top panel).
}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
To determine the structure of the shell, we left as a free parameter in the GA algorithm the amount of neutral hydrogen still to be crossed by the ejecta (inferred from the bound-free absorption). We get M $=0.38$ M$_\odot$ solar masses for this component at t = 1971 days, which is represented by a constant density dashed line in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig5}. We notice that the exact structure of this region can not be determined. Nevertheless, it will extend to $r\sim 2.3 \times 10^{17}$ cm if the shell density continues dropping as $r^{-3}$, in which case (moving at a constant speed as discussed above) the SN shock will break out of it $\sim 8.5$ years after the explosion. Late X-ray and radio observations will help to constrain the outer structure of the shell.
\subsection{Radiation}
\label{Rad}
To compare the model with observations, we compute the X-ray bremsstrahlung emission coming from the shocked material. We assume that the shocked material is completely ionized\footnote{This assumption is justified by the large post-shock temperature and the presence of strong photo-ionizing X-ray and UV emission.} (so that it does not contribute to the bound-free opacity) and that the unshocked shell is neutral. Extending the radio synchrotron emission to X-rays by assuming $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-(p-1)/2} \propto \nu^{-1}$ with $p\sim 3$, \citet{margutti17} showed that the synchrotron emission gives a negligible contribution by X-ray flux (i.e., $\sim 2$ orders of magnitude smaller than the observed values), suggesting a thermal origin for the X-rays.
Figure \ref{fig6} shows the X-ray spectra at 308, 396, 477, 606, 857, 1029, 1257, 1571, 1971 days and the best fit obtained by employing the GA (Section \ref{GA}).
Dashed lines are computed by assuming solar metallicity in the neutral shell.
The best fit, in this case, predicts a larger absorption by a factor $\lesssim 5$ at $2\times 10^{17}$ Hz than observed.
Solid lines, which fits better the observational data, are computed by assuming that the neutral medium has half of solar metallicity.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption {Comparison between X-ray observations and synthetic observations computed for the best model. Full lines represents solar metallicity while dashed lines are for half solar metallicity. We do not include the shaded grey area in the fit, as it is dominated by Fe emission lines. Curves at different times are rescaled so they do not overlap with each other.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
The optimization method employed in this work allows us to determine the detailed structure of the shell.
As described in the previous section, the shell has a mass of 2.6 M$_\odot$ (2.2 M$_\odot$ of shocked and 0.4 M$_\odot$ of still unshocked gas), a density stratification $\rho \propto r^{-3}$ and extends from $1.6\times 10^{16}$ cm to $1.87\times 10^{17}$ cm.
While uncommon in type Ib SNe, SN IIn show evidence of strong interaction, with shell masses of $0.1-10$ M$_\odot$ \citep[see, e.g.][and references therein]{smith17, branch17}. Also, many type IIn SNe show an X-ray emission inconsistent with a density profile $\rho\propto r^{-2}$, implying a steeper density stratification \citep{dwarkadas12}. While sharing many characteristics with SN IIn, in the case of the SN\,2014C the shell is located at a much larger distance, implying that it was ejected $\sim 60/(v_w/100 {\rm \; km \; s^{-1}})$ yrs before the SN
explosion.
\citet{harris20} presented a series of numerical simulations of a SN ejecta interacting with a wall located at $r_0 \sim 1.6\times 10^{16}$ cm, and with a CSM wind at larger radii. They deduce a small mass for the wall ($\sim 0.04-0.31$ M$_\odot$), in apparent contradiction with previous estimations \citep[e.g.,][]{margutti17}. Actually, the density of the CSM wind is assumed to be a factor 4-7 smaller than the density of the wall at $r_0$. The CSM wind, then, corresponds to a mass loss $\dot{M}_w \sim 10^{-2}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ (assuming $v_w=10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$). Our results (which, we stress, have been obtained by a ``blind'' fit, i.e. without assumptions on the final shell structure) clarify this inconsistency, showing that the wall and the CSM wind are both part of the same extended structure (see figure \ref{fig5}), with the densest shell material located at $\sim 2\times 10^{16}$ (see Figure \ref{fig5}) in agreement with \citealt{harris20}, and the outer shell density dropping quickly with radius. Thus, we conclude that the same event is responsible for the ejection of the full massive shell.
The parameters determined for the SN\,2014C are remarkably similar to those inferred for the SN 2001em. The X-ray, radio and H$\alpha$ emission from SN 2001em have been interpreted as evidence of interaction with a 3 M$_\odot$ hydrogen-rich shell \citep{chugai06}. VLBI observations showed that the shell is located at $7\times 10^{16}$ cm, and expanding with a velocity of $5800 \pm 10^4$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{bietenholz07}, which is consistent with the $7500$ km s$^{-1}$ inferred here.
The best fit to the data is achieved by considering a bound-free cross-section, corresponding to half solar metallicity.
This low metallicity is in contradiction with observations of the Fe line. The prominent Fe emission line at 6.7-6.9 keV is consistent with a metallicity larger by a factor of $\sim 5$ with respect to solar metallicity. This can be reconciled with our results by assuming that the medium is clumpy, with high density (and lower temperature) regions responsible for most of the Fe emission \citep{margutti17}.
An equivalent effect is obtained considering that the X-ray emission and/or UV radiation coming from the shocked shell and SN ejecta can partially ionize the unshocked material, producing an effect similar to a drop in the metallicity, as the optical depth is $\propto n_{H^0} \sigma_\nu$, being $n_{H^0}$ the density of neutral hydrogen and $\sigma_\nu$ the bound-free cross-section (which depends on metallicity). In this case, we expect the mass of the shell to be larger than the value obtained in this paper, although by a small factor as the bremsstrahlung emission is $\propto n_e^2$. A detailed calculation of the ionization of the shell is left for a future work.
Different origins for the shell have been considered. The possibility of the shell being due to a massive wind ejection \citep[e.g.,][]{deJager88, Leitherer09, kuriyama20} is unlikely, as it would correspond to an extremely large mass loss rate of $\sim 10^{-2}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$
($v_w$/100 km s$^{-1}$). Other possibilities include a sudden outburst some time before collapse, which would remove the most external layer of the star where almost all hydrogen is found \citep{Smith13b}, or binary system interactions in which the envelope of the most massive star has been stripped away \citep{Sun20}. A better understanding of the origin of this ejections can be achieved only by detailed theoretical models coupled to a larger sample of observed interacting supernovae.
The density fluctuations have a periodicity of $\sim 4\times 10^{16}$ cm. A similar periodicity has been observed in the radio emission from SN\,1979C \citep{weiler91} and have been interpreted as evidence of a binary system in which the orbital motion modulates the wind density \citep[see][]{yalinewich19} which interacts with the stellar outburst. If this is also the case of SN\,2014C, it would imply that the binary system is very detached (as the binary period is $\gg 4\times 10^{16}/v_w \sim 10$ yrs $(v_w/10^{8})^{-1}$). The companion star would then be not responsible for the loss of the envelope of the primary star. An alternative explanation is that the density fluctuations seen in the GA fit are the direct result of a modulation in the outburst from the progenitor star.
Finally, we notice that the simulations presented here assume that the shell is spherically symmetric. This is consistent with VLBI observations \citep{bietenholz18}. Small scales inhomogeneities are expected. The density profile shown in Figure \ref{fig5} show large scale density fluctuations. Furthermore, it is likely that the medium is, at some scale, clumpy. If the shell is not perfectly homogeneous before interacting with the SN ejecta, the interaction will amplify the inhomogeneities, leading to a multi-phase medium with denser/colder regions in pressure equilibrium with more tenuous/hotter regions, which is consistent with the strong Fe emission line observed at $\sim$ 6.5 keV \citep{margutti17}. Also if the shell is initially nearly perfectly homogeneous, the contact discontinuity which separates the shocked SN ejecta from the shocked shell is prone to Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instabilities, so that we can expect the formation of plasma filaments and dishomogeneities in the post-shock region which can not be captured by our numerical simulations (but see \citealt{harris20} for an approximated treatment of RT instabilities in one dimensional simulations). As the bremsstrahlung emission is $\propto Z^2 n^2$, inhomogeneities in the shell and mixing with the higher metallicity ejecta lead to a larger emissivity, implying that the mass of the shell should be taken as an upper limit.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we presented hydrodynamical simulations of the strongly interacting SN\,2014C. First, we follow the propagation of a SN shock through the progenitor star. Then, by using as input the outcome of the small scale simulation (i.e., density, pressure and velocity profiles), we run a large set of simulations. As described in section \ref{GA}, we initialize the shell with a uniform density $n_{\rm shell} =10^7$ cm$^{-3}$. We follow the propagation of the SN shock as it interacts with the wind launched by the progenitor Wolf-Rayet star and with the massive shell.
We compute the bremsstrahlung emission using the algorithm described in Section \ref{free}, and compare the results with observations. At each step, we run a large number of simulations changing the shell density profile.
As a result, we determine the shell structure and metallicity. In particular, we get a mass of $2.6$ M$_\odot$ for the shell and a density profile $\rho\propto r^{-3}$. We also found that the shell is very extended, with a size $\gtrsim 10^{17}$ cm. If the shell stratification continues with the same slope, the SN shock will break out of it nearly 8 yrs after the explosion, i.e. during 2022.
Radio and X-ray emission allows us to understand the mass loss history of core-collapse SNe progenitor on time-scales which are impossible to study by direct observations.
As we have shown in this paper, optimization methods can be used, coupled with hydrodynamical simulations, to model the density stratification of the environment once data at several epochs are available, as in the case of SN\,2014C. The X-ray emission tracks the forward and reverse shock emission, depending on the density of the environment and the ejecta velocity. The H$\alpha$ emission tracks the shocked shell and the unshocked medium fotoionized by the X-ray and UV radiation. All together, a detailed fit of the different components can help us to get a better understanding of this system.
Then, coupled with detailed modeling of the radio emission, this analysis can allow us to determine the microphysical parameters as a function of time (which are usually degenerate with the density of the environment and ejecta velocity), giving us direct information on the particle acceleration process. In this paper, we describe this technique by analyzing the X-ray bremsstrahlung emission. The extension to radio and optical emission will be considered in a future study.
\acknowledgements
We thank Luc Binette, Cesar Fern\'andez Ram\'irez, Leonardo Ferreira and Claudio Toledo Roy for useful discussions. FV and FDC acknowledge support from the UNAM-PAPIIT grant AG100820.
We acknowledge the computing time granted by DGTIC UNAM (project LANCAD-UNAM-DGTIC-281).
R.M.~acknowledges support by the National Science Foundation under Award No. AST-1909796 and AST-1944985. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Award Number GO9-20060A issued by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060.
|
\section{Introduction}
For a positive semi-definite matrix $\mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$,
a \emph{determinantal point process (DPP)}~\cite{macchi1975coincidence,borodin2005eynard}
is defined as a probability distribution on the power set $2^{[m]}$,
whose probability mass for each subset $S \subseteq [m]$ is
proportional to $\det(\mat{A}_{S})$, the principal minor of $\mat{A}$.
Originally developed as a model of fermions by \citet{macchi1975coincidence},
DPPs have attracted a great deal of attention from researchers in the machine learning community
because they capture \emph{negative correlations}
and offer a diverse high-quality subset of items.
Applications of DPPs include
image search \cite{kulesza2011kdpps},
video summarization \cite{gong2014diverse}, and
object retrieval \cite{affandi2014learning} to name a few.
One appealing property of DPPs is that
evaluating the \emph{normalizing constant} (a.k.a.~\emph{partition function}),
i.e., $\sum_{S \subseteq [m]} \det(\mat{A}_S)$,
is computationally tractable.
Specifically, the normalizing constant has a closed-form expression $ \det(\mat{A} + \mat{I}) $ \cite{kulesza2012determinantal},
which can be computed by Gaussian elimination in polynomial time~\cite{edmonds1967systems}.
Such tractability is crucial in performing (exact) probabilistic inference efficiently; e.g.,
the probability mass for each subset $S \subseteq [m]$ is obtained by
$ \det(\mat{A}_S) / \det(\mat{A} + \mat{I}) $.
See, e.g., the survey of \citet{kulesza2012determinantal} for more details on probabilistic inference on DPPs.
Since the introduction of DPPs in the machine learning community,
significant effort has been made to express complex distributions
with the imposition of \emph{constraints} on DPPs,
as suggested in the survey \cite[7.3 Research Directions]{kulesza2012determinantal}.
More specifically,
for a set family $\mathcal{C} \subseteq 2^{[m]}$ representing a certain constraint,
the \emph{$\mathcal{C}$-constrained DPP} defines a distribution, in which
the probability mass for each subset $S \subseteq 2^{[m]}$ is
proportional to $ \det(\mat{A}_S) \cdot [\![S \in \mathcal{C}]\!] $,
which is nonzero \emph{only if} $S \in \mathcal{C}$,
where $[\![S \in \mathcal{C}]\!]$ is $1$ if $S \in \mathcal{C}$ and $0$ otherwise.
The corresponding normalizing constant
is thus equal to $\sum_{S \in \mathcal{C}} \det(\mat{A}_S)$.
The case of $\mathcal{C} = 2^{[m]}$ coincides with (unconstrained) DPPs.
\citet{kulesza2011kdpps} study the case when
$ \mathcal{C} $ consists of the size-$k$ subsets,
i.e., the bases of a \emph{uniform matroid}, which is called $k$-DPPs.
Given the eigenvalues of $\mat{A}$,
we can compute the normalizing constant for $k$-DPPs and thus perform probabilistic inference efficiently.
\citet*{celis2017complexity} investigate the case when $ \mathcal{C} $ consists of the bases of a \emph{partition matroid}, which is called $P$-DPPs~\cite{celis2018fair}.
The normalizing constant for $P$-DPPs
is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard to compute in general
but is computable in polynomial time if an input partition
of the ground set $[m]$
consists of a constant number of parts \cite{celis2017complexity}.
\citet{celis2017complexity} also examine
\emph{budget constraints}, where
there is a cost vector $\vec{c} \in \mathbb{Z}^m$ and
$\mathcal{C}$ contains any subset $S$ whose cost defined as
$\sum_{i \in S} c_i$ is at most a budget $B \in \mathbb{Z}$; i.e.,
$\mathcal{C} = \{ S \subseteq [m] \mid \sum_{i \in S}c_i \leq B \}$.
The normalizing constant for budget-constrained DPPs can be computed in time
polynomial in $m$ and $\|\vec{c}\|_1$.
In this letter, we consider \emph{spanning-tree constraints} and \emph{forest constraints}.
Recall that for an undirected graph,
a \emph{spanning tree} is a subgraph that connects all vertices and contains no cycles, and
a \emph{forest} is a subgraph that contains no cycles.
Let $ G = (V,E) $ be a simple, undirected graph, and
$ \mat{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{E \times E} $ be a positive semi-definite matrix
indexed by the edges of $E$.
We denote the family of the edge sets of all spanning trees of $G$ by $ \mathcal{T} $ and
the family of the edge sets of all forests of $G$ by $ \mathcal{F} $; in other words,
$\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are the families of bases and independent sets of
a \emph{graphic matroid} derived from $G$, respectively.
$\mathcal{T}$-constrained DPPs and $\mathcal{F}$-constrained DPPs are then referred to as \emph{spanning-tree DPPs} and \emph{forest DPPs}, respectively.
Sampling spanning trees has several applications, such as
network centrality \cite{hayashi2016efficient} and graph sparsification \cite{fung2011general}, and
spanning-tree DPPs enable to express negative correlations among the edges of a graph.
Since graphic matroids coincide with neither uniform matroids nor partition matroids,
spanning-tree DPPs could express a different class of probability distributions from both $k$-DPPs and $P$-DPPs.
Hereafter, we
denote by $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$
the normalizing constant for spanning-tree DPPs and forest DPPs, respectively;
namely,
\begin{align*}
\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{A}, G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}} \det(\mat{A}_S) \; \text{and} \;
\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{A}, G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} \det(\mat{A}_S).
\end{align*}
Our objective in this paper is to
investigate the computational complexity of estimating $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.
In the special case that $\mat{A}$ is an identity matrix $\mat{I}$,
$\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{I},G)$ corresponds to the number of spanning trees in $G$ and
$\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{I},G)$ corresponds to the number of forests in $G$.
We can count the number of spanning trees in a graph
in polynomial time using Kirchhoff's matrix-tree theorem \cite{kirchhoff1847ueber}.
On the other hand, it is already \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard to count the number of forests,
even if an input graph $G$ is restricted to be bipartite and planar \cite{vertigan1992computational}, while
there is an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{I},G)$ when $G$ is a dense graph \cite{annan1994randomised}.
Note also that the Tutte polynomial,
which includes the number of forests $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{I},G)$ as a special case at point $(2,1)$,
can be computed in polynomial time if $G$ has constant treewidth \cite{noble1998evaluating,andrzejak1998algorithm}.
\subsection{Our Contributions}
\paragraph{\textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hardness of Computing $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.}
We prove that it is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard to compute
the normalizing constants for
spanning-tree DPPs $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{A},G)$ and
forest DPPs $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{A},G)$ for a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a positive semi-definite matrix
$\mat{A} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$.
The \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hardness result still holds even when both of $G$ and $\mat{A}$
are restricted to have treewidth $2$,
which is in contrast to the fact that
$\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{I},G)$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{I},G)$ can be computed in polynomial time for bounded-tree graph $G$.
Here, the \emph{treewidth} of an $m \times m$ matrix $\mat{A}$
is defined as the treewidth of the graph $ ([m], \nnz(\mat{A})) $, where
$ \nnz(\mat{A}) = \{ (i, j) \mid A_{i,j} \neq 0, i \neq j \} $ (see, e.g., \cite{courcelle2001fixed}).
The proofs of \cref{thm:st-hard,cor:fo-hard} are
provided in \cref{sec:st-hard,sec:fo-hard}, respectively.
In particular, we present a polynomial-time reduction
from the number of all perfect matchings in a ($3$-regular) bipartite graph to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the proof of \cref{thm:st-hard}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:st-hard}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple, undirected graph,
$\mat{A} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ be a positive semi-definite matrix, and
$\mathcal{T}$ be the family of the edge sets of all spanning trees of $G$.
Then, it is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard to compute $ \ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{A},G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}} \det(\mat{A}_S) $ exactly.
The same hardness holds even if
$\mat{A}$ is a $(0,1)$-matrix of treewidth $2$, and
$G$ is of treewidth $2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:fo-hard}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple, undirected graph,
$\mat{A} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ be a positive semi-definite matrix, and
$\mathcal{F}$ be the family of the edge sets of all forests of $G$.
Then, it is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard to compute $ \ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{A}, G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} \det(\mat{A}_S) $ exactly even if
$\mat{A}$ is of treewidth $2$, and $G$ is of treewidth $2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
Treewidth \cite{robertson1986graph} is one of the most fundamental graph-theoretic parameters,
measuring the ``treelikeness'' of a graph;
e.g., trees have treewidth $1$,
series-parallel graphs have treewidth at most $2$,
$n$-vertex planar graphs have treewidth $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n})$, and
$n$-cliques have treewidth $n-1$.
Many \textup{\textsf{NP}}\xspace-hard problems on graphs have been shown to be
polynomial-time solvable for bounded-treewidth graphs,
see, e.g., \cite{cygan2015parameterized}.
In particular,
the number of forests in a graph is computable in polynomial time if the treewidth is a constant \cite{noble1998evaluating,andrzejak1998algorithm}.
Our results, however, refute the possibility of
such an efficient algorithm for bounded-tree graphs
(unless \textup{\textsf{P}}\xspace $=$ \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace).
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Approximation-Preserving Reduction from Mixed Discriminant.}
Beyond the difficulty regarding exact computation,
we analyze \emph{approximability} of $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.
We stress that \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hardness for a particular problem does not necessarily rule out
the existence of efficient approximation algorithms for it; e.g.,
the number of perfect matchings in a bipartite graph can be approximated within an arbitrary precision \cite{jerrum2004polynomial},
though it is a \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-complete problem \cite{valiant1979complexity}.
Here, we introduce several definitions regarding approximate computing.
We say that an estimate $\hat{\mathsf{Z}}$ is
a \emph{$\rho$-approximation} to the true value $\mathsf{Z}$ for $\rho \geq 1$ if it holds that
\begin{align*}
(1/\rho) \cdot \mathsf{Z} \leq \hat{\mathsf{Z}} \leq \rho \cdot \mathsf{Z}.
\end{align*}
We then define a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme.
\begin{definition}
For a function $f: \Sigma^* \to \mathbb{R}$,
a \emph{fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS)}
is a randomized algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ that takes
an instance $x \in \Sigma^*$ of $f$ and an error tolerance $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ as input and
satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item For every $x \in \Sigma^*$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$,
$\mathcal{A}$ outputs an $\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon}$-approximation to $f(x)$ with probability at least $\frac{3}{4}$; i.e.,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fpras}
\Pr_{\mathcal{A}}\Bigl[ \mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon} \cdot f(x) \leq \mathcal{A}(x) \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon} \cdot f(x) \Bigr] \geq \frac{3}{4},
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{A}(x)$ denotes $\mathcal{A}$'s output on $x$.\footnote{Note that the constant $\frac{3}{4}$ in \cref{eq:fpras} can be replaced by
any number in $(\frac{1}{2},1)$ \cite{jerrum1986random}.}
\item The running time of $\mathcal{A}$ is bounded by
a polynomial in $|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$,
where $|x|$ denotes the number of bits required for representing $x$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We finally define the notion of approximation-preserving reduction
according to \citet*{dyer2004relative},
which can be used to translate an FPRAS for a function $g$ into an FPRAS for another function $f$.
\begin{definition}
For two functions
$f: \Sigma^* \to \mathbb{R}$ and
$g: \Sigma^* \to \mathbb{R}$,
an \emph{approximation-preserving reduction (AP-reduction)}
from $f$ to $g$
is a randomized algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ that takes
an instance $x \in \Sigma^*$ of $f$ and an error tolerance $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ as input and
satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every oracle call for $g$
made by $\mathcal{A}$ is of the form $(y,\delta)$,
where $y \in \Sigma^*$ is an instance of $g$ and
$\delta \in (0,1)$ is an error tolerance satisfying
that $ \delta^{-1} $ is bounded by a polynomial in
$|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$.
\item If the oracle meets the specification for an FPRAS for $g$, then $\mathcal{A}$ meets the specification for an FPRAS for $f$.
\item The running time of $\mathcal{A}$ is bounded by
a polynomial in $|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}
We say that $f$ is \emph{AP-reducible} to $g$ if an AP-reduction from $f$ to $g$ exists.
\end{definition}
It is known \cite{dyer2004relative} that
assuming $f$ to be AP-reducible to $g$,
an FPRAS for $g$ implies an FPRAS for $f$; in other words,
if $f$ does not admit an FPRAS (under some plausible assumption),
then $g$ does not as well.
Our technical results are AP-reductions from the mixed discriminant to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.
Here, the \emph{mixed discriminant} for $n$ positive semi-definite matrices
$\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) = \frac{\partial^n}{\partial x_1 \cdots \partial x_n} \det(x_1 \mat{K}^1 + \cdots + x_m \mat{K}^n).
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:st-fpras}
The mixed discriminant $D$ is AP-reducible to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$; therefore,
if there exists an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$,
then there exists an FPRAS for $D$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:fo-fpras}
The mixed discriminant $D$ is AP-reducible to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$; therefore,
if there exists an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$,
then there exists an FPRAS for $D$.
\end{theorem}
Because an FPRAS for the mixed discriminant has not been known and
its existence is suspected to be false \cite{gurvits2005complexity},
our AP-reductions give evidence that
$\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$ are unlikely to admit an FPRAS.
Furthermore,
due to the equivalence between (approximate) counting and (approximate) sampling
(cf.~\cite[Section B]{celis2017complexity}),
we can immediately rule out the existence of polynomial-time sampling algorithms
for spanning-tree DPPs and forest DPPs
(unless the mixed discriminant admits an FPRAS).
The proofs of \cref{thm:st-fpras,thm:fo-fpras} are
provided in \cref{sec:st-fpras,sec:fo-fpras}, respectively.
It should be noted that we can no longer use polynomial interpolation as used in the proof of \cref{cor:fo-hard}, which does not preserve the closeness of approximation.
\section{Proof of \cref{thm:st-hard}}
\label{sec:st-hard}
We show a polynomial-time (many-one) reduction from the problem of counting the number of all perfect matchings in a bipartite graph,
which is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-complete \cite{valiant1979complexity}.
Let $ B = (U, W; F) $ be a bipartite graph,
where $U = \{u_1, \ldots, u_n\}$, $W=\{w_1, \ldots, w_n\}$, and
$ F \subseteq U \times W $ is a set of $m$ edges between $U$ and $W$.
A \emph{perfect matching} of $B$ is a set of $n$ edges in $F$ that are pairwise vertex-disjoint.
Given $B$,
we first construct a simple, undirected graph $ G=(V,E) $
such that
$ V = \{ u_1, \ldots, u_n, u_{n+1} \} \cup \{ u_iw_j \mid (u_i,w_j) \in F \} $,
where $u_{n+1}$ is a dummy vertex not in $U$, and
$ E = E_\ell \cup E_r $, where
$ E_\ell = \{ (u_i, u_iw_j) \mid (u_i, w_j) \in F \} $ and
$ E_r = \{ (u_iw_j, u_{i+1}) \mid (u_i, w_j) \in F \} $.
See \cref{fig:constr} for an example.
Note that $ |V| = n+m+1 $ and $|E| = 2m$.
We then construct
a $(0,1)$-matrix $\mat{A} \in \{0,1\}^{E \times E}$ as
\begin{align*}
\mat{A} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mat{A}' & \mat{O}^\top \\
\mat{O} & \mat{I}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align*}
where
$\mat{O}$ is an $ E_r \times E_\ell $ all-zero matrix,
$\mat{I}$ is an $E_r\times E_r$ identity matrix, and
$ \mat{A}'$ is an $E_\ell \times E_\ell$ $(0,1)$-matrix defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
A'_{(u_{i_1}, u_{i_1}w_{j_1}), (u_{i_2}, u_{i_2}w_{j_2})} =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } w_{j_1} = w_{j_2}, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
By definition, $\mat{A}$ is positive semi-definite.
It is easy to observe that
$ \det(\mat{A}_{S}) $ for $S \subseteq E$ is
1 if $S$ includes no pair of two edges
$ (u_{i_1}, u_{i_1} w_j) $ and $ (u_{i_2}, u_{i_2} w_j) $
for any $j$ and distinct $i_1, i_2$, and
0 otherwise.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
[circlenode/.style={draw, circle, minimum height=1cm}]
\node[circlenode](v1){$u_1$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, right=1cm of v1](v2){$u_1w_{j_{1,2}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, above=1cm of v2](v3){$u_1w_{j_{1,1}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, below=1cm of v2](v4){$u_1w_{j_{1,3}}$};
\node[circlenode, right=1cm of v2](v5){$u_2$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, right=1cm of v5](v6){$u_2w_{j_{2,2}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, above=1cm of v6](v7){$u_2w_{j_{2,1}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, below=1cm of v6](v8){$u_2w_{j_{2,3}}$};
\node[circlenode, right=1cm of v6](v9){$u_3$};
\draw node(vcdots)[right=0.5cm of v9]{$\cdots$};
\node[circlenode, right=0.5cm of vcdots](v10){$u_n$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, right=1cm of v10](v11){$u_nw_{j_{n,2}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, above=1cm of v11](v12){$u_nw_{j_{n,1}}$};
\node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=1.5cm, below=1cm of v11](v13){$u_nw_{j_{n,3}}$};
\node[circlenode, right=1cm of v11](v14){$u_{n+1}$};
\foreach \u / \v in {v1/v2, v1/v4, v5/v7, v5/v8, v10/v11, v10/v12}
\draw (\u)--(\v);
\foreach \u / \v in {v1/v3, v5/v6, v10/v13}
\draw[ultra thick] (\u)--(\v);
\foreach \u / \v in {v2/v5, v3/v5, v4/v5, v6/v9, v7/v9, v8/v9, v11/v14, v12/v14, v13/v14}
\draw[ultra thick, dashed] (\u)--(\v);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Construction of $G=(V,E)$ from a bipartite graph $B=(U, W; F)$
in the proof of \cref{thm:st-hard}.
Solid lines are edges of $E_\ell$ and dashed lines are edges of $E_r$.
If the set $S \subseteq E$ of bold edges induces a spanning tree of $G$ and
$\det(\mat{A}_S) \neq 0$, then
$S$ must include $E_r$ while $S \cap E_\ell$ forms a perfect matching in $B$.
}
\label{fig:constr}
\end{figure*}
We now use the following claim to ensure that
$ \ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{A},G) $ is equal to the number of all perfect matchings in $B$, which completes the correctness of the reduction.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:thm:st-hard}
For an edge set $S \subseteq E$,
$ \det(\mat{A}_{S}) \neq 0 $ and $S$ induces a spanning tree of $G$
if and only if
it holds that $E_r \subseteq S$ and
the edge set $ \{ (u_i, w_j) \mid (u_i, u_i w_j) \in S \cap E_\ell \} $
is a perfect matching of $B$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:thm:st-hard}]
Assume that for $S \subseteq E$,
$ \det(\mat{A}_{S}) \neq 0 $ and $S$ induces a spanning tree of $G$.
We first observe that $E_r \subseteq S$;
otherwise, $S$ contains at least $n+1$ edges in $E_\ell$
since $ |S|=|V|-1 = n+m$ and $|E_r| = m$,
resulting in that $\det(\mat{A}_{S}) = 0$.
Then, denote $M = S \cap E_\ell$ with $|M|=n$.
Since $\det(\mat{A}_{S}) \neq 0$,
$S$ includes no pair of two edges $ (u_{i_1}, u_{i_1} w_j) $ and $ (u_{i_2}, u_{i_2} w_j) $
for any $j$ and distinct $ i_1, i_2 $.
Since $S$ induces a spanning tree,
$S$ includes no pair of two edges $ (u_i, u_i w_{j_1}) $ and $ (u_i, u_i w_{j_2}) $
for any $i$ and distinct $ j_1, j_2 $;
otherwise, such a pair and edges in $E_r$ form a cycle:
$ (u_i, u_i w_{j_1})$,
$(u_i w_{j_1}, u_{i+1})$ ($\in E_r \subseteq S$),
$(u_{i+1}, u_i w_{j_2})$,
$(u_i w_{j_2}, u_i)$ ($\in E_r \subseteq S $).
Consequently, the edge set
$ \{ (u_i, w_j) \mid (u_i, u_i w_j) \in M \} $
should be a perfect matching of $G$.
The converse direction is obvious.
\end{proof}
We finally show the restricted-case \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hardness.
Observe that the treewidth of $G$ is $2$
because $G$ is a series-parallel graph (but not a tree)~\cite{bodlaender1998partial}.
Let $B$ be a $3$-regular bipartite graph, for which
counting the number of all perfect matchings is \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-complete~\cite[Theorem 6.2]{dagum1992approximating}.
It turns out that the graph formed by the nonzero entries of $\mat{A}$
is the union of $3$-cliques, each of which has treewidth $2$.
Hence $\mat{A}$ has treewidth $2$.
\qed
\section{Proof of \cref{cor:fo-hard}}
\label{sec:fo-hard}
We show a polynomial-time (Turing) reduction
from the normalizing constant for spanning-tree DPPs to that for forest DPPs,
which has been proven to be \textup{$\sharp$\textsf{P}}\xspace-hard above.
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a simple, undirected graph of treewidth $2$, where $n=|V|$ and $m=|E|$, and
$\mat{A} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ be a positive semi-definite $(0,1)$-matrix of treewidth $2$.
For a positive integer $x$,
let us consider a forest DPP defined by $x\mat{A}$ and $G$.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ denote the family of the edge sets of all forests of $G$ and
$\mathcal{T}$ denote the family of the edge sets of all spanning trees of $G$.
We define a polynomial $\mathsf{Z}$ in $x$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{Z}(x) = \ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(x\mat{A},G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} \det((x\mat{A})_S).
\end{align*}
Note that the degree of $\mathsf{Z}$ is at most $n-1$.
Since an edge set $S \subseteq E$ induces a spanning tree if and only if $S \in \mathcal{F}$ and $|S|=n-1$,
we can expand $\mathsf{Z}(x)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{Z}(x) & = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} \det((x\mat{A})_S) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F} \\ |S| < n-1}} x^{|S|} \det(\mat{A}_S)
+ \sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F} \\ |S| = n-1}} x^{n-1} \det(\mat{A}_S) \\
& = \sum_{0 \leq k < n-1} \alpha_k x^k + \left(\sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}} \det(\mat{A}_S) \right) x^{n-1},
\end{align*}
where $ \alpha_k $ for $0 \leq k < n-1$ is some coefficient.
Given $\mathsf{Z}(1), \mathsf{Z}(2), \ldots, \mathsf{Z}(n)$,
each of which is the normalizing constant for a forest DPP,
we can recover $\sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}} \det(\mat{A}_S)$ by Lagrange interpolation as desired,
which completes the reduction.
Note that the matrix $x\mat{A}$ is positive semi-definite and has treewidth $2$ for any $x > 0$.
\qed
\section{Proof of \cref{thm:st-fpras}}
\label{sec:st-fpras}
We construct an AP-reduction from the mixed discriminant $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$.
Suppose we have an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$.
Let $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ be an error tolerance for $D$;
i.e., we are asked to estimate $D$ within a factor of $\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon}$.
Let $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$ be $n$ positive semi-definite matrices in $\mathbb{Q}^{n \times n}$, and let $m = n^2$.
According to \cite[Proof of Lemma 12]{celis2017complexity},
we construct an $m \times m$ positive semi-definite matrix $\mat{A}$ and
an equal-sized partition of $[m]$, denoted
$P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n$ with $ |P_1|=|P_2|= \cdots = |P_n|=n $,
such that the following is satisfied:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{S \in \mathcal{C}} \det(\mat{A}_{S}) = m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n),
\end{align*}
where
$ \mathcal{C} = \{S \in {[m] \choose n} \mid |S \cap P_i| = 1\mbox{ for all }i \in [n]\} $.
We then construct a simple, undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ such that
\begin{align}
V & = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n, v_{n+1}\} \cup \{ w_{i,j} \mid i \in [n], j \in P_i \}, \label{eq:def-G-V}\\
E & = E_\ell \cup E_r, \text{ where} \label{eq:def-G-E}\\
E_\ell & = \{ (v_i, w_{i,j}) \mid i \in [n], j \in P_i \}, \text{ and} \label{eq:def-G-El}\\
E_r & = \{ (w_{i,j}, v_{i+1}) \mid i \in [n],j \in P_i \}. \label{eq:def-G-Er}
\end{align}
Note that $|V| = n+m+1$ and $|E|=2m$.
We further construct a matrix $\mat{B} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ defined as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:def-B}
\mat{B} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mat{A}' & \mat{O}^\top \\
\mat{O} & \mat{I}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
where
$\mat{O}$ is an $ E_r \times E_\ell $ all-zero matrix,
$\mat{I}$ is an $E_r\times E_r$ identity matrix, and
$ \mat{A}'$ is an $E_\ell \times E_\ell$ matrix defined as
$A'_{(v_{i_1}, w_{i_1, j_1}), (v_{i_2}, w_{i_2,j_2})} = A_{j_1, j_2}$
for $(v_{i_1}, w_{i_1, j_1}), (v_{i_2}, w_{i_2,j_2}) \in E_\ell$.
By definition, $\mat{B}$ is positive semi-definite.
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the family of the edge sets of all spanning trees of $G$.
We then claim the following.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:thm:st-fpras}
Let $S$ be an edge set with $E_r \subseteq S \subseteq E$.
Then, $S$ induces a spanning tree of $G$ if and only if
the set $\{ j \in [m] \mid (v_i, w_{i,j}) \in S \cap E_\ell \}$ is contained in $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{claim:thm:st-fpras}]
Suppose $S$ with $E_r \subseteq S \subseteq E$
induces a spanning tree.
Since $E_r \subseteq S$, for each $i \in [n]$,
$S$ contains exactly one edge $(v_i, w_{i,j}) \in E_\ell$ for some $j \in P_i$
because otherwise, the subgraph induced by $S$ becomes disconnected or has a cycle.
The converse direction is obvious.
\end{proof}
The following equality is a direct consequence of \cref{claim:thm:st-fpras}.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sum-st}
\sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S) =
\sum_{S \in \mathcal{C}} \det(\mat{A}_S).
\end{align}
Introduce a positive rational number $x \in \mathbb{Q}$ (whose value will be determined later) and
define a matrix $\mat{X} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ depending on $x$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
X_{i,j} =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } i, j \in E_\ell, \\
x & \text{if } i \in E_\ell, j \in E_r, \\
x & \text{if } j \in E_\ell, i \in E_r, \\
x^2 & \text{if } i,j \in E_r.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Consider the matrix $ \mat{B} \circ \mat{X} $, where
$\circ$ denotes the Hadamard product operator;
namely, $ (\mat{B} \circ \mat{X})_{i,j} = B_{i,j} \cdot X_{i,j}$ for each $i,j \in E$.
Since $\mat{X}$ is positive semi-definite (its eigenvalues are $0$ and $m(x^2+1)$),
so is $\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}$ by the Schur product theorem \cite{schur1911bemerkungen}.
It is easy to show that for each $S \subseteq E$,
\begin{align*}
\det((\mat{B} \circ \mat{X})_S) = x^{2|S \cap E_r|} \det(\mat{B}_S).
\end{align*}
We define a univariate polynomial $\mathsf{Z}$ in $x$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{Z}(x) = \ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}, G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}} x^{2|S \cap E_r|} \det(\mat{B}_S).
\end{align*}
The degree of $\mathsf{Z}$ is at most $2m$.
By \cref{eq:sum-st}, the coefficient of $x^{2m}$
is exactly equal to the desired value, i.e.,
$ m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) $.
We now identify the value of $x$ for which
$\mathsf{Z}(x)$ is sufficiently close to $m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$.
We first verify whether there exists a subset $S \in \mathcal{T}$ with $E_r \subseteq S$ such that $\det(\mat{B}_S) > 0$
because otherwise, we can safely declare that
\cref{eq:sum-st} is $0$; i.e.,
$D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$ is $0$ as well.
Such a subset can be found (if exists) by matroid intersection because
$ \mathcal{I}_1 = \{ S \mid \det(\mat{B}_S) > 0 \} $ forms a linear matroid and
$ \mathcal{I}_2 = \{ S \mid S \in \mathcal{F}, E_r \subseteq S \}$ forms a partition matroid,
where $\mathcal{F}$ is the family of the edge sets of all forests of $G$.
Denote the subset found by $\tilde{S} \in \mathcal{I}_1 \cap \mathcal{I}_2$.
We then fix the value of $x$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:x-st-fpras}
x = \frac{\det(\mat{B}+\mat{I})}{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})} \frac{2}{\epsilon}.
\end{align}
Observing that $x > 1$, we bound $\mathsf{Z}(x)$ from above as follows:
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T} : E_r \subseteq S} x^{2|S \cap E_r|} \det(\mat{B}_S) +
\sum_{S \in \mathcal{T} : E_r \not \subseteq S} x^{2|S \cap E_r|} \det(\mat{B}_S) \\
& \leq \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} x^{2m} \det(\mat{B}_S) +
\sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \not \subseteq S} x^{2m-2} \det(\mat{B}_S) \\
& \leq x^{2m} \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)
\left[ 1 + \frac{\sum\limits_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \not \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\sum\limits_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)}\frac{1}{x^2} \right] \\
& \leq x^{2m} \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)
\left[ 1 + \frac{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{T} \\ E_r \not \subseteq S}} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{T} \\ E_r \subseteq S}} \det(\mat{B}_S)} \frac{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})}{\det(\mat{B}+\mat{I})} \frac{\epsilon}{2} \frac{1}{x} \right] \\
& \leq \Bigl(1+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\Bigr) x^{2m} \sum_{S \in \mathcal{T}: E_r \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S) \\
& \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2} x^{2m} m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n).
\end{align*}
Since
$ \mathsf{Z}(x) \geq x^{2m} m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$, we have that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:st-fpras-bound}
D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) \leq \frac{\mathsf{Z}(x)}{x^{2m} m!} \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2}\cdot
D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n).
\end{align}
We are finally ready to describe the AP-reduction from
the mixed discriminant $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$.
\begin{oframed}
\begin{center}
\textbf{AP-reduction from $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$.}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Step 1.}~Construct the graph $G = (V,E)$ and
the matrix $\mat{B} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$
from $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$
according to the procedure described in the beginning of the proof (\cref{eq:def-G-V,eq:def-G-E,eq:def-G-El,eq:def-G-Er,eq:def-B}).
\item \textbf{Step 2.}~Determine if there exists a subset $S \subseteq E $ such that
$ S \in \mathcal{T} $, $E_r \subseteq S$, and $\det(\mat{B}_{S}) > 0$ by matroid intersection in polynomial time \cite{edmonds1970submodular}.
If no such a subset has been found,
then declare that ``$D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) = 0$,'' and otherwise, denote the subset found by $\tilde{S}$.
\item \textbf{Step 3.}~Calculate the value of $x$ according to \cref{eq:x-st-fpras}, which requires polynomial time in the input size and $\epsilon^{-1}$ because
the size of $\mat{B}$ is bounded by a polynomial in
the size of $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$ and
the determinant can be computed in polynomial time
by Gaussian elimination
\cite{edmonds1967systems,schrijver1998theory}.
\item \textbf{Step 4.}~Call an oracle for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$ on
$\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}$ (which is positive semi-definite) and $G$
with error tolerance $\delta = \epsilon/2$ to obtain
an $\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2}$-approximation to
$\mathsf{Z}(x) = \ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}(\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}, G)$,
which will be denoted by $\hat{\mathsf{Z}}$.
\item \textbf{Step 5.}~Output $\displaystyle\frac{\hat{\mathsf{Z}}}{x^{2m}m!}$ as an estimate for
$D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{oframed}
By \cref{eq:st-fpras-bound},
if the oracle meets the specification for an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{T}}$,
then the output of the AP-reduction described above satisfies that
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon} \cdot D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) \leq \frac{\hat{\mathsf{Z}}}{x^{2m} m!} \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon} \cdot D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)
\end{align*}
with probability at least $\frac{3}{4}$.
Therefore, the AP-reduction meets the specification for an FPRAS for $D$,
which completes the proof.
\qed
\section{Proof of \cref{thm:fo-fpras}}
\label{sec:fo-fpras}
We construct an AP-reduction from the mixed discriminant $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.
Suppose we have an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$; i.e.,
we can approximate $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$ within a factor of $\mathrm{e}^{\delta}$ in polynomial time.
Let $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ be an error tolerance for $D$,
i.e., we are asked to estimate $D$ within a factor of $\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon}$.
Let $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$ be $n$ positive semi-definite matrices in $\mathbb{Q}^{n \times n}$, and let $m = n^2$.
As with the proof of \cref{thm:st-fpras}, according to \cite[Proof of Lemma 12]{celis2017complexity},
we construct an $m \times m$ positive semi-definite matrix $\mat{A}$ and
an equal-sized partition of $[m]$, denoted
$P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n$,
such that
$\sum_{S \in \mathcal{C}} \det(\mat{A}_{S}) = m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$,
where
$ \mathcal{C} = \{S \in {[m] \choose n} \mid |S \cap P_i| = 1 \; \forall i \in [n]\} $.
We then construct a simple, undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ according to
\cref{eq:def-G-V,eq:def-G-E,eq:def-G-El,eq:def-G-Er} and
a matrix $\mat{B} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$
according to \cref{eq:def-B}.
Recall that $|V| = n+m+1$, $|E|=2m$, and $\mat{B}$ is positive semi-definite.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the family of the edge sets of all forests of $G$.
We rephrase \cref{claim:thm:st-fpras} in the proof of \cref{thm:st-fpras} as follows.
\begin{claim*}
Let $S$ be an edge set with $E_r \subseteq S \subseteq E$.
Then, $S$ induces a forest of $G$ and $|S \cap E_\ell| = n$ if and only if
the set $\{ j \in [m] \mid (v_i, w_{i,j}) \in S \cap E_\ell \}$ is contained in $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{claim*}
The following equality is a direct consequence of the claim.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sum-fo}
\sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| = n}} \det(\mat{B}_S)
= \sum_{S \in \mathcal{C}} \det(\mat{A}_S).
\end{align}
Introduce two positive rational numbers $x, y \in \mathbb{Q}$ (whose values will be determined later) and define a matrix $\mat{X} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$ depending
on $x$ and $y$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
X_{i,j} =
\begin{cases}
y^2 & \text{if } i, j \in E_\ell, \\
xy & \text{if } i \in E_\ell, j \in E_r, \\
xy & \text{if } j \in E_\ell, i \in E_r, \\
x^2 & \text{if } i,j \in E_r.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Since $\mat{X}$ is positive semi-definite for
any $x,y>0$ (its eigenvalues are $0$ and $m(x^2+y^2)$),
so is $\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}$ by the Schur product theorem \cite{schur1911bemerkungen}.
It is easy to observe that for each $S \subseteq E$,
\begin{align*}
\det((\mat{B} \circ \mat{X})_S) = x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \det(\mat{B}_S).
\end{align*}
We define a \emph{bivariate} polynomial in $x$ and $y$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{Z}(x,y) = \ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}, G) = \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \det(\mat{B}_S).
\end{align*}
By \cref{eq:sum-fo}, the coefficient of $x^{2m}y^{2n}$ in $\mathsf{Z}(x,y)$ is exactly the desired value,
i.e., $m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$.
We now identify the values of $x$ and $y$ such that
$\mathsf{Z}(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to $m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$.
We first verify whether there exists
a subset $S \in \mathcal{F}$ with $E_r \subseteq S$ and $|E_\ell \cap S| = n$ such that $\det(\mat{B}_S) > 0$
because otherwise,
we can safely declare that \cref{eq:sum-fo} is $0$;
i.e., $D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$ is $0$.
Such a subset can be found (if exists) by matroid intersection in a similar manner to that in the proof of \cref{thm:st-fpras} and denote
the subset found by $\tilde{S}$.
We fix values of $x$ and $y$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:x-fo-fpras}
y = \frac{\det(\mat{B} + \mat{I})}{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})} \frac{4}{\epsilon} \;\;\text{ and }\;\;
x = \frac{\det(\mat{B}+\mat{I})}{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})} y^{2m-2n} \frac{4}{\epsilon}.
\end{align}
Notice that $x>1$ and $y>1$.
Hence, each monomial $x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \det(\mat{B}_S)$
associated with $S \in \mathcal{F}$
fits into one of the following three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Case 1.}~If $E_r \subseteq S, |S \cap E_\ell| = n$:
$x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \leq x^{2m}y^{2n}$;
\item \textbf{Case 2.}~If $E_r \subseteq S, |S \cap E_\ell| < n$:
$x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \leq x^{2m}y^{2n-2}$;
\item \textbf{Case 3.}~If $E_r \not \subseteq S$:
$x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \leq x^{2m-2}y^{2m}$.
\end{itemize}
Define $\sigma$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\sigma = m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) = \sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| = n}} \det(\mat{B}_S).
\end{align*}
Observing that $\sigma \geq \det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})$,
we now bound $\mathsf{Z}(x,y) $ from above as follows:
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}} x^{2|S \cap E_r|} y^{2|S \cap E_\ell|} \det(\mat{B}_S) \\
& \leq \sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| = n}} x^{2m} y^{2n} \det(\mat{B}_S)
+ \sum_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| \leq n-1}} x^{2m} y^{2n-2} \det(\mat{B}_S) + \sum_{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \not \subseteq S} x^{2m-2} y^{2m} \det(\mat{B}_S) \\
& = x^{2m} y^{2n} \sigma
\left[1 + \frac{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| \leq n-1}} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| = n}} \det(\mat{B}_S)}\frac{1}{y^2} + \frac{\sum\limits_{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \not \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| = n}} \det(\mat{B}_S)}\frac{y^{2m-2n}}{x^2}
\right] \\
& \leq x^{2m}y^{2n} \sigma
\left[
1 + \frac{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})}{\sigma} \frac{\sum\limits_{\substack{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \subseteq S \\ |S \cap E_\ell| \leq n-1}} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\det(\mat{B}+\mat{I})}\frac{\epsilon}{4}\frac{1}{y} + \frac{\det(\mat{B}_{\tilde{S}})}{\sigma}\frac{\sum\limits_{S \in \mathcal{F}: E_r \not \subseteq S} \det(\mat{B}_S)}{\det(\mat{B}+\mat{I})} \frac{\epsilon}{4}\frac{1}{x}
\right] \\
& \leq x^{2m}y^{2n} \left(1+\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right) \sigma \\
& \leq x^{2m}y^{2n}\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2} m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n).
\end{align*}
Since $\mathsf{Z}(x,y) \geq x^{2m} y^{2n}m! \; D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$,
we have that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fo-fpras-bound}
D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) \leq \frac{\mathsf{Z}(x,y)}{x^{2m} y^{2n} m!} \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2} \cdot D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n).
\end{align}
We are finally ready to describe the AP-reduction from
the mixed discriminant $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.
\begin{oframed}
\begin{center}
\textbf{AP-reduction from $D$ to $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$.}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Step 1.}~Construct the graph $G = (V,E)$ and
the matrix $\mat{B} \in \mathbb{Q}^{E \times E}$
from $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$
according to the procedure described in the beginning of the proof (\cref{eq:def-G-V,eq:def-G-E,eq:def-G-El,eq:def-G-Er,eq:def-B}).
\item \textbf{Step 2.}~Determine if there exists a subset $S \subseteq E$ such that
$S \in \mathcal{F}$, $E_r \subseteq S$, $|E_\ell \cap S| = n$, and $\det(\mat{B}_{S}) > 0$ by matroid intersection in polynomial time \cite{edmonds1970submodular}.
If no such a subset has been found, then declare that
``$D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$ = 0,'' and otherwise
denote the subset found by $\tilde{S}$.
\item \textbf{Step 3.}~Calculate the values of $x$ and $y$ according to \cref{eq:x-fo-fpras}, which requires polynomial time in the input size and $\epsilon^{-1}$ because
the size of $\mat{B}$ is bounded by a polynomial in the size of $\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n$ and
the determinant can be computed in polynomial time
by Gaussian elimination \cite{edmonds1967systems,schrijver1998theory}.
\item \textbf{Step 4.}~Call an oracle for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$ on
$\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}$ and $G$ with error tolerance $\delta = \epsilon/2$ to obtain
an $\mathrm{e}^{\epsilon/2}$-approximation to
$\mathsf{Z}(x,y) = \ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}(\mat{B} \circ \mat{X}, G)$,
which will be denoted by $\hat{\mathsf{Z}}$.
\item \textbf{Step 5.}~Output $\displaystyle\frac{\hat{\mathsf{Z}}}{x^{2m}y^{2n}m!}$ as an estimate for
$D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{oframed}
By \cref{eq:fo-fpras-bound},
if the oracle meets the specification for an FPRAS for $\ZZ_{\mathrm{F}}$,
then the output of the AP-reduction described above satisfies that
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon} \cdot D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n) \leq \frac{\hat{\mathsf{Z}}}{x^{2m}y^{2n}m!} \leq \mathrm{e}^{\epsilon} \cdot D(\mat{K}^1, \ldots, \mat{K}^n)
\end{align*}
with probability at least $\frac{3}{4}$.
Therefore, the AP-reduction meets the specification of an FPRAS for $D$,
which completes the proof.
\qed
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}
This paper has proposed a distributed optimization framework to generate probabilistic forecasts for a set of time series subject to hierarchical constraints. In our approach, the forecasting model is trained in a bottom-up fashion. At any stage, the model training involves simultaneously updating model parameters at two adjacent levels while maintaining the coherency constraints. This enables manageable information exchange at different levels of data aggregation. Our framework can incorporate any forecasting model and the non-parametric quantile loss function to generate accurate and coherent forecasts with pre-specified confidence levels. We have analytically demonstrated that by training the model with our modified objective function, the variance of time series data at higher aggregation levels can be reduced. We also compared our method empirically with the state-of-the-art hierarchical forecasting methods with cutting-edge base forecasters. The results show that our method produces relatively robust with accurate and coherent forecasts. Our proposed method reduces the inference complexity compared to the state-of-the-art algorithms, which perform a computationally expensive matrix inversion operation during the inference to achieve the reconciliation.
As for future work, we plan to extend our method to multi-variate time series to be forecast at different time granularities while obeying hierarchical relationships. Besides, we also plan to investigate incorporating exogenous variables and related metadata.
\textbf{Acknowledgements} \\
This work is supported by Intuit Inc. The authors would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive feedback and Tongzheng Ren for helpful discussion.
\section{Introduction} \label{background}
\label{sec:intro}
\newcommand{\hat{y}}{\hat{y}}
\newcommand{\hat{\beta}}{\hat{\beta}}
\newcommand{\Tilde{y}}{\Tilde{y}}
\newcommand{\hat{Y}}{\hat{Y}}
\newcommand{\Tilde{Y}}{\Tilde{Y}}
\newcommand{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_n}{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_n}
\renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{I}}
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw]
\begin{figure*}
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu*}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=.26\textwidth]{images/us_region.pdf} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 1.cm,auto]
\node [circ] (step1) {$v_1$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 1.2cm of step1, label={793:{$e_{1, 2}$}}] (step2) {$v_2$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 1.2cm of step1, label={493:{$e_{1, 3}$}}] (step3) {$v_3$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step2] (step4) {$v_4$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step2] (step5) {$v_5$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step3] (step6) {$v_6$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step3] (step7) {$v_7$};
\path [line, rounded corners] (step1) -| (step2);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step1) -| (step3);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step2) -| (step4);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step2) -| (step5);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step3) -| (step6);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step3) -| (step7);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\includegraphics[width=.18\textwidth]{images/s_matrix.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=.18\textwidth]{images/hie_ts.png} \\
(a) & (b) & (c) & (d) \\
\end{tabu*}
\caption{(a) Example of hierarchically related time series: state population growth forecast, the data is aggregated by geographical locations; (b) corresponding graph structure as nodes and vertices; (c) corresponding matrix representation with four bottom level time series and three aggregated levels; (d) time series forecast at each node.}}
\label{fig:hierarchical_demo}
\end{figure*}
Hierarchical time series refers to a set of time series organized in a logical hierarchy with the parent-children relations, governed by a set of aggregation and disaggregation operations \citep{hyndman2011optimal, taieb2017coherent}. These aggregations and disaggregations can occur across multiple time series or over the same time series across multiple time granularities. An example of the first kind can be forecasting demand at county, city, state, and country levels \citep{hyndman2011optimal}. An example of the second kind of hierarchy is forecasting demand at different time granularities like daily, weekly, and monthly \citep{athanasopoulos2017forecasting}. The need to forecast multiple time series that are hierarchically related arise in many applications, from financial forecasting \citep{sasforecasting} to demand forecasting \citep{hyndman2016fast, zhao2016multi} and psephology \citep{lauderdale2019model}. The
recently announced M5 competition\footnote{https://mofc.unic.ac.cy/m5-competition/} from the International Institute of Forecasters also involves hierarchical forecasting on Walmart data with a \$100K prize.
A novel challenge in such forecasting problems is to produce accurate forecasts while maintaining the consistency of the forecasts across multiple hierarchies.
\paragraph{Related Works} Existing hierarchical forecasting methods predominantly employ linear auto-regressive (AR) models that are initially trained while ignoring the hierarchy. The output forecasts produced by these AR models are reconciled afterward for consistency. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(c), such reconciliation is achieved by defining a mapping matrix, often denoted by $S$, which encapsulates the mutual relationships among the time series \citep{hyndman2011optimal}. The reconciliation step involves inversion and multiplication of the $S$ matrix that leads to the computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n^3 h)$, where $n$ is the number of nodes, and $h$ represents how many levels of hierarchy the set of time series are organized into. Thus, reconciling hundreds of thousands of time series at a time required for specific industrial applications becomes difficult. Improved versions of the reconciliation were proposed by employing trace minimization \citep{wickramasuriya2015forecasting} and sparse matrix computation \citep{hyndman2016fast}. These algorithms assume that the individual base estimators are unbiased, which is unrealistic in many real-life applications. The unbiasedness assumption was relaxed in \citep{taieb2017coherent} while introducing other assumptions like ergodicity with exponentially decaying mixing coefficient. Moreover, all these existing methods try to impose any reconciliation constraints among the time series as a post inference step, which possesses two challenges: 1. ignoring the relationships across time series during training can potentially lead to suboptimal solutions, 2. additional computational complexity in the inference step, owing to the inversion of $S$ matrix, which makes it challenging to use the technique when a significant amount of time series are encountered in an industrial forecasting pipeline.
A critical development in time series forecasting has been the application of Deep Neural Networks (DNN) \citep[e.g.,][]{chung2014empirical, lai2018modeling, mukherjee2018armdn, oreshkin2019n, salinas2019deepar, sen2019think, zhu2017deep} which have shown to outperform statistical auto-regressive or other statistical models in several situations. However, no existing method incorporates the hierarchical structure of the set of time series into the DNN learning step. Instead, one hopes that the DNN will learn the relationships from the data. Graph neural networks (GNN) \citep[e.g.,][]{franceschi2019learning, lachapelle2019gradient, wu2020connecting, yu2017spatio, yu2019dag, zhang2020deep, zheng2018dags} have also been used to learn inherent relations among multiple time series; however, they need a pre-defined graph model that can adequately capture the relationships among the time series.
Characterizing uncertainty of the DNN forecast is another critical aspect, which becomes even more complicated when additive noise does not follow a Gaussian distribution \citep[e.g.,][]{blundell2015weight, iwata2017improving, kuleshov2018accurate, lakshminarayanan2017simple, sun2019functional}. If the observation noise model is misspecified, then the performance would be poor however complex neural network architecture one uses. Other works like \citet{salinas2019deepar} use multiple observation noise models (Gaussian, Negative Binomial) and loss functions. It is left to human experts' discretion to select the appropriate loss based on the time series's nature. This approach cannot be generalized and involves human intervention; it is especially not feasible for an industrial forecasting pipeline where predictions are to be generated for a vast number of time series, which can have a widely varying nature of observation noise. Besides, Bayesian approaches also face problems as the prior distribution and loss function assumptions will not be met across all of the time series. One approach that does not need to specify a parametric form of distribution is through quantile regression. Prior works include combining sequence to sequence models with quantile loss to generate multi-step probabilistic forecasts \citep{wen2017multi} and modeling conditional quantile functions using regression splines \citep{gasthaus2019probabilistic}. These works are incapable of handling hierarchical structures within time series.
Key aspects of multiple, related time series forecasting addressed by our proposed model include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item introduction of a regularized loss function that captures the mutual relationships among each group of time series from adjacent aggregation levels,
\item generation of probabilistic forecasts using quantile regression and simultaneously reconciling each quantile during model training,
\item clear demonstration of superior model capabilities, especially on real e-commerce datasets with sparsity and skewed noise distributions.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Background: Hierarchical Time Series Forecast} Denote $b_t \in \mathbb{R}^m$, $a_t \in \mathbb{R}^k$ as the observations at time $t$ for the $m$ and $k$ series at the bottom and aggregation level(s), respectively. Then $y_t = S b_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ contains observations at time $t$ for all levels. Similarly, let $\hat{b}_T(h)$ be the $h-$step ahead forecast on the bottom-level at time $T$, we can obtain forecasts in higher aggregation levels by computing $\hat{y}_T(h) = S \hat{b}_T(h)$. This simple method is called bottom-up (BU), which guarantees reconciled forecasts. However, the error from bottom-level forecasts will accumulate to higher levels, leading to poor results. BU also cannot leverage any training data that is available at the more granular levels. A more straightforward approach called base forecast is to perform forecasting for each time series independently without considering the structure at all, i.e., compute $\hat{y}_T(h) = \left[\hat{a}_T (h)^{\top} ~~ \hat{b}_T(h)^{\top}\right]^{\top}$, but this will apparently lead to irreconciled forecasts. Therefore, imposing constraints to revise the base forecasts is a natural choice to accommodate the hierarchical relationships. More specifically, the goal is to obtain some appropriately selected matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ to combine the base forecasts linearly: $\Tilde{y}_T(h) = SP\hat{y}_T(h)$, where $\Tilde{y}_T(h)$ is the reconciled forecasts which are now coherent by construction. The role of $P$ is to map the base forecasts into the forecasts at the most disaggregated level and sum them up by $S$ to get the reconciled forecasts. The previously mentioned approach \citep{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} involves computing the optimal $P$ under different situations. A more detailed introduction can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:background}.
\section{Statistical Analysis of SHARQ} \label{theory}
In this section, we theoretically demonstrate the advantages of SHARQ. We begin by showing the optimality of our formulation (\ref{contstrained_loss}) in contrast to post-inference based methods, which solves the matrix $P$ for $\Tilde{y}_T(h) = SP\hat{y}_T(h)$. We emphasize our advantage in balancing coherency requirements and forecasting accuracy. We then present some desirable statistical properties of SHARQ.
\begin{thm}\textbf{(Global Optimum)} \label{thm:loss}
For $L_c \in C^1$, for an arbitrary parameterized smooth regressor model asymptotically,
\begin{align}
&\L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{\star}_k)) \nonumber \\
&\le \L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{recon}_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k))
\end{align}
where $\theta^{\star}$, $\theta^{recon}$ are the parameters for SHARQ, and post inference reconciled solution, respectively.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By definition, SHARQ directly minimize Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}),
\begin{equation}
\theta^{\star} = \arg \underset{\theta}{\min} ~\L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)),
\end{equation}
where $\theta = \{\theta_i, \theta_k\}$.
\end{proof}
Since \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} are performing the reconciliation as a post-processing step, those solutions are bound to be sub-optimal in comparison with $\theta^{\star}$.
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Hard Constraint)} \label{thm:stats}
For post-inference based methods, $P \hat{y}_T (h)$ is the bottom level reconciled forecast. In other words, it requires that
\begin{equation}
g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i) = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k).
\label{equ:stats_pro}
\end{equation}
Had we only considered the point forecast reconciliation, i.e. $\E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i)] = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \E[g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k)],$ the post inference processing still might have worked. However, due to the probabilistic nature of the variables $g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i) = \E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i)] + \varepsilon_i$, where $\varepsilon_i$ is the observation noise, reconciling the mean won't suffice.
\end{pro}
\paragraph{Remark} To satisfy Eq.(\ref{equ:stats_pro}), it is required that $\varepsilon_i = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \varepsilon_k$, which is not a realistic property to be satisfied in real-life problems. Intuitively, when a reconciliation matrix $P$ is applied, the original, unbiased base forecasts with variation are ``forced'' to be summed up. However, our method does not impose this hard constraint, leading to different properties.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu}{ccc}
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/log_sine.png}&
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/gamma_piecewise.png}&
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/Gaussian_piecewise.png} \\
\hspace{-0.45em} (a) Log-normal error & \hspace{-0.45em} (b) Gamma error & \hspace{-0.45em} (c) Gaussian error \\
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{Forecasting results of simulated sequential data under different error distributions. The original function of (a) is sinusoidal with varying frequency; (b) and (c) are discontinuous step functions. Note that our baseline forecasts in (b) and (c) are overconfident \citep{lakshminarayanan2017simple, li2020improving} and their prediction intervals are too small to be shown.}
\label{fig:sim_plot}
\end{figure*}
\usetikzlibrary{fit,backgrounds}
\usetikzlibrary{shadows.blur}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\tikzstyle{rect} = [draw, rectangle, fill=white!20, text width=2em, text centered, minimum height=2em]
\tikzstyle{longrect} = [draw, rectangle, fill=white!20, text width=6em, text centered, minimum height=2em]
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\begin{minipage}{.41\textwidth}
\scalebox{0.77}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.3pt}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ Error distribution } & Log-normal & Gamma & Gaussian \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ MAPE } & Quantile & \textbf{32.72} & \textbf{62.20} & \textbf{70.29} \\
& Baseline & 49.88 & 73.69 & 73.36 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ LR } & Quantile & \textbf{0.2218} & \textbf{0.5649} & \textbf{0.8634} \\
& Baseline & 0.5661 & 0.7489 & 1.025 \\
\hlinewd{1.3pt}
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.57\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 1.2cm,auto]
\node [rect, rounded corners, label={[font=\small\sffamily,name=label1]above:{Forecasting model}}] (step1) {$h_{t-2}$};
\node [rect, right of=step1, rounded corners] (step2) {$h_{t-1}$};
\node [rect, right of=step2, rounded corners] (step4) {$h_t$};
\node [rect, right of=step4, rounded corners] (step8) {$o_t$};
\node [circ, below of=step1] (step5) {$x_{t-2}$};
\node [circ, below of=step2] (step6) {$x_{t-1}$};
\node [circ, below of=step4] (step7) {$x_t$};
\node [longrect, above right = 0.2cm and 0.3cm of step8] (step9) {dense layer 1};
\node [longrect, below right = 0.2cm and 0.3cm of step8] (step10) {dense layer 3};
\node [longrect, right =0.25cm of step8] (step12) {dense layer 2};
\node [circ, right =0.2cm of step12] (step11) {$\hat{y}^{\tau}_{t+1}$};
\path [line] (step1) -- (step2);
\path [line] (step2) -- (step4);
\path [line] (step5) -- (step1);
\path [line] (step6) -- (step2);
\path [line] (step7) -- (step4);
\path [line] (step4) -- (step8);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step8) |- (step9);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step8) |- (step10);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step9) -| (step11);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step10) -| (step11);
\path [line] (step8) -- (step12);
\path [line] (step12) -- (step11);
\begin{scope}[on background layer]
\node[draw,dashed,black,rounded corners,fill=gray!50,fit=(step1) (step2) (step4) (step5) (step6) (step7) (label1)]{};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Left: Quantitative results for simulation experiments. We use Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) \citep{makridakis2000m3} to measure forecasting accuracy and Likelihood Ratio (LR) to evaluate uncertainty intervals. Right: A schematic of the multi-quantile forecaster used for simulation.}
\label{tab:sim_res}
\end{table*}
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Unbiasedness Property)}
Consider a hierarchical structure with $n$ nodes where the first $\kappa$ nodes belong to aggregation levels, assume that the bottom level forecasting is unbiased:
\begin{equation}
\E [g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] = Y_m^k, \quad k = \kappa + 1,..., n
\end{equation}
and the bottom level forecasting models are well optimized:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Var}\left(\|g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) - Y_m^k\|\right) = \epsilon, \quad
\epsilon = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m}).
\end{equation}
Then we have that
\begin{align*}
\E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)] & = \E[\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \E[g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] \nonumber \\
& = Y_m^i, \quad i = 1, ..., \kappa
\end{align*}
\end{pro}
Therefore, we claim that given the unbiased base forecast at the most disaggregated level, as well as well-specified models, our method can provide unbiased estimation at all aggregation levels.
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Variance Reduction)}
Assume we are minimizing a quadratic loss function using our formulation, where
\begin{align*}
& L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i, g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) = \|g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - Y_m^i\|^2 \nonumber \\
& + \lambda_i \parallel g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \left ( e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) \parallel^2.
\end{align*}
By solving the quadratic objective, we get
\begin{equation}
g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) = \frac{Y_m^i + \lambda_i \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)}{\lambda_i + 1}.
\end{equation}
Note that if we fit linear models that generalize in the bottom level, we have $\mathrm{Var} (\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m})$ (for other models, the variance should be at least in a smaller scale than $\mathcal{O}(1)$, which is the variance of observed samples). Therefore, by alternating $\lambda_i$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathrm{Var}(g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)) = \mathrm{Var}(Y_m^i) = \mathcal{O}(1), \mathrm{when} ~\lambda_i \rightarrow 0$.
\Item
\begin{align}\hspace{-1.75em}
\mathrm{Var}(g_i(X_m^i, \theta_i)) & = \mathrm{Var}(\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) \nonumber \\
& = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m}), \mathrm{when} ~ \lambda_i \rightarrow \infty.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{pro}
This tells us that by alternating the coefficient $\lambda_i$, the amount of estimator variance at higher aggregation levels can be controlled. If lower-level models are accurate, then we can improve the higher-level models by this method. Instead of adding a hard coherency requirement like the post-inference methods, SHARQ provides more flexibility for controlling the variations.
\section{Simultaneous Hierarchically Reconciled Quantile Forecasting} \label{dqhfn}
We propose a new method for hierarchical time-series forecasts. Our approach fundamentally differs from others in that we move the reconciliation into the training stage by enabling the model to simultaneously learn the time series data from adjacent aggregation levels, while also integrating quantile regression to provide coherent forecasts for uncertainty bounds. We call our method Simultaneous HierArchically Reconciled Quantile Regression (SHARQ) to highlight these properties.
\subsection{Problem Formulation} \label{problem_formulation}
\paragraph{Graph Structure} Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(b) shows a hierarchical graph structure where each node represents a time series, which is to be predicted over a horizon. The graph structure is represented by $ \{ V, E \}$, where $V := \{v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n \} $ are the vertices of the graph and $E := \{ e_{i_1, j_1}, e_{i_2, j_2}, \dots, e_{i_p, j_p} \}$ are the set of edges. Also, $e_{i, j} \in \{-1, 1\}$ is a signed edge where $i$ is the parent vertex and $j$ is the child. An example of the negative-signed edge can be forecasting surplus production, which is the difference between production and demand. The time series for vertex $i$ at time $t$ is represented as $x_{v_i} (t)$. For sake of simplicity, we assume the value of a time series at a parent level will be the (signed) sum of the children vertices.
This constraint relationship can be represented as $x_{v_i} (t) = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ x_{v_k} (t).$ We can later extend these to set of non-linear constraints: $x_{v_i} (t) =H_{v_i} \left( \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ x_{v_k} (t) \right)$, where $ H_{v_i} \in \mathbb{C}^1$. But linear hierarchical aggregation has already covered most real-world applications. The graph has hierarchies $L := \{ l_1, l_2, \dots, l_i, \dots, l_q\}$, where $l_i$ is the set of all vertices belonging to the $i^{th}$ level of hierarchy. Note that the graph representation using $\{ V, E \}$ is equivalent to the $S$ matrix in defining a hierarchical structure.
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw]
\paragraph{Data Fit Loss Function}
We now formulate the learning problem for each node. Let $\{ x_{v_i} (t) ~|~ t = 0, \dots, T \}$ be the training data for vertex $v_i$, $w$ be the window of the auto-regressive features, and $h$ be horizon of forecast. Based on the window, we can create a sample of training data in the time stamp $m$ as:
\begin{align*}
\{ (X_m^i, Y_m^i) ~|~ X_m^i & = [ F \left ( x_{v_i} (m), \dots, x_{v_i} (m - w + 1) \right ) ], \\
Y_m^i & = [x_{v_i} (m + 1), \dots, x_{v_i} (m + h)] \}, \notag
\end{align*}
where $F \colon \mathbb{R}^{w+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_f}$ is the featurization function, which will generate a set of features; $n_f$ is the size of feature space, $h$ is the horizon of the forecast. It can be noted that $n_f \geq \omega$. In this fashion, we transform the forecasting problem to a regression one, where $n_f$ and $h$ capture the size of the feature space and the response. For instance, we can create a set of features for an ARIMA$(p, d, q)$ model based on the standard parameterization, where auto-regressive window size $w=p$ and the other features corresponding to the $d, q$ parameters will form the rest of the features.
We represent a forecasting model that learns the mean as a point estimate. Denote function $g_i : \mathbb{R}^{n_f} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_\theta} \to \mathbb{R}^{d}$, where $n_\theta$ represents the number of model parameters which are represented as $\theta_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\theta}$. The estimate from the model for $X_m^i$ will be $\hat{Y}_m^i := g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)$. We can define a loss function for the $m^{th}$ sample at the $i^{th}$ vertex as $\L (\hat{Y}_m^i, ~ Y_m^i) = \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i)$. We would assume the noise in training samples are of \texttt{i.i.d.} nature. As a consequence, the loss for the entire training data will be sum for each sample, i.e., $\sum_m \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i)$. Noted that this formulation will work for neural networks or ARIMA but not for Gaussian Processes, where we need to model the covariance of the uncertainties across the samples.
\paragraph{Reconciled Point Forecast}
We then describe how to incorporate reconciliation constraints into the loss functions for the vertices. The constraints at different levels of hierarchy will have different weights, which we denote as a function $w_c: L \to \mathbb{R}$. We define another function that maps any vertex to the hierarchy level, $LM: V \to L$. For any vertex $v_i$, the corresponding weight for the constraint is given by $ \lambda_{v_i} := w_c \circ LM (v_i)$. The constrained loss for vertex $v_i$ will be
\begin{align}
& \L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i, g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) := \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i) \nonumber \\
& + \lambda_i \parallel g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \left ( e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) \parallel^2 .
\label{contstrained_loss}
\end{align}
Note that the data fit loss and the reconciliation, as described thus far, are catered to the point estimate of the mean forecasts.
\subsection{Reconciling Probabilistic Forecast using Quantiles} \label{sec_qloss}
Generating probabilistic forecasts over a range of time is significant for wide-ranging applications. Real-world time series data is usually sparse and not uniformly sampled. It is unreasonable to assume that the uncertainty or error distribution at every future point of time as Gaussians. A standard approach to solve this problem is using quantile loss, which allows one to model the error distribution in a non-parametric fashion. The estimator will aim at minimizing a loss directly represented in terms of the quantiles. Simultaneously, quantile can be used to construct confidence intervals by fitting multiple quantile regressors to obtain estimates of upper and lower bounds for prediction intervals. The quantile loss $\rho_{\tau} (y)$ is defined as
$\rho_{\tau} (y, ~ Q_{\tau}) = \left( y - Q_{\tau} \right). (\tau - \mathbb{I}_{(y<Q_{\tau})}),$
where $Q_{\tau}$ is the $\tau^{th}$ quantile output by an estimator. We will adopt quantiles in our framework, and pre-specified quantile ranges will represent the forecasting distribution. For simplicity, we denote $Q_i^{\tau} = Q^{\tau}_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)$ as the $\tau^{th}$ quantile estimator for node $i$. Eq.(\ref{quantile}) demonstrates a quantile version of the probabilistic estimator; it aims to produce multiple forecasts at different quantiles while maintaining a coherent median forecast which will be used to reconcile other quantiles:
\begin{align}
& \L_c (Q_i, Y_m^i, Q_k) := \nonumber \\
& \sum_{\tau = \tau_0}^{\tau_q}\rho_{\tau} (Q^{\tau}_i, Y_m^i)
+ \lambda_i \parallel Q^{50}_i - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} Q^{50}_i \parallel^2,
\label{quantile}
\end{align}
where $[\tau_0, \dots, \tau_q]$ are a set of quantile levels, and $Q_i = [Q^{\tau_0}_i, \dots, Q^{\tau_q}_i]$. To further guarantee that estimation at each quantile is coherent across the hierarchy, the straightforward solution is to add consistency regularization for each quantile like Eq.(\ref{quantile}). However, too many regularization terms would not only increase the number of hyper-parameters, but also complicate the loss function, where the result may even be worse as it is hard to find a solution to balance each objective. Moreover, a quantile estimator does not hold the additive property. As an example, assume $X_1 \sim N(\mu_1, \sigma_1^2)$, $X_2 \sim N(\mu_2, \sigma_2^2)$ are independent random variables, and define $Y = X_1 + X_2$. Then $Q_{Y}^{\tau} = Q_{X_1}^{\tau} + Q_{X_2}^{\tau}$ is true only if $X_1 = C \times X_2$, where $C$ is arbitrary constant. This requirement cannot be satisfied. But for any $\tau$, we have $(Q_{Y}^{\tau} - \mu_Y )^2 = (Q_{X_1}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_1})^2 + (Q_{X_2}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_2})^2$, the proof of above properties can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:nonadd}. Given these properties, we can formulate a new objective to make an arbitrary quantile consistent:
\begin{align}
& \L_q (Q_i, Y_m^i, Q_k) := \label{quantile_recon} \\
& \left [f\left(Q^{\tau}_i - Q^{50}_i\right)
- \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ f\left(Q^{\tau}_k - Q^{50}_k\right) + \mathrm{Var}(\epsilon)\right ]^2, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is the mean forecast's inconsistency error, which is mostly a much smaller term for a non-sparse dataset, and $f$ is the distance metric. Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) is zero when $f$ is a squared function and the given data satisfies \texttt{i.i.d.} Gaussian assumption. Therefore, optimizing Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) ``forces'' this additive property in non-Gaussian cases and is equivalent to reconcile the quantile estimators, which can also be interpreted as reconciliation over the variance across adjacent aggregation levels. Empirically, this approach calibrates multiple quantile predictions to be coherent and mitigates the quantile crossing issue \citep{liu2009stepwise}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\small
\caption{SHARQ}
\label{alg:bu}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input}:~~Training data $\mathcal{I}_1 = \{X_i, Y_i\}_{i=1}^{T_1}$, testing data $\mathcal{I}_2 = \{X_i, Y_i\}_{i=1}^{T_2}$.
\STATE \textbf{Process}:
\STATE train each leaf node (e.g., $v_4$ to $v_7$ in Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(b)) independently without regularization
\FOR{each vertex $v$ at upper level $l$ (e.g., $l = 2$ for $v_3$, $v_2$, then $l = 1$ for $v_1$)}
\STATE train vertex $v$ at level $l$ using Eq.(\ref{quantile})
\ENDFOR
\STATE Reconciled Median Forecast \textbf{MF} $\leftarrow$ \textbf{Models}($\mathcal{I}_2$)
\FOR{each vertex $v$ at upper level $l$}
\STATE train vertex $v$ at level $l$ using Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) and \textbf{MF}
\ENDFOR
\STATE \textbf{Output}: ~ Reconciled forecasts at pre-specified quantiles.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{SHARQ Algorithm}
Our formulation can be combined with a bottom-up training approach to reconciling forecasts for each quantile simultaneously. Since the time series at the leaf (disaggregated) level are independent of higher aggregation levels, we can use the lower-level forecasting results to progressively reconcile the forecasting models at higher levels without revisiting previous reconciliations, till the root is reached. In contrast, if top-down training is applied, one needs to reconcile both higher (previously visited) and lower-level data at an intermediate vertex, since other time series at that intermediate level may have changed. Algorithm \ref{alg:bu} describes our procedure. We now address the remaining aspects.
\paragraph{Beyond Gaussian Noise Assumption.} Noise distributions for many real-world datasets (e.g., e-commerce data) are heavily skewed, so a Gaussian model may not be appropriate. For multi-level time series, data at the most disaggregated (lowest) level is more likely to be sparse, which makes the quantile reconciliation in Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) less accurate. In such situations, one can substitute median with the mean estimator as in Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) for training lower-level time series. One can also mix-and-match between mean and median estimators at higher aggregation levels depending on the data characteristics. Finding a suitable function $f$ for quantile reconciliation as in Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) is an alternative way to tackle non-symmetric errors \citep{li20081}.
\paragraph{Efficient Training and Inference} SHARQ is time and memory efficient, scaling well in both aspects with large datasets. One can simultaneously train multiple time series and keep a running sum for reconciliation. Since coherent probabilistic forecasts are enforced during training, no extra post-processing time is needed (see Appendix \ref{sec:add_exp} for details). Besides, SHARQ does not force one to use deep forecasting models or to use the same type of model at each node; in fact, any model where gradient-based optimization can be used is allowable, and one can also mix-and-match. For cases where the time series at a given level are structurally very similar \citep{zhu2017deep}, they can be grouped (e.g., by clustering), and a single model can be learned for the entire group.
\section{Experimental Results} \label{experimental_results}
In this section, we validate the performance of SHARQ on multiple hierarchical time series datasets with different properties and use cases. The experiments are conducted on both simulated and real-world data. Results demonstrate that SHARQ can generate coherent and accurate forecasts and well-capture the prediction uncertainty at any specified level.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{Performance measured by MAPE \citep{makridakis2000m3} on Australian Labour (755 time series), and M5 competition (42840 time series), lower values are better. Level 1 is the top aggregation level, and 4 is the bottom level.}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 15.23 & 15.88 & 19.41 & \textbf{17.96} & 19.29 & 20.14 & 21.09 & 22.13 & 16.13 & 17.59 & 16.88 & \textbf{17.17} & 14.23 & 14.75 & 15.67 & \textbf{15.84} \\
Base & 12.89 & 14.26 & 16.96 & \textbf{17.96} & \textbf{17.59} & 19.86 & 20.98 & 22.13 & 14.99 & 12.31 & \textbf{15.12} & \textbf{17.17} & 12.18 & 13.32 & \textbf{14.32} & \textbf{15.84} \\
MinT-sam & 14.98 & 15.94 & 17.79 & 19.23 & 18.82 & 19.98 & 21.59 & 22.26 & 15.12 & 14.41 & 16.42 & 18.62 & 13.11 & 14.63 & 14.86 & 15.96 \\
MinT-shr & 14.46 & 15.43 & 16.94 & 18.75 & 18.54 & 19.98 & 21.22 & 22.01 & 15.06 & 13.89 & 16.31 & 17.56 & 12.76 & 14.41 & 14.77 & 15.87 \\
MinT-ols & 15.01 & 15.96 & 18.75 & 19.21 & 19.14 & 20.02 & 21.74 & 22.34 & 15.12 & 14.41 & 16.41 & 18.74 & 13.29 & 14.49 & 14.85 & 16.83 \\
ERM & 14.73 & 16.62 & 19.51 & 20.13 & 17.89 & 20.11 & 20.33 & \textbf{21.93} & 16.61 & 16.84 & 18.75 & 19.21 & 14.52 & 15.26 & 17.02 & 17.29 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{12.55} & \textbf{13.21} & \textbf{16.01} & \textbf{17.96} & 17.65 & \textbf{19.72} & \textbf{20.01} & 22.13 & \textbf{11.97} & \textbf{12.24} & 15.64 & \textbf{17.17} & \textbf{11.86} & \textbf{12.35} & 14.53 & \textbf{15.84} \\ \hhline{|=|====|====|====|====|}
BU & 11.42 & 12.04 & 12.32 & \textbf{11.72} & 12.77 & 14.59 & 16.11 & \textbf{16.56} & 10.11 & 12.69 & 10.78 & \textbf{10.94} & 11.01 & 11.05 & 12.43 & \textbf{11.34} \\
Base & 10.63 & 10.15 & 11.23 & \textbf{11.72} & 11.64 & 13.91 & 15.67 & \textbf{16.56} & 8.96 & 11.38 & 10.59 & \textbf{10.94} & 9.64 & 9.88 & 11.11 & \textbf{11.34} \\
MinT-sam & 11.25 & 11.67 & 11.87 & 12.99 & 12.34 & 14.09 & 15.97 & 17.54 & 9.64 & 12.31 & 11.02 & 11.01 & 9.97 & 10.82 & 11.89 & 12.77 \\
MinT-shr & 10.76 & 11.03 & 11.49 & 12.81 & 11.92 & 13.85 & 15.76 & 17.33 & 9.19 & 11.97 & 10.71 & 10.99 & 9.78 & 10.69 & 11.56 & 12.63 \\
MinT-ols & 11.75 & 11.56 & 12.06 & 13.05 & 12.32 & 14.21 & 15.97 & 17.56 & 9.63 & 12.54 & 10.98 & 11.02 & 10.41 & 11.01 & 12.02 & 12.71 \\
ERM & 11.86 & 12.01 & 12.42 & 13.54 & 12.61 & 14.02 & \textbf{15.41} & 17.14 & 10.35 & 13.01 & 13.15 & 13.56 & 10.44 & 11.22 & 13.42 & 13.96 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{9.87} & \textbf{9.68} & \textbf{10.41} & \textbf{11.72} & \textbf{11.23} & \textbf{13.84} & 15.69 & \textbf{16.56} & \textbf{8.68} & \textbf{9.49} & \textbf{10.23} & \textbf{10.94} & \textbf{9.67} & \textbf{9.76} & \textbf{10.75} & \textbf{11.34} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Simulation Experiments}
We first demonstrate that quantile loss can handle various kinds of error distributions and thus provide more stable and accurate uncertainty estimation than methods under Gaussian error assumption. We trained vanilla RNN models on three different sequential data with distinct error distributions. We implemented a model that has multiple quantile estimators with shared features, which enables more efficient training. The bagging method \citep{oliveira2014ensembles} is used as a baseline where we utilize model ensembles to produce confidence intervals. Figure \ref{fig:sim_plot} shows the advantage of quantile estimators on simulated sequential data, and Table \ref{tab:sim_res} compares forecasting results as well as demonstrates our model structure. Although it is difficult to capture the trend of discontinuous functions in Figure \ref{fig:sim_plot} (b) and (c), the quantile estimators are accurate and stable under both skewed and symmetric error distributions, where it also outperforms the baseline for all types of error distributions.
\subsection{Hierarchical Time Series}
We validate the performance of SHARQ on multiple real-world hierarchical time-series datasets, which include Australian Labour, FTSE \citep{doherty2005hierarchical}, M5 competition, and Wikipedia webpage views dataset (see Appendix \ref{sec:data} for details). This type of data usually contains categorical features (e.g., locations, genders) that can be used to aggregate across time series to construct hierarchical structures. We compare our method with state-of-the-art reconciliation algorithms MinT \citep{wickramasuriya2019optimal} and ERM \citep{ben2019regularized}, along with other baselines, including bottom-up (BU) and base forecast. To have a fair comparison, we first pre-process each dataset using information from categorical features. The bottom-up training procedure in Algorithm \ref{alg:bu} is then used for each method except for BU. Specifically, the model training settings of the base forecast, MinT and ERM are by default the same as SHARQ, except that they do not have mean and quantile reconciliation. As for MinT and ERM, extra reconciliations are performed after model training. In this case, the algorithm has access to the hierarchical information about the dataset. We also incorporate different time series forecasting algorithms into our framework, which ranges from linear auto-regressive model and RNN-GRU \citep{chung2014empirical} to advanced models such as LSTNet \citep{lai2018modeling} and N-Beats \citep{oreshkin2019n}. Although these models are not originally designed for hierarchical time series problems, we show that the performance on this task can be improved under our framework.
Table \ref{tab:mape} and \ref{tab:crps} shows forecasting results across all reconciliation methods and models on Australian Labour (upper) and M5 (lower) dataset, the results are averaged across 3 runs. Specifically, MAPE \citep{makridakis2000m3} measures accuracy for point forecast by Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}), and $Continuous ~Ranked ~Probability ~Score$ (CRPS) \citep{matheson1976scoring} measures the holistic accuracy of a probabilistic forecast, using multiple quantiles. Overall, SHARQ outperforms other reconciliation baselines, resulting in much lower MAPE and CRPS over all four models, particularly at the higher aggregation levels. Specifically, although the bottom-up training of SHARQ leads to the same bottom level performance as BU and Base method, the error accumulation and inconsistency across the hierarchy leads to higher error in other aggregation levels. More importantly, the better performance of SHARQ over Base and BU in multiple datasets validates the necessity of hierarchical construction in DNN training. Besides, comparing the autoregressive model results with others, SHARQ tends to perform better when the forecasting model is less parsimonious for the dataset. Figure \ref{fig:eight_fig} presents multi-step forecasting results, which possess the advantage of coherent estimation at multiple quantile levels.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}}}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/labour_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(a) Labour (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sim_small_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(b) FTSE (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sales_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(c) M5 (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/wiki_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(d) Wiki (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} \\
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/labour_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(a) Labour (MinT-shr)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sim_small_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(b) FTSE (MinT-ols)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sales_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(c) M5 (MinT-shr)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/wiki_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(d) Wiki (MinT-sam)}}
\end{tabular} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Top and bottom level forecasts on four datasets using the LSTNet skip connection model. For each dataset, we plot the results of SHARQ and the second-best reconciliation method. P5 and P95 forecasts are the lower and upper boundaries of the forecast band. We use mean as the point estimator (also complement of P50) for all bottom-level data and other aggregation levels of Australian Labour and FTSE data.}
\label{fig:eight_fig}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\
\hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 0.244 & 0.221 & 0.186 & \textbf{0.149} & 0.401 & 0.367 & 0.303 & 0.231 & 0.241 & 0.222 & 0.193 & \textbf{0.142} & 0.232 & 0.211 & 0.196 & 0.154 \\
Base & 0.119 & 0.135 & 0.143 & \textbf{0.149} & 0.174 & 0.203 & 0.221 & 0.231 & 0.124 & 0.139 & 0.142 & \textbf{0.142} & 0.122 & 0.141 & 0.141 & 0.154 \\
MinT-sam & 0.106 & 0.135 & 0.139 & 0.152 & 0.167 & 0.191 & 0.214 & 0.227 & 0.106 & 0.125 & 0.133 & 0.156 & 0.106 & 0.119 & 0.141 & \textbf{0.153} \\
MinT-shr & 0.103 & 0.129 & 0.137 & 0.158 & 0.162 & 0.189 & 0.206 & 0.232 & 0.101 & 0.113 & 0.132 & 0.153 & 0.103 & \textbf{0.114} & 0.137 & 0.155 \\
MinT-ols & 0.109 & 0.133 & 0.142 & 0.159 & 0.167 & 0.194 & 0.215 & 0.233 & 0.109 & 0.124 & 0.133 & 0.154 & 0.111 & 0.123 & 0.142 & 0.155 \\
ERM & 0.126 & 0.147 & 0.152 & 0.156 & 0.164 & \textbf{0.178} & \textbf{0.192} & \textbf{0.201} & 0.132 & 0.145 & 0.149 & 0.162 & 0.121 & 0.138 & 0.143 & 0.158 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.097} & \textbf{0.124} & \textbf{0.133} & \textbf{0.149} & \textbf{0.157} & 0.187 & 0.199 & 0.231 & \textbf{0.089} & \textbf{0.096} & \textbf{0.126} & \textbf{0.142} & \textbf{0.092} & 0.115 & \textbf{0.136} & 0.154 \\ \hhline{|=|====|====|====|====|}
BU & 0.247 & 0.231 & 0.226 & \textbf{0.208} & 0.397 & 0.375 & 0.316 & 0.297 & 0.219 & 0.211 & 0.194 & \textbf{0.164} & 0.199 & 0.171 & 0.152 & \textbf{0.135} \\
Base & 0.162 & 0.167 & 0.193 & \textbf{0.208} & 0.231 & 0.257 & 0.265 & 0.297 & 0.146 & 0.152 & 0.175 & \textbf{0.164} & 0.079 & 0.128 & 0.136 & \textbf{0.135} \\
MinT-sam & 0.147 & 0.158 & 0.154 & 0.211 & 0.257 & 0.262 & 0.271 & 0.279 & 0.112 & 0.141 & 0.175 & 0.189 & 0.091 & 0.124 & 0.142 & 0.149 \\
MinT-shr & 0.134 & 0.142 & 0.146 & 0.213 & 0.256 & 0.248 & 0.268 & 0.288 & 0.096 & 0.137 & 0.134 & 0.171 & 0.083 & 0.112 & 0.147 & 0.166 \\
MinT-ols & 0.143 & 0.161 & 0.154 & 0.215 & 0.259 & 0.261 & 0.272 & 0.283 & 0.109 & 0.154 & 0.156 & 0.191 & 0.086 & 0.117 & 0.139 & 0.162 \\
ERM & 0.152 & 0.154 & 0.188 & 0.226 & 0.213 & 0.229 & \textbf{0.241} & \textbf{0.267} & 0.124 & 0.166 & 0.168 & 0.194 & 0.098 & 0.129 & 0.151 & 0.172 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.071} & \textbf{0.063} & \textbf{0.114} & \textbf{0.208} & \textbf{0.189} & \textbf{0.225} & 0.279 & 0.297 & \textbf{0.069} & \textbf{0.074} & \textbf{0.108} & \textbf{0.164} & \textbf{0.067} & \textbf{0.069} & \textbf{0.096} & \textbf{0.135} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\caption{Performance measured by CRPS \citep{matheson1976scoring} on Australian Labour (755 time series), and M5 competition (42840 time series), lower values are better. Level 1 is the top aggregation level, and 4 is the bottom aggregation level.}
\label{tab:crps}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{images/coherency_plot.png}
\caption{Coherency loss of SHARQ compared with the Base method on four datasets. Results are averaged across all the forecasting models.}}
\label{fig:coherency}
\end{figure}
We pre-define the hyper-parameter $\lambda_i$ for vertex $v_i$ from Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) level-wise, where we use the same $\lambda$s for all time series at the same level, and gradually decrease this value at higher aggregation levels. This is because time series at the same level possess similar magnitudes. With more vertices at lower levels, the chances of having consistency issues are higher, and error can accumulate to higher levels.
We then evaluate the effect of regularization strength on forecasting coherency across the hierarchical structure; we summarize the result in Figure \ref{fig:coherency}, where the coherency loss drops dramatically after incorporating the hierarchical regularization at each level. Note that we mainly compare SHARQ with the Base method (SHARQ without regularization), as other reconciliation approaches generate absolute coherent results at the cost of sacrificing forecasting accuracy. More detailed evaluations can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:add_exp}.
\subsection{Comparison with Baseline Methods}
Learning inter-level relationships through regularization helps SHARQ generalize better while mitigating coherency issues. It also provides a learnable trade-off between coherency and accuracy. From a computational perspective, MinT and ERM require one to compute matrix inversion explicitly. Note that the ERM method could compute the weight matrix on a validation set, but additional matrix computations are required during inference. Crucially, they depend on the Gaussian and unbiasedness assumptions, as stated in \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} and their performance degrades noticeably when faced with actual data that do not match these assumptions well.
\section{Further Discussion on Related Works} \label{sec:background}
As we mentioned in Section (\ref{sec:intro}), state-of-the-art hierarchical forecasting algorithms \citep{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} involves computing the optimal $P$ matrix to combine the base forecasts under different situations linearly. We now summarize these methods as follows.
\subsection{Generalized Least Squares (GLS) Reconciliation}
Denote $b_t \in \mathbb{R}^m$, $a_t \in \mathbb{R}^k$ as the observations at time $t$ for the $m$ and $k$ series at the bottom and aggregation level(s), respectively. $S \in \{0, 1\}^{n \times m}$ is the summing matrix. Each entry $S_{ij}$ equals to 1 if the $i^{th}$ aggregate series contains the $j^{th}$ bottom-level series, where $i = 1, ..., k$ and $j = 1, ..., m$. Denote $\mathcal{I}_T = \{y_1, y_2, ..., y_T\}$ as the time series data observed up to time $T$; $\hat{b}_T(h)$ and $\hat{y}_T(h)$ as the $h-$step ahead forecast on the bottom-level and all levels based on $\mathcal{I}_T$.
Let $\hat{e}_T(h) = y_{T+h} - \hat{y}_T(h)$ be the $h-$step ahead conditional base forecast errors and $\beta_T(h) = E[\hat{b}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T]$ be the bottom-level mean forecasts. We then have $E[\hat{y}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T] = S\beta_T (h)$. Assume that $E[\hat{e}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T] = 0$, then a set of reconciled forecasts will be unbiased iff $SPS = S$, i.e., \textbf{Assumption A1:}
\begin{equation}
\E [\Tilde{y}_T (h) | \mathcal{I}_T] = \E [\hat{y}_T (h) | \mathcal{I}_T] = S \beta_T(h) \quad
\end{equation}
The optimal combination approach proposed by \citet{hyndman2011optimal}, is based on solving the above regression problem using the generalized least square method:
\begin{equation}
\hat{y}_T(h) = S\beta_T(h) + \varepsilon_h,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_h$ is the independent coherency error with zero mean and $\mathrm{Var}(\varepsilon_h) = \Sigma_h$. The GLS estimator of $\beta_T(h)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\beta}_T(h) = (S'\Sigma'_h S)^{-1} S' \Sigma_h' \hat{y}_T(h),
\label{equ:gls}
\end{equation}
which is an unbiased, minimum variance estimator. The optimal $P$ is $(S'\Sigma'_h S)^{-1} S' \Sigma_h'$. The reconciled mean and variance can therefore be obtained accordingly.
\subsection{Trace Minimization (MinT) Reconciliation}
Defining the reconciliation error as $\Tilde{e}_T(h) = y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)$, the original problem can also be formulated as
\begin{align}
& \underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} ~ \E[\|\Tilde{e}_T(h)\|_2^2~|~\mathcal{I}_T] \notag \\
& \mathrm{subject ~ to} ~ \E[\Tilde{y}_T(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T] = \E[\Tilde{y}_T(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T]
\label{equ:formulation}
\end{align}
If the assumption \textbf{A1} still holds, then minimizing Eq.(\ref{equ:formulation}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} ~ \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{Var}[\Tilde{e}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T]) \quad \mathrm{subject ~ to ~ \textbf{A1}},
\end{equation}
where Tr(.) denotes the trace of a matrix. In \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal}, the proposed optimal solution of $P$ obtained by solving this problem is given by
\begin{equation}
P = (S'W_h^{-1}S)^{-1}S'W_h^{-1},
\label{mint}
\end{equation}
where $W_h = \E[\hat{e}_T(h)\hat{e}_T'(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T]$ is the variance-covariance matrix of the $h-$step-ahead base forecast errors, which is different from the coherence errors $\Sigma_h$ in GLS reconciliation method given in Eq.(\ref{equ:gls}). There are various covariance estimators for $W_h$ considered in \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal}, the most effective one is the shrinkage estimator with diagonal target, and can be computed by
\begin{equation}
\hat{W}_h = (1 - \alpha) \hat{W}_s + \alpha \hat{W}_d, \quad \hat{W}_s = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \hat{e}_t(1)\hat{e}_t(1)',
\label{mint_est}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{W}_d = \mathrm{diag}(\hat{W}_s)$ and $\alpha \in (0, 1]$.
\subsection{Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) Reconciliation}
Most recently, \citet{ben2019regularized} proposed a new method to relax the unbiasedness assumption \textbf{A1}. Specifically, the objective function in (\ref{equ:formulation}) can be decomposed as
\begin{align}
& \E[\|y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)\|_2^2~|~\mathcal{I}_T] \label{equ:mse} \\
& = \|SP(\E[\hat{y}_T(h) | \mathcal{I}_T] - \E[y_{T+h}|\mathcal{I}_T]) \nonumber \\
& + (S - SPS)\E[b_{T+h}|\mathcal{I}_T]\|_2^2 \label{equ:bias}\\
& + \mathrm{Tr} (\mathrm{Var}[y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)|\mathcal{I}_T] \label{equ:var},
\end{align}
where (\ref{equ:bias}) and (\ref{equ:var}) are the bias and variance terms of the revised forecasts $\Tilde{y}_T(h)$. The assumption \textbf{A1} in MinT method renders (\ref{equ:bias}) to 0. Obviously, directly minimize the objective in (\ref{equ:mse}) provides a more general form of reconciliation represented by following empirical risk minimization (ERM) problem:
\begin{equation}
\underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} \frac{1}{(T - T_1 - h + 1)n}\sum_{t=T_1}^{T-h} \|y_{t+h} - SP \hat{y}_t(h)\|_2^2,
\label{equ:erm}
\end{equation}
where $T_1 < T$ is the number of observations used for model fitting. Empirically, this method demonstrates better performance than MinT according to \citet{ben2019regularized}, particularly when the forecasting models are mis-specified.
\section{Non-Additive Property of Quantile Loss} \label{sec:nonadd}
Here we prove the non-additive property of quantile loss as mentioned in Section (2.2).
\begin{thm}\textbf{(Non-additive Property)}
Assume two independent random variables $X_1 \sim N(\mu_1, \sigma_1^2)$ and $X_2 \sim N(\mu_2, \sigma_2^2)$, and define $Y = X_1 + X_2$. Then $Q_{Y}(\tau) \neq Q_{X_1}(\tau) + Q_{X_2}(\tau)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The $\tau^{th}$ quantile of $X_1$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
Q_{X_1}(\tau) = F_{X_1}^{-1}(\tau) = inf \{x: F_{X_1}(x) \geq \tau\},
\end{equation}
where $F_{X_1} (x)$ is $\frac{1}{2} \left[1 + erf\left(\frac{x - \mu_1}{\sigma_1 \sqrt{2}}\right)\right]$, and $erf(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{-x}^{x} e^{-t^2} dt$. Therefore, we can further get:
\begin{align*}
Q_{X_1}(\tau) & = \mu_1 + \sigma_1 \Phi^{-1} (\tau) = \mu_1 + \sigma_1 \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1) \\
Q_{X_2}(\tau) & = \mu_2 + \sigma_2 \Phi^{-1} (\tau) = \mu_2 + \sigma_2 \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1) \\
\end{align*}
According to the additive property of Gaussian distribution, we have $Y \sim N(\mu_1 + \mu_2, \sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2)$, and
\begin{align}
Q_{Y}(\tau) & = \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \sqrt{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2} ~ \Phi^{-1} (\tau) \nonumber \\
& = \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \sqrt{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2} ~ \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1).
\label{quantile}
\end{align}
Therefore, even if we have \texttt{i.i.d.}normal distribution with $Y = X_1 + X_2$, it still doesn't imply $Q_{Y}(\tau) = Q_{X_1}(\tau) + Q_{X_2}(\tau)$. The only case that the addition property hold true in any quantile is when $X_1 = C \times X_2$, where $C$ is arbitrary constant. Obviously, this is not applicable.
\end{proof}
In fact, under Gaussian assumption, we have the following additive property holds for any $\tau$:
\begin{equation}
(Q_{Y}^{\tau} - \mu_Y )^2 = (Q_{X_1}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_1})^2 + (Q_{X_2}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_2})^2.
\label{add_quant}
\end{equation}
Since by Eq.(\ref{quantile}), the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{add_quant}) is $2 (\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2) ~ \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2,$ and the right hand side of Eq.(\ref{add_quant}) is $2\sigma_1^2 \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2 + 2\sigma_2^2 \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2.$ Therefore, the additive property holds for any $\tau$ assume the RVs follow Gaussian distribution.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Details of four hierarchical time-series datasets. Note that hierarchical levels mean the number of aggregation levels from bottom to top in the hierarchical structure used in the experiments.}}
\vspace{.5em}
\scalebox{1.05}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Dataset & Total number of time series & Total length of time series & Hierarchical Levels \\ \hline
FTSE & 73 & 2512 & 4 \\
M5 & 42840 & 1969 & 4 \\
Wiki & 145000 & 550 & 5 \\
Labour & 755 & 500 & 4 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{data_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu}{cccc}
\hspace{-2.05em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/FTSE.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/M5.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/labour.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/wiki.png}\\
\hspace{-2.45em} (a) FTSE & \hspace{-2.05em} (b) M5 & \hspace{-2.05em} (c) Labour & \hspace{-2.05em} (d) Wikipedia\\
\end{tabu}}
\caption{Visualization of hierarchical time series data. (a) Bottom level time series of FTSE (the open stock price of Google); (b) bottom and top level of unit sales record; (c) Australian Labour Force data at all aggregation levels; (d) Wikipedia page views data at all aggregation levels.}
\label{fig:raw_ts_plot}
\end{figure*}
\section{KKT Conditions} \label{kkt}
An alternative way of solving the optimization problem defined in Section (\ref{problem_formulation}) Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) is to obtain the KKT conditions \citep{boyd2004convex}. For notational simplicity, we express the constrained loss for $i^{th}$ vertex and $m^{th}$ data point as $L_c (i, m)$. As the optimization problem is unconstrained, the KKT conditions will lead to:
\[ \frac{\partial }{ \partial [\theta_i, \Theta_i]} L_c (i, m) = [ ~ \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta_i} L_c (i, m) ~,~ \frac{\partial }{ \partial \Theta_i} L_c (i, m) ~ ] = 0 , \]
which will further imply that
\begin{align*}
& \lambda_i \left [\frac{\partial }{\partial g_i} L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i) \right ]^{\top} \nonumber \\
& \left [ g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ . ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ]\nonumber \\
& + \frac{\partial }{\partial g_i} L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i)~ . ~ \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \theta_i} = 0,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left ( e_{i, j} ~ . ~g_{j} (X_m^{j}, \theta_{j}) \right )^ T \nonumber \\
& \left ( g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) = 0, ~ \forall j | e_{i,j} \in E.
\end{align*}
However, we found that SHARQ performs better and more efficiently than the KKT approach during our empirical evaluation. Solving the KKT conditions requires matrix inversion in most situations. Besides, SHARQ is more flexible in incorporating various forecasting models and performs probabilistic forecasts.
\section{Dataset Details} \label{sec:data}
We first describe the details (dataset generation, processing, etc.) of each dataset used in the experiment. A summary of each dataset is shown in Table \ref{data_table}. Visualizations for some raw time series can be found in Figure \ref{fig:raw_ts_plot}.
\subsection{FTSE Stock Market Data}
The FTSE Global Classification System is a universally accepted classification scheme based on a market's division into Economic Groups, Industrial Sectors, and Industrial Sub-sectors. This system has been used to classify company data for over 30,000 companies from 59 countries. The FTSE 100 \citep{doherty2005hierarchical} is the top 100 capitalized blue-chip companies in the UK and is recognized as the measure of UK stock market performance \citep{russell2017ftse}. Base on the FTSE classification system, we formulate a 4-level hierarchical structure (Economic Groups, Industrial Sectors, Industrial Sub-sectors, and companies) of 73 companies in \citet{doherty2005hierarchical}. Our task is to model the stock market time series for each company. The stock market data of each company is available from the Yahoo Finance package\footnote[1]{https://pypi.org/project/yfinance/}. Since the stock market time series starting time of each company is not the same, we use a common time window ranging from January 4, 2010, to May 1, 2020.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/M5_tree.png}
\caption{Hierarchical structure of the M5 dataset.}
\label{fig:m5}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{M5 Competition Data}
The M5 dataset\footnote[2]{https://mofc.unic.ac.cy/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/M5-Competitors-Guide-Final-10-March-2020.docx} involves the unit sales of various products ranging from January 2011 to June 2016 in Walmart. It involves the unit sales of 3,049 products, classified into 3 product categories (Hobbies, Foods, and Household) and 7 product departments, where the categories mentioned above are disaggregated. The products are sold across ten stores in three states (CA, TX, and WI). An overview of how the M5 series are organized is shown in Figure \ref{fig:m5}. Here, we formulate a 4-level hierarchy, starting from the bottom-level individual item to unit sales of all products aggregated for each store.
\subsection{Wikipedia Webpage Views}
This dataset\footnote[3]{https://www.kaggle.com/c/web-traffic-time-series-forecasting} contains the number of daily views of 145k various Wikipedia articles ranging from July 2015 to Dec. 2016. We follow the data processing approach used in \citet{ben2019regularized} to sample 150 bottom-level series from the 145k series and aggregate to obtain the upper-level series. The aggregation features include the type of agent, type of access, and country codes. We then obtain a 5-level hierarchical structure with 150 bottom series.
\subsection{Australian Labour Force}
This dataset\footnote[4]{https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]\\/DetailsPage/6202.0Dec\%202019?OpenDocument} contains monthly employment information ranging from Feb. 1978 to Aug. 2019 with 500 records for each series. The original dataset provides a detailed hierarchical classification of labor force data, while we choose three aggregation features to formulate a 4-level symmetric structure. Specifically, the 32 bottom level series are hierarchically aggregated using labor force location, gender, and employment status.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ for small and large simulation dataset. The likelihood ratios are given in parentheses.}}
\hspace{-.85em}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{MAPE} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ Simulation Small } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Simulation Large } \\
\hhline{|~|---|----|}
& Top level & Level 1 & Level 2 & Top level & Level 1 & Level 2 & Level 3\\
\hline
Base & 1.29 (.69) & 1.50 (.77) & 2.41 (.91) & 2.08 (.43) & 2.20 (.61) & 1.41 (.75) & 0.72 (.85) \\
BU & 2.14 (.73) & 1.76 (.79) & 2.41 (.91) & 4.19 (.46) & 3.48 (.64) & 1.48 (.76) & 0.72 (.85) \\
MinT-sam & 0.54 (.66) & 1.48 (.77) & 2.24 (.89) & 1.48 (.42) & 2.55 (.65) & 1.38 (.74) & 0.63 (.83) \\
MinT-shr & 0.45 (.65) & 1.47 (.77) & \textbf{2.23} (.89) & \textbf{1.28} (.39) & 2.31 (.63) & \textbf{1.35} (.74) & \textbf{0.59} (.81) \\
MinT-ols & \textbf{0.20} (.64) & 1.72 (.78) & 2.41 (.91) & 1.69 (.41) & 2.15 (.60) & 1.41 (.75) & 0.71 (.85) \\
ERM & 1.23 (.69) & 1.73 (.78) & 2.55 (.93) & 2.78 (.44) & 2.86 (.69) & 1.50 (.76) & 0.75 (.86) \\
SHARQ & 1.54 (.41) & \textbf{1.42} (.45) & 2.41 (.73) & 2.16 (.23) & \textbf{2.13} (.49) & 1.44 (.67) & 0.72 (.82) \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{sim1_result}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ on FTSE dataset. Level 1 is the top aggregation level; 4 is the bottom aggregation level.}}
\scalebox{0.76}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 6.11 & 8.48 & 9.41 & 9.54 & 10.01 & 12.15 & 11.77 & 12.43 & 7.48 & 8.96 & 9.29 & 9.49 & 6.63 & 8.04 & 8.23 & 8.41 \\
Base & 4.82 & 6.27 & 8.55 & 9.54 & \textbf{8.65} & 10.46 & 10.88 & 12.43 & 6.02 & 7.79 & 8.76 & 9.49 & 5.86 & \textbf{7.56} & \textbf{8.01} & 8.41 \\
MinT-sam & 4.68 & 8.53 & 8.77 & 10.13 & 9.72 & 11.25 & 11.57 & 12.26 & 6.47 & 8.24 & 8.93 & 10.62 & 5.94 & 7.89 & 8.35 & 8.86 \\
MinT-shr & \textbf{4.43} & 8.46 & 8.59 & 9.75 & 9.23 & 10.91 & 11.02 & \textbf{12.13} & 6.12 & 8.11 & 8.81 & 10.57 & 5.67 & 7.74 & 8.22 & \textbf{8.54} \\
MinT-ols & 4.71 & 8.92 & 8.74 & 10.31 & 9.96 & 11.01 & 11.25 & 12.32 & 6.31 & 8.56 & 8.74 & 10.88 & 5.87 & 8.12 & 8.41 & 9.84 \\
ERM & 5.74 & 9.52 & 9.54 & 12.41 & 9.92 & 10.61 & 12.03 & 13.23 & 8.12 & 9.38 & 9.76 & 13.01 & 6.19 & 8.89 & 9.26 & 10.22 \\
SHARQ & 4.51 & \textbf{8.28} & \textbf{8.08} & \textbf{9.54} & 9.13 & \textbf{9.35} & \textbf{10.61} & 12.43 & \textbf{5.01} & \textbf{7.14} & \textbf{8.52} & \textbf{9.49} & \textbf{5.44} & 7.83 & 7.93 & 8.41 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape_ftse}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ on Wiki dataset. Level 1 is the top aggregation level; 5 is the bottom aggregation level.}}
\scalebox{0.56}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|ccccc|ccccc|ccccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|-----|-----|-----|-----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline
BU & 11.71 & 12.36 & 14.47 & 16.45 & 16.74 & 15.67 & 15.99 & 16.67 & 18.99 & 20.32 & 11.44 & 11.88 & 13.31 & 14.76 & 15.77 & 11.92 & 12.57 & 14.45 & 15.22 & 16.21 \\
Base & 11.12 & 11.52 & 14.06 & 16.11 & 16.74 & \textbf{15.04} & 15.23 & 16.02 & 17.83 & 20.32 & 11.21 & 11.24 & 12.88 & 14.35 & 15.77 & 11.84 & 12.02 & 14.17 & 15.16 & 16.21 \\
MinT-sam & 11.65 & 12.02 & 14.19 & 16.23 & 17.66 & 15.22 & 15.65 & 16.33 & 18.12 & 19.87 & 11.38 & 11.46 & 13.13 & 14.57 & 16.22 & 11.96 & 12.26 & 14.29 & 15.25 & 16.45 \\
MinT-shr & 11.32 & 11.86 & 13.87 & \textbf{16.07} & 17.54 & 15.17 & 15.12 & 15.98 & 17.69 & \textbf{19.54} & 11.24 & 11.15 & 12.91 & \textbf{14.32} & 16.14 & 11.75 & 12.19 & 14.03 & 15.02 & 16.39 \\
MinT-ols & 11.48 & 12.11 & 14.52 & 16.34 & 17.59 & 15.37 & 15.74 & 16.23 & 18.01 & 20.21 & 11.42 & 11.52 & 13.05 & 14.78 & 16.59 & 11.88 & 12.39 & 14.21 & 15.16 & 16.45 \\
ERM & 12.08 & 13.62 & 15.96 & 18.11 & 18.97 & 15.29 & 15.85 & 16.12 & \textbf{17.58} & 21.56 & 12.08 & 12.85 & 14.56 & 15.96 & 17.42 & 12.14 & 12.83 & 15.49 & 16.17 & 17.41 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{10.84} & \textbf{11.07} & \textbf{13.54} & 16.08 & \textbf{16.74} & 15.07 & \textbf{15.05} & \textbf{15.87} & 17.79 & 20.32 & \textbf{11.07} & \textbf{11.09} & \textbf{12.65} & 14.41 & \textbf{15.77} & \textbf{11.64} & \textbf{11.67} & \textbf{13.81} & \textbf{15.02} & \textbf{16.21} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape_wiki}
\end{table*}
\section{Additional Experiments} \label{sec:add_exp}
In this section, we demonstrate our additional experiment results, including the full results on FTSE and Wiki as well as additional simulation experiments under unbiasedness and Gaussian assumptions. Reconciliation error is also measured for each method. We start by discussing our evaluation metrics.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
We denote $\hat{Y}_T (h)$ and $Y_T (h)$ as the $h-$step ahead forecast at time $T$ and its ground truth, respectively. To construct confidence intervals, we use the $95^{th}, 50^{th},$ and $5^{th}$ quantiles as upper, median and lower forecasts.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Average forecasting coherency on each dataset across 4 forecasting models. Bottom-level $\lambda = 3.0$, higher-level $\lambda$s are decreased gradually.}}
\hspace{-.65em}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Dataset } \\
\hhline{|~|----|}
& FTSE & Labour & M5 & Wiki \\
\hline
Base & 28.01 & 5.59 & 12.56 & 20.71 \\
BU & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
MINTsam & 4.21E-15 & 4.60E-12 & 0 & 5.46E-10 \\
MINTshr & 2.50E-15 & 4.19E-12 & 0 & 6.40E-11 \\
MINTols & 6.22E-15 & 6.10E-12 & 0 & 1.08E-10 \\
ERM & 6.48E-12 & 2.27E-08 & 5.86E-12 & 2.40E-07 \\
SHARQ & 1.59 & 0.53 & 0.22 & 2.63 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{recon}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Training and inference time (in second) comparison for each data set.}}
\scalebox{.9}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{Time (s)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ FTSE } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ Labour } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ M5 } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ Wikipedia } \\
\hhline{|~|--|--|--|--|}
& training & inference & training & inference & training & inference & training & inference \\
\hline
Base & 115.96 & 0.01 & 68.35 & 0.00 & 181.58 & 0.00 & 205.47 & 0.01 \\
BU & 65.83 & 0.03 & 57.06 & 0.00 & 105.45 & 0.00 & 142.53 & 0.01 \\
MinT-sam & 106.55 & 1,784.77 & 72.24 & 430.42 & 172.11 & 1,461.81 & 208.26 & 1,106.70 \\
MinT-shr & 104.35 & 1,148.49 & 60.83 & 317.02 & 175.83 & 1,039.53 & 198.16 & 788.31 \\
MinT-ols & 103.23 & 1,129.45 & 64.14 & 310.13 & 163.24 & 977.88 & 196.88 & 702.02 \\
ERM & 547.66 & 0.05 & 497.88 & 0.01 & 551.60 & 0.01 & 1,299.30 & 0.04 \\
SHARQ & 121.84 & 0.01 & 99.96 & 0.00 & 201.40 & 0.00 & 241.97 & 0.01 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{time_comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)}
The MAPE is commonly used to evaluate forecasting performance. It is defined by
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MAPE} = \frac{100}{H} \sum_{h=1}^H \frac{|Y_T (h) - \hat{Y}_T (h)|}{|Y_T (h)|}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Likelihood Ratio}
We compute the likelihood ratio between the quantile prediction intervals versus the trivial predictors, which gives the specified quantile of training samples as forecasts. Specifically, define $N$ ($N=3$ in our case) as the number of quantile predictors. Then the likelihood ratio at $h-$step forecast is:
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \rho_{\tau_i}(Y_T(h) - Q_{Y_T(h)}(\tau_i))}{\sum_{i=1}^N \rho_{\tau_i}(Y_T(h) - Q_{\mathcal{I}_T}(\tau_i))}.
\end{equation}
Ideally, we should have $\alpha < 1$ if our estimator performs better than the trivial estimator.
\subsubsection{Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS)}
CRPS measures the compatibility of a cumulative distribution function $F$ with an observation $x$ as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{CRPS}(F, x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} (F(z) - \mathbb{I}\{x \leq z\})^2 ~dz
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{I}\{x \leq z\}$ is the indicator function which is one if $x\leq z$ and zero otherwise. Therefore, CRPS attains its minimum when the predictive distribution $F$ and the data are equal. We used this library\footnote[5]{https://github.com/TheClimateCorporation/properscoring} to compute CRPS.
\subsubsection{Reconciliation Error}
We compute the reconciliation error of forecasts generated by each method on each dataset to measure the forecasting coherency. More specifically, assume a total of $m$ vertices in the hierarchy at time $T$, the reconciliation error for the mean forecast is defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{H} \sum_{h=1}^H \sum_{i=1}^m \| \hat{Y}_T^i(h) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \hat{Y}_T^k (h)\|_1.
\label{equ:re}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Simulation under Unbiased Assumption}
We follow the data simulation mechanism developed in \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal, ben2019regularized}, which satisfies the ideal unbiased base forecast and Gaussian error assumptions. The bottom level series were first generated through an ARIMA(p, d, q) process, where the coefficients are uniformly sampled from a predefined parameter space. The contemporaneous error covariance matrix is designed to introduce a positive error correlation among sibling series, while moderately positive correlation among others. We simulate a small and a large hierarchy with 4 and 160 bottom series, respectively. The bottom series are then aggregated to obtain the whole hierarchical time series in groups of two and four. For each series in the hierarchy, we generate 500 observations, and the final $h = 8, 16$ observations are used for evaluation for both the large and small hierarchies. We run the above simulation 100 times and report the average results. Table \ref{sim1_result} shows the average MAPE by fitting an ARIMA model followed by reconciliation on two simulation datasets. We can see that the MinT methods generally perform the best, particularly for MinT methods with shrinkage estimators. This confirms the statements from \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal} that under ideal unbiasedness assumption if the forecasting models are well specified, the MinT methods will provide the optimal solution. Simultaneously, the results of SHARQ are also satisfactory. In fact, it outperforms MinT methods at some levels.
\begin{table*}[h!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{Common Hyper-parameters for all experiments.}}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
& Train/Valid/Test & Epoch & Learning Rate & Batch Size & Window Size & Horizon \\ \hline
Quantile Simulation & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 300 & 1.00E-03 & 64 & 128 & 1 \\
Unbiased Simulation & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 100 & 1.00E-03 & 128 & 10 & 1-8 \\
Real-world Data & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 1000 & 0.1 & 128 & 168 & 1-8 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{params}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Additional Results}
Table \ref{tab:mape_ftse} and \ref{tab:mape_wiki} show the MAPE results of FTSE and Wiki dataset. Moreover, table \ref{tab:lr} is the average likelihood ratio of each reconciliation method across four algorithms. The reported results are average across three random runs. We can see that SHARQ performs better overall in providing accurate probabilistic forecasts. Table \ref{time_comparison} compares the average training and inference time across all forecasting models. Overall, the training time of SHARQ and base forecast are roughly the same, but the inference time of SHARQ is ignorable relative to MinT, and ERM approaches. Since both these methods require matrix inversion to compute the weight matrix. Even if ERM could calculate the weight matrix on a separate validation set before inference, additional matrix computations are required to obtain the results.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{Average likelihood ratio across forecasting horizons and models.}}
\vspace{.5em}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Likelihood Ratio & Labour & M5 & FTSE & Wiki \\ \hline
BU & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.50 & 0.66 \\
Base & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.66 \\
MinT-sam & 0.36 & 0.47 & 0.50 & 0.66 \\
MinT-shr & 0.35 & 0.49 & 0.51 & 0.68 \\
MinT-ols & 0.34 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.66 \\
ERM & 0.35 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.67 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.07} & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.32} & \textbf{0.65} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}
\label{tab:lr}
\end{table}
\subsection{Forecasting Coherency}
Table \ref{recon} compares the forecasting coherency of each reconciliation method. We use the metric defined in (\ref{equ:re}) to compute the forecasting reconciliation error generated by previous experiments. As expected, the MinT and ERM approach give almost perfect coherent forecasts, as these methods can directly compute the close form of weight matrix $P$ to optimally combine the original forecasts. Even though MinT and ERM can give perfectly coherent forecasts, the accuracy can sometimes be worse than the base method, which coincides with Proposition 2 (Hard Constraint). Although SHARQ could not give the most coherent results, there is still a significant improvement compared to incoherent base forecasts. Note that this can be further improved by increasing the penalty of the regularization term.
\section{Hyper-parameter Configurations}
We present hyper-parameters for all the experiments mentioned above. Table \ref{params} lists the common hyper-parameters used on each experiment. Model-specific hyper-parameters are as follows.
\paragraph{Quantile Simulation Experiment}
We simulate 500 samples for both step function and sinusoidal function; the data is trained on a vanilla RNN model with hidden dimension 5, layer dimension 2, and \textit{tanh} nonlinearity. We used 10 ensembles of estimators for bagging, and each model is trained using random 64 samples.
\paragraph{LSTNet}
The number of CNN hidden units: 100; the number of RNN hidden units: 100; kernel size of the CNN layers: 6; window size of the highway component: 24; gradient clipping: 10; dropout: 0.2; skip connection: 24. Note that to enable LSTNet to produce multi-quantile forecast, we add the final layer of each quantile estimator after the fully connected layer of the original model. The same linear bypass then adds the obtained quantile estimators to produce the final results.
\paragraph{N-Beats}
We use the same parameter settings as shown in the public GitHub repository\footnote[6]{https://github.com/philipperemy/n-beats}.
\endinput
\subsubsection*{\bibname}}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[
\aistatstitle{Simultaneously Reconciled Quantile Forecasting of Hierarchically Related Time Series}
\aistatsauthor{ Xing Han \And Sambarta Dasgupta \And Joydeep Ghosh }
\aistatsaddress{ UT Austin \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>} \And IntuitAI \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>} \And UT Austin \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>}}
]
\begin{abstract}
Many real-life applications involve simultaneously forecasting multiple time series that are hierarchically related via aggregation or disaggregation operations. For instance, commercial organizations often want to forecast inventories simultaneously at store, city, and state levels for resource planning purposes. In such applications, it is important that the forecasts, in addition to being reasonably accurate, are also consistent w.r.t one another. Although forecasting such hierarchical time series has been pursued by economists and data scientists, the current state-of-the-art models use strong assumptions, e.g., all forecasts being unbiased estimates, noise distribution being Gaussian. Besides, state-of-the-art models have not harnessed the power of modern nonlinear models, especially ones based on deep learning. In this paper, we propose using a flexible nonlinear model that optimizes quantile regression loss coupled with suitable regularization terms to maintain the consistency of forecasts across hierarchies. The theoretical framework introduced herein can be applied to any forecasting model with an underlying differentiable loss function. A proof of optimality of our proposed method is also provided. Simulation studies over a range of datasets highlight the efficacy of our approach.
\end{abstract}
\input{tex/introduction.tex}
\input{tex/mainmethod.tex}
\input{tex/analysis.tex}
\input{tex/experiments.tex}
\input{tex/conclusion.tex}
\subsubsection*{\bibname}}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[
\aistatstitle{Simultaneously Reconciled Quantile Forecasting of Hierarchically Related Time Series}
\aistatsauthor{ Xing Han \And Sambarta Dasgupta \And Joydeep Ghosh }
\aistatsaddress{ UT Austin \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>} \And IntuitAI \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>} \And UT Austin \\ \texttt{<EMAIL>}}
]
\begin{abstract}
Many real-life applications involve simultaneously forecasting multiple time series that are hierarchically related via aggregation or disaggregation operations. For instance, commercial organizations often want to forecast inventories simultaneously at store, city, and state levels for resource planning purposes. In such applications, it is important that the forecasts, in addition to being reasonably accurate, are also consistent w.r.t one another. Although forecasting such hierarchical time series has been pursued by economists and data scientists, the current state-of-the-art models use strong assumptions, e.g., all forecasts being unbiased estimates, noise distribution being Gaussian. Besides, state-of-the-art models have not harnessed the power of modern nonlinear models, especially ones based on deep learning. In this paper, we propose using a flexible nonlinear model that optimizes quantile regression loss coupled with suitable regularization terms to maintain the consistency of forecasts across hierarchies. The theoretical framework introduced herein can be applied to any forecasting model with an underlying differentiable loss function. A proof of optimality of our proposed method is also provided. Simulation studies over a range of datasets highlight the efficacy of our approach.
\end{abstract}
\input{tex/introduction.tex}
\input{tex/mainmethod.tex}
\input{tex/analysis.tex}
\input{tex/experiments.tex}
\input{tex/conclusion.tex}
\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}
This paper has proposed a distributed optimization framework to generate probabilistic forecasts for a set of time series subject to hierarchical constraints. In our approach, the forecasting model is trained in a bottom-up fashion. At any stage, the model training involves simultaneously updating model parameters at two adjacent levels while maintaining the coherency constraints. This enables manageable information exchange at different levels of data aggregation. Our framework can incorporate any forecasting model and the non-parametric quantile loss function to generate accurate and coherent forecasts with pre-specified confidence levels. We have analytically demonstrated that by training the model with our modified objective function, the variance of time series data at higher aggregation levels can be reduced. We also compared our method empirically with the state-of-the-art hierarchical forecasting methods with cutting-edge base forecasters. The results show that our method produces relatively robust with accurate and coherent forecasts. Our proposed method reduces the inference complexity compared to the state-of-the-art algorithms, which perform a computationally expensive matrix inversion operation during the inference to achieve the reconciliation.
As for future work, we plan to extend our method to multi-variate time series to be forecast at different time granularities while obeying hierarchical relationships. Besides, we also plan to investigate incorporating exogenous variables and related metadata.
\textbf{Acknowledgements} \\
This work is supported by Intuit Inc. The authors would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive feedback and Tongzheng Ren for helpful discussion.
\section{Introduction} \label{background}
\label{sec:intro}
\newcommand{\hat{y}}{\hat{y}}
\newcommand{\hat{\beta}}{\hat{\beta}}
\newcommand{\Tilde{y}}{\Tilde{y}}
\newcommand{\hat{Y}}{\hat{Y}}
\newcommand{\Tilde{Y}}{\Tilde{Y}}
\newcommand{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_n}{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_n}
\renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{I}}
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw]
\begin{figure*}
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu*}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=.26\textwidth]{images/us_region.pdf} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 1.cm,auto]
\node [circ] (step1) {$v_1$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 1.2cm of step1, label={793:{$e_{1, 2}$}}] (step2) {$v_2$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 1.2cm of step1, label={493:{$e_{1, 3}$}}] (step3) {$v_3$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step2] (step4) {$v_4$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step2] (step5) {$v_5$};
\node [circ, below left = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step3] (step6) {$v_6$};
\node [circ, below right = 0.3cm and 0.3cm of step3] (step7) {$v_7$};
\path [line, rounded corners] (step1) -| (step2);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step1) -| (step3);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step2) -| (step4);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step2) -| (step5);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step3) -| (step6);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step3) -| (step7);
\end{tikzpicture} &
\includegraphics[width=.18\textwidth]{images/s_matrix.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=.18\textwidth]{images/hie_ts.png} \\
(a) & (b) & (c) & (d) \\
\end{tabu*}
\caption{(a) Example of hierarchically related time series: state population growth forecast, the data is aggregated by geographical locations; (b) corresponding graph structure as nodes and vertices; (c) corresponding matrix representation with four bottom level time series and three aggregated levels; (d) time series forecast at each node.}}
\label{fig:hierarchical_demo}
\end{figure*}
Hierarchical time series refers to a set of time series organized in a logical hierarchy with the parent-children relations, governed by a set of aggregation and disaggregation operations \citep{hyndman2011optimal, taieb2017coherent}. These aggregations and disaggregations can occur across multiple time series or over the same time series across multiple time granularities. An example of the first kind can be forecasting demand at county, city, state, and country levels \citep{hyndman2011optimal}. An example of the second kind of hierarchy is forecasting demand at different time granularities like daily, weekly, and monthly \citep{athanasopoulos2017forecasting}. The need to forecast multiple time series that are hierarchically related arise in many applications, from financial forecasting \citep{sasforecasting} to demand forecasting \citep{hyndman2016fast, zhao2016multi} and psephology \citep{lauderdale2019model}. The
recently announced M5 competition\footnote{https://mofc.unic.ac.cy/m5-competition/} from the International Institute of Forecasters also involves hierarchical forecasting on Walmart data with a \$100K prize.
A novel challenge in such forecasting problems is to produce accurate forecasts while maintaining the consistency of the forecasts across multiple hierarchies.
\paragraph{Related Works} Existing hierarchical forecasting methods predominantly employ linear auto-regressive (AR) models that are initially trained while ignoring the hierarchy. The output forecasts produced by these AR models are reconciled afterward for consistency. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(c), such reconciliation is achieved by defining a mapping matrix, often denoted by $S$, which encapsulates the mutual relationships among the time series \citep{hyndman2011optimal}. The reconciliation step involves inversion and multiplication of the $S$ matrix that leads to the computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n^3 h)$, where $n$ is the number of nodes, and $h$ represents how many levels of hierarchy the set of time series are organized into. Thus, reconciling hundreds of thousands of time series at a time required for specific industrial applications becomes difficult. Improved versions of the reconciliation were proposed by employing trace minimization \citep{wickramasuriya2015forecasting} and sparse matrix computation \citep{hyndman2016fast}. These algorithms assume that the individual base estimators are unbiased, which is unrealistic in many real-life applications. The unbiasedness assumption was relaxed in \citep{taieb2017coherent} while introducing other assumptions like ergodicity with exponentially decaying mixing coefficient. Moreover, all these existing methods try to impose any reconciliation constraints among the time series as a post inference step, which possesses two challenges: 1. ignoring the relationships across time series during training can potentially lead to suboptimal solutions, 2. additional computational complexity in the inference step, owing to the inversion of $S$ matrix, which makes it challenging to use the technique when a significant amount of time series are encountered in an industrial forecasting pipeline.
A critical development in time series forecasting has been the application of Deep Neural Networks (DNN) \citep[e.g.,][]{chung2014empirical, lai2018modeling, mukherjee2018armdn, oreshkin2019n, salinas2019deepar, sen2019think, zhu2017deep} which have shown to outperform statistical auto-regressive or other statistical models in several situations. However, no existing method incorporates the hierarchical structure of the set of time series into the DNN learning step. Instead, one hopes that the DNN will learn the relationships from the data. Graph neural networks (GNN) \citep[e.g.,][]{franceschi2019learning, lachapelle2019gradient, wu2020connecting, yu2017spatio, yu2019dag, zhang2020deep, zheng2018dags} have also been used to learn inherent relations among multiple time series; however, they need a pre-defined graph model that can adequately capture the relationships among the time series.
Characterizing uncertainty of the DNN forecast is another critical aspect, which becomes even more complicated when additive noise does not follow a Gaussian distribution \citep[e.g.,][]{blundell2015weight, iwata2017improving, kuleshov2018accurate, lakshminarayanan2017simple, sun2019functional}. If the observation noise model is misspecified, then the performance would be poor however complex neural network architecture one uses. Other works like \citet{salinas2019deepar} use multiple observation noise models (Gaussian, Negative Binomial) and loss functions. It is left to human experts' discretion to select the appropriate loss based on the time series's nature. This approach cannot be generalized and involves human intervention; it is especially not feasible for an industrial forecasting pipeline where predictions are to be generated for a vast number of time series, which can have a widely varying nature of observation noise. Besides, Bayesian approaches also face problems as the prior distribution and loss function assumptions will not be met across all of the time series. One approach that does not need to specify a parametric form of distribution is through quantile regression. Prior works include combining sequence to sequence models with quantile loss to generate multi-step probabilistic forecasts \citep{wen2017multi} and modeling conditional quantile functions using regression splines \citep{gasthaus2019probabilistic}. These works are incapable of handling hierarchical structures within time series.
Key aspects of multiple, related time series forecasting addressed by our proposed model include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item introduction of a regularized loss function that captures the mutual relationships among each group of time series from adjacent aggregation levels,
\item generation of probabilistic forecasts using quantile regression and simultaneously reconciling each quantile during model training,
\item clear demonstration of superior model capabilities, especially on real e-commerce datasets with sparsity and skewed noise distributions.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Background: Hierarchical Time Series Forecast} Denote $b_t \in \mathbb{R}^m$, $a_t \in \mathbb{R}^k$ as the observations at time $t$ for the $m$ and $k$ series at the bottom and aggregation level(s), respectively. Then $y_t = S b_t \in \mathbb{R}^n$ contains observations at time $t$ for all levels. Similarly, let $\hat{b}_T(h)$ be the $h-$step ahead forecast on the bottom-level at time $T$, we can obtain forecasts in higher aggregation levels by computing $\hat{y}_T(h) = S \hat{b}_T(h)$. This simple method is called bottom-up (BU), which guarantees reconciled forecasts. However, the error from bottom-level forecasts will accumulate to higher levels, leading to poor results. BU also cannot leverage any training data that is available at the more granular levels. A more straightforward approach called base forecast is to perform forecasting for each time series independently without considering the structure at all, i.e., compute $\hat{y}_T(h) = \left[\hat{a}_T (h)^{\top} ~~ \hat{b}_T(h)^{\top}\right]^{\top}$, but this will apparently lead to irreconciled forecasts. Therefore, imposing constraints to revise the base forecasts is a natural choice to accommodate the hierarchical relationships. More specifically, the goal is to obtain some appropriately selected matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ to combine the base forecasts linearly: $\Tilde{y}_T(h) = SP\hat{y}_T(h)$, where $\Tilde{y}_T(h)$ is the reconciled forecasts which are now coherent by construction. The role of $P$ is to map the base forecasts into the forecasts at the most disaggregated level and sum them up by $S$ to get the reconciled forecasts. The previously mentioned approach \citep{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} involves computing the optimal $P$ under different situations. A more detailed introduction can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:background}.
\section{Statistical Analysis of SHARQ} \label{theory}
In this section, we theoretically demonstrate the advantages of SHARQ. We begin by showing the optimality of our formulation (\ref{contstrained_loss}) in contrast to post-inference based methods, which solves the matrix $P$ for $\Tilde{y}_T(h) = SP\hat{y}_T(h)$. We emphasize our advantage in balancing coherency requirements and forecasting accuracy. We then present some desirable statistical properties of SHARQ.
\begin{thm}\textbf{(Global Optimum)} \label{thm:loss}
For $L_c \in C^1$, for an arbitrary parameterized smooth regressor model asymptotically,
\begin{align}
&\L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{\star}_k)) \nonumber \\
&\le \L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{recon}_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k))
\end{align}
where $\theta^{\star}$, $\theta^{recon}$ are the parameters for SHARQ, and post inference reconciled solution, respectively.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By definition, SHARQ directly minimize Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}),
\begin{equation}
\theta^{\star} = \arg \underset{\theta}{\min} ~\L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i, ~~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)),
\end{equation}
where $\theta = \{\theta_i, \theta_k\}$.
\end{proof}
Since \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} are performing the reconciliation as a post-processing step, those solutions are bound to be sub-optimal in comparison with $\theta^{\star}$.
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Hard Constraint)} \label{thm:stats}
For post-inference based methods, $P \hat{y}_T (h)$ is the bottom level reconciled forecast. In other words, it requires that
\begin{equation}
g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i) = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k).
\label{equ:stats_pro}
\end{equation}
Had we only considered the point forecast reconciliation, i.e. $\E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i)] = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \E[g_k (X_m^k, \theta^{recon}_k)],$ the post inference processing still might have worked. However, due to the probabilistic nature of the variables $g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i) = \E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta^{\star}_i)] + \varepsilon_i$, where $\varepsilon_i$ is the observation noise, reconciling the mean won't suffice.
\end{pro}
\paragraph{Remark} To satisfy Eq.(\ref{equ:stats_pro}), it is required that $\varepsilon_i = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \varepsilon_k$, which is not a realistic property to be satisfied in real-life problems. Intuitively, when a reconciliation matrix $P$ is applied, the original, unbiased base forecasts with variation are ``forced'' to be summed up. However, our method does not impose this hard constraint, leading to different properties.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu}{ccc}
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/log_sine.png}&
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/gamma_piecewise.png}&
\hspace{-0.45em}
\includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth]{images/Gaussian_piecewise.png} \\
\hspace{-0.45em} (a) Log-normal error & \hspace{-0.45em} (b) Gamma error & \hspace{-0.45em} (c) Gaussian error \\
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{Forecasting results of simulated sequential data under different error distributions. The original function of (a) is sinusoidal with varying frequency; (b) and (c) are discontinuous step functions. Note that our baseline forecasts in (b) and (c) are overconfident \citep{lakshminarayanan2017simple, li2020improving} and their prediction intervals are too small to be shown.}
\label{fig:sim_plot}
\end{figure*}
\usetikzlibrary{fit,backgrounds}
\usetikzlibrary{shadows.blur}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\tikzstyle{rect} = [draw, rectangle, fill=white!20, text width=2em, text centered, minimum height=2em]
\tikzstyle{longrect} = [draw, rectangle, fill=white!20, text width=6em, text centered, minimum height=2em]
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.7}
\begin{minipage}{.41\textwidth}
\scalebox{0.77}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.3pt}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{ Error distribution } & Log-normal & Gamma & Gaussian \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ MAPE } & Quantile & \textbf{32.72} & \textbf{62.20} & \textbf{70.29} \\
& Baseline & 49.88 & 73.69 & 73.36 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ LR } & Quantile & \textbf{0.2218} & \textbf{0.5649} & \textbf{0.8634} \\
& Baseline & 0.5661 & 0.7489 & 1.025 \\
\hlinewd{1.3pt}
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.57\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 1.2cm,auto]
\node [rect, rounded corners, label={[font=\small\sffamily,name=label1]above:{Forecasting model}}] (step1) {$h_{t-2}$};
\node [rect, right of=step1, rounded corners] (step2) {$h_{t-1}$};
\node [rect, right of=step2, rounded corners] (step4) {$h_t$};
\node [rect, right of=step4, rounded corners] (step8) {$o_t$};
\node [circ, below of=step1] (step5) {$x_{t-2}$};
\node [circ, below of=step2] (step6) {$x_{t-1}$};
\node [circ, below of=step4] (step7) {$x_t$};
\node [longrect, above right = 0.2cm and 0.3cm of step8] (step9) {dense layer 1};
\node [longrect, below right = 0.2cm and 0.3cm of step8] (step10) {dense layer 3};
\node [longrect, right =0.25cm of step8] (step12) {dense layer 2};
\node [circ, right =0.2cm of step12] (step11) {$\hat{y}^{\tau}_{t+1}$};
\path [line] (step1) -- (step2);
\path [line] (step2) -- (step4);
\path [line] (step5) -- (step1);
\path [line] (step6) -- (step2);
\path [line] (step7) -- (step4);
\path [line] (step4) -- (step8);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step8) |- (step9);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step8) |- (step10);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step9) -| (step11);
\path [line, rounded corners] (step10) -| (step11);
\path [line] (step8) -- (step12);
\path [line] (step12) -- (step11);
\begin{scope}[on background layer]
\node[draw,dashed,black,rounded corners,fill=gray!50,fit=(step1) (step2) (step4) (step5) (step6) (step7) (label1)]{};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Left: Quantitative results for simulation experiments. We use Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) \citep{makridakis2000m3} to measure forecasting accuracy and Likelihood Ratio (LR) to evaluate uncertainty intervals. Right: A schematic of the multi-quantile forecaster used for simulation.}
\label{tab:sim_res}
\end{table*}
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Unbiasedness Property)}
Consider a hierarchical structure with $n$ nodes where the first $\kappa$ nodes belong to aggregation levels, assume that the bottom level forecasting is unbiased:
\begin{equation}
\E [g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] = Y_m^k, \quad k = \kappa + 1,..., n
\end{equation}
and the bottom level forecasting models are well optimized:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Var}\left(\|g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) - Y_m^k\|\right) = \epsilon, \quad
\epsilon = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m}).
\end{equation}
Then we have that
\begin{align*}
\E[g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)] & = \E[\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \E[g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)] \nonumber \\
& = Y_m^i, \quad i = 1, ..., \kappa
\end{align*}
\end{pro}
Therefore, we claim that given the unbiased base forecast at the most disaggregated level, as well as well-specified models, our method can provide unbiased estimation at all aggregation levels.
\begin{pro}\textbf{(Variance Reduction)}
Assume we are minimizing a quadratic loss function using our formulation, where
\begin{align*}
& L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i, g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) = \|g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - Y_m^i\|^2 \nonumber \\
& + \lambda_i \parallel g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \left ( e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) \parallel^2.
\end{align*}
By solving the quadratic objective, we get
\begin{equation}
g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) = \frac{Y_m^i + \lambda_i \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)}{\lambda_i + 1}.
\end{equation}
Note that if we fit linear models that generalize in the bottom level, we have $\mathrm{Var} (\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m})$ (for other models, the variance should be at least in a smaller scale than $\mathcal{O}(1)$, which is the variance of observed samples). Therefore, by alternating $\lambda_i$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathrm{Var}(g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)) = \mathrm{Var}(Y_m^i) = \mathcal{O}(1), \mathrm{when} ~\lambda_i \rightarrow 0$.
\Item
\begin{align}\hspace{-1.75em}
\mathrm{Var}(g_i(X_m^i, \theta_i)) & = \mathrm{Var}(\sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) \nonumber \\
& = \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{m}), \mathrm{when} ~ \lambda_i \rightarrow \infty.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{pro}
This tells us that by alternating the coefficient $\lambda_i$, the amount of estimator variance at higher aggregation levels can be controlled. If lower-level models are accurate, then we can improve the higher-level models by this method. Instead of adding a hard coherency requirement like the post-inference methods, SHARQ provides more flexibility for controlling the variations.
\section{Simultaneous Hierarchically Reconciled Quantile Forecasting} \label{dqhfn}
We propose a new method for hierarchical time-series forecasts. Our approach fundamentally differs from others in that we move the reconciliation into the training stage by enabling the model to simultaneously learn the time series data from adjacent aggregation levels, while also integrating quantile regression to provide coherent forecasts for uncertainty bounds. We call our method Simultaneous HierArchically Reconciled Quantile Regression (SHARQ) to highlight these properties.
\subsection{Problem Formulation} \label{problem_formulation}
\paragraph{Graph Structure} Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(b) shows a hierarchical graph structure where each node represents a time series, which is to be predicted over a horizon. The graph structure is represented by $ \{ V, E \}$, where $V := \{v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n \} $ are the vertices of the graph and $E := \{ e_{i_1, j_1}, e_{i_2, j_2}, \dots, e_{i_p, j_p} \}$ are the set of edges. Also, $e_{i, j} \in \{-1, 1\}$ is a signed edge where $i$ is the parent vertex and $j$ is the child. An example of the negative-signed edge can be forecasting surplus production, which is the difference between production and demand. The time series for vertex $i$ at time $t$ is represented as $x_{v_i} (t)$. For sake of simplicity, we assume the value of a time series at a parent level will be the (signed) sum of the children vertices.
This constraint relationship can be represented as $x_{v_i} (t) = \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ x_{v_k} (t).$ We can later extend these to set of non-linear constraints: $x_{v_i} (t) =H_{v_i} \left( \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ x_{v_k} (t) \right)$, where $ H_{v_i} \in \mathbb{C}^1$. But linear hierarchical aggregation has already covered most real-world applications. The graph has hierarchies $L := \{ l_1, l_2, \dots, l_i, \dots, l_q\}$, where $l_i$ is the set of all vertices belonging to the $i^{th}$ level of hierarchy. Note that the graph representation using $\{ V, E \}$ is equivalent to the $S$ matrix in defining a hierarchical structure.
\tikzstyle{circ} = [draw, circle, fill=white!20, radius=2.6, minimum size=.8cm, inner sep=0pt]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw]
\paragraph{Data Fit Loss Function}
We now formulate the learning problem for each node. Let $\{ x_{v_i} (t) ~|~ t = 0, \dots, T \}$ be the training data for vertex $v_i$, $w$ be the window of the auto-regressive features, and $h$ be horizon of forecast. Based on the window, we can create a sample of training data in the time stamp $m$ as:
\begin{align*}
\{ (X_m^i, Y_m^i) ~|~ X_m^i & = [ F \left ( x_{v_i} (m), \dots, x_{v_i} (m - w + 1) \right ) ], \\
Y_m^i & = [x_{v_i} (m + 1), \dots, x_{v_i} (m + h)] \}, \notag
\end{align*}
where $F \colon \mathbb{R}^{w+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n_f}$ is the featurization function, which will generate a set of features; $n_f$ is the size of feature space, $h$ is the horizon of the forecast. It can be noted that $n_f \geq \omega$. In this fashion, we transform the forecasting problem to a regression one, where $n_f$ and $h$ capture the size of the feature space and the response. For instance, we can create a set of features for an ARIMA$(p, d, q)$ model based on the standard parameterization, where auto-regressive window size $w=p$ and the other features corresponding to the $d, q$ parameters will form the rest of the features.
We represent a forecasting model that learns the mean as a point estimate. Denote function $g_i : \mathbb{R}^{n_f} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_\theta} \to \mathbb{R}^{d}$, where $n_\theta$ represents the number of model parameters which are represented as $\theta_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\theta}$. The estimate from the model for $X_m^i$ will be $\hat{Y}_m^i := g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)$. We can define a loss function for the $m^{th}$ sample at the $i^{th}$ vertex as $\L (\hat{Y}_m^i, ~ Y_m^i) = \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i)$. We would assume the noise in training samples are of \texttt{i.i.d.} nature. As a consequence, the loss for the entire training data will be sum for each sample, i.e., $\sum_m \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i)$. Noted that this formulation will work for neural networks or ARIMA but not for Gaussian Processes, where we need to model the covariance of the uncertainties across the samples.
\paragraph{Reconciled Point Forecast}
We then describe how to incorporate reconciliation constraints into the loss functions for the vertices. The constraints at different levels of hierarchy will have different weights, which we denote as a function $w_c: L \to \mathbb{R}$. We define another function that maps any vertex to the hierarchy level, $LM: V \to L$. For any vertex $v_i$, the corresponding weight for the constraint is given by $ \lambda_{v_i} := w_c \circ LM (v_i)$. The constrained loss for vertex $v_i$ will be
\begin{align}
& \L_c (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i, g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k)) := \L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), Y_m^i) \nonumber \\
& + \lambda_i \parallel g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \left ( e_{i, k} ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) \parallel^2 .
\label{contstrained_loss}
\end{align}
Note that the data fit loss and the reconciliation, as described thus far, are catered to the point estimate of the mean forecasts.
\subsection{Reconciling Probabilistic Forecast using Quantiles} \label{sec_qloss}
Generating probabilistic forecasts over a range of time is significant for wide-ranging applications. Real-world time series data is usually sparse and not uniformly sampled. It is unreasonable to assume that the uncertainty or error distribution at every future point of time as Gaussians. A standard approach to solve this problem is using quantile loss, which allows one to model the error distribution in a non-parametric fashion. The estimator will aim at minimizing a loss directly represented in terms of the quantiles. Simultaneously, quantile can be used to construct confidence intervals by fitting multiple quantile regressors to obtain estimates of upper and lower bounds for prediction intervals. The quantile loss $\rho_{\tau} (y)$ is defined as
$\rho_{\tau} (y, ~ Q_{\tau}) = \left( y - Q_{\tau} \right). (\tau - \mathbb{I}_{(y<Q_{\tau})}),$
where $Q_{\tau}$ is the $\tau^{th}$ quantile output by an estimator. We will adopt quantiles in our framework, and pre-specified quantile ranges will represent the forecasting distribution. For simplicity, we denote $Q_i^{\tau} = Q^{\tau}_i (X_m^i, \theta_i)$ as the $\tau^{th}$ quantile estimator for node $i$. Eq.(\ref{quantile}) demonstrates a quantile version of the probabilistic estimator; it aims to produce multiple forecasts at different quantiles while maintaining a coherent median forecast which will be used to reconcile other quantiles:
\begin{align}
& \L_c (Q_i, Y_m^i, Q_k) := \nonumber \\
& \sum_{\tau = \tau_0}^{\tau_q}\rho_{\tau} (Q^{\tau}_i, Y_m^i)
+ \lambda_i \parallel Q^{50}_i - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} Q^{50}_i \parallel^2,
\label{quantile}
\end{align}
where $[\tau_0, \dots, \tau_q]$ are a set of quantile levels, and $Q_i = [Q^{\tau_0}_i, \dots, Q^{\tau_q}_i]$. To further guarantee that estimation at each quantile is coherent across the hierarchy, the straightforward solution is to add consistency regularization for each quantile like Eq.(\ref{quantile}). However, too many regularization terms would not only increase the number of hyper-parameters, but also complicate the loss function, where the result may even be worse as it is hard to find a solution to balance each objective. Moreover, a quantile estimator does not hold the additive property. As an example, assume $X_1 \sim N(\mu_1, \sigma_1^2)$, $X_2 \sim N(\mu_2, \sigma_2^2)$ are independent random variables, and define $Y = X_1 + X_2$. Then $Q_{Y}^{\tau} = Q_{X_1}^{\tau} + Q_{X_2}^{\tau}$ is true only if $X_1 = C \times X_2$, where $C$ is arbitrary constant. This requirement cannot be satisfied. But for any $\tau$, we have $(Q_{Y}^{\tau} - \mu_Y )^2 = (Q_{X_1}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_1})^2 + (Q_{X_2}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_2})^2$, the proof of above properties can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:nonadd}. Given these properties, we can formulate a new objective to make an arbitrary quantile consistent:
\begin{align}
& \L_q (Q_i, Y_m^i, Q_k) := \label{quantile_recon} \\
& \left [f\left(Q^{\tau}_i - Q^{50}_i\right)
- \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ f\left(Q^{\tau}_k - Q^{50}_k\right) + \mathrm{Var}(\epsilon)\right ]^2, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is the mean forecast's inconsistency error, which is mostly a much smaller term for a non-sparse dataset, and $f$ is the distance metric. Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) is zero when $f$ is a squared function and the given data satisfies \texttt{i.i.d.} Gaussian assumption. Therefore, optimizing Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) ``forces'' this additive property in non-Gaussian cases and is equivalent to reconcile the quantile estimators, which can also be interpreted as reconciliation over the variance across adjacent aggregation levels. Empirically, this approach calibrates multiple quantile predictions to be coherent and mitigates the quantile crossing issue \citep{liu2009stepwise}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\small
\caption{SHARQ}
\label{alg:bu}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input}:~~Training data $\mathcal{I}_1 = \{X_i, Y_i\}_{i=1}^{T_1}$, testing data $\mathcal{I}_2 = \{X_i, Y_i\}_{i=1}^{T_2}$.
\STATE \textbf{Process}:
\STATE train each leaf node (e.g., $v_4$ to $v_7$ in Figure \ref{fig:hierarchical_demo}(b)) independently without regularization
\FOR{each vertex $v$ at upper level $l$ (e.g., $l = 2$ for $v_3$, $v_2$, then $l = 1$ for $v_1$)}
\STATE train vertex $v$ at level $l$ using Eq.(\ref{quantile})
\ENDFOR
\STATE Reconciled Median Forecast \textbf{MF} $\leftarrow$ \textbf{Models}($\mathcal{I}_2$)
\FOR{each vertex $v$ at upper level $l$}
\STATE train vertex $v$ at level $l$ using Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) and \textbf{MF}
\ENDFOR
\STATE \textbf{Output}: ~ Reconciled forecasts at pre-specified quantiles.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{SHARQ Algorithm}
Our formulation can be combined with a bottom-up training approach to reconciling forecasts for each quantile simultaneously. Since the time series at the leaf (disaggregated) level are independent of higher aggregation levels, we can use the lower-level forecasting results to progressively reconcile the forecasting models at higher levels without revisiting previous reconciliations, till the root is reached. In contrast, if top-down training is applied, one needs to reconcile both higher (previously visited) and lower-level data at an intermediate vertex, since other time series at that intermediate level may have changed. Algorithm \ref{alg:bu} describes our procedure. We now address the remaining aspects.
\paragraph{Beyond Gaussian Noise Assumption.} Noise distributions for many real-world datasets (e.g., e-commerce data) are heavily skewed, so a Gaussian model may not be appropriate. For multi-level time series, data at the most disaggregated (lowest) level is more likely to be sparse, which makes the quantile reconciliation in Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) less accurate. In such situations, one can substitute median with the mean estimator as in Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) for training lower-level time series. One can also mix-and-match between mean and median estimators at higher aggregation levels depending on the data characteristics. Finding a suitable function $f$ for quantile reconciliation as in Eq.(\ref{quantile_recon}) is an alternative way to tackle non-symmetric errors \citep{li20081}.
\paragraph{Efficient Training and Inference} SHARQ is time and memory efficient, scaling well in both aspects with large datasets. One can simultaneously train multiple time series and keep a running sum for reconciliation. Since coherent probabilistic forecasts are enforced during training, no extra post-processing time is needed (see Appendix \ref{sec:add_exp} for details). Besides, SHARQ does not force one to use deep forecasting models or to use the same type of model at each node; in fact, any model where gradient-based optimization can be used is allowable, and one can also mix-and-match. For cases where the time series at a given level are structurally very similar \citep{zhu2017deep}, they can be grouped (e.g., by clustering), and a single model can be learned for the entire group.
\section{Experimental Results} \label{experimental_results}
In this section, we validate the performance of SHARQ on multiple hierarchical time series datasets with different properties and use cases. The experiments are conducted on both simulated and real-world data. Results demonstrate that SHARQ can generate coherent and accurate forecasts and well-capture the prediction uncertainty at any specified level.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{Performance measured by MAPE \citep{makridakis2000m3} on Australian Labour (755 time series), and M5 competition (42840 time series), lower values are better. Level 1 is the top aggregation level, and 4 is the bottom level.}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 15.23 & 15.88 & 19.41 & \textbf{17.96} & 19.29 & 20.14 & 21.09 & 22.13 & 16.13 & 17.59 & 16.88 & \textbf{17.17} & 14.23 & 14.75 & 15.67 & \textbf{15.84} \\
Base & 12.89 & 14.26 & 16.96 & \textbf{17.96} & \textbf{17.59} & 19.86 & 20.98 & 22.13 & 14.99 & 12.31 & \textbf{15.12} & \textbf{17.17} & 12.18 & 13.32 & \textbf{14.32} & \textbf{15.84} \\
MinT-sam & 14.98 & 15.94 & 17.79 & 19.23 & 18.82 & 19.98 & 21.59 & 22.26 & 15.12 & 14.41 & 16.42 & 18.62 & 13.11 & 14.63 & 14.86 & 15.96 \\
MinT-shr & 14.46 & 15.43 & 16.94 & 18.75 & 18.54 & 19.98 & 21.22 & 22.01 & 15.06 & 13.89 & 16.31 & 17.56 & 12.76 & 14.41 & 14.77 & 15.87 \\
MinT-ols & 15.01 & 15.96 & 18.75 & 19.21 & 19.14 & 20.02 & 21.74 & 22.34 & 15.12 & 14.41 & 16.41 & 18.74 & 13.29 & 14.49 & 14.85 & 16.83 \\
ERM & 14.73 & 16.62 & 19.51 & 20.13 & 17.89 & 20.11 & 20.33 & \textbf{21.93} & 16.61 & 16.84 & 18.75 & 19.21 & 14.52 & 15.26 & 17.02 & 17.29 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{12.55} & \textbf{13.21} & \textbf{16.01} & \textbf{17.96} & 17.65 & \textbf{19.72} & \textbf{20.01} & 22.13 & \textbf{11.97} & \textbf{12.24} & 15.64 & \textbf{17.17} & \textbf{11.86} & \textbf{12.35} & 14.53 & \textbf{15.84} \\ \hhline{|=|====|====|====|====|}
BU & 11.42 & 12.04 & 12.32 & \textbf{11.72} & 12.77 & 14.59 & 16.11 & \textbf{16.56} & 10.11 & 12.69 & 10.78 & \textbf{10.94} & 11.01 & 11.05 & 12.43 & \textbf{11.34} \\
Base & 10.63 & 10.15 & 11.23 & \textbf{11.72} & 11.64 & 13.91 & 15.67 & \textbf{16.56} & 8.96 & 11.38 & 10.59 & \textbf{10.94} & 9.64 & 9.88 & 11.11 & \textbf{11.34} \\
MinT-sam & 11.25 & 11.67 & 11.87 & 12.99 & 12.34 & 14.09 & 15.97 & 17.54 & 9.64 & 12.31 & 11.02 & 11.01 & 9.97 & 10.82 & 11.89 & 12.77 \\
MinT-shr & 10.76 & 11.03 & 11.49 & 12.81 & 11.92 & 13.85 & 15.76 & 17.33 & 9.19 & 11.97 & 10.71 & 10.99 & 9.78 & 10.69 & 11.56 & 12.63 \\
MinT-ols & 11.75 & 11.56 & 12.06 & 13.05 & 12.32 & 14.21 & 15.97 & 17.56 & 9.63 & 12.54 & 10.98 & 11.02 & 10.41 & 11.01 & 12.02 & 12.71 \\
ERM & 11.86 & 12.01 & 12.42 & 13.54 & 12.61 & 14.02 & \textbf{15.41} & 17.14 & 10.35 & 13.01 & 13.15 & 13.56 & 10.44 & 11.22 & 13.42 & 13.96 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{9.87} & \textbf{9.68} & \textbf{10.41} & \textbf{11.72} & \textbf{11.23} & \textbf{13.84} & 15.69 & \textbf{16.56} & \textbf{8.68} & \textbf{9.49} & \textbf{10.23} & \textbf{10.94} & \textbf{9.67} & \textbf{9.76} & \textbf{10.75} & \textbf{11.34} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Simulation Experiments}
We first demonstrate that quantile loss can handle various kinds of error distributions and thus provide more stable and accurate uncertainty estimation than methods under Gaussian error assumption. We trained vanilla RNN models on three different sequential data with distinct error distributions. We implemented a model that has multiple quantile estimators with shared features, which enables more efficient training. The bagging method \citep{oliveira2014ensembles} is used as a baseline where we utilize model ensembles to produce confidence intervals. Figure \ref{fig:sim_plot} shows the advantage of quantile estimators on simulated sequential data, and Table \ref{tab:sim_res} compares forecasting results as well as demonstrates our model structure. Although it is difficult to capture the trend of discontinuous functions in Figure \ref{fig:sim_plot} (b) and (c), the quantile estimators are accurate and stable under both skewed and symmetric error distributions, where it also outperforms the baseline for all types of error distributions.
\subsection{Hierarchical Time Series}
We validate the performance of SHARQ on multiple real-world hierarchical time-series datasets, which include Australian Labour, FTSE \citep{doherty2005hierarchical}, M5 competition, and Wikipedia webpage views dataset (see Appendix \ref{sec:data} for details). This type of data usually contains categorical features (e.g., locations, genders) that can be used to aggregate across time series to construct hierarchical structures. We compare our method with state-of-the-art reconciliation algorithms MinT \citep{wickramasuriya2019optimal} and ERM \citep{ben2019regularized}, along with other baselines, including bottom-up (BU) and base forecast. To have a fair comparison, we first pre-process each dataset using information from categorical features. The bottom-up training procedure in Algorithm \ref{alg:bu} is then used for each method except for BU. Specifically, the model training settings of the base forecast, MinT and ERM are by default the same as SHARQ, except that they do not have mean and quantile reconciliation. As for MinT and ERM, extra reconciliations are performed after model training. In this case, the algorithm has access to the hierarchical information about the dataset. We also incorporate different time series forecasting algorithms into our framework, which ranges from linear auto-regressive model and RNN-GRU \citep{chung2014empirical} to advanced models such as LSTNet \citep{lai2018modeling} and N-Beats \citep{oreshkin2019n}. Although these models are not originally designed for hierarchical time series problems, we show that the performance on this task can be improved under our framework.
Table \ref{tab:mape} and \ref{tab:crps} shows forecasting results across all reconciliation methods and models on Australian Labour (upper) and M5 (lower) dataset, the results are averaged across 3 runs. Specifically, MAPE \citep{makridakis2000m3} measures accuracy for point forecast by Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}), and $Continuous ~Ranked ~Probability ~Score$ (CRPS) \citep{matheson1976scoring} measures the holistic accuracy of a probabilistic forecast, using multiple quantiles. Overall, SHARQ outperforms other reconciliation baselines, resulting in much lower MAPE and CRPS over all four models, particularly at the higher aggregation levels. Specifically, although the bottom-up training of SHARQ leads to the same bottom level performance as BU and Base method, the error accumulation and inconsistency across the hierarchy leads to higher error in other aggregation levels. More importantly, the better performance of SHARQ over Base and BU in multiple datasets validates the necessity of hierarchical construction in DNN training. Besides, comparing the autoregressive model results with others, SHARQ tends to perform better when the forecasting model is less parsimonious for the dataset. Figure \ref{fig:eight_fig} presents multi-step forecasting results, which possess the advantage of coherent estimation at multiple quantile levels.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} @{\hspace{-2.4ex}} c @{\hspace{-2.4ex}}}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/labour_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(a) Labour (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sim_small_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(b) FTSE (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sales_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(c) M5 (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/wiki_forecast.png}
\\
{\small{(d) Wiki (SHARQ)}}
\end{tabular} \\
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/labour_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(a) Labour (MinT-shr)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sim_small_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(b) FTSE (MinT-ols)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/sales_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(c) M5 (MinT-shr)}}
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.276\textwidth]{images/wiki_forecast_mint.png}
\\
{\small{(d) Wiki (MinT-sam)}}
\end{tabular} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Top and bottom level forecasts on four datasets using the LSTNet skip connection model. For each dataset, we plot the results of SHARQ and the second-best reconciliation method. P5 and P95 forecasts are the lower and upper boundaries of the forecast band. We use mean as the point estimator (also complement of P50) for all bottom-level data and other aggregation levels of Australian Labour and FTSE data.}
\label{fig:eight_fig}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\
\hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 0.244 & 0.221 & 0.186 & \textbf{0.149} & 0.401 & 0.367 & 0.303 & 0.231 & 0.241 & 0.222 & 0.193 & \textbf{0.142} & 0.232 & 0.211 & 0.196 & 0.154 \\
Base & 0.119 & 0.135 & 0.143 & \textbf{0.149} & 0.174 & 0.203 & 0.221 & 0.231 & 0.124 & 0.139 & 0.142 & \textbf{0.142} & 0.122 & 0.141 & 0.141 & 0.154 \\
MinT-sam & 0.106 & 0.135 & 0.139 & 0.152 & 0.167 & 0.191 & 0.214 & 0.227 & 0.106 & 0.125 & 0.133 & 0.156 & 0.106 & 0.119 & 0.141 & \textbf{0.153} \\
MinT-shr & 0.103 & 0.129 & 0.137 & 0.158 & 0.162 & 0.189 & 0.206 & 0.232 & 0.101 & 0.113 & 0.132 & 0.153 & 0.103 & \textbf{0.114} & 0.137 & 0.155 \\
MinT-ols & 0.109 & 0.133 & 0.142 & 0.159 & 0.167 & 0.194 & 0.215 & 0.233 & 0.109 & 0.124 & 0.133 & 0.154 & 0.111 & 0.123 & 0.142 & 0.155 \\
ERM & 0.126 & 0.147 & 0.152 & 0.156 & 0.164 & \textbf{0.178} & \textbf{0.192} & \textbf{0.201} & 0.132 & 0.145 & 0.149 & 0.162 & 0.121 & 0.138 & 0.143 & 0.158 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.097} & \textbf{0.124} & \textbf{0.133} & \textbf{0.149} & \textbf{0.157} & 0.187 & 0.199 & 0.231 & \textbf{0.089} & \textbf{0.096} & \textbf{0.126} & \textbf{0.142} & \textbf{0.092} & 0.115 & \textbf{0.136} & 0.154 \\ \hhline{|=|====|====|====|====|}
BU & 0.247 & 0.231 & 0.226 & \textbf{0.208} & 0.397 & 0.375 & 0.316 & 0.297 & 0.219 & 0.211 & 0.194 & \textbf{0.164} & 0.199 & 0.171 & 0.152 & \textbf{0.135} \\
Base & 0.162 & 0.167 & 0.193 & \textbf{0.208} & 0.231 & 0.257 & 0.265 & 0.297 & 0.146 & 0.152 & 0.175 & \textbf{0.164} & 0.079 & 0.128 & 0.136 & \textbf{0.135} \\
MinT-sam & 0.147 & 0.158 & 0.154 & 0.211 & 0.257 & 0.262 & 0.271 & 0.279 & 0.112 & 0.141 & 0.175 & 0.189 & 0.091 & 0.124 & 0.142 & 0.149 \\
MinT-shr & 0.134 & 0.142 & 0.146 & 0.213 & 0.256 & 0.248 & 0.268 & 0.288 & 0.096 & 0.137 & 0.134 & 0.171 & 0.083 & 0.112 & 0.147 & 0.166 \\
MinT-ols & 0.143 & 0.161 & 0.154 & 0.215 & 0.259 & 0.261 & 0.272 & 0.283 & 0.109 & 0.154 & 0.156 & 0.191 & 0.086 & 0.117 & 0.139 & 0.162 \\
ERM & 0.152 & 0.154 & 0.188 & 0.226 & 0.213 & 0.229 & \textbf{0.241} & \textbf{0.267} & 0.124 & 0.166 & 0.168 & 0.194 & 0.098 & 0.129 & 0.151 & 0.172 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.071} & \textbf{0.063} & \textbf{0.114} & \textbf{0.208} & \textbf{0.189} & \textbf{0.225} & 0.279 & 0.297 & \textbf{0.069} & \textbf{0.074} & \textbf{0.108} & \textbf{0.164} & \textbf{0.067} & \textbf{0.069} & \textbf{0.096} & \textbf{0.135} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\caption{Performance measured by CRPS \citep{matheson1976scoring} on Australian Labour (755 time series), and M5 competition (42840 time series), lower values are better. Level 1 is the top aggregation level, and 4 is the bottom aggregation level.}
\label{tab:crps}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{images/coherency_plot.png}
\caption{Coherency loss of SHARQ compared with the Base method on four datasets. Results are averaged across all the forecasting models.}}
\label{fig:coherency}
\end{figure}
We pre-define the hyper-parameter $\lambda_i$ for vertex $v_i$ from Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) level-wise, where we use the same $\lambda$s for all time series at the same level, and gradually decrease this value at higher aggregation levels. This is because time series at the same level possess similar magnitudes. With more vertices at lower levels, the chances of having consistency issues are higher, and error can accumulate to higher levels.
We then evaluate the effect of regularization strength on forecasting coherency across the hierarchical structure; we summarize the result in Figure \ref{fig:coherency}, where the coherency loss drops dramatically after incorporating the hierarchical regularization at each level. Note that we mainly compare SHARQ with the Base method (SHARQ without regularization), as other reconciliation approaches generate absolute coherent results at the cost of sacrificing forecasting accuracy. More detailed evaluations can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:add_exp}.
\subsection{Comparison with Baseline Methods}
Learning inter-level relationships through regularization helps SHARQ generalize better while mitigating coherency issues. It also provides a learnable trade-off between coherency and accuracy. From a computational perspective, MinT and ERM require one to compute matrix inversion explicitly. Note that the ERM method could compute the weight matrix on a validation set, but additional matrix computations are required during inference. Crucially, they depend on the Gaussian and unbiasedness assumptions, as stated in \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} and their performance degrades noticeably when faced with actual data that do not match these assumptions well.
\section{Further Discussion on Related Works} \label{sec:background}
As we mentioned in Section (\ref{sec:intro}), state-of-the-art hierarchical forecasting algorithms \citep{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal, hyndman2016fast, wickramasuriya2015forecasting} involves computing the optimal $P$ matrix to combine the base forecasts under different situations linearly. We now summarize these methods as follows.
\subsection{Generalized Least Squares (GLS) Reconciliation}
Denote $b_t \in \mathbb{R}^m$, $a_t \in \mathbb{R}^k$ as the observations at time $t$ for the $m$ and $k$ series at the bottom and aggregation level(s), respectively. $S \in \{0, 1\}^{n \times m}$ is the summing matrix. Each entry $S_{ij}$ equals to 1 if the $i^{th}$ aggregate series contains the $j^{th}$ bottom-level series, where $i = 1, ..., k$ and $j = 1, ..., m$. Denote $\mathcal{I}_T = \{y_1, y_2, ..., y_T\}$ as the time series data observed up to time $T$; $\hat{b}_T(h)$ and $\hat{y}_T(h)$ as the $h-$step ahead forecast on the bottom-level and all levels based on $\mathcal{I}_T$.
Let $\hat{e}_T(h) = y_{T+h} - \hat{y}_T(h)$ be the $h-$step ahead conditional base forecast errors and $\beta_T(h) = E[\hat{b}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T]$ be the bottom-level mean forecasts. We then have $E[\hat{y}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T] = S\beta_T (h)$. Assume that $E[\hat{e}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T] = 0$, then a set of reconciled forecasts will be unbiased iff $SPS = S$, i.e., \textbf{Assumption A1:}
\begin{equation}
\E [\Tilde{y}_T (h) | \mathcal{I}_T] = \E [\hat{y}_T (h) | \mathcal{I}_T] = S \beta_T(h) \quad
\end{equation}
The optimal combination approach proposed by \citet{hyndman2011optimal}, is based on solving the above regression problem using the generalized least square method:
\begin{equation}
\hat{y}_T(h) = S\beta_T(h) + \varepsilon_h,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_h$ is the independent coherency error with zero mean and $\mathrm{Var}(\varepsilon_h) = \Sigma_h$. The GLS estimator of $\beta_T(h)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\beta}_T(h) = (S'\Sigma'_h S)^{-1} S' \Sigma_h' \hat{y}_T(h),
\label{equ:gls}
\end{equation}
which is an unbiased, minimum variance estimator. The optimal $P$ is $(S'\Sigma'_h S)^{-1} S' \Sigma_h'$. The reconciled mean and variance can therefore be obtained accordingly.
\subsection{Trace Minimization (MinT) Reconciliation}
Defining the reconciliation error as $\Tilde{e}_T(h) = y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)$, the original problem can also be formulated as
\begin{align}
& \underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} ~ \E[\|\Tilde{e}_T(h)\|_2^2~|~\mathcal{I}_T] \notag \\
& \mathrm{subject ~ to} ~ \E[\Tilde{y}_T(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T] = \E[\Tilde{y}_T(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T]
\label{equ:formulation}
\end{align}
If the assumption \textbf{A1} still holds, then minimizing Eq.(\ref{equ:formulation}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} ~ \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{Var}[\Tilde{e}_T(h)~|~\mathcal{I}_T]) \quad \mathrm{subject ~ to ~ \textbf{A1}},
\end{equation}
where Tr(.) denotes the trace of a matrix. In \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal}, the proposed optimal solution of $P$ obtained by solving this problem is given by
\begin{equation}
P = (S'W_h^{-1}S)^{-1}S'W_h^{-1},
\label{mint}
\end{equation}
where $W_h = \E[\hat{e}_T(h)\hat{e}_T'(h) ~|~ \mathcal{I}_T]$ is the variance-covariance matrix of the $h-$step-ahead base forecast errors, which is different from the coherence errors $\Sigma_h$ in GLS reconciliation method given in Eq.(\ref{equ:gls}). There are various covariance estimators for $W_h$ considered in \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal}, the most effective one is the shrinkage estimator with diagonal target, and can be computed by
\begin{equation}
\hat{W}_h = (1 - \alpha) \hat{W}_s + \alpha \hat{W}_d, \quad \hat{W}_s = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T \hat{e}_t(1)\hat{e}_t(1)',
\label{mint_est}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{W}_d = \mathrm{diag}(\hat{W}_s)$ and $\alpha \in (0, 1]$.
\subsection{Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) Reconciliation}
Most recently, \citet{ben2019regularized} proposed a new method to relax the unbiasedness assumption \textbf{A1}. Specifically, the objective function in (\ref{equ:formulation}) can be decomposed as
\begin{align}
& \E[\|y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)\|_2^2~|~\mathcal{I}_T] \label{equ:mse} \\
& = \|SP(\E[\hat{y}_T(h) | \mathcal{I}_T] - \E[y_{T+h}|\mathcal{I}_T]) \nonumber \\
& + (S - SPS)\E[b_{T+h}|\mathcal{I}_T]\|_2^2 \label{equ:bias}\\
& + \mathrm{Tr} (\mathrm{Var}[y_{T+h} - \Tilde{y}_T(h)|\mathcal{I}_T] \label{equ:var},
\end{align}
where (\ref{equ:bias}) and (\ref{equ:var}) are the bias and variance terms of the revised forecasts $\Tilde{y}_T(h)$. The assumption \textbf{A1} in MinT method renders (\ref{equ:bias}) to 0. Obviously, directly minimize the objective in (\ref{equ:mse}) provides a more general form of reconciliation represented by following empirical risk minimization (ERM) problem:
\begin{equation}
\underset{P \in \mathcal{P}}{\min} \frac{1}{(T - T_1 - h + 1)n}\sum_{t=T_1}^{T-h} \|y_{t+h} - SP \hat{y}_t(h)\|_2^2,
\label{equ:erm}
\end{equation}
where $T_1 < T$ is the number of observations used for model fitting. Empirically, this method demonstrates better performance than MinT according to \citet{ben2019regularized}, particularly when the forecasting models are mis-specified.
\section{Non-Additive Property of Quantile Loss} \label{sec:nonadd}
Here we prove the non-additive property of quantile loss as mentioned in Section (2.2).
\begin{thm}\textbf{(Non-additive Property)}
Assume two independent random variables $X_1 \sim N(\mu_1, \sigma_1^2)$ and $X_2 \sim N(\mu_2, \sigma_2^2)$, and define $Y = X_1 + X_2$. Then $Q_{Y}(\tau) \neq Q_{X_1}(\tau) + Q_{X_2}(\tau)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The $\tau^{th}$ quantile of $X_1$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
Q_{X_1}(\tau) = F_{X_1}^{-1}(\tau) = inf \{x: F_{X_1}(x) \geq \tau\},
\end{equation}
where $F_{X_1} (x)$ is $\frac{1}{2} \left[1 + erf\left(\frac{x - \mu_1}{\sigma_1 \sqrt{2}}\right)\right]$, and $erf(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{-x}^{x} e^{-t^2} dt$. Therefore, we can further get:
\begin{align*}
Q_{X_1}(\tau) & = \mu_1 + \sigma_1 \Phi^{-1} (\tau) = \mu_1 + \sigma_1 \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1) \\
Q_{X_2}(\tau) & = \mu_2 + \sigma_2 \Phi^{-1} (\tau) = \mu_2 + \sigma_2 \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1) \\
\end{align*}
According to the additive property of Gaussian distribution, we have $Y \sim N(\mu_1 + \mu_2, \sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2)$, and
\begin{align}
Q_{Y}(\tau) & = \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \sqrt{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2} ~ \Phi^{-1} (\tau) \nonumber \\
& = \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \sqrt{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2} ~ \sqrt{2} ~ erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1).
\label{quantile}
\end{align}
Therefore, even if we have \texttt{i.i.d.}normal distribution with $Y = X_1 + X_2$, it still doesn't imply $Q_{Y}(\tau) = Q_{X_1}(\tau) + Q_{X_2}(\tau)$. The only case that the addition property hold true in any quantile is when $X_1 = C \times X_2$, where $C$ is arbitrary constant. Obviously, this is not applicable.
\end{proof}
In fact, under Gaussian assumption, we have the following additive property holds for any $\tau$:
\begin{equation}
(Q_{Y}^{\tau} - \mu_Y )^2 = (Q_{X_1}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_1})^2 + (Q_{X_2}^{\tau} - \mu_{X_2})^2.
\label{add_quant}
\end{equation}
Since by Eq.(\ref{quantile}), the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{add_quant}) is $2 (\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2) ~ \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2,$ and the right hand side of Eq.(\ref{add_quant}) is $2\sigma_1^2 \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2 + 2\sigma_2^2 \left[erf^{-1} (2\tau - 1)\right]^2.$ Therefore, the additive property holds for any $\tau$ assume the RVs follow Gaussian distribution.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Details of four hierarchical time-series datasets. Note that hierarchical levels mean the number of aggregation levels from bottom to top in the hierarchical structure used in the experiments.}}
\vspace{.5em}
\scalebox{1.05}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Dataset & Total number of time series & Total length of time series & Hierarchical Levels \\ \hline
FTSE & 73 & 2512 & 4 \\
M5 & 42840 & 1969 & 4 \\
Wiki & 145000 & 550 & 5 \\
Labour & 755 & 500 & 4 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{data_table}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\begin{tabu}{cccc}
\hspace{-2.05em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/FTSE.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/M5.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/labour.png}&
\hspace{-1.55em}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{images/wiki.png}\\
\hspace{-2.45em} (a) FTSE & \hspace{-2.05em} (b) M5 & \hspace{-2.05em} (c) Labour & \hspace{-2.05em} (d) Wikipedia\\
\end{tabu}}
\caption{Visualization of hierarchical time series data. (a) Bottom level time series of FTSE (the open stock price of Google); (b) bottom and top level of unit sales record; (c) Australian Labour Force data at all aggregation levels; (d) Wikipedia page views data at all aggregation levels.}
\label{fig:raw_ts_plot}
\end{figure*}
\section{KKT Conditions} \label{kkt}
An alternative way of solving the optimization problem defined in Section (\ref{problem_formulation}) Eq.(\ref{contstrained_loss}) is to obtain the KKT conditions \citep{boyd2004convex}. For notational simplicity, we express the constrained loss for $i^{th}$ vertex and $m^{th}$ data point as $L_c (i, m)$. As the optimization problem is unconstrained, the KKT conditions will lead to:
\[ \frac{\partial }{ \partial [\theta_i, \Theta_i]} L_c (i, m) = [ ~ \frac{\partial }{ \partial \theta_i} L_c (i, m) ~,~ \frac{\partial }{ \partial \Theta_i} L_c (i, m) ~ ] = 0 , \]
which will further imply that
\begin{align*}
& \lambda_i \left [\frac{\partial }{\partial g_i} L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i) \right ]^{\top} \nonumber \\
& \left [ g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} ~ . ~g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ]\nonumber \\
& + \frac{\partial }{\partial g_i} L (g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i), ~ Y_m^i)~ . ~ \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial \theta_i} = 0,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\left ( e_{i, j} ~ . ~g_{j} (X_m^{j}, \theta_{j}) \right )^ T \nonumber \\
& \left ( g_i (X_m^i, \theta_i) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} e_{i, k} g_k (X_m^k, \theta_k) \right ) = 0, ~ \forall j | e_{i,j} \in E.
\end{align*}
However, we found that SHARQ performs better and more efficiently than the KKT approach during our empirical evaluation. Solving the KKT conditions requires matrix inversion in most situations. Besides, SHARQ is more flexible in incorporating various forecasting models and performs probabilistic forecasts.
\section{Dataset Details} \label{sec:data}
We first describe the details (dataset generation, processing, etc.) of each dataset used in the experiment. A summary of each dataset is shown in Table \ref{data_table}. Visualizations for some raw time series can be found in Figure \ref{fig:raw_ts_plot}.
\subsection{FTSE Stock Market Data}
The FTSE Global Classification System is a universally accepted classification scheme based on a market's division into Economic Groups, Industrial Sectors, and Industrial Sub-sectors. This system has been used to classify company data for over 30,000 companies from 59 countries. The FTSE 100 \citep{doherty2005hierarchical} is the top 100 capitalized blue-chip companies in the UK and is recognized as the measure of UK stock market performance \citep{russell2017ftse}. Base on the FTSE classification system, we formulate a 4-level hierarchical structure (Economic Groups, Industrial Sectors, Industrial Sub-sectors, and companies) of 73 companies in \citet{doherty2005hierarchical}. Our task is to model the stock market time series for each company. The stock market data of each company is available from the Yahoo Finance package\footnote[1]{https://pypi.org/project/yfinance/}. Since the stock market time series starting time of each company is not the same, we use a common time window ranging from January 4, 2010, to May 1, 2020.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/M5_tree.png}
\caption{Hierarchical structure of the M5 dataset.}
\label{fig:m5}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{M5 Competition Data}
The M5 dataset\footnote[2]{https://mofc.unic.ac.cy/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/M5-Competitors-Guide-Final-10-March-2020.docx} involves the unit sales of various products ranging from January 2011 to June 2016 in Walmart. It involves the unit sales of 3,049 products, classified into 3 product categories (Hobbies, Foods, and Household) and 7 product departments, where the categories mentioned above are disaggregated. The products are sold across ten stores in three states (CA, TX, and WI). An overview of how the M5 series are organized is shown in Figure \ref{fig:m5}. Here, we formulate a 4-level hierarchy, starting from the bottom-level individual item to unit sales of all products aggregated for each store.
\subsection{Wikipedia Webpage Views}
This dataset\footnote[3]{https://www.kaggle.com/c/web-traffic-time-series-forecasting} contains the number of daily views of 145k various Wikipedia articles ranging from July 2015 to Dec. 2016. We follow the data processing approach used in \citet{ben2019regularized} to sample 150 bottom-level series from the 145k series and aggregate to obtain the upper-level series. The aggregation features include the type of agent, type of access, and country codes. We then obtain a 5-level hierarchical structure with 150 bottom series.
\subsection{Australian Labour Force}
This dataset\footnote[4]{https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]\\/DetailsPage/6202.0Dec\%202019?OpenDocument} contains monthly employment information ranging from Feb. 1978 to Aug. 2019 with 500 records for each series. The original dataset provides a detailed hierarchical classification of labor force data, while we choose three aggregation features to formulate a 4-level symmetric structure. Specifically, the 32 bottom level series are hierarchically aggregated using labor force location, gender, and employment status.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ for small and large simulation dataset. The likelihood ratios are given in parentheses.}}
\hspace{-.85em}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{MAPE} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ Simulation Small } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Simulation Large } \\
\hhline{|~|---|----|}
& Top level & Level 1 & Level 2 & Top level & Level 1 & Level 2 & Level 3\\
\hline
Base & 1.29 (.69) & 1.50 (.77) & 2.41 (.91) & 2.08 (.43) & 2.20 (.61) & 1.41 (.75) & 0.72 (.85) \\
BU & 2.14 (.73) & 1.76 (.79) & 2.41 (.91) & 4.19 (.46) & 3.48 (.64) & 1.48 (.76) & 0.72 (.85) \\
MinT-sam & 0.54 (.66) & 1.48 (.77) & 2.24 (.89) & 1.48 (.42) & 2.55 (.65) & 1.38 (.74) & 0.63 (.83) \\
MinT-shr & 0.45 (.65) & 1.47 (.77) & \textbf{2.23} (.89) & \textbf{1.28} (.39) & 2.31 (.63) & \textbf{1.35} (.74) & \textbf{0.59} (.81) \\
MinT-ols & \textbf{0.20} (.64) & 1.72 (.78) & 2.41 (.91) & 1.69 (.41) & 2.15 (.60) & 1.41 (.75) & 0.71 (.85) \\
ERM & 1.23 (.69) & 1.73 (.78) & 2.55 (.93) & 2.78 (.44) & 2.86 (.69) & 1.50 (.76) & 0.75 (.86) \\
SHARQ & 1.54 (.41) & \textbf{1.42} (.45) & 2.41 (.73) & 2.16 (.23) & \textbf{2.13} (.49) & 1.44 (.67) & 0.72 (.82) \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{sim1_result}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ on FTSE dataset. Level 1 is the top aggregation level; 4 is the bottom aggregation level.}}
\scalebox{0.76}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|cccc|cccc|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|----|----|----|----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
BU & 6.11 & 8.48 & 9.41 & 9.54 & 10.01 & 12.15 & 11.77 & 12.43 & 7.48 & 8.96 & 9.29 & 9.49 & 6.63 & 8.04 & 8.23 & 8.41 \\
Base & 4.82 & 6.27 & 8.55 & 9.54 & \textbf{8.65} & 10.46 & 10.88 & 12.43 & 6.02 & 7.79 & 8.76 & 9.49 & 5.86 & \textbf{7.56} & \textbf{8.01} & 8.41 \\
MinT-sam & 4.68 & 8.53 & 8.77 & 10.13 & 9.72 & 11.25 & 11.57 & 12.26 & 6.47 & 8.24 & 8.93 & 10.62 & 5.94 & 7.89 & 8.35 & 8.86 \\
MinT-shr & \textbf{4.43} & 8.46 & 8.59 & 9.75 & 9.23 & 10.91 & 11.02 & \textbf{12.13} & 6.12 & 8.11 & 8.81 & 10.57 & 5.67 & 7.74 & 8.22 & \textbf{8.54} \\
MinT-ols & 4.71 & 8.92 & 8.74 & 10.31 & 9.96 & 11.01 & 11.25 & 12.32 & 6.31 & 8.56 & 8.74 & 10.88 & 5.87 & 8.12 & 8.41 & 9.84 \\
ERM & 5.74 & 9.52 & 9.54 & 12.41 & 9.92 & 10.61 & 12.03 & 13.23 & 8.12 & 9.38 & 9.76 & 13.01 & 6.19 & 8.89 & 9.26 & 10.22 \\
SHARQ & 4.51 & \textbf{8.28} & \textbf{8.08} & \textbf{9.54} & 9.13 & \textbf{9.35} & \textbf{10.61} & 12.43 & \textbf{5.01} & \textbf{7.14} & \textbf{8.52} & \textbf{9.49} & \textbf{5.44} & 7.83 & 7.93 & 8.41 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape_ftse}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{$\mathrm{MAPE}^{\downarrow}$ on Wiki dataset. Level 1 is the top aggregation level; 5 is the bottom aggregation level.}}
\scalebox{0.56}{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|ccccc|ccccc|ccccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Algorithm & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ RNN } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Autoregressive } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ LST-Skip } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ N-Beats } \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{ Level } \\ \hhline{|~|-----|-----|-----|-----|}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline
BU & 11.71 & 12.36 & 14.47 & 16.45 & 16.74 & 15.67 & 15.99 & 16.67 & 18.99 & 20.32 & 11.44 & 11.88 & 13.31 & 14.76 & 15.77 & 11.92 & 12.57 & 14.45 & 15.22 & 16.21 \\
Base & 11.12 & 11.52 & 14.06 & 16.11 & 16.74 & \textbf{15.04} & 15.23 & 16.02 & 17.83 & 20.32 & 11.21 & 11.24 & 12.88 & 14.35 & 15.77 & 11.84 & 12.02 & 14.17 & 15.16 & 16.21 \\
MinT-sam & 11.65 & 12.02 & 14.19 & 16.23 & 17.66 & 15.22 & 15.65 & 16.33 & 18.12 & 19.87 & 11.38 & 11.46 & 13.13 & 14.57 & 16.22 & 11.96 & 12.26 & 14.29 & 15.25 & 16.45 \\
MinT-shr & 11.32 & 11.86 & 13.87 & \textbf{16.07} & 17.54 & 15.17 & 15.12 & 15.98 & 17.69 & \textbf{19.54} & 11.24 & 11.15 & 12.91 & \textbf{14.32} & 16.14 & 11.75 & 12.19 & 14.03 & 15.02 & 16.39 \\
MinT-ols & 11.48 & 12.11 & 14.52 & 16.34 & 17.59 & 15.37 & 15.74 & 16.23 & 18.01 & 20.21 & 11.42 & 11.52 & 13.05 & 14.78 & 16.59 & 11.88 & 12.39 & 14.21 & 15.16 & 16.45 \\
ERM & 12.08 & 13.62 & 15.96 & 18.11 & 18.97 & 15.29 & 15.85 & 16.12 & \textbf{17.58} & 21.56 & 12.08 & 12.85 & 14.56 & 15.96 & 17.42 & 12.14 & 12.83 & 15.49 & 16.17 & 17.41 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{10.84} & \textbf{11.07} & \textbf{13.54} & 16.08 & \textbf{16.74} & 15.07 & \textbf{15.05} & \textbf{15.87} & 17.79 & 20.32 & \textbf{11.07} & \textbf{11.09} & \textbf{12.65} & 14.41 & \textbf{15.77} & \textbf{11.64} & \textbf{11.67} & \textbf{13.81} & \textbf{15.02} & \textbf{16.21} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}}
\label{tab:mape_wiki}
\end{table*}
\section{Additional Experiments} \label{sec:add_exp}
In this section, we demonstrate our additional experiment results, including the full results on FTSE and Wiki as well as additional simulation experiments under unbiasedness and Gaussian assumptions. Reconciliation error is also measured for each method. We start by discussing our evaluation metrics.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
We denote $\hat{Y}_T (h)$ and $Y_T (h)$ as the $h-$step ahead forecast at time $T$ and its ground truth, respectively. To construct confidence intervals, we use the $95^{th}, 50^{th},$ and $5^{th}$ quantiles as upper, median and lower forecasts.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Average forecasting coherency on each dataset across 4 forecasting models. Bottom-level $\lambda = 3.0$, higher-level $\lambda$s are decreased gradually.}}
\hspace{-.65em}
\scalebox{1.0}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{ Reconciliation } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ Dataset } \\
\hhline{|~|----|}
& FTSE & Labour & M5 & Wiki \\
\hline
Base & 28.01 & 5.59 & 12.56 & 20.71 \\
BU & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
MINTsam & 4.21E-15 & 4.60E-12 & 0 & 5.46E-10 \\
MINTshr & 2.50E-15 & 4.19E-12 & 0 & 6.40E-11 \\
MINTols & 6.22E-15 & 6.10E-12 & 0 & 1.08E-10 \\
ERM & 6.48E-12 & 2.27E-08 & 5.86E-12 & 2.40E-07 \\
SHARQ & 1.59 & 0.53 & 0.22 & 2.63 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{recon}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\centering{Training and inference time (in second) comparison for each data set.}}
\scalebox{.9}{
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{Time (s)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ FTSE } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ Labour } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ M5 } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ Wikipedia } \\
\hhline{|~|--|--|--|--|}
& training & inference & training & inference & training & inference & training & inference \\
\hline
Base & 115.96 & 0.01 & 68.35 & 0.00 & 181.58 & 0.00 & 205.47 & 0.01 \\
BU & 65.83 & 0.03 & 57.06 & 0.00 & 105.45 & 0.00 & 142.53 & 0.01 \\
MinT-sam & 106.55 & 1,784.77 & 72.24 & 430.42 & 172.11 & 1,461.81 & 208.26 & 1,106.70 \\
MinT-shr & 104.35 & 1,148.49 & 60.83 & 317.02 & 175.83 & 1,039.53 & 198.16 & 788.31 \\
MinT-ols & 103.23 & 1,129.45 & 64.14 & 310.13 & 163.24 & 977.88 & 196.88 & 702.02 \\
ERM & 547.66 & 0.05 & 497.88 & 0.01 & 551.60 & 0.01 & 1,299.30 & 0.04 \\
SHARQ & 121.84 & 0.01 & 99.96 & 0.00 & 201.40 & 0.00 & 241.97 & 0.01 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{time_comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)}
The MAPE is commonly used to evaluate forecasting performance. It is defined by
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{MAPE} = \frac{100}{H} \sum_{h=1}^H \frac{|Y_T (h) - \hat{Y}_T (h)|}{|Y_T (h)|}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Likelihood Ratio}
We compute the likelihood ratio between the quantile prediction intervals versus the trivial predictors, which gives the specified quantile of training samples as forecasts. Specifically, define $N$ ($N=3$ in our case) as the number of quantile predictors. Then the likelihood ratio at $h-$step forecast is:
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N \rho_{\tau_i}(Y_T(h) - Q_{Y_T(h)}(\tau_i))}{\sum_{i=1}^N \rho_{\tau_i}(Y_T(h) - Q_{\mathcal{I}_T}(\tau_i))}.
\end{equation}
Ideally, we should have $\alpha < 1$ if our estimator performs better than the trivial estimator.
\subsubsection{Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS)}
CRPS measures the compatibility of a cumulative distribution function $F$ with an observation $x$ as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{CRPS}(F, x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} (F(z) - \mathbb{I}\{x \leq z\})^2 ~dz
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{I}\{x \leq z\}$ is the indicator function which is one if $x\leq z$ and zero otherwise. Therefore, CRPS attains its minimum when the predictive distribution $F$ and the data are equal. We used this library\footnote[5]{https://github.com/TheClimateCorporation/properscoring} to compute CRPS.
\subsubsection{Reconciliation Error}
We compute the reconciliation error of forecasts generated by each method on each dataset to measure the forecasting coherency. More specifically, assume a total of $m$ vertices in the hierarchy at time $T$, the reconciliation error for the mean forecast is defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{H} \sum_{h=1}^H \sum_{i=1}^m \| \hat{Y}_T^i(h) - \sum_{e_{i, k} \in E} \hat{Y}_T^k (h)\|_1.
\label{equ:re}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Simulation under Unbiased Assumption}
We follow the data simulation mechanism developed in \citet{wickramasuriya2019optimal, ben2019regularized}, which satisfies the ideal unbiased base forecast and Gaussian error assumptions. The bottom level series were first generated through an ARIMA(p, d, q) process, where the coefficients are uniformly sampled from a predefined parameter space. The contemporaneous error covariance matrix is designed to introduce a positive error correlation among sibling series, while moderately positive correlation among others. We simulate a small and a large hierarchy with 4 and 160 bottom series, respectively. The bottom series are then aggregated to obtain the whole hierarchical time series in groups of two and four. For each series in the hierarchy, we generate 500 observations, and the final $h = 8, 16$ observations are used for evaluation for both the large and small hierarchies. We run the above simulation 100 times and report the average results. Table \ref{sim1_result} shows the average MAPE by fitting an ARIMA model followed by reconciliation on two simulation datasets. We can see that the MinT methods generally perform the best, particularly for MinT methods with shrinkage estimators. This confirms the statements from \citet{ben2019regularized, hyndman2011optimal} that under ideal unbiasedness assumption if the forecasting models are well specified, the MinT methods will provide the optimal solution. Simultaneously, the results of SHARQ are also satisfactory. In fact, it outperforms MinT methods at some levels.
\begin{table*}[h!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{Common Hyper-parameters for all experiments.}}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
& Train/Valid/Test & Epoch & Learning Rate & Batch Size & Window Size & Horizon \\ \hline
Quantile Simulation & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 300 & 1.00E-03 & 64 & 128 & 1 \\
Unbiased Simulation & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 100 & 1.00E-03 & 128 & 10 & 1-8 \\
Real-world Data & 0.6/0.2/0.2 & 1000 & 0.1 & 128 & 168 & 1-8 \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}}
\label{params}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Additional Results}
Table \ref{tab:mape_ftse} and \ref{tab:mape_wiki} show the MAPE results of FTSE and Wiki dataset. Moreover, table \ref{tab:lr} is the average likelihood ratio of each reconciliation method across four algorithms. The reported results are average across three random runs. We can see that SHARQ performs better overall in providing accurate probabilistic forecasts. Table \ref{time_comparison} compares the average training and inference time across all forecasting models. Overall, the training time of SHARQ and base forecast are roughly the same, but the inference time of SHARQ is ignorable relative to MinT, and ERM approaches. Since both these methods require matrix inversion to compute the weight matrix. Even if ERM could calculate the weight matrix on a separate validation set before inference, additional matrix computations are required to obtain the results.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.4}
\caption{\centering{Average likelihood ratio across forecasting horizons and models.}}
\vspace{.5em}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
Likelihood Ratio & Labour & M5 & FTSE & Wiki \\ \hline
BU & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.50 & 0.66 \\
Base & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.66 \\
MinT-sam & 0.36 & 0.47 & 0.50 & 0.66 \\
MinT-shr & 0.35 & 0.49 & 0.51 & 0.68 \\
MinT-ols & 0.34 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.66 \\
ERM & 0.35 & 0.48 & 0.51 & 0.67 \\
SHARQ & \textbf{0.07} & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.32} & \textbf{0.65} \\
\hlinewd{1.5pt}
\end{tabular}\hspace{5em}
\label{tab:lr}
\end{table}
\subsection{Forecasting Coherency}
Table \ref{recon} compares the forecasting coherency of each reconciliation method. We use the metric defined in (\ref{equ:re}) to compute the forecasting reconciliation error generated by previous experiments. As expected, the MinT and ERM approach give almost perfect coherent forecasts, as these methods can directly compute the close form of weight matrix $P$ to optimally combine the original forecasts. Even though MinT and ERM can give perfectly coherent forecasts, the accuracy can sometimes be worse than the base method, which coincides with Proposition 2 (Hard Constraint). Although SHARQ could not give the most coherent results, there is still a significant improvement compared to incoherent base forecasts. Note that this can be further improved by increasing the penalty of the regularization term.
\section{Hyper-parameter Configurations}
We present hyper-parameters for all the experiments mentioned above. Table \ref{params} lists the common hyper-parameters used on each experiment. Model-specific hyper-parameters are as follows.
\paragraph{Quantile Simulation Experiment}
We simulate 500 samples for both step function and sinusoidal function; the data is trained on a vanilla RNN model with hidden dimension 5, layer dimension 2, and \textit{tanh} nonlinearity. We used 10 ensembles of estimators for bagging, and each model is trained using random 64 samples.
\paragraph{LSTNet}
The number of CNN hidden units: 100; the number of RNN hidden units: 100; kernel size of the CNN layers: 6; window size of the highway component: 24; gradient clipping: 10; dropout: 0.2; skip connection: 24. Note that to enable LSTNet to produce multi-quantile forecast, we add the final layer of each quantile estimator after the fully connected layer of the original model. The same linear bypass then adds the obtained quantile estimators to produce the final results.
\paragraph{N-Beats}
We use the same parameter settings as shown in the public GitHub repository\footnote[6]{https://github.com/philipperemy/n-beats}.
\endinput
|
\section{Introduction}
In the development of adS/CFT correspondence \cite{Maldacena, Gubser:1998bc, Witten:1998qj},
a remarkable one is the Ryu-Takayanagi proposal for the holographic entanglement entropy \cite{RT2006}.
This is regarded as a natural extension of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for the black hole to general
cases based on the holographic aspect.
On the other hand, the braneworld model inspired by string theory also has the holographic feature \cite{bw, adscftbw}.
Therefore, it is natural to consider the holographic entanglement entropy in the braneworld context too.
Recent hybrid formulation of adS/CFT(or adS/BCFT \cite{adsbcft}) and braneworld, say Island formula, may be able to
offer the solution to the information loss paradox in black hole evapolation \cite{island}
(See also Refs \cite{myers2020a,myers2020b,myers2020c}).
In this sense, the braneworld setup contributes to understanding the quantum gravity.
In this paper, we revisit the holographic entanglement entropy of the deSitter braneworld (See Ref. \cite{emparan2006} for black hole).
In Ref. \cite{Iwashita}, the authors showed the exact agreement between the deSitter entropy computed from the
Eucliedan path integral \cite{gibbons-hawking} and the Ryu-Takayanagi formula for holographic entanglement entropy
(See also \cite{Hawking}). However, they also founds a disagreement between them in the braneworld model with the Gauss-Bonnet term.
This is not surprising result because
the Ryu-Tayakanagi formula should be improved for the higher derivative theories. Indeed,
motivated by the formula for the black hole entropy in the Lovelock gravity theory \cite{Jacobson},
the authors in Ref. \cite{Myers2011} proposed the new formula which has the correction terms to the Ryu-Takayanagi formula.
Then, our purpose is to confirm that the formula given in Ref. \cite{Myers2011} coincides with the deSitter entropy in
braneworld with the Gauss-Bonnet/Lovelock terms.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{SecGB}, we describe the braneworld model with the Gauss-Bonnet
term and deSitter brane in the $n$-dimensional anti-deSitter spacetime.
We give the detail of the calculation for
the deSitter entropy through the Euclidean path integral and the holographic entanglement entropy.
In Sect.~\ref{SecLL}, the analysis and results in the braneworld model with the Lovelock gravity are shown.
Finally, in Sect.~\ref{Secsum}, we give short summary.
\section{Braneworld with Gauss-Bonnet} \label{SecGB}
In this paper, we consider the $Z_2$-symmetric braneworld model in the anti-deSitter bulk.
The bulk Gauss-Bonnet term \cite{myers1987} is analysed first.
The system is composed of the $n$-dimensional bulk $(M_n^\pm, g_{MN})$ and the brane $(M_{n-1}, q_{\mu\nu})$
(Ref. \cite{Iwashita} focused on the $n=5$ case. Here, we consider any dimensions with $n \geq 5$). The action is
given by
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_n}\int_{M_n^+ \cup M_n^-} d^n x{\sqrt {-g}}\Bigl(R-2\Lambda+\frac{\beta \ell^2}{4}{\cal L}_{\rm GB} \Bigr) +
\int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1}x{\sqrt {-q}}\Bigl(-\sigma +\frac{1}{16\pi G_n}[Q]^- \Bigr),
\end{equation}
where $G_n$ is the $n$-dimensional Newton constant, $R$ is the $n$-dimensional Ricci scalar, $\Lambda$ is a negative cosmlogical constant,
$\ell$ is supposed to be the anti-deSitter curvature length and $\beta$ is a dimensionless constant.
Here, the Gauss-Bonnet Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\rm GB}$ is given as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{\rm GB}=R^2- 4R_{AB}R^{AB}+R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}
\end{equation}
and the gravitational surface term $Q$ is written in
\begin{equation}
Q=2K+\beta \ell^2 (J-2{}^{(n-1)}G_{\mu\nu}K^{\mu\nu}),
\end{equation}
where ${}^{(n-1)}G_{\mu\nu}$ is the $(n-1)$-dimensional Einstein tensor, $J$ is the trace of $J_{\mu\nu}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
J_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{3}(2K_{\mu\alpha}K_{\nu\beta}K^{\alpha\beta}-2KK_{\mu\alpha}K_\nu^\alpha
-K_{\mu\nu}K_{\alpha\beta}K^{\alpha\beta}+K^2K_{\mu\nu})
\end{equation}
and $K_{\mu\nu}$ is the extrinsic curvature of $M_{n-1}$ (whose the normal direction is taken to outward for $M_n^+$).
Supposing that the locus of the brane is $y=0$ in the Gaussian normal coordinate $(y, x^\mu)$ around the brane,
$[F]^-$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
[F]^-:=\lim_{y \to +0}F-\lim_{y \to -0}F.
\end{equation}
Then, the bulk field equation is
\begin{equation}
G_{MN}+\Lambda g_{MN}+\frac{\beta\ell^2}{2}H_{MN}=0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
H_{MN}=RR_{MN}-2R_{MK}R^K_N-2R^{KL}R_{MKNL}+R_{MKLP}R_N^{~KLP}-\frac{1}{4}g_{MN}{\cal L}_{\rm GB}.
\end{equation}
The junction condition is
\begin{equation}
[K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu K]^-+\frac{\beta \ell^2}{2}[3J^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu J-2P^\mu_{~\alpha\nu\beta}K^{\alpha\beta}]^-
=8\pi G_n \tau^\mu_\nu,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
P_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}={}^{(n-1)}R_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}-2{}^{(n-1)}R_{\mu [\nu}q_{\beta ]\alpha}
+2{}^{(n-1)}R_{\alpha [\nu}q_{\beta ]\mu}+{}^{(n-1)}Rq_{\mu [\nu}q_{\beta ]\alpha}
\end{equation}
and $\tau_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor on the brane. Since we focus on the vacuum brane, $\tau_{\mu\nu}=-\sigma q_{\mu\nu}$, where
$\sigma$ is the brane tension.
Hereafter we consider the deSitter brane in the $n$-dimensional anti-deSitter spacetime (${\rm adS}_n$)
which is the solution to the current model. The bulk metric is given by \cite{Spradlin}
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 & = & dr^2+(\ell H)^2 \sinh^2 (r/\ell)[-dt^2+H^{-2}\cosh^2 (Ht)d \Omega_{n-2}^2] \nonumber \\
& = & dr^2+(\ell H)^2 \sinh^2(r/\ell) [-(1-H^2\rho^2)dT^2+(1-H^2\rho^2)^{-1}d\rho^2+\rho^2d \Omega_{n-3}^2 ],\label{dsbw}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ell$ is the curvature length of ${\rm adS}_n$ and $H$ is the Hubble constant on the brane. Then,
supposing that the brane is located at $r=r_0$, we see
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{-1}=\ell \sinh (r_0/\ell).
\end{eqnarray}
The bulk field equation and junction condition imply us
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda=-\frac{(n-1)(n-2) }{2 \ell^2} \left(1 - \beta\frac{(n-3)(n-4)}{4} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{(n-2)}{\ell}\cosh (r_0/\ell)\left[1-\beta \frac{(n-3)(n-4)}{6} \left( 1 -\frac{2}{\sinh^2(r_0/\ell)} \right) \right]
=4\pi G_n \sigma,
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
\subsection{deSitter entropy with Gauss-Bonnet}
In this subsection, we will give the deSitter entropy in the braneworld with the Gauss-Bonnet term.
One can compute the deSitter entropy through the Euclidean action
\begin{eqnarray}
I_E & = & \frac{1}{16\pi G_n} \int_{M^+_n \cup M^-_n}d^nx{\sqrt {g}}\Bigl(2\Lambda-R-\frac{\beta \ell^2}{4}{\cal L}_{\rm GB} \Bigr)
+\int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1} x{\sqrt {q}}\Bigl(\sigma-\frac{[Q]^-}{16\pi G_n} \Bigr) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{(n-1) [2-\beta(n-2)(n-3)]}{ 16 \pi G_n \ell^2} \int_{M^+_n \cup M^-_n}d^nx{\sqrt {g}} \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{10mm}
-\frac{\coth (r_0/\ell)}{8 \pi G_n \ell} \left[2-\beta(n-2)(n-3) \left( 1-\frac{2}{\sinh^2 (r_0/\ell)} \right) \right]\int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1}x{\sqrt {q}} \nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{(n-2) \ell^{n-2}}{ 4 \pi G_n } \Omega_{n-1} \Biggl(
\left[1-\beta\frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{2}\right] \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx \sinh^{n-3}x \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{45mm}
+ \beta (n-3) \sinh^{n-4} (r_0/\ell) \cosh (r_0/\ell) \Biggr),
\end{eqnarray}
where we used
\begin{eqnarray}
[Q]^-= \frac{4(n-1)}{\ell}\coth (r_0/\ell) \left[1-\beta \frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{6} \left(1 -\frac{2}{\sinh^2 (r_0/\ell)} \right) \right].
\end{eqnarray}
and $\Omega_{n-1}$ is the surface area of the $n$ dimensional unit sphere,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{n-1} = \frac{2 \pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma (n/2)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we see that the deSitter entropy in the braneworld with the Gauss-Bonnet term is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm dS}
& = & -I_E\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{(n-2) \ell^{n-2}}{ 4 \pi G_n } \Omega_{n-1} \Biggl( \left[1-\beta\frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{2}\right] \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx \sinh^{n-3}x
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{45mm}
+ \beta (n-3) \sinh^{n-4} (r_0/\ell) \cosh (r_0/\ell) \Biggr).\label{dSentropy}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Holographic entanglement entropy with Gauss-Bonnet}
For the current setup, following Ref. \cite{Jacobson}, we consider
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm JM}=\frac{1}{4G_n}\int_{\Gamma^+ \cup \Gamma^-} d^{n-2}x {\sqrt {h}}\Bigl(1+\frac{\beta \ell^2}{2}{}^{(n-2)}R \Bigr)
+\frac{1}{2G_n}\int_{\partial \Gamma}d^{n-3}x{\sqrt {p}}\frac{\beta\ell^2}{2}[{}^{(n-3)}k]^-, \label{area2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_{ij}$ is the induced metric of $(n-2)$-dimensional surface $\Gamma^\pm$ with $\partial \Gamma^+=\partial \Gamma^-=:\partial \Gamma$,
${}^{(n-2)}R$ is the Ricci scalar of $h_{ij}$, $p_{AB}$ is the induced metric of $\partial \Gamma$ and ${}^{(n-3)}k$ is
the extrinsic curvature of $\partial \Gamma$.
We suppose $\Gamma^+ \subset M_n^+$, $\Gamma^- \subset M_n^-$ and $\partial \Gamma \subset M_{n-1}$
in the braneworld setup. When $\beta=0$, Eq. (\ref{area2}) becomes to be proportional to the volume of $\Gamma^+ \cup \Gamma^-$.
Then, one takes the variation of $\Gamma$ for $S_{\rm JM}$ and the minimum value gives us the holographic entanglement entropy.
From the variation, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
{}^{(n-2)}k-\beta \ell^2 {}^{(n-2)}G_{ij}{}^{(n-2)}k^{ij}=0 \label{variation}
\end{eqnarray}
in the bulk and
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta \left[{}^{(n-3)}k^{AB} - {}^{(n-3)}k p^{AB} \right]^- {}^{(n-2)}k_{AB} =0 \label{variation2}
\end{eqnarray}
on the brane,
where ${}^{(n-2)}k_{ij}$ and ${}^{(n-3)}k_{AB}$ are the extrinsic curvatures of $\Gamma$ and of $\partial \Gamma$ in $\Gamma$.
These equations determine the geometry of $\Gamma$. When $\beta=0$, Eq. (\ref{variation}) becomes ${}^{(n-2)}k=0$ and
Eq. (\ref{variation2}) becomes trivial.
For the deSitter braneworld, it is easy to see that the 3-surface $\Gamma_\ast$ with $T=$const. and $\rho=H^{-1}$ in Eq. (\ref{dsbw})
satisfies Eq. (\ref{variation}). This is because $\Gamma_\ast$ is the hyperboloid with the curvature length $\ell$, that is,
the induced metric is $h=dr^2+\ell^2 \sinh^2(r/\ell)d\Omega_{n-3}^2$, and then
Eq. (\ref{dsbw}) implies $[1-\beta(n-3)(n-4)/2]{}^{(n-2)}k$=0. In Ref. \cite{Iwashita},
it was shown that $\Gamma_\ast$ satisfies Eq. (\ref{variation}).
Moreover, since ${}^{(n-2)}k_{ij } =0$ is satisfied on $\Gamma_\ast$, we also see that Eq. (\ref{variation2}) is trivially satisfied.
Since ${}^{(n-2)}R=-(n-2)(n-3)/\ell^2$, ${}^{(n-3)}k=[(n-3)/\ell]\coth (r_0/\ell)$, the holographic entanglement entropy is computed as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm JM}& = & \frac{1}{4G_n} \left(1-\beta\frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{2} \right) \int_{\Gamma_\ast}d^{n-2}x{\sqrt {h}}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{10mm}
+\frac{\beta \ell (n-3)}{2 G_n}\coth(r_0/\ell) \int_{\partial \Gamma_\ast} d^{n-3}x{\sqrt {p}}
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\ell^{n-2}}{2G_n} \Omega_{n-3} \Biggl(
\left[1-\beta\frac{(n-2)(n-3)}{2} \right] \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dr \sinh^{n-3}x
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{30mm}
+\beta (n-3) \sinh^{n-4}(r_0/\ell) \cosh(r_0/\ell)
\Biggr) , \label{EE}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega_{n-3}$ is the surface area of the $(n-2)$ dimensional unit sphere.
Since $\Omega_{n-3}$ is expressed with $\Omega_{n-1}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{n-3} = \Omega_{n-1} \frac{(n-2)}{2\pi} \label{Omegatrans}
\end{eqnarray}
we can find that
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm dS}=S_{\rm JM}
\end{eqnarray}
holds exactly!
\section{Braneworld with Lovelock}\label{SecLL}
We will consider more generic setting, the braneworld model with the Lovelock terms.
The analysis can be proceeded in the same way as in the case with the Gauss-Bonnet term.
We follow the definitions of geometrical quantities and objects given in the previous section.
The action with boundary is given in Ref.~\cite{myers1987},
\begin{eqnarray}
S & = & \frac{1}{16\pi G_n} \int_{M^+_n \cup M^-_n}d^nx {\sqrt {-g}}\Bigl(-2\Lambda + \sum_m c_m {\cal L}_{m} \Bigr)
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{40mm} +\int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1} x{\sqrt {-q}}\Bigl(-\sigma+ \sum_m c_m \frac{[Q_m]^-}{16\pi G_n} \Bigr),
\label{LLaction}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_m$'s are coefficients of Lovelock terms,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{m}
& = &\frac{ 1}{2^m} g^{K_1L_1\ldots K_m L_m}_{M_1 N_1 \ldots M_m N_m} R_{K_1L_1}{}^{M_1N_1} \ldots R_{K_mL_m}{}^{M_m N_m}, \\
Q_m
& = & \frac{4 m}{2^m} \int_0^1 ds\, q^{\alpha_1 \beta_1 \ldots \alpha_{m-1} \beta_{m-1} \alpha_m}_{\mu_1 \nu_1\ldots \mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}\mu_m}
\left( {}^{(n-1)}R_{\alpha_1\beta_1}{}^{\mu_1\nu_1} -2s^2 K^{\mu_1}_{\alpha_1} K^{\nu_1}_{\beta_1} \right)
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{40mm}
\ldots \left({}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{m-1}\beta_{m-1}}{}^{\mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}} -2s^2 K^{\mu_{m-1}}_{\alpha_{m-1}} K^{\nu_{m-1}}_{\beta_{m-1}} \right)
K^{\mu_m}_{\alpha_m}
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{ 4m}{2^m} \, q^{\alpha_1 \beta_1 \ldots \alpha_{m-1} \beta_{m-1} \alpha_m}_{\mu_1 \nu_1\ldots \mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}\mu_m}
\sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \binom{m-1}{k} \frac{(-2)^k}{2k+1} K^{\mu_1}_{\alpha_1} K^{\nu_1}_{\beta_1} \ldots K^{\mu_k}_{\alpha_k} K^{\nu_k}_{\beta_k}K^{\mu_m}_{\alpha_m}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{45mm}
{}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{k+1}\beta_{k+1}}{}^{\mu_{k+1}\nu_{k+1}} \ldots {}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{m-1}\beta_{m-1}}{}^{\mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}} ,
\nonumber \\\end{eqnarray}
and $\binom{m-1}{k}$ is the binomial coefficients.
The tensors $ g^{K_1L_1\ldots K_m L_m}_{M_1 N_1 \ldots M_m N_m}$ and $q^{\alpha_1 \beta_1 \ldots \alpha_{m-1} \beta_{m-1} \alpha_m}_{\mu_1 \nu_1\ldots \mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}\mu_m} $ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g^{K_1L_1\ldots K_m L_m}_{M_1 N_1 \ldots M_m N_m}
:=
(2m)! \, \delta^{K_1}_{[M_1} \delta^{L_1}_{N_1}\ldots \delta^{K_m}_{M_m} \delta^{L_m}_{N_m]} ,\\
&&q^{\alpha_1 \beta_1 \ldots \alpha_{m-1} \beta_{m-1} \alpha_m}_{\mu_1 \nu_1\ldots \mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}\mu_m}
:=
(2m-1)! \, q^{\alpha_1}_{[\mu_1} q^{\beta_1}_{\nu_1}\ldots q^{\alpha_{m-1}}_{\mu_{m-1}} q^{\beta_{m-1}}_{\nu_{m-1}} q^{\alpha_m}_{\mu_m]} .
\end{eqnarray}
The brackets $[M_1 \ldots N_m]$ in index indicate antisymmetrization, for instance, $T_{[MN]} = (1/2!) (T_{MN} - T_{NM}) $.
The sum in Eq. (\ref{LLaction}) is taken from $m=0$ to $[n/2]$, where $[...]$ is the floor function.
The equation of motion and the junction condition are obtained by taking the variation of Eq. (\ref{LLaction}).
The equation of motion becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda g_{MN} +\sum_m c_m E^{(m)}_{MN}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(m)}_{MN} = \frac{ m}{2^m} \, g^{K_1L_1\ldots K_m L_m}_{M_1 N_1 \ldots M_m N_m} g_{K_1 M} R_{N L_1}{}^{M_1N_1}
R_{K_2L_2}{}^{M_2 N_2} \ldots R_{K_mL_m}{}^{M_m N_m}
-\frac12 {\cal L}_{m} g_{MN} .
\end{eqnarray}
This gives us
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda = \frac{1}{2n} \sum_m c_m (n-2m) {\cal L}_{m}. \label{L-LL}
\end{eqnarray}
The junction condition is
\begin{eqnarray}
16 \pi G_n \sigma q_{\mu\nu} + \sum_m c_m [J^{(m)}_{\mu\nu} ]^- =0,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&J^{(m)}_{\mu\nu} = \frac{4m}{2^m}
q^{\alpha_1 \beta_1 \ldots \alpha_{m-1} \beta_{m-1} \alpha_m}_{\mu_1 \nu_1\ldots \mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}\mu_m}
\sum_{k=0}^{m-1} \binom{m-1}{k} \frac{(-2)^k}{2k+1}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5mm}
\times \Biggl( (2k+1)
K^{\mu_1}_{\alpha_1} K^{\nu_1}_{\beta_1} \ldots K^{\mu_k}_{\alpha_k} K^{\nu_k}_{\beta_k}K^{\mu_m}_{\mu} q_{\alpha_m \nu}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{40mm}
\times {}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{k+1}\beta_{k+1}}{}^{\mu_{k+1}\nu_{k+1}} \ldots {}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{m-1}\beta_{m-1}}{}^{\mu_{m-1} \nu_{m-1}}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{10mm}
+
2 (m-k-1)
K^{\mu_1}_{\alpha_1} K^{\nu_1}_{\beta_1} \ldots K^{\mu_k}_{\alpha_k} K^{\nu_k}_{\beta_k}K^{\mu_m}_{\alpha_m}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{10mm}
\times {}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{k+1}\beta_{k+1}}{}^{\mu_{k+1}\nu_{k+1}} \ldots {}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{m-2}\beta_{m-2}}{}^{\mu_{m-2} \nu_{m-2}}
{}^{(n-1)} R_{\alpha_{m-1}\beta_{m-1}}{}^{\mu_{m-1}}{}_\mu\, q_{\nu}^{\nu_{m-1}}
\Biggr)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{15mm}
- Q_m q_{\mu\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the brane tension is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
16 \pi G_n \sigma = \sum_m c_m \frac{n-2m}{n-1} [Q_m]^-. \label{J-LL}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{deSitter entropy with Lovelock}
Let us calculate the deSitter entropy through the Euclidean action.
Substituting Eqs. (\ref{L-LL}) and (\ref{J-LL}) to the Euclidean action, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
I_E & = & \frac{1}{16\pi G_n} \int_{M^+_n \cup M^-_n}d^nx{\sqrt {g}}\Bigl(2\Lambda- \sum_m c_m {\cal L}_{m} \Bigr)
+\int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1} x{\sqrt {q}}\Bigl(\sigma- \sum_m c_m \frac{[Q_m]^-}{16\pi G_n} \Bigr) \nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{8\pi G_n} \int_{M^+_n \cup M^-_n}d^nx{\sqrt {g}} \sum_m c_m \frac{m}{n} {\cal L}_{m}
- \frac{1}{16\pi G_n} \int_{M_{n-1}}d^{n-1} x{\sqrt {q}} \sum_m c_m \frac{2m-1}{n-1} [Q_m]^- .
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Since the Riemann curvature of bulk is
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{KLMN} = -\ell^{-2} (g_{KM}g_{LN}-g_{KN}g_{LM}),
\end{eqnarray}
${\cal L}_{m}$ is calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{m} = (-1)^m \frac{n!}{(n-2m)!} \ell^{-2m}. \label{Lm}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, the Riemann curvature and the extrinsic curvature of the brane are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{}^{(n-1)}R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} = \ell^{-2} \sinh^{-2} (r_0/\ell) (q_{\alpha\mu}q_{\beta\nu}-q_{\alpha\nu}q_{\beta\mu}) , \\
&&K_{\mu\nu}= \ell^{-1} \coth(r_0/\ell) q_{\mu\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{m} = 2m \frac{(n-1)!}{(n-2m)!} \ell^{-2m+1} \frac{\cosh(r_0/\ell)}{\sinh^{2m-1}(r_0/\ell)}
\int_0^1 ds \left(1- s^2 \cosh ^2(r_0/\ell) \right)^{m-1}. \label{Qm}
\end{eqnarray}
With Eqs. (\ref{Lm}) and (\ref{Qm}), the deSitter entropy $S_{\rm dS}=-I_E$ is calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm dS}
& = & \frac{\Omega_{n-1}}{4\pi G_n} \sum_m m c_m \ell^{n-2m} \frac{(n-2)!}{(n-2m)!} \Biggl( (-1)^m
(n-1) \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx \sinh^{n-1} x
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2mm}
+ (2m-1) \cosh(r_0/\ell) \sinh^{n-2m} (r_0/\ell)
\int_0^1 ds \left(1- s^2 \cosh ^2(r_0/\ell) \right)^{m-1} \Biggr).
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Holographic entanglement entropy with Lovelock}
The holographic entanglement entropy is also given in Ref.~\cite{Jacobson}. Then, as subSect. 2.2, we first consider
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm JM}= \frac{1}{4G_n}\int_{\Gamma^+ \cup \Gamma^-} d^{n-2}x {\sqrt {h}}
\sum_m c_m \tilde {\cal L}_{m}
+\frac{1}{4G_n}\int_{\partial \Gamma}d^{n-3}x
{\sqrt {p}} \sum_m c_m [ \tilde Q_m]^-,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde {\cal L}_{m}
& = &\frac{ m }{2^{m-1}} h^{i_1j_1\ldots i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}_{k_1 l_1 \ldots k_{m-1} l_{m-1}} {}^{(n-2)}R_{i_1j_1}{}^{k_1l_1} \ldots {}^{(n-2)} R_{i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}{}^{k_{m-1} l_{m-1}}, \\
\tilde Q_m
& = & \frac{4 m(m-1)}{2^{m-1}} \int_0^1 ds\, p^{A_1 B_1 \ldots A_{m-2} B_{m-2} A_{m-1}}_{C_1 D_1\ldots C_{m-2} D_{m-2}C_{m-1}}
\left( {}^{(n-3)}R_{A_1B_1}{}^{C_1D_1} -2s^2 {}^{(n-3)}k^{C_1}_{A_1} {}^{(n-3)}k^{D_1}_{B_1} \right)
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{8mm}
\ldots \left({}^{(n-2)} R_{A_{m-2} B_{m-2}}{}^{C_{m-2} D_{m-2}} -2s^2 {}^{(n-3)}k^{C_{m-2}}_{A_{m-2}} {}^{(n-3)}k^{D_{m-2}}_{B_{m-2}} \right)
{}^{(n-3)}k^{C_{m-1}}_{A_{m-1}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here,
$ h^{i_1j_1\ldots i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}_{k_1 l_1 \ldots k_{m-1} l_{m-1}}$ and $p^{A_1 B_1 \ldots A_{m-2} B_{m-2} A_{m-1}}_{C_1 D_1\ldots C_{m-2} D_{m-2}C_{m-1}} $ are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& h^{i_1j_1\ldots i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}_{k_1 l_1 \ldots k_{m-1} l_{m-1}}
:=
(2m-2)! \, h^{i_1}_{[k_1} h^{j_1}_{l_1}\ldots h^{i_{m-1}}_{k_{m-1}} h^{j_{m-1}}_{l_{m-1}]} ,\\
&&p^{A_1 B_1 \ldots A_{m-2} B_{m-2} A_{m-1}}_{C_1 D_1\ldots C_{m-2} D_{m-2}C_{m-1}}
:=
(2m-3)! \, p^{A_1}_{[C_1} p^{B_1}_{D_1}\ldots p^{A_{m-2}}_{C_{m-2}} q^{B_{m-2}}_{D_{m-2}} q^{A_{m-1}}_{C_{m-1}]} .
\end{eqnarray}
Then the minimum value of $S_{\rm JM}$ for the variation of $\Gamma$ gives us the holographic entanglement entropy which is evaluated on a surface satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_m c_m \tilde E^{(m)}_{ij} {}^{(n-2)}k^{ij} =0 \label{variation3}
\end{eqnarray}
in the bulk and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_m c_m [\tilde J^{(m)}_{AB} ]^- {}^{(n-2)}k^{AB} =0 \label{variation4}
\end{eqnarray}
on the brane,
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\!\!\!
\tilde E^{(m)}_{ij} = \frac{ m}{2^{m-1}} \, h^{i_1j_1\ldots i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}_{k_1 l_1 \ldots k_{m-1} l_{m-1}} g_{i_1 i} R_{j j_1}{}^{k_1l_1} R_{i_2 j_2}{}^{k_2 l_2}\ldots R_{i_{m-1} j_{m-1}}{}^{k_{m-1} l_{m-1}}
-\frac12 \tilde {\cal L}_{m} h_{ij} ,\\
&&\!\!\!
\tilde J^{(m)}_{AB} = \frac{4m(m-1)}{2^{m-1}}
p^{A_1 B_1 \ldots A_{m-2} B_{m-2} A_{m-1}}_{C_1 D_1\ldots C_{m-2} D_{m-2} C_{m-1}}
\sum_{l=0}^{m-2} \binom{m-2}{l} \frac{(-2)^l}{2l+1}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{5mm}
\times \Biggl( (2l+1)
{}^{(n-3)} k^{C_1}_{A_1} {}^{(n-3)} k^{D_1}_{B_1} \ldots {}^{(n-3)} k^{C_l}_{A_l } {}^{(n-3)} k^{D_l}_{B_l} {}^{(n-3)} k^{C_{m-1}}_{A} p_{A_{m-1} B}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{40mm}
\times {}^{(n-3)} R_{A_{l+1}B_{l+1}}{}^{C_{l+1}D_{l+1}} \ldots {}^{(n-3)} R_{A_{m-2}B_{m-2}}{}^{C_{m-2} D_{m-2}}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{8mm}
+
2 (m-l-2)
k^{C_1}_{A_1} k^{D_1}_{B_1} \ldots k^{C_l}_{A_l} k^{D_l}_{B_l} k^{C_{m-1}}_{A_{m-1}}
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{8mm}
\times {}^{(n-3)} R_{A_{l+1}B_{l+1}}{}^{C_{l+1}D_{l+1}} \ldots {}^{(n-3)} R_{A_{m-3}B_{m-3}}{}^{C_{m-3} D_{m-3}}
{}^{(n-3)} R_{A_{m-2}B_{m-2}}{}^{C_{m-2}}{}_{A}\, p_{B}^{D_{m-2}}
\Biggr)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{15mm}
- \tilde Q_m p_{AB}.
\end{eqnarray}
As is the case in Sect.~\ref{SecGB},
on $T=$const. hypersurface, $\rho = H^{-1}$, which is a minimal surface ${}^{(n-2)}k =0$, satisfies Eqs. (\ref{variation3}) and
(\ref{variation4}). On this surface, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde {\cal L}_{m}
& = & m \frac{(n-2)!}{(n-2m)!} (-1)^{m-1} \ell^{-2m+2}, \\
\tilde Q_m
& = & 2 m(m-1) \frac{(n-3)!}{(n-2m)!} \ell^{-2m+3} \sinh^{-2m+3}(r_0/\ell) \cosh(r_0/\ell)
\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{30mm}
\times \int_0^1 ds \bigl(1-s^2 \cosh^2 (r_0/\ell)\bigr)^{m-2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the holographic entanglement entropy is calculated in
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm JM}
&=&
\frac{\Omega_{n-3}}{2G_n}
\sum_m m c_m \frac{(n-3)!}{(n-2m)!} \ell^{n-2m} \Biggl((-1)^{m-1} (n-2) \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx \, \sinh^{n-3}x
\nonumber \\
&&
+2(m-1) \sinh^{n-2m}(r_0/\ell) \cosh(r_0/\ell)
\int_0^1 ds \bigl(1-s^2 \cosh^2 (r_0/\ell)\bigr)^{m-2} \Biggr)
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\Omega_{n-1}}{4\pi G_n} \sum_m m c_m \ell^{n-2m} \frac{(n-2)!}{(n-2m)!} \Biggl( (-1)^m
(n-1) \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx \sinh^{n-1} x
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2mm}
+ (2m-1) \cosh(r_0/\ell) \sinh^{n-2m} (r_0/\ell)
\int_0^1 ds \left(1- s^2 \cosh ^2(r_0/\ell) \right)^{m-1} \Biggr) .
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where, in the second equality, we used Eq. (\ref{Omegatrans}) and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(n-2) \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx\, \sinh^{n-3} x
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{10mm}
= -(n-1) \int_0^{r_0/\ell} dx\, \sinh^{n-1} x +
\sinh^{n-2} (r_0/\ell) \cosh (r_0/\ell), \\
&&2(m-1) \int_0^1 ds \bigl( 1- s^2 \cosh^2 (r_0/\ell)\bigr)^{m-2}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{10mm}
=(-1)^m \sinh^{2m-2}(r_0/\ell) + (2m-1) \int_0^1 ds \bigl( 1- s^2 \cosh^2 (r_0/\ell)\bigr)^{m-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
As a summary, we can see that
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm JM} = S_{\rm dS}
\end{eqnarray}
holds exactly in the braneworld with Lovelock terms.
\section{Summary}\label{Secsum}
In this paper, we revisited the comparison between the holographic entanglement entropy and deSitter entropy
in the braneworld model with higher-curvature corrections, that is, the Gauss-Bonnet/Lovelock terms.
Employing the Jacobson-Myers formula for the
holographic entanglement entropy, we could show the exact agreement of both. These results may encourage to have
the general formulation for holographic entanglement entropy in the braneworld context.
\ack
T. S. and K. I. are supported by Grant-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education,
Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (No. 17H01091).
K.\,I. is also supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (20H01902).
We thank Tadashi Takayanagi for useful discussion.
|
\section{Introduction}
The perspective in computer real-time graphics hasn't changed since the dawn of CGI. It is based on a concept as old as the fifteenth century Renaissance, a linear projection \cite{Alberti1970OnPaining,Argan1946BrunelleschiPerspective,McArdle2013VisualSphereEuclid}. This situation is similar to the beginnings of photography, where only one type of lens was widely used, an A.D. 1866 \emph{Rapid Rectilinear} \cite{Kingslake1989RapidRectilinearLens} lens. Linear perspective even at the time of its advent, 500 years ago, has been criticized for distorting proportions \cite{DaVinci1632TeatriseOnPainting}. In a phenomenon known today as \emph{Leonardo's paradox} \cite{Dixon1987Paradox}, in which figures further away but at the periphery appear larger, than those located near the optical center. Computer graphics really skipped the artistic achievements of the last five centuries in regard to perspective. This includes the cylindrical perspective of Pannini \cite{Sharpless2010Panini}, Barker \cite{Wikipedia2019BarkerPanorama} and anamorphic lenses used in cinematography \cite{Sasaki2017_5PilarsOfAnamorphic,Sasaki2017Anamorphic,Giardina2016AnamorphicUltra70,Neil2004CineLens}. The situation is even more critical, as there is no mathematical model for generating anamorphic projection in an artistically-convincing manner \cite{Yuan2009AnamorphicLens}.
Some attempts were made at alternative projections for computer graphics, with fixed cylindrical or spherical geometry \cite{Sharpless2010Panini,Baldwin2014PerspectiveComparisonTests}. A parametrized perspective model was also proposed as a new standard \cite{Correia2007ExtendedPerspectiveSystem}, but wasn't adopted. It included interpolation states in between rectilinear/equidistant and spherical/cylindrical projection. The cylindrical parametrization of this solution was merely an interpolation factor, where intermediate values did not correspond to any common projection type. Therefore it was not suited for artistic or professional use.
The notion of sphere as a projective surface, which incorporates cartographic mapping to produce a perspective picture became popularized \cite{Penaranda2015SphereInterpolation,German2007PanoramaOnFlatSurface,Williams2015QuakeBlinky}. Also, perspective parametrization that transitions according to the content (by the view-tilt angle) has been developed, as a modification to the computer game Minecraft \cite{Williams2017Minecraft}. But the results of these solutions were more a gimmick and have not found practical use. The linear perspective projection is still the way-to-go for most digital content. One of the reasons is the GPU fixed-function architecture in regard to rasterization. With the advent of real-time ray-tracing, more exotic projections could become widely adopted.
This paper aims to provide a perspective model with mathematical parametrization that gives artistic-style interaction with image-geometry. It is a parametrization that works similarly to the way film directors choose lenses for each scene by their aesthetics \cite{Giardina2016AnamorphicUltra70,Sasaki2017Anamorphic,Neil2004CineLens}, but with a greater degree of control.
It also provides a psycho-physiological correlation between perspective model parameters and the perception of depicted space attributes, like distance, size, proportions, shape or speed. That mapping enables the use of the presented model in a professional environment, where image geometry is specifically suited for a task \cite{Whittaker1984StereographicCrystal}.
The presented perspective model is named \emph{pantomorphic} (G. \emph{panto-}, all \emph{+morph\=e}, shape; assuming all shapes).
\subsection[Naming convention]{Document naming convention}
This document uses the following naming convention:
\begin{itemize}
\item Left-handed coordinate system.
\item Vectors presented natively in column.
\item Matrix vectors arranged in rows (row-major order) $M_{\text{row}\,\text{col}}$.
\item Matrix-matrix multiplication by $[\text{column}]_a\cdot[\text{row}]_b=M_{a\,b}$.
\item A single bar enclosure ``$|u|$'' represents vector length or scalar absolute.
\item Vectors with an arithmetic sign, or without, are calculated component-wise and form another vector.
\item Centered dot ``$\cdot$'' represents the vector dot product.
\item Square brackets with a comma ``$[f,c]$'' denote interval.
\item Square brackets with blanks ``$[x\ y]$'' denote vector and matrix.
\item The power of ``$^{-1}$'' signifies the reciprocal of the value.
\item QED symbol ``$\square$'' marks the final result or output.
\end{itemize}
This naming convention simplifies the transformation process of formulas into code.
\section[Primary-ray map]{Anamorphic primary-ray map}
\label{sec:primary-ray map}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2in}
\includegraphics{fig3_circular_distribution}
\caption{Graph mapping angle $\varphi$, to anamorphic interpolation weights $\vec\varphi_x$ and $\vec\varphi_y$. Illustrates circular distribution of $\vec\varphi$, in a periodic function.}
\label{fig:circular distribution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2in}
\includegraphics{fig8_philerp_to_r}
\caption{Radial graph, mapping anamorphic interpolation weights $\vec\varphi_x$ and $\vec\varphi_y$ (as radius $r$), to angle $\varphi$ in radians. Such that $\vec\varphi_x+\vec\varphi_y=1$.}
\label{fig:philerp to r}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2in}
\includegraphics{fig2_philerp_distribution}
\caption{Radial graph illustrating anamorphic interpolation vector $\vec\varphi\in[0,1]^2$. Here colors \emph{red}, \emph{green}, \emph{blue} represent contribution of $\vec k_x$, $\vec k_y$ and $\vec k_z$ respectively.}
\label{fig:philerp distribution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustrating correlation between the anamorphic interpolation weights $\vec\varphi_x$, $\vec\varphi_y$ and the spherical angle $\varphi$.}
\label{fig:phi correlation}
\end{figure*}
If we assume that projective visual space is spherical \cite{McArdle2013VisualSphereEuclid,Fleck1994FisheyeEquations}, one can define perspective picture as an array of rays pointing to the visual sphere surface. This is how \emph{the algorithm} described below will output \emph{a projection-map} (aka \emph{perspective-map}). Perspective map is an array of three-dimensional rays, which are assigned to each screen-pixel. Visual sphere as the image model enables a wider angle of view, beyond 180\degree-limit of planar projection. Ray-map can be easily converted to cube-$UV$-map, $ST$-map and other screen distortion formats.
Here, the procedural algorithm for primary-ray map (aka perspective map) uses two input values from the user: distortion parameter for two power axes and \emph{focal-length} or \emph{angle-of-view} (aka FOV). Two distinct power axes define the anamorphic projection type. Each axis is expressed by the azimuthal projection factor $k$ \cite{Krause2019PTGuiFisheye_k-factor,Bettonvil2005FisheyeEquations,Fleck1994FisheyeEquations}. Both power axes share the same focal-length $f$.
Evaluation of each power-axis produces spherical angles $\vec\theta_x$ and $\vec\theta_y$, which are then combined to anamorphic azimuthal-projection angle $\theta'$. Interpolation of $\theta$ is done through anamorphic weights $\vec\varphi_x$ and $\vec\varphi_y$. Weights are derived from spherical angle $\varphi$, of the azimuthal projection. To note, calculation of $\varphi$ is omitted here, by using view-coordinates $\vec v$-optimization.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:double spherical theta}
\begin{align}
r &= |\vec v| = \sqrt{\vec v^2_x+\vec v^2_y}
\\
\vec\theta_x &=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\atan\big( \frac{r}{f}\vec k_x \big)}{k_x}, & \text{if }\vec k_x>0 \\
\frac{r}{f}, & \text{if }\vec k_x=0 \\
\frac{\asin\big( \frac{r}{f}\vec k_x \big)}{k_x}, & \text{if }\vec k_x<0 \\
\end{cases}
\\
\vec\theta_y &=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\atan\big( \frac{r}{f}\vec k_y \big)}{k_y}, & \text{if }\vec k_y>0 \\
\frac{r}{f}, & \text{if }\vec k_y=0 \\
\frac{\asin\big( \frac{r}{f}\vec k_y \big)}{k_y}, & \text{if }\vec k_y<0 \\
\end{cases}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\varphi_x \\
\vec\varphi_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\vec v^2_x}{\vec v^2_x+\vec v^2_y} \smallskip\\
\frac{\vec v^2_y}{\vec v^2_x+\vec v^2_y}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos^2\varphi \\
\sin^2\varphi
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\cos(2\varphi)}{2} \smallskip\\
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\cos(2\varphi)}{2}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $r\in\real_{>0}$ is the view-coordinate radius (magnitude). Vector $\vec\theta\in[0,\pi]^2$ contains incident angles (measured from the optical axis) of two azimuthal projections. Vector $\vec\varphi\in[0,1]^2$ is the anamorphic interpolation weight, which is linear $\vec\varphi_x+\vec\varphi_y=1$, but has spherical distribution (see Figure \vref{fig:phi correlation}). Vector $\vec k\in[-1,1]^2$ (also $[-1,1]^3$ in subsection \ref{sec:asymmetry} variant) describes two power axes of anamorphic projection.
The algorithm is evaluated per-pixel of position $\vec v\in\real^2$ in view-space coordinates, centered at the optical axis and normalized at the chosen angle-of-view (horizontal or vertical).
The final anamorphic incident angle $\theta'$ is obtained by interpolation, using $\vec\varphi$ weights.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:incident vector}
\begin{align}
\theta'
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\theta_x \\
\vec\theta_y
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\varphi_x \\
\vec\varphi_y
\end{bmatrix}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat G_x \\
\hat G_y \\
\hat G_z
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\sin\theta'}{r}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec v_x \\
\vec v_y
\end{bmatrix} \\
\cos\theta'
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\sin\theta'
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos\varphi \\
\sin\varphi
\end{bmatrix} \\
\cos\theta'
\end{bmatrix}, \qed
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
here $\theta'\in(0,\pi]$ is the anamorphic incident angle, measured from the optical axis. This measurement resembles azimuthal projection of the globe (here a visual sphere) \cite{McArdle2013VisualSphereEuclid}.
The final incident vector $\hat G\in[-1,1]^3$ (aka primary-ray) is obtained from the anamorphic angle $\theta'$.
Parameters $r,\vec v,\vec\varphi$ are in view-space, while $\vec\theta,\theta',\varphi,\hat G$ are in visual-sphere space.
Essentially the anamorphic primary-ray map preserves the azimuthal angle $\varphi$, while modulating only the picture's radius.
\subsection[Focal length and AOV]{Focal length and angle-of-view}
To give more control over the picture, a mapping between angle-of-view $\Omega$ and focal-length $f$ can be established. Here, focal-length is derived in a reciprocal from, to optimize usage in Equation \eqref{eq:double spherical theta}.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:focal length}
f^{-1}\big(\Omega_h\big) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\tan\big( \frac{\Omega_h}{2}\vec k_x \big)}{\vec k_x}, & \text{if }\vec k_x>0 \\
\frac{\Omega_h}{2}, & \text{if }\vec k_x=0 \\
\frac{\sin\big( \frac{\Omega_h}{2}\vec k_x \big)}{\vec k_x}, & \text{if }\vec k_x<0
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_h\in(0,\tau]$ denotes a horizontal angle of view. Similarly, vertical $\Omega_v$ can be obtained using $\vec k_y$ parameter instead. The resultant value $\nicefrac{1}{f}\in\real_{>0}$ is the reciprocal focal-length.
\begin{rem}
Focal-length $f$ value must be same for $\vec\theta_x$ and $\vec\theta_y$.
Therefore, only one reference angle $\Omega$ can be chosen, either horizontal or vertical.
\end{rem}
Inverse function to Equation \eqref{eq:focal length}, for angle-of-view $\Omega$ from focal-length $f$, is obtained as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vertical AOV}
\Omega_v\big(f\big) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{2\atan \big(\frac{\vec k_y}{f} \big)}{\vec k_y}, & \text{if }\vec k_y>0 \\
\frac{2}{f}, & \text{if }\vec k_y=0 \\
\frac{2\asin \big(\frac{\vec k_y}{f} \big)}{\vec k_y}, & \text{if }\vec k_y<0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This formula can be used to obtain the actual vertical angle-of-view from a horizontally established focal length.
Similarly horizontal angle $\Omega_h$ can be obtained using the $\vec k_x$ parameter. Diagonal angle $\Omega_d$ can be obtained using interpolation by $\vec\varphi$.
\begin{table*}
\begin{subtable}[t]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcl}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Value of $k$} & Azimuthal projection type \\ \midrule
$k_i=$ & $1$ & Rectilinear (aka Gnomonic) \\
$k_i=$ & $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & Stereographic \\
$k_i=$ & $0$ & Equidistant \\
$k_i=$ & $-\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & Equisolid \\
$k_i=$ & $-1$ & Orthographic (azimuthal) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\smallskip
\footnotesize\emph{Source:} PTGui 11 fisheye factor \cite{Krause2019PTGuiFisheye_k-factor}.
\bigskip
\caption{Azimuthal projection type and corresponding $k$ value.}
\label{tab:k values}
\end{subtable}
\hfill
\begin{subtable}[t]{\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\toprule
Azimuthal projection type & Perception of space \\\midrule
Rectilinear & straightness \\
Stereographic & shape, angle \\
Equidistant & speed, aim \\
Equisolid & distance, size \\
Orthographic (azimuthal) & --- \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\smallskip
\footnotesize\emph{Source:} Empirical study using various competitive video games.
\bigskip
\caption{Correct perception of space attributes and corresponding azimuthal projection type.}
\label{tab:perception}
\end{subtable}
\caption{Tables presenting perspective parameters, corresponding projection type and associated perception attitude.}
\label{tab:k values and perception}
\end{table*}
\subsection[Asymmetry]{Asymmetrical anamorphism}
\label{sec:asymmetry}
Parameter $\vec k_y$ can be further argumented to produce asymmetrical anamorphic projection through the incorporation of a third parameter $\vec k_z$. In such a case, the bottom and top half of the image can present different azimuthal projection.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:asymmetry}
\vec k_y' =
\begin{cases}
\vec k_z, & \text{if }\vec v_y<0 \\
\vec k_y, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
therefore $\vec k_y'$ replaces $\vec k_y$ in equations \eqref{eq:double spherical theta}, \eqref{eq:vertical AOV} and \eqref{eq:vignette mask}.
Asymmetrical anamorphism can be applied to any power axis. The use case for such a perspective would be racing, where the bottom-half of the screen contains an image of the road. Choosing equidistant projection (which preserves angular speed), would provide an accurate perception of velocity. The top-half of the screen contains the image of opponent vehicles. Choosing equisolid projection (which preserves area) would provide an enhanced perception of distance. For the horizontal power axis, choosing stereographic projection (which preserves angles and proportions), would enhance cornering.
\subsection{Vignetting mask}
Vignetting is an important visual symbol indicating stretching of the visual sphere by the projection. Incorporating the vignetting effect enhances space perception.
Here, anamorphic vignetting mask $\Lambda'$ is obtained similarly to anamorphic angle $\theta'$. Two separate vignetting masks, $\vec\Lambda_x$ and $\vec\Lambda_y$ are generated for each power axis and combined to a single anamorphic vignette $\Lambda'$ by interpolation through $\vec\varphi$-weights.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:vignette mask}
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\Lambda_x \\
\vec\Lambda_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\big| \cos\big( \max\big\{ |\vec k_x|,\frac{1}{2} \big\} \vec\theta_x \big) \big|^{\frac{k_x+3}{2}} \\\smallskip
\big| \cos\big( \max\big\{ |\vec k_y|,\frac{1}{2} \big\} \vec\theta_y \big) \big|^{\frac{k_y+3}{2}}
\end{bmatrix}
\\
\Lambda'
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\Lambda_x \\
\vec\Lambda_y
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\varphi_x \\
\vec\varphi_y
\end{bmatrix}, \qed
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\Lambda'\in[0,1]$ is the anamorphic vignetting mask value, interpolated using circular-function-vector $\vec\varphi$.
The vignette mask of each axis is obtained using two laws of illumination falloff. Inverse-square law (for $k=1$) and the cosine law of illumination (for $k=-1$). The vignette value for \emph{cosine law} is simply expressed as $\cos\theta$. \emph{Inverse-square law} value can be expressed as $\cos^2\theta$. Therefore the value for projections other than $k\in\{-1,1\}$ must have a vignetting value in-between $\cos^1\theta\leftrightarrow\cos^2\theta$. This has been empirically evaluated to a power value linearly-mapped from $k\in[-1,1]\mapsto[1,2]$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{fig1_k_interpolation}
\caption{Graph illustrating interpolation parameters for anamorphic vignetting (represented by vertical axis), driven by parameter $k\in[-1,1]$ (represented by horizontal axis). \emph{The power}-graph $\big(\frac{k+3}{2}\big)$ interpolates between \emph{the cosine law of illumination} and \emph{inverse-square law} vignetting. \emph{$\theta$-scale\ } graph scales the vignetting boundary to maximum $\Omega$ for given $k$.}
\label{fig:k interpolation}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{lrcccl}
\toprule
Picture content type & \multicolumn{5}{l}{Anamorphic $\vec k$ values} \\
\midrule
Racing simulation & $\vec k=[$ & $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & $-\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & $0$ & $]$ \\
Flying simulation & $\vec k=[$ & $-\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & $0$ & $]$ & \\
Stereopsis (cyclopean) & $\vec k=[$ & $0$ & $-\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & $]$ & \\
First-person aiming & $\vec k=[$ & $0$ & $\nicefrac{3}{4}$ & $-\nicefrac{1}{2}$ & $]$ \\
\midrule
Pan motion & \multicolumn{5}{l}{$\vec k_x\neq\vec k_y$} \\
Roll motion & \multicolumn{5}{l}{$\vec k_y=\vec k_x$} \\
Tilt motion\emph{\textsuperscript a} & \multicolumn{5}{l}{$\vec k_y\rightarrow\vec k_x$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\\
\smallskip
\footnotesize\emph{Source:} Determined empirically using various competitive video games, in accordance to data in Table \ref{tab:perception}.
\emph{\textsuperscript a}Mapping of vertical distortion by a tilt motion introduced first in a Minecraft mod \cite{Williams2017Minecraft}.
\bigskip
\caption{Recommended values of $\vec k$, for various types of content.}
\label{tab:presets}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics{fig4_first-person_100,0.0,0.75,-0.5}
\caption{$\vec k=\big[0 \quad \nicefrac{3}{4} \quad -\nicefrac{1}{2}\big]$,\quad (asymmetrical) first-person.}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics{fig4_racing_100,0.5,-0.5,0.0}
\caption{$\vec k=\big[\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad -\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad 0\big]$,\quad (asymmetrical) racing.}
\end{subfigure}
\\[1em]
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics{fig4_flying_100,-0.5,0.0}
\caption{$\vec k=\big[-\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad 0\big]$,\quad flying.}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics{fig4_cylindrical_100,0.5,1.0}
\caption{$\vec k=\big[\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad 1\big]$,\quad panini.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Example of various wide-angle ($\Omega_v=100\degree$) anamorphic-azimuthal projections with vignetting in 16:9 aspect-ratio. The checkerboard depicts a cube centered at the view-position, with each face colored according to axis direction. Here, primary colors represent the positive axis and complementary colors its opposite equivalent (same as in the color-wheel), $\{Cy,Mg,Yl\}\mapsfrom-\ \{X,Y,Z\}\ +\mapsto\{R,G,B\}$.}
\end{figure*}
\section[Ray-map to ST-map]{Converting ray-map to ST-map}
Ray/perspective-map can be easily converted to \emph{ST}-map format, given that the maximum view angle $\Omega$ does not exceed or isn't equal to 180\degree.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec a_x & \vec a_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{cases}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & \frac{w}{h}
\end{bmatrix}, &\text{if }\Omega_h
\smallskip\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{h}{w} & 1
\end{bmatrix}, &\text{if }\Omega_v
\end{cases}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_s \\
\vec f_t
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\frac{\cot\frac{\Omega}{2}}{2\hat G_z}
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat G_x \\
\hat G_y
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec a_x \\
\vec a_y
\end{bmatrix}
+\frac{1}{2}, \qed
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\vec a\in\real^2$ is the square-mapping vector for both the horizontal and vertical angle of view. Values $w$ and $h$ represent picture width and height, respectively. $\Omega<\pi$ is the angle of view. $\vec f\in[0,1]^2$ represent the final \emph{ST}-map vector. $\hat G\in[0,1]^3$ is the input primary-ray map vector.
\section{Anamorphic lens distortion}
The presented perspective model can be used to mimic the real-world anamorphic lens and its effects. Effects such as \emph{disproportionate lens breathing} using focal length-based parametrization, which are unique to anamorphic photography \cite{Sasaki2017_5PilarsOfAnamorphic,Neil2004CineLens}.
Some additional lens-corrections may be added to the initial ray-map, to simulate more complex lens distortion and lens imperfections.
Below an algorithm for anamorphic distortion of view coordinates is presented, which can be used as an input for primary-ray map algorithm (Equation \vref{eq:double spherical theta}). It is based on the \emph{Brown-Conrady} lens-distortion model \cite{Wang2008BrownConradyNewModelLensDistortion} in a division variant \cite{Fitzgibbon2001LensDivision}. It is executed on view-coordinates $\vec v$, forming alternative vector $\vec v'$.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_x \\
\vec f_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec v_x-\vec c_1 \\
\vec v_y-\vec c_2
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{cardinal offset \emph{a}}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\varphi_x \\
\vec\varphi_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\vec f^2_x}{\vec f^2_x+\vec f^2_y} &
\frac{\vec f^2_y}{\vec f^2_x+\vec f^2_y}
\end{bmatrix}\tran
\\
r^2 &= \vec f^2_x+\vec f^2_y
\\
\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec v'_x \\
\vec v'_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_x \\
\vec f_y
\end{bmatrix}
\underbrace{
\Bigg(
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\vec k_{x1}r^2+\vec k_{x2}r^4\cdots \\
1+\vec k_{y1}r^2+\vec k_{y2}r^4\cdots
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\varphi_x \\
\vec\varphi_y
\end{bmatrix}
\Bigg)^{-1}
}_\text{radial anamorphic} \qed
\\&\quad
+
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_x \\
\vec f_y
\end{bmatrix}
\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_x \\
\vec f_y
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec p_1 \\
\vec p_2
\end{bmatrix}
\right)
}_\text{decentering}
+
\underbrace{
r^2
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec q_1 \\
\vec q_2
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{thin prism}
+
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec c_1 \\
\vec c_2
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{cardinal \emph{b}} \square
\end{split}
\label{eq:lens distortion}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec v'_x \\
\vec v'_y
\end{bmatrix}
&\mapsto
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat G_x \\
\hat G_y \\
\hat G_z
\end{bmatrix}, \qed
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\vec c_1,\vec c_2$ are the cardinal-offset parameters, $\vec q_1,\vec q_2$ are the thin-prism distortion parameters and $\vec p_1,\vec p_2$ are the decentering parameters. A set of $\vec k$ parameters define radial distortion for each anamorphic power axis. $\vec v$ is the input view-coordinate, and $\vec v'$ is the view coordinate with applied lens-transformation. $\vec\varphi\in[0,1]^2$ is the anamorphic interpolation weight, defined in Section \vref{sec:primary-ray map}.
\section{Anamorphic chromatic aberration}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig6_spectrum}
\caption{Graph mapping of $t\in[0,1]$ to spectral color $\vec\chi\in[0,1]^3$, for simulation of chromatic aberration. This is an output of periodic function found in Equation \eqref{eq:spectrum}. The distribution of values ensures proper color order and sum-of-samples with a neutral-white tint.}
\label{fig:spectrum}
\end{figure}
A chromatic aberration effect can be achieved with multi-sample blur, where each sample layer is colored with the corresponding spectral-value \cite{Gilcher2015ChromaticAberration}. Presented periodic function for spectral color $\vec\chi$ produces samples that always add up to 1 (neutral white) when their number is even. It also presents the correct order of spectrum colors.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spectrum}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\chi_r \\
\vec\chi_g \\
\vec\chi_b
\end{bmatrix}
=
\clamp_0^1
\bigg(
\frac{3}{2}-
\big|
4 \bmod
\Bigg(
t+\begin{bmatrix}
\nicefrac{1}{4} \\
0 \\
\nicefrac{3}{4}
\end{bmatrix}, 1
\Bigg)-2
\big|
\bigg),
\end{equation}
where $\vec\chi\in[0,1]^3$ is the spectral-color value for position $t\in[0,1]$. See Figure \vref{fig:spectrum} for more information.
Performing a spectral blur on an image involves the multi-sample sum of spectrum-colored layers. Here $t$ (replaced by sample progress) never reaches 1, which preserves picture white-balance. The number of samples $n$ must be an even number, no less than 2 for a correct result.
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f'_r \smallskip\\
\vec f'_g \smallskip\\
\vec f'_b
\end{bmatrix}
=
\frac{2}{n}
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec f_r \smallskip\\
\vec f_g \smallskip\\
\vec f_b
\end{bmatrix}
\underbrace{
\clamp_0^1
\bigg(
\frac{3}{2}-
\big|
4 \bmod
\Bigg(
\frac{i}{n}+
\begin{bmatrix}
\nicefrac{1}{4} \\
0 \\
\nicefrac{3}{4}
\end{bmatrix}, 1
\Bigg)-2
\big|
\bigg)
}_{\vec\chi\text{ periodic function}},
\end{equation}
where $n\in2\positive_1$ is the even number of samples for the chromatic aberration color-split.
$\vec f\in[0,1]^3$ is the current-sample position color-value. $\vec f'\in[0,1]^3$ is the final spectral-blurred color value.
The equation for spectral color $\vec\chi$ can be rewritten to a more computationally optimized form.
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec\chi_r \\
\vec\chi_g \\
\vec\chi_b
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hfill \clamp_0^1\big(\nicefrac{3}{2}-|4t-1|\big) \smallskip\\
\hfill \clamp_0^1\big(\nicefrac{3}{2}-|4t-2|\big) \smallskip\\
-\clamp_0^1\big(\nicefrac{3}{2}-|4t-1|\big) \\
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
\hfill \clamp_0^1\big(4t-\nicefrac{7}{2}\big) \smallskip\\
0 \smallskip\\
1-\clamp_0^1\big(4t-\nicefrac{7}{2}\big)
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\vec\chi\in[0,1]^3$ is the spectral color at position $t\in[0,1]$. See Figure \vref{fig:spectrum} for visualization.
\subsection{Chromatic aberration through lens distortion}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig7_lens_chromatic}
\caption{Example of anamorphic lens distortion with chromatic aberration, where $\vec k_{x1}=-0.25$, $\vec k_{y1}=0.04$, $d=0.5$, with 64--spectral levels.}
\label{fig:lens distortion chromatic}
\end{figure}
Chromatic aberration can be integrated into lens distortion, with spectral blurring, through lens-transformation vector $\Delta\vec v$. Below, the equation for spectral-blur displacement vector $\vec s$ is presented, calculated per the sample at position $t$.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}
\Delta\vec v_x \\
\Delta\vec v_y
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec v'_x-\vec v_x \\
\vec v'_y-\vec v_y
\end{bmatrix}
\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec s_x \\
\vec s_y
\end{bmatrix}
&= \Big( 1+\bigg(t-\frac{1}{2}\bigg)d \Big)
\begin{bmatrix}
\Delta\vec v_x \\
\Delta\vec v_y
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\vec s\in\real^2$ is the spectral blur sample-offset vector at position $t\in[0,1)$. Value $d\in\real$ denotes the lens dispersion-scale.
For a visually pleasing result, additional blur pass can be performed, in which the direction is perpendicular to $\vec s$ vector, and with smaller magnitude, as below.
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\vec s'_x \\
\vec s'_y
\end{bmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{4}
\begin{bmatrix}
-\vec s_y \\
\vec s_x
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\vec s'$ is the second-pass blur direction vector.
Figure \vref{fig:lens distortion chromatic} presents the final effect of two-pass blur, where the first pass is spectral, along lens-distortion $\Delta\vec v$, and the second-pass of quarter-magnitude is perpendicular $\bot\Delta\vec v$. A combination of both adds a defocussing effect to the distortion.
\section{Final thoughts}
In this article, a mathematical model for asymmetrical anamorphic-perspective geometry (pantomorphic) has been presented, along with perception-driven distortion design recommendations. Each power axis of the pantomorphic model resembles parametric azimuthal projection.
Such parametrization enables a picture's geometry to be adaptive, which can dynamically adjust to the visible content in an artistically convincing manner. Along with anamorphic perspective, vignetting and lens-distortion with integrated chromatic-aberration has been provided. Selection of these features enables holistic digital-lens simulation for immersive-imagery production.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\includegraphics{fig5_racing_0.618f,0.5,-0.5,0.0}
\footnotesize\emph{Panorama source:} captured from \noun{Conan Exiles} through Nvidia Ansel.
\caption{$\vec k=[\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad -\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad 0]$, $f=0.618$, $\Omega_h\approx156\degree$,\quad (asymmetrical) racing.}
\label{fig:conan panorama}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\includegraphics{fig5_flying_1f,-0.5,0.0}
\footnotesize\emph{Panorama source:} Grzegorz Wronkowski, under CC-BY license.
\caption{$\vec k=[-\nicefrac{1}{2} \quad 0]$, $f=1$, $\Omega_h=120\degree$,\quad flying.}
\label{fig:flying panorama}
\end{subfigure}
\\[1em]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\includegraphics{fig5_first-person_0.82f,0.0,0.75,-0.5}
\footnotesize\emph{Panorama source:} captured from \noun{Obduction} through Nvidia Ansel.
\caption{$\vec k=[0 \quad \nicefrac{3}{4} \quad -\nicefrac{1}{2}]$, $f=0.82$, $\Omega_h\approx140\degree$,\quad (asymmetrical) first-person aim.}
\label{fig:firs-person panorama}
\end{subfigure}
\hfil
\begin{subfigure}[t]{3in}
\includegraphics{fig5_stereopsis_0.63f,0.0,-0.5}
\footnotesize\emph{Panorama source:} captured from \noun{For Honor} through Nvidia Ansel.
\caption{$\vec k=[0 \quad -\nicefrac{1}{2}]$, $f=0.63$, $\Omega_h\approx182\degree$,\quad stereopsis (cyclopean).}
\label{fig:stereopsis panorama}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples of super wide-angle views in anamorphic projection with natural vignetting. Mapped from 360\textdegree\ panorama in equirectangular projection.}
\label{fig:panorama examples}
\end{figure*}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Background}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
\noindent We focus on the class of problems with $N$ independent tasks that evolve over time, proposed in~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}. The robot should interleave its actions to find an optimal sequence of actions to attend to all the tasks. A POMDP that includes a single task and a robot is called a \textit{client POMDP}. The $N$ \textit{client POMDPs} are combined into one large POMDP model called an \textit{agent POMDP}.
To compute an optimal solution for all the tasks, one should solve the agent POMDP optimally. We briefly describe the client and agent POMDPs, and how~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} referred to as \textit{multi-task planner} solves the agent POMDP efficiently.
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\subsection{Client POMDP}
\noindent The client POMDP for task $i$ is represented as a tuple $(S_i, A_i, Z_i, T_i, O_i, R_i, \gamma, H)$. The state space $S_i = SR \times SC_i$ includes the robot's state, $SR$, and the other state variables that are specific to task $i$, $SC_i$. The action space $A_i$ includes the actions that can be applied by the robot to task $i$ and a special \textit{no op} action which bears no direct effect on the task (\emph{i.e}., when executed, task $i$ follows its underlying Hidden Markov Model). $Z_i$ denotes the observation space. The robot takes an action $a \in A_i$ and transitions from a state $s \in S_i$ to $s' \in S_i$ with probability $T_i (s, a, s')$. The robot then observes $z \in Z_i$ and receives a reward $R_i(s_i,a)$.
The function $O_i(s',a, z)$ models the robot's noisy observations.
In POMDP planning, the robot keeps a distribution over the states, called a belief state, and searches for a policy $\pi: B_i \rightarrow A$ that maximizes $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum _{{t=0}}^{H}\gamma ^{t}r_{i,t}\right]$ at each belief $b \in B_i$, where $r_{i,t}$ is the reward gained at time $t$ from POMDP $i$, $H$ is the planning horizon, and $\gamma$ is the discount factor. For infinite-horizon problems with discounting, $H=\infty$ and $0 \leq \gamma < 1$. For finite-horizon problems, $H$ is finite and $\gamma=1.0$. Optimal value $V^*_{i}(b)$ can be computed by iteratively applying the Bellman equation. Similarly, the value of following a trajectory $n$, $V^{n}_{i}(b_i)$, can be computed by iteratively applying the Bellman equation and following the remaining trajectory~\cite{cassandra1998survey}. In our algorithms, $n$ refers to a trajectory consisting of \textit{no op} actions so $V^{n}_{i}(b_i) \leq V^*_{i}(b_i)$.
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\subsection{Agent POMDP}
\label{sec:agentpomdp}
\noindent A POMDP created from $N$ client POMDPs is called \textit{agent POMDP} (or \textit{robot POMDP}). Let $P = \{i \in \mathbb{N}: i \leq N\}$. Formally, the agent POMDP is represented by $(N, S, A, Z, T, O, R, \gamma, H)$ where $S = SR \times SC_1 \times \ldots \times SC_N$, $A$ and $Z = Z_1 \times \ldots \times Z_N$ denote the state, action and observation spaces respectively. $T$, $O$ and $R$ are the transition, observation and reward functions respectively. The robot's action set $A$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:A_valid}) contains vectors of length $N$ in which except one element, all other elements are \textit{no ops}. The robot's distribution over the states is $b \in B$ where $B = B_1 \times \ldots \times B_N$. The agent POMDP's reward function is additive in terms of its underlying tasks $\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{{i=1}}^{N} R_{i}\right]$.
\vspace{-0.45cm}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:A_valid}
\begin{split}
A=\underset{i \in P}\cup\underset{{a \in A_i}}\cup \overbrace{[\text{\small{no op}}...\text{\small{no op}},\underbrace{a}_{i\text{th element}},\text{\small{no op}}...\text{\small{no op}}]}^{\text{length N}}
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\noindent Using the mathematical definition of the independent tasks, the optimal value of an agent POMDP built from a set of independent client POMDPs $P$ can be iteratively computed as follows where $\Pr(z|b,a) = \prod_{k \in P}{\Pr(z_k|b_k,a[k])}$~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:agent_POMDP_value}
\begin{split}
V^{*}_{t}(b)&=\max_{a\in A}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in P}}\sum\limits_{{s\in S_i}}b_i(s)R_i(s,a[i]) \\
&+ \gamma \sum\limits_{z\in Z} \Pr(z|b,a) V^*_{t-1}(b_z^a){\Bigr ]} \\
\end{split} \raisetag{2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\noindent To compute the value of the current belief state of the robot for a fixed horizon $H$, the planner starts with the robot's current belief as the root of a tree and builds the tree of all reachable beliefs by considering all possible actions and observations. For each action and observation, a new belief node is added to the tree as a child node of its immediate previous belief. To solve the agent POMDP, a combined belief tree of all tasks is built till horizon $H$. The value of the robot's current belief is computed by propagating value estimates up from the fringe nodes, to their ancestors, all the way to the root, according to Eq.~\ref{eq:agent_POMDP_value}. We call this approach \textit{agent POMDP with a fixed horizon} or \textit{agent-POMDP-FH}.
\vspace{-0.13cm}
\subsection{Multi-task POMDP Planner (Multi-task-FH)}
\label{sec:multitaskFH}
\noindent Note that the agent POMDP approach is impractical if the number of tasks are large. If each client POMDP has $|S|$ states and $|A|$ actions (excluding the \textit{no op} action), and there are $N$ tasks, the robot should plan over an agent POMDP with $|S|^N$ states and $N\times|A|+1$ actions which is infeasible.
Our prior work exploits the observation that in some domains the number of tasks, $k^*$, that the robot can attend to within $H$ is limited~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}.
Given this observation, if the robot optimally solves all possible sub-problems of size $k^*$ with different combinations of tasks, it can find the optimal solution to the agent POMDP. In~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}, we prove that decomposing the agent POMDP into a series of sub-problems of size $k^*$ and solving all combinations of $k^*$ out of $N$ tasks, $tpls = \{tpl \in \euscr{P} (P):|tpl| = k^*\}$ and returning the action with the highest value from them is the optimal solution to the agent POMDP. Symbol $\euscr{P}$ represents the power set.
Note that each member $tpl$ (tuple of size $k^*$) of the set $tpls$ is a sub-problem that can be solved by building a combined POMDP from the POMDPs in $tpl$. The robot assumes that a trajectory of \textit{no op} actions is being executed on the POMDPs that are not in $tpl$. $k^*$ is provided to the algorithm, but we discuss a way to compute it in~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}.
The prior work uses the solutions to the individual client POMDPs to compute lower and upper-bounds on the optimal value of the agent POMDP to prune the $tpls$ set. Different from~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} that only uses the solutions to the single tasks to prune the low-quality tasks, in this work we take a more gradual approach and monotonically improve the bounds to prune the low-quality tasks. We start with single tasks ($k=1$), but gradually increase $k$ and solve sub-problems of size $k$ ($<k^*$) to prune the tasks. Since our algorithm gradually improves the bounds to prune as many tasks as possible, it eventually solves less number of sub-problems of size $k^*$ compared to~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}. We first use the single tasks to prune, then pairs, then triplets, and so on. In addition, we use a truncated horizon $h$ ($h < H$) to compute the solutions to the sub-problems of size $k$ rather than the full horizon $H$ which is needed to solve the sub-problems of size $k^*$. This gradual and monotonic improvement of the bounds and planning until a truncated horizon $h$ enables the robot to efficiently and optimally plan over \emph{long} fixed-length horizons without discounting and \emph{infinite-length} horizons with discounting rather than planning for a short fixed horizon as done in~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\section{Approach}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
\noindent In this section, we first explain the main ideas that we use to extend the agent POMDP planner (explained in section~\ref{sec:agentpomdp}) to be applied on long-horizon problems. We call this new approach \textit{agent POMDP with adaptive horizon} or \textit{agent-POMDP-AH}. We then explain how the agent-POMDP-AH is extended to include the key insights and the efficiency of~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} (multi-task-FH explained in section~\ref{sec:multitaskFH}). We call our approach \textit{multi-task POMDP with adaptive horizon} (\textit{multi-task-AH}) since in addition to leveraging the multiple independent tasks structure, we adapt the horizon (specifically, iteratively increase it) to improve the solution's quality.
Similar to~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}, we use an online planning framework which interleaves planning and execution. Its main loop is in Alg.~\ref{alg:main}. During the planning phase, the algorithm computes the best action to execute given the robot's current belief (lines 3-7). In the execution phase, the robot executes the selected action (line 8), updates the belief state (line 9), and replans after each action execution.
\subsection{Agent POMDP with Adaptive Horizon}
\vspace{-0.05cm}
\noindent We adapt the agent-POMDP-FH approach for the class of problems with multiple independent tasks to enable the robot to efficiently plan for long horizons.
This approach uses a similar procedure to solve the agent POMDP as agent-POMDP-FH, but modifies it with two main ideas. The key ideas are that instead of expanding the belief tree of all the tasks for the full horizon $H$, the robot 1) builds the belief tree until a truncated but gradually increasing horizon $h$ and 2) computes the lower and upper-bounds on the value of the fringe nodes at the truncated horizon.
To compute the bounds for the fringe nodes, the robot only solves the individual tasks for the remaining horizon $H-h$ (or $\infty$ in the infinite-horizon case) and combines their solutions. It then computes the lower and upper-bounds for the non-fringe nodes by propagating the bound values up from the fringe nodes by following the Bellman equation in Eq.~\ref{eq:agent_POMDP_value}. Note that when planning with a truncated horizon $h$, the planner expands the combined model of all the tasks only till the truncated horizon $h$, \ul{but the individual tasks are solved till the full horizon $H$ to compute the bounds}.
When the lower and upper-bounds on the value of the robot's belief become equal, the optimal solution is found and the search is terminated. This enables the robot to terminate the search before reaching the full planning horizon $H$.
We call the agent POMDP solver that follows this process \texttt{TruncatedAgentPOMDP}. For long horizons, solving the individual tasks (to compute the bounds) is much faster than expanding the belief tree of the combined model; thus, this approach is efficient compared to the agent-POMDP-FH.
Instead of planning for a fixed horizon $H$, this algorithm (Alg.~\ref{alg:main}) performs planning for increasing values of horizon $h$ until one of the following conditions are satisfied: 1) the horizon limit $H$ is reached, or 2) the lower-bound $\munderbar{V}$ on the value of the robot's belief is equal to its upper-bound $\bar{V}$ (line 4). The first condition assures that the algorithm is terminated when it reaches the maximum horizon $H$ and outputs the same solution as planning for a fixed horizon $H$.
The second condition enables the robot to terminate planning before reaching the full planning horizon, thus being more efficient than the agent POMDP approach with a fixed horizon $H$.
Alg.~\ref{alg:agent} provides the implementation of some of the functions in Alg.~\ref{alg:main} for the agent-POMDP-AH approach. The \texttt{TruncatedAgentPOMDP} solver builds a combined model with all the client POMDPs in $P$. It finds the bounds for the fringe nodes using the \texttt{ComputeBounds} function and propagates the bounds up to compute the bounds for the non-fringe nodes. We refer to all the POMDPs in $tpl$ as ${tpl}_u$; for the agent POMDP, ${tpl}_u=P$ (all possible tasks). The intuition behind the lower-bound computation (line $7$) is to only consider the best client POMDP from $tpl$ and perform \textit{no ops} on the other POMDPs. This is similar to taking a greedy approach of always selecting the best task to attend to rather than interleaving the tasks. This is indeed a possible solution, hence it is the lower-bound.
The intuition behind the upper-bound computation is to assume that the robot can address all the client POMDPs (tasks) in $tpl$ in parallel. We only have one robot so this is an upper-bound.
Since the client POMDPs are solved over and over for different beliefs and horizons during planning to compute the bounds, their solutions are cached and reused in the process.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Online Planner with Adaptive Horizon}
\label{alg:main}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{MultiTaskAdaptiveHorizonPlanner}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{env, P, h, H}}{
\While{\textbf{not} {AllTasksDone()}}{
tpls $\gets$ InitializeTuples(P,h,H) \\
\While{{ $\munderbar{V} \neq \bar{V}$ or $h \neq H$}}{ {a},tpls,{$\munderbar{V}$},{$\bar{V}$} $\gets$ SelectAction({P},{h},{H},tpls) \\
h $\gets$ h+1 \\
tpls $\gets$ RecomputeTuples(h,tpls) \tcp*[h]{this function is only needed in the multi-task-AH approach}
}
{observations} $\gets$ Step({env}, {a})
UpdateBeliefs(P,{observations})\label{alg:aed-updatepolicy}
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Agent POMDP with Adaptive Horizon}
\label{alg:agent}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{InitializeTuples}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$P$,$h$,$H$} \Return $tpls$ $\gets$ \{($P$,$\emptyset$)\} }{
}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{SelectAction}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$P$,$h$,$H$,$tpls$}}{
($\munderbar{V}_{P}$,$\bar{V}_{P}$) $\gets$ TruncatedAgentPOMDP($h$,$H$,$tpls$) \\
$a_{best} \gets$ action with highest $\bar{V}_{P}$ \\
\Return $a_{best}$,$tpls$,$\munderbar{V}_{P}$,$\bar{V}_{P}$
}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{ComputeBounds}{\tcp*[h]{for the remaining horizon $H-h$}}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$b$,$tpl$}}{
$ \munderbar{V} \gets \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {{tpl}_u}}} (V_p^*(b_p) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in {{tpl}_u} \setminus \{p\}}}} V_q^{n}(b_q))$; $\bar{V} \gets \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{p\in {{tpl}_u}}}} V_p^{*}(b_p)$ \\
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\Return $\munderbar{V}$,$\bar{V}$
}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-0.64cm}
\subsection{Multi-task POMDP with Adaptive Horizon}
\vspace{-0.02cm}
\noindent We exploit the two key ideas from the previous section and extend the multi-task-FH~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} to address long horizon planning. The multi-task-FH is able to leverage the independent tasks structure in the problem to efficiently solve the agent POMDP, and agent-POMDP-AH speeds up planning for long horizons by terminating the search earlier through the truncated horizon and bound computations. We combine the benefits of the two approaches in the multi-task-AH.
Multi-task-FH exploits the observation that within a fixed horizon $H$, the robot can only consider a limited number of tasks $k^*$. Similarly here, we also consider all possible subsets of size $k^*$ as it is needed to ensure optimality. However, in addition to this, we leverage the observation that within the truncated horizon $h$, $h \leq H$, the robot can only consider $k$ tasks ($k \leq k^*$), and it performs \textit{no ops} on the other tasks. Intuitively, we use the key idea of~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} twice, once to divide the agent POMDP of size $P$ into smaller problems of size $k^*$, and the second time to divide the smaller problems of size $k^*$ into sub-problems of size $k$, $k \leq k^*$, that can be solved more efficiently. Leveraging the truncated horizon to further limit the number of tasks that the robot can attend to enables us to significantly speed up planning. The robot only considers combined models of size $k$ till horizon $h$, rather than combined models of size $k^*$, but computes the lower and upper-bounds on $k^*$ individual tasks for the remaining horizon $H-h$. Note that the lower and upper-bound computations are done on the individual tasks till the full horizon $H$; so their computations should consider all $k^*$ tasks to ensure similar optimality guarantees as~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} (as the agent can attend to $k^*$ tasks within horizon $H$).
Our approach is especially powerful in the infinite-horizon problems with $N$ tasks. In such problems the number of tasks that the robot can attend to within $H=\infty$ is $N$, $k^*=N$; thus, if $k \ll N$, the algorithm significantly expedites planning by solving multiple sub-problems of smaller sizes rather than solving the agent POMDP with all the $N$ tasks.
As we increase the truncated horizon $h$, we might need to increase the size of the subsets, \emph{i.e.}, increase $k$. We explain how we address this important aspect of the problem later.
Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} shows the multi-task-AH algorithm. The function \texttt{InitializeTuples} considers all possible subsets of $P$ with size $k^*$ (line 2) and further divides it into subsets of size $k$ (line 3). Each subset of size $k^*$ ($tpl \in tpls$) is divided into two sets, $tpl_c$ with size $k$ and $tpl_l$ with size $k^*-k$.
The truncated agent POMDP is built from the POMDPs in $tpl_c$ while executing \textit{no ops} on the POMDPs in $tpl_l$, but the bound computations for the fringe nodes are done on all POMDPs in $tpl_u=tpl_c \cup tpl_l$ to assure valid lower and upper-bounds on the value of the tuple $tpl$ (\texttt{TruncatedAgentPOMDP} function).
The \texttt{SelectAction} function solves a truncated agent POMDP for each $tpl$ (line 7) to compute its bounds while executing \textit{no ops} on other POMDPs that are not in $tpl$ (line 8). It then updates the bounds on the value of the full agent POMDP (line 9). The algorithm then removes the tuples for which the upper-bounds are less than the lower-bound of the agent POMDP and returns the action from the $tpl$ with the highest upper-bound (lines 10-11).
The size of the sub-problems and their bounds gets updated as the truncated horizon $h$ increases. Function \texttt{RecomputeTuples} updates the $tpls$ set as the number of tasks that the robot can attend to within the horizon increases from $k$ to $k'=k+1$. For each $tpl \in tpls$, a member of $tpl_l$ is removed and added to its $tpl_c$ set. We consider removing any element from the $tpl_l$ set to generate all possible new tuples. This is to ensure that the optimality guarantees hold as we increase the truncated horizon $h$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Multi-task POMDP with Adaptive Horizon}
\label{alg:acpomdp}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{InitializeTuples}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$P$,$h$,$H$}}{
$k$,$k^*$ $\gets$ the maximum \# tasks the robot can attend to within $h$ and $H$; $T$ $\gets$ $\{tpl: tpl \in \euscr{P} (P),|tpl| = k^*\}$ \\
$tpls'$ $\gets$ $\{(tpl_c,tpl_l): tpl_u \in T, tpl_c \in \euscr{P} (tpl_u),|tpl_c| = k,tpl_l = tpl_u \setminus tpl_c \}$ \\
\Return $tpls'$
}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{SelectAction}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$P$,$h$,$H$,$tpls$}}{
\For{${tpl} \in tpls$}{
($\munderbar{V}_{tpl}$,$\bar{V}_{tpl}$) $\gets$ TruncatedAgentPOMDP($h$,$H$,$tpl$) \\
($\munderbar{U}_{tpl},\bar{U}_{tpl}$) $\gets$ $(\munderbar{V}_{tpl},\bar{V}_{tpl})+{\sum_{{q\in P \setminus {{{tpl}_u}}}}} V_q^{n}$ \\
$\bar{V}_P = \max(\bar{V}_P,\bar{U}_{tpl})$; $\munderbar{V}_P = \max(\munderbar{V}_P,\munderbar{U}_{tpl})$
}
$tpls$ $\gets$ $\{tpl: tpl \in tpls, \bar{U}_{tpl} \geq \munderbar{V}_P \}$ \\
$a_{best} \gets$ action from the $tpl$ with highest $\bar{U}_{tpl}$ \\
\Return $a_{best}$,$tpls$,$\munderbar{V}_P$,$\bar{V}_P$
}
\SetKwFunction{FMain}{}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{RecomputeTuples}{}{}
\Fn{\FMain{$h$,$tpls$}}{
$k$,$k'$ $\gets$ the maximum \# tasks the robot can attend to within $h-1$ and $h$; $tpls'$ $\gets$ $tpls$ \\
\If{$k \neq k'$}{
$tpls'$ $\gets$ $\{(tpl_c \cup \{p\},tpl_l \setminus \{p\}): tpl \in tpls, p \in tpl_l \}$ \\
}
\Return $tpls'$
}
\end{algorithm}
Other improvements that can be added to Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} to further expedite planning include 1) for a given tuple $tpl$, if $\bar{V}_{tpl} = \munderbar{V}_{tpl}$, we do not need to recompute the $tpl$'s bounds as it is already optimal, 2) the tuples can be processed in the decreasing order of their upper-bounds so if the updated $\munderbar{V}_{P}$ is greater than the next tuple's upper-bound, the tuple and the remaining tuples in the list can be discarded, and 3) if desirable, a timeout condition\footnote{Our adaptive horizon algorithm can generate and improve a solution in an anytime fashion until the optimal solution is achieved.} can also be added to the conditions on line 4 of Alg.~\ref{alg:main} to ensure online performance.
\section{Optimality Proofs}
\noindent In this section, we first prove that agent-POMDP-AH computes an optimal solution. We then prove that multi-task-AH finds the same solution as agent-POMDP-AH. We discuss both the proofs and the intuition behind them.
The proofs use the independent tasks definition, as stated in~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}.
\\
\\
\noindent {\textbf{Notation required for understanding the intuition behind the proofs (mostly borrowed from~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}):}}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength\itemsep{0.07cm}
\item {$V^*_{p,t}$:} the optimal value of the client POMDP $p$ at time $t$.
\item {$V^{n}_{p,t}$:} the value of following a trajectory of \textit{no ops} for the client POMDP $p$ at time $t$.
\item {$V^*_{P,t}$:} the optimal value of the agent POMDP created from the POMDPs in $P$ at time $t$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:agent_POMDP_value}).
\item {$V^*_{tpl,t}$:} the optimal value of the agent POMDP created from only the client POMDPs in $tpl$ at time $t$.
\item {$\munderbar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$,$\bar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$:} the lower and upper-bound on the value of a belief node $b_{tpl}$ in the belief tree of a truncated agent POMDP created only from the members of $tpl$ till $h$. The bounds on the values of the fringe nodes of the truncated belief tree are computed using Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} and Eq.~\ref{eq:UB}.
\end{itemize}
\hfill \break
\noindent {\textbf{More notation required for understanding the proofs (mostly borrowed from~\cite{mohseni2020efficient})}}
\begin{itemize}
\item {$\mathbb{B}^{*}$:} this refers to the Bellman operator.
\item {$A_{tpl}$:} only considers the actions associated with the POMDPs in $tpl$ and performs \textit{no op} on the other POMDPs (same as Eq.~\ref{eq:A_valid}, but the union is over $tpl$, not $P$).
\item $Q^{*}_{p,t}(b,a)$: the optimal value of the client POMDP $p$ at time $t$ for belief $b$ and action $a$.
\item {$U^*_{tpl,t}$:} the optimal value of the agent POMDP built from $P$ with the action set $A_{tpl}$. Intuitively, $U^*_{tpl,t}$ considers both the value of the POMDPs in $tpl$ ($V^*_{tpl,t}$) and the value of executing \textit{no ops} on the ones that are not in $tpl$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Lower and upper-bound}
\noindent We show that the bound computations are valid (Lem. $1$ and $2$) and monotone (Lem. $3$ and $4$). The monotonicity property assures that the lower and upper-bounds on the value of a belief node does not change or improves after each iteration of the algorithm (increase in the truncated horizon $h$). The bounds on the value of the fringe nodes are computed for the remaining horizon $H-h$ (or $\infty$ in the infinite-horizon case) using Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} and Eq.~\ref{eq:UB}. The bounds for the non-fringe nodes are computed by propagating the bound computations of the fringe nodes up to the root belief node. We do not make any assumptions regarding the maximum possible horizon in the bound computations, thus the lemmas also hold for the infinite-horizon problems with discounting. We use mathematical induction to prove Lem. 1 to 4.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 1}\hspace{0.2cm} \textit{Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} provides a lower-bound on the value of a tuple $tpl=({tpl}_c , {tpl}_l)$ where ${tpl}_u = {tpl}_c \cup {tpl}_l$.}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:LB}
\begin{split}
\munderbar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) = \max_{p\in tpl_u} {\Bigl [}V^{*}_{p,t}(b_p) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q){\Bigl ]} \leq V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})
\end{split}\raisetag{0.8\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} Let us consider that only one task from $tpl_u$, $p\in tpl_u$, can be executed till the full horizon ($V^{*}_{p}$), and we perform \textit{no ops} on the other tasks (${\sum} V^{n}_{q}$). The best task will then be selected as the lower-bound on $V^{*}_{tpl}$, $\max\limits_{p} {[}V^{*}_{p} + \sum V^{n}_{q}{]}$.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} The proof goes by mathematical induction. For $h'=1$, if $\forall p \in P, V^*_{p,0}(b_p) = 0$, Eq.~\ref{app_eq:h1} follows from Eq.~\ref{eq:agent_POMDP_value}:
\small \begin{equation}
\label{app_eq:h1}
\begin{split}
V^*_{tpl,1}(b_{tpl}) &=\overbrace{\smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}\smashoperator{\max_{a\in {A_{p}}}}}^{{\max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}\sum\limits_{{s\in S_i}}b_i(s)R_i(s,a[i]){\Bigr ]}{\Bigr ]} \\
& = \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}V^*_{p,{1}}(b_{p}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,1}(b_q){\Bigr ]}
\end{split}\raisetag{2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent If $h'=t-1$, we assume Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_LB_max} and consequently Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_LB} and show that they both hold for $h'=t$.
\small \begin{equation}
\label{app_eq:parallel_LB_max}
\begin{split}
V^*_{tpl,t-1}(b_{tpl}) & \geq \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}V^*_{p,{t-1}}(b_{p}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,t-1}(b_q){\Bigr ]}
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_LB}
\begin{split}
\forall {p \in tpl_u}: V^*_{tpl,t-1}(b_{tpl}) & \geq V^*_{p,{t-1}}(b_{p}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,t-1}(b_q)
\end{split} \raisetag{2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent We expand Eq.~\ref{eq:agent_POMDP_value} as follows ($b_{tpl}$ or $b$):
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:LB_tpl}
\begin{split}
&V^*_{tpl,t}(b) =\max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}\sum\limits_{{s\in S_i}}b_i(s)R_i(s,a[i]) \\
&+ \gamma {\sum\limits_{z_q\in Z_q}\Pr(z_q|b_q,a_q)\ldots \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{z_r\in Z_r}}\Pr(z_r|b_r,a_r)}V^*_{tpl,t-1}(b_z^a){\Bigr ]} \\
\end{split} \raisetag{3\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent We substitute Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_LB} in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:LB_tpl}. Given the independence assumption, for a specific $Z_i$, we can marginalize out the sum over $Z_j$s ($j \neq i$). $\forall {p \in tpl_u}$, we obtain:
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_d}
\begin{split}
& V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b) \geq \max_{a\in {A_{tpl}}}{\Bigl [}Q^{*}_{p,t-1}(b_p,a[p]) + \overbrace{\smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}}Q^{n}_{q,t-1}(b_q,a[q])}^{Q_{noop}}{\Bigr ]} \\
& \geq \max_{a\in {A_{p}}}{\Bigl [}Q^{*}_{p,t-1}(b_p,a[p]) + {Q_{noop}}{\Bigr ]} \geq V^*_{p,{t}}(b_{p}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)
\end{split}\raisetag{0.7\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent Thus, Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_full} holds for every $h'=t$.
\small \begin{equation}
\label{app_eq:parallel_full}
\begin{split}
V^*_{tpl,t}(b) & \geq \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}V^*_{p,{t}}(b_{p}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q){\Bigr ]}
\end{split}\raisetag{4\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 2}\hspace{0.2cm} \textit{Eq.~\ref{eq:UB} provides an upper-bound on the value of a tuple $tpl=({tpl}_c , {tpl}_l)$.}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:UB}
\begin{split}
\bar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) = \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{p\in tpl_u}}} V^{*}_{p,t}(b_p) \geq V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})
\end{split}\raisetag{0.2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} The idea behind the upper-bound computation is to assume that the robot can attend to all the tasks in $tpl$, $p \in tpl_u$, in parallel ($\sum V^{*}_{p}$). We only have one robot, so this is an upper-bound on $V^{*}_{tpl}$.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} Similar to Lem. 1, the proof goes by mathematical induction. For $h'=1$, the following equation holds.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\small \begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& V^*_{tpl,1}(b_{tpl}) =\smashoperator{\max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}\sum\limits_{{s\in S_i}}b_i(s)R_i(s,a[i]){\Bigr ]} \\
& \leq \sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}\smashoperator{\max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{s\in S_i}}b_i(s)R_i(s,a[i]){\Bigr ]} =
\smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}} V^{*}_{i,1}(b_i)
\end{split}\raisetag{2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\noindent We assume Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_UB} holds for $h'=t-1$ ($p,q,r,\ldots \in tpl_u$) and show that it also holds for $h'=t$.
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_UB}
\begin{split}
V^{*}_{tpl,t-1}(b) \leq V^{*}_{p,{t-1}}(b_{p}) + \ldots + V^{*}_{q,{t-1}}(b_{q}) + \ldots + V^{*}_{r,{t-1}}(b_{r})
\end{split}\raisetag{-0.15\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent Similar to Lem. 1, Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_UB} is substituted in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:LB_tpl}, and simplified to obtain Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_UB_t}. Thus, Eq.~\ref{eq:UB} holds for every $h'=t$.
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_UB_t}
\begin{split}
V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b) & \leq \max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}Q^{*}_{i,t}(b_i,a[i]){\Bigr ]} \\
& \leq \sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}} \max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}Q^{*}_{i,t}(b_i,a[i]) = \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{p\in tpl_u}}} V^*_{p,t}(b_p)
\end{split}\raisetag{8\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 3}\hspace{0.2cm} \textit{The lower-bound computation is monotone.}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:LB_rel}
\begin{split}
\munderbar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \leq \munderbar{V}^{h'}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \\
\text{where } h < h' \text{ and } h,h'\leq H
\end{split}\raisetag{0.2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent In both $\munderbar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}$ and $\munderbar{V}^{h'}_{tpl,t}$'s computations, the belief tree is built till horizon $h$. To compute $\munderbar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}$, the lower-bound on the value of the fringe belief nodes at horizon $h$ are computed using Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} and are propagated up the belief tree. To compute $\munderbar{V}^{h'}_{tpl,t}$, the algorithm expands the tree for $d$ more steps, $h'=h+d$, and then uses Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} to compute the lower-bound for the fringe nodes at depth $h+d$ and propagates the bounds up the belief tree. In both cases the lower-bound on the value of the fringe nodes are computed using Eq.~\ref{eq:LB} till the full horizon $H$.
This property guarantees that as the truncated horizon increases, from $h$ to $h'$ ($h < h'$), the lower-bound on the value of a certain fringe node at horizon $h$ and consequently the non-fringe nodes are non-decreasing.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} The main difference between $\munderbar{V}^{h}(b')$ and $\munderbar{V}^{h'}(b')$ for a certain belief node $b'$ at depth $h$ (or horizon $h$) is that the former uses the trivial lower-bound estimate for the node, but the latter does more computation to expand the belief tree further before using a similar trivial lower-bound estimate for the nodes at depth $h+d$. To compute the lower-bound for a fringe node at depth $h$, $\munderbar{V}^{h}(b')$, the algorithm assumes that from there on till $H$, only one task can be executed and \textit{no ops} are executed on the other tasks (one possible solution). So, expanding the belief tree (exhaustive search) for $d$ more steps till horizon $h+d$ to compute $\munderbar{V}^{h'}(b')$ will only find the same or a better solution than achieving a single task. \emph{I.e.}, the lower-bound on $b'$ is non-decreasing as we increase the horizon.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} For a certain leaf node $b$ at horizon $h$, we compare its lower-bound when the truncated agent POMDP is built till $h$ against when it is built till $h'$. The proof goes by mathematical induction. First, we show that
${\munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h} \leq \mathbb{B}^{*}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-1}$ holds for $d=1$. We proved this previously when we substitute Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_LB} in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:LB_tpl} to get Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_d}, thus:
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_a}
\begin{split}
& V^{*}_{tpl,H-h} = {\mathbb{B}^{*}} V^{*}_{tpl,H-h-1}
\geq {\mathbb{B}^{*}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-1} \\
&\geq \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}V^*_{p,{H-h}} + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,H-h}{\Bigr ]} = \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h}
\end{split}\raisetag{8\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent Now, we assume that for $h'=h+d$, the following holds for the belief node $b$: ${\munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h}\leq \mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d}$, and we prove that the same equation also holds if $h'=h+d+1$.
For a certain belief $b$, both ${\munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h}\leq \mathbb{B}^{*}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-1}$ and ${\munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h} \leq \mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d}$ hold, thus the following equation holds for $h'=h+d+1$:
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_b}
\begin{split}
V^{*}_{tpl,H-h} & \geq {\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}}{\Bigl [}{\mathbb{B}^{*}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d-1}{\Bigl ]} \geq {\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d} \\
& \geq \smashoperator{\max_{p\in {tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}V^*_{p,{H-h}} + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in tpl_u \setminus \{p\}}}} V^{n}_{q,H-h}{\Bigr ]= {\munderbar{V}_{tpl,H-h}}}
\end{split}\raisetag{1\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 4}\hspace{0.2cm} \textit{The upper-bound computation is monotone.}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:UB_rel}
\begin{split}
\bar{V}^{h}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \geq \bar{V}^{h'}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \\
\text{where } h < h' \text{ and } h,h'\leq H
\end{split}\raisetag{0.2\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\noindent This property guarantees that
as the horizon increases, from $h$ to $h'$, the upper-bound on the value of a certain fringe node and consequently the non-fringe nodes are non-increasing.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} Similar to the intuition we gave for the lower-bound's monotonicity, for a certain belief node $b'$ at depth $h$, $\bar{V}^{h}(b')$ estimates the upper-bound by assuming that all the tasks can be performed in parallel. However, $\bar{V}^{h'}(b')$ expands the belief tree for $d$ more steps before assuming that all the tasks can be performed in parallel. Thus, given that $\bar{V}^{h'}(b')$ uses the Bellman equation during the $d$ steps, it has a better estimate of the upper-bound than the assumption that all the tasks can be attended to in parallel during that $d$ steps as assumed in $\bar{V}^{h}(b')$. \emph{I.e.}, as the horizon increases and more of the belief tree is expanded, the upper-bound on the value of $b'$ improves (\emph{i.e.}, is non-increasing).
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} Similar to Lem. 3's proof, the proof goes by mathematical induction. First, we show that
${\mathbb{B}^{*}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-1} \leq \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}$ holds for $d=1$. We proved this previously when we substitute Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_UB} in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:LB_tpl} to get Eq.~\ref{app_eq:parallel_UB_t}, thus:
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_c}
\begin{split}
& V^{*}_{tpl,H-h} = {\mathbb{B}^{*}} V^{*}_{tpl,H-h-1} \leq \max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}{\Bigl [}\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}Q^{*}_{i,H-h-1}{\Bigr ]} \\
& \leq \sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}} \max_{a\in {A_{tpl_u}}}Q^{*}_{i,H-h-1} = \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{i\in tpl_u}}} V^*_{i,H-h} = \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}
\end{split}\raisetag{1\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent We assume that for the belief node $b$ and $h'=h+d$, ${\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d} \leq \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}$ holds, and we prove it also holds if $h'=h+d+1$.
We know both ${\mathbb{B}^{*}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-1} \leq \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}$ and ${\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d} \leq \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}$ hold, thus,
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:parallel_5}
\begin{split}
V^{*}_{tpl,H-h} \leq {\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}}{\mathbb{B}^{*}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d-1} \leq {\mathbb{B}^{*}_{d}} \bar{V}_{tpl,H-h-d} \leq
\bar{V}_{tpl,H-h}
\end{split}\raisetag{-0.1\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent In summary, we proved that the bound computations are valid and monotone; thus if $tpl = (P,\emptyset)$, Lem. 1 to 4 prove the optimality of agent-POMDP-AH. Given the iterative nature of the horizon, in the worst case, the agent-POMDP-AH approach reaches the full horizon $H$ and obtains the same solution as the agent-POMDP-FH approach.
\subsection{Multi-task-AH}
\noindent We prove Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} is optimal. We assume $k^*$ and $k$ are the maximum number of tasks that the robot can attend to within $H$ and the truncated horizon $h$ respectively. $\hat{{V}}_{P}$ denotes the value of the agent POMDP under such assumptions, referred to as \textit{limited tasks assumption}.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 5}\hspace{0.2cm} \textit{The lower and upper-bounds on the value of the agent POMDP created from the set $P$, $\hat{\munderbar{V}}_{P}$ and $\hat{\bar{V}}_{P}$, can be computed by Eq.~\ref{eq:k_tuple_LB} and Eq.~\ref{eq:k_tuple_UB} respectively where $tpls = \{tpl \in \euscr{P} (P):|tpl| = k^*\}$, and the bounds are monotone. (proof of \texttt{SelectAction} function in Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp})}
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:k_tuple_LB}
\begin{split}
&\hat{\munderbar{V}}_{P,t} (b) = \max_{tpl \in tpls} (\munderbar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})+ \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q \in P \setminus tpl_u}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)) \leq \hat{{V}}^*_{P,t} (b) \\
\end{split}\raisetag{\baselineskip}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\small \begin{equation} \label{eq:k_tuple_UB}
\begin{split}
&\hat{\bar{V}}_{P,t} (b) = \max_{tpl \in tpls} (\bar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})+ \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q \in P \setminus tpl_u}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)) \geq \hat{{V}}^*_{P,t} (b) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} In~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}, we proved that finding the optimal values of all $tpl \in tpls$ ($V^{*}_{tpl}$) while performing \textit{no ops} on the other POMDPs ($\sum{V^{n}_{q}}$) and selecting the best V-value, $\max_{tpl \in tpls}{(V^{*}_{tpl}+\sum{V^{n}_{q}})}$, provides the optimal solution to the agent POMDP. We proved in Lem. 1 to 4 that the lower and upper-bounds on $V^{*}_{tpl}$ are valid and monotone. The validity and monotonicity of $\hat{\munderbar{V}}_{P}$ and $\hat{\bar{V}}_{P}$ then simply follow from the validity and monotonicity of $\munderbar{V}_{tpl}$ and $\bar{V}_{tpl}$.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} We show that the bounds are valid and then argue why they are also monotone. From~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}, we know:
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:k_tuple_optimal}
\begin{split}
\hat{V}^*_{P,t} (b) & = \max_{tpl \in tpls} U^{*}_{{tpl,t}}(b)
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:k_tuple_value}
\begin{split}
&U^{*}_{{tpl,t}}(b) = V^*_{{tpl,t}}(b_{{tpl}}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in P \setminus {tpl}}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\noindent We proved in Lem. $1$ and $2$ that $\munderbar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \leq V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$ and $\bar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl}) \geq V^{*}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$ respectively. Thus, $\munderbar{U}_{{tpl,t}}(b)$ and $\bar{U}_{{tpl,t}}(b)$ computed by substituting ${V}^{*}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$ by $\munderbar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$ and $\bar{V}_{tpl,t}(b_{tpl})$ in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:k_tuple_value} are lower and upper-bounds on ${U^*}_{{tpl,t}}(b)$. We substitute $\munderbar{U}_{{tpl,t}}(b)$ and $\bar{U}_{{tpl,t}}(b)$ in Eq.~\ref{app_eq:k_tuple_optimal} to prove Eq.~\ref{eq:k_tuple_LB} and Eq.~\ref{eq:k_tuple_UB}. Given that the bound computations for $V^{*}_{tpl,t}$ are monotone, $\smashoperator{\sum} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)$ does not change for a given tuple as we increases the horizon, and the $max$ operator does not change the monotonicity of $\munderbar{U}_{{tpl,t}}$ and $\bar{U}_{{tpl,t}}$, $\hat{\munderbar{V}}_{P,t}$ and $\hat{\bar{V}}_{P,t}$ are monotone.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Lemma 6}\hspace{0.2cm}\textit{ Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} converges to the optimal solution of the agent POMDP in both finite horizon problems without discounting and infinite horizon problems with discounting.}
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Intuition behind proof:}\hspace{0.2cm} In Lem. 1 to 5, we proved that dividing the agent POMDP into subtasks ($tpl \in tpls$) and computing the lower and upper-bounds for all the tuples in $tpls$ provide valid and monotone bounds on the value of the agent POMDP. In those lemmas, we assumed that $k = k^*$, \emph{i.e.}, a combined model of all the $k^*$ tasks is expanded till the truncated horizon $h$ even though we know that the robot can only attend to $k$ tasks within $h$. Differently, in Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp}, to efficiently solve each $tpl$ for a small truncated horizon $h$, we only consider subsets of size $k$, but compute the bounds on all the $k^*$ POMDPs in $tpl$, so $k<k^*$. Both cases $k=k^*$ and $k < k^*$ use the same lower and upper-bound computations and have the same $h$ as their truncated horizon. However, in the former we perform the tree expansion on a combined model built from all the POMDPs in the $tpl$ set, but in the latter we consider all combinations of the tasks with size $k$ out of the POMDPs in $tpl$ and perform the tree expansion on those only. The proof uses the same idea as~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}. It uses the assumption that within a certain horizon $h$, only $k$ tasks can be attended to, so if we consider all combinations of $k$ tasks out of the members of the $tpl$ ($tpl_u$), we will get the same solution as the combined model of all the tasks in $tpl$.
Given that the bound computations are the same in both cases, when $k < k^*$, we get the same solution as when $k=k^*$ (proof for line 3 in Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} and the \texttt{RecomputeTuples} function), and Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} computes valid and monotone bounds on the value of the agent POMDP.
\hfill \break
\noindent\textbf{Proof:}\hspace{0.2cm}
In Lem. 1 to 5, we proved that dividing the agent POMDP into subtasks ($tpl \in tpls$) and computing the lower and upper-bounds for all the members of $tpls$ provide valid and monotone bounds on the value of the agent POMDP. In these lemmas, we assumed that $k = k^*$, so line 3 of Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} would become $tpls' = \{(tpl_c,tpl_l): tpl \in tpls, tpl_c =tpl, tpl_l=\emptyset \}$, and the \texttt{RecomputeTuples} function would not change the $tpls$ set. However, the benefits of our approach are manifested when the truncated horizon $h$ is smaller than the full planning horizon $H$, and consequently $k < k^*$. In Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp}, we divide each $tpl$ into two sets, $tpl_c$ with $k$ tasks and $tpl_l$ with $k^*-k$ tasks (all possible combinations of $k$ tasks out of $k^*$ tasks), perform the tree expansion for the POMDPs in $tpl_c$ while executing \textit{no ops} on the members of $tpl_l$, and compute the bounds on all members of $tpl_u = tpl_c \cup tpl_l$. When $k < k^*$, if we prove that by using this approach, we get the same solution as when $k=k^*$, we prove that Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} computes valid and monotone bounds on the value of the agent POMDP.
Notice that the only difference between $k=k^*$ and $k < k^*$ is that in the former we perform the tree expansion on all POMDPs in the $tpl$ set, but in the latter we consider all combinations of tasks with size $k$ for the $tpl_c$ set and perform the tree expansion on the POMDPs in $tpl_c$ only. The lower and upper-bound computations are the same in both cases.
We use the same idea as~\cite{mohseni2020efficient}, Lem. 2 and Asm. 1 in \cite{mohseni2020efficient}. For a set of tasks called $tpl$ and the maximum number of tasks that the robot can attend to within the horizon $h$ ($k$), the robot can optimally solve the combined model of all tasks by considering all subsets of tasks of size $k$ ($tpl_c$ with size $k$).
Given the independence between the tasks and the limited tasks assumption, Eq.~\ref{app_eq:div} was proved in~\cite{mohseni2020efficient} for $tpl=P$ and $h=H$ ($k^*$ tasks). Same deductions also apply here to prove Eq.~\ref{app_eq:div}.
\small \begin{equation} \label{app_eq:div}
\begin{split}
&\hat{V}^{*}_{tpl,t} (b) = \max_{tpl' \in tpls'} {V}^{*}_{{tpl'_c,t}}(b_{{tpl'_c}}) + \smashoperator{\sum\limits_{{q\in {tpl'_l}}}} V^{n}_{q,t}(b_q)
\end{split}
\end{equation} \normalsize
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\scriptsize \begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
tpls' = \{(tpl_c,tpl_l): tpl_c \in \euscr{P} (tpl),|tpl_c| = k,tpl_l = tpl_u \setminus tpl_c \}
\end{split}
\end{equation*} \normalsize
This explains why dividing $tpl$ further into subsets of size $k$ (line 3 in Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp}) does not change the validity and monotonicity of the bounds and gives us the same bounds as if we were to build a combined model of all the POMDPs in $tpl_u$.
As we increase $h$, $k$ should also increase to ensure that Eq.~\ref{app_eq:div} is still valid. More specifically, we have to update each tuple in the $tpls'$ set ($tpl' \in tpls'$) to have $k+1$ POMDPs in $tpl_c$ and $k^*-k-1$ POMDPs in $tpl_l$. This is done by the \texttt{RecomputeTuples} function. The algorithm simply removes a POMDP from $tpl_l$ and adds it to the POMDPs in $tpl_c$ to create a new $tpl'_c$ set of size $k+1$ and a new $tpl'_l$ set of size $k^*-k-1$, $tpl' = (tpl'_c,tpl'_l)$. The algorithm considers removing any POMDP from $tpl_l$, to create all possible new tuples. Since the new $tpls'$ set satisfies the limited tasks assumption as we increase the horizon, Eq.~\ref{app_eq:div} holds.
Therefore, all parts of the algorithm preserve the optimality guarantees, and Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} computes an optimal solution for the agent POMDP. In the worst case, the multi-task-AH approach reaches the full horizon $H$ and obtains the same solution as the multi-task-FH approach. In infinite-horizon problems with discounting, when $h \rightarrow \infty$, Alg.~\ref{alg:acpomdp} converges to the optimal solution of the agent POMDP with $H = \infty$.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Large factor models assume that a few factors can capture the common driving forces of a large number of economic variables.
Although factor models are useful, practitioners have to be cautious about the potential structural changes. For example, either the number of factors or the factor loadings may change over time. This
concern is empirically relevant because parameter instability is pervasive in large-scale panel data.
So far, many methods have been developed to test structural breaks in factor models (e.g., \cite{Stock2008}, \cite{Breitung2011}, and \cite{Chen2014}). The rejection of the null hypothesis of no
structural change leads to the subsequent issues of how to estimate the change point, determine the numbers of pre- and post-break factors, and estimate the factor space. \cite{Chen2015} considers a
least-squares estimator of the break point and proves the consistency of the estimated break fraction (i.e., the break date $k$ divided by the full time series $T$, $\frac{k}{T}$).
\cite{Cheng2016} propose a shrinkage method to obtain a consistent estimator of the break fraction.
\cite{Baltagi2017} develop a least-squares estimator of the change point based on the second moments of the estimated pseudo-factors and show that the estimation error of the proposed estimator is
$O_p(1)$, which indicates the consistency of the estimated break fraction. A few recent studies also explore a consistent estimation of break points, which is technically more challenging.
\cite{Ma_Su2018} develop an adaptive fused group Lasso method to consistently estimate all break points under a multibreak setup.
\cite{Barigozzi2018} propose a method based on wavelet transformations to consistently estimate the number and locations of break points in the common and idiosyncratic components.
\cite{Bai2017} establish the consistency of the least-squares estimator of the break point in large factor models when factor loadings are subjected to a structural break and the size of the break is
shrinking as the sample size increases. Although the estimators proposed in these studies are consistent under certain assumptions, the simulation results show that they perform poorly when (1) the
number of factors changes after the break or (2) the loading matrix undergoes a rotational type of change.
According to the factor model literature, a factor model with a break in factor loadings is observationally equivalent to that with constant loadings and possibly more pseudo-factors (e.g.,
\cite{Han2015} and \cite{Bai2016}). Thus, the estimation of the change point of factor loadings can be converted into that of the change point of the second moment of the pseudo-factors. We propose a
quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) method to estimate the break point based on the second moment of the estimated pseudo-factors; therefore, the number of original factors is not required to be known for
computing our estimator. First, we estimate the number of pseudo-factors (defined as the factors in the equivalent representation that ignores the break), and then estimate the pre- and
post-break second moment matrices of the estimated pseudo-factors for all possible sample splits. The structural break date is estimated by minimizing the QML function among all possible split points.
This paper makes the following contributions to the literature. First, we establish the consistency of the QML break point estimator if the break leads to more pseudo-factors than the original pre- or
post-break factors. This occurs when the break augments the factor space or in the presence of disappearing or emerging factors. Under these circumstances, the covariance matrix of loadings on the pre-
or post-break pseudo-factors is singular, which is the key condition to establish the consistency of our QML estimator. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that links the consistency
of the break point estimator to the singularity of covariance matrices of loadings on pre- and post-break pseudo-factors. In addition, we prove that the difference between the estimated and true change
points is stochastically bounded when both pre- and post-break loadings on the pseudo-factors have nonsingular covariance matrices. In this case, the loading matrix only undergoes a rotational change,
and both the numbers of pre- and post-break original factors are equal to the number of pseudo-factors.
The aforementioned singularity leads to a technical challenge of analyzing the asymptotic property. The singular population covariance matrix of the pre(post)-break loadings has a zero determinant,
whose logarithm is undefined. To resolve this issue, we show that the estimated covariance matrices have nonzero determinants and a well-defined inverse for any given sample size, by obtaining the
convergence rate of the lower bound of their smallest eigenvalues. This ensures that the objective function based on the estimated covariance is appropriately defined in any finite sample.
Our second major contribution is that the QML method allows a change in the number of factors. Namely, it allows for disappearing or emerging factors after the break. This is an advantage over the
methods developed by \cite{Ma_Su2018} and \cite{Bai2017}, who assume that the number of factors remains constant after the break. Our simulation result indicates that the estimator proposed by
\cite{Bai2017} is inconsistent when some factors disappear and the remaining factors have time-invariant loadings. \cite{Baltagi2017} allow a change in the number of factors; however, their estimation
error was only stochastically bounded. In contrast, our QML estimator remains consistent under a varying number of factors.
Finally, the QML method has a substantial computational advantage over the estimators that iteratively implement high-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA). For example, the estimator proposed
by \cite{Bai2017} runs PCA for pre- and post-split sample covariance matrices for all possible split points. In comparison, our QML runs PCA for the entire sample only once, and thus, is computationally
more efficient, especially in large samples.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the factor model with a single break on the factor loading matrix and describes the QML estimator for the break date. Section 3
presents the assumptions made for this model. Section 4 presents the consistency and asymptotic distribution of the QLM estimator for the break date.
Section 5 investigates the finite-sample properties of the QML estimator through simulations. Section 6 implements the proposed method to estimate the break points in a monthly macroeconomic dataset of
the United States and a dataset of weekly stock returns of Nasdaq 100 components. Section 7 concludes the study.
The following notations will be used throughout the paper. Let $\rho_i(\mathbb{B})$ denote the $i$-th eigenvalue of an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix $\mathbb{B}$, and $\rho_1(\mathbb{B})\geq \rho_2(\mathbb{B})\geq \cdots \geq \rho_n(\mathbb{B})$.
For an $m\times n$ real matrix $\mathbb{A}$, we denote its Frobenius norm as $\|\mathbb{A}\|= [tr(\mathbb{A}\mathbb{A}^{'})]^{1/2}$, its MP inverse as $\mathbb{A}^{-}$, its $i$-th singular value as $\sigma_{i}(\mathbb{A})$, and its adjoint matrix as $\mathbb{A}^{\#}$ when $m=n$. Let $\mathrm{Proj}(\mathbb{A}|\mathbb{Z})$ denote the projection of matrix $\mathbb{A}$ onto the columns of matrix $\mathbb{Z}$. For a real number $x$, $[x]$ represents the integer part of $x$.
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Model and estimator}
Let us consider the following factor model with a common break at $k_0$ in the factor loadings for $i=1,\cdots,N$:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{it}=
\begin{cases}
\lambda_{i1}f_{t}+e_{it} & for~~ t=1,2,\cdots,k_0(T) \cr
\lambda_{i2}f_{t}+e_{it} & for~~ t=k_0(T)+1,\cdots,T,
\end{cases}
\label{model_1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_t$ is an $r-$dimensional vector of unobserved common factors; $r$ is the number of pseudo-factors; $k_0(T)$ is the unknown break date; $\lambda_{i1}$ and $\lambda_{i2}$ are the pre- and
post-break factor loadings, respectively; and $e_{it}$ is the error term allowed to have serial and cross-sectional dependence as well as heteroskedasticity.
$\tau_0\in (0,1)$ is a fixed constant and $[x]$ represents the integer part of $x$. For notational simplicity, hereinafter, we suppress the dependence of $k_0$ on $T$. Note that the
dimension of $f_t$ is the same as that of the pseudo-factors (to be defined soon) instead of the original underlying factors. This formulation simplifies the representation of various types of breaks in a unified framework, which
will be clarified in the examples below.
In vector form, model (\ref{model_1}) can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{t}=
\begin{cases}
\Lambda_{1}f_{t}+e_{t} & for~~ t=1,2,\cdots,k_0 \cr
\Lambda_{2}f_{t}+e_{t} & for~~ t=k_0+1,\cdots,T,
\end{cases}
\label{model_vector}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_t=[ x_{1t},\cdots,x_{Nt} ]^{'}$, $e_t=[ e_{1t},\cdots,e_{Nt} ]^{'}$, $\Lambda_1=[ \lambda_{11},\cdots,\lambda_{N1} ]^{'}$, and $\Lambda_2=[ \lambda_{12},\cdots,\lambda_{N2} ]^{'}$.
For any $k=1,\cdots,T-1$, we define
$$X_{k}^{(1)}=[x_1,\cdots,x_k]^{'},X_{k}^{(2)}=[x_{k+1},\cdots,x_T]^{'},$$
$$F_{k}^{(1)}=[f_1,\cdots,f_k]^{'},F_k^{(2)}=[f_{k+1},\cdots,f_T],$$
$$\be_{k}^{(1)}=[e_1,\cdots,e_k]^{'},\be_k^{(2)}=[e_{k+1},\cdots,e_T],$$
where the subscript $k$ denotes the date at which the sample is to be split, and the superscripts $(1)$ and $(2)$ denote the pre- and post-$k$ data, respectively. We rewrite (\ref{model_vector}) using
the following matrix representation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
X_{k_0}^{(1)}\\
X_{k_0}^{(2)}\\
\end{array}
\right]
&=&\left[
\begin{matrix}
F_{k_0}^{(1)}\Lambda_1^{'}\\
F_{k_0}^{(2)}\Lambda_2^{'}
\end{matrix}
\right]+
\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
e_{k_0}^{(1)}\\
e_{k_0}^{(2)}\\
\end{array}
\right]
=\left[
\begin{matrix}
F_{k_0}^{(1)}(\Lambda B)^{'}\\
F_{k_0}^{(2)}(\Lambda C)^{'}
\end{matrix}
\right]+
\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
e_{k_0}^{(1)}\\
e_{k_0}^{(2)}\\
\end{array}
\right],\nonumber \\
&=&\left[
\begin{matrix}
F_{k_0}^{(1)}B^{'}\\
F_{k_0}^{(2)}C^{'}\\
\end{matrix}
\right]
\Lambda^{'}+
\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
e_{k_0}^{(1)}\\
e_{k_0}^{(2)}\\
\end{array}
\right], \nonumber\\
&=&G\Lambda^{'}+E,
\label{Baltagi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{k_0}^{(1)}$ and $F_{k_0}^{(2)}$ have dimensions $k_0\times r$ and $(T-k_0)\times r$, respectively, and $\Lambda$ is an $N\times r$ matrix with full column rank. The pre- and post-break
loadings are modeled as $\Lambda_1=\Lambda B$ and $\Lambda_2=\Lambda C$, respectively, where $B$ and $C$ are some $r\times r$ matrices. Both $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ have dimension $N\times r$.
In this model, $r_1=rank(B)\leq r$ and $r_2=rank(C)\leq r$ denote the numbers of \emph{original factors} before and after the break, respectively. We refer to $G$ in (\ref{Baltagi}) as the \emph{pseudo-factors} because the last line of (\ref{Baltagi}) provides an observationally equivalent
representation without a change in the loadings matrix $\Lambda$. In other words, if the break is ignored in the estimation process, then the factors being estimated by a full-sample PCA are actually
the pseudo-factors $G$ in (\ref{Baltagi}).
It is well known that the break can augment the factor space; thus, $r_1 \leq r$ and $r_2 \leq r$, with $rank(G)=r$.
Our representation in (\ref{Baltagi}) allows for changes in the factor loadings
and the number of factors. Below, several examples are provided
to illustrate that the pseudo-factor representation in (\ref{Baltagi}) is general
enough to cover three types of breaks.
\textbf{Type 1}. Both $B$ and $C$ are singular. In this case, the
number of original factors is strictly less than that of the pseudo-factors
both before and after the break (i.e., $r_{1}<r$ and $r_{2}<r$).
This means that the structural break in the factor loadings augments
the dimension of the factor space. Let us consider the following example.
Example (1): Let $\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}$$(k_{0}\times r_{1})$
and $\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}$$((T-k_{0})\times r_{2})$ denote the
original factors before and after the break, respectively, and $\Theta_{1}$
and $\Theta_{2}$ denote the pre- and post-break loadings on these
factors. Thus, this model can be represented and transformed as \begin{eqnarray}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
X_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
X_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\end{array}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\Theta_{2}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)} & 0\\
0 & \mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}
\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
\Theta_{2}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e\nonumber \\
& = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
[\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\;\vdots\;*]B^{\prime}\\
{}[*\;\vdots\;\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}]C^{\prime}\end{array}\right]\Lambda^{\prime}+e=\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}B^{\prime}\\
F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}C^{\prime}\end{array}\right]}_{G}\Lambda^{\prime}+e,\label{eq:ex1}\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda=[\Theta_{1},\Theta_{2}]$, $B=diag(I_{r_{1}},0_{r_{2}\times r_{2}})$,
$C=diag(0_{r_{1}\times r_{1}},I_{r_{2}})$, $F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}=[\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\;\vdots\;*]$,
$F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}=[*\;\vdots\;\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}]$, and the asterisk
denotes some unidentified numbers such that all rows in $F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}$
and $F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}$ have the same variance (to satisfy Assumption
\ref{factors} in Section 3). (Note that the asterisk entries are cancelled due to multiplication by zero in $B$ and $C$.) In the special case of $r_{1}=r_{2}$, $\Lambda$
is of full rank $2r_{1}$ (i.e., the dimension of the pseudo-factor
space is twice that of the original factor space) if the shift in
the loading matrix $\Theta_{2}-\Theta_{1}$ is linearly independent
of $\Theta_{1}$. We refer to this special case as the shift type
of change, because the augmentation of the factor space is induced
by a linearly independent shift in the loading matrix. Hence, Type
1 covers the shift type of change.
\textbf{Type 2}. Only $B$ or $C$ is singular. In this case, emerging or disappearing factors are present in the model. Let us consider the following
example of disappearing factors.
Example (2): Without loss of generality, let us assume that $r_{2}<r_{1}$ and
$\Theta_{2}$ is equal to the first $r_{2}$ columns of $\Theta_{1}$;
thus, the last $r_{1}-r_{2}$ factors disappear after the break. Therefore,
we can obtain the pseudo-factors by using the following transformation
from the original factors $\mathbb{F}$: \begin{eqnarray}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
X_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
X_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\end{array}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\Theta_{2}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
{}[\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\;\vdots\;*]C^{\prime}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e\nonumber \\
& = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}C^{\prime}\end{array}\right]\Theta_{1}^{\prime}+e=\underbrace{\left[\begin{array}{c}
F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}C^{\prime}\end{array}\right]}_{G}\Lambda^{\prime}+e,\label{eq:ex2}\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}=\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}$, $F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}=[\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\;\vdots\;*]$,
$C=diag(I_{r_{2}},0_{(r_{1}-r_{2})\times(r_{1}-r_{2})})$, $\Lambda=\Theta_{1}$,
and the asterisk is defined in a similar manner to that in \eqref{eq:ex1}.
In this example, $B=I_{r_{1}}$, $r=r_{1}$, and $r_{2}=\mathrm{rank}(C)<r$.
Symmetrically, if $B$ is singular and $C=I_{r_{2}}$, then $r_{2}=r$
and $r_{1}=\mathrm{rank}(B)<r$, which means that certain factors emerge after the break point. Type 2 changes are important in empirical
analysis. Please refer to \cite{Mcalinn2018} for empirical evidence
regarding the varying number of factors in the U.S. macroeconomic dataset. For
Types 1 and 2, we obtain a significant result that $P(\hat{k}\lyxmathsym{\textminus}k_{0}=0)\to1$
as $N,T\to\infty$
\footnote{Technically, Types 1 and 2 can be combined into one type that involves
singularity, which renders our QML estimator consistent. We consider
Type 2 separately to emphasize the case of emerging and disappearing
factors
}
\textbf{Type 3}. Both $B$ and $C$ are nonsingular. In this case,
the loadings on the original factors undergo a rotational change,
and the dimension of the original factors is the same as that of the pseudo-factors.
Example (3): Let us assume that $r_{2}=r_{1}$ and $\Theta_{2}=\Theta_{1}C$
for a nonsingular matrix $C$. The model with the original factors
$\mathbb{F}$ can be transformed into the following pseudo-factor representation: \begin{eqnarray}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
X_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
X_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\end{array}\right] & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}\Theta_{2}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\\
\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}C^{\prime}\Theta_{1}^{\prime}\end{array}\right]+e\nonumber \\
& = & \left[\begin{array}{c}
F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}\\
F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}C^{\prime}\end{array}\right]\Theta_{1}^{\prime}+e=G\Lambda^{\prime}+e,\label{eq:ex3}\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{k_{0}}^{(1)}=\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(1)}$, $F_{k_{0}}^{(2)}=\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}$,
and $\Lambda=\Theta_{1}$. In this example, $B=I_{r_{1}}$ and $r=r_{1}=r_{2}$,
and the factor dimension remains constant. In the observationally
equivalent pseudo-factor representation, the loading is time-invariant
and the original post-break factors $\mathbb{F}_{k_{0}}^{(2)}$ are
rotated by $C$. We refer to this as the rotation type of change.
The above examples show that a factor model with any of these three
types of change can be unified and reformulated by the representation
in (\ref{Baltagi}) with pseudo-factors. This representation controls the break
type by varying the settings for $B$ and $C$, and thus, is convenient
for our theoretical analysis.
\cite{Bai2017} rule out the rotation type of change because the break date is not identifiable by minimizing the sum of squared residuals.
\cite{Baltagi2017} allow changes in the number of factors and rotation type of change; however, the difference between their estimator and the true break point is only stochastically bounded (i.e.,
their estimator is not consistent).
Ma and Su's (2018) setup requires $r_1 = r_2$; thus, Type 2 is ruled out under their assumptions. Our simulation result shows that Ma and Su's estimator does not perform well under rotational changes
(Type 3), whereas our QML method can handle changes in all three types discussed above. We obtain a significant result that $\hat{k}-k_0=O_p(1)$ if both $B$ and $C$ are of full rank (i.e.,
Type 3) and $\hat{k}-k_0=o_p(1)$ if $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular (i.e., Type 1 and Type 2).
In this paper, we consider the QML estimator of the break date for model (\ref{Baltagi}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hat{k}=\arg\min_{[\tau_1 T] \leq k \leq [\tau_2 T]} U_{NT}(k),
\label{obj_fun}
\end{eqnarray}
where $[\tau_1 T]$ and $[\tau_2 T]$ denote the prior lower and upper bounds for the real break point $k_0$ with $\tau_1,\tau_2\in (0,1)$ and $\tau_1 \leq \tau_0 \leq \tau_2$. The QML objective function
$U_{NT}(k)$ is equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U_{NT}(k)=k\log( \det( \hat{\Sigma}_1 ) )+(T-k)\log( \det( \hat{\Sigma}_{2} ) ),
\label{obj}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\Sigma}_1&=&\frac{1}{k}\sum\limits_{t=1}^k \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'},\nonumber\\
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}&=&\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits_{t=k+1}^T \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'},
\label{Sig}
\end{eqnarray}
and $\hat{g}_t$ is the PCA estimator of $g_t$ (i.e., the transpose of the $t$-th row of $G$). We define $\Sigma_{G,1}=E(g_t g_t^{'})$ for $t\leq k_0$, $\Sigma_{G,2}=E(g_t g_t^{'})$ for $t>k_0$, and $\Sigma_G=\tau_0 \Sigma_{G,1}+(1-\tau_0)\Sigma_{G,2}$. We define $\Sigma_\Lambda$ as the covariance matrix of $\Lambda$. The PCA estimator $\hat{g}_t$ is asymptotically close to $H^{'}g_t$ for a rotation matrix $H$, and $H \xrightarrow{p} H_0=\Sigma_{\Lambda}^{1/2}\Phi V^{-1/2}$ as $(N,T)\rightarrow \infty$, where $V$ and
$\Phi$ are the eigenvalue and eigenvector matrices of $\Sigma_{\Lambda}^{1/2}\Sigma_G \Sigma_{\Lambda}^{1/2}$, respectively. Evidently, the second moment of $H_0 g_t$ shares the same change point as
that of $g_t$. Therefore, we proceed to estimate the pre- and post-break second moments of $g_t$ by using the estimated factors $\hat{g}_t$, and then use (\ref{obj_fun}) to obtain the QML break point
estimator $\hat{k}_{QML}$. Similar QML objective functions have been used for multivariate time series with observed data (e.g., \cite{Bai2000}).
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Assumptions}
\vspace{-1em}
In this section, we state the assumptions made for establishing the consistency and asymptotic distribution of the QML estimator.
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{factors}
(i) $E\left\|f_t \right\|^4<M<\infty$, $E(f_tf_t^{'})=\Sigma_F$, where $\Sigma_F$ is positive definite, and
$\frac{1}{k_0}\sum_{t=1}^{k_0}f_tf_t^{'}\xrightarrow{p}\Sigma_F,\frac{1}{T-k_0}\sum_{t=k_0+1}^{T}f_tf_t^{'}\xrightarrow{p}\Sigma_F$;
(ii) There exists $d>0$ such that $\left\|\Delta\right\|\geq d>0$, where $\Delta =B\Sigma_FB^{'}- C\Sigma_FC^{'}$ and $B,C$ are $r\times r$ matrices.
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{Factor_Loadings}
$\left\| \lambda_{\ell i} \right\|\leq \bar{\lambda}<\infty$ for $\ell=1,2$, $i=1,\cdots,N$, $\left\| \frac{1}{N}\Lambda^{'}\Lambda-\Sigma_{\Lambda} \right\|\rightarrow 0$ for some $r\times r$ positive
definite matrix $\Sigma_{\Lambda}$.
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{Depen_and_Hetero}
There exists a positive constant $M<\infty$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $E(e_{it})=0$ and $E|e_{it}|^8\leq M$ for all $i=1,\cdots,N$ and $t=1,\cdots,T$;
\item[(ii)] $E(\frac{e_s^{'}e_t}{N})=E(N^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^Ne_{is}e_{it})=\gamma_N(s,t)$ and $\sum_{s=1}^{T}|\gamma_N(s,t)|\leq M$ for every $t\leq T$;
\item[(iii)] $E(e_{it}e_{jt})=\tau_{ij,t}$ with $|\tau_{ij,t} |<\tau_{ij}$ for some $\tau_{ij}$ and for all $t=1,\cdots,T$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{N}|\tau_{ij}|\leq M$ for every $i\leq N$;
\item[(iv)] $E(e_{it}e_{js})=\tau_{ij,ts}$,
\begin{equation*} \frac{1}{NT}\sum\limits_{i,j,t,s=1}|\tau_{ij,ts}|\leq M;
\end{equation*}
\item[(v)] For every $(s,t)$, $E\left| N^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(e_{is}e_{it}-E[e_{is}e_{it}]) \right|^4\leq M$.
\end{itemize}
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{Weak_Dependence}
There exists a positive constant $M<\infty$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_0}}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{k_0}f_te_{it} \right\|^2)&\leq& M,\\
E(\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k_0}}\sum\limits_{t=k_0+1}^{T}f_te_{it}\right\|^2)&\leq& M.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{eigenvalues}
The eigenvalues of $\Sigma_G\Sigma_\Lambda$ are distinct.
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{Hajek-Renyi}
Let us define $\epsilon_t=f_tf_t^{'}-\Sigma_F$. According to the data-generating process (DGP) of factors, the H\'{a}jek-R\'{e}nyi inequality applies to the processes $\{\epsilon_t,t=1,\cdots,k_0\}$,
$\{\epsilon_t,t=k_0,\cdots,1\}$, $\{\epsilon_t,t=k_0+1,\cdots,T\}$, and $\{\epsilon_t,t=T,\cdots,k_0+1\}$.
\end{assum}
\begin{remark}
Using the H\'{a}jek-R\'{e}nyi equality on $\epsilon_t$, we can ensure that $\max\limits_{k_0<k\leq [\tau_2 T]}\| \frac{1}{T-k} \sum\limits_{t=k+1}^{T} f_tf_t^{'}-\Sigma_F\|=O_p(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}})$ in
Lemma \ref{differ} and $\max\limits_{[\tau_1 T]\leq k<k_0}\| \frac{1}{k_0-k} \sum\limits_{t=k+1}^{k_0} g_tg_t^{'} \|=O_p(1), \max\limits_{k_0<k\leq [\tau_2 T]}\| \frac{1}{k-k_0}
\sum\limits_{t=k_0+1}^{k} g_tg_t^{'} \|=O_p(1)$ in Lemmas \ref{differ} and \ref{differ2}.
\label{Hajek_Renyi_Generalized inequality}
\end{remark}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{error_sup}
There exists an $M<\infty$ such that
(i) For each $s=1,\cdots,T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(\max_{k<k_0}\frac{1}{k_0-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_0}|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}[e_{is}e_{it}-E(e_{is}e_{it})]|^2)&\leq& M,\\
E(\max_{k> k_0}\frac{1}{k-k_0}\sum_{t=k_0+1}^{k}|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}[e_{is}e_{it}-E(e_{is}e_{it})]|^2)&\leq& M;
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii)
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(\max_{k<k_0}\frac{1}{k_0-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_0}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i e_{it} \right\|^2)&\leq &M,\\
E(\max_{k>k_0}\frac{1}{k_0-k}\sum_{t=k_0+1}^{k}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i e_{it} \right\|^2)&\leq &M.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{Central_Limit}
There exists an $M<\infty$ such that for all values of $N$ and $T$,
(i) for each $t$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left(\max_{1 \leq k<k_0}\frac{1}{k_0-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_0} \left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{NT}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^Nf_s[e_{is}e_{it}-E(e_{is}e_{it})] \right\|^2\right)&\leq& M,\\
E\left(\max_{k_0<k\leq T}\frac{1}{k-k_0}\sum_{t=k_0+1}^{k} \left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{NT}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^Nf_s[e_{is}e_{it}-E(e_{is}e_{it})] \right\|^2\right)&\leq& M;
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii) the $r\times r$ matrix satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
E\left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{NT}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^Nf_t\lambda_i^{'}e_{it} \right\|^2\leq M.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{assum}
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Asymptotic properties of the QML estimator}
\vspace{-1em}
In this section, we derive the asymptotic properties of the QML estimator for various breaks. In the literature of structural breaks for a fixed-dimensional time series, conventional break point estimators, such as the least-squares (LS) estimator of \cite{Bai1997} or the QML estimator of
\cite{Qu_Perron2007}, are usually inconsistent. The estimation error of these conventional estimators is $O_p(1)$ when the break size is fixed. To reach consistency, the cross-sectional dimension of the
time series must be large (e.g., \cite{Bai2010} and \cite{Kim2011}).
Recall that the observationally equivalent representation in (\ref{Baltagi}) has time-invariant loadings and varying pseudo-factors. Hence, our problem converges to estimating the break point in the
$r$-dimensional time series $g_t$, where $r$ is fixed. Theorems \ref{bound_theorem} and \ref{distribution_theorem} below show that, for rotational breaks (Type 3), the convergence rate and limiting
distribution are similar to those available in the literature. However, for Type 1 and 2 breaks, Theorem \ref{consistency} derives a much more significant result than that available in the literature,
according to which our QML estimator is consistent even if our $g_t$ has only a fixed cross-sectional dimension $r$.
\noindent
\begin{theorem}
Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit}, when both $B$ and $C$ are of full rank, $\hat{k}-k_0=O_p(1)$.
\label{bound_theorem}
\end{theorem}
This theorem implies that the difference between the QML estimator and the true change point is stochastically bounded in model (\ref{eq:ex3}). Although the estimation errors of both \cite{Baltagi2017} and our QML
methods are bounded, the QML estimator has much better finite sample properties. To confirm this theoretical result, we conduct a simulation where the factor loadings have a rotational change (see
DGP 1.B in Section 5). Table \ref{rotation_full_rank} presents the MAEs and RMSEs of different estimators. The simulation result shows that the QML estimators have much smaller MAEs and RMSEs than other
methods. In addition, $\hat{k}$ does not collapse to $k_0$, leading to a nondegenerate distribution. We will state the limiting distribution in Theorem \ref{distribution_theorem}. Nevertheless, this
theorem shows that the break point can be appropriately estimated because $\hat{\tau}=\hat{k}/T$ is still consistent for $\tau_0$.
To make an inference regarding the change point when both $B$ and $C$ are of full rank, we derive the limiting distribution of $\hat{k}$. Let us define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi_t & = & H_{0}^{'}g_{t}g_{t}^{'}H_{0}-\Sigma_{1}\text{ for }t\leq k_{0},\\
\xi_t & = & H_{0}^{'}g_{t}g_{t}^{'}H_{0}-\Sigma_{2}\text{ for }t>k_{0},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Sigma_{1}=H_{0}^{'}\Sigma_{G,1}H_{0}$ and $\Sigma_{2}=H_{0}^{'}\Sigma_{G,2}H_{0}$
are the pre- and post-breaks of $H_{0}^{'}E(g_{t}g_{t}^{'})H_{0}$. The limiting distribution of $\hat{k}$ is given by the following theorem:
\noindent
\begin{theorem}
Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit}, when both $B$ and $C$ are of full rank,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{k}-k_0\xrightarrow{d} \arg\min\limits_\ell W(\ell),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&W(\ell)=\sum\limits_{t=k_0+\ell}^{k_0-1}tr((\Sigma_2^{-1}-\Sigma_1^{-1})\xi_t)-\left( tr(\Sigma_1\Sigma_2^{-1})-r-\log|\Sigma_1\Sigma_2^{-1}| \right)\ell\\
&&\text{for }\ell=-1,-2,\cdots,\\
&&W(\ell)=0\text{ for }\ell=0,\\
&&W(\ell)=\sum\limits_{t=k_0+1}^{k_0+\ell}tr((\Sigma_1^{-1}-\Sigma_2^{-1})\xi_t)+\left( tr(\Sigma_1^{-1}\Sigma_2)-r-\log|\Sigma_1^{-1}\Sigma_2| \right)\ell\\
&&\text{for }\ell=1,2,\cdots.
\end{eqnarray*}
\label{distribution_theorem}
\end{theorem}
This result shows that the limiting distribution depends on $\xi_t$.
If $\xi_t$ is independent over time, then $W(\ell)$ is a two-sided random walk. If $f_t$ is stationary, then $\xi_t$ is stationary in each regime.
Here, the limiting distribution of the estimated break date is dependent on the generation processes of the unobserved factors, and thus, cannot be directly used to construct a confidence interval for a
true break point.
\cite{Bai2017} propose a bootstrap method to construct a confidence interval for $k_0$ when the change in the factor loading matrix shrinks as $N\to \infty$.
However, their bootstrap procedure lacks robustness in the cross-sectional correlation in the error terms.
In the current setup, the break magnitude $\left\| \Sigma_2-\Sigma_1 \right\|$ is fixed and we leave the case of shrinking break magnitude as a future topic.
Next, we establish a much stronger result than that available in the literature, which states that the QML estimator remains consistent when $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular. We make the following
additional assumptions.
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{as-.LeeL}
With probability approaching one (w.p.a.1), the following inequalities hold:
\begin{align*}
&0<\underline{c}\le \min_{[\tau_{1}T]\le k\le k_{0}}\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{Nk}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\Lambda^{\prime}e_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}\Lambda\right),\\
&0<\underline{c}\le \min_{k_{0}\le k\le[\tau_{2}T]}\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{N(T-k)}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\Lambda^{\prime}e_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}\Lambda\right),\,\text{for }j=1,\cdots,r;\\
&\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{NT}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\Lambda^{\prime}e_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}\Lambda\right)\le \overline{c}<+\infty,
\end{align*}
as $N,T\to\infty$, where $\underline{c}$ and $\overline{c}$ are some constants.
\noindent \end{assum}
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{invariance}
\begin{align*}
\max_{[\tau_{1}T]\le k\le k_{0}}\left\Vert \frac{1}{\sqrt{Nk}}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\sum_{i=1}^{N}f_{t}e_{it}\lambda_{i}^{\prime}\right\Vert & =O_{p}(1),\\
\max_{k_{0}\le k\le[\tau_{2}T]}\left\Vert \frac{1}{\sqrt{N(T-k)}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{N}f_{t}e_{it}\lambda_{i}^{\prime}\right\Vert & =O_{p}(1).\end{align*}
\end{assum}\vspace{2em}
Assumption \ref{as-.LeeL} is useful to derive the lower bound of the smallest eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ (or $\hat{\Sigma}_2$) if $B$ (or $C$) is a singular matrix. Assumption \ref{invariance} strengthens Assumption \ref{Central_Limit}(ii), which is similar to Assumption F2 of \cite{Bai2003}. Note that the summation $\sum\limits_{t=1}^k$ in Assumptions \ref{as-.LeeL}-\ref{invariance} involves a positive fraction of observations over time since the lower bound of $k$ is $\tau_1 T$, with $\tau_1\in (0,1)$.
Also, as the log of matrix determinant is involved in the QML function, a natural problem is that the
log determinant of a singular population covariance matrix is undefined when $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular. Fortunately, the determinants of $\hat{\Sigma}_1=\frac{1}{k}\sum\limits_{t=1}^k \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'}$ and
$\hat{\Sigma}_2=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits_{t=k+1}^T \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'}$ are small but not equal to zero in finite samples, when $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are
singular matrices. The following proposition develops a lower bound for the smallest
eigenvalues of $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_2$.
\begin{proposition}\label{low_bound} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{invariance}, for $k\ge k_{0}$
and $k\le[\tau_{2}T]$, if $C$ is singular and $\sqrt{N}/T\to0$
as $N,T\to\infty$, then there exist constants
$c_{U}\ge c_{L}>0$ such that \begin{align*}
P\left(\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})\ge\frac{c_{L}}{N}\right) & \to1,\\
P\left(\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})\le\frac{c_{U}}{N}\right) & \to1,\end{align*}
for $j=r_{2}+1,...,r$.
\end{proposition}
In proposition \ref{low_bound}, the lower bound of the smallest eigenvalue of the estimated sample covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ is $c_L/N$ for a constant $c_L>0$ w.p.a.1. A similar lower bound for the smallest eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ can be obtained when $B$ is singular under the same assumptions.
This ensures a lower bound for the determinants of the estimated sample covariance matrices. Proposition \ref{low_bound} provides a useful tool to establish the consistency of our QML estimator.
Although this technical result is a byproduct in our analysis, we believe that it is of independent interest and useful in other contexts.
\noindent \begin{assum}\label{B_C_full_rank_project}
(i) $[B,C]$ is of full row rank.
(ii) $C^{\#}Bf_{k_0}\neq 0$ when $r-1=r_2>0$; and $B^{\#}Cf_{k_0+1}\neq 0$ when $r-1=r_1>0$, where $\mathbb{A}^{\#}$ denotes the adjoint matrix for a singular matrix $\mathbb{A}$.
(iii) $\|Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(Bf_{k_{0}}|C)\|\ge d>0$ when $r-r_2\geq 2$ or $r_{2}=0$; and $\|Cf_{k_{0}+1}-\mathrm{Proj}(Cf_{k_{0}+1}|B)\|\ge d>0$ when $r-r_1\geq 2$ or $r_{1}=0$, where
$\mathrm{Proj}(\mathbb{A}|\mathbb{Z})$ denotes the projection
of $\mathbb{A}$ onto the columns of $\mathbb{Z}$, and $d$ is a constant.
\end{assum}
Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(i) implies that $\Sigma_G$ is positive definite.$\footnote{Since \begin{eqnarray*}
rank(\Sigma_G)&=&rank\left(\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\sqrt{\tau_0}B,\sqrt{1-\tau_0}C
\end{array}
\right]
diag\left(\Sigma_F,\Sigma_F\right)
\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\sqrt{\tau_0}B,\sqrt{1-\tau_0}C
\end{array}
\right]^{'}\right)
=rank\left(\left[
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\sqrt{\tau_0}B,\sqrt{1-\tau_0}C
\end{array}
\right]\right)\\
&=&rank\left(
[B,C]diag\left( \sqrt{\tau_0}I_r, \sqrt{1-\tau_0}I_r \right) \right)=rank\left([B,C]\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and $1<\tau_0<1$, Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} implies that $\Sigma_G$ is a positive definite matrix.
}
$ Assumptions \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(ii) implies that $B^{\#}C\neq 0$ when $r-1=r_1>0$, and $C^{\#}B\neq 0$ when $r-1=r_2>0$. It also excludes the possibility that $f_{k_0}$ and $f_{k_0+1}$ are in the null space of $C^{\#}B$ and $B^{\#}C$, respectively. Similarly, Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(iii) rules out the cases that $Bf_{k_0}$ lies in the column space of $C$ when $r-r_2\geq 2$ or $r_2=0$ and that $Cf_{k_0+1}$ lies in the column space of $B$ when $r-r_1\geq 2$ or $r_1=0$.\footnote{Note that $r_2=0$ means $C=0$, so $B$ has to be nonsingular by Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(i). Thus, Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(iii) implies that $f_{k_0}\neq 0$ when $C=0$.}
Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} is used to establish Lemma \ref{differ2}, which is useful for validating the consistency result that $Prob(\hat{k}-k = 0) \to 1$ in the proof of Theorem
\ref{consistency}. It ensures that the value of the objective function becomes larger even if $\hat{k}$ slightly deviates from the true break point in large samples. Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} is flexible enough to allow various data generating processes for $f_t$. For example, if $f_{k_{0}}$ and $f_{k_{0}+1}$ have continuous probability distribution functions, then Assumptions \ref{B_C_full_rank_project}(ii)-(iii) just exclude a zero probability event since $C^{\#}B$ and $B^{\#}C$ are not equal to zero.
It is remarkable that existing estimators such as \cite{Baltagi2017} and \cite{Bai2017} are not consistent even if Assumptions \ref{as-.LeeL} -- \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} hold. In contrast, our QML estimator is shown to be consistent under these additional assumptions. The following theorem summarizes the result.
\begin{theorem}
Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{B_C_full_rank_project} and $\frac{N}{T}\to\kappa$, as
$N,T\to\infty$ for $0<\kappa<\infty$, when $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular, $Prob(\hat{k}-k = 0) \to 1.$
\label{consistency}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{consistency} shows that the estimated change point converges to the true change point w.p.a.1 when $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular (Types 1 and 2 in Section 2). This result is much more
significant than that obtained by \cite{Baltagi2017}, who show that the distance between the estimated and true break dates is bounded for Types 1--3. Note that the case in which only $B$ (or $C$) is
singular corresponds to Type 2 with emerging (or disappearing) factors. Our QML estimator is consistent under this type of change, whereas \cite{Bai2017} and \cite{Ma_Su2018} rule out this type by
assumption. In empirical applications, the conditions of theorem \ref{consistency} are rather flexible and likely to hold and the consistency of the break date estimator is expected
in most economic data for the factor analysis.
\begin{remark}
An important contribution of Theorem \ref{consistency} is to link the consistency of the QML estimator with the singularity of the covariance matrices of the pre- or post-break factor loadings.
The singularity is generated by the special structure of the pseudo-factors $g_t$ shown in (\ref{eq:ex1}) and (\ref{eq:ex2}) in the presence of a structural change.
The PCA estimator $\hat{g}_t$ is consistent for $g_t$ (up to some rotation) for large $N$ and $T$, so the singularity structure is maintained in $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ and hence contributes to the consistency of our QML estimator. The result in Theorem \ref{consistency} is in contrast to
conventional break point estimators, which only have $O_p(1)$ estimation errors in multivariate time series with a small cross-sectional
dimension (e.g., \cite{Bai1997}; \cite{Qu_Perron2007}). Although our $\hat{g}_t$ has a fixed dimension, the divergence rate of the objective function depends on $N$. $\footnote{This is because the convergence rate of the smallest eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ is $N^{-1}$ for $k = k_0$ when $C$ is singular. See Proposition 1.}$
In other words, our QML estimator still implicitly utilizes the information in the large cross-sectional dimension, which is the source of our consistency.
\label{consistency_remark}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The conditions that $B$ or $C$, or both, is singular and $\frac{N}{T}\rightarrow \kappa\in (0,\infty)$ are likely to hold in many economic datasets for factor
analysis.
If both $B$ and $C$ are singular, the break occurs such that the number of pseudo-factors in the entire factor model is larger than that of the factors in the pre- and post-break subsamples. This can happen when the factor loadings undergo a shift type of change, as discussed in Example (1) for Type 1 changes.
If $B$ is of full rank and $C$ is singular, some factors become irrelevant, and thus, the loading coefficients attached to these disappearing factors become zero. For example, in the momentum portfolio,
some risks are not part of the firm's long-run structure as only sorting based on recent returns works; the reward is high but disappears within less than a year.
If $B$ is singular and $C$ is of full rank, some factors emerge after the break date, increasing the dimension of the post-break factor space. For example, changes in the technology or policy may
produce certain new factors.
\label{consistency_remark2}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Theorem \ref{consistency} indicates that $U_{NT}(k)$ can be minimized to consistently estimate $k_0$. The intuition for this is that $U_{NT}(k)-U_{NT}(k_0)$ is always larger than zero, even if $k$
deviates only slightly from the true break point $k_0$, so that $\hat{k}$ must be equal to $k_0$ to minimize $U_{NT}(k)-U_{NT}(k_0)$.
For example, in Type 1, when both $B$ and $C$ are singular for $k<k_0$, we can decompose $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ as $\hat{\Sigma}_2=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits_{t=k+1}^{k_0} \hat{g}_t
\hat{g}_t^{'}+\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits_{t=k_0+1}^T \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'}$, and the term $\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits_{t=k+1}^{k_0} \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'}$ results in a larger determinant of $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ than that of $\hat{\Sigma}_2^{0}=\frac{1}{T-k_0}\sum\limits_{t=k_0+1}^T \hat{g}_t \hat{g}_t^{'}$.
By symmetry, we obtain a similar result for $k>k_0$. (See Lemmas \ref{differ} and \ref{differ2} for more technical details.) Thus, $U_{NT}(k)-U_{NT}(k_0)>0$ w.p.a.1 as $N,T\to\infty$ if $k\neq k_0$.
\label{singular_remark}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
With the QML estimator, we do not need to know the numbers of original factors $r_1$ and $r_2$ before and after the break point, but only the number of pseudo-factors in the entire sample.
\cite{Bai2017} and \cite{Ma_Su2018} require knowledge of the number of original factors, which is much more difficult to estimate due to the augmented factor space resulting from the break. In practice,
the number of pseudo-factors is much easier to estimate by using one of a number of estimators, such as the information criteria developed by \cite{Bai2002}.
\label{pseudo_true_fators}
\end{remark}
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Simulation}
\vspace{-1em}
In this section, we consider DGPs corresponding to Types 1--3 to evaluate the finite sample performance of the QML estimator. We compare the QML estimator with three other estimators. As shown below,
$\hat{k}_{BKW}$ is the estimator proposed by Baltagi, Kao, and Wang (2017, BKW hereafter); $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ is the estimator proposed by Bai, Han, and Shi (2020, BHS hereafter); $\hat{k}_{MS}$ is the
estimator proposed by Ma and Su (2018, MS hereafter); and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ is the QML estimator. \cite{Barigozzi2018} develops a change point estimator using wavelet transformation, which exhibits
similar performance to that of the estimator proposed by \cite{Ma_Su2018}. Hence, the comparison with the estimator proposed by \cite{Barigozzi2018} is not reported here, but the result is available
upon request.
The DGP roughly follows BKW, which can be used to examine various elements that may affect the finite sample performance of the estimators, and we use this DGP for model (\ref{Baltagi}).
We calculate the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) of these change point estimators $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{QML}$, and each experiment is repeated 1000
times, where RMSE$=\sqrt{\frac{1}{1000}\sum\limits_{s=1}^{1000}(\hat{k}_s-k_0)^2}$ and MAE$=\frac{1}{1000}\sum\limits_{s=1}^{1000}|\hat{k}_s-k_0|$.
When $T$ is small, there is a possibility that Ma and Su's (2018) method detects no break or multiple breaks; thus, the definition of the estimation error for a single break point in such cases is not
straightforward. For a comparison, we compute the RMSE and MAE of the MS estimator by only using the results obtained by the MS estimator when it successfully detects a single break.
As the computation of $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ and $\hat{k}_{MS}$ requires the number of original factors and that of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ requires the number of pseudo-factors, we set
$\hat{r}=r_0$ for $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ and $\hat{k}_{MS}$ and $\hat{r}=r$ for $\hat{k}_{QML}$ and $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, where $r_0$ is the number of original factors and $r$ is the number of pseudo-factors.
We generate factors and idiosyncratic errors using a DGP similar to that of BKW. Each factor is generated by the following AR(1) process:
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{tp}=\rho f_{t-1,p}+u_{t,p},\quad for\quad t=2,\cdots,T;\quad p=1,\cdots,r_0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $u_t=(u_{t,1},\cdots,u_{t,r_0})^{'}$ is i.i.d. $N(0,I_{r_0})$ for $t=2,\cdots,T$ and $f_1=(f_{1,1},\cdots,f_{1,r_0})^{'}$ is i.i.d. $N(0,\frac{1}{1-\rho^2}I_{r_0})$. The scalar $\rho$ captures the
serial correlation of factors, and the idiosyncratic errors are generated by
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_{i,t}=\alpha e_{i,t-1}+v_{i,t},\quad for\quad i=1,\cdots,N\quad t=2,\cdots,T,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $v_t=(v_{1,t},\cdots,v_{N,t})^{'}$ is i.i.d. $N(0,\Omega)$ for $t=2,\cdots,T$ and $e_1=(e_{1,1},\cdots,e_{N,1})^{'}$ is $N(0,\frac{1}{(1-\alpha^2) \Omega})$. The scalar $\alpha$ captures the
serial correlation of the idiosyncratic errors, and $\Omega$ is generated as $\Omega_{ij}=\beta^{|i-j|}$ so that $\beta$ captures the degree of cross-sectional dependence of the idiosyncratic errors. In
addition, $u_t$ and $v_t$ are mutually independent for all values of $t$. We set $r_0=3$ and $k_0=T/2$.
We consider the following DGPs for factor loadings and investigate the performance of the QML estimator for the three types of breaks discussed in Section 2.
\textbf{DGP 1.A} We first consider the case in which $C$ is singular, and set $C=[1,0,0;0,1,0;0,0,0]$. This setup aims to model (\ref{eq:ex2}). In the pre-break regime, all elements of $\lambda_{i,1}$
are i.i.d. $N(0,\frac{1}{r_0^2}I_{r_0})$ across $i$. In the post-break regime, $\Lambda_2=(\lambda_{1,2},\cdots,\lambda_{N,2})^{'}=\Lambda_1C$. This case corresponds to a Type 2 change with a
disappearing factor. The number of pseudo-factors is the same as $r_0$, so $r=3$, and the numbers of pre- and post-break factors are 3 and rank$(C)=2$, respectively.
Table \ref{rotation_singular} lists the RMSEs and MAEs of three estimators for different values of $(\rho, \alpha, \beta)$.
In all cases, $\hat{k}_{QML}$ has much smaller MAEs and RMSEs than $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ and $\hat{k}_{BHS}$.
Moreover, the MAEs and RMSEs of $\hat{k}_{QML}$ tend to decrease as $N$ and $T$ increase. This confirms the consistency of $\hat{k}_{QML}$ established in Theorem \ref{consistency}. In addition, the
RMSEs and MAEs of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ do not converge to zero as $N$ and $T$ increase, which confirms that $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ has a stochastically bounded estimation error. $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ does not appear to
be consistent when a factor disappears after the break. Moreover, a larger AR(1) coefficient $\rho$ tends to deteriorate the performance of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, but does not have much impact on our QML
estimator.
\textbf{DGP 1.B} We next consider the case in which $C$ is of full rank. We set $C$ as a lower triangular matrix. The diagonal elements are equal to $0.5$, $1.5$, and $2.5$, and the elements below these
diagonal elements are i.i.d. and drawn from a standard normal distribution. Under this DGP, we have $r = r_0$.
Table \ref{rotation_full_rank} reports the performance of three estimators for different values of $(\rho, \alpha, \beta)$.
In all cases, $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ appear to have stochastically bounded estimation errors, which confirms Theorem 1 of BKW and Theorem \ref{bound_theorem} of this paper.
Both $\hat{k}_{QML}$ and $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ are inconsistent under this DGP; however, under all settings, our QML estimator tends to have much smaller RMSEs and MAEs than the estimator of BKW.
The MAEs and RMSEs of $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ appear to increase with the sample size; thus, the BHS method cannot handle this case.
\textbf{DGP 1.C} In this case, we set $C=[1,0,0;2,1,0;3,2,m]$ and $m\in \{1,0.8,0.5,0.1,0\}$. As $m$ decreases to zero, the matrix $C$ changes from full rank to singular. We still consider serial
correlation in factors and serial correlation and cross-sectional dependence in idiosyncratic errors simultaneously with $N=100, T=100$. Table \ref{full_rank_to_singular} shows that the MAEs and RMSEs
of $\hat{k}_{QML}$ monotonically decrease with $m$, which confirms our findings in Theorems \ref{bound_theorem} and \ref{consistency}.
In addition, the RMSEs and MAEs of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ and $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ are much larger than those of $\hat{k}_{QML}$, and do not tend toward zero as $m$ decreases. For each value of $m$, the experiment
is repeated 10000 times to more accurately estimate and compare the RMSEs (MAEs) of our QML estimator across different values of $m$.
\textbf{DGP 1.D} This DGP considers a Type 1 break. In the first regime, the last elements of $\lambda_{i,1}$ are zeros for all $i$, and the first two elements of $\lambda_{i,1}$ are both i.i.d.
$N(0,\frac{1}{2}I_{r_0})$. In the second regime, $\lambda_{i,2}$ is i.i.d. $N(0,\frac{1}{3}I_{r_0})$ across $i$. As $\lambda_{i,1}$ and $\lambda_{i,2}$ are independent, the numbers of factors in the two
regimes are $r_1=2$ and $r_2=3$, respectively, and the number of pseudo-factors is $r=5$. Because the numbers of pre- or post-break factors are smaller than that of the pseudo-factors, both $\Sigma_1$ and
$\Sigma_2$ are singular matrices.
Table \ref{singular_pre_post_break} reports the MAEs and RMSEs of $\hat{k}_{QML}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ under this DGP.
Table \ref{singular_pre_post_break} shows the performances of both $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ and our $\hat{k}_{QML}$. Their MAEs (RMSEs) are less than 0.05 (0.25) for all combinations of $N$, $T$,
$\rho$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$. Although $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ is consistent under this DGP, our QML estimator still has smaller RMSEs than $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ in most cases reported in Table
\ref{singular_pre_post_break}. In addition, $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ performs better under this DGP than DGPs 1.A--1.C. However, its estimation error is much larger than that of our QML estimator. This is not
surprising because $\hat{k}_{BKW}$ is not consistent. Finally, a larger AR(1) coefficient $\rho$ tends to yield a larger bias for $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, but does not have much effect on the performances of
$\hat{k}_{BHS}$ and $\hat{k}_{QML}$.
In summary, Tables \ref{rotation_singular} and \ref{rotation_full_rank} show that the QML estimator performs much better than $\hat{k}_{BHS}$ under Type 2 and 3 breaks, which are ruled out under the
assumptions of \cite{Bai2017}. Table \ref{singular_pre_post_break} shows that the QML estimator often slightly outperforms $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, even though the latter is known to be consistent and has excellent finite-sample performance under Type
1 breaks. Note that the strength of the BHS method is the consistent estimation of break point for Type 1 break, especially when the size of the break is shrinking as the sample size increases. Under settings with a shrinking break size, the QML method will lose its power because the dimension
of $G$ (determined by the IC criterion in \cite{Bai2002}) will not be augmented, which means that the singularity does not show up in the covariance if breaks are small enough.
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Simulated mean absolute errors (MAEs) and root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ under DGP 1.A.}
\centering
\label{rotation_singular}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE \\ \hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &6.3130 &8.9546 &5.4600 &7.7325 &1.6070 &2.9293 \\
100,200 & &7.0230 &11.9053 &7.9580 &12.4801 &1.2990 &2.3206 \\
200,200 & &5.6730 &9.9774 &6.7150 &10.8610 &0.7960 &1.5218 \\
200,500 & &4.6940 &8.5732 &10.0960 &17.9778 &0.7340 &1.3799 \\
500,500 & &4.4580 &8.5789 &8.6770 &15.6509 &0.3890 &0.8597 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &9.7200 &12.0612 &4.5670 &6.9270 &1.3570 &2.7592 \\
100,200 & &14.3410 &19.5941 &7.0110 &11.1559 &1.0470 &2.2070 \\
200,200 & &13.6260 &19.1151 &6.7760 &10.9099 &0.5840 &1.2394 \\
200,500 & &15.4880 &27.5716 &10.5450 &18.7350 &0.5190 &1.1406 \\
500,500 & &16.9890 &29.5463 &8.2030 &15.1581 &0.3210 &0.7944 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &6.5060 &9.1533 &6.1520 &8.6248 &2.3740 &4.0635 \\
100,200 & &7.5490 &12.4416 &8.7150 &13.4473 &1.6920 &3.1464 \\
200,200 & &6.2890 &10.8337 &8.4910 &13.2894 &1.0230 &1.9409 \\
200,500 & &5.1220 &10.1068 &11.3960 &19.4945 &0.8110 &1.5156 \\
500,500 & &4.7580 &9.5055 &10.3660 &18.7453 &0.4570 &0.9407 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &6.6620 &9.2573 &4.7300 &6.9593 &1.7580 &3.1183 \\
100,200 & &7.8200 &12.5561 &6.1740 &10.2069 &1.4930 &2.6943 \\
200,200 & &6.4500 &10.9881 &5.8020 &9.7340 &0.7480 &1.4276 \\
200,500 & &4.9340 &10.3110 &5.9390 &10.6041 &0.7020 &1.3900 \\
500,500 & &4.0550 &7.7718 &5.8820 &11.0830 &0.3660 &0.8567 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &9.9510 &12.3063 &5.4430 &7.6969 &1.8080 &3.4531 \\
100,200 & &14.2890 &19.5804 &7.1810 &11.7141 &1.3250 &2.5367 \\
200,200 & &14.8820 &20.3572 &7.3080 &11.8072 &0.7450 &1.6592 \\
200,500 & &17.0330 &29.3210 &9.2010 &17.0803 &0.6680 &1.3461 \\
500,500 & &14.7130 &26.3587 &10.3800 &19.2727 &0.3540 &0.8331 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{ Simulated mean absolute errors (MAEs) and root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ under DGP 1.B.}
\centering
\label{rotation_full_rank}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE \\ \hline
& & & &$\rho=0$, &$\alpha=0$, &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &4.1610 &6.6934 &8.7430 &11.0347 &1.2180 &2.3259 \\
100,200 & &4.4450 &8.4477 &18.5660 &22.9913 &0.9960 &1.8799 \\
200,200 & &4.9160 &8.9420 &19.4440 &23.6923 &0.9060 &1.7082 \\
200,500 & &4.4530 &8.8368 &49.3330 &59.4865 &0.9130 &1.7085 \\
500,500 & &3.9420 &7.2061 &51.9270 &61.5507 &0.8370 &1.5959 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &6.4570 &9.4427 &10.1710 &12.3371 &1.9460 &3.7691 \\
100,200 & &9.1750 &14.8115 &21.3380 &25.1834 &1.8480 &3.6362 \\
200,200 & &9.6310 &15.0080 &21.5560 &25.2723 &1.7850 &3.5901 \\
200,500 & &11.4150 &21.3302 &51.9850 &61.9028 &1.6750 &3.4218 \\
500,500 & &9.5430 &18.4598 &53.6060 &62.7128 &1.6490 &3.5501 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &3.9840 &6.4778 &7.9990 &10.5485 &1.0910 &2.1824 \\
100,200 & &4.6820 &8.6151 &17.6010 &22.5002 &1.0360 &1.9432 \\
200,200 & &4.6350 &8.4454 &21.9190 &26.0996 &0.8770 &1.7306 \\
200,500 & &4.2690 &8.2870 &50.1790 &61.5307 &0.8600 &1.6474 \\
500,500 & &4.2040 &8.3094 &54.8050 &64.8615 &0.8040 &1.5492 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &4.3220 &6.9244 &7.7560 &10.0601 &1.0510 &1.9802 \\
100,200 & &4.7150 &8.6248 &14.5640 &19.4154 &0.9830 &1.8571 \\
200,200 & &4.5300 &8.2421 &18.7950 &23.1307 &0.9090 &1.7587 \\
200,500 & &3.9080 &7.3553 &42.6850 &54.8098 &0.8900 &1.6199 \\
500,500 & &4.3570 &8.5140 &49.6030 &59.6292 &0.8250 &1.6843 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &6.6990 &9.6327 &9.1750 &11.4037 &2.0750 &3.9735 \\
100,200 & &9.4990 &15.0852 &18.7450 &23.3085 &2.0590 &4.5305 \\
200,200 & &9.2240 &14.6721 &20.4670 &24.5054 &1.8140 &3.8021 \\
200,500 & &12.8110 &23.1517 &51.0760 &61.1890 &1.7200 &3.5844 \\
500,500 & &10.0590 &19.2453 &52.5400 &62.2628 &1.7000 &3.6521 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.7}
\caption{ Simulated mean absolute errors (MAEs) and root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ under DGP 1.C with $N=100,T=100$ among 10000 replications.}
\centering
\label{full_rank_to_singular}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$m$ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE \\ \hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &3.9228 &6.4437 &7.2579 &9.7141 &0.6562 &1.2903 \\
0.8 & &3.9425 &6.4624 &6.6330 &9.1145 &0.6348 &1.2559 \\
0.5 & &3.7847 &6.2319 &5.4950 &7.9789 &0.5420 &1.0814 \\
0.1 & &3.8469 &6.2895 &4.6050 &6.9212 &0.5093 &1.0568 \\
0 & &3.8310 &6.2414 &4.4915 &6.8352 &0.4969 &1.0315 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &6.0404 &9.0280 &9.3131 &11.5733 &0.9478 &2.0680 \\
0.8 & &6.0063 &9.0017 &8.5168 &10.9192 &0.8547 &1.8960 \\
0.5 & &5.9803 &8.9390 &6.5127 &9.0641 &0.6925 &1.5752 \\
0.1 & &5.9300 &8.8833 &4.6894 &7.0610 &0.5178 &1.2335 \\
0 & &6.0197 &8.9771 &4.5440 &6.9049 &0.5070 &1.2057 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &3.8349 &6.2423 &7.1824 &9.7359 &0.6727 &1.3234 \\
0.8 & &3.8234 &6.2331 &6.6551 &9.2338 &0.6535 &1.2963 \\
0.5 & &3.8345 &6.3110 &5.8040 &8.3371 &0.6152 &1.2362 \\
0.1 & &3.9127 &6.4083 &5.0645 &7.4846 &0.5895 &1.1644 \\
0 & &3.9188 &6.4124 &4.9815 &7.3974 &0.5813 &1.1551 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
1 & &3.8250 &6.3150 &6.2535 &8.7224 &0.6622 &1.3039 \\
0.8 & &3.8135 &6.2932 &5.6808 &8.1438 &0.6259 &1.2379 \\
0.5 & &3.8253 &6.3061 &4.6189 &6.9328 &0.5619 &1.1171 \\
0.1 & &3.9120 &6.4147 &3.9299 &6.0820 &0.5424 &1.0949 \\
0 & &3.8176 &6.2881 &3.8963 &6.0564 &0.5199 &1.0497 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
1 & &6.0745 &9.0347 &8.0648 &10.5304 &1.0515 &2.2669 \\
0.8 & &6.0041 &8.9542 &7.3126 &9.8433 &0.9338 &2.0173 \\
0.5 & &6.0519 &9.0124 &5.8471 &8.4490 &0.7798 &1.7537 \\
0.1 & &6.0120 &8.9694 &4.6376 &7.1447 &0.6100 &1.4401 \\
0 & &6.0379 &8.9861 &4.5336 &7.0337 &0.5850 &1.3509 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Simulated mean absolute errors (MAEs) and root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of $\hat{k}_{BKW}$, $\hat{k}_{BHS}$, and $\hat{k}_{QML}$ under DGP 1.D.}
\centering
\label{singular_pre_post_break}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE & MAE & RMSE \\ \hline
& & & &$\rho=0$, &$\alpha=0$, &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &0.4330 &1.3494 &0.0370 &0.1975 &0.0260 &0.1673 \\
100,200 & &0.3380 &1.0900 &0.0300 &0.1732 &0.0240 &0.1549 \\
200,200 & &0.2780 &0.7668 &0.0180 &0.1342 &0.0130 &0.1140 \\
200,500 & &0.2850 &0.8155 &0.0070 &0.0837 &0.0100 &0.1000 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &1.8760 &4.8750 &0.0120 &0.1095 &0.0110 &0.1049 \\
100,200 & &1.1140 &4.0007 &0.0150 &0.1225 &0.0110 &0.1140 \\
200,200 & &0.8700 &3.5000 &0.0050 &0.0707 &0.0020 &0.0447 \\
200,500 & &0.4070 &1.3435 &0.0030 &0.0548 &0.0010 &0.0316 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &0.4400 &1.4519 &0.0450 &0.2302 &0.0410 &0.2258 \\
100,200 & &0.3590 &1.3802 &0.0440 &0.2145 &0.0340 &0.1897 \\
200,200 & &0.3080 &0.8438 &0.0150 &0.1225 &0.0140 &0.1265 \\
200,500 & &0.2150 &0.6656 &0.0160 &0.1265 &0.0120 &0.1095 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &0.3710 &1.0747 &0.0380 &0.1949 &0.0360 &0.1897 \\
100,200 & &0.2850 &0.7918 &0.0340 &0.1897 &0.0220 &0.1483 \\
200,200 & &0.3150 &0.8972 &0.0100 &0.1000 &0.0110 &0.1049 \\
200,500 & &0.2380 &0.6885 &0.0120 &0.1183 &0.0050 &0.0707 \\\hline
& & & &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100 & &1.9420 &4.8557 &0.0260 &0.1612 &0.0180 &0.1414 \\
100,200 & &1.0170 &3.6438 &0.0220 &0.1549 &0.0090 &0.0949 \\
200,200 & &0.9750 &3.9242 &0.0060 &0.0775 &0.0080 &0.0894 \\
200,500 & &0.6390 &2.5879 &0.0080 &0.0894 &0.0050 &0.0707 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Tables \ref{rotation_singular_correct_Pro}--\ref{singular_pre_post_correct_Pro} present the probabilities of the correct estimation of the break date.
The results are consistent with those displayed in Tables \ref{rotation_singular}--\ref{singular_pre_post_break}: the QML estimator $\hat{k}_{QML}$ can detect the true break date with higher
probabilities than others regardless of the values of $(\rho,\alpha,\beta)$.
The MS method sometimes detects more than one or no break; hence, we only compute its probability of correctly estimating $k_0$ under the condition that it detects a single break. The probabilities of a
correct estimation of the QML method increase with the sample sizes $N$ and $T$ in Tables \ref{rotation_singular_correct_Pro}, \ref{rotation_full_rank_correct_Pro}, and
\ref{singular_pre_post_correct_Pro}.
Table \ref{full_rank_to_singular_correct_Pro} shows that the probabilities of correct estimation of the QML estimators increase as $m$ decreases. A smaller $m$ means that $C$ is closer to a singular
matrix. Table \ref{full_rank_to_singular_correct_Pro} is consistent with Table \ref{full_rank_to_singular}, and confirms Theorems \ref{bound_theorem} and \ref{consistency}. To explore in more detail the
effect of changes in $m$ on the QML estimator, we vary the value of $m$ using finer grids and find a similar pattern to that shown in Table \ref{full_rank_to_singular_correct_Pro}. The results are
reported in the supplementary appendix.
Figures \ref{1A_NT100} and \ref{1A_NT500} show the frequency of the estimated change points under DGP 1.A for $N=100,T=100$ and $N=500,T=500$ for 1000 replications. According to these figures, the QML
estimators exhibit the highest frequency around the true break under different settings. When we increase the $(N,T)$ value from $100$ to $500$, the frequency at the true break point increases and the
simulated distribution becomes tighter. This indicates that the QML estimators are highly likely to identify the true break point. This is consistent with our theory. However, the other three methods
are found to have much larger variation and substantially lower probabilities to correctly estimate the break point. Thus, the QML estimators are advantageous in this case.
Moreover, the simulation result indicates that for a sample size exceeding $N = 5000, T = 1000$, the probabilities of correctly estimating the QML estimator exceed $90\%$.
Recall that BKW and QML only have $O_p(1)$ estimation errors under DGP 1.B. However, Table \ref{rotation_full_rank_correct_Pro} shows that in all cases, the probabilities of correct estimation by the
QML estimator are much higher than those of correct estimation by the BKW estimator
Apparently, the BHS and MS methods cannot accurately estimate the true break point in this case.
Figures \ref{1B_NT100} and \ref{1B_NT500} show the distributions of the estimated change points under (1.B) for $N=100,T=100$ and $N=500,T=500$,
indicating that BHS and MS cannot handle rotational changes.
Although the estimation errors of BKW and QML are bounded under all settings, the QML estimators have a much tighter distribution around the true break point.
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Probability of correct estimation under DGP 1.A.}
\centering
\label{rotation_singular_correct_Pro}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{MS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & & & & & \\ \hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.1530 &0.1440 &0.1626 &0.4220 \\
100,200& &0.1920 &0.1510 &0.1863 &0.4370 \\
200,200& &0.2340 &0.1780 &0.1307 &0.5680 \\
200,500& &0.2540 &0.2030 &0.2020 &0.5780 \\
500,500& &0.2990 &0.2100 &0.2123 &0.7290 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.1050 &0.2050 &0.2329 &0.5290 \\
100,200& &0.1250 &0.1850 &0.1779 &0.5510 \\
200,200& &0.1390 &0.1920 &0.1898 &0.6660 \\
200,500& &0.1750 &0.1890 &0.2031 &0.6940 \\
500,500& &0.2100 &0.2420 &0.2306 &0.7810 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.1790 &0.1300 &0.1072 &0.3280 \\
100,200& &0.1850 &0.1380 &0.1897 &0.4090 \\
200,200& &0.2260 &0.1650 &0.1931 &0.5320 \\
200,500& &0.2530 &0.1730 &0.1845 &0.5650 \\
500,500& &0.2750 &0.1920 &0.1964 &0.6880 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.1480 &0.1700 &0.1956 &0.3840 \\
100,200& &0.1730 &0.1810 &0.1847 &0.4210 \\
200,200& &0.2240 &0.2110 &0.2069 &0.5700 \\
200,500& &0.2770 &0.2250 &0.2370 &0.5930 \\
500,500& &0.3220 &0.2790 &0.2790 &0.7500 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.1070 &0.1510 &0.1739 &0.4670 \\
100,200& &0.1210 &0.1860 &0.2157 &0.5030 \\
200,200& &0.1370 &0.1820 &0.2072 &0.6360 \\
200,500& &0.1670 &0.2180 &0.2149 &0.6520 \\
500,500& &0.1900 &0.2510 &0.2427 &0.7640 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Probability of correct estimation under DGP 1.B.}
\centering
\label{rotation_full_rank_correct_Pro}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{MS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & & & & & \\ \hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.2760 &0.0690 &0.0769 &0.4790 \\
100,200& &0.2920 &0.0540 &0.0362 &0.5180 \\
200,200& &0.2720 &0.0320 &0.0655 &0.5270 \\
200,500& &0.3110 &0.0140 &0.0091 &0.5340 \\
500,500& &0.2960 &0.0100 &0.0123 &0.5580 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.2710 &0.0640 &0.0909 &0.4540 \\
100,200& &0.2500 &0.0270 &0.0398 &0.4530 \\
200,200& &0.2180 &0.0160 &0.0200 &0.4790 \\
200,500& &0.2370 &0.0120 &0.0144 &0.4970 \\
500,500& &0.2450 &0.0080 &0.0080 &0.5090 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.3050 &0.1060 &0.1163 &0.5180 \\
100,200& &0.2930 &0.0740 &0.0989 &0.5020 \\
200,200& &0.2890 &0.0390 &0.0496 &0.5540 \\
200,500& &0.3000 &0.0230 &0.0328 &0.5630 \\
500,500& &0.3090 &0.0090 &0.0125 &0.5780 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.2740 &0.0880 &0.1458 &0.5000 \\
100,200& &0.2970 &0.0650 &0.0692 &0.5220 \\
200,200& &0.2870 &0.0390 &0.0338 &0.5390 \\
200,500& &0.3100 &0.0300 &0.0320 &0.5290 \\
500,500& &0.2940 &0.0120 &0.0123 &0.5810 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.2210 &0.1000 &0.1524 &0.4330 \\
100,200& &0.2400 &0.0610 &0.0763 &0.4640 \\
200,200& &0.2370 &0.0490 &0.0538 &0.4810 \\
200,500& &0.2230 &0.0230 &0.0218 &0.4770 \\
500,500& &0.2420 &0.0160 &0.0207 &0.5100 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.7}
\caption{Probability of correct estimation under DGP 1.C with $N=100,T=100$.}
\centering
\label{full_rank_to_singular_correct_Pro}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$m$ & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{MS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & & & & & \\ \hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &0.3044 &0.1075 &0.1188 &0.6079 \\
0.8& &0.3033 &0.1252 &0.1389 &0.6153 \\
0.5& &0.3009 &0.1736 &0.1904 &0.6467 \\
0.1& &0.2976 &0.1998 &0.2014 &0.6680 \\
0 & &0.2977 &0.2031 &0.2192 &0.6705 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &0.2841 &0.0781 &0.1040 &0.6051 \\
0.8& &0.2871 &0.0975 &0.1135 &0.6254 \\
0.5& &0.2896 &0.1532 &0.1620 &0.6641 \\
0.1& &0.2876 &0.2073 &0.2369 &0.7131 \\
0 & &0.2848 &0.2194 &0.2297 &0.7154 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
1 & &0.2973 &0.1226 &0.1442 &0.6063 \\
0.8& &0.2981 &0.1416 &0.1648 &0.6134 \\
0.5& &0.2988 &0.1641 &0.1730 &0.6219 \\
0.1& &0.2993 &0.1828 &0.1954 &0.6316 \\
0 & &0.2988 &0.1860 &0.1995 &0.6342 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
1 & &0.3018 &0.1344 &0.1399 &0.6075 \\
0.8& &0.3016 &0.1549 &0.1679 &0.6164 \\
0.5& &0.3044 &0.1927 &0.2078 &0.6383 \\
0.1& &0.3009 &0.2141 &0.2093 &0.6461 \\
0 & &0.3036 &0.2211 &0.2314 &0.6566 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
1 & &0.2821 &0.1519 &0.1739 &0.5921 \\
0.8& &0.2844 &0.1710 &0.1964 &0.6082 \\
0.5& &0.2843 &0.2327 &0.2402 &0.6496 \\
0.1& &0.2850 &0.2889 &0.2911 &0.6898 \\
0 & &0.2868 &0.2951 &0.2966 &0.6951 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\caption{Probability of correct estimation under DGP 1.D.}
\centering
\label{singular_pre_post_correct_Pro}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l r r r r r r} \hline
$N,T$ & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BKW}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{BHS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{MS}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\hat{k}_{QML}$} \\
& & & & & & \\ \hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.7960 &0.9640 &0.9553 &0.9750 \\
100,200& &0.8200 &0.9700 &0.9700 &0.9760 \\
200,200& &0.8160 &0.9820 &0.9841 &0.9870 \\
200,500& &0.8260 &0.9930 &0.9930 &0.9900 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.7000 &0.9880 &0.9864 &0.9890 \\
100,200& &0.7540 &0.9850 &0.9859 &0.9900 \\
200,200& &0.7950 &0.9950 &0.9949 &0.9980 \\
200,500& &0.8220 &0.9970 &0.9970 &0.9990 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.8020 &0.9580 &0.9563 &0.9630 \\
100,200& &0.8170 &0.9570 &0.9589 &0.9670 \\
200,200& &0.8140 &0.9850 &0.9842 &0.9870 \\
200,500& &0.8510 &0.9840 &0.9840 &0.9880 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0$ &$\alpha=0$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.7910 &0.9620 &0.9671 &0.9640 \\
100,200& &0.8090 &0.9670 &0.9674 &0.9780 \\
200,200& &0.8150 &0.9900 &0.9904 &0.9890 \\
200,500& &0.8330 &0.9890 &0.9890 &0.9950 \\\hline
& &$\rho=0.7$ &$\alpha=0.3$ &$\beta=0.3$ & \\\hline
100,100& &0.6670 &0.9740 &0.9766 &0.9830 \\
100,200& &0.7670 &0.9790 &0.9801 &0.9910 \\
200,200& &0.7910 &0.9940 &0.9940 &0.9920 \\
200,500& &0.7900 &0.9920 &0.9920 &0.9950 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_100_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.3,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_010_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_001_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0.3,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_111_N_T_100.eps}
}
\caption{Plots of the frequency of the estimated break points among 1000 replications for DGP 1.A and $N=100,T=100$.}
\label{1A_NT100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_100_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.3,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_010_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_001_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0.3,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{corr_111_N_T_500.eps}
}
\caption{Plots of the frequency of the estimated break points among 1000 replications for DGP 1.A and $N=500,T=500$.}
\label{1A_NT500}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_100_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.3,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_010_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_001_N_T_100.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0.3,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_111_N_T_100.eps}
}
\caption{Plots of the frequency of the estimated break points among 1000 replications for DGP 1.B and $N=100,T=100$.}
\label{1B_NT100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_100_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0.3,0)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_010_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0,0,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_001_N_T_500.eps}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$(\rho,\alpha,\beta)=(0.7,0.3,0.3)$]{
\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{full_rank_corr_111_N_T_500.eps}
}
\caption{Plots of the frequency of the estimated break points among 1000 replications for DGP 1.B and $N=500,T=500$.}
\label{1B_NT500}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Empirical Application}
\vspace{-1em}
\subsection{Macroeconomic data}
In the first empirical application, we apply our proposed method to a U.S. macroeconomic dataset (\cite{Stock2012}) to detect
the possible structural breaks in the underlying factor model. We use the dataset adopted by \cite{Cheng2016}, which comprises monthly observations of 102 U.S. macroeconomic variables. The sample begins
after the Great Moderation and ranges from 1985:01 to 2013:01 $(T = 337)$. Following \cite{Bai2017}, we focus on the subsample period between 2001:12 and 2013:01 $(T=134,N=102)$ because the complete
data may have multiple breaks.
\cite{Cheng2016} find that 2007:12 is a single-break date, and that the pre-break and post-break subsamples have one factor and two or three factors, respectively. Following \cite{Cheng2016},
\cite{Bai2017} also set the number of factors equal to one and two for the pre- and post-break subsamples, respectively. Then, they implement the LS estimation and obtain the estimated break point
$\hat{k}=2008:12$.
To implement our QML method, we first use Bai and Ng's information criterion IC1 and determine three pseudo-factors in the complete sample. Based on this result, we compute our QML estimator and obtain
2007:07 as the estimated break point, using which we split the sample into pre- and post-break subsamples. IC1 of \cite{Bai2002} detects two pre-break and three post-break factors. Based on the numbers of pre- and post-break factors and that of pseudo-factors, we can conclude that a new factor emerges after the break, so the QML estimator is consistent based on Theorem \ref{consistency}.
\subsection{Stock data}
The second empirical application uses the weekly rate of return for Nasdaq 100 Index from April 18, 2019, to October 1, 2020. As all companies have data starting from April 18, 2019, we choose that as
the start date. Traditionally, the index is limited to 100 common-stock issues, with only one issue allowed per issuer. Now, the index is limited to 100 issuers, some of which may have multiple issues as
index components. The current index has 103 components, representing 100 issuers, four of which are from China: Baidu, JD.com, Ctrip, and NetEase. Thus, the sample size is $T=76$ and $N=103$. As IC1 and
IC2 of \cite{Bai2002}, the methods proposed by \cite{Onatski2010}, \cite{Ahn_Horenstein2013}, and \cite{Fan2020} yield different numbers of pseudo-factors for the sample, we use different number of
factors $r=2,3,4,5,6,7$ to estimate the break date by using the QML method, and find that the estimated break date always falls in the week of February 20, 2020. This result agrees with that obtained
using the method developed by \cite{Baltagi2017}. In fact, the stock market began to fall sharply in the week of February 20, 2020, and two weeks later, the circuit breaker was triggered and U.S. stock market trading halted for a couple of times. Thus, the
factor loading matrix appears to have changed in the early days of the epidemic.
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Conclusions}
\vspace{-1em}
We study the QML method for estimating the break point in high-dimensional factor models with a single structural change. We consider three types of changes and develop an asymptotic theory for the
QML estimator.
We show that the QML estimator is consistent when the covariance matrices of the pre- or post-break factor loadings, or both, are singular.
In addition, the estimation error of the QML estimator is $O_p(1)$ when there is a rotation type of change in the factor loading matrix. We also derive the limiting distribution of the estimated break point in this case.
Moreover, our QML estimator is computationally easy and fast because the eigendecomposition is conducted only once.
The simulation results validate the suitable performance of the QML estimator.
We use the proposed method to estimate the break point for U.S. macroeconomic data and stocks data.
\newpage
\section*{Appendix}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
In model (\ref{Baltagi}), \begin{eqnarray}
X & = & G\Lambda^{\prime}+e,\end{eqnarray}
$G=(g_{1},...g_{T})^{\prime}$, $g_{t}=Bf_{t}$ for $t\le k_{0}$,
and $g_{t}=Cf_{t}$ for $t>k_{0}$. $\lambda_{i}$
and $f_{t}$ are always $r$-dimensional vectors and both $\Lambda_{1}$
and $\Lambda_{2}$ have dimension $N\times r$.
Let $\hat{G}=(\hat{g}_{1},...,\hat{g}_{T})^{\prime}$ denote the full-sample
PCA estimator for $G$. We define\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k) & \equiv & k^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime},\\
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k) & \equiv & (T-k)^{-1}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}.\end{eqnarray*}
These notations emphasize the dependence of $\hat{\Sigma}_1$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ on $k$. In the proofs, we may use $\hat{\Sigma}_1$, $\hat{\Sigma}_2$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_1(k)$, $\hat{\Sigma}_2(k)$ interchangeably as long as no confusion is caused. For notational simplicity, let $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\equiv\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k_{0})$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}\equiv\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k_{0})$.
The QML objective function can be expressed as \begin{eqnarray*}
U_{NT}(k) & = & k\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}|+(T-k)\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}|.\end{eqnarray*}
If $k=k_{0}$, the objective function is \begin{eqnarray*}
U_{NT}(k_{0}) & = & k_{0}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|+(T-k_{0})\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|,\end{eqnarray*}
where $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}=k_{0}^{-1}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}$,
$\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}=(T-k_{0})^{-1}\sum\limits _{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}$.
\vspace{2em}
\textbf{{Representations of $\hat{g}_{t}$}.} \vspace{2em}
The full-sample PCA estimator $\hat{G}$ satisfies the following identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{G} & = & \frac{1}{NT}XX'\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\nonumber \\
& = & GH+\frac{1}{NT}e\Lambda G^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}G\Lambda^{\prime}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}ee^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1},\label{eq:expan_G}\end{eqnarray}
where $H=\Lambda^{\prime}\Lambda G^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}/NT$
and $V_{NT}$ is a diagonal matrix comprising the eigenvalues
of $XX'/NT$.
Hence, for each period $t$, we have \begin{equation}
\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}=V_{NT}^{-1}\left(\frac{\hat{G}^{\prime}G}{T}\frac{\Lambda^{\prime}e_{t}}{N}+\frac{\hat{G}^{\prime}e\Lambda}{NT}g_{t}+\frac{\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{t}}{NT}\right)\label{eq:hat{g}}\end{equation}
\citet{Bai2003} shows that\begin{equation}
\hat{g}_{k+1}-H^{\prime}g_{k+1}=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\label{eq:bai thm}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2}),\ \mathrm{and}\ T^{-1}(\hat{G}'\hat{G}-H'G'GH)=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2})\label{eq:bai 2003}\end{equation}
From (A.1) and Lemma A.2 in \citet{Bai2003}, we have the
following lemma:
\begin{lemma} (i). Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit},
\label{Bai_implied}
\begin{eqnarray}
\max_{m}m^{-1}\sum_{t=k_{0}-m}^{k_{0}}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2} & = & O_{p}(\frac{1}{N}),\label{eq:Bai implied1}\\
\max_{m}m^{-1}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k_{0}+m}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2} & = & O_{p}(\frac{1}{N}).
\label{eq:Bai implied2}
\end{eqnarray}
(ii). Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{as-.LeeL},
\begin{eqnarray}
\max_{m}m^{-1}\sum_{t=k_{0}-m}^{k_{0}}\|\tilde{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2} & \leq & \frac{\bar{c}}{N},\label{eq:Bai implied3}\\
\max_{m}m^{-1}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k_{0}+m}\|\tilde{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2} & \leq & \frac{\bar{c}}{N},
\label{eq:Bai implied4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{c}>0$ is a constant.
\end{lemma} \textbf{{Proof.}} See the supplementary appendix. $\Box$
\subsection*{Both $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$ are positive
definite matrices.}
We first consider the case in which both $\Sigma_{1}$
and $\Sigma_{2}$ are positive definite matrices.
Following \citet{Baltagi2017}, we define \begin{eqnarray*}
\zeta_{t} & = & \hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-H_{0}^{'}g_{t}g_{t}^{'}H_{0},\text{ for }t=1,\cdots,T\end{eqnarray*}
and \begin{eqnarray*}
\xi_{t} & = & H_{0}^{'}g_{t}g_{t}^{'}H_{0}-\Sigma_{1}\text{ for }t\leq k_{0},\\
\xi_{t} & = & H_{0}^{'}g_{t}g_{t}^{'}H_{0}-\Sigma_{2}\text{ for }t>k_{0},\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Sigma_{1}=H_{0}^{'}\Sigma_{G,1}H_{0}$ and $\Sigma_{2}=H_{0}^{'}\Sigma_{G,2}H_{0}$
are the pre- and post-breaks of $H_{0}^{'}E(g_{t}g_{t}^{'})H_{0}$
and $H_{0}$ is the probability limit of $H$. Thus, we have \begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'} & = & \Sigma_{1}+\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t}\text{ for }t\leq k_{0},\\
\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'} & = & \Sigma_{2}+\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t}\text{ for }t>k_{0}.\end{eqnarray*}
$H_{0}$ is nonsingular by Proposition 1 of Bai
(2003).
For $k\leq k_{0}$, \begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\Sigma}_{1} & = & \Sigma_{1}+\frac{1}{k}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\xi_{t}+\frac{1}{k}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\zeta_{t},\nonumber \\
\hat{\Sigma}_{2} & = & \frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}[\Sigma_{1}-\Sigma_{2}]+\Sigma_{2}+\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\xi_{t}+\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\zeta_{t},\label{eq:Sigmahat rewrite}\end{eqnarray}
Thus, \begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\Sigma}_{1}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0} & = & \frac{k_{0}-k}{kk_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t}),\nonumber \\
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}-\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0} & = & \frac{k-k_{0}}{T-k}(\Sigma_{2}-\Sigma_{1})+\frac{1}{T-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})+\frac{k-k_{0}}{(T-k)(T-k_{0})}\sum\limits
_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t}).\label{eq:expand Sigmahat}\end{eqnarray}
Before analyzing the consistency of the estimated fraction and the boundedness
of the estimation error, we need to prove the following lemmas. For any given $0<\eta\le\min(\tau_{0},1-\tau_{0})$
and $M>0$, define $D_{\eta}=\{k:(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k\leq(\tau_{0}+\eta)T\}$,
$D_{\eta}^{c}$ as the complement of $D_{\eta}$, $\tau_{0}=\frac{k_{0}}{T}$,
and $D_{\eta,M}=\{k:(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k\leq(\tau_{0}+\eta)T,\ |k_{0}-k|>M\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Baltagi_lemma} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit},
\begin{eqnarray*}
(i) & & \max_{[\tau_{1}T]\leq k\leq k_{0}}\left\Vert \frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum_{t=1}^{k}\xi_{t}\right\Vert =O_{p}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}),\\
(ii) & & \max_{k\in D_{\eta},k<k_{0}}\left\Vert \frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\right\Vert =O_{p}(1),\\
(iii) & & \max_{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}||\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}||=O_{p}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}),\\
(iv) & & \max_{[\tau_{1}T]\leq k\leq k_{0}}\left\Vert \frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\xi_{t}\right\Vert =O_{p}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}),\\
(v) & & \max\limits _{[\tau_{1}T]\leq k\leq k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}}\left\Vert \sum_{t=1}^{k}\zeta_{t}\right\Vert =o_{p}(1),\\
(vi) & & \max\limits _{[\tau_{1}T]\leq k\leq k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\left\Vert \sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\zeta_{t}\right\Vert =o_{p}(1),\\
(vii) & & \max\limits _{[\tau_{1}T]\leq k\leq k_{0}}\frac{1}{T-k}\left\Vert \sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\zeta_{t}\right\Vert =o_{p}(1),\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tau_{1}\in(0,1)$ is the prior lower bound
for $\tau_{0}$, $[\tau_{1}T]$ denotes the prior lower bound
for the real break point $[\tau_{0}T]=k_{0}$, and $[\cdot]$ denotes
the integer part of a real number. \end{lemma}
\textbf{{Proof.}} See the supplementary appendix. $\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{Sigma1_Dc_consistency} Under Assumptions
\ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit}, \begin{eqnarray*}
& & \max_{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\|=o_{p}(1)\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma} \textbf{{Proof.}} See the supplementary appendix. $\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{eq:term1_Lemma} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit}, for
$k\in D_{\eta,M}$ and $k<k_{0}$, if both $\Sigma_{1}$
and $\Sigma_{2}$ are positive definite matrices, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|=-\frac{k}{k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1})+o_{p}(1),\end{eqnarray*}
where the $o_{p}(1)$ term is uniform in $k\in D_{\eta,M}$.
\end{lemma} \textbf{{Proof.}} See the supplementary appendix. $\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{log_Sigm2_expansion} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit},
for $|k-k_{0}|\leq M$ and $k<k_{0}$, if
both $\Sigma_{1}$ and $\Sigma_{2}$ are positive definite matrices,
then \[
(T-k)\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|=(k-k_{0})tr(\Sigma_{2}-\Sigma_{1})\Sigma_{2}^{-1}+\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}\Sigma_{2}^{-1})+o_{p}(1).\]
\end{lemma} \textbf{{Proof.}} See the supplementary appendix. $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of $\hat{\tau}-\tau_{0}=o_{p}(1)$}
By symmetry, it suffices to study the case of $k<k_{0}$.
Expanding $U_{NT}(k)-U_{NT}(k_{0})$ gives \begin{eqnarray}
U_{NT}(k)-U_{NT}(k_{0}) & = &
k\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+(T-k)\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-(k_{0}-k)\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|.\label{eq:Uk-Uk0}\end{eqnarray}
To prove $\hat{\tau}-\tau_{0}=o_{p}(1)$, we need to show that
for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\eta>0$, $P(|\hat{\tau}-\tau_{0}|>\eta)<\varepsilon$
as $(N,T)\rightarrow\infty$, and that $P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})<\varepsilon$.
For notational simplicity, we write $U_{NT}(k)$
as $U(k)$.
As $\hat{k}=\arg\min_{k}U(k)$, we
have $U(\hat{k})-U(k_{0})\leq0$. If $\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c}$,
then $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0$. This implies
$P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})\leq P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)$;
thus, it suffices to show that for any given $\varepsilon>0$
and $\eta>0$, $P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)<\varepsilon$
as $N,T\rightarrow\infty$.
Suppose that $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0$
and $k^{*}=\arg\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})$;
then, $U(k^{*})-U(k_{0})\leq0$ and $\frac{U(k^{*})-U(k_{0})}{|k^{*}-k_{0}|}\leq0$.
As $k^{*}\in D_{\eta}^{c}$, we have $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}\ \frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{|k-k_{0}|}\leq\frac{U(k^{*})-U(k_{0})}{|k^{*}-k_{0}|}\le0$.
Thus, $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0$ implies
$\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{|k-k_{0}|}\leq0$.
Similarly, $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{|k-k_{0}|}\leq0$
implies $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0$. Therefore,
the following two events are equivalent:
\begin{equation}
\{w:\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0\}=\{w:\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{|k-k_{0}|}\leq0\}.\label{eq:equiv sets}\end{equation}
Note that \begin{equation}
P(\min_{x\in\mathcal{X}}a(x)+b(x)\le0)\le P(\min_{x\in\mathcal{X}}a(x)+\min_{x\in\mathcal{X}}b(x)\le0)=P(\min_{x\in\mathcal{X}}a(x)+o_{p}(1)\le0)\label{eq:prob inequality}\end{equation}
if $b(x)=o_{p}(1)$ uniformly for $x\in\mathcal{X}$.
Now, using \eqref{eq:Uk-Uk0} and \eqref{eq:equiv sets},
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
& & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)=P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{k_{0}-k}\leq0)\nonumber \\
& = & P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\nonumber
\\
& \le & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}-\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0})\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+I|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\label{eq:P}\end{eqnarray}
where $\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|=o_{p}(1)$
because $\|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\|$ is uniformly
$o_{p}(1)$ for $[\tau_{1}T]\le k<k_{0}$ by \eqref{eq:expand Sigmahat}
and Lemmas \ref{Baltagi_lemma} $(i)$, $(iii)$, $(v)$ and $(vi)$.
Note that \begin{align}
\hat{\Sigma}_{2} &
=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}=\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}+o_{p}(1))+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}\label{eq:rewrite
Sigmahat2}\end{align}
because $\max_{k<k_{0}-\eta T}\|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\|=o_{p}(1)$
by Lemma \ref{Sigma1_Dc_consistency}. Thus, by \eqref{eq:prob inequality}
and \eqref{eq:rewrite Sigmahat2}, we can bound \eqref{eq:P} by \begin{align*}
& P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{k-k_{0}}{T-k}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+I|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|+o_{p}(1)\leq0)\\
= & P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|+o_{p}(1)\leq0).\end{align*}
Let $g({\bf {X}})=\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}{\bf {X}}|-\log|{\bf {X}}|$
and $k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}$, where { ${\bf {X}}=\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}$}.
By the property of a characteristic polynomial, we
have \begin{eqnarray}
& & g({\bf {X}})=\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{i=1}^{r}\log(\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\rho_{i}({\bf {X}}))-\sum\limits _{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}({\bf {X}}),\label{eq:g(X)}\end{eqnarray}
{where $\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})$ is the $i$-th
eigenvalue of ${\bf {X}}$ for $i=1,\cdots,r$.} On the partial derivative
with respect to $\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})$, we
have \begin{eqnarray}
& & \frac{\partial g({\bf {X}})}{\partial\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})}=\frac{(T-k_{0})(\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})-1)}{[(T-k_{0})+(k_{0}-k)\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})]\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})}.\label{eq:derivative}\end{eqnarray}
From the derivative with respect to $\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})$,
$\frac{\partial g({\bf {X}})}{\partial\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})}<0$
for $0<\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})<1$ and $\frac{\partial g({\bf {X}})}{\partial\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})}>0$
for $\rho_{i}({\bf {X}})>1$. Thus, for $g({\bf {X}})$
to achieve its minimum value, all eigenvalues of ${\bf {X}}$ must
be one (i.e., all eigenvalues of the symmetric
matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1/2}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1/2}$
should be equal to one); thus, $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1/2}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1/2}=I$
and $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}=\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}$. This implies that
$g(I_{r})=0$ is a unique minimum of $g({\bf {X}})$.
Note that $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-k_{0}^{-1}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k_{0}}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H=o_{p}(1);$
thus, $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-H^{\prime}B\Sigma_{F}B^{\prime}H=o_{p}(1)$
under Assumption \ref{factors} and the fact that $g_{t}=Bf_{t}$ for $t\le k_{0}$.
Similarly, $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{F}C^{\prime}H=o_{p}(1)$.
As $H\to_{p}H_{0}$ is a nonsingular matrix and $B$ and $C$ are
nonsingular as well, Assumption \ref{factors}(ii) implies \[
\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\to_{p}H_{0}^{\prime}B\Sigma_{F}B^{\prime}(C\Sigma_{F}C^{\prime})^{-1}H_{0}^{-1'}\ne I_{r},\]
which has positive eigenvalues not equal to one. Thus, the sign of
\eqref{eq:derivative} implies that there exists a positive constant
$c_{\Delta}$ such that\begin{equation}
\min\limits _{k\in D^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\geq
c_{\Delta}>0=g(I_{r})\label{eq:g(X)>0}\end{equation}
with w.p.a.1 as $N,T\to\infty$,
where $c_{\Delta}$ is a constant related to the difference $\Delta=B\Sigma_{F}B^{\prime}-C\Sigma_{F}C^{\prime}$.
Thus, we obtain the result $\hat{\tau} =\tau_0+o_p(1)$. $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{bound_theorem}}
\label{sub:2.2}
To prove $\hat{k}-k_{0}=O_{p}(1)$, we need to show that
for any $\varepsilon>0$, there{ exists an} $M>0$
such that $P(|\hat{k}-k_{0}|>M)<\varepsilon$ as $(N,T)\rightarrow\infty$.
By the consistency of $\hat{\tau}$, for any $\varepsilon>0$
and $\min\{\tau_{0},1-\tau_{0}\}>\eta>0$, $P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})<\varepsilon$
as $(N,T)\rightarrow\infty$. For the given $\eta$ and $M$, we have
$D_{\eta,M}=\{k:(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k\leq(\tau_{0}+\eta)T,\ |k_{0}-k|>M\}$;
thus, $P(|\hat{k}-k_{0}|>M)=P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})+P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta,M})$.
Hence, it suffices to show that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\eta>0$,
there exists an $M>0$ such that $P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta,M})<\varepsilon$
as $(N,T)\rightarrow\infty$. Again, by symmetry, it suffices to study
the case of $k<k_{0}$. Similar to the proof of
consistency of $\hat{\tau}$, we have \begin{eqnarray}
& & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0),\nonumber \\
& = & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{k_{0}-k}\leq0),\nonumber \\
& = & P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\nonumber
\\
& = & P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}-\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0})\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+I|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\nonumber
\\
& = & P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log\Big|\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Big(\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big)\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\Big|\nonumber \\
&&- \log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0).\label{eq:p(Uk - Uk0 <0)}\end{eqnarray}
Note that \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}| & = & -\frac{k}{k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1})+o_{p}(1),\label{eq:term1}\end{eqnarray}
where the $o_{p}(1)$ term is uniform in $k\in D_{\eta,M}$
and $k<k_{0}$ by Lemma \ref{eq:term1_Lemma}.
In addition, \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0} & = & \frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\Big(\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\sum\limits
_{t=1}^{k}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}\Big)-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{k_{0}}{k_{0}-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}-\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\Big(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}+\frac{k_{0}-k}{kk_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\Big)\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{k}{(k_{0}-k)k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{k}{(k_{0}-k)k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}+o_{p}(1),\label{eq:gg-Sigmahat1}\end{eqnarray}
where the third line uses \eqref{eq:expand Sigmahat}
and the $o_{p}(1)$ term in the last line is uniform in $k\in D_{\eta,M}$
according to Lemmas \ref{Baltagi_lemma} $(i)$, $(v)$, and
$(vi)$.
Let $\upsilon_{k}$ denote a uniform $o_{p}(1)$
term in \eqref{eq:gg-Sigmahat1}. For any given $\delta>0$, \eqref{eq:gg-Sigmahat1}
implies\begin{eqnarray}
& & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big\|\geq\delta)\nonumber \\
& \le & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|+\|\upsilon_{k}\|\geq\delta)\nonumber \\
& = & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|+\|\upsilon_{k}\|\geq\delta,\ \max\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\|\upsilon_{k}\|\le\delta/2)\nonumber \\
& & +P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|+\|\upsilon_{k}\|\geq\delta,\ \max\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\|\upsilon_{k}\|>\delta/2)\nonumber \\
& \le & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|\geq\delta/2)+o(1)\nonumber \\
& = & P(\max\limits _{(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k<k_{0}-M}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|\geq\delta/2)+o(1).\label{eq:P_gg_Sigma}\end{eqnarray}
Let $m=k_{0}-k$, \begin{eqnarray}
P(\max\limits _{(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k<k_{0}-M}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Big\|\geq\delta/2) & = & P(\max\limits _{M<m\leq\eta T}\Big\|\frac{1}{m}\sum\limits
_{t=1}^{m}\xi_{t}\Big\|\geq\delta/2)\nonumber \\
& \leq & \frac{4}{\delta^{2}}(\frac{1}{M}+\sum\limits _{t=M+1}^{\eta T}\frac{1}{t^{2}})\nonumber \\
& \le & \frac{4}{\delta^{2}}(\frac{2}{M}-\frac{1}{\eta T})\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{C}{M\delta^{2}}+o(1)\rightarrow0,\quad as~~M\rightarrow\infty,\label{eq:gg HR}\end{eqnarray}
where $0<C<\infty$ is a constant.
Similarly, \eqref{eq:term1} implies \begin{eqnarray}
& & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big|\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\Big|\geq\delta)\nonumber \\
& \leq & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\sqrt{r}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+o_{p}(1)\Big\|\geq\delta)\nonumber \\
& = & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}-\Sigma_{1}^{-1})+\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Sigma_{1}^{-1}+o_{p}(1)\Big\|\geq\delta/\sqrt{r})\nonumber \\
& \leq & P(\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}\Sigma_{1}^{-1}\Big\|+o_{p}(1)\geq\delta/\sqrt{r})\nonumber \\
& \leq & \frac{C}{M\delta^{2}}\rightarrow0,\quad as~~M\rightarrow\infty,\ \text{for some constant \ensuremath{C>0}},\label{eq:Hajek2}\end{eqnarray}
where the fourth line follows from $\max\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big\|\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\xi_{t}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}-\Sigma_{1}^{-1})\Big\|=o_{p}(1)$
by Lemma \ref{Baltagi_lemma} $(ii)$ and the fact that $||\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}-\Sigma_{1}^{-1}||=o_{p}(1)$.
In addition, the last inequality holds through a similar derivation used in \eqref{eq:P_gg_Sigma}
and \eqref{eq:gg HR}.
By the continuity of $g$ defined in \eqref{eq:g(X)},
\eqref{eq:g(X)>0} indicates the presence of $\delta>0$ such that
$\|(k_{0}-k)^{-1}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\|<\delta$
holds for a sufficiently large $M$ by \eqref{eq:gg HR}
and \begin{equation}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log\Big|\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Big(\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big)\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\Big|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\geq\frac{c_{\Delta}}{2}>0,\label{eq:bounded1}\end{equation}
w.p.a.1 as $N,T\to\infty$. In addition, by \eqref{eq:Hajek2}, we have \begin{eqnarray}
P(\Big|\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}|\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\Big|\le\frac{c_{\Delta}}{4})&\ge & P(\max\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big|\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\Big|\le\frac{c_{\Delta}}{4})\nonumber\\
&\ge&1-\frac{16C}{Mc_{\Delta}^{2}}\to1\label{eq:bounded2}\end{eqnarray}
as $M\to\infty$. Using \eqref{eq:bounded1} and \eqref{eq:bounded2},
we can obtain \begin{eqnarray*}
& & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log\Big|\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Big(\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big)\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\Big|\\
& &~~-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\\
& &\ge \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{c_{\Delta}}{2}\ge-\frac{c_{\Delta}}{4}+\frac{c_{\Delta}}{2}\ge\frac{c_{\Delta}}{4}>0\end{eqnarray*}
w.p.a.1 as $M\to\infty$. This shows that $P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)<\varepsilon$
for a sufficiently large $M$.$\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{distribution_theorem}}
Let us recall \eqref{eq:Uk-Uk0}, \begin{eqnarray*}
U(k)-U(k_{0}) & = &
(k_{0}-k)\Big(\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\Big).\end{eqnarray*}
For the second term in the above equation, we have \begin{eqnarray*}
(T-k)\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}| & = & (k-k_{0})tr(\Sigma_{2}-\Sigma_{1})\Sigma_{2}^{-1}+\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}\Sigma_{2}^{-1})+o_{p}(1),\end{eqnarray*}
by Lemma \ref{log_Sigm2_expansion}. Similarly,
by \eqref{eq:expand Sigmahat} and Lemma \ref{Baltagi_lemma}, we
have \begin{eqnarray*}
k\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}| & = & k\log|(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+I|,\\
& = & k\log|\Big[\frac{k_{0}-k}{kk_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\Big]\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+I|,\\
& = & k\cdot tr(\frac{k_{0}-k}{kk_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1})-k\cdot tr(\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1})+o_{p}(1),\\
& = & -\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}\Sigma_{1}^{-1})+o_{p}(1).\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, \begin{eqnarray*}
U(k)-U(k_{0})\xrightarrow{d}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}tr(\xi_{t}(\Sigma_{2}^{-1}-\Sigma_{1}^{-1}))+(k_{0}-k)tr\left(\Sigma_{1}\Sigma_{2}^{-1}-r-\log|\Sigma_{1}\Sigma_{2}^{-1}|\right)\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, for the case of $k>k_{0}$, the limit can be written as
$\sum\limits _{t=k_{0}+1}^{k}tr(\xi_{t}(\Sigma_{1}^{-1}-\Sigma_{2}^{-1}))+(k-k_{0})tr\left(\Sigma_{1}^{-1}\Sigma_{2}-r-\log|\Sigma_{1}^{-1}\Sigma_{2}|\right)$.
$\Box$
\section*{$\Sigma_{1}$ or $\Sigma_{2}$, or both, is a singular matrix.}
Before proving the theorem, we need to prove the following lemmas, where $A^{-}$ denotes the MP inverse of $A$, $\rho_{i}(A)$ represents
the $i$-th eigenvalue of matrix $A$, and $\sigma_{i}(A)$ represents
the $i$-th singular value of matrix $A$. \vspace{2em}
\begin{lemma} \label{eef} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{Central_Limit},\begin{align*}
\max_{k\in[[\tau_{1}T],k_{0}]}\frac{1}{k}\sum_{s=1}^{k}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}/NT\|^{2} & =O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-4})\\
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}/NT\|^{2} & =O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-4}).\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof}: By symmetry, it is sufficient to
focus on the case of $k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]$. \begin{align*}
& \frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}e_{s}^{\prime}e_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\|^{2}\\
\le &
\frac{2}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}\|^{2}+\frac{2}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}\|^{2}\end{align*}
Recall that $E(e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s})/N=\gamma_{N}(s,t)$. Consider
the equation\begin{align*}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\frac{2}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}\|^{2} &
\le\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}\frac{e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}-E(e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s})}{N}\|^{2}\\
&~~~ +\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}\gamma_{N}(s,t)\|^{2},\end{align*}
where the first term can be written as\begin{equation}
\frac{2}{T^{2}(1-\tau_{2})N}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{NT}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{N}H^{\prime}g_{t}[e_{it}e_{is}-E(e_{it}e_{is})]\|^{2}=O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{NT}\right)\label{eq:eef1}\end{equation}
under Assumption \ref{Central_Limit}(i) and the second term is $O_{p}(T^{-2})$ because the
expectation can be bounded by \begin{align}
\frac{2}{T^{3}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}E\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}g_{t}\gamma_{N}(s,t)\|^{2} & \le\frac{2}{T^{3}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{u=1}^{T}E(\|g_{t}\|\|g_{u}\|)|\gamma_{N}(s,t)||\gamma_{N}(s,u)|\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{2}{T^{3}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{u=1}^{T}\max_{t}E\|g_{t}\|^{2}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)||\gamma_{N}(s,u)|\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{2}{T^{3}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\max_{t}E\|g_{t}\|^{2}\left(\sum_{t=1}^{T}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)|\right)^{2}=O(T^{-2}),\label{eq:eef2}\end{align}
where we use the facts that $E(\|g_{t}\|\|g_{u}\|)\le[E\|g_{t}\|^{2}E\|g_{u}\|^{2}]^{1/2}\le\max_{t}E\|g_{t}\|^{2}$
under Assumption \ref{factors} and $\sum_{t=1}^{T}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)|\le M$ by Assumption
\ref{Depen_and_Hetero}(ii).
Next, consider the term \begin{align*}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}\|^{2} &
\le\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\frac{e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}-E(e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s})}{N}\|^{2}\\
&~~~ +\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\gamma_{N}(s,t)\|^{2},\end{align*}
where the first term can be bounded by\begin{align}
\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\frac{e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}-E(e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s})}{N}\|^{2} &
\le\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})N}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}e_{it}e_{is}-E(e_{it}e_{is})\right]^{2}\nonumber \\
&
=\frac{2}{NT(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{T^{2}}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}e_{it}e_{is}-E(e_{it}e_{is})\right]^{2}\nonumber
\\
& =O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{N\delta_{NT}^{2}}\right),\label{eq:eef3}\end{align}
by Assumption \ref{Depen_and_Hetero}(v) and the second term is bounded by \begin{equation}
\frac{2}{T^{3}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\gamma_{N}(s,t)\|^{2}\le\frac{2}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}\frac{1}{T^{2}(1-\tau_{2})}\sum_{s=1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)|^{2}=O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{T\delta_{NT}^{2}}\right)\label{eq:eef4}\end{equation}
because $\sum_{t=1}^{T}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)|^{2}\le(\sum_{t=1}^{T}|\gamma_{N}(s,t)|)^{2}\le M^{2}$
under Assumption \ref{Depen_and_Hetero}(ii). Combining the results obtained in \eqref{eq:eef1}--\eqref{eq:eef4},
we obtain the desired result. $\Box$ \vspace{2em}
When $C$ is singular, $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)$ converges
in probability to a singular matrix for $k\ge k_{0}$. In finite samples,
however, the smallest eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)$ is not
zero. The following proposition establishes a lower bound for the smallest
eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)$, which ensures that it is meaningful
to compute the logarithm of $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|$ in the objective
function for any given sample size. Symmetrically, a similar lower bound can be established for the smallest eigenvalue of $\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k)$
for $k\le k_{0}$ when $B$ is singular. Because of space restrictions, Proposition \ref{low_bound} here only
states the result for the case of $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)$.
\vspace{1em}
\begin{proposition}
\label{low_bound} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{invariance}, for $k\ge k_{0}$
and $k\le[\tau_{2}T]$, if $C$ is singular and $\sqrt{N}/T\to0$
as $N,T\to\infty$, there exists a constant
$c_{U}\ge c_{L}>0$ such that \begin{align*}
P\left(\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k))\ge\frac{c_{L}}{N}\right) & \to1,\\
P\left(\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)\le\frac{c_{U}}{N}\right) & \to1,\end{align*}
for $j=r_{2}+1,...,r$.
\end{proposition}
\textbf{Proof}:
\textbf{{Part 1.}} For $k\ge k_{0}$, $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)=(T-k)^{-1}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}$,
where $\hat{G}_{2}^{k}=[\hat{g}_{k+1},...,\hat{g}_{T}]'$. Let $X_{2}^{k}=[X_{k+1},...,X_{T}]'$,
$e_{2}^{k}=[e_{k+1},...,e_{T}]'$, and $G_{2}^{k}=[G_{k+1},...,G_{T}]'$.
From $XX^{\prime}\hat{G}/NT=\hat{G}V_{NT}$, eq. \eqref{eq:expan_G}
implies \begin{align}
\hat{G}_{2}^{k} & =X_{2}^{k}X^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}/NT=\frac{1}{NT}(G_{2}^{k}\Lambda^{\prime}+e_{2}^{k})(\Lambda G^{\prime}+e^{\prime})\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\nonumber \\
\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H & =\frac{1}{NT}e_{2}^{k}\Lambda
G^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}G_{2}^{k}\Lambda^{\prime}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}.\label{eq:G2hat - G2H}\end{align}
In addition, note that \[
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)-\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}=\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}P_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}\ge0,\]
where $P_{F_{2}^{k}}=F_{2}^{k}(F_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k})^{-1}F_{2}^{k'}$,
$M_{F_{2}^{k}}=I_{T-k}-P_{F_{2}^{k}}$, and $F_{2}^{k}=[f_{k+1},...,f_{T}]'$.
Thus, Weyl's inequality for eigenvalues implies \begin{align}
\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)) &
\ge\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\left[\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}\right)+\rho_{r}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}P_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}\right)\right]\nonumber
\\
& \ge\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}\right),\ \mathrm{for\ }j=r_{2}+1,...,r\label{eq:rhor Sigma2k}\end{align}
Thus, it suffices to find the lower bound for $\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}\left(\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}/(T-k)\right)$.
As $F_{2}^{k}C^{\prime}=G_{2}^{k}$ for $k\ge k_{0}$, we have
$M_{F_{2}^{k}}G_{2}^{k}=0$ and \begin{equation}
\frac{1}{T-k}\hat{G}_{2}^{k'}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\hat{G}_{2}^{k}=\frac{1}{T-k}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)^{\prime}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H).\label{eq:GMG}\end{equation}
Now, using \eqref{eq:G2hat - G2H}, we can obtain \begin{align}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}\left(\frac{1}{NT}e_{2}^{k}\Lambda
G^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}G_{2}^{k}\Lambda^{\prime}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}+\frac{1}{NT}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
& =a_{1k}+a_{2k}+a_{3k}.\label{eq:a1k a2k a3k}\end{align}
Let us consider the term $a_{1k}$ in \eqref{eq:a1k a2k a3k}. As $\sigma_{i}(\mathbb{A}+\mathbb{B})\le\sigma_{i}(\mathbb{A})+\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{B})$,
we have \begin{align*}
\sigma_{j}\left(\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right) &
\le\sigma_{j}\left(M_{F_{2}^{k}}\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)+\sigma_{1}\left(P_{F_{2}^{k}}\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right),\end{align*}
which implies \begin{align}
& \min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}\left(M_{F_{2}^{k}}\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
\ge &
\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}\left(\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)-\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{1}\left(P_{F_{2}^{k}}\frac{e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N\sqrt{T-k}}\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)\nonumber
\\
\ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sigma_{r}\left(\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)\sqrt{\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}\left(\frac{\Lambda^{\prime}e_{2}^{k'}e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{N(T-k)}\right)}\nonumber
\\
& -
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sqrt{\frac{1}{N(T-k)}\rho_{1}\left(V_{NT}^{-1}\frac{\hat{G}^{\prime}G}{T}\left(\frac{\Lambda^{\prime}e_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k}}{\sqrt{NT}}\right)\left(\frac{F_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k}}{T}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{F_{2}^{k'}e_{2}^{k}\Lambda}{\sqrt{NT}}\right)\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)}\nonumber
\\
\ge & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underline{c}\cdot\sigma_{r}\left(\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)+O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{NT}}\right)\ge\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}c,\ w.p.a.1\ \mathrm{for\ some\
}c>0\label{eq:sigma a1k}\end{align}
where the third and fourth lines use the inequality $\sigma_{j}(\mathbb{A}\mathbb{B})\ge\sigma_{j}(\mathbb{A})\sigma_{r}(\mathbb{B})$
and the relation $\rho_{r}(\mathbb{A}^{\prime}\mathbb{A})^{1/2}=\sigma_{r}(\mathbb{A})$,
and the fifth line uses Assumptions \ref{as-.LeeL} and \ref{invariance}
and the fact that $\frac{G^{\prime}\hat{G}}{T}V_{NT}^{-1}$ is nonsingular
as $N,T\to\infty$ by Proposition 1 and Lemma A.3 of Bai (2003).
The term $a_{2k}$ in \eqref{eq:a1k a2k a3k} is zero because $M_{F_{2}^{k}}G_{2}^{k}=0$.
For term $a_{3k}$ in \eqref{eq:a1k a2k a3k}, we can obtain its upper
bound as \begin{align}
\|\frac{1}{NT\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\|^{2} &
\le2\|\frac{1}{NT\sqrt{T-k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\|^{2}+2\|\frac{1}{NT\sqrt{T-k}}P_{F_{2}^{k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\|^{2}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}2tr\left(V_{NT}^{-1}\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{2}^{k'}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\right)\nonumber \\
&~~~ +\frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}2tr\left(V_{NT}^{-1}\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{2}^{k'}P_{F_{2}^{k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\right).\label{eq:a3k}\end{align}
For the first term in \eqref{eq:a3k}, we have \begin{align*}
\frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\|V_{NT}^{-1}\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{2}^{k'}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\| &
=\frac{1}{N^{2}T^{2}(T-k)}\|V_{NT}^{-1}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}e_{s}^{\prime}\sum_{u=1}^{T}e_{u}\hat{g}_{u}^{\prime}V_{NT}^{-1}\|\\
& \le\frac{1}{T-k}\|V_{NT}^{-1}\|\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}/NT\|^{2}.\end{align*}
Note that \begin{equation}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}(T-k)^{-1}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\|\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}/NT\|^{2}=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-4})\label{eq:a3k1}\end{equation}
by Lemma \ref{eef}.
For the second term in \eqref{eq:a3k}, we can obtain \begin{equation}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\left\Vert
V_{NT}^{-1}\frac{\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k}}{NT(T-k)}\left(\frac{F_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k}}{T-k}\right)^{-1}\frac{F_{2}^{k'}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}}{NT(T-k)}V_{NT}^{-1}\right\Vert
=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-4}).\label{eq:a3k2}\end{equation}
To observe this, note that $[F_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k}/(T-k)]^{-1}=O_{p}(1)$
uniformly over $k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]$ and \begin{align*}
\frac{1}{NT(T-k)}\hat{G}^{\prime}ee_{2}^{k'}F_{2}^{k} & =\frac{1}{NT(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}f_{s}^{\prime}\\
&
=\frac{1}{T(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\left[\frac{e_{t}^{\prime}e_{s}}{N}-\gamma_{N}(s,t)\right]f_{s}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{T(T-k)}\sum_{s=k+1}^{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\gamma_{N}(s,t)f_{s}^{\prime}=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2})\end{align*}
uniformly over $k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]$ following the derivation
of terms I and II in Lemma B.2 of Bai (2003).
Thus, combining the results in \eqref{eq:a3k}--\eqref{eq:a3k2},
we have \begin{equation}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{1}(\frac{1}{NT\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1})\le\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\|\frac{1}{NT\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}e_{2}^{k}e^{\prime}\hat{G}V_{NT}^{-1}\|=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2}).\label{eq:sigma
a3k}\end{equation}
Next, rearranging the terms in \eqref{eq:a1k a2k a3k} yields $a_{1k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)-a_{3k}$,
which implies that $\sigma_{j}(a_{1k})\le\sigma_{j}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)\right)+\sigma_{1}(-a_{3k})$
and \begin{align}
& \min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)\right)\nonumber \\
&\ge \min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}(a_{1k})-\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{1}(a_{3k})\ge\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}c,\ w.p.a.1\ \mathrm{for\ some\ }c>0\label{eq:MG}\end{align}
because $\sigma_{1}(a_{3k})$ is uniformly $O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2})$
by \eqref{eq:sigma a3k} and dominated by $\sigma_{j}(a_{1k})$ in
\eqref{eq:sigma a1k} under the condition that $\sqrt{N}/T\to0$ as
$N,T\to\infty$. Hence, combining \eqref{eq:rhor Sigma2k}, \eqref{eq:GMG}, and
\eqref{eq:MG} yields \begin{align*}
\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)) &
\ge\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)^{\prime}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)\right)\\
& =\min_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}M_{F_{2}^{k}}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)\right)^{2}\ge\frac{1}{N}c^{2}=\frac{1}{N}c_{L},\end{align*}
w.p.a.1 if $\sqrt{N}/T\to0$ as $N,T\to\infty$. \vspace{1em}
\textbf{{Part 2.}} Note that \begin{eqnarray*}
& & \sigma_{j}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}/\sqrt{T-k})\leq\sigma_{j}(G_{2}^{k}H/\sqrt{T-k})+\sigma_{1}((\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)/\sqrt{T-k}).\end{eqnarray*}
In addition, $\sigma_{j}(G_{2}^{k}H/\sqrt{T-k})=0$ for $r_{2}<j\le r$
and \[
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{1}((\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H)/\sqrt{T-k})\le\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\frac{1}{\sqrt{T-k}}\|\hat{G}_{2}^{k}-G_{2}^{k}H\|\le\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1-\tau_{2})T}}\|\hat{G}-GH\|\le\frac{c}{\sqrt{N}}\]
w.p.a.1 for some $0<c<\infty$ by Lemma \ref{Bai_implied} (ii)
if $\sqrt{N}/T\to0$ as $N,T\to\infty$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\rho_{j}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k))=\max_{k\in[k_{0},[\tau_{2}T]]}\sigma_{j}(\hat{G}_{2}^{k}/\sqrt{T-k})^{2}\le c_{U}/N,~~w.p.a.1.
\end{eqnarray*}
as $N,T\to\infty$ for $j=r_{2}+1,...,r$ and some positive
constant $c_{U}$.$\Box$\vspace{2em}
The following lemma yields a bound on the difference
between $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|$ for
$k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$ when $C$ is singular. The same result applies
to the difference between $|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k)|$
for $\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$ when $B$ is singular. \vspace{1em}
\begin{lemma}\label{differ} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{invariance}, for $k>k_{0}$
and $k\le[\tau_{2}T]$, if $C$ is singular and $T/N\to\kappa$ as
$N,T\to\infty$ for $0<\kappa<\infty$, then \[
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\left||\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|\right|=O_{p}(T^{-(r-r_{2})-1}).\]
\end{lemma} \textbf{Proof}:
First, note that \begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0} & = &
\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}=\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\\
& = & A_{k}+\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\mathcal{\hat{G}},\end{eqnarray*}
where $A_{k}\equiv(T-k_{0})^{-1}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}$
and $\mathcal{\hat{G}}\equiv[\hat{g}_{k_{0}+1},...,\hat{g}_{k}]^{\prime}$.
By (7.10) of \citet{Lange2010}, we have\begin{equation}
|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|=|A_{k}|\cdot|I_{k-k_{0}}+\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}|,\label{eq:det(Sig20)}\end{equation}
where $A_{k}^{-1}$ is reasonable because the smallest eigenvalue of
$N\cdot A_{k}$ is bounded away from zero by proposition \ref{low_bound}.
We now analyze the term $(T-k_{0})^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}$,
which can be written as \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime} & = & \frac{1}{|A_{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)\nonumber \\
& = &
\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(T-k_{0})}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left(A_{k}^{\#}-\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\right)\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(T-k_{0})}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\nonumber
\\
& \equiv & \mathbb{S}_{1}+\mathbb{S}_{2}.\label{eq:lemma A1 eq1}\end{eqnarray}
For $\mathbb{S}_{1}$, \begin{equation}
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|A_{k}-\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\|=O_{p}(N^{-1})\label{eq:bai2003lemmab2b3}\end{equation}
by a uniform version of Lemmas B2 and B3 of \cite{Bai2003}. When $r-r_{2}=1$, \eqref{eq:bai2003lemmab2b3}
implies \[
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\left\Vert A_{k}^{\#}-\left[(T-k_{0})^{-1}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\right\Vert =O_{p}(N^{-1}).\]
Then, it follows that \begin{equation}
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathbb{S}_{1}\|\le\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\left(\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(T-k_{0})}\frac{\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}\|^{2}}{k-k_{0}}\right)O_{p}(N^{-1})=O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)\
\ \mathrm{for}\ r_{2}=r-1\label{eq:S1}\end{equation}
given the fact that $1/|A_{k}|$ is uniformly $O_{p}(T)$ when $r-r_{2}=1$
by proposition \ref{low_bound} under the condition $N\propto T$ and the
fact that \[
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}\|^{2}\le\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{2}{k-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k}\|\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}+\frac{2}{k-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k}\|H^{\prime}g_{t}\|^{2}=O_{p}(1)\]
by Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}.
When $r-r_{2}\ge2$, \[
\rho_{1}(A_{k}^{\#})=|A_{k}|/\rho_{r}(A_{k})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)})\]
uniformly over $k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$ by proposition \ref{low_bound};
thus, we have \begin{equation}
\|A_{k}^{\#}\|\le\sqrt{r}\sigma_{1}(A_{k}^{\#})=\sqrt{r}\rho_{1}(A_{k}^{\#})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)})\ \ \mathrm{for}\ r-r_{2}\ge2.\label{eq:Taylor}\end{equation}
Now, let $f_{t}=\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\varepsilon_{t}$ with $E\varepsilon_{t}\varepsilon_{t}^{\prime}=I_{r}$.
Hence, for $k\ge k_{0}$, we have $g_{k+1}=C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\varepsilon_{k+1}$.
By \eqref{eq:bai2003lemmab2b3} and\\
$\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}f_{t}f_{t}^{\prime}-\Sigma_{F}\|=\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\epsilon_t\|=O_{p}(T^{-1/2})$
by H\'{a}jek-R\'{e}nyi inequality, we have $\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}C^{\prime}H\|=O_{p}(T^{-1/2})$
and \[
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|A_{k}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}C^{\prime}H\|=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1});\]
thus, \begin{equation}
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\|=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1}),\label{eq:Bk^(1/2) U}\end{equation}
where $U_{k}=A_{k}^{1/2}(\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}C^{\prime}H)^{-}$. Therefore,
for $t>k_{0}$, we have\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{g}_{t} & = & H^{\prime}Cf_{t}+(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})=H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\varepsilon_{t}+(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\\
& = & A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\varepsilon_{t}+(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}-A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k})\varepsilon_{t}+(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\\
& = & A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\varepsilon_{t}+O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\varepsilon_{t}+(\hat{g}_{t}-H^{\prime}g_{t})\end{eqnarray*}
by \eqref{eq:Bk^(1/2) U} and\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime} & = & O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\cdot\mathcal{E}^{\prime}+\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\label{eq:gk+1
expansion}\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\equiv[\varepsilon_{k_{0}+1},...,\varepsilon_{k}]$,
$\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\equiv[g_{k_{0}+1},...,g_{k}]$, and $O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})$
term is uniform in $k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$. In addition, \[
\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}=0,\ \ \mathrm{for}\ r-r_{2}\ge2.\]
Thus, we have\begin{eqnarray}
& & \frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\left\Vert
\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left(A_{k}^{\#}-\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\right)\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right\Vert \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\left\Vert
\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2}A_{k}^{\#}A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2})A_{k}^{\#}A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\right.\nonumber
\\
& &
+\left.\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2}A_{k}^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})+\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2})A_{k}^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-A_{k}^{1/2}U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})\right\Vert
\nonumber \\
& \le &
\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}|A_{k}|\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{k}\|\varepsilon_{t}\|^{2}\|U_{k}\|^{2}+\frac{2}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2}\|\|(A_{k}^{1/2})^{\#}\|\|U_{k}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\||A_{k}^{1/2}|\nonumber
\\
& & +\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{E}U_{k}^{\prime}A_{k}^{1/2}\|^{2}\|A_{k}^{\#}\|\label{eq:term1 in LemmaA1 eq1}\end{eqnarray}
where we use the fact that $A_{k}^{\#}=(A_{k}^{1/2})^{\#}(A_{k}^{1/2})^{\#}$
and $(A_{k}^{1/2})^{\#}A_{k}^{1/2}=|A_{k}|^{1/2}I_{r}$. The definition
of $U_{k}$ implies that $U_{k}=O_{p}(1)$ uniformly over $k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$.
The first term in \eqref{eq:term1 in LemmaA1 eq1} is $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})}T^{-1})$
because $|A_{k}|=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})$ by proposition \ref{low_bound},
the second term is $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})}\sqrt{N}\delta_{NT}^{-1}T^{-1})$
because $|A_{k}^{1/2}|=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})$, $(k-k_{0})^{-1/2}\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-B_{k}^{1/2}U\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\|$
is uniformly $O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})$ by \eqref{eq:gk+1 expansion}
and Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}, $(A_{k}^{1/2})^{\#}$ is uniformly
$O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)/2})$ by \eqref{eq:Taylor}, and the last term
in \eqref{eq:term1 in LemmaA1 eq1} is $O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-2}N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)}T^{-1})$
by \eqref{eq:Taylor}, \eqref{eq:gk+1 expansion}, and Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}.
The result in \eqref{eq:term1 in LemmaA1 eq1} indicates that \begin{equation}
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathbb{S}_{1}\|=O_{p}(T^{-1})\label{eq:S1 case2}\end{equation}
under the condition $N\propto T$. Recalling \eqref{eq:S1}, we obtain
the same rate of $\mathbb{S}_{1}$ for both $r_{2}=r-1$ and $r_{2}\le r-2$.
Term $\mathbb{S}_{2}$ in \eqref{eq:lemma A1 eq1} is zero if $r_{2}\le r-2$
because the adjoint matrix of an $r\times r$ matrix $\mathbb{A}$
is zero when rank$(\mathbb{A})\le r-2$.
When $r_{2}=r-1$, we have \begin{eqnarray*}
& & \max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\left\Vert
\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right\Vert \\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\left\Vert
\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})+\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\right\Vert
\\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\left\Vert
\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})+\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}f_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}(H^{\prime}C)^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\right\Vert
\\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\left\Vert
\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\right\Vert \\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{|A_{k}|(k-k_{0})}\left\Vert
(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)\left[\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\right\Vert
=O_{p}(1),\end{eqnarray*}
where the second term in the third line is zero because $(H^{\prime}C^{\prime})^{\#}H^{\prime}g_{t}=(H^{\prime}C)^{\#}H^{\prime}Cf_{t}=|H^{\prime}C^{\prime}|I_{r}=0$
for $t>k_{0}$, and the last equality follows from Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}
and the result that $1/|A_{k}|=O_{p}(N)$ by proposition \ref{low_bound}
for $r=r_{2}+1$. Hence, under the condition $T\propto N$, we have
\begin{equation}
\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathbb{S}_{2}\|=O_{p}(T^{-1}).\label{eq:S2 final}\end{equation}
Thus, combining the results in \eqref{eq:lemma A1 eq1}, \eqref{eq:S1},
\eqref{eq:S1 case2}, and \eqref{eq:S2 final}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\max_{k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T}\|\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\|=O_{p}(T^{-1}),\label{eq:GBG}\end{equation}
Thus, \eqref{eq:det(Sig20)} can be written as\begin{eqnarray*}
|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}| & = & |A_{k}|\prod_{j=1}^{r}\left[1+\rho_{j}\left(\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)\right]\\
& \le &
|A_{k}|\left[1+\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)\right]^{r}\le|A_{k}|\left[1+O_{p}\left(\frac{k-k_{0}}{T}\right)\right]^{r},\end{eqnarray*}
where we use \eqref{eq:GBG} and the fact that
$\rho_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})=\sigma_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})\le\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}A_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\|$.
Thus, by proposition \ref{low_bound}, we have \begin{eqnarray}
0<\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}(|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-|A_{k}|) & \le & O_{p}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)|A_{k}|=O_{p}\left(T^{-1}N^{-(r-r_{2})}\right),\label{eq:lemma A1 eq1 bound}\end{eqnarray}
where the $O_{p}(T^{-1}N^{-(r-r_{2})})$ term is uniform over $k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$.
Next, comparing $|A_{k}|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|$, we have \begin{eqnarray}
& & \max_{k_{0}<k<\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\left||A_{k}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|\right|\nonumber \\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k<\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\left||\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}|-|\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}|\right|\nonumber \\
& = & \max_{k_{0}<k<\tau_{2}T}\frac{1}{k-k_{0}}\left|\left(1-\frac{k-k_{0}}{T-k_{0}}\right)^{r}-1\right||\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|\nonumber \\
&=&O_{p}\left(T^{-1}N^{-(r-r_{2})}\right),\label{eq:lemma A1 eq2}\end{eqnarray}
where we use the fact that $\max_{k_{0}<k<\tau_{2}T}|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})$
by proposition \ref{low_bound}. As both \eqref{eq:lemma A1 eq1 bound}
and \eqref{eq:lemma A1 eq2} are shown to be $O_{p}(T^{-1}N^{-(r-r_{2})})$,
we obtain the desired result for this lemma under the condition $T\propto N$.
$\Box$\vspace{2em}
The following lemma yields a lower bound on the difference
between $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|$ for
$\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$ when $C$ is singular and $B$ is either
singular or nonsingular. The same result applies to the difference
between $|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k)|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|$ for
$k_{0}<k\le\tau_{2}T$ when $B$ is singular.\vspace{1em}
\begin{lemma}\label{differ2} Under Assumptions \ref{factors}--\ref{B_C_full_rank_project}, for
$\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$, if $C$ is singular and $T/N\to\kappa$ as
$N,T\to\infty$ for $0<\kappa<\infty$, then \[
\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}\ge c\cdot(k_{0}-k)\ \mathrm{w.p.a.1}\]
for a constant $c>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$. \end{lemma}
\noindent \textbf{Proof}:
Let us rewrite $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)$ as \begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k) & = &
\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\\
& = & D_{k}+\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\mathcal{\hat{G}},\end{eqnarray*}
where $D_{k}\equiv(T-k)^{-1}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}$
and $\mathcal{\hat{G}}\equiv[\hat{g}_{k+1},...,\hat{g}_{k_{0}}]^{\prime}$.
By (7.10) of \citet{Lange2010}, we have \begin{eqnarray}
|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)| & = & |D_{k}|\cdot|I_{k_{0}-k}+\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}|\nonumber \\
& \ge & |D_{k}|\left[1+\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)\right]\label{eq:det(Sig2k)}\end{eqnarray}
We would like to find the lower bound of the largest eigenvalue of
matrix $\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}$,
which can be written as \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime} & = & \frac{1}{|D_{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)\nonumber \\
& = &
\frac{1}{|D_{k}|(T-k)}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left(D_{k}^{\#}-\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\right)\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}+\frac{1}{|D_{k}|(T-k)}\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\nonumber
\\
& \equiv & \frac{1}{|D_{k}|}(\mathbb{P}_{1}+\mathbb{P}_{2}).\label{eq:GD^(-1)G}\end{eqnarray}
The subsequent proof will be performed in two steps. \vspace{1em}
\textbf{Step 1}. When $r-1=r_{2}>0$, we have \begin{equation}
\max_{\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\|\mathbb{P}_{1}\|=O_{p}(T^{-1}N^{-1})\label{eq:P1}\end{equation}
because $\max_{\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}}\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\|\mathcal{\hat{G}}\|^{2}=O_{p}(1)$,
\[
\max_{\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}}\frac{1}{T-k}\left\Vert D_{k}^{\#}-\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\right\Vert =O_{p}(N^{-1})\]
by \eqref{eq:bai2003lemmab2b3}. Hence, we have\begin{equation}
\frac{\rho_{r}(\mathbb{P}_{1})}{k_{0}-k}\ge-\frac{\max_{j}|\rho_{j}(\mathbb{P}_{1})|}{k_{0}-k}=-\frac{\sigma_{r}(\mathbb{P}_{1})}{k_{0}-k}\ge-\frac{\|\mathbb{P}_{1}\|}{k_{0}-k}=O_{p}(T^{-1}N^{-1})\label{eq:rhomin
P1}\end{equation}
given the fact that the singular values are absolute values of the eigenvalues
of a symmetric matrix.
Next, for the term $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ in \eqref{eq:GD^(-1)G}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{\hat{G}}\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}H^{\prime}g_{t}g_{t}^{\prime}H\right]^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime} & = &
\mathcal{\hat{G}}H^{\#}C^{\#'}\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}f_{t}f_{t}^{\prime}\right]^{\#}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\nonumber \\
& = &
[(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)+\mathcal{G}H]H^{\#}C^{\#'}\underbrace{\left[\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}f_{t}f_{t}^{\prime}\right]^{\#}}_{\equiv\mathbb{Q}_{k}}C^{\#}H^{\#'}[H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}+(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})],\label{eq:P2
expand}\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{G}\equiv[g_{k+1},...,g_{k_{0}}]^{\prime}$, and the first
line uses the fact that $g_{t}=Cf_{t}$ for $t\ge k_{0}$.
As $\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{A}+\mathbb{B})\le\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{A})+\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{B})$,
we have \begin{equation}
\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\le\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})+\sigma_{1}(-\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}))\label{eq:sigma_max
inequality}\end{equation}
by setting $\mathbb{A}=\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}$
and $\mathbb{B}=-\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$.
Rearranging the inequality in \eqref{eq:sigma_max inequality} and
using \eqref{eq:P2 expand}, we obtain \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}) & \ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})|H|-\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}))\nonumber
\\
\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}H^{\#}C^{\#'}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})} & \ge &
|H|\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\|\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\|\nonumber
\\
& \ge & |H|\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})}{k_{0}-k}}-O_{p}(N^{-1/2})\label{eq:sqrt_rhomax}\end{eqnarray}
where the first line is based on the fact that $H^{\#}H=I_{r}|H|$, the second
line uses the inequality that the maximum singular value is bounded
by the Frobenius norm, and the third line follows from the derivation
below: \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\|\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\|^{2} & = &
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}tr[(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)H^{\#}C^{\#'}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})]\\
& \le & \rho_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k})\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}tr[C^{\#}H^{\#'}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)H^{\#}C^{\#'}]\\
& = & O_{p}(N^{-1})\ \mathrm{uniformly\ over\ }\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}\end{eqnarray*}
given the fact that $\max_{\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}}(k_{0}-k)^{-1}\|(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)\|=O_{p}(N^{-1})$
by Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}.
Now, it suffices to find the lower bound of $\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$.
Using the definition of $\mathbb{Q}_{k}$ and inequality $\rho_{1}(\mathbb{AB})\ge\rho_{r}(\mathbb{A})\rho_{1}(\mathbb{B})$
for $r\times r$ positive semidefinite matrices $\mathbb{A}$ and
$\mathbb{B}$, we have \begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\ge\rho_{r}\left(\left[\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{f,2}^{0}\right]^{\#}\right)\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\right)=\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\left(\frac{|\Sigma_{f}|}{\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{f})}+o_{p}(1)\right)\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\right)\label{eq:GCQCG}\end{equation}
where we use the facts that $\hat{\Sigma}_{f,2}^{0}\equiv\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}f_{t}f_{t}^{\prime}\to_{p}\Sigma_{f}$
and $\rho_{r}(\Sigma_{f}^{\#})=\rho_{r}(|\Sigma_{f}|\Sigma_{f}^{-1})=|\Sigma_{f}|/\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{f})$.
For $k_{0}-k\to\infty$ as $N,T\to\infty$, \begin{equation}
\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}\frac{\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\mathcal{G}}{k_{0}-k}C^{'\#}\right)=\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}B\Sigma_{f}B^{\prime}C^{'\#}+o_{p}(1)\right)>c_{1}\ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\label{eq:k0-k
unbounded}\end{equation}
for a constant $c_{1}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$, because $C^{\#}B\ne0$
and $\Sigma_{f}$ is positive definite according to Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} (i).
As $|\Sigma_{f}|/\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{f})>0$ in \eqref{eq:GCQCG},
we have $\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}\left(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\right)\ge c_{2}$
w.p.a.1 for a constant $c_{2}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$.
For $k_{0}-k$ being bounded, \begin{equation}
\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\right)\ge\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}g_{k_{0}}g_{k_{0}}^{\prime}C^{'\#}\right)=\rho_{1}\left(C^{\#}Bf_{k_{0}}f_{k_{0}}^{\prime}B^{\prime}C^{'\#}\right)=f_{k_{0}}^{\prime}B^{\prime}C^{'\#}C^{\#}Bf_{k_{0}}>c\label{eq:k0-k
bounded}\end{equation}
for a constant $c>0$ according to Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} (ii), where $C^{\#}Bf_{k_{0}}\ne0$.
Combining \eqref{eq:GCQCG},
\eqref{eq:k0-k unbounded}, and \eqref{eq:k0-k bounded}, we have $\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}C^{'\#}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})/(k_{0}-k)>c_{2}$
w.p.a.1 for a constant $c_{2}>0$. Thus, we can obtain the lower
bound for the RHS of \eqref{eq:sqrt_rhomax} as \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{Q}_{k}^{1/2}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}) & \ge & |H|c_{2}^{1/2}-O_{p}(N^{-1/2})\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}H^{\#}C^{\#'}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}) & \ge & c_{3}\ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\label{eq:P2 bound}\end{eqnarray}
as $N,T\to\infty$ for a constant $c_{3}>0$, because $H$ has
a nonsingular limit.
Based on \eqref{eq:GD^(-1)G} and Weyl's inequality, we have \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right) & \ge &
\frac{1}{|D_{k}|(k_{0}-k)}\rho_{r}(\mathbb{P}_{1})+\frac{1}{|D_{k}|(k_{0}-k)}\rho_{1}(\mathbb{P}_{2})\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{|D_{k}|(k_{0}-k)}\rho_{r}(\mathbb{P}_{1})+\frac{1}{|D_{k}|(T-k)}\frac{\rho_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}H^{\#}C^{\#'}\mathbb{Q}_{k}C^{\#}H^{\#'}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})}{k_{0}-k}\nonumber \\
& \ge & O_{p}(T^{-1})+\underbrace{\frac{c_{4}N}{T-k}}_{\mathrm{dominating\ term}}\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\label{eq:case_1_rank=r-1}\end{eqnarray}
for a constant $c_{4}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$ by \eqref{eq:rhomin P1}
and \eqref{eq:P2 bound}, where the last line follows from proposition \ref{low_bound}
and the $O_{p}(T^{-1})$ term is uniform over $\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$.
\vspace{1em}
\textbf{Step 2}. When $r-r_{2}\ge2$ or $r_{2}=0$,
the term $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ in \eqref{eq:GD^(-1)G} is zero. For the
term $\mathbb{P}_{1}$ in \eqref{eq:GD^(-1)G}, we have\[
\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}=[\mathcal{G}H+(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)]D_{k}^{\#}[H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}+(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})].\]
Using similar techniques to those in \eqref{eq:sigma_max inequality} and \eqref{eq:sqrt_rhomax},
we have \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}) & \ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})-\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}))\nonumber
\\
& \ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})-\frac{\|D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\|}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})-O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2}),\label{eq:sigma DGhat}\end{eqnarray}
where the last line is based on the fact that\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\|D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\|^{2} & = &
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}tr[(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)D_{k}^{\#}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})]\\
& \le & \rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})tr\left[\frac{(\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})(\mathcal{\hat{G}}-\mathcal{G}H)}{k_{0}-k}\right]\\
& = & O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})\end{eqnarray*}
uniformly over $\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$ under the condition $N\propto T$,
because of Lemma \ref{Bai_implied}, and the fact
that \begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})=|D_{k}|/\rho_{r}(D_{k})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})O_{p}(N)\label{eq:rhomax_Dkadj}\end{equation}
by proposition \ref{low_bound}.
Now, it suffices to determine the lower bound of $\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$.
Similar to \eqref{eq:Bk^(1/2) U}, we have \begin{equation}
D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}=O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1}),\label{eq:Dk^(1/2)U1}\end{equation}
uniformly over $\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$, where $U_{1}=D_{k}^{1/2}(\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}C^{\prime}H)^{-}$.
For $t\le k_{0}$, we have $g_{t}=Bf_{t}$;
thus, \begin{eqnarray}
H^{\prime}g_{t} & = & H^{\prime}Bf_{t}=D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t}+(H^{\prime}Bf_{t}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t})\nonumber \\
\mathrm{and}\ H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime} & = & D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}+(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}),\label{eq:HG decompose}\end{eqnarray}
where we set $f_{t}=\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\varepsilon_{t}$ with $E(\varepsilon_{t}\varepsilon_{t}^{\prime})=I_{r}$
and $\mathcal{E}\equiv[\varepsilon_{k+1},...,\varepsilon_{k_{0}}]^{\prime}$.
First, we consider the case in which $k_{0}-k$ is bounded.
Note that $D_{k}^{\#}$ has $r_{2}$ eigenvalues of order $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})$
and $r-r_{2}$ eigenvalues of order $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)})$ by
\eqref{eq:rhomax_Dkadj}, and let $v_{1}(r\times r_{2})$ and $v_{2}(r\times(r-r_{2}))$
denote the corresponding eigenvectors. By proposition \ref{low_bound},
for $t\le k_{0}$, \begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{t}^{\prime}U_{1}D_{k}^{1/2}D_{k}^{\#}D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t}=|D_{k}|(\varepsilon_{t}^{\prime}U_{1}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})}),\label{eq:eUDDDUe}\end{equation}
which implies that $D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t}$ lies in the space
spanned by $v_{1}$. Thus, for $t\le k_{0}$, \begin{align}
f_{t}C^{\prime}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}Cf_{t} & =\|D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}[(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\varepsilon_{t}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t})+D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\varepsilon_{t}]\|^{2}\nonumber \\
& \le2\|D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1})\varepsilon_{t}\|^{2}+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})\nonumber \\
& \le2\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})\|(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1})\varepsilon_{t}\|^{2}+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})}),\label{eq:fCHDHCf}\end{align}
where the second line follows from \eqref{eq:eUDDDUe} and the last
line follows from \eqref{eq:rhomax_Dkadj} and \eqref{eq:Dk^(1/2)U1}
under the condition $N\propto T$.
To bound $\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})$,
we consider \begin{align}
D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}} &
=D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}[H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})]+D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})\nonumber \\
&
=D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}[H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1})+O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})]+D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})\nonumber
\\
& =D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}[H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1})]+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2}),\label{eq:DHgk0}\end{align}
where $\mathrm{Proj}(\mathbb{A}|\mathbb{Z})$ denotes the projection
of $\mathbb{A}$ onto the columns of $\mathbb{Z}$, the second line
follows from \eqref{eq:Dk^(1/2)U1}, and the $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})$
term in the third line follows from \eqref{eq:rhomax_Dkadj} and the fact
that $D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})=O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})$
by \eqref{eq:fCHDHCf}, because $\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})$
is a linear combination of $H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}$ columns.
Under Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} (iii), according to which $\|Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(Bf_{k_{0}}|C)\|\ge d>0$,
we have $H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2})$
bounded away from zero. This implies that the term $H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}-\mathrm{Proj}(H^{\prime}Bf_{k_{0}}|D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1})$
in the last line of \eqref{eq:DHgk0} is also bounded away from zero
and lies in the space spanned by $v_{2}$, because it is, by design,
orthogonal to $D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}$, which lies in the space of $v_{1}$
by \eqref{eq:eUDDDUe}. As $v_{2}$ corresponds to the $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)})$
eigenvalues of $D_{k}^{\#}$, we have \[
\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\ge
g_{k_{0}}^{\prime}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}}\ge\rho_{r-r_{2}}(D_{k}^{\#})\|H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}}\|^{2}=\frac{|D_{k}|}{\rho_{r_{2}+1}(D_{k})}\|H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}}\|^{2}\ge\frac{N}{c_{U}}\|H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}}\|^{2}|D_{k}|\]
w.p.a.1 as $N,T\to\infty$ by proposition \ref{low_bound}. Thus, for $k_{0}-k$
being bounded, \begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})\ge g_{k_{0}}^{\prime}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}g_{k_{0}}\ge c_{1}N\cdot|D_{k}|\label{eq:step2 k0-k bounded}\end{equation}
w.p.a.1. for a constant $c_{1}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$ under the
condition $N\propto T$.
Second, we consider the case in which $k_{0}-k\to\infty$ as $N,T\to\infty$.
Using \eqref{eq:HG decompose}, we rewrite $\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$
as \begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime} & = &
[(\mathcal{G}H-\mathcal{E}U_{1}^{\prime}D_{k}^{1/2})+\mathcal{E}U_{1}^{\prime}D_{k}^{1/2}]D_{k}^{\#}[D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}+(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})].\end{eqnarray*}
Based on the same techniques as in \eqref{eq:sigma_max inequality} and \eqref{eq:sqrt_rhomax},
the decomposition in \eqref{eq:HG decompose} implies\[
\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))\le\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime})+\sigma_{1}(-D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}),\]
so we have \begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}) & \ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))-\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})\nonumber
\\
& \ge &
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))-|D_{k}^{1/2}|\sigma_{1}(U_{1})\sigma_{1}\left(\frac{\mathcal{E}^{\prime}}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\right)\nonumber
\\
& = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))-O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})O_{p}(1)\label{eq:sigma_DHG}\end{eqnarray}
where the second inequality is based on the fact that $\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{AB})\le\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{A})\sigma_{1}(\mathbb{B})$
and the last line follows from the facts that $|D_{k}|$ is uniformly $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})})$
by proposition \ref{low_bound}, $\sigma_{1}(U_{1})\le\|U_{1}\|=O_{p}(1)$
by the structure of $U_{1}$, and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(\mathcal{E}^{\prime})\le\sqrt{\|\mathcal{E}\|^{2}/(k_{0}-k)}=O_{p}(1)$
uniformly over $\tau_{1}T\le k<k_{0}$.
Next, we need to determine the lower bound of $\rho_{1}((\mathcal{G}H-\mathcal{E}U_{1}D_{k}^{1/2})D_{k}^{\#}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))/(k_{0}-k)$.
From \eqref{eq:Dk^(1/2)U1}, we have \begin{align}
H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime} &
=H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}+(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})\nonumber \\
& =H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}C\mathcal{F}^{\prime}+O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\nonumber \\
& =H^{\prime}(B-C)\mathcal{F}^{\prime}+O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\label{eq:HG - DUE}\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}^{\prime}\equiv[f_{k+1},...,f_{k_{0}}]=\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}$
in the second line. Again, using the inequality in \eqref{eq:sigma_max inequality},
we have\[
\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))\le\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))+\sigma_{1}(-D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})).\]
Thus, in combination with \eqref{eq:HG - DUE}, we obtain \begin{align}
\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})) &
\ge\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))-\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}C\Sigma_{f}^{1/2}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime}))\nonumber
\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}-D_{k}^{1/2}U_{1}\mathcal{E}^{\prime})) &
\ge\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}(H^{\prime}(B-C)\mathcal{F}^{\prime})-\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}O_{p}(\delta_{NT}^{-1})\mathcal{E}^{\prime})\nonumber \\
& \ge\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#}(H^{\prime}(B-C)\mathcal{F}^{\prime}\mathcal{F}(B-C)^{\prime}H)}+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})\nonumber \\
& \ge\left[\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})\rho_{r}\left(H^{\prime}(B-C)\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}f_{t}f_{t}^{\prime}(B-C)^{\prime}H\right)\right]^{1/2}+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})\nonumber \\
& =\underbrace{\left(\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})[\rho_{r}(H^{\prime}(B-C)\Sigma_{f}(B-C)^{\prime}H)+o_{p}(1)]\right)^{1/2}}_{leading\ term}+O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})\nonumber \\
&\ge\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})^{1/2}c_{2}\label{eq:DHG-DUE}\end{align}
w.p.a.1 for a constant $c_{2}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$,
where the $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2})$ term in the third line follows
from \eqref{eq:rhomax_Dkadj} and the condition $N\propto T$, the
last line follows from the fact that $[\rho_{r}(H^{\prime}(B-C)\Sigma_{f}(B-C)^{\prime}H)]^{1/2}\ge c_{2}>0$
because $B-C\ne0$ and $\Sigma_{f}$ are positive definite by Assumption
\ref{factors}, and the leading term in the last line is $O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2}-1)/2})$
by \eqref{eq:rhomax_Dkadj}. Hence, combining \eqref{eq:sigma_DHG}
and \eqref{eq:DHG-DUE} yields\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}) & \ge\rho_{1}(D_{k}^{\#})^{1/2}c_{2}\ \mathrm{and}\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(\mathcal{G}HD_{k}^{\#}H^{\prime}\mathcal{G}^{\prime}) & \ge\frac{|D_{k}|}{\rho_{r}(D_{k})}c_{2}^{2}\ge\frac{c_{2}^{2}}{c_{U}}N|D_{k}|=c_{3}N\cdot|D_{k}|\label{eq:step2 k0-k
unbounded}\end{align}
w.p.a.1 for a constant $c_{3}>0$ as $N,T\to\infty$.
According to \eqref{eq:sigma DGhat}, \eqref{eq:step2 k0-k bounded}, and
\eqref{eq:step2 k0-k unbounded}, there exists a constant
$c_{4}>0$ such that \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{0}-k}}\sigma_{1}(D_{k}^{\#^{1/2}}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}) & \ge & \underbrace{\sqrt{c_{4}N\cdot|D_{k}|}}_{leading\ term}-O_{p}(N^{-(r-r_{2})/2}),\end{eqnarray*}
w.p.a.1 as $N,T\to\infty$; thus, we have \[
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}(\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime})\ge c_{4}N\cdot|D_{k}|\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\]
as $N,T\to\infty$. Hence, \begin{equation}
\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)=\frac{1}{|D_{k}|}\frac{1}{T-k}\frac{\rho_{1}\left(\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{\#}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)}{k_{0}-k}\ge
c_{4}\frac{N}{T-k}\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\label{eq:case 2 rank < r-1}\end{equation}
as $N,T\to\infty$. Summarizing the results in \eqref{eq:case_1_rank=r-1}
and \eqref{eq:case 2 rank < r-1}, we obtain the lower bound of $\rho_{1}\left(\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}\right)$.
Thus, steps 1 and 2 are completed. \vspace{1em}
Finally, using the lower bound of the largest eigenvalue of matrix
$\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}$,
we can rewrite \eqref{eq:det(Sig2k)} as\[
|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|=|D_{k}|\cdot|I_{k_{0}-k}+\frac{1}{T-k}\mathcal{\hat{G}}D_{k}^{-1}\mathcal{\hat{G}}^{\prime}|\ge|D_{k}|\left[1+c_{4}\left(\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\right)\cdot
N\right]\ge|D_{k}|\left[1+\frac{c_{4}(k_{0}-k)}{(1-\tau_{1})T}\cdot N\right]\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\]
as $N,T\to\infty.$
Comparing $|D_{k}|$ and $|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|$, we have \begin{eqnarray*}
|D_{k}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}| & = &
\left|\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\left(\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\right)\right|-\left|\frac{1}{T-k_{0}}\sum_{t=k_{0}+1}^{T}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}\right|=\left[\left(1-\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\right)^{r}-1\right]|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|\\
& = & \left[-\frac{r(k_{0}-k)}{T-k}+\frac{r(r-1)}{2}\left(\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\right)^{2}+...\right]|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|\\
&=&-\frac{c_{5}(k_{0}-k)}{T-k}|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|\end{eqnarray*}
for some positive constant $c_{5}>0$. In addition, \[
|D_{k}|/|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|=\left(\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\right)^{r}\ge\left(\frac{1-\tau_{0}}{1-\tau_{1}}\right)^{r}.\]
Thus, \begin{align*}
\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}(k)|-|D_{k}|+|D_{k}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|} & \ge\frac{|D_{k}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}\frac{c_{4}(k_{0}-k)}{(1-\tau_{1})T}\cdot
N-\frac{c_{5}(k_{0}-k)}{T-k}\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1\\
& \ge\underbrace{\left(\frac{1-\tau_{0}}{1-\tau_{1}}\right)^{r}\frac{c_{4}(k_{0}-k)N}{(1-\tau_{1})T}}_{leading\ term}-\frac{c_{5}(k_{0}-k)}{T-k}\ \ \mathrm{w.p.a.}1,\end{align*}
as $N,T\to\infty$, which implies the desired result under the condition
$N\propto T$. $\Box$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{consistency}}
We first prove the consistency of $\hat{\tau}$,
then $\hat{k}-k_{0}=O_{p}(1)$, and finally, $\hat{k}-k_{0}=o_{p}(1)$. Again, it suffices to study
the case of $k<k_{0}$.
To prove $\hat{\tau}-\tau_{0}=o_{p}(1)$, we need to show that
for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\eta>0$, $P(|\hat{\tau}-\tau_{0}|>\eta)<\varepsilon$
as $N,T\rightarrow\infty$. For any given $0<\eta\le\min(\tau_{0},1-\tau_{0})$,
define $D_{\eta}=\{k:(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k\leq(\tau_{0}+\eta)T\}$
and $D_{\eta}^{c}$ as the complement of $D_{\eta}$. Similar
to the proof for the consistency of $\hat{\tau}$ when $B$ and $C$
are nonsingular, we need to show that $P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})<\varepsilon$.
Recalling \eqref{eq:equiv sets} and \eqref{eq:P}, we have \begin{eqnarray}
& & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)=P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{k_{0}-k}\leq0),\nonumber \\
& &\le P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\label{eq:sec3.3 eq1}\end{eqnarray}
(1). Consider the first term $\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|$.
When $\Sigma_{1}$ is of full rank, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|=o_{p}(1)\label{eq:term 1 is o1}\end{equation}
by the argument used in \eqref{eq:P} and Lemma
\ref{Baltagi_lemma}. When $\Sigma_{1}$ is singular, we can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\big|\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\big| & = & \big|\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k)|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k_{0})|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k_{0})|}+1)\big|\nonumber \\
& = & \big|\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(O_{p}(T^{-1}(k_{0}-k))+1)\big|\nonumber \\
& = & O_{p}(1),\label{eq:term 1 is O1}\end{eqnarray}
where the second line follows from Lemma \ref{differ}
and the third line is based on the fact that $|k_{0}-k|>\eta T$.
(2). For the second and third terms, let \begin{align}
f(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0},\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}) & =\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\nonumber \\
& =\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})-\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}).\label{eq:f
function}\end{align}
We show that $f(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0},\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0})\to+\infty$
at the rate $\log T$.
When $\Sigma_{1}$ is singular and $\Sigma_{2}$
is a positive definite matrix, \eqref{eq:Sigmahat rewrite} implies
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Sigma}_{2}=\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Sigma_{1}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\Sigma_{2}+o_{p}(1),\label{eq:Sigmahat2}\end{equation}
where the $o_{p}(1)$ term is uniform over $k\in D_{\eta}^{c}$ for
$k<k_{0}$ by Lemma \ref{Baltagi_lemma} $(iv)$ and
$(vii)$. Together with $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\to_{p}\Sigma_{2}^{-1}>0$,
\eqref{eq:Sigmahat2} implies that $\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})$
is uniformly $O_{p}(1)$ and bounded away from zero; thus,
\[
\big|\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\big|=O_{p}(1)\]
uniformly over $k\in D_{\eta}^{c}$ for $k<k_{0}$. In addition, we have
$\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})=O_{p}(T^{-1})$
uniformly over $k$ for $i=r_{1}+1,...,r$ by proposition \ref{low_bound}
when $N\propto T$; thus, $\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\to-\infty$
at the rate of $\log T$ for $i=r_{1}+1,...,r$. Therefore, \eqref{eq:f function}
can be rewritten as\[
f(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0},\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0})=\underbrace{-\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})}_{\to+\infty\ \mathrm{at\ the\ rate}\ \log T}+O_{p}(1).\]
When $\Sigma_{2}$ is singular and $\Sigma_{1}$
is singular or nonsingular, we can bound \eqref{eq:f function}
by\begin{align*}
f(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0},\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}) & \ge\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})-\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\\
& =\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}r\log\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})+\underbrace{\frac{T-k_{0}}{k_{0}-k}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})-r\log\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})}_{\to+\infty\
\mathrm{at\ the\ rate}\ \log T},\end{align*}
where the first line uses inequalities $\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\ge\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})$
and $\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\le\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})$.
Note that $\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})>0$ diverges at the rate
$T$ by proposition \ref{low_bound} for $i=1,...,r-r_{2}$; thus, $\sum_{i=1}^{r}\log\rho_{i}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1})\to+\infty$
at the rate $\log T$. In addition, when $\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{1})>0$, we have
$\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\to_{p}\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{1})>0$; thus,
$r\log\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})=O_{p}(1)$. When $\rho_{1}(\Sigma_{1})=0$
(i.e., $r_{1}=0$), we have $\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\cdot T\ge c>0$
w.p.a.1 for $c>0$ by proposition \ref{low_bound}; thus, $-r\log\rho_{1}(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\to+\infty$
at the rate $\log T$. For $\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})$, rearranging
the terms in \eqref{eq:Sigmahat2} yields \begin{align*}
\hat{\Sigma}_{2} & =\frac{(k_{0}-k)T}{k_{0}(T-k)}(\frac{k_{0}}{T}\Sigma_{1}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T}\Sigma_{2})+\frac{k}{k_{0}}\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\Sigma_{2}+o_{p}(1)\\
& =\frac{(k_{0}-k)T}{k_{0}(T-k)}[\tau_{0}\Sigma_{1}+(1-\tau_{0})\Sigma_{2}]+\frac{k}{k_{0}}\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\Sigma_{2}+o_{p}(1),\end{align*}
where $\tau_{0}\Sigma_{1}+(1-\tau_{0})\Sigma_{2}$ is a positive
definite matrix under Assumption \ref{B_C_full_rank_project} (i). Thus,
$\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})$ is $O_{p}(1)$ and bounded away from
zero w.p.a.1, and \[
\big|\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}r\log\rho_{r}(\hat{\Sigma}_{2})\big|=O_{p}(1)\]
uniformly over $k\in D_{\eta}^{c}$ for $k<k_{0}$. Combining the
above results, we establish the following result: $f(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0},\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0})\to+\infty$
at the rate $\log T$. Together with \eqref{eq:term 1 is o1} and
\eqref{eq:term 1 is O1}, we have \[
\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|>0,\]
w.p.a.1; thus, $P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta}^{c},k<k_{0}}U(k)-U(k_{0})\leq0)\to0$
for any $\eta>0$, and hence, $\hat{\tau}\to_{p}\tau$.
Next, we show that $\hat{k}-k_{0}=O_{p}(1)$.
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{bound_theorem}, for given $\eta$
and $M$, define $D_{\eta,M}=\{k:(\tau_{0}-\eta)T\leq k\leq(\tau_{0}+\eta)T,\ |k_{0}-k|>M\}$,
such that $P(|\hat{k}-k_{0}|>M)=P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta}^{c})+P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta,M})$.
Hence, it suffices to show that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\eta>0$,
there exists an $M>0$ such that $P(\hat{k}\in D_{\eta,M})<\varepsilon$
as $(N,T)\rightarrow\infty$. Similar to \eqref{eq:p(Uk - Uk0 <0)}
and \eqref{eq:sec3.3 eq1}, it suffices to show that
for any given $\varepsilon>0$ and $\eta>0$, there exists
an $M>0$ such that\begin{align}
& P(\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\leq0)\nonumber
\\
\le & P(\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\le0)<\varepsilon\label{eq:Op(1) TBP}\end{align}
For the term $\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|$,
when $\Sigma_{1}$ is of full rank, we have \[
P(\Big|\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\Big|\le c_{\Delta})\ge P(\max\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\Big|\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|\Big|\le c_{\Delta})\ge1-\frac{C}{Mc_{\Delta}^{2}}\to1\]
for a constant $C>0$ under the same arguments as those in \eqref{eq:Hajek2}
and \eqref{eq:bounded2}.
When $\Sigma_{1}$ is singular, \begin{eqnarray}\label{Sigma1_singular}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}| & = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k)|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k_{0})|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}(k_{0})|}+1)\nonumber \\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(O_{p}(T^{-1}(k_{0}-k))+1)\nonumber \\
& = & O_{p}(1),\end{eqnarray}
where the second equation holds because of Lemma \ref{differ} and
the last equality holds because $\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(O_{p}(T^{-1}(k_{0}-k))+1)=\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}tr(O_{p}(T^{-1}(k_{0}-k)))=O_{p}(1)$
whether $k_{0}-k$ is bounded or diverging.
For the second and third terms, we consider several cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i).] When $\Sigma_{1}$ is singular and $\Sigma_{2}$
is positive definite, we have \begin{eqnarray}\label{Sigma2differ}
& & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\nonumber\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|I+\frac{k-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Big(\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big)\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\nonumber\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}tr\left(\frac{k-k_{0}}{T-k}I+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}+\frac{k_{0}-k}{T-k}\Big(\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\Big)\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}\right)-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|+o_{p}(1)\nonumber\\
& = & O_{p}(1)-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|+\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|\to\infty\ \mathrm{at\ the\ rate}\ \log T\end{eqnarray}
where the second line is based on the fact that $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}=\frac{1}{T-k}\sum_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{\prime}+\frac{T-k_{0}}{T-k}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}$,
the third line follows from the fact that $(k_{0}-k)/T\to0$ through the
consistency of $\hat{\tau}$ and the boundedness of $\frac{1}{k_{0}-k}\sum\limits _{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}\hat{g}_{t}\hat{g}_{t}^{'}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}$
by \eqref{eq:gg-Sigmahat1} and \eqref{eq:gg HR}, and the divergence
rate in the last line follows from the fact that $-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|\ge\log(c_{1}T)$
for some $c_{1}>0$ by proposition \ref{low_bound} under the assumption
$N\propto T$ and the fact that $\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|=O_{p}(1)$
because $\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}\to_{p}\Sigma_{2}$ is positive definite.
\item [(ii).] When $\Sigma_{2}$ is singular
and $\Sigma_{1}$ is either singular or positive definite, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{consistent_proof_sigma2}
& & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\nonumber\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}+1|+\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|\nonumber\\
& \geq & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log(c(k_{0}-k)+1)+\underbrace{\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|}_{O_{p}(\log T)}\nonumber\\
& \to & \infty,\end{eqnarray}
where the inequality in the third line holds because
of Lemma \ref{differ2}, the $O_{p}(\log T)$ term in the third line
follows from proposition \ref{low_bound}, and the divergence in the last
line evidently holds when $k_{0}-k\to\infty$ and $(k_{0}-k)/T\to0$, because $\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\frac{\log(k_{0}-k)}{\log(T)}>\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}/\log(\frac{T}{k_{0}-k})\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{itemize}
Thus, we have shown that the second and third terms dominate
the first term, and hence, \eqref{eq:Op(1) TBP} holds.
To indicate the consistency of $\hat{k}$, we will show that
for any $k<k_{0}$ and $k_{0}-k\leq M$, the objective function $V(k)=U(k)-U(k_{0})$
diverges to infinity as $N,T\rightarrow\infty$; thus, the minimum
$U(k)$ cannot be achieved at a point other than $k_{0}$. For the given $M$,
define $D_{M}=\{k:|k_{0}-k|\leq M\}$, then \begin{eqnarray}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{U(k)-U(k_{0})}{k_{0}-k} & = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|+\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|.\label{objective}\end{eqnarray}
When $\Sigma_{1}$ is of full rank, the first term in (\ref{objective})
is \begin{eqnarray*}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}| & = & \min\limits _{k\in
D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log\left|(\hat{\Sigma}_{1}-\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0})\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+I\right|\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log\left|\left(\frac{k_{0}-k}{kk_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\right)\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+I\right|\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in D_{M},k<k_{0}}tr\left(\frac{1}{k_{0}}\sum\limits _{t=1}^{k}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})-\frac{k}{k_{0}(k_{0}-k)}\sum\limits
_{t=k+1}^{k_{0}}(\xi_{t}+\zeta_{t})\right)\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}+o_{p}(1)\\
& = & O_{p}(1).\end{eqnarray*}
Similar to (\ref{Sigma1_singular}), when $\Sigma_{1}$ is singular,
the first term in (\ref{objective}) is \begin{eqnarray*}
\min\limits _{k\in D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|=\min\limits _{k\in
D_{M},k<k_{0}}\frac{k}{k_{0}-k}\log(\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0-1}|}+1)=O_{p}(1).\end{eqnarray*}
The second and third terms are discussed below.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i).] When $\Sigma_{1}$ is a singular matrix and $\Sigma_{2}$
is a positive matrix, \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|=O_{p}(1)+\log(T)\rightarrow\infty,\end{eqnarray*}
where $\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|=O_{p}(1)$
is similar to (\ref{Sigma2differ}).
\item [(ii).] When $\Sigma_{2}$ is singular
and $\Sigma_{1}$ is either singular or positive definite, similar to (\ref{consistent_proof_sigma2}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0-1}|\\
& = & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log|\frac{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}|-|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}{|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|}+1|+\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|\\
& \geq & \min\limits _{k\in D_{\eta,M},k<k_{0}}\frac{T-k}{k_{0}-k}\log(c(k_{0}-k)+1)+\underbrace{\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{2}^{0}|-\log|\hat{\Sigma}_{1}^{0}|}_{O_{p}(\log T)}\\
& \to & \infty,\end{eqnarray*}
where the inequality in the third line holds because
of Lemma \ref{differ2}, the $O_{p}(\log T)$ term in the third line
follows from proposition \ref{low_bound}, and the divergence in the last
line evidently holds when $k_{0}-k$ is bounded, because $c(k_{0}-k)+1>1$ and by the same argument in (\ref{consistent_proof_sigma2}).
\end{itemize}
In summary, we can determine $U(k)\rightarrow\infty$ when $k<k_{0}$ and
$k_{0}-k<M$ as $N,T\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, we prove the consistency
of $\hat{k}$. $\Box$
|
\section{Introduction/Background/Motivation}
\section{Introduction}
Our primary focus in this paper is link prediction, which aims to infer unobserved/missing links or predicting the future ones based on the connections of currently observed partial networks. Link prediction is a fundamental problem in network science with tremendous real-world applications \cite{lu2011link}.
Over the years, there are many link prediction methods have been developed. Local link prediction methods based on the assumption that two nodes are more likely to be connected if they have many common neighbors \cite{zhou2009predicting}, but generally obtained low accuracy especially on large and sparse graphs. The global structural similarity was also taken consideration \cite{liu2013hidden}, but is generally computationally infeasible for large graphs. There are also probabilistic approaches assuming a known prior structure of the graph, such as hierarchical or circles structures \cite{clauset2008hierarchical}, though the accuracy was not satisfactory. And there has been a surge of algorithms that make link prediction through representation learning that learns low dimensional embeddings for nodes, most of these methods are based on skip-gram or matrix factorization, examples include DeepWalk \cite{perozzi2014deepwalk}, node2vec \cite{grover2016node2vec}, etc. These algorithms are basically unsupervised learning with no supervised information during training, although the learned representations can assist downstream tasks such as node classification, graph classification, as well as link prediction to achieve higher accuracy.
As the graph neural networks (GNNs) have been an emerging research area in recent years, significant advances and various architectures are proposed and developed. Lots of the new models are evaluated on the citation network datasets (Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed). However, different training/test splits were often deployed across studies \cite{mernyei2020wiki}, which is challenging to make fair comparisons among different methods.
Also, all three citation networks are derived from the same domain, with similar structural properties.
Furthermore, when most of the models developed, they were primarily tested on tasks such as node classification and graph classification, not all performed link prediction. For instance, in \cite{kipf2016semi}, \cite{hamilton2017inductive} and \cite{velivckovic2017graph} that we will illustrate in Section \ref{sec:approach}, only node classification and graph classification tasks were benchmarked, but no link prediction task was evaluated. \cite{kipf2016variational} experimented link prediction in the citation networks, and compared only with baselines that are not recently developed, such as spectral clustering \cite{tang2011leveraging} and DeepWalk \cite{perozzi2014deepwalk}.
\cite{mernyei2020wiki} introduced an additional dataset for various GNN benchmarks, but for link prediction task, only variational graph auto-encoder (VGAE) was evaluated and compared with the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) baseline.
In this paper, we aim at providing a fair comparison on several most influential GNN architectures that were developed in recent years, evaluating them on the same datasets, also with consistent training splits of data among different models. Moreover, we will benchmark the models on additional dataset other than the commonly used citation networks.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:data} introduces the four datasets we test on. Section \ref{sec:approach} illustrates several recently developed GNN architectures that we apply and evaluate. In Section \ref{sec:implement}, implementation details are discussed. We benchmark the models and show the evaluation results in Section \ref{sec:res}. Finally, we conclude our findings and discuss future work directions in Section \ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Datasets} \label{sec:data}
For this paper, we used the following datasets:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Cora}: This dataset is a citation network that is used as a standard benchmark dataset. The network has 2708 nodes (scientific publications) which are classified into one of seven classes. The citation network contains 5429 links (undirected edges) between nodes. Each node is described by a 0/1 bag-of-words vector with a dictionary size of 1433 \cite{linqsdata}.
\item \textbf{CiteSeer}: This dataset is another citation network similar to Cora. It contains 3327 nodes (scientific publications), 4732 edges (links), and 6 classes. Each node in this dataset is also described by a 0/1 bag-of-words vector with a dictionary size of 3703 \cite{linqsdata}.
\item \textbf{PubMed}: This dataset is a citation network of scientific publications pertaining to diabetes from the Pubmed database. It contains 19717 nodes, 44338 edges, and 3 classes. Each node is described by a TF/IDF weighted word vector with a dictionary size of 500 \cite{linqsdata}.
\item \textbf{WikiCS}: This dataset is based on Wikipedia article references. It consists of 11701 nodes (Wikipedia articles on Computer Science), 216213 edges (hyperlinks between articles), and 10 classes. Each node is described by a 300-dimensional vector which was obtained as the average of pretrained GloVe embeddings \cite{mernyei2020wiki}.
\end{itemize}
Cora, CiteSeer, and PubMed are commonly used benchmark datasets for tasks related to graph neural networks such as link prediction, node classification, and graph classification.
While these three datasets are all citation networks, the Wiki-CS is a newly published dataset in a different domain. It also has different structural properties, the primary one being that there are significantly more edges per node. It has a mean degree of 36.94 while PubMed has a mean degree of 4.5 in spite of having nearly 70\% more nodes \cite{mernyei2020wiki}, thus has a significantly higher connectivity rate and provides a different distribution as a testbed. In this paper we use the abovementioned four dataset to benchmark several recently developed GNN architectures on the link prediction task.
\section{Approach} \label{sec:approach}
Our primary goal is to benchmark several recently developed GNN models for link prediction task.
With consistent training splits of data among different methods, our work provides a more fair comparison.
In particular, the following four models will be implemented and evaluated for link prediction tasks on the datasets we discussed earlier in this paper.
\subsection{Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN)} \label{sec:gcn}
GCN \cite{kipf2016semi} borrows the concept of convolution from the convolutional neural network (CNN) and convolve the graph directly according to the connectivity structure of the graph as the filter to perform neighborhood mixing. The architecture can be summarized concisely as
$$ H^{l+1} = \sigma (\tilde{D}^{-1/2} \tilde{A}^{-1/2} \tilde{D}^{-1/2} H^{(l)} W^{(l)}), $$
where $A$ and $D$ are the adjacency matrix and the degree matrix of the graph, respectively.
Two tricks were applied that help the GCN being successful: a self-connection is added to each node in the adjacency matrix, and then the adjacency matrix is normalized according to the degrees, so that we obtained $\tilde{A}$ and $\tilde{D}$. $H^{(l)}$ contains the embedding of the nodes in $l^{th}$ layer, $W^{(l)}$ denotes the weight matrix for this layer, and $\sigma$ is the nonlinearity.
\subsection{GraphSAGE} \label{sec:sage}
GraphSAGE \cite{hamilton2017inductive} is an inductive learning algorithm for GNNs, meaning that instead of applying the whole adjacency matrix information among all node, it learns aggregator functions that can induce the embedding of a new node given its features and neighborhood information without retraining of the entire model. To learn the embeddings with aggregators, a neighborhood embedding would be mapped with the aggregation function and concatenated with existing embedding of the node. The concatecated vector would be passed through a GNN layer to update the node embedding, and finally the embeddings are normalized to unit norm. Note the aggregator can be of various form, \cite{hamilton2017inductive} proposed the options of the mean (as used in GCN), pooling, as well as LSTM. The sampling from neighbors strategy in GraphSAGE yields impressive performance on node labeling task over several large-scale networks.
To learn the weights of aggregators and embeddings, the loss function of GraphSAGE is defined as
$$ \mathcal{L} = -\log \sigma (z_u^T z_v) - Q \mathbb{E}_{v_n\sim P_n(v)} \log \sigma (-z_u^T z_{v_n}), $$
where $\sigma$ represents the sigmoid function, $u$ and $v$ are two neighbors, while $v_n$ is a negative sample, and $Q$ is the number of negative samples. The first term aims at maximizing the similarity between embeddings of $u$ and $v$, while the second term tries to set apart embeddings of negative samples.
\subsection{Graph Attention Networks (GAT)}
In recent years, attention mechanisms have become state-of-the-art (SOTA) for many tasks on sequential data, such as in natural language processing. GAT \cite{velivckovic2017graph} combined attention mechanisms with GNN, aiming at more effective learning power to the neighborhoods' features. As the building block of GAT, the graph attention layer plays the role of aggregation function for the GNN.
It first applies a shared linear transformation to every node, parameterized by the weight matrix $\mathbf{W}\in \mathbb{R}^{F'\times F}$. Then self-attention is performed on the nodes where a shared attention mechanism is used to calculate the attention coefficients that capture the importance of node $j$'s features to node $i$, i.e.,
$$e_{ij} = a(\mathbf{W}h_i, \mathbf{W}h_j).$$
GAT normalized the coefficients across $j$ using a softmax function. As a result, the attention mechanism is a single-layer network parameterized by a weight vector $a\in \mathbb{R}^{2F'}$, followed by a nonlinear activation (e.g., LeakyReLU), and obtains the normalized coefficients as
$$ \alpha_{ij} = \dfrac{\exp \Big( \text{LeakyReLU} (a[\mathbf{W}h_i, \mathbf{W}h_j]) \Big)}{\sum_{k\in N_i} \exp \Big( \text{LeakyReLU} (a[\mathbf{W}h_i, \mathbf{W}h_k]) \Big) }. $$
These attention coefficients are used to compute a linear combination of the neighbors' features to obtain aggregated features for each node, i.e.,
$$h'_i = \sum_{k\in N_i} \alpha_{ij} \mathbf{W} h_k.$$
And finally, multi-head attention (i.e., a set of independent attention mechanism) is often employed to stabilize the learning process of self-attention.
\subsection{Variational Graph Auto-Encoders}
Kipf and Welling introduced the Variational Graph Auto-Encoders (VGAE) framework for unsupervised learning on graph-structured data \cite{kipf2016variational}. This framework is an elegant extension of the Variational Auto-Encoders framework \cite{kingma2014autoencoding} to apply to graph-structured data.
The VGAE uses a graph convolutional network \cite{kipf2016semi} as the encoder to map the input graph's node features ($X$) into the latent representation, followed by an inner product decoder to generate the conditional probabilities of the adjacency matrix ($A$) given the latent representation.
The hidden layer of the encoder can be a GCN layer as we described in \ref{sec:gcn}:
\begin{gather*}
\bar{X} = GCN(X, A) = ReLU(\bar{A} X W_0) \\
\tilde{A} = D^{-\frac{1}{2}} A D^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{gather*}
where $\tilde{A}$ is the symmetrically normalized adjacency matrix \cite{Fanghao}.
By applying reparametrization trick \cite{kingma2014autoencoding}, the latent distribution produced by the encoder can be written as
\begin{align*}
\mu &= GCN_{\mu}(X, A) = \tilde{A} \bar{X} W_1 \\
\log\sigma &= GCN_{\sigma}(X, A) = \tilde{A} \bar{X} W_1 \\
Z &= \mu + \sigma * \epsilon
\end{align*}
where $ \epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1) $.
Thus the encoder is given by \cite{kipf2016variational} as
$$ q(z_i | X, A)=\mathcal{N}(z_i | \mu_i, diag(\sigma_i^2) ) $$
and the decoder is
$$ p(A_{ij}=1 | z_i, z_j) = \sigma(z_i^T z_i) $$
Finally, the loss function
is a combination of the reconstruction loss and the KL-divergence:
$$ \mathcal{L} = \mathbb{E}_{q(Z|X,A)} [ \log{p(A|Z)} ] - KL[ q(Z|X,A) \| p(Z) ] $$
\section{Implementation Details} \label{sec:implement}
The four GNN models illustrated in Section \ref{sec:approach} are benchmarked for link prediction tasks on the four dataset mentioned in Section \ref{sec:data}. In this section, we describe the architectures for the four models.
We constructed GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT and VGAE models for link prediction also with PyTorchGeometric \cite{Fey/Lenssen/2019}. We used the same default architectures as the original implementations of corresponding papers.
\footnote{
The PyTorchGeometric implementation of GCN is adapted from \url{https://github.com/rusty1s/pytorch_geometric/blob/master/examples/link_pred.py}, and the implementation of other models follows the paradigm with the change of network architectures.
}
For GCN, we built a two level graph convolutional layers, with 128 and 64 filters, respectively. The two graph convolutional layers play a similar role as the encoder in VGAE. The outputs of the graph convolutional layers are used for predict the label of a link between two nodes similar to the decoder, as we will describe later. As for GraphSAGE, we first implemented the SAGE module as described in Section \ref{sec:sage}, and we build the encoder-like module for our GraphSAGE link prediction model as two such SAGE layers, each with 64 hidden channels.
We built two graph attention layers for GAT, with a ReLU nonlineararity in between. The first layer is of multi-headed attention using 8 heads, each consists of 8 filters, and with a dropout rate of 0.6, while the second graph attention layer has a single attention head consists of 16 filters.
And finally, for the VGAE, we defined the encoder as a hidden graph convolutional layer consists of 32 convolutional filters, followed by two graph convolutional layers representing the mean and log standard deviation of the latent normal distribution respectively (as per \cite{kipf2016variational}). The latent dimension was set as 16. And the loss function optimized was set to be the sum of the reconstruction loss and KL-divergence loss.
Our implementation of the GCN, GraphSAGE, and GAT models use the same decoder-like module to output the predicted probabilities of the existence for a link. Similar to the decoder in VGAE, we use dot product to calculate the similarities of linkage for corresponding nodes pairs. During training, negative sampling strategy was deployed to generate negative samples to match the positive samples (i.e., existing edges in the original graphs) within each minibatch, and binary cross entropy loss was backpropagated for such a binary classification problem, which is different from VGAE which is a generative model.
\section{Experiments and Results} \label{sec:res}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Cora} & \textbf{CiteSeer} & \textbf{PubMed} & \textbf{Wiki-CS} \\
\midrule
GCN
& $0.9273 \pm 0.0051$
& $0.8911 \pm 0.0058$
& $0.9619 \pm 0.0011$
& $0.9682 \pm 0.0030$
\\
GraphSAGE
& $0.9091 \pm 0.0038$
& $0.8716 \pm 0.0063$
& $0.9018 \pm 0.0032$
& $0.8758 \pm 0.0423$
\\
GAT
& $0.9027 \pm 0.0023$
& $0.9084 \pm 0.0035$
& $0.9179 \pm 0.0002$
& $0.9293 \pm 0.0014$
\\
VGAE
& 0.9179 $\pm$ 0.0013
& 0.9091 $\pm$ 0.0021
& 0.9293 $\pm$ 0.0028
& 0.9578 $\pm$ 0.0008
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{AUC comparison for GNN models on four datasets.}
\label{tab:auc}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Cora} & \textbf{CiteSeer} & \textbf{PubMed} & \textbf{Wiki-CS} \\
\midrule
GCN
& $0.9385\pm 0.0043$
& $0.9028\pm 0.0050$
& $0.9636 \pm 0.0010$
& $0.9720 \pm 0.0025$
\\
GraphSAGE
& $0.9183 \pm 0.0035$
& $0.8863 \pm 0.0052$
& $0.9057 \pm 0.0025$
& $0.8778 \pm 0.0425$
\\
GAT
& $0.9027\pm 0.0023$
& $0.9084\pm 0.0035$
& $0.9037 \pm 0.0021$
& $0.9277 \pm 0.0013$
\\
VGAE
& 0.9297 $\pm$ 0.0013
& 0.9234 $\pm$ 0.0017
& 0.9336 $\pm$ 0.0027
& 0.9623 $\pm$ 0.0008
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Average precision scores comparison for GNN models on four datasets.}
\label{tab:ap}
\end{table*}
We conducted experiments of link prediction with the GCN, GraphSage, GAT, as well as VGAE models on the datasets we described in Section \ref{sec:data} (Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed, Wiki-CS).
All four datasets are available via Pytorch Geometric APIs \cite{Fey/Lenssen/2019}.
For each of the datasets, the edges in the graph were split into training/validation/testing sets with a ratio of 85\%-5\%-10\%. As we mentioned above, negative edge samples were used for calculating the loss, by randomly sampling node pairs without an linkage edge with the same number as the positive edges within each mini-batch. All of our models were trained using Adam optimizers \cite{kingma2014adam} for stochastic gradient descent, while the initial learning rates were set to 0.01, with an exception of the GAT task on WikiCS, where the initial learning rate was set to 0.001. All the tasks were trained for 200 epochs, and in order to replicate \cite{mernyei2020wiki}, we run each task for 50 runs so that the results are reported as the average of 50 runs along with 95\% confidence intervals calculated using bootstapping.
We report the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and average precision scores for each of link prediction tasks with the four GNN models. The AUC results are showed in Table \ref{tab:auc}, while Table \ref{tab:ap} reports the average precision scores. From the two tables, we observe that the GCN model performs best on Cora, PubMed, as well as the relatively larger Wiki-CS tasks, while VGAE achieves the best performance on CiteSeer. Overall, the four models perform quite similar on most of the tasks, with the AUC around 90\%. The results obtained by GraphSage may seem a little poorer for CiteSeer and Wiki-CS, not only in terms of smaller mean AUC and average precision, also with larger standard deviation on the metrics, indicating the model is less robust in these tasks. Considering GraphSage models sample from neighbors for each node during propagation over the graph, less robustness could be expected especially for the graph with imbalanced distributions. The GCN and VGAE perform significantly better on Wiki-CS, as the mean AUCs and the average precisions exceed 95\%.
Furthermore, we include the visualizations of the embeddings obtained from each model for the four datasets. The embeddings were obtained as the the latent space encodings for the VGAE model, and as the output of the graph convolutional or attention layers which serves as feature maps for the downstream classifiers in the GCN, GraphSage and GAT models.
T-SNE algorithm \cite{maaten2008visualizing} was applied to project the high dimensional embeddings into a 2D plot. Figures \ref{fig:cora_vis}, \ref{fig:citeseer_vis}, \ref{fig:pubmed_vis}, and \ref{fig:wikics_vis} in Appendix show the t-SNE visualization for the embeddings of nodes in Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed, and Wiki-CS datasets, respectively.
We observe that after training on the link prediction tasks, our GNN models are able to generally project the nodes with the same class label into closed neighboring areas of the latent space with fairly reasonable separation between the classes. This demonstrates that the models are able to adequately learn good latent representations to distinguish between the types of labels, particularly for VGAE in spite of that the model being unsupervised. We also observe that for those models perform well on a particular task, the embedding visualization presents a clearer distinction among different classes, such as in Figures \ref{fig:cora_vis}(a), \ref{fig:citeseer_vis}(b), and \ref{fig:wikics_vis}(a). Opposite examples include that was shown in Figure \ref{fig:wikics_vis}(b), where the node embeddings present some spiral patterns, indicating some correlation between the two projected dimensions, which might be a further implication that the GraphSage model is overfitting on this task as the prediction performance is worse that that of other models, and we probably could use this information to monitor the training, tune the hyperparameters, or apply additional regularization such as early stopping.
\section{Conclusions and Discussion} \label{sec:conc}
In this paper, we implemented several existing GNN models, and benchmarked on different datasets for link predictions. We not only
reproduced the results in \cite{kipf2016variational} and \cite{mernyei2020wiki},
also provided a more fair and systematic comparison.
Our experiments show these GNN architectures perform similarly on other benchmarks for link prediction tasks.
There are several interesting directions to pursue for the future of this paper. First off, the datasets we benchmarked on are still relatively small, in the future we could evaluate the models on much larger graphs, especially with applications in real world. The second interesting direction in which to take this paper would be to implement more recently developed GNN models. Furthermore, we could try to design and develop our own GNN architecture and benchmark on link prediction tasks.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of vanishing of local cohomology modules has a long and rich history. In \cite[p.~79]{HartshorneLocalCohomology}, Grothendieck stated the following problem.
\begin{problem}[Grothendieck]
\label{Grothendieck problem}
Let $R$ be a commutative noetherian local ring, $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$, and $n$ be an integer. Find conditions under which $H^i_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=0$ for all $i>n$ and all $R$-modules $M$.
\end{problem}
Grothendieck proved that $H^i_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=0$ for all $i>\dim(R)$ and all $R$-modules $M$ (\cite{HartshorneLocalCohomology}), which solved Problem \ref{Grothendieck problem} for $n=\dim(R)$. A solution to Problem \ref{Grothendieck problem} in the case when $n=\dim(R)-1$ was found in \cite[Theorem 3.1]{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension} and has been referred as the Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum Vanishing Theorem. To explain a solution to Problem \ref{Grothendieck problem} in the case when $n=\dim(R)-2$, we consider the following definition:
\begin{definition}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be a $d$-dimensional noetherian local ring and let $\widetilde{R}$ denote the completion of the strict henselization of the completion of $R$. We say that {\it the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for $R$} if, for each ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ in $R$, the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)=0$ for all $j>d-2$ and all $R$-modules $M$;
\item $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$ and the punctured spectrum of $\widetilde{R}/\mathfrak{a}\widetilde{R}$ is connected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
If $R$ is not regular, then the Second Vanishing Theorem may not hold for $R$, {\it cf.} \cite[7.7]{HochsterZhangContent}. When $R$ is regular, some positive results are known. When $R$ is a polynomial ring over a field and $\mathfrak{a}$ is a homogeneous ideal, then the Second Vanishing Theorem holds, as proved by Hartshorne (\cite[7.5]{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension}) who also coined the name `Second Vanishing Theorem' and proposed the following problem in \cite[p.~445]{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension}:
\begin{problem}[Hartshorne]
\label{Hartshorne Problem}
Prove that the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for all regular local rings.
\end{problem}
It is clear that a solution to Problem \ref{Hartshorne Problem} produces a solution to Grothendieck's original Problem \ref{Grothendieck problem} for regular local rings when $n=\dim(R)-2$. Subsequently, Ogus (\cite[Corollary~2.11]{OgusLocalCohomologicalDimension}) proved that the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for regular local rings of equi-characteristic 0 and Peskine-Szpiro showed in \cite[III~5.5]{PeskineSzpiroDimensionProjective} that the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for regular local rings of equi-characteristic $p$. \cite{HunekeLyubeznikVanishing} provided a unified proof that the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for regular local rings of equi-characteristic. Extending the Second Vanishing Theorem to rings that do not contain a field has been a major open problem in the study of local cohomology. In \S\ref{section: vanishing unramified}, we resolve Problem \ref{Hartshorne Problem} for unramified regular local rings of mixed characteristic as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{vanishing unramified}
If $R$ is an unramified regular local ring of mixed characteristic, then the Second Vanishing Theorem holds for $R$.
\end{theorem}
A special case of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}, when $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 3$ {\it and} $R/\mathfrak{a}$ is equidimensional, can be found in \cite{HNBPW_JA_2018}.
In prime characteristic $p>0$, we produce a new proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem using the action of Frobenius and some equivalent formulations of the Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p>0$, which can be found in \S\ref{char p}.
A key ingredient of our new proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem in prime characteristic $p$ is a vanishing theorem due to Lyubeznik \cite[Theorem 1.1]{LyubeznikVanishingLCCharp}. In \S\ref{extensions to mixed char}, we present some extensions of Lyubeznik's vanishing theorem to mixed characteristic. As a consequence of these extensions, we obtain the following result on local cohomological dimension. (Recall that the local cohomological dimension of an ideal $I$ in a noetherian ring $A$, denoted by $\lcd_A(I)$, is $\max\{j\mid H^j_I(A)\neq 0\}$.)
\begin{theorem}
\label{lcd in mixed char}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and let $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal that contains $p$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lcd_R(\mathfrak{a})\leq n-\Fdepth(R/\mathfrak{a})$, when $R$ is unramified; and
\item $\lcd_R(\mathfrak{a})\leq n+1-\Fdepth(R/\mathfrak{a})$, when $R$ is ramified.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
For a noetherian local ring $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ of prime characteristic $p$, its local cohomology modules $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ are equipped with an action of Frobenius $f:H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)\to H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ induced by the Frobenius endomorphism on $A$. The $F$-depth of $A$ is defined as
\[\Fdepth(A):=\min\{j\mid H^j_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)\ {\rm is\ not\ nilpotent\ under\ }f\}.\]
As an application of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}, we extend our results in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers} to local rings of mixed characteristic. Before stating our extension, we recall the definition of the Hochster-Huneke graph of a local ring. Let $A$ be a noetherian local ring. The \emph{Hochster-Huneke graph $\Gamma_A$ of $A$} is defined as follows. Its vertices are the top-dimensional minimal prime ideals of $A$, and two distinct
vertices $P$ and $Q$ are joined by an edge if and only if $ht_B(P+Q)=1$.
The main result in \S\ref{L number} is the following:
\begin{theorem}
\label{L numbers mixed char}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a $d$-dimensional noetherian local ring. Assume that $A=R/I$ where $R$ is an $n$-dimensional unramified regular local ring $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$. Then $\dim_k(\Hom_R(k,H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d}_I(R)))$ is the number of connected components of the Hochster-Huneke graph $\Gamma_{\widetilde{A}}$ of $\widetilde{A}$, where $\widetilde{A}$ is the completion of the strict Henselization of the completion of $A$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}}
\label{section: vanishing unramified}
To prove Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}, we need the following result from \cite{PeskineSzpiroDimensionProjective}.
\begin{theorem}[Th\'eor\`eme~III.5.1 in \cite{PeskineSzpiroDimensionProjective}
\label{PS theorem}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be a $d$-dimensional complete regular local ring with a separably closed residue field and let $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$. Assume that $\Spec(R/\mathfrak{a})\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected and $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H^i_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$ is artinian for all $i\geq d-1$;
\item $H^i_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ for all $i\geq d-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{cofiniteness}
There are many characterizations of artinianness; one such characterization ({\it cf.} \cite[Remark~1.3]{HunekeKohCofiniteness}) asserts that, if $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ is complete local ring, then an $A$-module $M$ is artinian if and only if that $\Supp(M)=\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ and $M$ has finite dimensional socle, {\it i.e.} $\Hom_R(k,M)$ is a finite dimensional $k$-space.
\end{remark}
We now prove Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}]
Since $H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(M)\otimes_R\widetilde{R}\cong H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(M\otimes_R\widetilde{R})$ by flat base change and $\widetilde{R}$ is faithfully flat over $R$, we may assume that $R$ is complete with a separably closed residue field by replacing $R$ with $\widetilde{R}$.
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2). If $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\leq 1$, then either $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\neq 0$ (when $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})=1$) or $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\neq 0$ (when $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})=0$). Hence $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$. If the punctured spectrum of $R/\mathfrak{a}$ were disconnected, then there would be two ideals $I,J$ of height at most $d-1$ such that $I\cap J=\mathfrak{a}$ and $\sqrt{I+J}=\mathfrak{m}$. The Mayer-Vietoris sequence says
\[0=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\to H^d_{I+J}(R)=H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)\to H^d_I(R)\oplus H^d_J(R).\]
Since $ht(I),ht(J)\leq d-1$, the Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum Vanishing Theorem (\cite[Theorem 3.1]{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension}) implies $H^d_i(R)=H^d_J(R)=0$ which would imply that $H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)=0$, a contradiction. Hence the punctured spectrum of $R/\mathfrak{a}$ must be connected.
$(2)\Rightarrow(1)$. It was observed in \cite{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension} that $H^j_I(M)=0$ for all $j>t$ and all $R$-modules $M$ if and only if $H^j_I(R)=0$ for all $j>t$. Hence it suffices to show $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R=H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ (since $H^{>d}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ by Grothendieck Vanishing). Combining Theorem \ref{PS theorem} and Remark \ref{cofiniteness}, it suffices to show that both of $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$ and $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$ are supported only at the maximal ideal and have finite dimensional socle. It follows from the Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum vanishing theorem (\cite[Theorem 3.1]{HartshorneCohomologicalDimension}) that $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ and $\Supp(H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R))=\{\mathfrak{m}\}$. On the other hand, \cite[Theorem 1]{LyubeznikUnramifiedRegular} (or \cite[Theorem 1.2]{NunezBetancourtIJM2013}) shows that $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$ has finite dimensional socle since $R$ is an unramified complete regular local ring. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk: ramified case open}
The analogue of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} in the {\it ramified} case remains open in general.
It follows from our proof of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} that: let $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be an $n$-dimensional {\it ramified} complete regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal such that $\Spec(R/\mathfrak{a})\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected and $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$, if $\dim_{k}\Hom_R(k,H^{n-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R))<\infty$, then $H^{n-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$.
Note that $\dim_{k}\Hom_R(k,H^{n-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R))$ is one of the Bass numbers of the local cohomology module $H^{n-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$. One ought to remark that the finiteness of Bass numbers of local cohomology modules of a {\it ramified} regular local ring of mixed characteristic was first conjectured in \cite{HunekeProblemsLC} and has been a long standing open problem. This is one of the reasons we consider a reduction and a new proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p$ in the subsequent sections.
\end{remark}
\section{Reduction to dimension 2}
In this section, we show that the Second Vanishing Theorem can be reduced to the case when the ideal $\mathfrak{a}$ is a prime ideal of dimension 2, {\it i.e.} $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})=2$, and discuss a related approach to proving the Second Vanishing Theorem in general.
We begin with the following result which was implicitly contained in the proof of \cite[Theorem~2.9]{HunekeLyubeznikVanishing}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{connected subgraph}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a catenary noetherian local ring and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $A$. Let $\{\mathfrak{p}_1,\dots,\mathfrak{p}_t\}$ be the set of minimal primes of $\mathfrak{a}$. Assume that $\Spec(A/\mathfrak{a})\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected. Then there exists $\mathfrak{p}_i$ such that $\Spec(A/\mathfrak{b}_i)\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected where $\mathfrak{b}_i=\bigcap_{j\neq i}\mathfrak{p}_j$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same of line of reasoning as in line 7-15 from the bottom on page 79 in \cite{HunekeLyubeznikVanishing}. Since \cite[Theorem~2.9]{HunekeLyubeznikVanishing} only treats rings of equi-characteristic, we opt to reproduce the proof here for the sake of completeness and clarity.
When $t=1$, there is nothing to prove. Assume that $t\geq 2$. Then $\dim(A/\mathfrak{p}_j)\geq 2$ for each $1\leq j\leq t$ (otherwise $\mathfrak{p}_j+\bigcap_{i\neq j}\mathfrak{p}_i$ would be $\mathfrak{m}$-primary and hence $\Spec(A/\mathfrak{a})\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ would be disconnected). Consider the graph $\mathbb{G}$ with vertices $1,\dots,t$ in which $i$ and $j$ are joined by an edge if $\mathfrak{p}_i+\mathfrak{p}_j$ is {\it not} $\mathfrak{m}$-primary. One can see that $\Spec(A/\mathfrak{a})\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected if and only if so is this graph $\mathbb{G}$. Since $\mathbb{G}$ is a finite connected graph, it admits a spanning tree by \cite[Corollary 5, p.~7]{BollobasBookGraphTheory}. The number of edges in a tree is less than the number of vertices, it follows from \cite[Corollary 7, p.~8]{BollobasBookGraphTheory} that this tree has a vertex from which only one edge emanates. The graph $\mathbb{G}$ minus this particular vertex is connected. Assume this particular vertex is $i$. Then, $\Spec(A/\mathfrak{b}_i)\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected where $\mathfrak{b}_i=\bigcap_{j\neq i}\mathfrak{p}_j$.
\end{proof}
Our main result is the following:
\begin{theorem}
\label{prop: reduce to dim 2}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a $d$-dimensional complete regular local ring with a separably closed residue field. If $H^d_{\mathfrak{p}}(R)=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{p}}(R)=0$ for all prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ with height $d-2$, then $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ for all ideals $I$ such that $\Spec(R/\mathfrak{a})\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected and that $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will use reverse induction on the height of $\mathfrak{a}$. Since the conclusion only depends only the radical of $\mathfrak{a}$, we may assume that $\mathfrak{a}$ is radical. First, assume $\hgt(\mathfrak{a})=d-2$ and write $\mathfrak{a}=\cap^t_{i=1} \mathfrak{p}_i$. Since $\Spec(R/\mathfrak{a})\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected, each prime $\mathfrak{p}_i$ must have height $d-2$. The Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum Vanishing Theorem implies that $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ We will use induction on $t$ to show that $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$. When $t=1$, this is precisely our assumption. Assume that $t\geq 2$. By Proposition \ref{connected subgraph} and renumbering the minimal primes if necessary, we may assume that $\Spec(R/\cap_{j\geq 2}\mathfrak{p}_j)\backslash\{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected. We consider the exact sequence
\[\cdots \to H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{p}_1}(R)\oplus H^{d-1}_{\cap ^t_{i=2}\mathfrak{p}_i}(R) \to H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\to H^d_{\mathfrak{p}_1+\cap ^t_{i=2}\mathfrak{p}_i}(R).\]
Since $\Spec(R/\mathfrak{a})\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected, $\mathfrak{p}_1+\cap ^t_{i=2}\mathfrak{p}_i$ is not $\mathfrak{m}$-primary; consequently it follows from Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum Vanishing Theorem that $H^d_{\mathfrak{p}_1+\cap ^t_{i=2}\mathfrak{p}_i}(R)=0$. The induction hypothesis asserts that $H^{d-1}_{\cap ^t_{i=2}\mathfrak{p}_i}(R)=0$. Therefore, $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$.
Now assume that $\hgt(\mathfrak{a})\leq d-3$. First, we treat the case when $\mathfrak{a}$ is a prime ideal. In this case pick $r\in \mathfrak{m}\backslash \mathfrak{a}$, then by Faltings' connectedness theorem $\Spec(R/(\mathfrak{a},r))\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected since the number of generators of $(r)$ in $R/\mathfrak{a}$ is at most $\dim(R/\mathfrak{a})-2$. As $\hgt((\mathfrak{a},r))=\hgt(\mathfrak{a})+1$, induction hypotheses implies that $H^{d-1}_{(\mathfrak{a},r)}(R)=H^{d}_{(\mathfrak{a},r)}(R)=0$. Since $\Supp(H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R))\subseteq \{\mathfrak{m}\}$, we have $H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)_r=0$. Now the exact sequence $\to H^{j-1}_{(\mathfrak{a},r)}(R) \to H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(R) \to H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)_r\to$ shows that $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$. Next assume that all minimal prime ideals of $\mathfrak{a}$ have he same height. Then induction on the number of minimal primes of $\mathfrak{a}$ shows that $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$. Finally, in the general case, write $\mathfrak{a}=I\cap J$ where all minimal primes of $I$ have height $\hgt(\mathfrak{a})$ and $\hgt(J)\geq \hgt(\mathfrak{a})+1$. Then induction hypothesis and the Mayer-Vietoris sequence $\to H^{j-1}_{I+J}(R)\to H^{j-1}_I(R)\oplus H^{j-1}_j(R) \to H^{j-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R) \to H^j_{I+J}(R)\to $ prove that $H^d_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$.
\end{proof}
\section{Second Vanishing Theorem in prime characteristic $p$, Revisited}
\label{char p}
As we note in Remark \ref{rmk: ramified case open}, to prove the Second Vanishing Theorem in the ramified case, one approach is to proving finiteness of Bass numbers of local cohomology modules in the ramified case if one wants to invoke \cite[III.5.1]{PeskineSzpiroDimensionProjective}. However, the finiteness of Bass numbers of local cohomology modules in the ramified case has been a long-standing open problem. Moreover, rings of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and those of characteristic $p$ can be linked via a tilting correspondence ({\it cf.} \cite{ScholzePerfectoid}). This perspective has been successfully exploited; for instance, vanishing of local cohomology of the absolute integral closure in mixed characteristic is proved in \cite{BhattAbsoluteIntegralClosure} using the vanishing of corresponding local cohomology modules in characteristic $p$ via the tilting correspondence. Therefore, it is desirable to seek alternate approaches, without using finiteness of Bass numbers of local cohomology modules, in characteristic $p$. In this section we provide a new proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p$ and some equivalent formulations.
We recall the following result due to Lyubeznik (Theorem 1.1 in \cite{LyubeznikVanishingLCCharp}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be a regular local ring of dimension $n$ of prime characteristic $p$ and $A$ be a homomorphic image of $R$. Let $I$ be the kernel of $R\twoheadrightarrow A$. Then $H^{n-i}_I(R)=0$ if and only if the Frobenius action on $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is nilpotent.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{algebraically closed residue field}
In the statement of the Second Vanishing Theorem, the residue field of $\widetilde{R}$ is separably closed. By gonflement, one can find a flat local extension $(\widetilde{R},\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}})\to (R',
\mathfrak{m}')$ such that such that $\mathfrak{m}'=\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}R'$ and $R'/\mathfrak{m}'$ is an algebraic closure of $\widetilde{R}/\widetilde{R}$. Since $R'$ is faithfully flat over $\widetilde{R}$, one has $H^j_{\mathfrak{a}}(\widetilde{R})=0\Leftrightarrow H^j_{\mathfrak{a} R'}(R')=0$. Furthermore, since $\widetilde{R}/\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}$ is separably closed, the punctured spectrum of $\widetilde{R}/{\mathfrak{a}}$ is connected if and only if the same hold for $R'/\mathfrak{a} R'$. Hence when proving the Second Vanishing Theorem, one may assume that the residue field is algebraically closed.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}
\label{Serre implies finite length}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a noetherian local ring which is a homomorphic image of a Gorenstein local ring. If $A$ satisfies Serre's condition $(S_i)$ for some $i<\dim(A)$. Then $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ has finite length.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $(B,\mathfrak{m})$ be a Gorenstein local ring with a surjection $B\to A$. Set $d=\dim(B)$. Local Duality asserts that
\[H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)\cong \Ext^{d-i}_B(A,B)^{\vee}\]
Hence it suffices to show that $\Ext^{d-i}_B(A,B)$ is supported in $\{\mathfrak{m}\}$. Let $P$ be a prime ideal of height $d-1$ in $B$ and consider $\Ext^{d-i}_{B_P}(A_P,B_P)$. If $P$ is not a prime in $A$, then $A_P=0$. We may assume that $P$ is also prime in $A$. Since the depth of $A_P$ is at least $i$ and $\dim(B_P)=d-1$, we have
\[\Ext^{d-i}_{B_P}(A_P,B_P)^{\vee}\cong H^{(d-1)-d+i}_{PB_P}(A_P)=0.\]
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are in position to present a new proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p$, using an approach different from the one in \cite{PeskineSzpiroDimensionProjective}.
\begin{proof}[A new proof of Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p$]
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional \\ noetherian regular local ring of prime characteristic $p$ and $I$ be an ideal of height at most $n-2$. Combining Remark \ref{algebraically closed residue field} and Proposition \ref{prop: reduce to dim 2}, we may assume that $R$ is a complete noetherian regular local ring of prime characteristic $p$ with an algebraically closed residual field and $I$ is a height-$(d-2)$ prime ideal.
The proof of the implication that the vanishing $H^n_I(R)=H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$ implies the connectedness of $\Spec(R/I)\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is the same as in the proof of Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} (the proof of this particular implication is characteristic-free). We will focus on the other implication.
Assume that $\Spec(R/I)\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is connected and we wish to show $H^n_I(R)=H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$. The vanishing $H^n_I(R)=0$ follows from Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum vanishing. It remains to show $H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$. According to Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}, this is equivalent to the niloptence of the Frobenius action on $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$.
Since $A$ is a local integral domain and hence satisfies Serre's condition $(S_1)$, by Proposition \ref{Serre implies finite length}, $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ has finite length. Let $f$ denote the Frobenius action on $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$. Since $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ has finite length, every element in $\mathfrak{m} H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is $f$-nilpotent. It follows that $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is $f$-nilpotent if and only if $(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A))_s:=\bigcap_{t}f^t(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A))$ is 0.
Set $U=\Spec(R/I)\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$. Then \cite[3.1]{HartshorneSpeiserLocalCohomologyInCharacteristicP} asserts that there is an exact sequence
\[0\to H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)_s\to A_s\to H^0(U,\mathcal{O}_U)_s\to H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)_s\to 0.\]
Since $U$ is connected and $A$ is a domain (whose residue field is algebraically closed), the map in the middle $A_s\to H^0(U,\mathcal{O}_U)_s$ is the isomorphism $k\xrightarrow{\sim} k$ where $k$ is the residue field of $A$. Hence $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)_s=0$. This proves that $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is $f$-nilpotent and hence $H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$.
\end{proof}
Next we will consider some equivalent formulations of the Second Vanishing Theorems in characteristic $p$. To this end, we recall some basic facts regarding $S_2$-ification from \cite{HochsterHunekeIndecomposable}.
\begin{remark}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a complete local domain with a canonical module $\omega$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Hom_A(\omega,\omega)$ is a commutative complete local ring and the natural map $A\to \Hom_A(\omega,\omega)$ is an injective module-finite ring homomorphism;
\item $\Hom_A(\omega,\omega)$ satisfies Serre's $(S_2)$-condition as both an $a$-module and as a ring on its own.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}
\label{vanishing S2}
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Second Vanishing Theorem holds for regular local rings of characteristic $p$.
\item Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be a $2$-dimensional complete local domain of prime characteristic $p>0$ with a canonical module $\omega$. Assume $A/\mathfrak{m}$ is separably closed. For each element $\phi\in \Hom_A(\omega,\omega)$ there is an integer $e$ such that $\phi^{p^e}\in A$, {\it i.e.} there is an element $a\in A$ such that $\phi^{p^e}$ is the multiplication by $a$ on $\omega$.
\item Let $A$ be a 2-dimensional complete local domain of characteristic $p$ with a separably closed residue field. Then there exists a positive integer $n$ such that, for all systems of parameters $x,y$, one has $(x:y)^{[p^{n'}]}=(x^{p^{n'}})$ for all $n'\geq n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we prove that $(1)\Rightarrow (2)$. Assume that the Second Vanishing Theorem holds in characteristic $p$. Let $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ be as in $(2)$. Set $S:=\Hom_A(\omega,\omega)$. Consider the short exact sequence $0\to A\to S\to C\to 0$. (2) is equivalent to proving that the Frobenius on $C$ is nilpotent.
The short exact sequence induces a long exact sequence on local cohomology
\[0=H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(S)\to H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(C)\to H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)\to H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(S)=0\]
where $H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(S)=H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(S)=0$ since $S$ satisfies $(S_2)$-condition. Write $A=R/I$ where $R$ is an $n$-dimensional complete regular local ring. By the Second Vanishing Theorem, $H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$. By Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}, the Frobenius on $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ must be nilpotent. Hence so is the Frobenius on $H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(C)$. We claim that $H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(C)=C$ and we reason as follows. It suffices to show that $C$ is supported in the maxmail ideal only. Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be any non-maximal prime ideal. Since $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is Cohen-Macaulay (note that $\dim(A)=2$), we have $S_{\mathfrak{p}}\cong A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and hence $C_{\mathfrak{p}}=0$. This shows that $C$ is supported in the maximal ideal only. It is clear that $C$ is a finite $A$-module, thus $H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}(C)=C$. So, the Frobenius on $C$ is nilpotent and, equivalently, $(2)$ holds.
Next, we prove $(2)\Rightarrow (1)$. Assume now $(2)$ holds, and we wish to prove that Second Vanishing Theorem. To this end, let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional prime-characteristic complete regular local ring with a separably closed residual field. By Proposition \ref{prop: reduce to dim 2}, it suffices to prove that $H^{n-1}_P(R)=0$ for all prime ideals $P$ of height $n-2$. Set $A=R/P$. Then $A$ satisfies that hypotheses in $(2)$. By the argument in previous paragraph, we see that the Frobenius on $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is nilpotent. According to Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}, we have $H^{n-1}_P(R)=0$. This completes the proof of $(2)\Rightarrow (1)$ and hence $(1)\Leftrightarrow(2)$.
Next we prove that $(1)\Leftrightarrow (3)$. We have seen that $(1)$ is equivalent to $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ being $f$-nilpotent where $(A,\mathfrak{m})$ is a 2-dimensional complete local domain of characteristic $p$ with a separably closed residue field. Given an arbitrary system of parameters $x,y$ in $A$, each element in $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ can be written as $[\frac{a}{x},\frac{b}{y}]$ such that $ay=bx$. Since $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A)$ is artinian, it is $f$-nilpotent if and only if there is an integer $n$ such that $f^{n}(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A))=0$ (and consequently $f^{n'}(H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(A))=0$ for all $n'\geq n$). This holds if and only if $[\frac{a}{x},\frac{b}{y}]^{p^{n'}}=0$ for all $a,b,x,y$ such that $ay=bx$. Note that $[\frac{a}{x},\frac{b}{y}]^{p^{n'}}=0$ if and only if $a^{p^{n'}}\in (x^{p^{n'}})$ and $ay=bx$ if and only if $a\in (x:y)$. This completes the proof of $(1)\Leftrightarrow (3)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
A direct proof of $(2)$ or $(3)$ will produce another proof of the Second Vanishing Theorem in prime characteristic $p$.
\end{remark}
\section{Extensions of Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p} to mixed characteristic}
\label{extensions to mixed char}
Recall that Lyubeznik's vanishing theorem links the vanishing of $H^{n-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)$ and the action of Frobenius on $H^{i}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ where $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ is a regular local ring of prime characteristic $p$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ is an ideal of $R$. In this section, we consider some (partial) extensions to mixed characteristic.
\begin{theorem}
\label{unramified extension}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional unramified regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$. Assume that $p\in \mathfrak{a}$ (hence $R/\mathfrak{a}$ contained a field of characteristic $p$). If $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ is Frobenius nilpotent, then
\[H^{n-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Set $\overline{R}=R/(p)$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{a}}=\mathfrak{a}/(p)$. Then $R/\mathfrak{a}=\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}}$. Since $R$ is unramified, $\overline{R}$ is an $(n-1)$-dimensional regular local ring of characteristic $p$. By our assumption on $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ and Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}, we have $H^{(n-1)-i}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(\overline{R})=0$. The short exact sequence $0\to R\xrightarrow{\cdot p}R\to \overline{R}\to 0$ induces an exact sequence of local cohomology modules:
\[0=H^{(n-1)-i}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(\overline{R})=H^{(n-1)-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(\overline{R})\to H^{n-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\xrightarrow{\cdot p}H^{n-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R).\]
Since $p\in \mathfrak{a}$, this forces $H^{n-i}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$.
\end{proof}
We ought to remark that Theorem \ref{unramified extension} only extends one implication in Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p}. As to the other implication, we ask:
\begin{question}
\label{question: converse to extension to unramified}
Does the converse to Theorem \ref{unramified extension} hold?
\end{question}
When $i=1$, the answer is affirmative and it follows from the Second Vanishing Theorems in characteristic $p$ and in unramified mixed characteristic ({\it i.e.} our Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}).
\begin{theorem}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional unramified regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$. Assume that $p\in \mathfrak{a}$ (hence $R/\mathfrak{a}$ contained a field of characteristic $p$). Then $H^{n-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ if and only if $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ is Frobenius nilpotent.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
$\Leftarrow$ is a special case of Theorem \ref{unramified extension}; it remains to prove $\Rightarrow$.
Set $\overline{R}=R/(p)$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{a}}=\mathfrak{a}/(p)$. Then $R/\mathfrak{a}=\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}}$. Note that, since $R$ is regular, $H^n_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ by the Hartshorne-Lichtenbaum vanishing theorem. By Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified}, the punctured spectrum of $
\widetilde{R}\mathfrak{a} \widetilde{R}$ is connected ($\widetilde{R}$ is the completion of the strict henselization of the completion of $R$) and $\dim(R\mathfrak{a})\geq 2$. Since $p\in \mathfrak{a}$, the same will hold for $\overline{R}$ and hence $H^{n-2}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(\overline{R})=H^{n-1}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(\overline{R})=0$ by the Second Vanishing Theorem in characteristic $p$. It now follows from Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p} that $H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}})=H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ is Frobenius nilpotent.
\end{proof}
Question \ref{question: converse to extension to unramified} concerns a specific cohomological degree. It turns out that one can draw a weaker conclusion if one considers all vanishing above a specific cohomological degree.
\begin{proposition}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional unramified regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$. Assume that $p\in \mathfrak{a}$ (hence $R/\mathfrak{a}$ contained a field of characteristic $p$). If $H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ for all $j\leq t$ for a fixed integer $t$, then $H^{j-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ is Frobenius nilpotent for all $j\leq t$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set $\overline{R}=R/(p)$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{a}}=\mathfrak{a}/(p)$. Then $R/\mathfrak{a}=\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}}$. Consider the long exact sequence of local cohomology induced by $0\to R\xrightarrow{\cdot p}R\to \overline{R}\to 0$. Since $H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ for all $j\leq t$, one has $H^{n-j}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(\overline{R})=H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(\overline{R})=0$ for all $j\leq t$. Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p} shows that
\[H^{j-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})=H^{j-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}(\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}})=H^{(n-1)-(n-j)}_{\mathfrak{m}}(\overline{R}/\overline{\mathfrak{a}})\]
is Frobenius nilpotent for $j\leq t$.
\end{proof}
When $R$ is a ramified, the situation seems to be much more mysterious since $R/(p)$ is no longer a regular ring. We are only able to obtain a weaker version of Theorem \ref{unramified extension} as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{extension to ramified}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be an $n$-dimensional {\bf ramified} regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$ and $\mathfrak{a}$ be an ideal of $R$. Assume that $p\in \mathfrak{a}$ (hence $R/\mathfrak{a}$ contained a field of characteristic $p$). Assume that $H^j_{\mathfrak{m}}(R/\mathfrak{a})$ is Frobenius nilpotent for $j\leq t$ for a fixed integer $t$, then
\[H^{n+1-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0\]
for $j\leq t$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $R$ is complete. By Cohen's Structure Theorem, $R\cong V[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]/(p-f)$ where $f\in \mathfrak{m}^2$. Set $A=(V/pV)[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]$ (an $n$-dimensional regular local ring of characteristic $p$). We will denote the image of $f$ in $A$ by $f$ again. Then
\[R/(p)\cong A/(f).\]
Set $\overline{R}=R/(p)$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{a}}=\mathfrak{a}/(p)$. We may view $\overline{\mathfrak{a}}$ as an ideal in $A/(f)$. Let $\mathfrak{b}$ be the ideal in $A$ such that $\mathfrak{b}/(f)=\overline{\mathfrak{a}}$. It is clear that
\[R/\mathfrak{a}\cong A/\mathfrak{b}.\]
And hence $H^j_{\mathfrak{m}}(A/\mathfrak{b})$ is Frobenius nilpotent for $j\leq t$. Theorem \ref{theorem: vanishing of lc in char p} asserts that $H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{b}}(A)=0$ for $j\leq t$. The exact sequence of local cohomology induced by $0\to A\xrightarrow{\cdot f}A\to A/(f)\to 0$ shows that
\[H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{b}}(A/(f))=0\]
for $j\leq t$. (This is where we need to assume vanishing above a cohomological degree instead of vanishing at a single degree.) Consequently $H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/(p))=H^{(n-j}_{\overline{\mathfrak{a}}}(R/(p))=0$ for $j\leq t$.
Consider the exact sequence of local cohomology induced by the exact sequence $0\to R\xrightarrow{\cdot p}R\to \overline{R}\to 0$:
\[H^{n-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R/(p))\to H^{n+1-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\xrightarrow{\cdot p}H^{n+1-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)\]
for $j\leq t$. Since $p\in \mathfrak{a}$, this forces $H^{n+1-j}_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0$ for $j\leq t$.
\end{proof}
We are in position to prove Theorem \ref{lcd in mixed char}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{lcd in mixed char}]
Since $R$ is regular and $p\in \mathfrak{a}$, it follows from Theorem \ref{unramified extension} (unramified case), for each $t\leq \Fdepth(R/\mathfrak{a})$,
\[H^i_{\mathfrak{a}}(R)=0\ {\rm for\ }i\geq n-t\]
Therefore,
\[\lcd_R(\mathfrak{a})\leq n-\Fdepth(R/\mathfrak{a}).\]
The ramified case follows similarly from Theorem \ref{extension to ramified}.
\end{proof}
\section{The highest Lyubeznik number of a local ring of mixed characteristic}
\label{L number}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a complete local ring of mixed characteristic. By Cohen's structure theorem, $A$ admits a surjection $\pi:R\twoheadrightarrow A$ from a complete unramified regular local ring $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$. Let $I$ be the kernel of $\pi$ and $n$ denote $\dim(R)$. We have the following.
\begin{proposition}
Let $A,R,I,n$ be as above. Then
\[\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R))\]
depends only on $A,i,j$, but not on the choices of $R$ or $\pi$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same line of ideas as in \cite[4.1]{LyubeznikFinitenessLC} and \cite[3.4]{NunezWittLNMixedChar}, hence we will provide a sketch only.
Let $V$ be a coefficient ring of $A$ (whose existence is guaranteed by Cohen's structure theorem). Then one can reduce the proof to proving the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{reduction to one variable}
\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R))=\dim_k\Hom_{R[[x]]}(k,H^i_{(\mathfrak{m},x)}H^{n+1-j}_{(I,x)}(R[[x]]))
\end{equation}
where $x$ is an indeterminate over $R$. Set $S=R[[x]]$. For each $R$-module $M$, define $G(M):=M\otimes_RH^1_{(x)}(S)$ ($G$ was introduced in \cite[Proof of 4.3]{LyubeznikFinitenessLC} and further studied in \cite[\S 3]{NunezWittGenLN}). Then by \cite[3.10]{NunezWittGenLN}, $G(H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R))=H^i_{(\mathfrak{m},x)}H^{n+1-j}_{(I,x)}(R[[x]])$. Now (\ref{reduction to one variable}) follows from \cite[3.12]{NunezWittGenLN} which asserts that $\Hom_R(k,M)=\Hom_S(k,G(M))$ for all $R$-modules $M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{definition of lambda}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a noetherian local ring of mixed characteristic and let $\hat{A}$ denote its completion. Let $\pi:R\twoheadrightarrow \hat{A}$ be a surjection from an $n$-dimensional complete unramified regular local ring $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ of mixed charaterisrtic. Define
\[\lambda_{i,j}(A):=\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R)).\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
By Cohen's Structure Theorem of complete local rings, if $A$ is a complete local ring of mixed characteristic, then $A$ admits a surjection $\pi:R\twoheadrightarrow \hat{A}$ from a complete unramified regular local ring $R$.
If $A$ (not necessarily complete) itself admits a surjection $R'\twoheadrightarrow A$ from an $n'$-dimensional complete unramified regular local ring $(R',\mathfrak{m}',k)$ with kernel $I'$, then one can check that
\[\lambda_{i,j}(A)=\dim_k\Hom_{R'}(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}'}H^{n'-j}_{I'}(R')).\]
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ is a noetherian local ring containing a field and admits presentation $A=R/I$ where $(R,\mathfrak{m},k)$ is an $n$-dimensional regular local ring containing the same field, then it follows from \cite[1.4,~4.1]{LyubeznikFinitenessLC}) that
\begin{equation}
\label{Hom Ext agree}
\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R))=\dim_k\Ext^i_R(k,H^{n-j}_I(R)).
\end{equation}
However, when $A$ does not contain a field, (\ref{Hom Ext agree}) may no longer hold.
Let $R=\mathbb{Z}_2[[x_0,\dots,x_5]]$ and let $I$ be the ideal of $R$ generated by the $10$ monomials
\[
\{x_0x_1x_2, x_0x_1x_3, x_0x_2x_4, x_0x_3x_5, x_0x_4x_5, x_1x_2x_5, x_1x_3x_4, x_1x_4x_5, x_2x_3x_4, x_2x_3x_5\}.
\]
Let $\mathfrak{m}$ denote $(2,x_0,\dots,x_5)$ and set $k=R/\mathfrak{m},A=R/I$. Then it is proved in \cite[5.5]{DattaSwitalaZhang} that
\[H^4_I(R)\cong H^6_{(x_0,\dots,x_5)}(R/(2)).\]
Since $H^6_{(x_0,\dots,x_5)}(R/(2))$ admits an injective resolution (as an $R$-module)
\[0\to H^6_{(x_0,\dots,x_5)}(R/(2))\to E_R(R/\mathfrak{m})\xrightarrow{\cdot 2}E_R(R/\mathfrak{m})\to 0,\]
one can check that
\[\dim_{k}\Hom_R(k,H^1_{\mathfrak{m}}H^4_I(R))=0\neq 1=\dim_k\Ext^1_R(k,H^4_I(R)).\]
Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char} is one reason why we use $\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-j}_I(R))$ as our definition of $\lambda_{i,j}(A)$.
\end{remark}
Next, we focus on $\lambda_{d,d}(A)$ where $d=\dim(A)$ and prove our Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char}, which extends our results in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers} to local rings of mixed characteristic.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char}]
Since both completion and strict Henselization are faithfully flat, we may assume that both $A$ and $R$ are complete with separably closed residue fields. Assume that $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_t$ are the connected components of $\Gamma_A$. For $1 \leq j \leq t$, let $I_j$ be the intersection of the minimal primes of $R$ that are vertices of $\Gamma_j$. Similar to the proof of \cite[Proposition 2.1]{LyubeznikSomeLCInvariants}, using the Mayer-Vietoris sequence of local cohomology, one can prove that
\[H^{n-d}_I(R)=\oplus_{j=1}^tH^{n-d}_{I_j}(R).\]
Hence
\[\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d}_I(R))=\sum_{j=1}^t\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d}_{I_j}(R)).\]
We are reduced to proving that $\dim_k\Hom_R(k,H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d}_I(R))=1$ when $\Gamma_A=\Gamma_{R/I}$ is connected and $A$ is equidimensional. The rest of the proof follows the same strategy as in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers}.
We will use induction on $\dim(A)$.
First, assume that $\dim(A)=\dim(R/I)=2$. Since $\Gamma_A$ is connected and $A$ is equidimensional, $\Spec(A)\backslash \{\mathfrak{m}\}$ is also connected. Our Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} now implies that $H^n_I(R)=H^{n-1}_I(R)=0$. Hence the following is an injective resolution of $H^{n-2}_I(R)$:
\[0\to H^{n-2}_I(R) \to \bigoplus_{I\subseteq \mathfrak{p};\ \hgt(\mathfrak{p})=n-2}E(R/\mathfrak{p}) \to \bigoplus_{I\subseteq \mathfrak{q};\ \hgt(\mathfrak{q})=n-1}E(R/\mathfrak{q}) \to E(R/\mathfrak{m}) \to 0.\]
Therefore, we have $H^2_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-2}_I(R)=E(R/\mathfrak{m})$ and $H^j_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-2}_I(R)=0$ for $j\neq 2$. This proves that case when $\dim(A)=2$.
Assume now $\dim(A)\geq 3$. We will pick an element $r\in \mathfrak{m}$ as follows (same as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 1.4]{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers}). If $\Supp(H^{n-d+1}_I(R))\neq \{\mathfrak{m}\}$, then by prime avoidance we pick $r$ that is not in any minimal prime of $I$ nor in any minimal element of $\Supp(H^{n-d+1}_I(R))$. If $\Supp(H^{n-d+1}_I(R))= \{\mathfrak{m}\}$, then we pick $r\in \mathfrak{m}$ that is not in any minimal prime of $I$. Then $\dim(R/I+(r))=\dim(A)-1$ and $R/I+(r)$ is also equidimensional. Our theorem now follows from the following statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H^d_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d}_I(R)\cong H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}H^{n-d+1}_{I+(r)}(R)$, and
\item $\Gamma_{R/\sqrt{I+(r)}}$ is connected.
\end{enumerate}
These two statements appeared as Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 2.2, respectively, in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers}. The proofs of these two statements in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers} do {\it not} require the ring to contain a field. This completes the proof our theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If a $d$-dimensional noetherian local ring $A$ satisfies the Serre's $(S_2)$ condition, then $\lambda_{d,d}(A)=1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
When $A$ contains a field, this is known ({\it cf.} \cite[Theorem 4.6]{SurveyLNumbers}). Assume $A$ doesn't contain a field. According to our Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char}, it suffices to show that that Hochster-Huneke graph $\Gamma_{\widetilde{A}}$ of $\widetilde{A}=\widehat{A^{sh}}$ is connected. Since $A$ is $S_2$, so is $\widetilde{A}$. Then \cite[Remark 2.4.1]{HartshorneCompleteIntersectionConnectedness} implies that $\widetilde{A}$ is equidimensional. Therefore, $\Gamma_{\widetilde{A}}$ must be connected by \cite[Theorem 3.6]{HochsterHunekeIndecomposable}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Let $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$ be a complete local ring of prime characteristic $p$. Then, by Cohen Structure Theorem, one can write $A=R/I$ where $R=k[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]$ is a formal pwer series ring over $k$. Denote the maximal ideal of $R$ by $\mathfrak{n}$. One may consider
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda char p}
\dim_k\Hom_R(k, H^i_{\mathfrak{n}}H^{n-j}_I(R))
\end{equation}
which agrees with the Lyubeznik number $\lambda_{i,j}(A)$ ({\it cf.}
\cite[1.4,~4.1]{LyubeznikFinitenessLC}). On the other hand, $A$ can be also written as $R'/I'$ where $R'$ is a complete unramified regular local ring of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$. Denote the maximal ideal of $R'$ by $\mathfrak{n}'$ and $\dim(R')$ by $n'$. Following Definition \ref{definition of lambda}, one may consider
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda mixed}
\dim_k\Hom_{R'}(k, H^i_{\mathfrak{n}'}H^{n'-j}_{I'}(R')).
\end{equation}
A natural question is that whether (\ref{lambda char p}) agrees with (\ref{lambda mixed}) (for fixed $i$ and $j$).
When $i=\dim(A)$ and $j=\dim(A)$, it follows immediately from our Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char} and the main theorem in \cite{ZhangHighestLyubeznikNumbers} that the numbers (\ref{lambda mixed}) and (\ref{lambda char p}) coincide, both of which agree with the number of the connected components of the Hochster-Huneke graph of $A$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The proof of Theorem \ref{L numbers mixed char} is an example of applying our Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} to extend results, previously only known in equi-characteristic, to mixed characteristic. One may also apply Theorem \ref{vanishing unramified} to extend other results (for instance, some results in \cite{NunezBetancourtSpiroffWiit}) to mixed charateristic, which we will leave to another project.
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement} The author would like to thank Bhargav Bhatt and Gennady Lyubeznik for related conversations and Luis N\'{u}\~{n}ez-Betancourt for comments on a draft. The author is grateful to Gennady Lyubeznik for his suggestions which greatly improve the exposition of this paper.
\bibliographystyle{skalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this note, a \emph{Calabi--Yau manifold} is a simply-connected compact complex manifold with trivial canonical
class and $H^i(M, \mco_M) =0$ for $0< i < \dim M$.
$K3$ surfaces are Calabi–Yau twofolds in this definition and they are all K\"ahler (\cite{Si}), forming a single irreducible smooth family of dimension $20$ (\cite{Ko, KoNiSp}). Hence, they are all diffeomorphic.
The moduli spaces of projective $K3$ surfaces are a countable union of analytic subspaces inside of the family of all $K3$ surfaces.
In higher dimensions, the situation is a bit different. K\"ahler Calabi--Yau manifolds are necessarily projective when their dimensions are greater than two and there exist non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefolds. A number of non-homeomorphic K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefolds have been constructed (\cite{ AlGrHe, Ba, KrSk})
and it is still an open problem whether there are finitely many non-homeomorphic K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefolds or not. On the other hand, there are found {infinitely} many non-K\"ahler, non-homeomorphic Calabi--Yau threefolds (\cite{Cl, Fr1, Fr2, HaSa}).
In an effort to understand the situation in a similar way to that of the $K3$ surfaces,
Reid conjectured that there still may be a single irreducible moduli space of Calabi--Yau threefolds, such that any K\"ahler (thus, projective) Calabi--Yau threefold is the small resolution
of a degeneration of this family and that any two K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefolds may be related by deformations, small resolutions and their inverses through non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefolds, although they are non-homeomorphic (\cite{Re}).
--- figuratively speaking, projective Calabi--Yau threefolds may appear as scattered islands in the sea of (generically non-projective) Calabi--Yau threefolds just as projective $K3$ surfaces appear as scattered islands in the sea of (generically non-projective) $K3$ surfaces. This speculation demonstrates a role of non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau manifolds in understanding K\"ahler ones.
In dimension four, the situation is even more obscure.
A huge number of non-homeomorphic K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfolds can be constructed as complete intersections in toric varieties. However, to the best of the author's knowledge, not a single example of non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold has been found.
The purpose of this note is to construct an example of non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold. Hence, we establish the following:
\begin{theorem}
There exists a non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold.
\end{theorem}
We note that some examples of simply-connected non-K\"ahler compact holomorphic symplectic fourfolds
with trivial canonical class and \mbox{$ H^2(M, \mco_M) \neq 0$} were constructed (\cite {Bo, Gu}). We also remark that interests in non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau manifolds in other directions also have been growing rapidly (\cite{ Fe, FuLiYa, QiWa, To}).
We shall construct our example by smoothing a normal crossing variety.
By smoothing, we mean the reverse process of the semistable degeneration of a manifold to a normal crossing variety.
If a normal crossing variety is the central fiber of a semistable degeneration
of Calabi--Yau manifolds, it can be regarded as a member in a deformation
family of those Calabi--Yau manifolds.
So building a normal crossing variety smoothable to
a Calabi--Yau manifold can be regarded as building a deformation type of
Calabi--Yau manifolds. The construction by smoothing is intrinsically up to deformation.
The structure of this note is as follows.
We start Section \ref{sec2} by introducing two background materials -- a smoothing theorem and a Calabi--Yau threefold.
The smoothing theorem will be used to smooth a normal crossing variety to a non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold and the Calabi--Yau threefold will be used as a building block in constructing the normal crossing variety in the next sections.
In Section \ref{sec3}, we build a smoothable normal crossing variety.
The construction, starting from the Calabi--Yau threefold introduced in Section \ref{sec2}, involves several steps of taking quotients and blow-ups of varieties.
In Section \ref{sec4}, we showed that the fourfold, which is a smoothing of the normal crossing variety constructed in Section \ref{sec3}, is a non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold and calculate its topological Euler number.
After finishing the manuscript, the author received an e-mail from Taro Sano, informing that he constructed non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau manifolds of dimension higher than three by smoothing method (\cite{Sa}).
\section{A smoothing theorem and a Calabi--Yau threefold}
\label{sec2}
By a variety, we mean a reduced complex analytic space.
Let $\mathcal X =X_1 \cup X_2$ be a variety whose irreducible components are two smooth varieties $X_1$ and $X_2$.
$\mathcal X$ is called a \emph{normal crossing variety} if, near any point $p \in X_1 \cap X_2$, $\mathcal X$ is locally isomorphic to
$$\{(x_0,x_1,\cdots, x_n) \in \mbc^{n+1} | x_{n-1} x_n = 0 \}$$
with $p$ corresponding to the origin and $X_1$, $X_2$ locally corresponding to the hypersurfaces $x_{n-1}=0, x_n = 0$ respectively in $\mbc^{n+1}$.
Note that the variety $D_\mcX:=X_1 \cap X_2$ is smooth.
Suppose that there is a proper map $\varsigma : \mathfrak{X} \ra \Delta$ from a complex
manifold ${\mathfrak X}$ onto the unit disk $\Delta=\{t \in \mbc | \| t\| \leq 1 \}$ such that
the fiber ${\mathfrak X}_t = \varsigma^{-1}(t)$ is a smooth manifold for every $t \neq 0$ and ${\mathfrak X}_0 = \mathcal X$.
We denote a generic fiber ${\mathfrak X}_t$ ( $t \neq 0$) by $M_\mcX$ and we say that $\mathcal X$ is a semistable degeneration of a smooth manifold $M_\mcX$ and that $M_\mcX$ is a \emph{semistable smoothing} (simply smoothing) of $\mcX$.
We will use the following result from \cite{HaSa} and \cite{FeFiRu} as a generalization of results in \cite{KaNa}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm21} Let $\mathcal X =X_1 \cup X_2$ be a normal crossing variety of dimension $n \ge 3$ whose irreducible components are two smooth compact varieties $X_1$ and $X_2$ such that $D_{\mathcal X}$ is smooth. Assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\omega_{\mathcal X} \simeq {\mathcal O_{\mathcal X}}$,
\item $H^{n-1}({\mathcal X}, {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X}) =0$, $H^{n-2}(X_i, {\mathcal O}_{X_i}) =0$ for $i=1, 2$,
\item $N_{D_\mcX /X_1} \otimes N_{D_\mcX /X_2} $
on $D_\mcX$ is trivial.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\mcX$ is smoothable to a complex manifold $M_\mcX$.
\end{theorem}
This smoothing theorem was proved firstly in \cite{KaNa} with an assumption of K\"ahlerness condition and the condition was removed in \cite {HaSa} and \cite{FeFiRu}.
We will also need the following lemma (Lemma 3.14 in \cite{HaSa}) in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm41}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem22}
With conditions in Theorem \ref{thm21}, assume further that $X_1, X_2$ are projective and $M_\mcX$, $D_\mcX$ are a projective Calabi--Yau $n$-fold and a Calabi--Yau $(n-1)$-fold respectively.
Then there exists a big line bundle on $\mcX$.
\end{lemma}
We will build a normal crossing variety and smooth it to a Calabi--Yau fourfold by applying Theorem \ref{thm21} and show, using Lemma \ref{lem22}, that the Calabi--Yau fourfold is non-K\"ahler.
To make the normal crossing variety $\mcX = X_1 \cup X_2$, we need to construct the varieties $X_1, X_2$ first.
$X_1$ and $X_2$ will be built from Beauville's Calabi--Yau threefold and two involutions on it.
We briefly recall Beauville's Calabi--Yau threefold.
Let $\zeta = e^{2\pi \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{3}}$. By $E_\zeta$, we denote the elliptic curve whose
period is $\zeta$ and by $E_\zeta^3/\langle \zeta \rangle $ the quotient of
the product manifold $E_\zeta^3$ by the scalar multiplication by
$\zeta$. Let
$$Q_0 =0,\,\, Q_1 = \frac{1-\zeta}{3},\,\, Q_2 =\frac{-1+\zeta}{3} $$
in $E_\zeta$. These are exactly the fixed points
of the scalar multiplication by $\zeta$ on $E_\zeta$. For $i, j, k=0, 1, 2$, let
$$Q_{i,j,k} = (Q_{i}, Q_{j}, Q_{k}) \in E_\zeta^3$$
and let $\overline Q_{i,j,k}$ be its image in
$E_\zeta^3/\langle \zeta \rangle $. Then $\overline Y =
E_\zeta^3/\langle \zeta \rangle $ has singularities of type
$\frac{1}{3}(1,1,1)$ at $\overline Q_{i,j,k}$'s and the blow-up
$ Y \ra \overline Y$ at these 27
singular points gives a Calabi--Yau threefold $Y$. This is a K\"ahler
Calabi--Yau threefold with Hodge numbers $h^{1,2}(Y)=0$ and $h^{1,1}(Y) = 36$, which was originally found by Beauville (\cite{Be2}).
\section{Construction of a normal crossing variety $\mcX = X_1 \cup X_2$}
\label{sec3}
Consider two $3 \times 3$ matrices in
${\rm GL}_3 \left (\mbz[\zeta] \right)$
$$A_1 =\left(
\begin{array}{rrr}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\,\,\, A_2 =\left(
\begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right).$$
Note that $A_i^2$ is the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix and $\det(A_i)=-1$ for $i=1, 2$.
The matrix $A_i$ induces an involution $\sigma_i$ on $E_\zeta^3$. Note that $\sigma_i^*$ acts as multiplication by $-1$ on $H^{3,0} \left(E_\zeta^3 \right)$.
Noting that the subgroup of ${\rm GL}_3 \left (\mbz[\zeta] \right)$ that is generated by $A_1$, $A_2$ is {infinite}, we make the following remark which will play a key role in showing the non-K\"ahlerness in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm41}.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem31}
The group of automorphisms of $E_\zeta^3$ that is generated by $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ is infinite.
\end{remark}
There is a unique involution $\rho_i$ on $Y$ such that the following diagram commutes:
$$
\begin{CD}
E_\zeta^3 @>\sigma_i>> E_\zeta^3\\
@VVV @VVV\\
\overline Y @. \overline Y\\
@AAA @AAA\\
Y @>\rho_i>> Y
\end{CD}
$$
We note that $\rho_i^*$ also acts as multiplication by $-1$ on $H^{3,0} (Y)$ and the fixed locus $S_i$ of $\rho_i$ is a smooth surface (a disjoint union of irreducible surfaces).
Now we move on to the construction of smooth varieties $X_1, X_2$.
We borrow a method of construction from \cite{KoLe} (\S 4 in \cite{KoLe}) that makes use of non-symplectic involutions on $K3$ surfaces.
Let $\psi:\mbp^1 \ra \mbp^1$ be any involution fixing two distinct
points and consider a quotient
$\overline X_i = (Y \times \mbp^1) / (\rho_i \times \psi$). Then the singular locus of $\overline X_i$ is a
product of smooth surfaces and ordinary double points, resulting from the
fixed locus of $\rho_i$. Let $ X_i \ra \overline X_i$ be the blow-up along the
singular locus of $\overline X_i$. It is elementary to check that ${X_i}$ is
smooth. Choose a point $p \in \mbp^1$ such that $p\neq \psi(p) $. Let $D'_i$
be the image of $ Y \times \{p\}$ in $\overline X_i$ and $D_i$ be the inverse image of $D'_i$
in ${X_i}$. Then $D_i$ is isomorphic to $Y$ and it is an anticanonical
divisor of ${X_i}$ whose normal bundle $N_{D_i/{X_i}}$ in $X_i$ is
trivial. Since $Y$ is projective, all the varieties $Y\times \mbp^1$, $\overline X_i$ and $X_i$ are projective.
We summarize our notations, including ones to be defined:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\zeta = e^{2\pi \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{3}}$.
\item $E_\zeta = \mbc/(\mbz \oplus \mbz \zeta)$ is the elliptic curve with period $\zeta$.
\item $\overline Y = E_\zeta^3 / \langle \zeta \rangle$.
\item $\phi: \widetilde Y \ra E_\zeta^3$ is the blow-up at the 27 points of $Q_{i,j,k}$'s.
\item $\eta: \widetilde Y \ra Y$ is the map induced by $E_\zeta^3 \ra \overline Y$.
\item $Y \ra \overline Y$ is the blow-up of $\overline Y$ at its singular points. $Y$ is a K\"ahler Calabi--Yau threefold.
\item $\sigma_i:E_\zeta^3 \ra E_\zeta^3$ is the involution induced by the matrix $A_i$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $\rho_i:Y \ra Y$ is the involution induced by $\sigma_i$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $S_i = Y^{\rho_i}$ is the fixed locus of $\rho_i$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $\check S_i = \phi(\eta^{-1}(S_i))$, the fixed locus of $\sigma_i$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $\psi:\mbp^1 \ra \mbp^1$ is an involution fixing two distinct points $q_1, q_2 \in \mbp^1$.
\item $\overline X_i = (Y \times \mbp^1) / (\rho_i \times \psi)$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $X_i \ra \overline X_i$ is the blow-up along the singular locus of $\overline X_i$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $\widetilde {X_i} \ra Y\times\mbp^1$ is the blow-up
of $Y\times\mbp^1$ along the surface $S_i \times \{q_1, q_2\}$.
\item $D'_i$: the image of $Y \times \{ p\}$ in $\overline X_i$ for a point $p \in \mbp^1$ with $p \neq \psi(p)$ for $i=1, 2$.
\item $D_i$ : the inverse image of $D'_i$ in $X_i$ for $i=1, 2$. $D_i \simeq Y$ and $D_i \in \left| -K_{X_i} \right|$.
\item $X_i^* = X_i -D_i$.
\item $\mcX = X_1 \cup X_2$ is the normal crossing variety of $X_1, X_2$, made by gluing along their isomorphic smooth anticanonical sections $D_1, D_2$.
\item $D_\mcX = X_1\cap X_2$.
\item $M_{\mathcal X}$ is a smoothing of a normal crossing variety $\mathcal X = X_1 \cup X_2$.
\end{itemize}
We make a normal crossing variety $\mcX = X_1 \cup X_2$ by gluing transversally along $D_1$ and $D_2$, (see \S2 (especially Corollary 2.4) of \cite{HaSa} for details of the gluing process). Then $D_\mcX := X_1\cap X_2$ is a copy of $Y$. Since $D_\mcX = X_1 \cap X_2$ is an anticanonical divisor of both $X_1$ and $X_2$, $\omega_\mcX \simeq \mco_\mcX$.
Note that $N_{D_\mcX /X_1} \otimes N_{D_\mcX /X_2} $ is trivial. Let $X_i^* = X_i -D_i$.
For varieties $X_1$, $X_2$ and $\mcX = X_1 \cup X_2$ constructed in this section, we gather some of their properties:
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop32}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{c_proj} $X_1$ and $X_2$ are projective.
\item \label{c_omega} $\omega_{\mathcal X} \simeq {\mathcal O_{\mathcal X}}$.
\item \label{c_dsemi} $N_{D_\mcX /X_1} \otimes N_{D_\mcX /X_2} $ on $D_\mcX$ is trivial.
\item \label{c_sim} Both $X_i$ and $X_i^*$ are simply-connected for $i=1, 2$.
\item \label{c_comx} $H^{k}(X_i, {\mathcal O}_{X_i}) =0$ for $i=1, 2$, $k=1,2,3,4$.
\item \label{c_commcx} $H^{k}({\mathcal X}, {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X}) =0$ for $k=1, 2, 3$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The properties (\ref{c_proj}), (\ref{c_omega}), (\ref{c_dsemi}) are already shown.
\medskip
We show the property (\ref{c_sim}).
One can obtain ${X_i}$ differently. Let ${q_1, q_2}$ be the
fixed points of $\psi$. Let $\widetilde {X_i}$ be the blow-up
of $Y\times\mbp^1$ along the surface $S_i \times \{q_1, q_2\}$. Then the involution on
$Y\times\mbp^1$ induces an involution on $\widetilde {X_i}$, whose fixed locus
is the exceptional divisor over $S_i \times \{q_1, q_2\}$. The quotient of~
$\widetilde {X_i}$ by the involution is isomorphic to ${X_i}$. This may
be summarized by the diagram,
$$
\begin{CD}
\widetilde{{X_i}} @>>> {{X_i}}\\
@VVV @VVV\\
Y\times\mbp^1 @>>> \overline X_i
\end{CD}
$$
Let $\widehat {X_i} \ra {X_i}$ be the universal covering. The fourfold
$\widetilde {X_i}$ is simply-connected, therefore the quotient map
$\widetilde {X_i}\to{X_i}$ lifts to a map $\widetilde{X_i} \ra \widehat{X_i}$
so there is a commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
& \widehat {X_i} \ar[d]\\
\widetilde {X_i} \ar[r]\ar[ur] & {X_i} .}
\]
Since the map $\widetilde {X_i} \ra {X_i}$ is a double covering, the degree of the map $\widetilde {X_i} \ra \widehat {X_i}$ is one or two. Suppose that the degree of this map is one. Then it is an isomorphism and so the universal covering $\widehat {X_i} \ra {X_i}$ is of degree two, having the same branch locus with that of the map
$\widetilde {X_i} \ra {X_i}$.
Since the involution $\rho_i \times \psi$ has fixed points, the induced involution on $\widetilde {X_i}$ also has fixed points and hence the branch locus of the map
$\widetilde {X_i} \ra {X_i}$ is not empty. This means that the universal covering $\widehat {X_i} \ra {X_i}$ has non-empty branch locus, which is impossible. Hence, we conclude that the degree of the map $\widetilde {X_i} \ra \widehat {X_i}$ is two and, accordingly, the universal covering $\widehat {X_i} \ra {X_i}$
is of degree one, which implies that it is an isomorphism.
Therefore, $\widehat {X_i}$ is necessarily isomorphic to ${X_i}$ and so ${X_i}$ is simply-connected.
There is a natural projection: $\overline X_i = (Y\times\mbp^1)/ ({\rho_i}\times \psi) \ra Y /{\rho_i}$.
Let $\nu$ be the composition of ${X_i} \ra \overline X_i$ and $(Y\times\mbp^1)/ ({\rho_i} \times \psi ) \ra Y /{\rho_i}$. Let $x \in Y/{\rho_i}$ be a point in the branch locus of
the map $Y \ra Y /{\rho_i}$. Then $\nu^{-1}(x)$ is a union of three smooth
rational curves, one of which (denoted by $l$) crosses ${D_i}$ transversely at
a single point and the other two are disjoint from ${D_i}$, resulting from the
blow-up. Since ${X_i}$ and ${D_i}$ are simply connected, the fundamental group $\pi_1(X_i^*)$ of $X_i^*$ is
generated by a loop around ${D_i}$. We can assume that the loop is contained in
$l^* = l - {D_i}$. Since the loop can be contracted to a point in $l^*$,
$X_i^*$ is simply-connected.
\medskip
We move on to the property (\ref{c_comx}).
Since
$$\dim H^k(X_i, \mco_{X_i}) \le \dim H^k(\widetilde {X_i}, \mco_{\widetilde {X_i}}) = \dim H^k(Y \times \mbp^1, \mco_{Y \times \mbp^1}) =0$$
for $k=1, 2$, we have
$$H^k(X_i, \mco_{X_i}) =0$$
for $k=1, 2$.
Note that $X_i$ has an effective anticanonical divisor $D_i$, which is a Calabi--Yau threefold. Hence, we have
$$H^4(X_i, \mco_{X_i}) \simeq H^0(X_i, \Omega_{X_i}^4) =0.$$
Taking the cohomology of the structure sheaf
sequence,
\[
0 \ra \mco_{X_i}(K_{X_i}) \ra \mco_{X_i} \ra \mco_{D_i} \ra 0,
\]
we obtain an exact sequence
\begin{align*}
H^3({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}(K_{{X_i}})) \ra H^3({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}) \ra H^3({D_i}, \mco_{D_i}) \ra \\
H^4({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}(K_{{X_i}})) \ra H^4({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}) =0.
\end{align*}
Since, by Serre duality,
$$H^3({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}(K_{{X_i}}))\simeq H^{1}({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}) =0,$$
$$\dim H^4({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}(K_{{X_i}})) = \dim H^0({X_i}, \mco_{X_i})=1$$ and
$$\dim H^3({D_i}, \mco_{D_i})=1,$$
we have $\dim H^3({X_i}, \mco_{X_i}) =0$.
\medskip
Finally, we show the property (\ref{c_commcx}).
From the exact sequence of sheaves
$$0 \ra \mco_\mcX \ra \mco_{X_1}\oplus\mco_{X_2} \ra \mco_{D_\mcX} \ra 0,$$
we obtain an exact sequence
$$H^{k-1}({D_\mcX}, \mco_{D_\mcX}) \ra H^k({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) \ra H^k({X_1}, \mco_{X_1}) \oplus H^k({X_2}, \mco_{X_2}).$$
Since
$$H^{k-1}({D_\mcX}, \mco_{D_\mcX}) =H^k({X_1}, \mco_{X_1}) = H^k({X_2}, \mco_{X_2}) =0 $$
for $k=2,3$, we have
$$H^2({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) =H^3({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) =0.$$
Moreover, the exact sequence
\begin{align*}
0 \ra H^0({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) \ra H^0({X_1}, \mco_{X_1}) \oplus H^0({X_2}, \mco_{X_2}) \ra H^{0}({D_\mcX}, \mco_{D_\mcX})\\
\ra H^1({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) \ra H^1({X_1}, \mco_{X_1}) \oplus H^1({X_2}, \mco_{X_2})=0
\end{align*}
gives $H^1({\mcX}, \mco_{\mcX}) =0$.
\end{proof}
\section{The example}
\label{sec4}
By Theorem \ref{thm21} with the properties in Proposition \ref{prop32}, one can show that the normal crossing variety $\mcX$, constructed in Section \ref{sec3}, is smoothable to a smooth fourfold $M_\mcX$ with trivial canonical class.
We can also check that $H^i(M_\mcX,\mco_\mcX) = 0$ for $i = 1, 2,3$ by the upper semicontinuity theorem with the property (\ref{c_commcx}) in Proposition \ref{prop32}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm41}
$M_\mcX$ is a non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfold.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We only need to show that $M_\mcX$ is simply-connected and non-K\"ahler.
First, we show the simply-connectedness.
We can obtain the topological type of $M_\mcX$ by pasting $X_1^*$ and $X_2^*$.
One can
regard the normal bundle $N_{{D_\mcX}/X_i}$ as a complex manifold containing $D_\mcX$. Then
$$N_{{D_\mcX}/X_i}^* := N_{{D_\mcX}/X_i} - D_\mcX$$
is a $\mbc^*$-bundle over ${D_\mcX}$, where $\mbc^* :=\mbc - \{0\}$. The triviality property on $N_{D_\mcX /X_1} \otimes N_{D_\mcX /X_2} $ implies the map
$$\varphi: N_{{D_\mcX}/X_1}^* \ra N_{{D_\mcX}/X_2}^*,$$
locally defined by
$$(x \in \mbc^* , y \in {D_\mcX}) \mapsto \left({1}/{x} , y \right),$$
is globally well-defined and an isomorphism. Note that ${D_\mcX}$ in $X_i$ has a neighborhood $U_i$ that is homeomorphic to $N_{{D_\mcX}/X_i}$.
Let $U_i^* = U_i - {D_\mcX}$. Then the map $\varphi$ induces a homeomorphism between $U_1^*$ and $U_2^*$.
One can construct a manifold $M'$ by pasting together $X_1^*$ and $X_2^*$ along $U_1^*$ and $U_2^*$ with the homeomorphism.
The manifold $M'$ is homeomorphic to $M_\mcX$.
Note that $X_1^*$, $X_2^*$ are simply-connected (the property (\ref{c_sim}) in Proposition \ref{prop32}).
Hence, by Seifert--van Kampen theorem, $M'$ is simply-connected.
\medskip
For the non-K\"ahlerness, suppose that $M_\mcX$ is K\"ahler, then it is necessarily projective. Note that $D_\mcX$, $X_1$ and $X_2$ are all projective (the property (\ref{c_proj}) in Proposition \ref{prop32}). Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem22}, there exists a big line bundle $\mathcal L$ on $\mcX$. Let $h_i$ be the big divisor class in $\Pic(X_i)$ corresponding to $\mathcal L|_{X_i}$, then $h_1|_{D_\mcX}$ is linearly equivalent to $h_2|_{D_\mcX}$. Note that $D_\mcX$ is a copy of $Y$.
Let us denote the divisor class in $\Pic(Y)$ of $h_1|_{D_\mcX}$, $ h_2|_{D_\mcX}$ by $\hat h$.
Chasing the construction of $X_1$ and $X_2$, one can check that $\hat h$ belongs to $\Pic(Y)^{\rho_1^*} \cap \Pic(Y)^{\rho_2^*}$, where $\Pic(Y)^{\rho_i^*}$ is the subgroup of $\Pic(Y)$ that consists of the classes invariant under ${\rho_i^*}$.
The linear system $\left | D_\mcX \right |$ is base-point free and it gives a fibration
$X_i \ra \mbp^1$
and $D_\mcX$ is one of its generic fibers. Hence $\hat h$ is a big divisor of $Y$ (see, for example, Corollary 2.2.11 in \cite{La}).
Let $\phi: \widetilde Y \ra E_\zeta^3$ be the blow-up at the 27 points of $Q_{i,j,k}$'s and $\eta: \widetilde Y \ra Y$ be the map induced by $E_\zeta^3 \ra \overline Y$ such that the diagram commutes:
$$
\begin{CD}
{\widetilde Y} @>\eta>> {Y}\\
@V\phi VV @VVV\\
E_\zeta^3 @>>> \overline Y
\end{CD}
$$
It is not hard to check that $\check h =\phi_*(\eta^*(\hat h))$ is a big divisor of $E_\zeta^3$ and the class $\check h$ belongs to
${\rm NS}(E_\zeta^3 )^{\sigma_1^*} \cap {\rm NS}(E_\zeta^3 )^{\sigma_2^*}$.
Note that any big divisor of the abelian variety $E_\zeta^3$ is ample.
However, the group of automorphisms of $E_\zeta^3$ that is generated by $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ is infinite (Remark \ref{rem31}) and so ${\rm NS}(E_\zeta^3 )^{\sigma_1^*} \cap {\rm NS}(E_\zeta^3 )^{\sigma_2^*}$ does not contain an ample class. Therefore, we have a contradiction and $M_\mcX$ should be non-K\"ahler.
\end{proof}
Topological invariants of $M_\mcX$ can be calculated from the topological manifold $M'$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm41}.
For example, the topological Euler number $\chi(M_\mcX)$ of $M_\mcX$ is
$$\chi(M_\mcX) = \chi(M') = \chi(X_1^*) + \chi(X_2^*)- \chi(U_1).$$
Note
$$\chi(X_i) = \chi(X_i^*) + \chi(D_i) = \chi(X_i^*) + \chi(Y)$$
and $\chi(U_1) =\chi(S^1) \chi(D_1) = 0$. Hence,
$$\chi(M_\mcX) = \chi(X_1) + \chi(X_2)-2 \chi(Y).$$
The topological Euler characteristic of ${\widetilde X_i}$ is
\[\chi({\widetilde X_i}) = 2 \chi(Y) + 2 \chi(S_i)\]
On the other hand,
\[2 \chi({X_i}) -4\chi(S_i)= \chi({\widetilde X_i})\]
and so
\begin{align*}
\chi({X_i}) &=\frac{1}{2} \left (4 \chi(S_i) + \chi({\widetilde X_i}) \right )\\
&=2 \chi(S_i) + \chi(Y) + \chi(S_i)\\
&=\chi(Y) + 3 \chi(S_i).
\end{align*}
Let $\check S_i = \phi(\eta^{-1}(S_i))$.
Note that $\check S_i$ is the fixed locus of $\sigma_i$.
Let $\Theta = \{Q_{i,j,k} \mid i,j,k=0,1,2 \}$. One can easily check
$$\chi(S_i) = 2 \left | \check S_{i} \cap \Theta \right | = 18,$$
where $\left | \check S_{i} \cap \Theta \right |$ is the number of points in $ \check S_{i} \cap \Theta$.
Therefore, the topological Euler number $\chi(M_\mcX)$ of $M_\mcX$ is
\begin{align*}
\chi(M_\mcX) &= \chi(X_1) + \chi(X_2)-2 \chi(Y)\\
&= \chi(Y) + 3 \chi(S_1) +\chi(Y) + 3 \chi(S_2) - 2 \chi(Y)\\
&= 3 \chi(S_1) +3 \chi(S_2)\\
&=108.
\end{align*}
The pair of matrices $A_1$, $A_2$ in Section \ref{sec2}, which can be used in the construction, is obviously not unique.
Any pair of $3\times3$ matrices $A_1$, $A_2$ that satisfies the following conditions,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A_i \in {\rm GL}_3(\mbz[\zeta])$,
\item $A_i^2$ is the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix,
\item $\det(A_i)=-1$,
\item $\rho_i$ is not fixed-free and its fixed locus is a smooth surface and
\item The subgroup of ${\rm GL}_3(\mbz[\zeta])$ containing both $A_1, A_2$ is infinite,
\end{enumerate}
gives rise to a non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfolds through the construction of Sections \ref{sec3} and \ref{sec4}, where the conditions guarantee, respectively,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A_i$ induces an automorphism of $E_\zeta^3$ which induces an automorphism of $Y$.
\item $A_i$ induces an involution of $E_\zeta^3$ which induces an involution of $Y$,
\item $\rho_i^*$ acts as multiplication by $-1$ on $H^{3,0} (Y)$ so that $X_i$ has an anticanonical section isomorphic to $Y$,
\item both $X_i$ and $X_i^*$ are simply-connected, which leads to the simply-connectedness of $M_\mcX$
and
\item the group of automorphisms of $E_\zeta^3$ that is generated by $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ is infinite, which eventually leads to the non-K\"ahlerness of $M_\mcX$.
\end{enumerate}
The author could not obtain other non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfolds of different topological Euler numbers although he tried many pairs of such matrices. The author suspects that all the pairs of such matrices may give rise to non-K\"ahler Calabi--Yau fourfolds of the same topological Euler number ($=108$).
|
\section{Introduction}
With its roots in kinetic theory, the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) describes the evolution of fluid flow via the propagation and collision of discretized particle distribution functions (populations) $f_i(\bm x, t)$, which
are associated with a set of discrete velocities and constructed to recover the macroscopic Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) in the hydrodynamic limit.
LBM has matured to a competitive alternative to conventional numerical solvers, with a vast range of applications including compressible flows \cite{Frapolli2015}, complex moving geometries \cite{Dorschner_ComplexGeo}, multiphase flows \cite{Multi_Mazloomi,Multi_Wohrwag} and rarefied gas dynamics \cite{shan2006}, to mention a few.
While LBM has indeed conquered a large range of fluid dynamics, most popular LBM models use so-called standard lattices such as the D2Q9 or the D3Q27 in two or three dimensions ($D=2,3$) with Q=9 and Q=27 discrete velocities, respectively.
While this is mainly due to their simplicity and efficiency, the limited number of speeds puts severe restrictions on their range of validity.
On the other hand, a systematic increase of the number of velocities to so-called high-order or multispeed lattices has been shown to extend the range of validity significantly. High-order lattices can be constructed systematically either by discretizing the Boltzmann equation on the roots of the Hermite polynomials \cite{Shan1998,shan2006} or by entropy considerations, yielding a set of so-called admissible lattices \cite{Chikatamarla2006,Chikatamarla2009}. Note that the roots of the Hermite polynomials are irrational numbers and thus require off-lattice propagation schemes such as the semi-Lagrangian LBM \cite{di2018simulation,SemiLag2017}, whereas admissible lattices as in \cite{Chikatamarla2006,Chikatamarla2009} remain on-lattice with integer-valued velocities. The increase of accuracy of such lattices can be exploited in many applications such high-speed flows, non-equilibrium gas flows or relativistic fluids \cite{Frapolli2015,AnsumaliPlateSlip,Meng_RarefiedAccuracy,Mendoza2010} to name a few.
In this paper, we will restrict our attention to compressible as well as non-equilibrium flows but the proposed concepts are generic and can be used for all
multi-scale applications using high-order lattices.
In particular, it is well known that the lack of Galilean invariance and insufficient isotropy of standard lattices, limits classical LB models to isothermal, low-Mach number flows \cite{Qian_Orszag_1993,Qian1998} and the extension of LBM to high-speed compressible flows is still an active area of investigation. For instance, so-called augmented LB models have been developed in \cite{Prasianakis2007, Saadat2019} to mitigate these shortcomings by
introducing non-local corrections into the kinetic equations to eliminate the error terms in the momentum and energy equation, which arise due to the constraints of the standard lattices. Promising results have been shown in recent contributions, featuring both variable Prandtl number and adiabatic exponent \cite{Saadat2019}. Moreover, the so-called Particles on Demand (PonD) method has recently been proposed in \cite{Pond,reyhanian2020thermokinetic}, which eliminates the Galilean invariance errors of the standard lattices from the outset by representing the populations in a co-moving reference frame. Note that while both of these approaches get by with minimal velocity sets, another alternative to lift the aforementioned constraints is the use of multispeed lattices. There, the increase of the number of speeds moderates the lattice constraints and pertinent moments to recover the full Navier-Stokes-Fourier (NSF) equations in the hydrodynamic limit can be represented by the lattice \cite{Alexander1993,Kataoka2004,Li2007,Watari2007}. It must be noted however that while
multispeed lattices can extend the range of velocity significantly,
the associated temperature range typically decreases with an increase of the number of particle's velocities. Recently, an entropic LBM realization of multispeed lattices has demonstrated promising results for both trans- and supersonic
flows\cite{Frapolli2015}.
High-order lattices can also be used to increase accuracy in non-equilibrium flows.
The degree of non-equilibrium or rarefaction is usually quantified by the Knudsen number, which is defined as the ratio of the molecular mean free path and a characteristic length.
It has been shown both analytically and numerically \cite{kim2008slip,SlipPlateMeng} that by increasing the number of discrete velocities (order of Gauss-Hermite quadrature), LB models can capture non-equilibrium effects of wall-bounded flows beyond the NSF level.
With the examples from above in mind, it needs to be mentioned that while high-order lattices can provide a more accurate description of the flow, they come at high computational costs, which can make these models prohibitive
for flows with realistic complexity in three dimensions. Fortunately, for most practical applications, the regions requiring high-order velocity sets are typically confined to a small sub-region of the entire computational domain.
Hence, significant computational resources can be saved by using a multi-scale description, which uses higher-order lattices only when and where needed.
In that spirit, a variety of different multi-scale frameworks, coupling different methods have been proposed in the literature \cite{MultiscaleBook}. For example,
a multi-scale model, coupling LBM for continuum regions to direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) for the high Knudsen number regions, was proposed in \cite{Succi_DSMCLBM,Succi_DSMCLBM2} for steady-state simulations. Furthermore, so-called discrete velocity models (DVM) have been shown to be successful in simulating rarefied gases \cite{broadwell_1964,DVM_MIEUSSENS,titarev_2012} and multi-scale schemes with adaptively refined phase space meshes have been proposed
to reduce both computational time and memory \cite{AdaptiveVel1,AdaptiveVel2}.
DVMs have also been coupled with the more efficient LBM, which was used in continuum flow zones whereas the DVM was restricted to the rarefied regions only \cite{ARISTOV2020,DVMIliyn}. Finally, in the realm of LBM, a finite difference LB scheme for rarefied gas dynamics was proposed in \cite{multiscale}, where different lattices are coupled in a static manner by a non-local extrapolation procedure.
While interesting, this approach is limited to static phase space refinement and suffers from severe stability issues due to a non-local \emph{ad hoc} coupling procedure of different lattices based on extrapolation procedures.
In this work, we propose a multi-scale LBM scheme, which alleviates these issues and allows for adaptive phase space refinement using a consistent and local coupling procedure. For maximum lattice flexibility, we use a semi-Lagrangian advection procedure to naturally decouple the velocity space from the physical space \cite{Pond, di2018simulation,Kramer_SemiLagrangian2020,InterBasedLB_Shu,InterpoBasedLB_cHENG_HUNG,Bardow_2006}. Higher-order lattices are thus only used when and where necessary, while preserving second-order accuracy. We further shed light on the nature of multi-scale problems and the range of validity of coupling procedures. The proposed scheme is then validated on examples in both high-Mach and high-Knudsen number flows but the scheme can be beneficial whenever large lattices are needed in a confined region. For illustration of the coupling procedure, we use a dual population, multispeed LBM model with variable Prandtl number and adiabatic exponent as proposed in \cite{Frapolli2015} for high-Mach regions.
Further, while high-Mach number flows are intrinsically captured in PonD through an adaptive reference frame, we extend PonD's range of validity to non-equilibrium flows using multispeed lattices.
The paper is organised as follows. In Sec.\ \ref{Model_Section} the two-population model is presented and it's semi-Lagrangian realisation is explained. Subsequently, in Sec. \ref{Multiscale_Section} the multi-scale coupling scheme is introduced. Numerical results are presented in Sec.\ \ref{results_Section}, with simulations of an athermal convected vortex, a jet flow, the shock structure problem and a high Knudsen Couette flow. Finally, concluding remarks are given in Sec.\ \ref{Conclusion_section}.
\section{Model Description}
\label{Model_Section}
\subsection{Discrete velocities}
\label{sec:DiscreteVel}
Without a loss of generality, we consider discrete speeds in two dimensions, $D=2$, formed by tensor products of roots of Hermite polynomials $c_{i\alpha}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ci}
\bm{c}_i=(c_{ix}, c_{iy}).
\end{equation}
The roots of the lowest three Hermite polynomials are collected in Tab.\ \ref{tab:GaussHermiteVelSets} for the sake of completeness. Following the standard nomenclature, we refer to the corresponding discrete speeds (\ref{eq:ci}) as $D2Q9$, $D2Q16$ and $D2Q25$ models.
Each model is characterized by the lattice temperature $T_L$ and the weights $W_i$ associated with the vectors (\ref{eq:ci}),
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wi}
W_i=w_{ix}w_{iy},
\end{equation}
where $w_{i\alpha}$ are weights of the Gauss--Hermite quadrature, see Tab.\ \ref{tab:GaussHermiteVelSets}. Note that the lattice temperature is matched at the outset, $T_L=1$, for all the models under consideration.
\begin{table}[h] \centering
\caption{Lattice temperature $T_L$, roots of Hermite polynomials $c_{i\alpha}$ and weights $w_{i\alpha}$ of the $D=1$ Gauss--Hermite quadrature, and nomenclature.}
\label{tab:GaussHermiteVelSets}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l}
Model & $T_L$ &$c_{i\alpha}$ & $w_{i\alpha}$ & $D=2$ \\
& & & & \\
$D1Q3 $ & $1$ & $0,$ & $2/3$ & $D2Q9$ \\
& &$\pm\sqrt{3}$ & $1/6$ & \\
& & & & \\
$D1Q4$ & $1$ &$\pm \sqrt{3-\sqrt{6}} $ & $(3+\sqrt{6})/12$ & $D2Q16$ \\
& &$\pm \sqrt{3+\sqrt{6}}$ & $(3-\sqrt{6})/12$ & \\
& & & & \\
$D1Q5$ & $1$ &$0$ & $8/15$ & $D2Q25$ \\
&$ $ &$\pm \sqrt{5-\sqrt{10}}$ & $(7+2\sqrt{10})/60$ & \\
&$ $ &$\pm \sqrt{5+\sqrt{10}}$ & $(7-2\sqrt{10})/60$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
With the discrete speeds (\ref{eq:ci}), the particles' velocities $ \bm{v}_i$ are defined relative to a reference frame,
specified by the frame velocity $\bm{u}_{{\rm ref}}$ and the reference temperature $T_{{\rm ref}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:veli}
\bm{v}_i=\sqrt{\frac{RT_{\rm ref}}{T_L}}\bm{c}_i+\bm{u}_{\rm ref},
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the gas constant. Two reference frames of interest shall be considered below. The local co-moving reference frame is specified by the local temperature $T=T(\bm{x},t)$ and the local flow velocity $\bm{u}=\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$. The lattice reference frame is specified by $\bm{u}_{\text{ref}}=\bm{0}$ and $T_{\text{ref}}=T_L/R$.
\subsection{Kinetic equations}
For the sake of presentation, we consider a
two-population
kinetic model for ideal gas with a variable
adiabatic exponent and
Prandtl number \cite{Frapolli2015},
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\label{Pond_f_equation}
f_i(\bm{x},t) - f_i(\bm{x}-\bm{v}_i\delta t,t-\delta t)
= \omega_1(f_i^{eq}-f_i)+(\omega_1-\omega_2)(f_i^{\ast}-f_i^{eq}),\\
g_i(\bm{x},t) - g_i(\bm{x}-\bm{v}_i\delta t,t-\delta t)
= \omega_1(g_i^{eq}-g_i)+(\omega_1-\omega_2)(g_i^{\ast}-g_i^{eq}),
\label{Pond_g_equation}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $f_i^{eq}$ and $g_i^{eq}$ are local equilibria while $f_i^{\ast}$ and $g_i^{\ast}$ are quasi-equilibrium populations. Moreover, $\delta t$ is the time step and $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are relaxation parameters related to the dynamic viscosity and thermal conductivity \cite{Frapolli2015}, respectively. The local conservation laws for the density $\rho$, momentum $\rho\bm{u}$ and the total energy $\rho E$ are,
\begin{align}
\rho &= \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1}f_i = \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1}f_i^{eq}, \\
\rho\bm{u} &= \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1}\bm{v}_if_i = \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1}\bm{v}_if_i^{eq}, \\
\rho E &= \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} \frac{{v}_i^2}{2}f_i
+ \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} g_i = \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} \frac{{v}_i^2}{2}f_i^{eq}+ \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} g_i^{eq}.
\end{align}
We consider ideal gas with the internal energy of the form $U=C_vT$, where $C_v$ is the specific heat at constant volume. The total energy is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E}
\rho E=C_v\rho T + \frac{\rho{u}^2}{2}.
\end{equation}
The quasi-equilibrium populations are,
\begin{align}
& f_i^{\ast} =
f_i^{eq}+W_i\frac{ \overline{\bm{Q}}:(\theta^{3/2} \bm{c}_{i}\otimes\bm{c}_{i}\otimes\bm{c}_{i} -RT\theta^{1/2} {\rm sym}(\bm{c}_{i}\otimes\bm{1}))}{6(RT)^3}, \label{eq:fqeq}\\
& g_i^{\ast} =
g_i^{eq}+W_i \frac{\theta^{1/2}\overline{\bm{q}}\cdot \bm{c}_{i}}{RT},
\label{eq:gqeq}
\end{align}
where ${\rm sym}(\dots)$ denotes symmetrization and $\theta$ is the reduced temperature,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:theta}
\theta=\frac{RT}{T_L},
\end{equation}
while the non-equilibrium third-order tensor $\overline{\bm{Q}}$ and the heat flux vector $\overline{\bm{q}}$ are,
\begin{align}
&\overline{\bm{Q}} = \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} (\bm{v}_{i}-\bm{u})\otimes (\bm{v}_{i}-\bm{u})\otimes (\bm{v}_{i}-\bm{u}) (f_i-f_i^{eq}),\\
&\overline{\bm{q}} = \sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} (\bm{v}_{i}-\bm{u})(g_i -g_i^{eq}).
\end{align}
When the local flow velocity $\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$ and the local temperature $T(\bm{x},t)$ are used to gauge particles' velocities (\ref{eq:veli}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:comoving}
\bm{u}_{\text{ref}}=\bm{u}(\bm{x},t),\ T_{\text{ref}}=T(\bm{x},t),
\end{equation}
we say that kinetic equations (\ref{Pond_f_equation}) and (\ref{Pond_g_equation}) are formulated in the co-moving reference frame, where
the equilibrium populations depend only on the density and the temperature,
\begin{align}
\label{feqPond}
& f_i^{eq} = \rho W_i, \\
\label{geqPond}
& g_i^{eq} = \left(C_v-\frac{D}{2}R\right)T\rho W_i.
\end{align}
With the co-moving reference frame and for any of the models of sec.\ \ref{sec:DiscreteVel}, the hydrodynamic limit of the kinetic equations (\ref{Pond_f_equation}) and (\ref{Pond_g_equation}) are the standard equations of compressible gas dynamics, with the dynamic viscosity $\mu$, thermal conductivity $\kappa$ and the bulk viscosity $\xi$ related to the relaxation parameters $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ as follows,
\begin{align}
\mu &=
\left(\frac{1}{\omega_1} - \frac{1}{2}\right)\rho RT \delta t, \\
\kappa & =
C_p\left(\frac{1}{\omega_2} - \frac{1}{2}\right)\rho RT \delta t, \\
\xi &=
\left(\frac{1}{C_v}-\frac{2}{DR}\right) \mu.
\end{align}
Here $C_p$ is the specific heat of ideal gas at constant pressure, $C_p=C_v+R$. The Prandtl number is defined as ${\rm Pr}=C_p \mu / \kappa$, and the adiabatic exponent is $\gamma=C_p / C_v$. In the following, we set $R=1$, without loss of generality.
\subsection{Semi-Lagrangian realization}
\subsubsection{Co-moving reference frame}
\label{PondMethod}
The implementation of the propagation using the co-moving reference frame requires a transformation between non-equal reference frames which we remind for the sake of completeness \cite{Pond}. Specification of a reference frame shall be denoted $\lambda$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:reference}
\lambda&=\{\bm{u},T\},\\
\label{eq:vi}
\bm{v}_i^\lambda&=\sqrt{\theta}\bm{c}_i+\bm{u},
\end{align}
where $\theta$ is the reduced reference temperature (\ref{eq:theta}). In a given reference frame $\lambda$, the $Q$ linearly independent moments of the $f$- and of the $g$-populations are defined as,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:momf}
M_{mn}^{\lambda}&=\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} f_i^{\lambda}\left(\sqrt{\theta} c_{ix}+u_x\right)^m \left(\sqrt{\theta} c_{iy}+u_y\right)^n,\\
\label{eq:momg}
N_{mn}^{\lambda}&=\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} g_i^{\lambda}\left(\sqrt{\theta} c_{ix}+u_x\right)^m \left(\sqrt{\theta} c_{iy}+u_y\right)^n,
\end{align}
where $m,n\in\{0,\dots,\sqrt{Q}-1\}$. Equations (\ref{eq:momf}) and (\ref{eq:momg}) establish a linear map of the $Q$-dimensional population vectors $f^\lambda$ and $g^\lambda$ into the moment vectors $M^\lambda$ and $N^\lambda$. Denoting $\mathcal{M}_{\lambda}$ the $Q\times Q$ the matrix of this map, we write (\ref{eq:momf}) and (\ref{eq:momg}) as,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:momfshort}
M^{\lambda}&=\mathcal{M}_\lambda f^{\lambda},\\
\label{eq:momgshort}
N^{\lambda}&=\mathcal{M}_\lambda g^{\lambda}.
\end{align}
Consider two reference frames, $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$. Following \cite{Pond}, populations are transformed based on the principle of independence of the moments on the reference frame,
\begin{align}\label{eq:fmommatch}
M^{\lambda}&=M^{\lambda'},\\
\label{eq:gmommatch}
N^{\lambda}&=N^{\lambda'}.
\end{align}
With (\ref{eq:fmommatch}) and (\ref{eq:gmommatch}), the populations are transformed from the reference frame $\lambda$ to the reference frame $\lambda'$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fll}
f^{\lambda'}&=\mathcal{G}_{\lambda}^{\lambda'}f^\lambda,\\
\label{eq:gll}
g^{\lambda'}&=\mathcal{G}_{\lambda}^{\lambda'}g^\lambda,
\end{align}
where the transfer matrix $\mathcal{G}_{\lambda}^{\lambda'}$ reads,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{G}_{\lambda}^{\lambda'}=\mathcal{M}_{\lambda'}^{-1}\mathcal{M}_{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
Finally, populations are reconstructed at a point $\bm{x}$ and time $t$ using Lagrange interpolation,
\begin{align}
\label{reconstructionPond}
\Bar{f}_i^\lambda(\bm{x},t)=\sum_{s=1}^{p} a_s(\bm{x}-\bm{x}_s)\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_s}^{\lambda}f^{\lambda_s}(\bm{x}_s,t),\\
\label{eq:reconstructionPondg}
\Bar{g}_i^\lambda(\bm{x},t)=\sum_{s=1}^{p} a_s(\bm{x}-\bm{x}_s)\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_s}^{\lambda}g^{\lambda_s}(\bm{x}_s,t),
\end{align}
where the summation is carried out over the collocation points $\bm{x}_s$ and $a_s$ are interpolation functions. Below, we use the third-order Lagrange polynomials. Reconstruction (\ref{reconstructionPond}) and (\ref{eq:reconstructionPondg}) takes into account the fact that the reference frames $\lambda_s$ at various collocation points $x_s$ may differ from one another. Thus, the corresponding populations $f^{\lambda_s}$ and $g^{\lambda_s}$ are transformed into a target reference frame $\lambda$ using (\ref{eq:fll}) and (\ref{eq:gll}) prior to the interpolation.
Evaluation of the populations at the monitoring point $\bm{x}$ at time $t$ involves the propagation and the collision steps. In the propagation step, semi-Lagrangian advection is performed using the reconstruction (\ref{reconstructionPond}) and (\ref{eq:reconstructionPondg}) at the departure points of characteristic lines,
\begin{align}
\label{advectionPond}
f_i(\bm{x},t)&=\Bar{f}_i(\bm{x}-\bm{v}_i \delta t,t-\delta t),\\
\label{eq:advectionPondg}
g_i(\bm{x},t)&=\Bar{g}_i(\bm{x}-\bm{v}_i \delta t,t-\delta t).
\end{align}
Here, particle's velocities $\bm{v}_i$ are defined relative to the co-moving local reference frame at $\bm{x}$ and $t$. In order to find the co-moving reference frame, a predictor-corrector process is executed as follows: In the prediction step, the local reference frame $\lambda_0=\{ \bm{u}_0,T_0 \}$, is initialized using the local flow velocity and the local temperature available from the previous time step, $\bm{u}_0=\bm{u}(\bm{x},t-\delta t), {T}_0={T}(\bm{x},t-\delta t) $. The density, momentum and temperature are consequently computed,
\begin{align}
\label{correctorfieldsrho}
\rho_1 &=\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} f_i^{\lambda_0} , \\
\label{correctorfieldsu}
\rho_1 \bm{u}_1 &=\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} \bm{v}_i^{\lambda_0} f_i^{\lambda_0}, \\
\rho_1 {E}_1 &=\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1} \frac{{(\bm{v}_i^{\lambda_0})}^2}{2} f_i^{\lambda_0} +\sum_{i=0}^{Q-1}g_i^{\lambda_0}.
\end{align}
The computed velocity (\ref{correctorfieldsrho}) and temperature (\ref{correctorfieldsu}) define the corrector reference frame $\lambda_1=\{ \bm{u}_1,T_1 \}$ at the monitor point and the propagation step (\ref{advectionPond}) is repeated with the updated reference frame. The predictor-corrector process is iterated until convergence with the limit values,
$$\rho (\bm{x},t),\bm{u} (\bm{x},t),T (\bm{x},t), f_i^{\lambda(\bm{x},t)} =\lim_{n \to \infty} \rho_n,\bm{u}_n, T_n, f_i^{\lambda_n}, $$
defining the density, velocity, temperature and the pre-collision populations at the monitoring point $\bm{x}$ at time $t$. The predictor-corrector iteration loop ensures that the propagation and the collision steps are performed at the co-moving reference frame, in which the local equilibrium populations (\ref{feqPond}, \ref{geqPond}) are exact.
\subsubsection{Lattice reference frame}
If instead of an adaptive co-moving reference PonD frame, the fixed lattice reference frame $\lambda_L=\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}$ is used, we arrive at the semi-Lagrangian LBM \cite{SemiLag2017,Kramer_SemiLagrangian2020,di2018simulation}. In this special case, the lattice equilibrium populations $f_i^{L}$, $g_i^{L}$ are evaluated by transforming the exact equilibrium populations (\ref{feqPond}) and (\ref{geqPond}) to the
lattice reference frame,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:feqL}
& f^L= \mathcal{G}_{\{ \bm{u},T\}}^{\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}}f^{eq},\\
\label{eq:geqL}
& g^L = \left(C_v-\frac{D}{2}\right)T f^L.
\end{align}
Similarly, the quasi-equilibria are transformed to the lattice reference frame,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:feqL}
& f^{\ast,L}= \mathcal{G}_{\{ \bm{u},T\}}^{\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}}f^{\ast},\\
\label{eq:geqL}
& g^{\ast,L} = \mathcal{G}_{\{ \bm{u},T\}}^{\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}}g^{\ast}.
\end{align}
A discussion is in order here. It is well known that the standard $D2Q9$ lattice with the lattice equilibrium does not allow for a compressible model. At the same time, the mere change to the co-moving reference frame readily provides a compressible model with the same number of discrete velocities. In order to understand why the choice of the reference frames matters, we remind that attention should be paid at the higher-order moments that are not included in the transformation. For the $D2Q9$ lattice these are the diagonal elements of the third-order moment and the diagonal elements of the fourth-order moment,
\begin{align}
Q_{\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{\lambda}&=\sum_{i=0}^{8}\left(v^\lambda_{i\alpha}\right)^3 f_i^\lambda,\\
R_{\alpha\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{\lambda}&=\sum_{i=0}^{8}\left(v^\lambda_{i\alpha}\right)^4 f_i^\lambda.
\end{align}
While the off-diagonal third-order elements, $Q_{xyy}=M_{12}$ and $Q_{yxx}=M_{21}$, as well as the off-diagonal fourth-order element $R_{xy}=M_{22}$ are the same in both, the co-moving and the lattice reference frame since they are among the moments transformed, the equilibrium values of the non-transformed moments are not equal in both references. Indeed, using the co-moving equilibrium (\ref{feqPond}) we find,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:QxxxPonD}
& Q_{\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{eq}=3\rho T u_\alpha+\rho u_\alpha^3,\\
\label{eq:RxxPond}
& R_{\alpha\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{eq}=3\rho T^2 + 6\rho T u_\alpha^2 +\rho u_\alpha^4.
\end{align}
With the diagonal moments (\ref{eq:QxxxPonD}) and (\ref{eq:RxxPond}), the equilibrium third-order moment tensor and the once-contracted equilibrium fourth-order moment tensor become,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:QPonD}
Q^{eq}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}&=\rho T\left(u_{\alpha}\delta_{\beta\gamma}+u_{\beta}\delta_{\alpha\gamma}+u_{\gamma}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\right)+\rho u_{\alpha}u_{\beta}u_{\gamma},\\
\label{eq:RPonD}
\begin{split}
R^{eq}_{\alpha\beta} &=\rho T((D+2)T+u^2)\delta_{\alpha\beta}\\
&+\rho((D+4) T+u^2) u_{\alpha}u_{\beta}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The equilibrium Maxwell--Boltzmann relations (\ref{eq:QPonD}) and (\ref{eq:RPonD}) are precisely what is required to recover the compressible flow equations in the thermodynamic limit. On the contrary, the lattice equilibrium (\ref{eq:feqL}) returns, instead of (\ref{eq:QxxxPonD}) and (\ref{eq:RxxPond}),
\begin{align}
\label{eq:QxxxL}
& Q_{\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{L}=3\rho T_L u_\alpha,\\
\label{eq:RxxL}
& R_{\alpha\alpha\alpha\alpha}^{L}=3\rho (T_L)^2 + 3\rho T_L u_\alpha^2.
\end{align}
Finally, if the temperature is fixed to the lattice temperature $T_L$, the athermal model is recovered with
\begin{align}
\label{eq:feqL0}
& f^L= \mathcal{G}_{\{ \bm{u},T_L\}}^{\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}}f^{eq}.
\end{align}
\section{Multi-scale coupling scheme}
\label{Multiscale_Section}
\subsection{The overlap and switching}
Each discrete velocity set can be characterized by its domain of validity.
Going by an example, the standard $D2Q9$ lattice provides a reliable simulation of a nearly-incompressible flow as long as the magnitude of the flow velocity stays below $u\lesssim 0.1$ in lattice units. This estimate is based on the deviation of the diagonal element of the equilibrium third-order moment (\ref{eq:QxxxL}) from the Maxwell--Boltzmann value (\ref{eq:QPonD}), see Fig.\ \ref{fig:D2Q9error}. The next-order velocity set in the Hermite hierarchy $D2Q25$ of Tab. \ref{tab:GaussHermiteVelSets} provides a larger domain of validity \cite{shan2006}. It is therefore expected that the use of the $D2Q25$ velocity set instead of the $D2Q9$ can improve the accuracy of the simulation in certain cases.
At the same time, using the higher-order in the entire computational domain is computationally demanding and
wasteful in regions where the accuracy of the lower-order model is sufficient.
Because the semi-Lagrangian propagation is not bound to a specific lattice and both the higher- and the lower-order model can be realized on the same grid, we seek an adaptive realization where a higher-order model is used only if the flow situation demands more accuracy than expected from the lower-order model while the lower-order model is used then its accuracy suffices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{EqError}
\caption{ Deviation of the $xxx$ component of the $D2Q9$ equilibrium third order tensor $Q_{xxx}^{L}$ (\ref{eq:QxxxL}) from it's Maxwell--Boltzmann counterpart $Q_{xxx}^{\text{eq}}$ (\ref{eq:QPonD}) as a function of Mach number ${\rm Ma}=u/c_s$. $\epsilon=(Q_{xxx}^{L}-Q_{xxx}^{\text{eq}})/Q_{xxx}^{\text{eq}}$. The deviation vanishes for the case of the $D2Q25$ lattice.}
\label{fig:D2Q9error}
\end{figure}
Let us consider two velocity sets of different order
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{V}_q&=\{\bm{v}_{i}^{q}, i=0, \dotsc, q-1\},\\
\mathcal{V}_Q&=\{\bm{v}_{i}^{Q}, i=0, \dotsc, Q-1\},
\end{align*}
where $q<Q$.
At a monitoring point $\bm{x}$, at time $t$, we can choose between the two corresponding population vectors, $f_q$ and $f_Q$.
We further assume that at $(\bm{x},t)$ the validity domains of the higher-order $Q$-model and the lower-order $q$-model overlap and both models are equally applicable.
Switching between the models then requires one of the two operations:
\begin{itemize}
\item Lifting: The lifting operation switches from the lower-order $q$-model to the higher-order $Q$-model and is required to increase the accuracy if the available state $f_q$ is close to the limit of its validity domain and we need to proceed with the higher-order model. The lifting operation thus requires us to specify a map,
\begin{align}
f_q \to f_Q. \label{eq:lifting1}
\end{align}
\item Projection: The projection operation switches from the higher-order $Q$-model to the lower-order $q$-model and is required to maintain the accuracy with lesser velocities if the available state $f_Q$ is within the validity domain and we can to proceed with the lower-order model. The projection operation thus requires us to specify a map,
\begin{align}
f_Q \to f_q. \label{eq:projection1}
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
Note that the lifting and projection must occur when both low- and high-order are equally valid and a proper transfer of information between the different models is possible, i.e., the
validity domains must overlap.
This is a general feature that the models of any multi-scale method must respect, such that a coupling strategy can be physically devised. We shall now specify the two switching operations separately.
\subsection{Lifting}
\label{Reconstruction_Multiscale}
We use notation $m_q$ for the $q$-dimensional vector of moments of the low-order model, available at $(\bm{x},t)$.
With the $q\times q$ matrix $\mathcal{M}_q$, we have
\begin{align}
m_q=\mathcal{M}_q f_q.
\end{align}
On the other hand, a moment vector of the $Q$-populations $M_Q$ can be considered as an element of a direct sum,
\begin{align}
{M}_{Q}&={M}_q \oplus{M}_{Q-q},
\end{align}
where $M_q\in {\rm Im}(\mathcal{M}_q)$ is a vector from the image of the matrix $\mathcal{M}_q$ while ${M}_{Q-q}$ is the rest of the higher-order moments.
The lifting operation consists in specifying the individual contributions as,
\begin{align}
&M_q=m_q,\\
&M_{Q-q}=M_{Q-q}^{\rm eq}.
\end{align}
This construction can be understood as a decomposition between conserved, "slow" and "fast" components. The information of the low-order population vector are fully retained, both equilibrium and non-equilibrium contributions, and the moments $M_q$ are identified as the "slow" components. On the other hand, the missing $M_{Q-q}$ are considered as "fast" moments, which are strongly enslaved by the dynamics of the slow moments. The final moment vector $M_{q \to Q}$ can then be written as
\begin{align}
{M}_{q\to Q}={m}_q \oplus {M}_{Q-q}^{\rm eq}.
\end{align}
With the moments $M_{q \rightarrow Q}$ completed, the populations $f_Q$ are found by moment inversion,
\begin{align}
f_Q={\mathcal{M}_Q}^{-1} M_{q \to Q},\label{eq:liftingF}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{M}_Q$ is the $Q\times Q$ moments-to-populations transform for the higher-order model.
\subsection{Projection}
In the projection step, a high-order population vector $f_Q$ is mapped to a lower-order $f_q$. Fortunately, the high-order lattice can represent $Q$ linearly independent moments, which contains the subset of the first $q$ moments, which are required to construct the populations $f_q$ of the low-order lattice. Hence, in contrast to the lifting procedure, there is no missing information and all linearly independent moments $m_{Q \rightarrow q}$ are operationally available from $f_Q$,
\begin{align}
m_{Q \to q}=M_q.
\end{align}
The population vector $f_q$ is obtained by moment inversion,
\begin{equation}
f_q={\mathcal{M}_q}^{-1} m_{Q \to q}.
\end{equation}
The concepts of the two mappings are generic and apply with either f (density, momentum conserving lattice) or g (energy conserving lattice) populations. Finally, we stress that both lifting and projection are fully local operations, which leads to high efficiency, numerical stability and flexibility for an adaptive velocity refinement.
\subsection{Semi-Lagrangian propagation}
Now we discuss the semi-Lagrangian propagation in the multi-scale setting, using the lifting and the projection operators. We consider the population $f_i(\bm{x},t)$, with a discrete velocity $\bm v_i$, belonging to either the lower- or higher-order velocity set. The semi-Lagrangian propagation starts with the calculation of the departure point $\bm x_{\text{dep},i}=\bm x-\bm v_i\delta{t}$, and the identification of the surrounding collocation points, (see, Eq.~\eqref{reconstructionPond}). Here we must take into consideration that the collocation points use in general velocity sets of different order. Thus, the lifting and projection operators are applied, such that the populations involved in the reconstruction are all expressed in the same velocity set. Figure \ref{fig:CouplingScheme} shows an example of the semi-Lagrangian propagation in the multi-scale setting.
The implementation can be summarised in the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Calculation of departure point, $\bm x_{\text{dep},i}=\bm x-\bm v_i\delta{t}$ and identification of the collocation points.
\item For all collocation points:
\begin{itemize}
\item {If velocity set order is lower than velocity set order of $(\bm{x},t)$: apply lifting.}
\item If velocity set order is higher than velocity set order of $(\bm{x},t)$: apply projection.
\end{itemize}
\item Calculation of $f_i(\bm x_{\text{dep},i},t-\delta t)$, using the reconstruction formula Eq.~\eqref{reconstructionPond}.
\end{enumerate}
The first and third step are the same as for the case of a single velocity set throughout the domain, whereas the second step is active only near the interface of different velocity sets.
The collision step that follows the propagation proceeds as in the case of a uniform velocity set. The modification of the semi-Lagrangian algorithm that enables the multi-scale feature is independent of the underlying model and can be used with single or double populations and with static or co-moving reference frame (PonD). It must be noted that in a co-moving reference frame, the semi-Lagrangian propagation step is performed iteratively in a predictor-correct loop. During the iterations the lifting/projection operations need to be performed once to each point that is close to the interface region (step 2 above).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Coupling}
\caption{Schematic of the multi-scale semi-Lagrangian propagation. For simplicity we use four collocating points for the interpolation (inside dotted rectangle) and we consider the case where the lifting operation is active. The departure point $\bm x_{\text{dep},i}=\bm x-\bm v_i\delta{t}$ is surrounded by the collocating points $\bm{a}$ to $\bm{d}$. The black arrows of points $\bm{a}$ and $\bm{b}$ represent the low-order population vector and with the lifting operation the corresponding population in the higher-order velocity set is approximated (red arrows). The semi-Lagrangian step concludes with the interpolation of the populations at the collocating points.}
\label{fig:CouplingScheme}
\end{figure}
\section{Numerical Results and Discussion}
\label{results_Section}
In this section we investigate the performance and accuracy of the multi-scale scheme. The velocity sets that are used in the simulations, generated by Gauss-Hermite quadrature, are described in section \ref{sec:DiscreteVel}. The time step $\delta t$ of the simulations that follow is such that $\text{CFL}= (\text{max}|c_i|\delta t) /\delta x =1.0$, where $c_i$ correspond to the lattice velocities.
\subsection{Multi-scale flows}
Before going into to the details of our validation, it is instructive to remind the nature of multi-scale problems. Multi-scale flows are characterized by large variations of characteristic quantities which most commonly includes but is not limited to spatial scales, time scales, Mach number or Knudsen number. In what follows, we only consider the Mach or Knudsen number, since in those cases we will benefit from using high-order lattices. For large spatio-temporal scales on the other hand, we refer to existing grid-refinement techniques such as \cite{dorschner2016grid}. However, when devising a numerical scheme, which bridges such large variations by coupling different methods for different scales, it is important to realize that consistent coupling is only possible if there is a region, where the validity range of both schemes overlap.
In our case, this corresponds to regions of the flow, where both lattices can provide an accurate description of the flow field. These regions will eventually become the interface region between both lattices and thus correspond to the phase space refinement criterion.
Hence, if such overlap regions do not exist in the flow, the use of a multi-scale scheme is inappropriate.
We will first test these ideas for variation in Mach using an athermal convected vortex and an athermal jet flow using a fixed reference frame ($\lambda=\{ \bm{0},T_{L}\}$) as examples. The underlying model for these simulation consist of a single population, without quasi-equilibrium relaxation. The motivation of using different velocity sets in the case of a fixed reference frame stems from the errors of the D2Q9 lattice due to non-Galilean invariance as the Mach number grows and the refinement criterion between high and low order velocity sets is based on a Mach number threshold. We proceed with the shock structure problem using a co-moving reference frame (PonD) and the full compressible model (f,g populations with variable Prandtl number and adiabatic exponent), in which the velocity set is dictated by the variation of the Knudsen number.
\subsubsection{Athermal vortex convection}
\label{sec:vortex}
The reference case of an athermal, convected vortex is studied with the proposed multi-scale scheme, using the standard D2Q9 lattice and the D2Q25. The initial conditions of the velocity and density fields are the following,
\begin{align}
u_x&=U_0-\epsilon \left(\frac{y-y_c}{R_c}\right)\exp\left[-\frac{(x-x_c)^2+(y-y_c)^2}{2R_c^2}\right],\\
u_y&=\epsilon \left(\frac{x-x_c}{R_c}\right)\exp\left[-\frac{(x-x_c)^2+(y-y_c)^2}{2R_c^2}\right],\\
\rho&=\rho_0\exp\left[-\frac{{Ma_v}^2}{2}\exp\left(-\frac{r^2}{R_c^2}\right)\right],
\end{align}
where $U_0$ is the advection velocity, $\epsilon$ is the strength of the vortex and $R_c$ is the characteristic radius \cite{Vortex}. The advection and vortex Mach numbers are set to 0.25 and 0.6 respectively.
For the simulations a $[200 \times 200]$ grid was used with periodic boundary conditions. An estimate for the Mach threshold value that should be used as an appropriate refinement criterion can be obtained from an error analysis of the pertinent equilibrium moments. For athermal, incompressible flows the accuracy of the D2Q9 lattice is limited by the equilibrium third-order moment tensor, $Q_{\alpha \beta \gamma}^{\text{eq}}$. Figure \ref{fig:D2Q9error} shows the deviation of the $Q_{xxx}^{\text{eq}}$ component from it's Maxwell-Boltzmann counterpart $Q_{xxx}^{\text{eq,MB}}=3\rho c_s^2+\rho u^3$ as a function of Mach number, where $c_s$ is the speed of sound. Here a threshold value $Ma_{\text{thr}}=0.3$ was selected, which leads to $3\%$ accuracy. Figure \ref{fig:VortexVelSet} shows the velocity set and the density field at two different times. The high-order velocity set is wrapped around the high speed region of the vortex and follows it during advection.
The behaviour of the coupling scheme is compared with similar simulations in which a single velocity set is used throughout the domain. In figure \ref{fig:VortexIso}, density contours are shown for the cases of D2Q9, D2Q25 and the hybrid D2Q9/25 velocity set after 500 time steps. The insufficient isotropy of the D2Q9 velocity set manifests in the distortion of the vortex, in contrast with the cases of D2Q25 and the coupled case. In figure \ref{fig:VortexComp} the density profiles are plotted along the center of the vortex, indicating an almost identical behaviour for the D2Q25 and the D2Q9/25 hybrid framework, and deviations for the case of the standard D2Q9 velocity set.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fin}
\caption{ Density (top) and velocity set (bottom) at two different times ($\Delta t=500$ iterations). The high order D2Q25 follows the vortex as it is advected.}
\label{fig:VortexVelSet}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ADV2}
\caption{ Density contours of an athermal convected vortex simulation with D2Q9, D2Q25 and coupled D2Q9/25.}
\label{fig:VortexIso}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{VortexDensProfiles}
\caption{Density of an athermal convected vortex simulation with D2Q9, D2Q25 and coupled D2Q9/25. The vertical dotted lines on the plot indicate the high-order lattice for the case of the coupled scheme.}
\label{fig:VortexComp}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Athermal jet flow}
The next case to be analysed through the multi-scale scheme is an athermal jet flow. The inflow velocity profile consists of a base low-speed flow with Mach number equal to $Ma_L=0.15$ and a high-speed jet region superimposed symmetrically in the centre of the domain with diameter $D_{\text{jet}}$ and Mach number $Ma_H=0.6$.
At the inlet a zero pressure gradient and fixed velocity are imposed, whereas a non-reflecting boundary condition is prescribed at the outlet. Free-stream boundary conditions are applied at the top and bottom planes. The simulation is carried out on a $[750 \times 500]$ grid with a jet diameter $D_{\text{jet}}=25$. The viscosity is adjusted such that the jet Reynolds number is $Re={D_{\text{jet}}U_{\text{jet}}}/{\nu}= 1000$.
The multi-scale model uses the D2Q9 and D2Q25 velocity sets, at a fixed reference frame at rest. The refinement criterion is based on the local Mach number and set to $Ma_{\text{thr}}=0.3$. Figure \ref{fig:JetFlow_Inst} shows the instantaneous x-velocity field and the corresponding spatial distribution of the velocity set at the same time step. The time average results for the velocity set and the x-velocity are shown in figure \ref{fig:JetFlow_avg}, where it is evident that the D2Q25 is dominant across the center-line and near the jet inlet whereas the D2Q9 is used at low-speed regions of the flow. Note that the average ratio of the nodes using the high order velocity set is roughly 15\% and the discussion regarding the computational speed-up is presented in section \ref{ComputationalEff} .
In figure \ref{fig:JetFlow_avgComp}, the multi-scale simulation using the hybrid D2Q9/25 lattice is further compared with simulations in which the D2Q9 and D2Q25 were applied uniformly in the entire domain. The top plot shows the average x-velocity (normalised with the maximum velocity of the jet) across the center-line, while the middle and the bottom plots show the average x-velocity across planes normal to the flow, with distances from the inlet $x_{c}/D_{\text{jet}}=12,16$. It is apparent that the multi-scale simulation is in good agreement with the simulations obtained with the D2Q25. In contrast the D2Q9 shows significant deviations with respect to D2Q25. This further validates the proposed multi-scale scheme.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{insvel1}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{insset1}
\caption{Simulation of athermal jet flow with coupled D2Q9/D2Q25. (Top) instantaneous snapshot of the x-velocity field; (Bottom) velocity set throughout the domain at the same time. }
\label{fig:JetFlow_Inst}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{avgSet}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{xVel}
\caption{Simulation of athermal jet flow with coupled D2Q9/D2Q25. (Top) Time average of the velocity set; (Bottom) Time average of the x-velocity.}
\label{fig:JetFlow_avg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{ce_n}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{300_n}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{400_n}
\caption{Comparison of athermal jet flow with D2Q9, D2Q25 and coupled D2Q9/D2Q25. (Top) Mean streamwise velocity profiles along the centerline; (Middle) Mean streamwise velocity profiles at $x/D_{\text{jet}}= 12$; (Bottom) Mean streamwise velocity profiles at $x/D_{\text{jet}}= 16$ }
\label{fig:JetFlow_avgComp}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Shock structure}
The shock structure problem is a classical problem in kinetic theory of gases, in which non-equilibrium phenomena dominate the flow. It is well known that since the thermodynamic variables vary on a scale of few mean free paths, traditional continuum equation such as Navier-Stokes-Fourier equations fail to correctly describe the shock wave structure.
The numerical setup consists a quasi one-dimensional plane shock wave, with an initial step at the center of the computational domain. The underlying model consists of the two-population realisation of the PonD method, with Prandtl number fixed to $Pr=2/3$ and adiabatic exponent of monoatomic ideal gas $\gamma=5/3$. The upsteam and downstream flow values are connected through the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions \cite{Anderson}. The upstream mean free path for hard sphere molecules is defined as,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1=\frac{16}{5\sqrt{2\pi\gamma}} \left[ \frac{\mu_1\alpha_1}{p_1} \right],
\end{equation}
where $p_1,\alpha_1,\mu_1$ are the pressure, speed of sound and the viscosity of the gas upstream of the shock respectively. The viscosity varies with the temperature as,
\begin{equation}
\mu=\mu_1\left(\frac{T}{T_1}\right)^s,
\end{equation}
where for the case of hard spheres $s=0.5$.
The steady-state non-dimensional density, temperature, normal stress and heat flux are defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
\rho_n=\frac{\rho-\rho_1}{\rho_2-\rho_1}, T_n=\frac{T-T_1}{T_2-T_1}, \hat{\sigma}_{xx}=\frac{\sigma_{xx}}{p_1}, \hat{q}_x=\frac{q_x}{p_1\sqrt{2T_1}},
\end{equation}
where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the upstream and downstream values w.r.t. the shock wave.
The D2Q16 and D2Q25 velocity sets are coupled for the computation of the shock structure. The high order velocity is used inside the region of the shock wave and the low order in the rest of the computational domain. The refinement criterion is based on the local Knudsen number, which can be computed as follows,
\begin{equation}
Kn= \frac{\lambda}{L}, L=\left|\frac{\phi}{d\phi /dx}\right|,
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is density (in general other macroscopic fields can be used such as Mach number). The threshold value was set to $Kn_{\text{thr}}=0.02$ , a typical value suggested by the literature \cite{DSCM_BirdBook,multiscale}. The simulations were carried out with a quasi one-dimensional setup with the resolution of the lattice $\Delta x$ corresponding to $0.02\lambda_1$. The velocity set in the domain is initialized with the D2Q16 lattice and wherever the local Knudsen number exceeds the threshold value is refined to D2Q25. The time evolution of the velocity set and the computed Knudsen number is shown in figure \ref{fig:ShockEvol}. The D2Q25 is initially concentrated in the middle of the domain and gradually expands towards the entire shock transition layer.
The steady-state results for $Ma=1.6$ are shown in figure \ref{fig:Shock1} and compared with the results of Ohwada \cite{ohwada}. The origin of the coordinate system is the point with $\rho_n=0.5$ and x is non-dimensionalized with $0.5\sqrt{\pi}\lambda_1$. It can be seen that the density, temperature and velocity profiles match very well with the reference data. The normal stress and heat flux profiles are also in good agreement with the reference data.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{KnEvol}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{VelSSetEvol}
\caption{Evolution of Knudsen profile (top) and velocity set (bottom) at times $t=100,500,4000$.}
\label{fig:ShockEvol}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{rhoT}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Un}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{str}
\caption{(Multi-scale D2Q16/25) Density,temperature, velocity, normal stress and heat flux profiles for $Ma=1.6$, compared with results of Ohwada \cite{ohwada}. The vertical dotted lines on the plot indicate the high-order lattice.}
\label{fig:Shock1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Micro-Couette flow}
The simulation of microscale flows is of both practical and theoretical interest especially when the Knudsen numbers is not negligible. A classical case to test the behaviour of numerical solvers for this regime is the shear driven Couette flow. It has been established that the choice of the discrete velocities set as well as the boundary conditions are of paramount importance for the accurate description of the fluid near the walls. In particular the standard D2Q9 lattice does not suffice to capture the Knudsen layer and significant deviations occur for the velocity profile at finite Knudsen numbers. Furthermore it has been reported that even-orders velocity sets perform significantly better than odd-orders \cite{SlipPlateMeng}.
At this point, we must stress that the micro-Couette flow is not a true multi-scale problem. Indeed the Knudsen number is uniform in the entire domain and
in contrast to shock-structure problem, where the Knudsen number varies within the shock transition layer. For a quantitative discussion, we use the exact solution of the micro-Couette flow, which was been found analytically for D2Q9 and D2Q16 lattices in \cite{AnsumaliPlateSlip}.
The authors concluded that while the D2Q9 can predict a slip-flow solution, it fails in the transient regime ($Kn\gtrapprox 0.1$).
The D2Q16 lattice on the other hand improves the accuracy of the solution considerably and predicts the boundary Knudsen layer in qualitative agreement with kinetic theory \cite{CercignBook}. Figure \ref{fig:SlipPlateAnalyticalError} shows the relative error of the analytical solutions obtained by D2Q9 and D2Q16 for Knudsen numbers 0.1 and 0.2. At a constant Knudsen number the relative error has a constant value in the main flow and grows in the vicinity of the wall boundaries. Increasing the Knudsen number leads to magnification of the error in the main flow as well as extending the influence of the wall due to the boundary Knudsen layer.
The setup of the Couette test case consists of two plates surrounding the fluid, which move with opposite velocities $u_w=\pm0.1$ and same temperature $T_w=T_L$. The simulations were performed with a quasi-one dimensional $[300 \times 4]$ grid. We test the multi-scale scheme with the D2Q9 velocity set in the main flow and the D2Q16 near the wall boundaries. The underlying model consists of the two-population realisation of the PonD method, with Prandtl number fixed to $Pr=2/3$ and adiabatic exponent of monoatomic ideal gas $\gamma=5/3$. Diffusive boundary conditions are implemented to efficiently capture the gas-wall interactions \cite{AnsumaliKBC,SlipPlateMeng}.
The results for the non dimensional velocity (normalised with the difference of the wall velocities) for Knudsen numbers equal to 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 are presented in figure \ref{fig:SlipPlate}, in which comparison is made with results from linearised BGK \cite{SlipPlateMeng}. The dotted vertical lines on the plots indicate the D2Q9/D2Q16 interface for the multi-scale simulations. The position of the D2Q9/D2Q16 interface is set according to the theoretical error analysis (1\% above the main flow error).
We observe that for all Knudsen numbers the multi-scale scheme matches well with D2Q9 solution in the main flow and also with the reference results near the wall boundaries, due to the local use of the D2Q16 lattice. However, a small discontinuity develops near the interface region of the different velocity sets, which becomes more prominent with increasing Knudsen number. This is an expected behaviour, caused by the discrepancy between the solutions of D2Q9 and D2Q16, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SlipPlateAnalyticalError}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{SlipPlateError}
\caption{Relative error between D2Q9 and D2Q16 for shear driven Couette flow, based on analytical solution \cite{AnsumaliPlateSlip}.}
\label{fig:SlipPlateAnalyticalError}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Kn0.1n}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Kn0.2nn}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Kn0.4nn}
\caption{Shear driven Couette flow with D2Q9, D2Q16 and coupled D2Q9/16. Profiles of the normalised velocity for Knudsen numbers $Kn=0.1$ (top); $Kn=0.2$ (middle); $Kn=0.2$ (bottom)}
\label{fig:SlipPlate}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computational efficiency}
\label{ComputationalEff}
In this section, we investigate the increase of computational efficiency when using the multi-scale scheme.
To that end, a computational domain of size $(N \times N)$ is decomposed in two rectangular zones which use the high-order D2Q25 and low-order D2Q9 velocity sets respectively. The ratio of the CPU times $t_{\text{D2Q25}}/t_{\text{hyb}}$, where $t_{\text{D2Q25}}$ refers to the time of a globally used D2Q25 and $t_{\text{hyb}}$ to the hybrid scheme, is measured as a function of the domain size $N$, keeping the ratio of the high-order nodes to $10 \%$ of the computational domain fixed. The simulations were carried out on a eight-core PC (Intel Core i7-9700@3GHz) and the timings are shown in Figure \ref{fig:SpeedUp}.
The speedup that can be observed for the simulation using the D2Q9 lattice in the entire domain is $t_{D2Q25}/t_{D2Q9}=2.9$. Thus, the maximum speedup that can be achieved when the ratio of D2Q25 is fixed to $10\%$ is $(t_{\text{D2Q25}}/t_{\text{hyb}})_{\text{max}}=2.43$. For small domain sizes the computational cost due to the lifting and projection transformations at the interface nodes limits the speedup but for larger domains ($N > 100$) significant speedup is observed, saturating close to the optimal value at around 2.4. The proposed multi-scale scheme can therefore lead to significant savings in CPU time.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{speed}
\caption{Speed up ratio $t_{D2Q25}/t_{hyb}$ as a function of the domain size N. Ratio of high-order nodes (D2Q25) is fixed to $10 \%$. }
\label{fig:SpeedUp}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion_section}
In this work, we presented a novel multi-scale scheme with an adaptive velocity set, according to a refinement criterion based on the local Mach or Knudsen number. Velocity sets of different order are coupled through the lifting and projection operators. Both operators involve only local computations, which results in a robust and flexible adaptive velocity refinement. The multi-scale scheme can be implemented with either a static or co-moving reference frame and with different models (single/double population, quasi-equilibrium models). The numerical results with a variety of flows validated the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed scheme.
This work focused on 2D applications, but the lifting and projection, underlying the coupling scheme, hold also in three dimensions.
Thorough investigation of the proposed scheme in three dimensions is left for future work.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant No. 834763-PonD.
Computational resources at the Swiss National Super Computing Center CSCS were provided under grant No. s897.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.